• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pastor who burned Koran demands retribution

Mikeyy said:
and completely unlike anything we are talking about..
Click to expand...

Yes, because the reply was an attempt to distract from the fact that the pastor didn't kill anyone by pointing out supposed hypocrisy. Citing the incidents involving the KKK is to extrapolate the effects of the logic being used, and see how it pans out in other circumstances, and isn't being used to attack posters, but their arguments
 
Mikeyy said:
and completely unlike anything we are talking about..
Click to expand...

Just a friendly point; your posts would be much easier to follow if you could put your comment after the quote to which it refers, rather than before. You kind of have to read your posts backwards to get them.

Kind regards,

Anda
 
Andalublue said:
Not quite. It's not a tu quoque because he is not denigrating your argument by calling you a hypocrite, he is pointing out the hypocrisy of a third party, i.e. the western allies. I was also at pains to point out that the existence of these double standards does not detract from the culpability of those murdering mobsters.
Click to expand...

look at his reply, and what he was replying to.

CC wrote "I would think not. The people killed in Afghanistan where killed by Muslim extremists. Get your facts straight."

Soak guts wrote: "the year 1998 the us military bombed two factories in Sudan after the terrorist attacks at two Us embassies in kenya and tanzania; but in those factories medicine and toys were being produced, unlike the claims by US that there were chemical weapons.

the year 2001 terrorists attacked US and then US invaded Afghanistan,

the year 2003 Us invaded Iraq by claiming there was nuks...the list continues....


tell me who is mixing the apples and pears?"

That has absolutely nothing to do with what CC wrote, besides as casting him as a hypocrite
 
That is so weird. It's the first mistake I have ever made. LOL
Andalublue said:
Just a friendly point; your posts would be much easier to follow if you could put your comment after the quote to which it refers, rather than before. You kind of have to read your posts backwards to get them.

Kind regards,

Anda
Click to expand...

Oooops I mean,
That is so weird. It's the first mistake I have ever made. LOL
 
ManofthPeephole said:
look at his reply, and what he was replying to.

CC wrote "I would think not. The people killed in Afghanistan where killed by Muslim extremists. Get your facts straight."

Soak guts wrote: "the year 1998 the us military bombed two factories in Sudan after the terrorist attacks at two Us embassies in kenya and tanzania; but in those factories medicine and toys were being produced, unlike the claims by US that there were chemical weapons.

the year 2001 terrorists attacked US and then US invaded Afghanistan,

the year 2003 Us invaded Iraq by claiming there was nuks...the list continues....


tell me who is mixing the apples and pears?"

That has absolutely nothing to do with what CC wrote, besides as casting him as a hypocrite
Click to expand...

I agree, but that doesn't make the observation invalid. What it doesn't answer is the point. You are right to pick him up on it, but his point is relevant to the wider discussion on the pros and cons of the debate about the Qur'an burning and subsequent unrest. How can we in the West call for appropriate and proportionate behaviour from religious zealots in Afghanistan when the world has seen the western powers behave inappropriately and disproportionately on so many occasions?

Now, as for those twots in Mazar-e Sharif, Kabul and Florida, I think I've made myself perfectly clear earlier in this thread; they all shoulder some degree of guilt for the deaths of the UN workers. The rioters are the most guilty, they are murderers and on any sane reading of Islam, are heading to Hell. Karzai and Jones are both guilty of using religious zealotry for their own twisted ideological and political ends.
 
Andalublue said:
I agree, but that doesn't make the observation invalid.
Click to expand...

Isn't a logical fallacy, by it's very definition, invalid logic?


Andalublue said:
What it doesn't answer is the point. You are right to pick him up on it, but his point is relevant to the wider discussion on the pros and cons of the debate about the Qur'an burning and subsequent unrest. How can we in the West call for appropriate and proportionate behaviour from religious zealots in Afghanistan when the world has seen the western powers behave inappropriately and disproportionately on so many occasions?
Click to expand...

because two wrongs don't make a right, and that killing random people for burning books would be wrong regardless of who does it? Also add into that I'm an individual who can, and often does, disagree with my government
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
That's a perfectly valid argument. You and others are arguing how the horrible actions of the mob in Marzar-e Sharif are exacerbated by the fact that they are meting out punishment on one set of people for the actions of another. Soguks suggests that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombings of Sudanese factories were carried out on one set of people for the actions of another. I think it's valid to point out that a certain set of double standards are being applied here. None of which detracts from the culpability of those carrying out the acts, nor is the barbarity of the acts mitigated in any way by having those double standards pointed out, so please don't think about making that claim.
Click to expand...

s/he cannot see the mentality behind the comments , s/he just reads the words; thats why s/he labels me ; thats ok for me , cuz it is typical of an american...when they understand the world does not revolve around them , we will not see bombs in everywhere in the world or some soldiers killing the civilians by ''mistake'' and then take picture of those killings with a smile on their faces..
 
ManofthPeephole said:
Isn't a logical fallacy, by it's very definition, invalid logic?
Click to expand...
Well, I was pretty clear that I don't believe it was a tu quoque fallacy. He wasn't refuting your argument with a claim of hypocrisy, he was avoiding answering your point by raising a separate issue.

because two wrongs don't make a right, and that killing random people for burning books would be wrong regardless of who does it? Also add into that I'm an individual who can, and often does, disagree with my government
Click to expand...
I didn't read anything from Soguks that suggested he believes that killing people for burning books is justified. Are you making the claim that the behaviour of burning books is a valid form of free expression or a valid form of protest?

soguks said:
s/he cannot see the mentality behind the comments , s/he just reads the words; thats why s/he labels me ; thats ok for me , cuz it is typical of an american...when they understand the world does not revolve around them , we will not see bombs in everywhere in the world or some soldiers killing the civilians by ''mistake'' and then take picture of those killings with a smile on their faces..
Click to expand...
Now you are applying the same blanket, nationalist stereotyping that you appear to be critical of other people doing. Expressions like, "typical of an American" show that you just lump together people in one easy generalisation. If they were to say, "murderous rioting is typical of Moslems", you would be rightly outraged. Can't you see how your behaviour is comparable?
 
digsbe said:
What Jones did was wrong, but he was within his legal rights and I support his right to burn a koran even if I don't agree with it. I'm sure these barbaric murderers burn US flags or at least support it, so how would they feel if people in America decided to murder Arabs based on what some idiots did thousands of miles away? Their minds are diseased and deranged and we can't put the blame on the pastor who acted in hatred. He was exercising his right to free speech, and in our country that means haters and morons are still allowed to have a voice that shouldn't be denied.
Click to expand...

What the guy did was very wrong, short sighted, in some ways selfish (as he did not consider the wider implications of his actions), and frankly, plain stupid as it accomplished very little that was positive other than stroking his own ego and the ego of his flock. It was essentially the same sort of useless activity as burning a nation's flag, an effigy, or putting a little yellow ribbon magnet on your car. The whole thing was a big "look at me!! Aren't I special!!"

However, he is no murderer and is not evil. The reaction to the act is all on the barbaric people who chose to react the way they did. I don't care how much they revere a book or what their feelings are, it does not give them the right to kill people who had nothing to do with what some preacher did who they likely did not even know or have never heard of before. The people who did that need to be tried and brought to justice, but sadly, it will likely never happen.
 
Andalublue said:
Now you are applying the same blanket, nationalist stereotyping that you appear to be critical of other people doing. Expressions like, "typical of an American" show that you just lump together people in one easy generalisation. If they were to say, "murderous rioting is typical of Moslems", you would be rightly outraged. Can't you see how your behaviour is comparable?
Click to expand...

first of all, what is the difference between USA and Iran by country and national actions?

for example one supports terrorist groups , the other bombs and invades countries; or one is ruled by sharia , the other is ruled by democracy, but the both harass the other religion, for example it is important for people in US that whether Obama is a muslim,

just re-read the threads in this forum to see whether there is major inclination in USA against Islam or others, if you claim i am the one who makes an easy generalisation ignoring the reality.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, I was pretty clear that I don't believe it was a tu quoque fallacy. He wasn't refuting your argument with a claim of hypocrisy, he was avoiding answering your point by raising a separate issue.
Click to expand...

above you wrote "I agree". But, ultimately, i rather not argue over something pretty inconsequential to the discussion


Andalublue said:
I didn't read anything from Soguks that suggested he believes that killing people for burning books is justified. Are you making the claim that the behaviour of burning books is a valid form of free expression or a valid form of protest?
Click to expand...

why wouldn't it be?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Wrong.

Now that we know the effectiveness of Koran torching has in creatin civil unrest among our enemies, we should implement a national program of voluntary weekly Koran burnings to foment civil discord in the streets of our enemies. This is war, we should use our enemy's weaknesses against them.

And hell, a copy of the Koran only costs five bucks, if you can't get if for free from a local mosque. The National Burn a Koran on Saturday, Burn Two During Ramadan could be a killer cost effective program that could decimate the enemy.
Click to expand...

Something like this was tried before and didn't do well.

Cartoonist Molly Norris in hiding after 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' picture | Mail Online

It was an easy and effortless step to go from political correctness to the censoring the free speech altogether, call it 'seditious' or try to argue that it shouldn't be exercised because someone, somewhere from some crazy third world religion might take offense and kill innocent people. Americans who used to die for the right to express themselves freely are now telling each other to be quiet or it might cause trouble. As though the source of the trouble is the free speech of their fellow Americans.

Lessons from the past should be telling us that not speaking out in the face of aggression does not work, but along with political correctness we are also part of the age of moral equivalence where we all have our good and bad parts and every culture and belief is worthy.

These people seem to think that if we only curb our free speech the problems will all go away, but that will be just the start.
 
megaprogman said:
What the guy did was very wrong, short sighted, in some ways selfish (as he did not consider the wider implications of his actions), and frankly, plain stupid as it accomplished very little that was positive other than stroking his own ego and the ego of his flock. It was essentially the same sort of useless activity as burning a nation's flag, an effigy, or putting a little yellow ribbon magnet on your car. The whole thing was a big "look at me!! Aren't I special!!"
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think he knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what kind of response his actions would provoke. He did it with full knowledge that people might die as a result. You have him down as stupid and ignorant; I'd list him under malicious and cynical.

However, he is no murderer and is not evil. The reaction to the act is all on the barbaric people who chose to react the way they did. I don't care how much they revere a book or what their feelings are, it does not give them the right to kill people who had nothing to do with what some preacher did who they likely did not even know or have never heard of before. The people who did that need to be tried and brought to justice, but sadly, it will likely never happen.
Click to expand...
Quite. He's not a murderer, but that doesn't mean he doesn't bear some degree of guilt for his actions which inflamed an already febrile and intemperate atmosphere. He placed a hand grenade in a bottle, set it afloat and just because he had no idea where it might come ashore, does not mean he has no guilt for the damage it causes when it makes land. He is not evil - good people and evil people do not exist, just good behaviour and bad behaviour, and he indulged in bad behaviour. Not as bad as murder perhaps, but bad nontheless.
 
Andalublue said:
Quite. He's not a murderer, but that doesn't mean he doesn't bear some degree of guilt for his actions which inflamed an already febrile and intemperate atmosphere. .
Click to expand...

If you believe that afghanis are incapable of any other response, then yes
 
ManofthPeephole said:
why wouldn't it be?
Click to expand...

It has a bit of a history, and I'm not merely referring to the Nazi book burnings of the Thirties. It is a very specific activity which sends a very specific message of censorship, of anti-rational, anti-intellectual brutality or wanting to curb free speech and free expression. Book burning is a very loud and violent way of silencing the opposition, not of expressing any positive message whatsoever. Its symbolism is strong and its record as an early harbinger of totalitarian repression is very clear. For those reasons I don't believe it to be a valid form of protest. I would not make it illegal however. I think you'll find that the people who use it as a tactic are absolutely those who would curtail many, many forms of free expression, were they to get the opportunity.

Book burning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ManofthPeephole said:
If you believe that afghanis are incapable of any other response, then yes
Click to expand...

You don't need to believe such tosh to know that tossing a loaf of bread amongst people driven crazy by hunger will cause a riot. He knew that and he did that. He is guilty of incitement, not of murder.
 
Andalublue said:
It has a bit of a history, and I'm not merely referring to the Nazi book burnings of the Thirties. It is a very specific activity which sends a very specific message of censorship, of anti-rational, anti-intellectual brutality or wanting to curb free speech and free expression.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that for something to be a legitimate expression of free speech, or protest, that it had to appeal to the arbitrary approval of random people on the internet. Also, the idea of free speech doesn't isn't dependent on if the subject matter is "anti-rational", "anti-intellectual" or "wanting to curb free speech and free expression". Such messages are still protected speech


Andalublue said:
Book burning is a very loud and violent way of silencing the opposition
Click to expand...

no it isn't


Andalublue said:
not of expressing any positive message whatsoever.
Click to expand...

the idea of free speech isn't based you thinking the idea is positive, or not. In fact, the real test of free speech is if you allow the type that complete offends the sensibilities and beliefs of the republic

Andalublue said:
Its symbolism is strong
Click to expand...

Yes, this is why it's such an effective form of speech and protest, regardless of how you personally feel about it

Andalublue said:
and its record as an early harbinger of totalitarian repression is very clear.
Click to expand...

wait, you're saying if I burn a book in my backyard that fascists will grow from the ashes? Of course not, because there is no clear and unalterable course to totalitarianism created by simply burning a book. This is nothing more than a slippery slope argument


Andalublue said:
For those reasons I don't believe it to be a valid form of protest.
Click to expand...

you don't have reasons, you have fantasies

Andalublue said:
I would not make it illegal however. I think you'll find that the people who use it as a tactic are absolutely those who would curtail many, many forms of free expression, were they to get the opportunity.
Click to expand...

I'm sure in this case you're absolutely right. but a) that doesn't make it an invalid form of protest b) relinquish their right to free speech
 
Andalublue said:
You don't need to believe such tosh to know that tossing a loaf of bread amongst people driven crazy by hunger will cause a riot. He knew that and he did that. He is guilty of incitement, not of murder.
Click to expand...

you just compared them to crazy people that have no self control. So it does sound like you believe such "tosh"
 
Andalublue said:
You don't need to believe such tosh to know that tossing a loaf of bread amongst people driven crazy by hunger will cause a riot. He knew that and he did that. He is guilty of incitement, not of murder.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The incitement came from the Karzai corrupt government. They had agents in the crowd that not only incited the mob but also participated in the murders.The UN has a poor track record in A-stan to boot.

Not trying to sling mud at anyone here, but; "If the shoe fits, wear it... if not then disregard"
 
ManofthPeephole said:
you just compared them to crazy people that have no self control. So it does sound like you believe such "tosh"
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. I've spoken several times about the febrile and intemperate atmosphere there caused by the military situation, the political situation and the ambience of general religious and social turmoil. To my mind this means people will behave in a manner that, given an atmosphere of calm, peace and contentment, they would not behave. Are they responsible for their actions? Sure. Of course they are. Are they able to think rationally and take calm, disinterested decisions based on reasonable points of view? No. Not at all, not under current conditions. Someone committing a crime passionel in the heat of the moment is still guilty of the crime, but it is explained somewhat by the state of mind of the person at the moment of committing that crime. Isn't it telling that the murders took place in Afghanistan? Why there and not other fiercely faithful Islamic countries like Indonesia, Morocco, Oman or Iran? Why Afghanistan? Because people there are currently not behaving as they normally would.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
Yes, I did. I've spoken several times about the febrile and intemperate atmosphere there caused by the military situation, the political situation and the ambience of general religious and social turmoil. To my mind this means people will behave in a manner that, given an atmosphere of calm, peace and contentment, they would not behave. Are they responsible for their actions? Sure. Of course they are. Are they able to think rationally and take calm, disinterested decisions based on reasonable points of view? No. Not at all, not under current conditions. Someone committing a crime passionel in the heat of the moment is still guilty of the crime, but it is explained somewhat by the state of mind of the person at the moment of committing that crime. Isn't it telling that the murders took place in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

While I'm the last person to describe Afghanistan as some paradise you're trying to diminish the fact that many afghanis managed not to kill random people over the burning of a quran. They're people like you, and like you they are capable of analyzing if murder is the proper response to burning the quran
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
You don't need to believe such tosh to know that tossing a loaf of bread amongst people driven crazy by hunger will cause a riot. He knew that and he did that. He is guilty of incitement, not of murder.
Click to expand...

It is obviously not "tosh' if you can anticipate Muslims forming a mob and attacking and murdering innocent people many thousands of miles away from where this symbolic act took place.

Could anyone anticipate the consequences of cartoons as well, some of which the Imams also composed?

I doubt this was any spontaneous uprising over some nobody preacher in Florida, any more than the riots and killings about the cartoons were spontaneous. They were designed to silence critics and spread terror.
 
Grant said:
It is obviously not "tosh' if you can anticipate Muslims forming a mob and attacking and murdering innocent people many thousands of miles away from where this symbolic act took place.

Could anyone anticipate the consequences of cartoons as well, some of which the Imams also composed?

I doubt this was any spontaneous uprising over some nobody preacher in Florida, any more than the riots and killings about the cartoons were spontaneous. They were designed to silence critics and spread terror.
Click to expand...

Obviously General Petraeus anticipated it...
 
Andalublue said:
Book burning is a very loud and violent way of silencing the opposition
Click to expand...

Somehow, I had been thinking that it was murdering innocent people because of one's ideology that did that.

Silly me.
 
Andalublue said:
Yes, I did. I've spoken several times about the febrile and intemperate atmosphere there caused by the military situation, the political situation and the ambience of general religious and social turmoil.
Click to expand...

But the riots and murders over the cartoons were hardly the result of any military situation. And they were international.
Someone committing a crime passionel in the heat of the moment is still guilty of the crime, but it is explained somewhat by the state of mind of the person at the moment of committing that crime
Click to expand...
.

But this was not "in the heat of the moment". This was months after the Florida incident took place.

Isn't it telling that the murders took place in Afghanistan? Why there and not other fiercely faithful Islamic countries like Indonesia, Morocco, Oman or Iran? Why Afghanistan? Because people there are currently not behaving as they normally would.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the riots and murders will be somewhere else next time, just as previous riots were. Riots and murders within the Muslim community are not uncommon. We can see them regularly on TV. But this time their victims were more consequential to the world than their previous victims..
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom