Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

US burn Koran, 14 killed in retaliation


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 601
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

Bottom line is innocent people are dead because criminally irresponsible clerics of both religions insist on being complete Aholes.

It's not criminal to burn a book in the United States. No matter what you may think of the pastor, what he did, he was not "criminally" irresponsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

I hate to say it, but the comments on this thread are even stupider than I expected! I guess I was avoiding looking at this one for good reason. In the witless, compartmentalized minds here that think a religion can be neatly separated from culture and circumstances such as extreme poverty, and endless war, these killings are all about that other religion and nothing else!

These killings were about the burning of one Koran.

To start with, a little facts would be a big help here, and the story from AP informs us that three mullahs in particular, are believed to have played the crucial role in inciting a mob to demonstrate and look for revenge, when they led their followers out of the mosques and even drove around the city with loudspeakers inviting others to join the growing mob. They couldn't find Americans to take revenge on, so the UN became the 2nd choice. Nevertheless, the mob violence in a city in war-torn Afghanistan is enough for the usual Muslim-haters here to condemn every Muslim. Should we condemn all Christians in the world for the evangelical church mob in Uganda that burned an elderly man to death last year after accusing him of being a witch?

This isn't the first incident of Muslims rioting and/or killing people over insults to Islam (ie: drawings of Mohammad, burning a Koran). I'm not sure where "all Muslims" were "condemned" for these killings, however. Seems to me a lot of people saw this for exactly what it was. No excuses made. Your "facts" prove that they went out looking for Americans to take their revenge on -- for someone they didn't even know, not acting in any kind of official manner. When they couldn't find them, they just took their revenge on whoever they could find. According to your "facts." Burning a book. Revenge on people. And you seem to think that the ones taking revenge on people are the ones who deserve defending.

No doubt the resentment against years of U.S. military patrols and random bombings plays a part in the ease of inciting mob violence. Anyone here think that no one in that mob heard about the U.S. soldiers convicted of "sport hunting" Afghanis? Most likely, these three are not the exception to the rule, but merely among the few who were stupid enough to pose beside the dead bodies of their victims in "trophy" photos. I'm sure that really goes over well in any backward, religious society!

More excuses. They were protesting a Koran being burned. They didn't kill anyone when the news about the "trophy photos/killings" occurred. You speak of "facts," and then you project that these riots, these killings, were really about something else. Making excuses for their behavior. You then project that MORE of these types of killings likely go on. More excuses, based on your perception of what might go on.

Note that he was sentenced. It's not something that's condoned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

Yes he is, just not legally responsible.

No, he's not. That's your opinion and your opinion only. It's not based on any laws, any facts. He acted within his rights. That people then went off on a tangent, killing people, does not make him criminally responsible; any more than anyone burning a flag, setting a patriot into a frenzy, would be "criminally" responsible for the results.

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he's not. That's your opinion and your opinion only. It's not based on any laws, any facts. He acted within his rights. That people then went off on a tangent, killing people, does not make him criminally responsible; any more than anyone burning a flag, setting a patriot into a frenzy, would be "criminally" responsible for the results.

Agreed....the pastor is not criminaly responsible for the illegal actions of others. Save the hate speech mentality for Canada, where it might apply. It's like claiming that Neil Young was responsible for violent protests in the 1970's for writing lyrics that incited violence.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he's not. That's your opinion and your opinion only. It's not based on any laws, any facts. He acted within his rights. That people then went off on a tangent, killing people, does not make him criminally responsible; any more than anyone burning a flag, setting a patriot into a frenzy, would be "criminally" responsible for the results.

So basically you are saying that anything OK in the US has to be acceptable to the rest of the world. Or are you saying if butchering someone because the Koran was abused in some other country is legal there, you are OK with that as well? If he bares no responsibility for the results of his actions, why should anyone else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is innocent people are dead because criminally irresponsible so called clerics of both religions insist on being complete Aholes.

One guy bought and burned some paper. How's that anything close to killing somebody? You're talking like a crazy person.

Yes he is, just not legally responsible.

If I decide to kill a bunch of people because I hear about an abortion taking place. Is the doctor that preformed the abortion to blame? Should he be preforming abortions if he knows that many people find it an offensive practice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One guy bought and burned some paper. How's that anything close to killing somebody? You're talking like a crazy person.

Your opinion. This guy knew innocent people could die because of what he did, yet he did it anyway. He's a scumbag, pure and simple.

If I decide to kill a bunch of people because I hear about an abortion taking place. Is the doctor that preformed the abortion to blame? Should he be preforming abortions if he knows that many people find it an offensive practice?

Don't be rediculous. Abortions are consentual. If he was forcing people to have abortions, that would be another matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinion. This guy knew innocent people could die because of what he did, yet he did it anyway. He's a scumbag, pure and simple.

Being a scumbag is not illegal. No law has been broken and no external jurisdiction can indict or convict him for his actions.

His free speech rights as an American have been affirmed many times for like circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

So basically you are saying that anything OK in the US has to be acceptable to the rest of the world.

I'm saying that what happens in the United States is of no concern to the rest of the world. The pastor burned a copy of a book that he owned, perfectly legal within the U.S.; whether it's acceptable to people outside the U.S. is a non-issue. If others don't like it, if others react over it, do you think we need to change our laws to accomodate them? Do you think we should make our laws around the rest of the world's sensibilities? What about our feelings? Should Canada ban flag burning because it upsets some Americans? And if some Americans rioted over it, sought out other Canadians to take revenge on, and ended up killing people, would the flag burners be responsible? I'm asking again because you completely ignored it the first time around.

Or are you saying if butchering someone because the Koran was abused in some other country is legal there, you are OK with that as well?

What I'm saying is there is a huge difference between freedom of speech, freedom to burn a book, and butchering someone. Furthermore, I never said I was "ok" with what the pastor did. I said he was within his rights. And he was. I happen to think it was stupid. However, I agree with Obama: "....to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."

We don't base our laws on what someone on the other side of the world thinks any more than they base their laws on our feelings. Canada hasn't banned beef because India worships the cow. If a group in India were suddenly to take offense, would all those Albertan ranchers be criminally responsible for the results if they rioted and killed? Would Canada ban beef?

If he bares no responsibility for the results of his actions, why should anyone else?

When someone doesn't break the law, and another person does, it's the person breaking the law that bears responsibility for their actions. The pastor had the right to do something stupid. The people "seeking revenge" were the ones breaking the law. No one is responsible for that except themselves.

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinion. This guy knew innocent people could die because of what he did, yet he did it anyway. He's a scumbag, pure and simple.

Yep, he's a scumbag, exercising his constitutional rights. The problem is with idiot Muslims that give a shit about some paper being burned on the other side of the world.

Don't be rediculous. Abortions are consentual.

So what? The pastor burned his own property. That's consentual as well. If anything, the taking of a human life is much more offensive than the burning of some paper. Perhaps anti-abortionists just need to take a page out of the Islamist playbook. Perhaps if the anti-abortionists started killing more people on a regular basis, they earn the same appeasement status of our Muslim friends around the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone doesn't break the law, and another person does, it's the person breaking the law that bears responsibility for their actions. He has the right to do something stupid. The people "seeking revenge" were the ones breaking the law. No one is responsible for that except themselves.

That's definitely true, but only if you're holding everyone to the same standard. People like Wilber don't hold Muslims to the same standard they hold everyone else to. I don't think they could live with themselves if they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's definitely true, but only if you're holding everyone to the same standard. People like Wilber don't hold Muslims to the same standard they hold everyone else to. I don't think they could live with themselves if they did.

Nonsense. I'm not making excuses for the Muslims who did this. I'm saying that this guy intentionally did something that he knew could get innocent people killed, purely to suit his own objectives. That makes him a scumbag as far as I am concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. I'm not making excuses for the Muslims who did this. I'm saying that this guy intentionally did something that he knew could get innocent people killed, purely to suit his own objectives. That makes him a scumbag as far as I am concerned.

Sure, he's a "scumbag". So what? He's not a criminal. The people that are the criminals are those that carried out the murders.

He's also hardly the only one to burn a Koran, it's been done plenty, both in the US and elsewhere. Most times no one paid attention and nothing happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....He's also hardly the only one to burn a Koran, it's been done plenty, both in the US and elsewhere. Most times no one paid attention and nothing happened.

Yep...the inciting came from President Karzai for domestic political gain. I guess he is a "scumbag" too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. I'm not making excuses for the Muslims who did this. I'm saying that this guy intentionally did something that he knew could get innocent people killed, purely to suit his own objectives. That makes him a scumbag as far as I am concerned.

No, you absolutely are making excuses. Btw, was Theo Van Gogh a scumbag too?

It's his own fault right? He should have suspended his rights, and not made a movie. But instead he did it to suit his own objectives. :rolleyes:

You're disgusting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that what happens in the United States is of no concern to the rest of the world.

Then what happens in the rest of the world is no concern of the United States. Afraid your track record doesn't back that up. Not to say you haven't done a lot of good at times but that statement is pretty hypocritical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you absolutely are making excuses. Btw, was Theo Van Gogh a scumbag too?

It's his own fault right? He should have suspended his rights, and not made a movie. But instead he did it to suit his own objectives. :rolleyes:

You're disgusting.

Glad you brought Van Gogh up. This so called pastor wasn't making a movie, he wasn't trying to inform anyone, he was deliberately trying to offend. He sat in the safety of a country that protected his right to do something that would have got him killed elsewhere. Instead of maning up and accepting the consequences of his own actions, he let others do it without their consent. In fact he was probably hoping for something like this. That not only makes him a scumbag but a gutless scumbag to boot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he is, just not legally responsible.

The people responsible are the crazy religious nutters who attacked and murdered people. By trying to shift responsibility onto the Florida pastor you are at least partially excusing them and saying it wasn't their fault.

It WAS their fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically you are saying that anything OK in the US has to be acceptable to the rest of the world. Or are you saying if butchering someone because the Koran was abused in some other country is legal there, you are OK with that as well? If he bares no responsibility for the results of his actions, why should anyone else?

No one bears responsibility for the actions of others. Trying to hold him responsible for the actions of crazy people in Afghanistan is reverse bigotry. What you're saying is crazy Muslim savages have no control over their actions, and so will always react in the same violent way to the slightest perceived insult, even from the other side of the planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people responsible are the crazy religious nutters who attacked and murdered people. By trying to shift responsibility onto the Florida pastor you are at least partially excusing them and saying it wasn't their fault.

It WAS their fault.

He is a crazy religious nutter, the only difference is he couldn't get away with inciting people to murder in the US.

I'm not shifting responsibility, I'm saying he shares responsibility. Bottom line, he did it to get a reaction and if he hadn't burned that Koran, those people would still be alive. I hope goes to his grave understanding that but somehow I don't think he has that much conscience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you brought Van Gogh up. This so called pastor wasn't making a movie, he wasn't trying to inform anyone, he was deliberately trying to offend.

Actually, he was trying to inform people in a way. He's illustrating the complete bat-shit craziness of modern Islam. That still kills people over the burning of paper. Paper on the other side of the world, that doesn't belong to them. And luckily, nobody has the right not to be offended. If that were the case, good things like Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, South Park, Playboy and The Daily Show would have been criminalized years ago.

He sat in the safety of a country that protected his right to do something that would have got him killed elsewhere.

So what? Many things get you killed elsewhere. Just reading a bible in many Muslim countries will get you killed. That's why our societies are better. That's why curtailing people's rights and freedoms because of other people elsewhere is the wrong thing to do. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So a nut burns a Koran and people thousands of miles away die.

Seems President Karzai uses for his own political gain and incites the radicals with calls to arrest the nutjob in America.

Radical imans incite their congragations and lookie there. A few hundred whack jobs decide to protest.

The Taliban view this as an outstanding opportunity. Hiding within the demonstrations they launch a heinous terrorist attack on a UN compound.

The only "religious" aspect of this is that the "faith" of some really gullible and ignorant afghanis is exploited by politicians and terrorists.

The taliban achieve their goals. Terrorize the UN. Demonstrate to the world the "power of Islam" and create even more Islamophobia in the west, and fan the flames of hatred in the Islamic world towards the kafrs.

the preacher is just as ignorant as the afghani muslims that protested.

The UN moron who blames the preacher is just as ignorant as the preacher and the afghani muslims.

The media is just as ignorant as the preacher, the afghani muslims and the UN moron thinking that these murders had anything to do with burning a book.

Karzai isn't ignorant, he just a sleazy corrput politician who got what he wanted - "look at me, I'm no puppet of the great satan" and a US general has to apologize to the afghani people for a nutjob american's actions condoned by no one.

The taliban are ignorant scumbags, but they got what they wanted and judging from the posts on this thread, it seems Islamophobia gets a little more entrenched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...