• 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

ManofthPeephole said:
Burning a quran isn't reckless, the reaction of killing random people is. Speaking for equal rights isn't reckless, the response of randomly attacking black people is. If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to murder people, over speech, then they are the sole issue here. Not the person making a harmless statement

they have a choice to murder people, or not
Click to expand...

If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to murder people, over speech, then you share responsibility when you provoke them. I would never do things that General Petraeus has told me might cause security risks...I try to use common sense with my freedom of speech.
 
PeteEU said:
He is no man of god. He is as cold blooded as the murders in Afghanistan. He knew exactly what he was doing and what reaction there would be against it. He provoked the murders of Afghanistan and should stand trial for at least man-slaughter if not out right murder. Alternatively he should be extradited to Afghanistan or any Muslim nation who wants him and let them deal with his hatemongering.
Click to expand...

It is impossible, among a certain mind-set, for Muslims to do anything wrong.

No matter what crimes they commit, how deep and serious the atrocities, they will always find some non-Muslims to blame.

It is a form of insanity.
 
ludahai said:
The crime being???
Click to expand...

ManofthPeephole said:
why not charge him with sedition and ill-love for the mother land?
Click to expand...

ludahai said:
He isn't in a war zone...
Click to expand...

X Factor said:
Have you not been reading this thread? Anyone here who calls for Jones to be sued, extradited to Afgahnistan, stoned, hands cut off or whatever, is not only questioning his right to free speech, they're saying he doesn't have it. Look, I totally agree that just because something is a right, doesn't mean it is right, but I'd rather live in a country where there's free speech even if it's speech that offends me.
Click to expand...

X Factor said:
I think every one here has questioned his wisdom and courage. We don't have to like the speaker or the message to believe in free speech.
Click to expand...

Say during Vietnam, there was the ability for one individual to communicate to the world an action. Looking at the video of the burning, the pastor is flanked by the American flag and in fact proceedings appear to those not familiar with fundamentalist American churches, to be those of a courtroom.
The pastor is dressed like a judge, the proceedings mock an actual "sentencing" some may have seen from American high profile cases that were excerpted on YouTube. This guys knew exactly what he was doing imo, but even so, as I suggest, say this was during Vietnam. This pastor was contacted by President Johnson or Nixon and also by the top commander in the field and warned that such actions would endanger the lives of soldiers and operations in the field. So he goes on world wide media and burns the Vietnamese holy book or images while pretending to look like an American judge and flanked by an American flag in a mock sentencing. It would have caused disruption of our war efforts to say the very least. Say it was during WWII. Say he burned the Torah in such a mock trial fashion. The propaganda spun off it on both sides would have lead to changes in outcomes of treaties, field organization, and assistance from allies...
Now do you see what I mean? During my father's generation not only would the murderers of US personnel have been routed, but this man would have been held accountable for all the mayhem he caused with his actions.
Freedom of speech is one thing. Subversion in times of war is another.
 
theplaydrive said:
If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to murder people, over speech, then you share responsibility when you provoke them. I would never do things that General Petraeus has told me might cause security risks...I try to use common sense with my freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

I think GP suggesting that people need to curb their civil rights, due to military interest, is more of a concern than what some random assholes does to his own property. Secondly, then you need to hold the civil rights movement accountable for the numerous racists they provoked, and the muslims who provoked people by openly practicing their faith after 9/11.

This is the logical outcome of your argument: people are responsible for the irrational acts of others
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to murder people, over speech, then you share responsibility when you provoke them. I would never do things that General Petraeus has told me might cause security risks...I try to use common sense with my freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

You mean that no one anywhere can be critical of Muslims or Islam because they will most likely murder people somewhere in the world as a consequence?

I think you nailed it.
 
Barbbtx said:
Here on DP, it seems some are quite willing to blame Jones for the deaths.
Click to expand...

I think you are overstating the case. However, people here and elsewhere are spending so much time discussing his role in the matter that the people who had control of their faculties and their bare hands get lost in the conversation except as to compare them to irresponsible children who are being parented by an irresponsible parent by the name of Mr. Jones. Such views are unintentionally paternalistic and are reducing the confidence in the notion that grown men can behave as living, breathing, thinking, responsible adults in a world that may not always share their demands, which is certainly ironically illiberal.
 
Last edited:
ManofthPeephole said:
I think GP suggesting that people need to curb their cuivil rights, due to militery interest, is more of a concern than what some random assholes does to his opwn property. Secondly, then you need to hold the civil rights movement accountable for the numerous racists they provoked. And the muslims who provoked people by openly practicing their faith after 9/11
Click to expand...

Suggesting people use common sense is not trying to curb civil rights. This why your mother telling you not call a black person a nigger is not the same as her trying to curb your civil rights.

I don't need to do anything about the civil rights movement. We're talking about a specific situation and you're trying to attack my argument with a situation that happened in a very different environment than the one we're talking about.
 
What this Pastor in Florida did reminds me of the legal conflict authorities had in prosecuting Jigsaw in the SAW movie series. No, Jigsaw didn't kill anyone, but he certainly placed people in precurious positions where "it was either him or me". It's kinda the same things.

This Pastor was cautioned last year that if he burned the Qu'ron, the Muslim world, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan where we have a large U.S. military presence, would retaliate. He was warned that in doing so the lives of American military and coalition forces would be placed in jeapordy. He knew the likelihood that people's lives would be in danger, but he gambled with them anyway. And for what? To prove his point that radical Islamists would do anything to justify saving the honor of their sacred holy book even commit murder and use same to justify the hypocricy of American religious tolerence? Well, we already knew that didn't we? 9/11 was the proof!

I don't know if this Pastor can be charged with murder or manslaughter or any other crime, but if he could be charged with reckless endangerment or stupidity, I'd certainly throw the book at him. Why? Because his wreckless actions in the wake of being forewarned what would happen if he carried out his deed did, in fact, cost lives. Moreover, his actions likely will cause set-backs in any progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. and coalition forces needlessly, thereby placing innocent lives further in peril.
 
Last edited:
The Giant Noodle said:
Oh, ok. :) Yeah I was writting it and started thinking that it IS so horrible that I needed to put a warning on there. I saw it a month or so ago and it was a horrible experience just hearing and seeing it.
Click to expand...

I watched it and it will stick with me. That was horrible. Also, now if someone checks out all the sites I've visited, they may think I'm into porn. Wasn't that video available anywhere other than a porn site?
 
theplaydrive said:
I think most people are focusing on the pastor in this thread because he is the only people refuse to attribute any amount of responsibility to. I don't think there's any question that the actual murderers hold the majority of the responsibility...since they actually killed people.
Click to expand...

Really? Seems to me he is the one being blamed while the real murderers are being excused.
 
theplaydrive said:
Suggesting people use common sense is not trying to curb civil rights. This why your mother telling you not call a black person a nigger is not the same as her trying to curb your civil rights.

I don't need to do anything about the civil rights movement. We're talking about a specific situation and you're trying to attack my argument with a situation that happened in a very different environment than the one we're talking about.
Click to expand...

holding MLK and innocent muslims accountable for the attacks against them is the logical outcome of your argument here. They they are responsible for the attacks against them because they provoked their attackers.


Such isn't dependent on the fact that you're not logically consistent
 
Objective Voice said:
What this Pastor in Florida did reminds me of the legal conflict authorities had in prosecuting Jigsaw in the SAW movie series. No, Jigsaw didn't kill anyone, but he certainly placed people in precurious positions where "it was either him or me". It's kinda the same things.
Click to expand...

What an idiotic statement. Shoving aside the notion that one would ever want to use the spawn of so many trite sequels for a damned metaphor, Jigsaw was in immediate proximity to alter the very survival of a human being and intentionally did so. The Paster was in no immediate proximity, had no life-altering power toward any individual, and was no evil menace to society.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
What this Pastor in Florida did reminds me of the legal conflict authorities had in prosecuting Jigsaw in the SAW movie series. No, Jigsaw didn't kill anyone, but he certainly placed people in precurious positions where "it was either him or me". It's kinda the same things.

This Pastor was cautioned last year that if he burned the Qu'ron, the Muslim world, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan where we have a large U.S. military presence, would retaliate. He was warned that in doing so the lives of American military and coalition forces would be placed in jeapordy. He knew the likelihood that people's lives would be in danger, but he gambled with them anyway. And for what? To prove his point that radical Islamists would do anything to justify saving the honor of their sacred holy book even commit murder and use same to justify the hypocricy of American religious tolerence? Well, we already knew that didn't we? 9/11 was the proof!

I don't know if this Pastor can be charged with murder or manslaughter or any other crime, but if he could be charged with reckless endangerment or stupidity, I'd certainly throw the book at him. Why? Because his wreckless actions in the wake of being forewarned what would happen if he carried out his deed did, in fact, cost lives. Moreover, his actions likely will cause set-backs in any progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. and coalition forces needlessly, thereby placing innocent lives further in peril.
Click to expand...

Are you saying he underestimated the ignorance of (some) Muslims?

That seems to be the case.
 


Anyone caught drawing cartoons of Allah will be chopped in half with an axe.........

..........Radical Islam and The DNC have spoken.........
.
.
.
.
........and it will all be the fault of the cartoonist.
.
.
.
 
theplaydrive said:
Ignorance and the absence of intention do not imply a lack of responsibility. The purpose of my example was to make that point. You can be ignorant and lack intention and still be responsible as the driver in the example shows.

As to your other points:
1. It would actually be like blaming the driver for being partially responsible for the deaths of twelve people if it was common knowledge that crazy people killed twelve people every time someone ran a stop sign.
2. People have responsibility in more situations than panic situations. For example, if a prankster calls in a bomb threat to a school, people find out about it and skip class, the prankster shares a was a cause for their choice to skip school.
Click to expand...

allowing guns in society means there will be a certain amount of gun crime. There will be those who abuse the right and then infringe upon the rights of others. We know this to be true. People who then own guns contribute to the gun culture and the number of guns in society. A certain percentage of those guns will be used for crime.

Thus people who buy guns should be held responsible for gun crimes against others since they engage in a behavior they know will be abused by a certain sect of crazies in the world.

That is your argument.
 
Barbbtx said:
Really? Seems to me he is the one being blamed while the real murderers are being excused.
Click to expand...

Then you misinterpret what people are saying about this incident. I don't think anyone is saying the Islamists are innocent here. They are NOT! But Pastor Jones did a very irresponsible thing after being warned what such an act would mean to those not only of the Muslim world, but also to those Americans and coalition forces in those Muslim countries who take the santity of their holy book far more serious than many Christians do today. Of course, Christianity has had its share of crackpots, too, i.e., the Crusades, the Salem Witch Hunts. Still, in this case, I blame Pastor Jones equally as much because he knew something like this would happen. He was forewarned by local authorities, Pentagon officials, the FBI/CIA and even the White House.

I seriously doubt what he did could amount to something as serious as treason, but his actions certainly were wreckless and irresponsible. That's why people are so hard on him about this matter.
 
theplaydrive said:
We're not talking about domestic abuse, we're talking about terrorism/Islamic extremism. The former is a whole other conversation with a whole slew of different factors.
Click to expand...

It's the same argument. You engage in a behavior which can have bad results, but you knew those bad results at the beginning. A woman taking back an abuser is that circumstance. Why is it different? I have a feeling it's because you want to say something in the case of this preacher but do not want the logical conclusions of that argument drawn to other circumstances in which you may disagree with the implementation of that same argument.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
holding MLK and innocent muslims accountable for the attacks against them is the logical outcome of your argument here. They they are responsible for the attacks against them because they provoked their attackers.

Such isn't dependent on the fact that you're not logically consistent
Click to expand...

I don't hold MLK responsible for the same reasons I don't hold policymakers and academics responsible for their criticisms: they aren't reckless and centered around provocation.

This my consistent argument: If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to murder people, over speech, then you share responsibility when you provoke them.
 
Objective Voice said:
I seriously doubt what he did could amount to something as serious as treason, but his actions certainly were wreckless and irresponsible. That's why people are so hard on him about this matter.
Click to expand...

He should be more than able to be blamed had the issue merely been peaceful protests. We could still argue over proportional distress, but this is an entirely different matter. Once violence and murder became involved, let alone individuals with absolutely no connection to Mr. Jones, this notion is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
I don't hold MLK responsible for the same reasons I don't hold policymakers and academics responsible for their criticisms: they aren't reckless and centered around provocation.

This my consistent argument: If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to murder people, over speech, then you share responsibility when you provoke them.
Click to expand...

If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to beat their girlfriend over being there, then you share responsibility when you provoke them.
 
theplaydrive said:
I don't hold MLK responsible for the same reasons I don't hold policymakers and academics responsible for their criticisms: they aren't reckless and centered around provocation.
Click to expand...

then you're special pleading: you want your logic to only apply in select circumstances, and one'
s where you don't agree with the content of the message

theplaydrive said:
This my consistent argument: If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to murder people, over speech, then you share responsibility when you provoke them.
Click to expand...

right, like those muslims who provoked people after 9/11, by openly practicing their religion
 
Ikari said:
allowing guns in society means there will be a certain amount of gun crime. There will be those who abuse the right and then infringe upon the rights of others. We know this to be true. People who then own guns contribute to the gun culture and the number of guns in society. A certain percentage of those guns will be used for crime.

Thus people who buy guns should be held responsible for gun crimes against others since they engage in a behavior they know will be abused by a certain sect of crazies in the world.

That is your argument.
Click to expand...

No. That is not my argument. This would be my argument:

Allowing guns in society means there will be a certain amount of gun crime. There will be those who abuse the right and then infringe upon the rights of others. We know this to be true. People who then own guns contribute to the gun culture and the number of guns in society. A certain percentage of those guns will be used for crime.

Thus people who buy guns should use common sense with their right to bear arms and not threaten to shoot someone who owns one too like someone who uses free speech should use common sense and not provoke proven murderers with it.

Use your right to bear arms responsibly and use your right to free speech responsibly.

Once again, I am arguing for common sense.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
right, like those muslims who provoked people after 9/11, by openly practicing their religion
Click to expand...

They should share part of the blame for the persecution, anger, and violence against them. They knew the circumstances and that people were pissed off because of 9/11 yet they had the audacity to freely practice their religion knowing that it would stir up angry and violent feelings from others. We should be able to take them to Civil Court for having practiced their religion because they contributed to the atmosphere of hate and anger by doing so!
 
Ikari said:
If someone is so unhinged that they feel the need to beat their girlfriend over being there, then you share responsibility when you provoke them.
Click to expand...

Once again, a situation that has many different circumstances than the one we're talking about. The psychological factors of a woman in an abusive relationship do not exist in a man who burns Korans and provokes murderers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom