• 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!

8 killed in protest at UN office in Northern Afghanistan

Andalublue said:
When the end is the same, the person performing the act is irrelevant. The intention in burning books is to stifle dissenting opinion, and it makes no difference whether it is a state, private or religious organisation attempting to limit that dissent.

That would be YOUR notion, not mine. I haven't suggested such limitation, nor do I believe in it, even for the book burning Christofascists or Islamofascists.


Your focus on differentiating the actions of public bodies from those of private bodies, individuals, religious groups and corporations displays a conservative bent but no logical rationale. A fanatical pastor burning books has the same intent as the state-sponsored burning of books. The only difference is in the likelihood of a successful outcome. I have no idea whether you are trying to invoke US constititutional principles in your argument by suggesting I am failing to understand the nature of the rights involved. If so, please save your breath because, while the Rev Jones might be covered by such constitutional considerations, I couldn't give a stuff. His constitutional right to attempt to snuff out alternative belief systems is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

By that logic, any protest would be illegal.
 
Andalublue said:
Your focus on differentiating the actions of public bodies from those of private bodies, individuals, religious groups and corporations displays a conservative bent but no logical rationale.
Click to expand...


You have it backwards -- it displays a logical orientation, but not a conservative bent.

But good attempt at fooling 'em!
 
Andalublue said:
Your focus on differentiating the actions of public bodies from those of private bodies, individuals, religious groups and corporations displays a conservative bent but no logical rationale. A fanatical pastor burning books has the same intent as the state-sponsored burning of books. The only difference is in the likelihood of a successful outcome. I have no idea whether you are trying to invoke US constititutional principles in your argument by suggesting I am failing to understand the nature of the rights involved. If so, please save your breath because, while the Rev Jones might be covered by such constitutional considerations, I couldn't give a stuff. His constitutional right to attempt to snuff out alternative belief systems is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The reason you're wrong, is because an individual can only violate another individual's rights by physical means. The government has many ways, such as legislation, to violate people's rights.

Had Jones stolen that book and burned it, only then would be be violating anyone's rights. Besides, he only burned one copy of a book. He didn't burn them all, nor did he pass a law outlawing the book.
 
Gardener said:
You have it backwards -- it displays a logical orientation, but not a conservative bent.

But good attempt at fooling 'em!
Click to expand...

I'd like to say, "good attempt at justifying your logical dysfunction", but I can't. It was a very half-hearted, failed attempt.
 
Andalublue said:
I'd like to say,
Click to expand...

I'm sure you would like to say many things, Anda, but by characterizing the intelligence necessary to discern one thing from another as a "conservative" charasteric, you not only cede an awful lot of territory to this imagined conservatism of yours, but you place yourself on the opposite side of it. What is politics, itself, if not the detailing of the relationship between the individual and the state?
 
I got the following from an interview Jones did with ABC News' Terry Moran last year:

(L)ast September 11th, we... did a demonstration in remembrance of the men and women that were murdered and also a demonstration against Islam and Sharia law. So we did this last year so this year we thought what can we do and we came up with the idea of the International Burn a Koran Day. Actually for two reasons, the same as last year, to remember those who were killed, murdered on September the 11th and then this year through the whole year we have, we have become more and more aware of the dangers of sharia law and the dangers of radical Islam and that's what this message is geared towards. It is not geared towards the so-called moderate Moslem but its geared towards that radical element to really send a clear message to them that radical Islam, sharia law, sharia courts, what they seem to try to institute after a period of time is not wished in America....

(W)e feel we feel that a radical message is necessary. We also want to send a message to the moderate Moslem to stay peaceful and moderate. We live in America, we have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, they are more than welcome to be here, worship, build mosques, but we do not want as it appears to be in parts of the world after they gain in numbers in population they begin to push sharia law, that type of government. We expect the Moslems that are here in America to respect honor, obey submit to our constitution.

Transcript: ABC News' Terry Moran Interviews Pastor Terry Jones - ABC News
Click to expand...

Considering what we're seeing in Europe with Sharia, I think an "in your face" protest like this ("Don't try to tell me what I can do in my own country") is perfectly legitimate, whether one believes Jones is being disingenuous or not. If anyone thinks he has another motive, feel free to offer up some evidence beyond inference and/or opinion. And trying to hold someone accountable for exercising a basic right because of what terrorists in a foreign country might do is bull****. I mean, don't you think when you hit people with missiles and bombs you're inciting them? Weren't they already incited with 150,000 foreign troops? Does anyone seriously think foreigners would be safe from the Taliban in Afghanistan under any circumstance?
 
Gardener said:
I'm sure you would like to say many things, Anda, but by characterizing the intelligence necessary to discern one thing from another as a "conservative" charasteric, you not only cede an awful lot of territory to this imagined conservatism of yours, but you place yourself on the opposite side of it.
Click to expand...
Nnnnnn. Diversion.

What is conservative about your approach is to assume that there is an essential difference between the interests of the state and the interests of all other stake-holders in society, i.e. the individual, private corporations, religious bodies, voluntary syndicates etc. It is also a conservative argument, and strangely a particularly north American one, that sees the regulatory behaviour of government as uniquely coercive, as against the coercive behaviour that other social forces exert. This is particularly noticeable here on DP in the arguments of 'libertarians' who call for the ending of coercive governmental actions but are happy to leave the violently coercive activities of corporations to continue unmolested.

What is politics, itself, if not the detailing of the relationship between the individual and the state?
Click to expand...
It is. I don't understand your point. Who has denied that there is a relationship between the individual and the state? I just guess that we envisage a quite different kind of relationship.
 
Gardener said:
I do believe you should distinguish between said activity when conducted by an individual and when conducted by a state or multi-state institution. The actual signal of the ending of free speech is when these states and multi-state institutions act to limit the expressions of free speech by an individual.

To give an example, there has been a movement within the United Nations to characterize the criticism of Islam as an act of bigotry that should not be tolerated. Indeed, within much of Islam, such criticism is not only forbidden, but in many cases punishable by rather severe means. The meme being promoted here is the conflation of the criticism of an ideology with an irrational bigotry, fostered currently in various sub-communities here in the west through various disincentives that take the form of social ostracism -- the scorn of political correctness acting to limit the ability to voice such criticism. As of now, there is no real infringement of free speech here in America, however, since the state does not act to prevent the expression of such criticism.

You notion that it is necessary to prevent the exercize of free speech for some in order to foster free speech is certainly a contradiction shared by many in Britain, but in failing to distinguish between the actions of an individual and the actions of a state, you fail to understand the essential nature of the actual rights involved.
Click to expand...

What is imposed as political correctness today will become a law tomorrow. Law often comes from accepted tradition of some people. That is why all attempts to curb freedom on individual level are pregnant with actions of any state. That is a principle. I think that political correctness may be dangerous that way.
 
theplaydrive said:
Using freedom of speech to provoke murderers.
Click to expand...

This is a principal question. When I am within law do I have to think of possible reaction of murderers, abnormal people, maniacs, crazy people? A reaction is often unpredictable. So I better keep silence, right?
 
Last edited:
grig said:
This is a principal question. When I am within law do I have to think of possible reaction of murderers, abnormal people, maniacs, crazy people? A reaction is often unpredictable. So I better keep silence, right?
Click to expand...

Actually I doubt any of these people would've tested positive in any medical sense for mania, mental illness, or possibly the 'abnormal because i burned their holy book and they want to kill me like Indiana Jones couldnt figure that out while I occupy their country syndrome'
 
grig said:
This is a principal question. When I am within law do I have to think of possible reaction of murderers, abnormal people, maniacs, crazy people? A reaction is often unpredictable. So I better keep silence, right?
Click to expand...

That's your choice, but don't expect me to come to your defense if you get shot in the face for provoking a murderer.
 
theplaydrive said:
That's your choice, but don't expect me to come to your defense if you get shot in the face for provoking a murderer.
Click to expand...

You're a Liberal. Most of us don't expect anything of you.
 
theplaydrive said:
That's your choice, but don't expect me to come to your defense if you get shot in the face for provoking a murderer.
Click to expand...

Um, at the risk of stating the obvious, I think they already were provoked. Their homes are being hit with missiles and special operations raids, and their country is occupied by more than 150,000 foreign troops, thanks in large part to BObama. If they're pissed at anyone, it's him. Will you defend him?:confused:
 
Ahlevah said:
Um, at the risk of stating the obvious, I think they already were provoked. Their homes are being hit with missiles and special operations raids, and their country is occupied by more than 150,000 foreign troops, thanks in large part to BObama. If they're pissed at anyone, it's him. Will you defend him?:confused:
Click to expand...

I think many of them are pissed at the United States in general...with good reason. As far as defending Obama - if you mean in terms of being in Afghanistan, then I don't really support him or not - he came into office with a war and he's working to end it - it is what it is.
 
theplaydrive said:
I think many of them are pissed at the United States in general...with good reason. As far as defending Obama - if you mean in terms of being in Afghanistan, then I don't really support him or not - he came into office with a war and he's working to end it - it is what it is.
Click to expand...

And, what would that reason be?
 
apdst said:
And, what would that reason be?
Click to expand...

We're on their land and have probably killed many of their friends and family members - militants and civilians, adults and children.
 
theplaydrive said:
We're on their land and have probably killed many of their friends and family members - militants and civilians, adults and children.
Click to expand...

They attacked us. They didn't do anything to stop al Qaeda, nor the Taliban. They brought it upon themselves.
 
apdst said:
They attacked us. They didn't do anything to stop al Qaeda, nor the Taliban. They brought it upon themselves.
Click to expand...

"They" didn't attack us. Civilians didn't attack us. Children didn't attack us. Al-Qaeda attacked us. Civilians have a right to be angry if their friends and family have been killed by our government. I say this even as I supported our entry into Afghanistan. Our right to go after those who attacked us is no better than the right of those who didn't to be angry that they and their family members have suffered or died at the hands our military.
 
theplaydrive said:
"They" didn't attack us. Civilians didn't attack us. Children didn't attack us. Al-Qaeda attacked us. Civilians have a right to be angry if their friends and family have been killed by our government. I say this even as I supported our entry into Afghanistan. Our right to go after those who attacked us is no better than the right of those who didn't to be angry that they and their family members have suffered or died at the hands our military.
Click to expand...

The people of Afghanistan allowed a situation to exist, where we were attacked by terrorists that were given sanctuary and support for the controlling regime in Afghanistan. No regime exists except through the will of the people. If the Afghans don't want us there, they need to step up and kill all the terrorists. If they don't do that, then we'll have to and they don't have any reason to be complaining.
 
apdst said:
The people of Afghanistan allowed a situation to exist, where we were attacked by terrorists that were given sanctuary and support for the controlling regime in Afghanistan. No regime exists except through the will of the people. If the Afghans don't want us there, they need to step up and kill all the terrorists. If they don't do that, then we'll have to and they don't have any reason to be complaining.
Click to expand...

You're giving the "people" of Afghanistan a little too much credit...

And I don't care what you say, when stuff like this happens:

Nine boys collecting firewood to heat their homes in the eastern Afghanistan mountains were killed by NATO helicopter gunners who mistook them for insurgents, according to a statement on Wednesday by NATO, which apologized for the mistake.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html

they have a right to be angry with any foreign governments in their midst. You seem to forget the humanity of people when you speak about them.
 
theplaydrive said:
You're giving the "people" of Afghanistan a little too much credit...
Click to expand...

I don't think I am. They don't seem to lack the ability to protest our presence in their country. Perhaps they should have focused that energy towards killing the anti-American terrorists that caused us to have to invade the country.

And I don't care what you say, when stuff like this happens:

Nine boys collecting firewood to heat their homes in the eastern Afghanistan mountains were killed by NATO helicopter gunners who mistook them for insurgents, according to a statement on Wednesday by NATO, which apologized for the mistake.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html

they have a right to be angry with any foreign governments in their midst. You seem to forget the humanity of people when you speak about them.[/QUOTE]

If we hadn't been attacked on 9/11, we wouldn't be there. Would we? al Qaeda and the Taliban did this to them, not the U.S.
 
apdst said:
I don't think I am. They don't seem to lack the ability to protest our presence in their country. Perhaps they should have focused that energy towards killing the anti-American terrorists that caused us to have to invade the country.

And I don't care what you say, when stuff like this happens:




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html

they have a right to be angry with any foreign governments in their midst. You seem to forget the humanity of people when you speak about them.
Click to expand...

If we hadn't been attacked on 9/11, we wouldn't be there. Would we? al Qaeda and the Taliban did this to them, not the U.S.[/QUOTE]

I'm troubled by your inability to recognize that the U.S. shares some responsibility not only in the harm it has caused in Afghanistan, but also in 9/11. The United States is not, as you frame it, an innocent power who is simply the victim of evil power. We have certainly had a role in creating our current circumstances.
 
theplaydrive said:
That's your choice, but don't expect me to come to your defense if you get shot in the face for provoking a murderer.
Click to expand...
You know all murderers without exception are provoked. So are the rapists when they say that the skirt was too short. Murderers can be provoked by the very fact that a would be victim is better off or too clever or lives in a better country. Most criminals insist on being provoked in one way or another. There is always a pretext for them. I would come to your defense if you were attacked even though I am not a liberal but you are.
 
grig said:
You know all murderers without exception are provoked. So are the rapists when they say that the skirt was too short. Murderers can be provoked by the very fact that a would be victim is better off or too clever or lives in a better country. Most criminals insist on being provoked in one way or another. There is always a pretext for them. I would come to your defense if you were attacked even though I am not a liberal but you are.
Click to expand...

Not provoking a murderer - walking around and then murderer attacks you.
Provoking a murderer - doing something he tells you not to do and then he attacks you.

If you do the latter, good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom