• 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:
I am sure the families of those whpo are dead would rather have their family member back. Nobody was asking anyone to stop doing their normal routine. He was asked specifically to stand down because the situation was dangerous and we had people in harms way. That isn't capitulation. That is common sense. What drove him so much he couldn't avoid this? Hate my friend Pure hate.
Click to expand...

The tactic of using crowds/protests by the enemy to mask (and or assist) in carrying out their political/military objectives would still be occurring with or without, the Pastor's recent legal activities.

Are you forgetful about, the dozens of recent events that could be used as a "a chemical reaction" for kicking off these bat **** crazy protests??? Had the timing of, the Pastor event been different, we'd be hearing a different excuse in regards to their justification/reasoning for these events

Get used to it...."Kill Team" story didn't seem to do jack**** to the Afghans much but torch a Koran copy and "Whoa, hold the Blackberry, somebody call Mustafa and grab the AK it's time to RAPE, PILLAGE and RIOT!".
 
Mikeyy said:
Because he is the spark. He was asked not to by many people he should have had respect for. But he was so set on sticking it to someone that he couldn't help it.
Click to expand...
If he, or anyone else, knew that Muslims would react the way they did then we know he would not have done it. Would you agree? He simply underestimated Islamic hatreds, despite all the previous evidence that it was out there. You'll tun on this guy now and another when the next terror attack occurs. 9/11 was the result of American imperialism, Danny Pearl was a result of Israels policy towards the Palestinians, and so on. The democracies, out of the new fear, will always blame the democracies.

He has disrespected fellow Americans and he hides behind the protection of those he condemns. He should have had the balls to pull his stunt over there and taken the heat there. He is a coward and a fool. How's that for a reason?
Click to expand...

No, my friend, you're describing yourself here. You should be defending this fellow's right to free speech in a free country no matter how foolish a person he might be. That is what the American people have inherited, and at a great cost to many who have fought for that right.

Now that same free speech must be defended against murderous terrorists and tyrants, but the fools and cowards among us would turn him over to the terrorists the first chance they got. That is why they will win and you will lose.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If they were rational, that's what they would have done. No, come to think of it, were they rational, they would have simply given him the proverbial finger or something.

Were Reverend Nutter rational, he would not have burned a Koran.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that ANY of them are rational. However, being irrational is not a crime in the United States. If it were, a lot of DP posters would be in a lot of trouble...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That is true. Just like anyone has a choice whether to act or not on the exercising of their rights.
Click to expand...

I still disagree because the decision is being forced through with coercion (so it isn't really a choice). It's like if Qaddafi passed a law guaranteeing free speech but sent a death squad to kill anyone that said something he didn't approve of. Under such a system your right would be nothing more than an academic exercise
 
Mikeyy said:
I am sure the families of those whpo are dead would rather have their family member back. Nobody was asking anyone to stop doing their normal routine. He was asked specifically to stand down because the situation was dangerous and we had people in harms way. That isn't capitulation. That is common sense. What drove him so much he couldn't avoid this? Hate my friend Pure hate.
Click to expand...

people are allowed to hate, and free to express that hate publicly, either through speech or a symbolic act. In fact, I rather hate Nazis and the Klan, and see no reason I should feel ashamed for such, or owe anyone an apology.
 
ric27 said:
Mike - Capitulation/subjigation caused by fear is precisely what these murderous scoundrels are after.

Maybe if we'd offed a few people when our flag was burned things would be different. Or if Christians suddenly become like rabies-stricken, blood seeking animals when the Bible was desecrated or any other numerous insults were leveled at Christianity.
Click to expand...

Well, we could lower ourselves to their level. Do you think that would be a good idea?
 
celticwar17 said:
What's the point of arguing that this guy is stupid, intolerant, and insensitive? the only people who are going to disagree with you are super extremist Christians and KKK... and i don't think we have much of those on this website.
His actions are only a big deal because the Islams of the country decided to kill 12 innocent people because of it.
It's not universally immoral to burn a Quran or a bible, while it is to kill innocent people and to try and silence free speech.

they need to be taught about human rights, because now tolerating their immoral beliefs are clearly affecting us.
Click to expand...

imo he is guilty of seditious acts in a time of war. That's more than just freedom of speech.
 
Salty said:
imo he is guilty of seditious acts in a time of war. That's more than just freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

In what way did he act to encourage Americans to rebel against the US government?

You are aware that he cannot be guilty of any form of sedition in Afghanistan, right?

Are you aware of the definition of the word "sedition"?
 
Grant said:
If he, or anyone else, knew that Muslims would react the way they did then we know he would not have done it. Would you agree? He simply underestimated Islamic hatreds, despite all the previous evidence that it was out there. You'll tun on this guy now and another when the next terror attack occurs. 9/11 was the result of American imperialism, Danny Pearl was a result of Israels policy towards the Palestinians, and so on. The democracies, out of the new fear, will always blame the democracies.



No, my friend, you're describing yourself here. You should be defending this fellow's right to free speech in a free country no matter how foolish a person he might be. That is what the American people have inherited, and at a great cost to many who have fought for that right.

Now that same free speech must be defended against murderous terrorists and tyrants, but the fools and cowards among us would turn him over to the terrorists the first chance they got. That is why they will win and you will lose.
Click to expand...

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.
 
i think the title must be the pastor who killed 8 people in Afghanistan...
 
ManofthPeephole said:
I still disagree because the decision is being forced through with coercion (so it isn't really a choice). It's like if Qaddafi passed a law guaranteeing free speech but sent a death squad to kill anyone that said something he didn't approve of. Under such a system your right would be nothing more than an academic exercise
Click to expand...

A decision is a decision regardless of what goes into making the decision. Plenty have decided to die for liberty before. You have the right and the choice to exercise that right knowing the consequences. Consequences do not eliminate the right, itself.
 
soguks said:
i think the title must be the pastor who killed 8 people in Afghanistan...
Click to expand...

I would think not. The people killed in Afghanistan where killed by Muslim extremists. Get your facts straight.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I would think not. The people killed in Afghanistan where killed by Muslim extremists. Get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

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?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
A decision is a decision regardless of what goes into making the decision. Plenty have decided to die for liberty before. You have the right and the choice to exercise that right knowing the consequences. Consequences do not eliminate the right, itself.
Click to expand...

So basically if the government starts executing people for participating in free speech, you still view the right of free speech existing?

Yes, that makes perfect sense

Those rights don't actually exist unless you can exercise them without facing some form of threat
 
Last edited:
soguks said:
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?
Click to expand...

You're attempting to distract from the issue
 
ManofthPeephole said:
You're attempting to distract from the issue
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the mentality or who is the best-looking ? btw, why are you avoiding answering me about my previous comment, instead of trying to diagnose my purpose ?
 
soguks said:
Are we talking about the mentality or who is the best-looking ? btw, why are you avoiding answering me about my previous comment, instead of trying to diagnose my purpose ?
Click to expand...

No, we are talking about the UN workers who were killed.

But sorry if you feel so inadequate that you need to turn everything into a dick measuring contest
 
Originally posted by Soguks

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?
Click to expand...

ManofthPeephole said:
You're attempting to distract from the issue
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree but it could have been "Guy pretending to be man of god has head way up his own ass"
soguks said:
i think the title must be the pastor who killed 8 people in Afghanistan...
Click to expand...
 
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...

1) it's a Tu quoque argument

2) being a Tu quoque it's meant to distract from the matter of question and shift the discussion to another party. Clearly it's an attempt to distract from the issue

PS it should also be pointed out that regardless how you feel about the Afghan invasion (I think it was a complete mistake) that the Taliban, the controlling power in Afghanistan, were harboring the people who conducted 9/11. So it isn't really comparable
 
Last edited:
Mikeyy said:
Like talking about the KKK and MLK?
Click to expand...

No, speaking about the KKK is applying the logic to other circumstances to see if it can be applied in a consistent manner
 
ManofthPeephole said:
1) it's a Tu quoque argument

2) being a Tu quoque it's meant to distract from the matter of question and shift the discussion to another party. Clearly it's an attempt to distract from the issue
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom