PDA

View Full Version : Terry Jones burning the Qur'an


Mandalorian Knight
04-08-2011, 12:25 AM
This really makes me angry. What possible purpose could this action serve? Because this guy doesn't believe (and apparently hates) a different religion. Because of his actions at least 7 UN workers were killed because of this. There are other estimates of 30 deaths and around 150 wounded. And for what?

I'm transferring to a different college to try and get an Army ROTC scholarship. Within three years I plan to be a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army. I am furious that someone could make a boneheaded move like this stateside and put the men in my platoon in more danger than they already have to face.

I'm all for freedom of speech. But if someone exercises that right and puts people's lives in danger, is there a line? I don't know. Thoughts, anyone?

mimartin
04-08-2011, 12:32 AM
While I agree with you, it is also extremely sad that people would get mad enough to kill over the burning of a book.

Tommycat
04-08-2011, 12:53 AM
While I agree with you, it is also extremely sad that people would get mad enough to kill over the burning of a book.

Wholeheartedly agree. While I think the act itself is just disgusting, and wrong, the reciprocation from the other side is completely disproportionate. It's a bit like shooting a person because their dog whizzed on your mailbox.

mimartin
04-08-2011, 01:25 AM
It's a bit like shooting a person because their dog whizzed on your mailbox.You did live in Texas. :xp:

Primogen
04-08-2011, 02:18 AM
What a load of BS. They didn't kill those people because some guy burned a Qur'an, they killed those people because they wanted to and they decided to point fingers. I don't think book burning is right, I find the practice loathsome - I wouldn't burn Twilight, much less a religious text - although considering how some of the fangirls -take- Twilight, they might be the same thing - but he's within his rights, and blaming him is absurd. You want to blame someone for the deaths? Blame the psychopaths who did the killing.

Sabretooth
04-08-2011, 05:37 AM
Primo's right - if they killed UN workers over some guy burning a Quran, they were pretty much waiting for the right excuse to come along and give them a reason to kill some Westerners. I definitely wouldn't pin the blame on the pastor, as much of a dick he is being.

jonathan7
04-08-2011, 06:31 AM
At the time my facebook status read as this;

"Only morons burn books... Terry Jones you are a Pharisee. I don't know who's worse, you (Terry Jones) or the people that would end the lives of people (not even responsible) over the burning of a Holy book; neither it would seem to me is Gods Will!"

Personally I think he should be charged as an accessory to murder, not sure I see the difference between this, and say starving a big dog, winding it up and then releasing it on the general public. Not that I think he will, but I really don't see the difference between these two scenarios.

Primogen
04-08-2011, 10:39 AM
Yeah, we should start putting restrictions on people's freedom of speech if it might offend a bunch of psychotics. When you start allowing that, even beside the injustice of a man being prosecuted for murder that he literally had nothing to do with, you set such an incredibly horrendous precedent that the Freedom of Speech would effectively cease to exist.

For the record, it's the people who committed the murders who are worse. This Terry Jones guy was well within his rights to burn the Qur'an, just like people are within their rights to burn the Bible, the American Flag, and their Bras.

Tommycat
04-08-2011, 10:50 AM
Well, there have already been restrictions. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre for instance. Is this to that level? No. As much as I find his act deplorable, you cannot force him not to speak his mind or burn the Qur'an. It would be a violation of religious freedom and free speech/expression.

And people wonder why Islam is viewed as a violent religion? It's those idiots who kill because of a book. I mean Christians didn't go killing anyone over the cross in a jar of urine.

Mandalorian Knight
04-08-2011, 11:51 AM
I will openly admit that Terry Jones is well within his rights to burn the Qur'an. However, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. It doesn't take much to send religious fanatics (of any religion, it just happened to be Islam in this case) even further off the deep end.

Historically, it seems to me that how a particular religion reacts to outside influence is influenced more by cultural than by actual tenets. The middle east has been at war with itself and outside invaders for thousands of years. When surrounded by constant war (i.e., medieval Europe) even Christianity became more violent. In my view, Christianity has become a lot more accepting and no longer associated with holy wars because the Christian leadership isn't in a war zone.

That does not excuse what happened. The very fact that they killed people over religious differences shows that are unbalanced. However, Terry Jones did nothing but provoke them. If you taunt a rabid dog, you should expect to get bitten. I fail to understand what he hoped to accomplish. My father is a Methodist pastor, and unless I have fundamentally misunderstood Christian teaching, you don't have to attack other religions to validate your own.

In conclusion, my problems with this whole situation are twofold:
1) Mr. Jones presents an inaccurate face for Christianity (not least because of that strange mustache... maybe a little humor will lighten the mood :) ). The burning of the Qur'an, will legal, strikes me an irrational act that serves only to turn world opinion against us.
2) Mr. Jones has antagonized fanatics who already had a desire to kill westerners. He has also given said fanatics a recruiting tool. This is despite repeating warnings by the U.S. government and U.S. military. He has put men and women in even more danger than they would already face for no apparent reason, all while staying safe from danger himself. I view that as a deplorable act of ignorance and cowardice on his part.

Also, as a final note, I realize that calling for another limit on freedom of speech is wrong. I typed that while I was mad, and now that I'm levelheaded, I agree that it was out of line.

Liverandbacon
04-08-2011, 03:57 PM
What a load of BS. They didn't kill those people because some guy burned a Qur'an, they killed those people because they wanted to and they decided to point fingers. I don't think book burning is right, I find the practice loathsome - I wouldn't burn Twilight, much less a religious text - although considering how some of the fangirls -take- Twilight, they might be the same thing - but he's within his rights, and blaming him is absurd. You want to blame someone for the deaths? Blame the psychopaths who did the killing.

Agreed. Even if one assumes burning books is not immoral, burning the Qur'an still can at best be called pointless spite. It doesn't really accomplish anything other than symbolic defiance in a war we're not, and shouldn't be, fighting (a war on Islam as a whole would honestly be a lot simpler to fight, but there's no reason for one), but it antagonizes Muslims who aren't enemies, and while unlikely to actively fight against us, they become even less inclined to help. I don't think it would have much of an impact on enemy recruitment, beyond pushing those who were going to join anyway to join a bit earlier, since they already make up far worse stories to make us sound evil.

The UN worker killings would happen anyway, they'd just be called reprisals for something else, since pretty much anything the West does is enough to be worthy of violent response in their eyes. Assuming I'm right about enemy recruitment not rising much due to this, US soldiers won't be in any more danger than before. They already want to torture and kill us all, so it doesn't make much difference if they're a bit angrier.

However, I doubt that many of our enemies are psychopaths. Killing oneself, or putting oneself at very high levels of risk (after a long planning period, not just impulsive violence), for a cause is something a psychopath is unlikely to do (psychopaths aren't really insane).

Working Class Hero
04-08-2011, 04:20 PM
I mean Christians didn't go killing anyone over the cross in a jar of urine.Parenthood clinics, on the other hand....

In my view, Christianity has become a lot more accepting and no longer associated with holy wars because the Christian leadership isn't in a war zone. Lebanon much?

Mandalorian Knight
04-08-2011, 04:29 PM
Lebanon much?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you clarify?

purifier
04-08-2011, 04:37 PM
:fist: Yeah that damn "Freedom of Speech" is the cause of all this and get's in the way everytime! What were our forefathers thinking when they put that in the Constitution, huh? Could they have not forseen someone like Terry Jones in our future, burning holy books, making us give a crap about what murdering (I kill you no matter what) extremist think, which causes us all to make mountains out of mole hills just for the sake of a useless argument!



I mean seriously! Why! Why did our forefathers do this "give everybody the right to say what they want" crap? :raise:

Liverandbacon
04-08-2011, 05:11 PM
Parenthood clinics, on the other hand.....

I'm not really a fan of religion in general (though I respect people's right to believe whatever they want if it doesn't intrude on me), but it seems to me like you're equating the current state of Islam with the current state of Christianity. If that wasn't your intent (though if it wasn't I'm not quite sure what you were getting at with your post), the rest of this post is pretty much moot.

There is a pretty clear difference between people being killed over symbols of a religion and people being killed because they kill what the murderer sees as babies. So that's a difference in how much it takes to provoke the different flavors of fundamentalist to violence.

Then there's the quantity difference too. It is a demonstrable fact that in the last two decades there have been significantly more killings done in the name of Islam than Christianity.

While both religions have had relatively violent and peaceful periods in their history, in the present, Christianity is linked to an almost negligible amount compared to Islam.

Edit: There are, and always have been, limitations on free speech in the US. The limitations have fluctuated (generally in a more permissive direction), but are only there when there is very serious cause for them. The nebulous possible consequences of a Qur'an burning don't rate high enough for that.

Primogen
04-08-2011, 05:34 PM
Besides, burning crap has been used for protests for decades. It'll never get banned - the Republicans won't do it because directly banning this would alienate a part of their base, and the Democrats won't do it because then they'd be tacitly rebuking everyone who's burned an American flag, a Bible, or a Draft Card - most of whom are in the Democrat camp.

Mandalorian Knight
04-08-2011, 06:23 PM
Besides, burning crap has been used for protests for decades. It'll never get banned - the Republicans won't do it because directly banning this would alienate a part of their base, and the Democrats won't do it because then they'd be tacitly rebuking everyone who's burned an American flag, a Bible, or a Draft Card - most of whom are in the Democrat camp.

Agreed. And while I don't support the methods of protest you mentioned, they are antagonistic. However, they aren't directed towards a group that is historically violent (i.e., burning a draft card is clearly a demonstration against the government that issued them. Burning a Qur'an is going to increase the number of attacks from radical Muslims).

Anyone is within their rights to burn a Qur'an, but doing so is only going to make things worse. Any Islamic militant that already hates the west and is planning to attack can claim that we are trying to go to war against Islam. Acts such as these give them a recruiting tool, it makes it seem like it's true.

While it's plausible (even likely) that the attacks against the UN workers would have occured regardless of this incident, burning the Qur'an is only going to make things worse.

Tommycat
04-08-2011, 06:31 PM
Parenthood clinics, on the other hand....


Lets see, sooooo burning a book is the equivalent of murdering babies(according to those that believe abortion is murder)?

I just don't see the connection. One is murdering people with no connection to the book burner over a book. The other is murder to stop (perceived) murder of babies.

Totenkopf
04-08-2011, 06:41 PM
Jones was needlessly antagonistic (he could've burned it w/o seeking all the publicity), but these people (the radicalized muslims) are pre-provoked and will latch onto any excuse to kill people and then are sophisticated/savvy enough to try and turn it around on their victims and opponents.

As to abortion clinic bombings and related killings, nowhere near the level of violence perpetrated by radical islamists. If that were truly the case, there'd be many fewer clinincs and providers than there currently are.

Jae Onasi
04-08-2011, 08:31 PM
This really makes me angry. What possible purpose could this action serve? Because this guy doesn't believe (and apparently hates) a different religion. Because of his actions at least 7 UN workers were killed because of this. There are other estimates of 30 deaths and around 150 wounded. And for what?

Terry Jones is at most guilty of burning something without a permit. Was it insensitive? It sure was. Illegal? No, and it shouldn't be.

The murderers who killed UN workers are just that--murderers, and they didn't even pretend to go after Jones. They used the book burning as a sorry excuse for their reprehensible actions. If I went around shooting random Muslims in the US because some other person burned Bibles over in Iran, I'd be locked up and convicted of murder.

As for who has committed the 'worst sin' here? Well, Jones certainly is being an insensitive jerk, but he has not deprived people of their very lives.

They already want to torture and kill us all, so it doesn't make much difference if they're a bit angrier.True.

However, I doubt that many of our enemies are psychopaths. Killing oneself, or putting oneself at very high levels of risk (after a long planning period, not just impulsive violence), for a cause is something a psychopath is unlikely to do (psychopaths aren't really insane).
I'll disagree on the medical side of this. Psychopathy, or what the DSM-IV has reclassified as falling under the category of antisocial personality disorder (sometimes the ICD-10's dissocial personality disorder, too), is a recognized mental pathology. Psychopaths can and do participate in high risk behaviors, partially because they aren't able, or refuse to accept, that there are consequences of that risky behavior. They may not act bat-crazy like an actively hallucinating schizophrenic, but that does make them any less insane.

Not that any radicals are going to be reading this, but if Allah/God is omnipotent and the creator of the entire _universe_, don't you think He can handle it when a little Quran or Bible gets burned?

Working Class Hero
04-09-2011, 01:25 AM
Lets see, sooooo burning a book is the equivalent of murdering babies(according to those that believe abortion is murder)?

I just don't see the connection. One is murdering people with no connection to the book burner over a book. The other is murder to stop (perceived) murder of babies.
They are not bombing clinics because they want to increase the ranks of orphanages. They're bombing clinics because their god says it's evil, just as these muslims are doing over this book.

Christians who bomb clinics don't give a flying **** about the mothers...they don't care whether it's murder or not, hell I bet they don't even think about it at all. They just think "Oooo, my little bible here says abortion be bad, therefore these doctors are evil ****s"

And btw, I'm not saying that all Christians use that thought process. My only point is that blind and violent responses to doctrine insults are not held solely by Muslims.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you clarify?In 2006, Hezbollah and Lebanese Christians tried to blow Israel the **** up.

Earlier this year, Hezbollah went and co-opted the Constitution, with the support of the Lebanese Christian base... so it's always refreshing to know, that despite their many difference, Muslims and Christians can always come together to kill Jews.

Liverandbacon
04-09-2011, 01:42 AM
I'll disagree on the medical side of this. Psychopathy, or what the DSM-IV has reclassified as falling under the category of antisocial personality disorder (sometimes the ICD-10's dissocial personality disorder, too), is a recognized mental pathology. Psychopaths can and do participate in high risk behaviors, partially because they aren't able, or refuse to accept, that there are consequences of that risky behavior. They may not act bat-crazy like an actively hallucinating schizophrenic, but that does make them any less insane.

You're right in pointing out psychopaths' participation in high-risk behaviors. I phrased the post badly. Instead of high-risk, I should have said 'being a martyr'. While many high-risk behaviors might be more attractive to psychopaths than they would be to 'normal' people (due to impulsivity, lack of behavioral control, lack of empathy, etc.), something like strapping a bomb to oneself with guaranteed death would likely be less appealing to a psychopath than a 'normal person' (due to their narcissistic tendencies, and shallow emotion preventing fanatical belief in the cause). Since most terrorist actions are based on a certain amount of planning, which eliminates the element of impulsive violence, whether it's appealing or not probably depends on the flavor of psychopath (which qualities they're weighted towards within Factor 1 or 2, etc).

I'm not a huge fan of the DSM-IV equating psychopathy with ASPD, for a number of reasons. ASPD deals with a smaller amount of factors, and might as well just be called 'being a criminal', since the vast majority of felons meet its criteria. However, only around 20% of inmates meet the standards for psychopathy as set in the PCL-R , and there's been demonstrably strong correlation between PCL-R results and violent recidivism. Luckily, it looks like the people working on the DSM-V are planning on returning some emphasis to the traditional psychopathic factors.

As for insanity, I had switched from medical to legal thinking. Psychopaths can't plead insanity in court, therefore, in the eyes of the law, they aren't insane.

If this thread were anything but a religion thread, I'd feel bad for making such an off-topic post.

Edit: No longer off topic.

They are not bombing clinics because they want to increase the ranks of orphanages. They're bombing clinics because their god says it's evil, just as these muslims are doing over this book.

Christians who bomb clinics don't give a flying **** about the mothers...they don't care whether it's murder or not, hell I bet they don't even think about it at all. They just think "Oooo, my little bible here says abortion be bad, therefore these doctors are evil ****s"

To be honest, while I've never met someone who's blown up a clinic (I doubt anyone else here has either though), I have met, and talked at length, with people who are extremely anti-abortion. None of them have said anything about how 'the bible says it's wrong'. What they say to me is something along the lines of 'A fetus is a child, abortion doctors kill fetuses, therefore abortion doctors are killing children. This is obviously a bad thing.'

Considering they'd have nothing to gain by making up a pretend thought process, I'd be inclined to believe that you're making unwarranted, if not flat out wrong, assumptions to justify a point. The clinic bombers say they're blowing up people who kill babies. The people killing UN workers say they're killing some random westerners because some other westerner burned some books. Both are terrible things to do, but it's blindingly obvious that one group is more easily provoked (or at least is happy to use less as an excuse).

Tommycat
04-09-2011, 11:31 AM
They are not bombing clinics because they want to increase the ranks of orphanages. They're bombing clinics because their god says it's evil, just as these muslims are doing over this book.

Christians who bomb clinics don't give a flying **** about the mothers...they don't care whether it's murder or not, hell I bet they don't even think about it at all. They just think "Oooo, my little bible here says abortion be bad, therefore these doctors are evil ****s"

No, Their god says killing is evil, and they feel that killing a killer is defending the future babies from that killing. You must not know many pro-lifers. None of the ones I know think like that. Hell I even knew one that tried to blow up a clinic(He's in jail now). Your assessment of their motives couldn't be further from the truth. I think you might be surprised how many of them are not even Christians(as if Christians have some lock on being anti-abortion). In fact one friend of mine that's anti-abortion is *gasp* an atheist. And she's possibly the most likely of my friends to actually do something...

Not only that, BUT when the anti-abortion nuts kill, they kill the abortion doctors. When these Muslim nuts kill, they kill some random individuals that have no connection to the book burner except maybe a few shared geographical ties.

jonathan7
04-14-2011, 07:23 AM
Ok guys, quick couple of questions for you all...

How many of you have been to the Middle East? How many of you know Muslims? There is a claim in this thread that the rioters would have killed for another reason even if the Qur’ān hadn't been burned, but while partially true I think this is a gross simplification and that burning the Qur’ān will have turned Muslims previously against killing Westerners for it. Put it another way do you have any idea how provocative burning a Qur’ān is to the Muslim psyche?

Or to frame it as to how provocative this was to Muslims, it would be the similar to the Western mind set if a Muslim took a white baby and burned it alive... That's how shocking that is to a Muslim. (I'm not saying this is right, before I have rants about why that is wrong, we are agreed, but I'm trying to convey just how shocking an act this was).

“Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people" -- Heinrich Heine

Now, I'm affraid I find it logically incoherent that burning a book is "Freedom of Speech" - burning a book is the very antithesis of freedom of speech. This maybe a difference between how one defines "Freedom of Speech". It would seem to me Freedom of Speech is about being "constructive" that is to say an individual has the freedom to speak his mind, however an individual does not have the right to act out his mind. Burning a book is just a destructive act... Though out of interest for all those who have argued for the right to burn books, if an Individual argued that paedophilia is ok and should be allowed, what you say?

Burning a book is an action, freedom of speech is the ability to say whatever an individual thinks, so if an Individual wanted to slate any religion, its Holy book I would fully support that right. I will however NEVER ever support the burning of any book, even if I vehemently disagree with the contents of that book. I actually think that the burning of books goes completely against Freedom of Speech... But there we go.

purifier
04-14-2011, 01:18 PM
^^I'm suprise nobody's responded to your post yet, J7. However, I do want to point out something that you're trying to make a comparison to.


Burining a "white baby" is not the same as burning a book, even if the book is holier-than-thou. A human baby is a living entity that is conscious, he/she is alive, moving, etc. A book is not alive, it's a inanimated object, a thing, material bound together used for a personal purpose.

And if Muslim extremists were to commit that act, burning a white baby, they'd know morally damn well what the difference is; know matter how much justification they try to reason it with. Deep down in every fiber of their being, they know what is really right and what is really wrong. To say otherwise, would mean that they are all ignorant and I don't believe that one damn bit! They are just as intelligent as the rest of us, they know the difference.

But of course this Terry Jones fellow is no better, his burning Qur’ān books is more than just a moral problem, it's also plain ignorance. It's like burning some country's flag, just to get back at them. But it's minor, compared to killing people over a book J7.



And here is another thing, if we were to kill anybody anytime they burned our American flag, then we would be no better than they are. But that's it, isn't it? You don't see us doing that, especially Muslim extremists when they burn our flag, we don't go after them for that specific reason. Why? Because were a little more civil in our thinking, than their mentality or way of thinking, even though the American flag is a sacred object to a lot of U.S. Citizens. For most of us it represents a lot things, freedom most of all, but when someone burns the U.S. flag (even in this country) we all don't go killing them because of it.

Big difference J7, big difference.

Astor
04-14-2011, 01:28 PM
I'm sure many of those who were rioting and even killing were angry about the burning of the Qur'an, but I wonder how many of them were just as angry over this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/us-army-kill-team-afghanistan-posed-pictures-murdered-civilians).

The killings of those UN staff is reprehensible, and while I'm not trying to defend those responsible, it's not surprising at all.

Totenkopf
04-14-2011, 02:19 PM
I have to wonder how many people would be making excuses for violent reactions by Christians, Jews and others if the books being burned were Bibles, Torahs, etc.. Problem with many of the muslim states (at least in the mid East/Africa) is that they have regressed over the last several centuries. If Christianity, and specifically Catholicism, can be smeared for the acts of individuals w/in it's ranks.....or whole nations as in the case of Germany/Japan during WW2....then the muslims as a group are fair game. Fact is, extremist Isalm is as much a problem for muslims as for the rest of the world...likely even worse. Are ALL muslims evil? No more than people in any ethnic, religious or other group. However, they are going to suffer by association for the sins of people w/in their group.....at least till they're seen taking higher profile actions to stamp out the radicals wherever they raise their ugly heads.

As to the whole abortion side issue......when Christian groups start blowing up clinincs with people in them and slaughtering people in large numbers, then you'll have an argument.

mimartin
04-14-2011, 02:31 PM
While I agree with most of your argument Totenkopf (hey it happens), I do disagree with the assigning a number criteria to saying something is more or less wrong. One death is one too many. I do think we should assign blame to who is to blame and not an entire group unless that group is condoning the actions of the individuals.

As to Terry Jones, Congress should reenact the draft, draft Terry Jones and send him to Afghanistan. (no, I'm not a forgive and forget person)

jonathan7
04-14-2011, 02:33 PM
^^I'm suprise nobody's responded to your post yet, J7. However, I do want to point out something that you're trying to make a comparison to.


Burining a "white baby" is not the same as burning a book, even if the book is holier-than-thou. A human baby is a living entity that is conscious, he/she is alive, moving, etc. A book is not alive, it's a inanimated object, a thing, material bound together used for a personal purpose.

And if Muslim extremists were to commit that act, burning a white baby, they'd know morally damn well what the difference is; know matter how much justification they try to reason it with. Deep down in every fiber of their being, they know what is really right and what is really wrong. To say otherwise, would mean that they are all ignorant and I don't believe that one damn bit! They are just as intelligent as the rest of us, they know the difference.

But of course this Terry Jones fellow is no better, his burning Qur’ān books is more than just a moral problem, it's also plain ignorance. It's like burning some country's flag, just to get back at them. But it's minor, compared to killing people over a book J7.

But this is where the clashes of cultures come, you've missed the entire point of what I was trying to point out. I would agree that killing a baby is entirely secondary to a book. But I was trying to convey is just how shocking an act this was to a Muslim - I speak as someone who works in the Middle East. We are agreed that it's wrong for them to riot and kill over this, and WE think there is a difference between a book and a person. But devout Muslims will have been shocked, offended and extremely angered by the act...

And here is another thing, if we were to kill anybody anytime they burned our American flag, then we would be no better than they are. But that's it, isn't it? You don't see us doing that, especially Muslim extremists when they burn our flag, we don't go after them for that specific reason. Why? Because were a little more civil in our thinking, than their mentality or way of thinking, even though the American flag is a sacred object to a lot of U.S. Citizens. For most of us it represents a lot things, freedom most of all, but when someone burns the U.S. flag (even in this country) we all don't go killing them because of it.

Different cultures, but as I've SARCASTICALLY QUIPPED to one of my Muslim friends why has God given the West all the Nuclear weapons? If roles were reversed would Muslim nations be as tolerant as the west is with them? Answer is plainly no, we could send the entire Middle East back to the stone age, but of course we never would...

I'm sure many of those who were rioting and even killing were angry about the burning of the Qur'an, but I wonder how many of them were just as angry over this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/us-army-kill-team-afghanistan-posed-pictures-murdered-civilians).

They would of actually been more angry over the burning of the Qur’ān.

The killings of those UN staff is reprehensible, and while I'm not trying to defend those responsible, it's not surprising at all.

Agreed.

I have to wonder how many people would be making excuses for violent reactions by Christians, Jews and others if the books being burned were Bibles, Torahs, etc.. Problem with many of the muslim states (at least in the mid East/Africa) is that they have regressed over the last several centuries. If Christianity, and specifically Catholicism, can be smeared for the acts of individuals w/in it's ranks.....or whole nations as in the case of Germany/Japan during WW2....then the muslims as a group are fair game. Fact is, extremist Isalm is as much a problem for muslims as for the rest of the world...likely even worse. Are ALL muslims evil? No more than people in any ethnic, religious or other group. However, they are going to suffer by association for the sins of people w/in their group.....at least till they're seen taking higher profile actions to stamp out the radicals wherever they raise their ugly heads.

As to the whole abortion side issue......when Christian groups start blowing up clinincs with people in them and slaughtering people in large numbers, then you'll have an argument.

Tot, I'm not trying to make excuses for them, but if you go into a field with an angry bull do you go over to it wearing red and wind it up?

Primogen
04-14-2011, 04:33 PM
God gave the west all the Nuclear Weapons?

*Looks at Russia*

*Looks at China*

*Looks at Israel.*

*Looks at Pakistan and India.*

Am I missing something here?

Anyway, no, the killings are not surprising. Radical Islam makes Hannibal Lecter look well-adjusted. They don't -need- an excuse to kill westerners. They've got it into their heads that we're the product of Iblis or Shaitan or whoever knocking up a pack of wild goats or some crap like that - I imagine our little manipulations of the Middle-East back during the Cold War didn't do us any favors in that department.

Anyway, what Terry Jones did was within his rights and let's all be honest, he's a scapegoat. If it hadn't been him burning the Qur'an, they'd have done it because Shaitan copulated with a pack of goats and that's how westerners were created.

Totenkopf
04-14-2011, 04:45 PM
While I agree with most of your argument Totenkopf (hey it happens), I do disagree with the assigning a number criteria to saying something is more or less wrong. One death is one too many. I do think we should assign blame to who is to blame and not an entire group unless that group is condoning the actions of the individuals.


Actually, wasn't assigning a number to assess wrongness of an act...murder is bad whether you murder 1 or 100....but addressing the problem in terms of scope. If someone kills one one person, that's a problem.....if they kill 100s, that's a bigger problem. Not saying, either, that it's inherently fair to blame a group for the actions of one/some members.....just that it's human to do so. But as I indicated in my examples, I no more blame the non-radicalized muslim for the acts of the islamists than I do all Germans for the Holocaust or all Catholics for the Inquisition.


As to Terry Jones, Congress should reenact the draft, draft Terry Jones and send him to Afghanistan. (no, I'm not a forgive and forget person)
:devsmoke:

Tot, I'm not trying to make excuses for them, but if you go into a field with an angry bull do you go over to it wearing red and wind it up?

The comment was more a general observation. Not aimed at you (I don't believe you actually think their violent reactions are ok), but much of the media does often allow itself to get caught up in a sort of knee jerk rationalization of radical muslim violence that they would not do for christians, jews, etc.. Many times it's the "blame the US/West first" crowd. I agree that if you're going into another country/culture to fight a war, the whole hearts and minds strategy would dictate some degree of sensitivity. However, violating "free speech rights" (if you ban burning a Koran....how about the flag, bras, Bible, etc...) in civilian society to mollify people who hate your guts in most cases anyway, seems counterproductive. While I won't go quite so far as mimi in calling for an Act of Congress to draft his butt into Afghanistan, treating him like a pariah is fine in my book. I agree that it's a clash of cultures, but we really shouldn't radically abandon our own values b/c our eneny doesn't approve of them. Those 7th century throwbacks (the radicals) have to realize that we're not going to regress too, just to make them feel more comfortable.

purifier
04-14-2011, 04:52 PM
I'm sure many of those who were rioting and even killing were angry about the burning of the Qur'an, but I wonder how many of them were just as angry over this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/us-army-kill-team-afghanistan-posed-pictures-murdered-civilians).

The killings of those UN staff is reprehensible, and while I'm not trying to defend those responsible, it's not surprising at all.

Probably about as many americans were angry over this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02recruit.html) and similar incidents in the past. So it continues in a vicious circle doesn't it?




But this is where the clashes of cultures come, you've missed the entire point of what I was trying to point out. I would agree that killing a baby is entirely secondary to a book. But I was trying to convey is just how shocking an act this was to a Muslim - I speak as someone who works in the Middle East. We are agreed that it's wrong for them to riot and kill over this, and WE think there is a difference between a book and a person. But devout Muslims will have been shocked, offended and extremely angered by the act...



Different cultures, but as I've asked one of my Muslim friends why has God given the West all the Nuclear weapons? If roles were reversed would Muslim nations be as tolerant as the west is with them? Answer is plainly no, we could send the entire Middle East back to the stone age, but of course we never would...

BIG difference in culture, yes I know and I agree. I'm not missing the point your making, as a matter of fact, we can leave out the shock of burning babys as the example you made, and just go with burning our flag versus their Qur’ān. To clarify, the emotion behind these acts is just as equal for us concerning the burning of our flag, which is angry and resentful just like the extremist Muslims.

I'm sure there are many Americans who were just as shocked and angry to see their country's flag go up in flames, as many times as extremist Muslims have commited the act. Like I mentioned before, the American flag is a sacred object to a lot of U.S. Citizens and for most of us it represents a lot things. I'll bet you most Americans were (and probably still are) angry and resentful of extremist Muslims committing such an act to what we believe in. Yet when someone burns the U.S. flag, we don't go killing them for it, we don't kill peaceful Musilims or any kind of Musilim here on our soil, just because were so pissed off and shocked at the extremist burning our flag. Of course there are always a few U.S. citizens who make threats like the extremist Muslims, but you never hear any Americans carry out that threat just because of that. So far, only the extremist Muslims have carried out their threats of death.

This is not apples and oranges J7, same issue, they burn something sacred to us, Terry Jones burns something sacred to them (although I believe he knows better than to do crap like that and somebody should smack him). The only difference is, they kill as many of us as they can because of it. Deep down in the pit of their Musilim souls, they know better.

Astor
04-14-2011, 05:04 PM
Probably about as many americans were angry over this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02recruit.html) and similar incidents in the past. So it continues in a vicious circle doesn't it?

I don't understand what that has to do with Afghanistan. I offered the 'Kill Team' debacle as a possible, non-religious, catalyst for the riots going on there.

jonathan7
04-14-2011, 05:12 PM
God gave the west all the Nuclear Weapons?

Why is it that a quick sarcastic quip I made at a radical Muslim gets twisted into a "serious" point quickly? The general point was that (with the exception of Pakistan) no Muslim nations (especially those with extremists in charge) have weapons... That was the only point, I wasn't actually claiming God gave anyone weapons as I don't think God favours any nation over another. Perhaps I should be even ****ing more neutral and say if there is a said deity he doesn't favour one nation over. For ****s sake....

I think I may give up ever posting in Kavars given the amount of times anything you say either gets twisted or entirely mis-interpreted.

However, violating "free speech rights" (if you ban burning a Koran....how about the flag, bras, Bible, etc...) in civilian society to mollify people who hate your guts in most cases anyway, seems counterproductive.

Just to point out Tot and Purifier, as far as I was aware burning the US flag is illegal in the US, isn't that a violation of Freedom of Speech? Of course I think flag burning is pathetic, but to be honest I'm not fussed if someone burns the UK flag, but perhaps thats just me.

In any case you Terry Jones it seems to me, did something which directly triggered events which cost numerous people their lives. I'll stick with my original assessment of this as "not sure I see the difference between this, and say starving a big dog, winding it up and then releasing it on the general public. Not that I think he will, but I really don't see the difference between these two scenarios."

mimartin
04-14-2011, 05:13 PM
Sorry Totenkopf, I wasn't clear. I understood you were not blaming all. I was just stating my position.

If someone kills one one person, that's a problem.....if they kill 100s, that's a bigger problem. I still cannot agree with you. Drunk driving is a major problem. However, the drunk driver that murdered someone I cared about around 23 years ago is an even bigger problem, at least to me.

So if it is someone you love or care about then even one preventable death is major.

Primogen
04-14-2011, 05:26 PM
Don't get upset when I point out that you said something that's blatantly incorrect. I didn't misinterpret anything, you said 'God gave the west all the Nuclear Weapons' when it's pretty much completely untrue.

And no, flag burning is not illegal. The Supreme Court made a ruling on it. It disgusts me, much like when people burn the Bible, but it's still legal.

And it's not so much a starving dog as a raving psychotic dog that's looking for an excuse to cut some more westerner heads off. Terry Jones has nothing to do with what happened except he's a convenient scapegoat. Radical Islam doesn't need a reason or excuse to kill westerners. Remember that time they commandeered a bunch of airliners and flew them into buildings? What prompted that? Ooh! Maybe we should find some other things our enemies do and blame American citizens exercising their rights guaranteed to them by the constitution for it.

Liverandbacon
04-14-2011, 05:29 PM
Ok guys, quick couple of questions for you all..

Ok, sure.

How many of you have been to the Middle East?

I have. The first time was a trip I took during university in 2000, and ever since then, I've been going to various countries in the region for long periods of time. I was in the region not long ago, and still would be if I hadn't been injured and required surgery. It's quite likely that when I finish physical therapy and regain required fitness, I'll be heading right back. I'm certainly not ignorant regarding that part of the world.

How many of you know Muslims?

I know a bunch, of all types. I have a number of good Muslim friends from my time in university. Some I met studying there, others on the trip in 2000. Around 9/11, despite not knowing if my dad, who worked near the WTC, was alive or dead (I couldn't easily contact my family from my uni in England), I remained friends with them (and pretty much told them that I didn't see their religion as any better or worse than any other, but I would very much like to gut all of their fanatics). I've also worked with Muslim allies in the Middle East, many of whom are great guys that want to do the right thing for their country's people, and probably hate jihadists even more than I do. And finally, I've met the worst kind Muslim, but those that are captured, not killed, aren't really there for a debate on religion. So I'm also not ignorant about the different flavors of Muslim, and how they think.

There is a claim in this thread that the rioters would have killed for another reason even if the Qur’ān hadn't been burned, but while partially true I think this is a gross simplification and that burning the Qur’ān will have turned Muslims previously against killing Westerners for it. Put it another way do you have any idea how provocative burning a Qur’ān is to the Muslim psyche?

Or to frame it as to how provocative this was to Muslims, it would be the similar to the Western mind set if a Muslim took a white baby and burned it alive... That's how shocking that is to a Muslim. (I'm not saying this is right, before I have rants about why that is wrong, we are agreed, but I'm trying to convey just how shocking an act this was).

I disagree with this. The only Muslims not already killing Westerners who this would 'provoke' into doing so are those who maybe weren't for it, but definitely weren't against it before. The only Muslims who would start killing Westerners were already on the fence about it, meaning they were already fanatical enough to consider it, and therefore would more often than not start eventually anyway. Any Muslim who kills Westerners, and claims that they were against killing Westerners (thought it was wrong, wouldn't consider doing it) before a Qur'an burning, is telling a bald-faced lie.

The Muslims I've met who were actually against killing random Westerners (some of them even hate Westerners, but think murdering them would be wrong), would beat the crap out of Terry Jones if they met him, but don't think of it as a legitimate reason to start killing people whose only similarity to the pastor is the fact that they come from a developed country (not just Americans, and even that would be idiocy). I assume you must be basing this on the Muslims you know, and if you know Muslims, who claim to be 'against' (again, different from ambivalent) killing Westerners, but could be moved to kill them by a Qur'an burning, you're hanging out with the wrong type of Muslim.

Comparing it to burning a baby alive is eliminating a substantial number of more sensible Muslims who see taking the life of a child as more serious than burning a book. I'm really starting to worry about the type of people you're working with. Anyway, even if it were a valid comparison, it doesn't really hurt my argument. Plenty of babies have been killed by Muslim extremists. Since I can't be bothered to go and find every record of babies being killed by a Muslim (not always fanatics, since some murders are obviously non-religiously motivated), I'll give the most blindingly obvious example. Multiple babies (and older children and adults) were killed by Islamic terrorists on 9/11. Unlike the Qur'an burning, of course, 9/11 was planned and helped along by a very large number of people (instead of 1), thousands of people were killed (instead of what seems to be 1 Qur'an only being burnt, certainly not many), and there was easily available footage of countless Muslims celebrating (instead of footage of Americans condemning the action). Despite these differences, which would indicate that 9/11 would get an even worse response (even if you consider a baby to us on par with a Qur'an to a Muslim), the vast majority of Americans were not in favor of killing every single Muslim. Most of the people who did want violence (and there were plenty who didn't), wanted to find and kill only those responsible, and those who wished to help them. This would be akin to Terry Jones burning masses of Qur'ans, and people only wanting to kill him, and any other Westerners who burnt the Qur'an.

I knew that it was quite likely (my dad was very lucky that day) that the pieces of **** who'd hit the WTC had killed my own dad, yet I only wanted to kill those responsible, not all Muslims. I like to live under the assumption that people with a different (read: any) religion aren't my inferiors, but if they were really incapable of understanding who should be held accountable for a crime (let alone the degree of the crime), they would be unquestionably inferior. Luckily, my experience with Muslims has shown me that this is not the case. Which again brings me to the fact that I really worry about the Muslims you've been dealing with.

Also, the fact that Muslims rioting, killing, etc., burnt far more Qur'ans than Jones ever did demonstrates quite clearly that they really aren't rioting or killing because they give two ****s about the Qur'an. They're doing it because they hate Westerners.

jonathan7
04-14-2011, 05:52 PM
@Primogen, I have nothing further to say to you, I really can't be bothered with your type and furthermore don't respond to my posts I'm not interested in your thoughts on any subject.

I know a bunch, of all types. I have a number of good Muslim friends from my time in university. Some I met studying there, others on the trip in 2000. Around 9/11, despite not knowing if my dad, who worked near the WTC, was alive or dead (I couldn't easily contact my family from my uni in England), I remained friends with them (and pretty much told them that I didn't see their religion as any better or worse than any other, but I would very much like to gut all of their fanatics). I've also worked with Muslim allies in the Middle East, many of whom are great guys that want to do the right thing for their country's people, and probably hate jihadists even more than I do. And finally, I've met the worst kind Muslim, but those that are captured, not killed, aren't really there for a debate on religion. So I'm also not ignorant about the different flavors of Muslim, and how they think.

And interesting post :) Just to clarify L&B, I have a range of Muslim friends too; ranging from radicals (think I'd call them more acquaintances) to good friends who are liberal Muslims.

I'll also concede the whole baby burning thing was not a good example, I was going for something extremely emotive (and being British flag burning isn't that too me) but it was clearly a bad example.

I disagree with this. The only Muslims not already killing Westerners who this would 'provoke' into doing so are those who maybe weren't for it, but definitely weren't against it before. The only Muslims who would start killing Westerners were already on the fence about it, meaning they were already fanatical enough to consider it, and therefore would more often than not start eventually anyway. Any Muslim who kills Westerners, and claims that they were against killing Westerners (thought it was wrong, wouldn't consider doing it) before a Qur'an burning, is telling a bald-faced lie.

See I'd disagree right back at you and here is the rational. People don't generally start out as fanatics... Agreed? In the UK there has been a concerning trend of well educated (to University level) Muslims getting sucked into extremism. How does this happen? Obviously they fall in with wrong people, but other things surely happen too... So what does Qur’ān burning do when thrown in? It seems to me it can only do one thing, which is to push people further down the road to extremism, obviously it is a journey but Terry Jones will be directly responsible for helping Muslims who become radicalised on that journey.

The Muslims I've met who were actually against killing random Westerners (some of them even hate Westerners, but think murdering them would be wrong), would beat the crap out of Terry Jones if they met him, but don't think of it as a legitimate reason to start killing people whose only similarity to the pastor is the fact that they come from a developed country (not just Americans, and even that would be idiocy).

Most of my Muslim friends would fall into the above category, though most don't hate Westerners.

If you know Muslims, wherever it is in the Middle East you're working, who claim to be 'against' (again, different from ambivalent) killing Westerners, but could be moved to kill them by a Qur'an burning, you're hanging out with the wrong type of Muslim.

Aid work doesn't involve picking and choosing ;)

Comparing it to burning a baby alive is eliminating a substantial number of more sensible Muslims who see taking the life of a child as more serious than burning a book.

This was more me trying to pick a very emotive subject which would cause a large emotive response, rather than it being trying to pick a necessarily like for like example. Certainly with my Muslim friends involved in Philosophy they would certainly agree with the point you have just made, although the vast majority of those that react in such a way do not come from very educated backgrounds....

I knew that it was quite likely (my dad was very lucky that day) that the pieces of **** who'd hit the WTC had killed my own dad, yet I only wanted to kill those responsible, not all Muslims. I like to live under the assumption that people with a different (read: any) religion aren't my inferiors, but if they were really incapable of understanding who should be held accountable for a crime (let alone the degree of the crime), they would be unquestionably inferior. Luckily, my experience with Muslims has shown me that this is not the case. Which again brings me to the fact that I really worry about the Muslims you've been dealing with.

I think part of your worrying is your assuming the majority of my friends are like that when they are not. But the concern is over what causes radicalism, and obviously there are multiple factors this one does not help.

Also, the fact that Muslims rioting, killing, etc., burnt far more Qur'ans than Jones ever did demonstrates quite clearly that they really aren't rioting or killing because they give two ****s about the Qur'an. They're doing it because they hate Westerners.

That's an interesting point, although it would not of been a deliberate act of burning...

Primogen
04-14-2011, 07:11 PM
Too bad, don't really care if you're not interested in my thoughts. I think your belief that the West - or anyone besides the perpetrators - can be blamed for the actions of radical psychotic Muslims is repugnant.

Anyone who can be enticed into killing innocent people to make a point has been morally bankrupt for some time. The fact that you even try to blame Terry Jones for the actions of these guys is frankly disgusting. Their actions don't even make sense! Terry Jones burns a Qur'an, therefore a bunch of other westerners deserve to die? That makes the same amount of sense as the people who say that we should destroy the entire Middle-East as revenge over 9/11.

Totenkopf
04-14-2011, 07:20 PM
Sorry Totenkopf, I wasn't clear. I understood you were not blaming all. I was just stating my position.

I still cannot agree with you. Drunk driving is a major problem. However, the drunk driver that murdered someone I cared about around 23 years ago is an even bigger problem, at least to me.

So if it is someone you love or care about then even one preventable death is major.

I take your meaning, but am talking about at the "big picture" level. Personal loss always hurts (even devestates) at the individual level, but for society as a whole it is still a singular event......no matter how privately painful.

@J7--I'd agree it's incredibly stupid, but even offensive pos's like the Nazi party and KKK types are allowed to express themselves in the US. I guess you could say that Shep's advice to Garrus in ME sums it up.....you can't control what others will do, just how you react. It seems to me that the radicals are pre-provoked and need little if any incentive to act. All anyone can do is try to be vigiliant and stop them.

mimartin
04-14-2011, 07:56 PM
I take your meaning, but am talking about at the "big picture" level. Personal loss always hurts (even devestates) at the individual level, but for society as a whole it is still a singular event......no matter how privately painful.

My point is any loss of life is going to be personal for someone. I'm not meaning to sound selfish, because that is the complete opposite of what I’m trying to convey. Every victim is someone’s son, daughter, mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousin, wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend…. or friend…. so every loss is going to be extremely personal for that person and is always going to be the major problem to them.

I just find it silly to tell someone there loss is less horrific than another person’s loss because there are less people involved.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just my personal view.

I think your belief that the West - or anyone besides the perpetrators - can be blamed for the actions of radical psychotic Muslims is repugnant. I strongly believe in a person is responsible for their own actions. However, have you ever wondered why radical Muslims hate the west so much? Study a little history of U.S. involvement in the region. Tell me, if history was reversed and they did the same things on our soil to our people, how would we feel about them? While I don’t believe that it reason enough to kill another human, I do not think the west or the United States is by any means innocent.

Darth Avlectus
04-14-2011, 08:36 PM
Ok I really could not let this one by.


Now, I'm affraid I find it logically incoherent that burning a book is "Freedom of Speech" - burning a book is the very antithesis of freedom of speech. This maybe a difference between how one defines "Freedom of Speech". It would seem to me Freedom of Speech is about being "constructive" that is to say an individual has the freedom to speak his mind, however an individual does not have the right to act out his mind.

Just clarifying:
The freedom of speech is, in all its capacity, to allow* to a degree even that which may seem destructive to it. IIRC re: Holocaust denier "nut" in the catholic church, you said something to me on the order of, if the man is such a nut he should at least be allowed enough freedom to speak so that way it is out in the open for all to see. Much like the saying "give them enough rope to hang themselves with".

*All this to a point, obviously as you say, that other people are only disturbed and insulted by such sentiments and expression, not harmed, smeared, or slandered in any real way.

Burning a book is just a destructive act... Though out of interest for all those who have argued for the right to burn books, if an Individual argued that paedophilia is ok and should be allowed, what you say?
I disagree with your moral equivalence of child rape to book burning.
Both are an act, yes, but I think you have equivocated them falsely.

To burn a book is destructive, ignorant, and in this case is obviously intended to be antagonistic; I am taking nothing away from that trauma which devout moslems would feel at such an act.

Child rape, on the other hand, is much much much more terrible than trauma felt than insult by symbolic destruction/defacing/desecration/etc. Though I see your point that its generated outrage is similar in some ways, it far, far exceeds that in many more ways. It is actually physically harming someone in a VERRRY real way on top of the insult generated by the act causing traumas psychologically, spiritually, mentally and emotionally. For the victim (and quite possibly and likely those close to the victim) it is a lifelong wound being opened up. A wound that NEVER EVER completely heals--people can completely heal from the scars of witnessing the burning of a holy book.

Now I am not arguing it is necessarily right to burn a book (though this is my first post in this thread). It is ignorant and distasteful to do. However, there are differing degrees of what is inappropriate. Burning a book is destructive and antagonistic; sexually assaulting a child on the other hand is a disgusting reprehensible faux pas that is several orders of magnitude beyond book burning.

Burning a book is an action, freedom of speech is the ability to say whatever an individual thinks, so if an Individual wanted to slate any religion, its Holy book I would fully support that right. I will however NEVER ever support the burning of any book, even if I vehemently disagree with the contents of that book. I actually think that the burning of books goes completely against Freedom of Speech... But there we go.

I tolerate such ignorance because it makes an example out of the person doing it. Though it is really bad and psychologically damaging it is little next to what one suffers from being sexually abused.

Sorry if this rant seems a little heated but I really can't believe you, of all people, equivocated those two things.

Primogen
04-14-2011, 09:06 PM
I'm not saying the West is God's land, populated with those with the blood of angels and kings, the favored people of Jesus Christ, yadda yadda yadda. I don't believe that, I had my jingoistic America Is Awesome phase when I was sixteen. I know a little bit (And I do mean a -little- bit) about what went on in the Middle-East, like our funding of the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the Cold War and our collection of excesses like Abu Ghraib more recently.

I can understand why a lot of people over there despise the West. But there's a pretty big difference between trying to right a wrong and just committing mass murder.

My point being that there are people in the West who have things to answer for, for what they did to the people of places like Afghanistan. But I don't think anyone but those who directly were involved can be blamed for an action like 9/11, any more so than anyone but the perpetrators can be blamed for the cruelties at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

mimartin
04-14-2011, 09:44 PM
I can understand why a lot of people over there despise the West. But there's a pretty big difference between trying to right a wrong and just committing mass murder.Not that big of a difference when we have supported dictators that mass murder their own people.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” I hope we have learned that sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy.

Tommycat
04-14-2011, 09:53 PM
I think I may give up ever posting in Kavars given the amount of times anything you say either gets twisted or entirely mis-interpreted.

Hi, and welcome to the internet. You must be new here :D

I think the reality of this thread is simply that we all feel that burning the book was wrong. I dislike the burning of books in general. What we find more reprehensible is the response. Killing a person goes far and beyond reasonable. A book can be replaced. A life cannot. Nobody here is saying that they shouldn't be angry. Of course they should. But I know I would respect them more if they didn't actually end up proving the anti-muslim groups right. in that the religion is a bunch of murderers(I know it's not true, but the perception that they are inherently a violent religion isn't helped by people murdering over the book)

Working Class Hero
04-14-2011, 11:21 PM
No, Their god says killing is evil, and they feel that killing a killer is defending the future babies from that killing. I suppose you're correct. I apologize for comparing a book to a fetus, but my point that both religions go ape**** over perceived offenses is still valid, though Muslims take it to an entirely new level.

I think the reality of this thread is simply that we all feel that burning the book was wrong.I agree, we don't need any more air pollution. If I were him, I would have taken my dog for a walk and used its pages to pick up her ****.

Totenkopf
04-14-2011, 11:42 PM
Or, with the inevitable rise in heating costs, fuel your heater w/Quran's and keep your mouth shut about it (ie treat it like Vegas....whatever happens in your heater/fireplace stays there). :xp:

Liverandbacon
04-15-2011, 12:21 AM
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” I hope we have learned that sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy.

The first quote is one that has always bothered me. It's another overused, demonstrably untrue saying, like the similarly trite "Violence never solves anything."

Believing that two countries can ever be real 'friends' is absurd, since real friendship requires solid trust, and if a nation trusts another completely, it's already been annexed.

I prefer "The enemy of my enemy is a problem for later, to be watched carefully and used in the present."

Which is part of why I think we need to deal with the Libyan rebels cautiously, especially now that Al Qaeda has joined in. But I'm getting off-topic.

I think the reality of this thread is simply that we all feel that burning the book was wrong. ... What we find more reprehensible is the response.

Welcome to Kavar's: Even when we agree, we do it by disagreeing. :thmbup1:

purifier
04-15-2011, 01:14 AM
I don't understand what that has to do with Afghanistan. I offered the 'Kill Team' debacle as a possible, non-religious, catalyst for the riots going on there.


Okay, I thought you were looking at the violent actions of the "Kill Team" specifically. I was just giving you one of the possible reasons (the link to the article I posted as a example)they felt the need to commit those acts as some sort of revenge. And that's why I said: "So it continues in a vicious circle doesn't it?"

Anyway Astor, my bad, sorry for the confusion.




@J7--I'd agree it's incredibly stupid, but even offensive pos's like the Nazi party and KKK types are allowed to express themselves in the US. I guess you could say that Shep's advice to Garrus in ME sums it up.....you can't control what others will do, just how you react. It seems to me that the radicals are pre-provoked and need little if any incentive to act. All anyone can do is try to be vigiliant and stop them.


I think the reality of this thread is simply that we all feel that burning the book was wrong. I dislike the burning of books in general. What we find more reprehensible is the response. Killing a person goes far and beyond reasonable. A book can be replaced. A life cannot. Nobody here is saying that they shouldn't be angry. Of course they should. But I know I would respect them more if they didn't actually end up proving the anti-muslim groups right. in that the religion is a bunch of murderers(I know it's not true, but the perception that they are inherently a violent religion isn't helped by people murdering over the book)

@J7 Don't know what else say except what Tot and Tommycat said above pretty much sums up my belief on the matter as well. The extremist Muslims could of just turned around and burned some bibles as a simple retaliation, since they were shocked by Terry (I'm a idiot) Jones actions, but they didn't did they? They had to take it to the extreme and kill people for their own revengeful satisfaction. I don't like it when someone burns books either, but killing people over the burning of a book is beyond insanity and ignorance.

Mandalorian Knight
04-15-2011, 12:14 PM
Terry (I'm a idiot) Jones

This made my day. :lol:

mimartin
04-15-2011, 01:10 PM
The first quote is one that has always bothered me. It's another overused, demonstrably untrue saying, like the similarly trite "Violence never solves anything."It bothers me too and I do believe the proverb is untrue, but that does not mean the U.S. did not use it in their foreign policy before, during and after the Cold War. How else do you explain our alliance with the Soviet Union (before the Cold War), the Mujahideen (during the Cold War) and Saddam Hussein (during the Iran-Iraq War). I could list more, like the Contras, but you get my point.

hell we are still doing it in the middle east (and most likely other parts of the world).

Lord of Hunger
04-15-2011, 04:31 PM
A crazy burns a holy book.

Halfway across the world, a hundred or so crazies burn property and attack people.

Numerically speaking, the latter offense is worse.

Both are silly: How can you convict a book? A book is not a person, so unless he's convicting Mohammed or Allah the idea is completely silly. And if he did convict Mohammed and Allah, a deceased prophet and an interpretation of the divine, it's pointless because he doesn't even have "jurisdiction." And meanwhile, you have people getting angry over something that happened halfway across the world and taking it out on people who had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, they should remember that their own deity is the only true source of justice, so "Allah will take care of it!"

This is not religion, this is just insanity. Religion actually requires that you have to think about your belief before you act on it.

Primogen
04-15-2011, 04:56 PM
I think the idea behind burning the book was that the guy has gained a reasonable if possibly somewhat inaccurate perspective that Islam is kind of a hate-filled religion. They talk a lot about how they're a religion of peace, but the actions most people see behind those words are people committing mass murder in the name of their God.

Liverandbacon
04-15-2011, 05:12 PM
It bothers me too and I do believe the proverb is untrue, but that does not mean the U.S. did not use it in their foreign policy before, during and after the Cold War. How else do you explain our alliance with the Soviet Union (before the Cold War), the Mujahideen (during the Cold War) and Saddam Hussein (during the Iran-Iraq War). I could list more, like the Contras, but you get my point.

hell we are still doing it in the middle east (and most likely other parts of the world).

Yeah, but we never really treated them as friends. Even before the Cold War 'officially' began, the US and the Soviets were jockeying for position, watching each other very carefully. Neither was at all surprised that the other suddenly wasn't their 'friend' any more.

Again, just because the enemy of my enemy isn't really a friend, doesn't mean you can't take advantage of their short term usefulness. It's just important to make sure you're not helping them too much, and keep a very close eye on what they're doing. I can't really think of an 'enemy of my enemy', or any ally for that matter, that the US trusts enough not to keep an eye on (again, it's not just the US; I doubt any country has 100% trust in any of its allies). 'Alliance' is pretty much a fancy way of saying "Let's work towards this common goal. Meanwhile, I'll try to get as many favors from you as I can, and offer as few in return as I can get away with without a sharp decrease in what you give me." 'Enemy of my enemy' style alliances are this taken to the extreme.

It's all about balancing out attempts to maximize their usefulness with the precautions necessary to prevent them from becoming more of a threat than the one they helped eliminate. The US has made mistakes with this, often helping 'temporary allies' too much, creating a net increase in threat level. However, we generally have a pretty good track record in that regard.

mimartin
04-15-2011, 05:25 PM
Misunderstood you, I didn’t understand you too were arguing about semantics.

jrrtoken
04-15-2011, 06:28 PM
I think the idea behind burning the book was that the guy has gained a reasonable if possibly somewhat inaccurate perspective that Islam is kind of a hate-filled religion. They talk a lot about how they're a religion of peace, but the actions most people see behind those words are people committing mass murder in the name of their God.I think the problem is that both parties have reasoned that an acute, vocal minority must be representative of an entire religion, when in fact, they're probably just representative of a particular, radical ideology that is based on religious themes. Terry Jones certainly isn't representative of Christianity as a whole, and the Afghanis who rioted (or to be more accurate, the religious elite who espoused the violent rhetoric) certainly aren't representative of Islam as a whole.