PDA

View Full Version : Burning books in the US...'Burn Quran Day'


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

XT
08-20-2010, 01:58 PM
In light of the threads on the Mosque at Ground Zero controversy, I haven't seen anything on this, um, person's plan to hold a...it's hard for me to even credit this...a BOOK BURNING, on the anniversary of 9/11. Here (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/20/ahmed.quran.burning/index.html?hpt=C2) is a CNN article discussing this from the perspective of a Muslim scholar.

The pastor, author of the book "Islam is of the Devil," is using the burning to urge American Christians to "stand up" to what he describes as a monolithic Muslim threat. A Facebook page for the event has accrued thousands of "likes" and Jones has said people have been mailing him Qurans to burn.

As a Muslim scholar, an adherent of one of the Abrahamic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- and as someone committed to interfaith understanding, I urge Jones to cancel this event. Not only are the actions of Jones contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but they are also against the ideals of the American Founding Fathers.

For debate I suppose, first off is...WTF? Book burnings in the US? That's...surreal. Oh, I realize it has happened in the past (and even recently for all I know), but how can anyone think that this is something that matches the ideals of this country??

Secondly, what do you suppose the effect and impact of this (I'm trying hard not to use any demeaning terms to describe this guy)...this...person....will have on both US citizens who are Muslim or, worst yet, on Muslims in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq...etc??

While the US is reaching out to Pakistan and giving them more aid in their time of hardship and trouble with all the flooding...or aid, last I checked, than all the rest of the world combined...we are, basically spitting in their faces by burning their most holy book! When I say 'we', of course, that's how THEY are going to see it...the same way this idiot (sorry, can't help my self) sees a vast, monolithic Muslim world. As if they are all in lockstep, think the same, feel the same, act the same...they are going to see US the same way. Some idiot in Florida has a bonfire, and it's going to be 'America hates Muslims!'.

I'm hoping that I haven't inflamed things too much...Mods, if you think this is more appropriate in the Pit, feel free to move it. I am hoping for a debate, but at the same time, this really pisses me off.

(apologies if there is already a thread on this....I didn't see one, but I didn't do a search either, just looked at thread titles).

-XT

begbert2
08-20-2010, 02:00 PM
Somebody NEEDS to go there and start chucking bibles into the fire.

XT
08-20-2010, 02:01 PM
In hindsight, letting my emotions get control. It's no more right to burn bibles than to burn the quran. Now, beating the crap out of this pastor...

-XT

qpw3141
08-20-2010, 02:02 PM
I just wish the idiots involved in this sort of nonsense realised what a victory their actions are for terrorists everywhere and the 9-11 perpetrators in particular.

XT
08-20-2010, 02:05 PM
I just wish the idiots involved in this sort of nonsense realised what a victory their actions are for terrorists everywhere and the 9-11 perpetrators in particular.

Yeah...me too. I just don't understand why they can't see their actions for the stupidity they are, or see the harm they are doing. Do they not understand that this could have serious repercussions for our troops, if nothing else? Or for our civilians giving aid in Pakistan?? Do they not see that people could be killed over their silly, stupid, pointless and un-American gestures???

-XT

lieu
08-20-2010, 02:07 PM
... and Jefferson's Koran, the one housed in our Library of Congress, I wonder if he would add that to the incendiary display.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 02:10 PM
Secondly, what do you suppose the effect and impact of this (I'm trying hard not to use any demeaning terms to describe this guy)...this...person....will have on both US citizens who are Muslim or, worst yet, on Muslims in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq...etc??



You're worried about offending Muslims in places they routinely burn the U.S. flag, and held massive demonstrations calling for the death of cartoonists?

Fuck em. Muslims need to be clubbed over the head with the notion that free speech is free speech. Yes, we can and will draw cartoons about your prophet. Yes, we can and will burn the Koran, or any other damn book we feel like. You wanna live under Islamic law? Fine. Don't expect me to, because I ain't gonna.

Gyrate
08-20-2010, 02:11 PM
I really need to go into the book business and put out loads of books that really offend people. Imagine how many of those Qurans they're buying just so they can burn them.

And if I stock American flags too I can sell to the Middle East market after they hear about the Quran burning.

Profit!

begbert2
08-20-2010, 02:12 PM
In hindsight, letting my emotions get control. It's no more right to burn bibles than to burn the quran. Now, beating the crap out of this pastor...

-XTIt's a "what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander" thing, as in "Burning holy books ain't polite and see how you like it, m'kay?"

Not that they'd get the message - doubtlessly whatever frenzied mob is attracted to this thing would just try to beat the crap out of you.

begbert2
08-20-2010, 02:15 PM
You're worried about offending Muslims in places they routinely burn the U.S. flag, and held massive demonstrations calling for the death of cartoonists?

Fuck em. Muslims need to be clubbed over the head with the notion that free speech is free speech. Yes, we can and will draw cartoons about your prophet. Yes, we can and will burn the Koran, or any other damn book we feel like. You wanna live under Islamic law? Fine. Don't expect me to, because I ain't gonna.The reason we're not burning Korans isn't because we're worried about offending the (comparatively few) Muslim loons. It's because only loons burn books.

Whereas drawing cartoons? Somebody get me a pencil.

and artistic ability

Revenant Threshold
08-20-2010, 02:17 PM
You're worried about offending Muslims in places they routinely burn the U.S. flag, and held massive demonstrations calling for the death of cartoonists? Yes. Because, shockingly enough, even in places where that happens, not all Muslims do those things. Nor do those Muslims who do, have views which could not be made more radical. Yes, I am worried about making a situation worse. Why the hell aren't you? Have you given up?Fuck em. Muslims need to be clubbed over the head with the notion that free speech is free speech. Yes, we can and will draw cartoons about your prophet. Yes, we can and will burn the Koran, or any other damn book we feel like. You wanna live under Islamic law? Fine. Don't expect me to, because I ain't gonna.[/QUOTE] Yes, because the "they need to be clubbed over the head" debate technique always works. I'm sure those who burn the U.S. flag, or hold massive demonstrations calling for death, say much the same thing. And, of course, your response to those events was to mellow your views and hold out your arms in open friendship upon having those ideas clubbed over your head.

Wasn't it?

Grumman
08-20-2010, 02:28 PM
Yes, because the "they need to be clubbed over the head" debate technique always works. I'm sure those who burn the U.S. flag, or hold massive demonstrations calling for death, say much the same thing.
This is the Golden Mean fallacy. Just because a bunch of psychos making death threats about people drawing Mohammed are saying the same thing as a bunch of people burning books does not mean both claims are equally valid.

As long as these guys are the owners of the books they are burning and they aren't presenting a fire risk, I say go for it.

qpw3141
08-20-2010, 02:36 PM
Yes, because the "they need to be clubbed over the head" debate technique always works. I'm sure those who burn the U.S. flag, or hold massive demonstrations calling for death, say much the same thing.
This is the Golden Mean fallacy. Just because a bunch of psychos making death threats about people drawing Mohammed are saying the same thing as a bunch of people burning books does not mean both claims are equally valid.

Quite. People who draw cartoons of Mohammad are trying to piss off Muslims.

Whereas people burning the Qur'an are just trying to piss off Muslims.

No, wait ...

begbert2
08-20-2010, 02:38 PM
As long as these guys are the owners of the books they are burning and they aren't presenting a fire risk, I say go for it.And similarly it should be fine for me to burn bibles, too, I presume. At the very least the fellows burning the Korans should have no cause for complaint about my peaceful little protest.

Revenant Threshold
08-20-2010, 02:38 PM
Yes, because the "they need to be clubbed over the head" debate technique always works. I'm sure those who burn the U.S. flag, or hold massive demonstrations calling for death, say much the same thing.
This is the Golden Mean fallacy. Just because a bunch of psychos making death threats about people drawing Mohammed are saying the same thing as a bunch of people burning books does not mean both claims are equally valid. But i'm not calling equivalency of severity. I'm calling equivalency of idea. The point is the exact same one - "we can persuade the other side we are serious, by saying or doing these offensive or insulting or threatening things".

I'd consider burning the U.S. flag to be pretty much equivalent. I would consider demonstrations (massive or otherwise) calling for death much worse. But, either way, you do not get points for being a slightly nicer bastard. And the point of view that leads to these kinds of actions is almost ludicrously stupid, and unfortunetly cyclic.

nolonger lurking
08-20-2010, 02:39 PM
You're worried about offending Muslims in places they routinely burn the U.S. flag, and held massive demonstrations calling for the death of cartoonists?

Fuck em. Muslims need to be clubbed over the head with the notion that free speech is free speech. Yes, we can and will draw cartoons about your prophet. Yes, we can and will burn the Koran, or any other damn book we feel like. You wanna live under Islamic law? Fine. Don't expect me to, because I ain't gonna.

I think this is a terrible way of thinking about other people in general. Nobody is advocating that the US government shut down the book burning as a threat to national security, just that the people who are pissed off about the actions of radical Muslims examine A) how their actions resemble those of the radical Muslims, and B) how their actions empower those same radicals at the expense of the US and of people in Muslim countries who would rather work with us than against us.

Secondly, nobody is asking you to "live under Islamic law." If you are want to burn a Koran because you are cold, or because you love fire - go for it! In fact, if you live in a country with anti-blasphemy laws and want to burn a Koran as civil disobedience, I'll unenthusiastically support you. If your hypothetical son keeps sneaking Korans into the house and picking them out of the trash when you throw them away, I'll call you a dick while supporting your right to burn it. But what is allowed is not compulsory, or even a good idea. This is an action that is aimed directly at causing hurt and anger. It would be pointless for them to burn Korans in a private church ceremony, while praying for the souls of the unenlightened. The benefit here is the big "Fuck em" to people who anger and scare members of the Dove World Outreach Center.

I learned a several years ago (but later than I'd care to admit) that what is right (correct) or a right can also be the wrong thing to say or do. You are sadly mistaken if you think that a "Fuck em" will convince them of the value of free speech. Instead of sharia law, I'd try this one:
There's only one rule that I know of, babies—God damn it, you've got to be kind.

ethansiegel
08-20-2010, 02:41 PM
The church responsible for this is in the town I lived in for 5 years: Gainesville, FL.

They also brand themselves as a world outreach center. It's a scary place, to say the least.

They have a website if you actually want to see the crazy in action: http://www.doveworld.org/

qpw3141
08-20-2010, 02:43 PM
Of course, one important point is that burning books always makes the burners look like ranting, raving, fools.

The only people who will be impressed - one way or the other - are other ranting, raving, fools.

begbert2
08-20-2010, 02:45 PM
Of course, one important point is that burning books always makes the burners look like ranting, raving, fools.

The only people who will be impressed - one way or the other - are other ranting, raving, fools.Yeah, the Godwins did kind of ruin that for everyone, didn't they?

XT
08-20-2010, 03:10 PM
It's a "what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander" thing, as in "Burning holy books ain't polite and see how you like it, m'kay?"

Oh, I get it, and part of me agrees a lot (my first reply was I'd bring the gas if you brought the munchies). It's just the thought of burning books in American that hinks me out a bit...doesn't matter what the book was.

You are right though, they wouldn't get it...they would scream and yell and throw a fit if you burned a truck load of bibles.

-XT

John Mace
08-20-2010, 03:19 PM
A few things...

Can we have a link to a news article about this, and not an editorial?

While I think burning the Koran is stupid, it isn't un-American. Burning something in protest is very American. What is un-American is when the government burns books in order to keep people from reading them.

Interestingly, this group has "Outreach" as part of its name. I stopped buying irony meters a long time ago-- they just don't last very long.

El_Kabong
08-20-2010, 03:20 PM
Fuck em. Muslims need to be clubbed over the head with the notion that free speech is free speech. Yes, we can and will draw cartoons about your prophet. Yes, we can and will burn the Koran, or any other damn book we feel like. You wanna live under Islamic law? Fine. Don't expect me to, because I ain't gonna.

Don't forget waving your dick in their faces. Wouldn't want to leave that out.

qpw3141
08-20-2010, 03:27 PM
Interestingly, this group has "Outreach" as part of its name. I stopped buying irony meters a long time ago-- they just don't last very long.

You need to get ones with fast acting overload protection.

Der Trihs
08-20-2010, 03:33 PM
For debate I suppose, first off is...WTF? Book burnings in the US? That's...surreal. Oh, I realize it has happened in the past (and even recently for all I know), but how can anyone think that this is something that matches the ideals of this country??I have on occasion seen/read news stories about Christian Coalition/Moral Majority types doing that sort of thing over the years; burning or otherwise destroying books, music, games, movies. And I was told to do so as a child, back when I was being taught to be a "good Christian".

XT
08-20-2010, 03:33 PM
Can we have a link to a news article about this, and not an editorial?

Sure, John, though you could Google them up yourself. :p At any rate, I found this (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100819006543&newsLang=en) and this (http://floridaindependent.com/6184/gainesville-fire-department-denies-permit-for-burn-a-koran-day) (ironically saying that they can't get a permit to do the burning). There here (http://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Burn-A-Koran-Day/134718123226530?v=wall) is the facebook page they mentioned.

There are a lot of other links on Google about this, but mainly they seem to be opinion pieces.


While I think burning the Koran is stupid, it isn't un-American. Burning something in protest is very American. What is un-American is when the government burns books in order to keep people from reading them.

Yeah, I guess you are right. It just strikes me as odd that American's would burn books. It seems so anti-American to me for some reason.

-XT

Der Trihs
08-20-2010, 03:35 PM
Yeah, I guess you are right. It just strikes me as odd that American's would burn books. It seems so anti-American to me for some reason.
I expect it's because you've heard the propaganda about how tolerant America is so often that you've come to believe it.

XT
08-20-2010, 03:37 PM
I guess I have. But then, you've heard the propaganda about how evil America is that you've come to believe that as well. Based on how little traction this event is getting outside of the loony religious sectors, I'd say that my take is closer to reality than yours is. You notice they were denied a permit to burn the books, and that the local community is up in arms?

-XT

BrainGlutton
08-20-2010, 03:38 PM
Somebody NEEDS to go there and start chucking bibles into the fire.

As I understand it, Muslims do not react to desecrations of the Koran in at all the same way as Christians would react to desecrations of the Bible. Christians don't much mind that much -- burn one Bible, there are still plenty of copies in the world. Muslims may purport to reject all forms of idolatry, but any copy of the Koran (at least, in the original Arabic -- translations are merely "commentaries") is a sacred object to them and -- I make no exaggeration -- is almost identified with God. Destroying or desecrating it is a very, very big deal.

From a review (http://www.johnreilly.info/dedi.htm) of Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes, by Tamim Ansary:

The author gives commendable attention to the scientific and intellectual evolution of Abbasid times. This evolution was never entirely divorced from theology, which in the case of Islam meant close attention to the text and ontological status of the Koran. To put a complicated matter very briefly, the period began with an epistemologically optimistic appropriation of Aristotelianism; pure reason and empirical observation were believed capable of producing a high degree of reliable knowledge. This optimism was increasingly called into question by controversy over the interpretation of scripture, notably the issue of the degree to which the statements of the Koran can be applied analogically to address new situations. The dispute is sometimes formulated as the question whether the Koran is Allah's substance or one of his creatures. The prevailing conclusion was that the Koran was “uncreated,” and so had a higher ontological status than any analysis of it. (Compared to their Muslim analogues, the strictest Christian literalists view the Bible as a collection of helpful hints.) The tradition of philosophical enquiry ended with a skepticism of the power of reason that David Hume might envy. The motive, however, was more like that of Immanuel Kant: to make room for faith by restricting the scope of intellectual critique.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 03:45 PM
Somebody NEEDS to go there and start chucking bibles into the fire.

As I understand it, Muslims do not react to desecrations of the Koran in at all the same way as Christians would react to desecrations of the Bible. Christians don't much mind that much -- burn one Bible, there are still plenty of copies in the world. Muslims may purport to reject all forms of idolatry, but any copy of the Koran (at least, in the original Arabic -- translations are merely "commentaries") is a sacred object to them and -- I make no exaggeration -- is almost identified with God. Destroying or desecrating it is a very, very big deal.



Them believing such horseshit does not validate it. It's still a big pile of stinky stuff. Nobody that doesn't live in an Islamic state has any obligation to observe the rules of that faith.

Fuck Mohammed. I think he was a pervert, and probably fucked pigs.

Fuck the Koran. It's just a book. Paper, ink, bindings.

Fuck Allah. He doesn't exist anyway.

Fuck Islam. They don't rule the world. People that disagree with their religion have every right to do so.

Revenant Threshold
08-20-2010, 03:49 PM
Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it is necessarily a wise idea to do so.

Being annoyed by an offense, and deciding that the best course of action to stop offenses is to offend back, is the very opposite of wise. It's cognitive dissonance in rather stark action.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-20-2010, 03:50 PM
This sounds bad on the surface, but if you really think about it, all they'd be doing is giving money to Islamic book publishers. Where are they going to get the Qur'ans? They're going to have to buy them to burn them. Ka-ching for the Muslim publishing companies (and maybe a few Barnes & Noble outlets).

While the words "book burning" sound bad, they're only really insidious when they involve trying to take books away from people, restrict access to them or remove them from the public sphere. People burning their own property is of no real concern to anybody (except maybe the fire Department). If a few knuckleheads want to burn their own money for a protest that will have no really affect on anyone else, confiscate any books from anyone who doesn't want a book confiscated or infringe on anyone else's rights, then this is stupid and pointless, but basically harmless and within the bounds of free speech.

Czarcasm
08-20-2010, 03:51 PM
We need people to mail in these or the equivalent (http://compare.ebay.com/like/220657556585?var=vl&sort=BestMatch) for the bonfire, then publicize their Bible-burning afterward.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-20-2010, 03:54 PM
Secondly, what do you suppose the effect and impact of this (I'm trying hard not to use any demeaning terms to describe this guy)...this...person....will have on both US citizens who are Muslim or, worst yet, on Muslims in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq...etc??



You're worried about offending Muslims in places they routinely burn the U.S. flag, and held massive demonstrations calling for the death of cartoonists?

Fuck em. Muslims need to be clubbed over the head with the notion that free speech is free speech. Yes, we can and will draw cartoons about your prophet. Yes, we can and will burn the Koran, or any other damn book we feel like. You wanna live under Islamic law? Fine. Don't expect me to, because I ain't gonna.
All Muslims are anti-free speech? All Muslims need to be insulted for the offenses of a few?

I don't care about the book burning as I posted above, but this idea that they all deserve to be insulted is stupid.

Who gives a fuck about someone burning a flag, by the way?

XT
08-20-2010, 03:54 PM
While the words "book burning" sound bad, they're only really insidious when they involve trying to take books away from people, restrict access to them or remove them from the public sphere. People burning their own property is of no real concern to anybody (except maybe the fire Department). If a few knuckleheads want to burn their own money for a protest that will have no really affect on anyone else, confiscate any books from anyone who doesn't want a book confiscated or infringe on anyone else's rights, then this is stupid and pointless, but basically harmless and within the bounds of free speech.

Yeah, I can see that. Except that I don't think that's how it would be viewed in other country's. Granted, that's really their problem I suppose, but it's going to have a negative impact on places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, especially, at least if the article I linked to in the OP is to be believed. Something as simple as burning your own property could actually cost lives, and will certainly further cost us good will in the region...and at a time when we had the potential to actually start chipping away at the bad will we've managed to generate in the last few decades (especially in the last decade).

-XT

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 03:57 PM
Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it is necessarily a wise idea to do so.

Being annoyed by an offense, and deciding that the best course of action to stop offenses is to offend back, is the very opposite of wise. It's cognitive dissonance in rather stark action.

Frankly, burning Korans is tacky. Not the kind of thing I would do. Not the kind of thing I would recommend doing. But it is certainly lawful expression. As is burning the flag.

However, we (ie, all freedom loving people) can't give an inch to these fuckers. If they see any signs of progress in forcing others to follow their religious rules, they'll redouble their efforts to worm that shit into law anyway they can. Zero tolerance for that crap. Islam is not special. Islam gets no special protection not afforded to every other reliegion...Including the Church of Oak, which I just formed. Our most holy tradition is that SEC Football is a religious experience, and no other programming should ever be shown opposite an SEC football game, because that is a sin against Bear Bryant, the Holy Father of the Wishbone. Amen.

All you blasphemers out there better repent. Or the Bear gonna come whup yo ass.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-20-2010, 03:58 PM
As I understand it, Muslims do not react to desecrations of the Koran in at all the same way as Christians would react to desecrations of the Bible. Christians don't much mind that much -- burn one Bible, there are still plenty of copies in the world. Muslims may purport to reject all forms of idolatry, but any copy of the Koran (at least, in the original Arabic -- translations are merely "commentaries") is a sacred object to them and -- I make no exaggeration -- is almost identified with God. Destroying or desecrating it is a very, very big deal.



Them believing such horseshit does not validate it. It's still a big pile of stinky stuff. Nobody that doesn't live in an Islamic state has any obligation to observe the rules of that faith.

Fuck Mohammed. I think he was a pervert, and probably fucked pigs.

Fuck the Koran. It's just a book. Paper, ink, bindings.

Fuck Allah. He doesn't exist anyway.

Fuck Islam. They don't rule the world. People that disagree with their religion have every right to do so.
When did you turn into Der Trihs?

Who's saying that nobody has a right to disagree with their religion. There's a difference between disagreeing with a religion and going out of your way to deliberately insult everyone who believes in it.

silenus
08-20-2010, 03:58 PM
We need people to mail in these or the equivalent (http://compare.ebay.com/like/220657556585?var=vl&sort=BestMatch) for the bonfire, then publicize their Bible-burning afterward.

You're devious. I like that.

elucidator
08-20-2010, 04:02 PM
This does for stupid what eternity does for time.

Revenant Threshold
08-20-2010, 04:06 PM
Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it is necessarily a wise idea to do so.

Being annoyed by an offense, and deciding that the best course of action to stop offenses is to offend back, is the very opposite of wise. It's cognitive dissonance in rather stark action.

Frankly, burning Korans is tacky. Not the kind of thing I would do. Not the kind of thing I would recommend doing. But it is certainly lawful expression. As is burning the flag. Something being lawful doesn't make it necessarily a good idea, either. However, we (ie, all freedom loving people) can't give an inch to these fuckers. If they see any signs of progress in forcing others to follow their religious rules, they'll redouble their efforts to worm that shit into law anyway they can. I see no reason to believe that your understanding of cause and effect in these situations is to be trusted. Your response to being offended is to go out and cause offense, and yet you expect others to act differently. Too, what sign of progress is being seen here? What inch has been given? That Korans are going unburned? You want to send your message, you have to tie it to an actual act. Not just a a general "they've got to learn, the bastards!".Zero tolerance for that crap. Islam is not special. Correct. But that works both ways. It deserves no special protection; it deserves no special scorn. Burning a Koran is like having one person insult you, then deciding the best course of action to get them to stop is to go and insult their entire family. It's moronic and counter-productive.

Gagundathar
08-20-2010, 04:13 PM
<snip>
...Including the Church of Oak, which I just formed. Our most holy tradition is that SEC Football is a religious experience, and no other programming should ever be shown opposite an SEC football game, because that is a sin against Bear Bryant, the Holy Father of the Wishbone. Amen.

All you blasphemers out there better repent. Or the Bear gonna come whup yo ass.

I am very interested in your belief system and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
You do have a newsletter don't you?
All good new religions need a newsletter.
How about a website?

Is it acceptable to watch ACC football, or is that against the will of Bear Bryant (pbuh)?

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 04:16 PM
Your response to being offended is to go out and cause offense,

No. My response is to refuse to follow Islam's rules, and oppose any effort to grant them "special snowflake" status. I won't be burning any books this weekend.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 04:19 PM
<snip>
...Including the Church of Oak, which I just formed. Our most holy tradition is that SEC Football is a religious experience, and no other programming should ever be shown opposite an SEC football game, because that is a sin against Bear Bryant, the Holy Father of the Wishbone. Amen.

All you blasphemers out there better repent. Or the Bear gonna come whup yo ass.

I am very interested in your belief system and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
You do have a newsletter don't you?
All good new religions need a newsletter.
How about a website?

Is it acceptable to watch ACC football, or is that against the will of Bear Bryant (pbuh)?

It is written that thou mayest watch the inferior football played by lesser conferences, but only to the extent that it heightens your appreciate of the sublime righteousness of all things SEC, and only so long as such inferior football is not shown at the same time as the Divine SEC Football. So sayeth the Prophet. So sayeth we all.

Czarcasm
08-20-2010, 04:20 PM
We need people to mail in these or the equivalent (http://compare.ebay.com/like/220657556585?var=vl&sort=BestMatch) for the bonfire, then publicize their Bible-burning afterward.

You're devious. I like that.Social sabotage should be left in the hands of trained professionals who understand that, if you can get your opponent to do most of your work for you, retaliation is next to impossible.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-20-2010, 04:27 PM
Your response to being offended is to go out and cause offense,

No. My response is to refuse to follow Islam's rules, and oppose any effort to grant them "special snowflake" status. I won't be burning any books this weekend.
Who's telling you to follow Islam's rules or to give it any more respect than any other religion?

begbert2
08-20-2010, 04:29 PM
Yeah, I guess you are right. It just strikes me as odd that American's would burn books. It seems so anti-American to me for some reason.99% of the time when books are burned, it's a statement of intent/sympathy to censor; this is probably why it seems more anti-american than, say, burning a bra. Censorship is kind of a big deal in these parts.

Though Diogenes the Cynic is right; this isn't that kind of book burning. It's just some overzealous christians lowering themselves to the level of muslims that burn flags; purely and strictly a protest with none of the usual censorship overtones. And actually, I think it may have been the first example of 'protest' book burning that didn't have censorship overtones that I've heard of, come to think of it.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 04:41 PM
No. My response is to refuse to follow Islam's rules, and oppose any effort to grant them "special snowflake" status. I won't be burning any books this weekend.
Who's telling you to follow Islam's rules or to give it any more respect than any other religion?

These people (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg)

Gedd
08-20-2010, 04:42 PM
I hope this is exempt from Godwin's law because of the topic, but in all honesty the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this article was that when there were massive burnings of holy books back in the late 30's it didn't turn out well for anybody.

On another note I love this quote from one of the articles:

Gainesville Mayor Craig Lowe called the church “an embarrassment to our community”

Ouch. :eek:

Revenant Threshold
08-20-2010, 04:44 PM
Your response to being offended is to go out and cause offense,

No. My response is to refuse to follow Islam's rules, and oppose any effort to grant them "special snowflake" status. I won't be burning any books this weekend. But you'll happily state "fuck em", and then go down a little list of all those things you think are worthy of a hearty "fuck"-ing. Your response is most certainly to treat Islam as having special snowflake status - just the other way, by insulting and offending beyond the norm. And by congratulating such ideas as being because Muslims need to have these ideas "clubbed over the head" with. If I recall correctly, you were one of the happy signers-up to the "draw Mohammed" day a while back (in fact, I went and had a look, and you were, with a little joke about drawing him fellating goats). Your response to being offended is to go out and cause offense. Your response to offensive ideas of greater severity (to which your complaint is not the poorness of the idea, but the tackiness of the idea) is to defend the notion, as if anyone here had brought up the idea that doing so was somehow not a right or not lawful over there.

I refuse to follow Islam's rules, by, well, simply not following the rules. As an added bonus, I don't cause offense which is likely to create even more offense in those who appear to be already pretty pissed, or those who aren't but who might well look at a plan for a group Koran burning, and look at those defending the idea, and think there might just well be something in all that hate.

Czarcasm
08-20-2010, 04:47 PM
Who's telling you to follow Islam's rules or to give it any more respect than any other religion?

These people (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg)Who are they, where are they, when was this picture taken, and what did the Fantastic Four do when they arrived?

Gedd
08-20-2010, 04:48 PM
Who's telling you to follow Islam's rules or to give it any more respect than any other religion?

These people (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg)

I thought I saw that same picture a few months ago, except the signs said things about Obama and healthcare. Are you sure that wasn't photoshopped?

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 04:51 PM
I refuse to follow Islam's rules, by, well, simply not following the rules. As an added bonus, I don't cause offense which is likely to create even more offense in those who appear to be already pretty pissed, or those who aren't but who might well look at a plan for a group Koran burning, and look at those defending the idea, and think there might just well be something in all that hate.

When Christians (Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Druids, Satanists, Whatever) start having massive protests calling for all that insult their religion to be beheaded, like those charming folks in the picture I linked, then I'll be all for giving them a hearty fucking too.

But I don't see that. I only see muslims calling for everyone in the free world to follow their rules, or be put to death. So today, I'm only heartily fucking muslims. Someone else will likely be on my shitlist tomorrow.

XT
08-20-2010, 04:51 PM
Who are they, where are they, when was this picture taken, and what did the Fantastic Four do when they arrived?

Well, the file is named Danish Cartoon Protest, so, I'm guessing it's probably in...in...in....well, Ulan Bator, obviously. That's just a guess, however...

-XT

Kimmy_Gibbler
08-20-2010, 04:53 PM
[Withdrawn as duplicative.]

Kobal2
08-20-2010, 04:54 PM
We need people to mail in these or the equivalent (http://compare.ebay.com/like/220657556585?var=vl&sort=BestMatch) for the bonfire, then publicize their Bible-burning afterward.

Dear sir, I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, friend you on Facebook and marry you.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 04:55 PM
These people (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg)Who are they, where are they, when was this picture taken, and what did the Fantastic Four do when they arrived?



These people (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg)

I thought I saw that same picture a few months ago, except the signs said things about Obama and healthcare. Are you sure that wasn't photoshopped?


C'mon. Neither of you is seriously gonna argue the protests I'm referencing didn't happen. I googled "muslim cartoon protests" and that was one of the hits. I do not know when or where the picture was taken. I do not know if the picture was for those protests, or other ones. I do know, and so do you, that muslims often protest in revoltingly large numbers whenever somebody gores one of their sacred cows. They march, they chant death to America, and they call for any that insult Islam to be put to death.

Revenant Threshold
08-20-2010, 04:58 PM
I refuse to follow Islam's rules, by, well, simply not following the rules. As an added bonus, I don't cause offense which is likely to create even more offense in those who appear to be already pretty pissed, or those who aren't but who might well look at a plan for a group Koran burning, and look at those defending the idea, and think there might just well be something in all that hate.

When Christians (Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Druids, Satanists, Whatever) start having massive protests calling for all that insult their religion to be beheaded, like those charming folks in the picture I linked, then I'll be all for giving them a hearty fucking too.

But I don't see that. I only see muslims calling for everyone in the free world to follow their rules, or be put to death. So today, I'm only heartily fucking muslims. Someone else will likely be on my shitlist tomorrow. Your point is illogical. You draw a distinction between Muslims and other religious groups, but fail to draw a distinction between Muslims in general and radical Muslims, or Muslims who call for everyone in the free world to follow their rules or be put to death. Your response is not to say "fuck those specific Muslims, those ones doing that" but "fuck Muslims, fuck their god (who doesn't exist), fuck their holiest books and religious figures". Your point about only putting blame where blame lies would be much better taken if you hadn't insulted pretty much all people and everything important to do with Islam.

XT
08-20-2010, 05:00 PM
Looks like those pictures were taken in London, and they aren't recent. From here (http://www.hoax-slayer.com/muslim-protest-london.shtml).

(Not that it really matters, but I was curious)

-XT

Kimmy_Gibbler
08-20-2010, 05:01 PM
When Christians (Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Druids, Satanists, Whatever) start having massive protests calling for all that insult their religion to be beheaded, like those charming folks in the picture I linked, then I'll be all for giving them a hearty fucking too.

Well, what if they called not for a beheading, but for "club[bing] over the head (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12823257&postcount=7)"? OK then?

Czarcasm
08-20-2010, 05:02 PM
Who are they, where are they, when was this picture taken, and what did the Fantastic Four do when they arrived?



I thought I saw that same picture a few months ago, except the signs said things about Obama and healthcare. Are you sure that wasn't photoshopped?


C'mon. Neither of you is seriously gonna argue the protests I'm referencing didn't happen. I googled "muslim cartoon protests" and that was one of the hits. I do not know when or where the picture was taken. I do not know if the picture was for those protests, or other ones. I do know, and so do you, that muslims often protest in revoltingly large numbers whenever somebody gores one of their sacred cows. They march, they chant death to America, and they call for any that insult Islam to be put to death.So these anonymous people, doing who knows what, who knows where and who knows why, are the reason for your firm stand on this issue? Really?

Would you like to call a mulligan and try again?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-20-2010, 05:05 PM
I refuse to follow Islam's rules, by, well, simply not following the rules. As an added bonus, I don't cause offense which is likely to create even more offense in those who appear to be already pretty pissed, or those who aren't but who might well look at a plan for a group Koran burning, and look at those defending the idea, and think there might just well be something in all that hate.

When Christians (Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Druids, Satanists, Whatever) start having massive protests calling for all that insult their religion to be beheaded, like those charming folks in the picture I linked, then I'll be all for giving them a hearty fucking too.
How about if Christians start blowing up abortion clinics and gay bars, shooting doctors, blowing up federal buildings, setting off bombs at the Olympics and harrassing families at the funerals of murdered kids and soldiers killed in combat? Those people represent all christians, do they not? Therefore all Christians should be insulted.

begbert2
08-20-2010, 05:05 PM
Let's blame all christians for Wetboro Baptist Church. They'e all the same, right? Clearly it's time to start burning bibles. Who's with me?

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 05:11 PM
Your point is illogical. You draw a distinction between Muslims and other religious groups, but fail to draw a distinction between Muslims in general and radical Muslims, or Muslims who call for everyone in the free world to follow their rules or be put to death. Your response is not to say "fuck those specific Muslims, those ones doing that" but "fuck Muslims, fuck their god (who doesn't exist), fuck their holiest books and religious figures". Your point about only putting blame where blame lies would be much better taken if you hadn't insulted pretty much all people and everything important to do with Islam.

Kinda like the usual suspects here say all conservatives are mean horrible stupid evil not nice people?

But that's not the point I'm trying to make. If I post "Fuck Jesus", you aren't going to bat an eye. If I post "Fuck the Earth Mother", you don't care. For that matter, if I post, as I did, "Fuck Allah", you probably don't care in a personal way. Certainly you are not going to take to the streets with your "Death to all that insult (whatevr flavor of religion you follow or like best or dislike least)" sign. Huge numbers of muslims might...if this was in a newspaper or I cut a radio promo that was played in one of those countries. They have done it over and over again. I don't know of any other religion that does that.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 05:13 PM
When Christians (Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Druids, Satanists, Whatever) start having massive protests calling for all that insult their religion to be beheaded, like those charming folks in the picture I linked, then I'll be all for giving them a hearty fucking too.
How about if Christians start blowing up abortion clinics and gay bars, shooting doctors, blowing up federal buildings, setting off bombs at the Olympics and harrassing families at the funerals of murdered kids and soldiers killed in combat? Those people represent all christians, do they not? Therefore all Christians should be insulted.

Clearly does not meet the criteria I established, so no.

BrainGlutton
08-20-2010, 05:14 PM
Fuck Mohammed. I think he was a pervert, and probably fucked pigs.

No, no. Goats, maybe. Pigs are unclean to Muslims.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 05:15 PM
Let's blame all christians for Wetboro Baptist Church. They'e all the same, right? Clearly it's time to start burning bibles. Who's with me?

All conservatives are the same, right? Certainly around here, the usual suspects holler loud and long that we are. Yet somehow that isn't wrong. Because dippy hippy liberals can never ever possibly be wrong about any damn thing.

See? I can toss out irrelevant hijacks with the best of them.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-20-2010, 05:15 PM
How about if Christians start blowing up abortion clinics and gay bars, shooting doctors, blowing up federal buildings, setting off bombs at the Olympics and harrassing families at the funerals of murdered kids and soldiers killed in combat? Those people represent all christians, do they not? Therefore all Christians should be insulted.

Clearly does not meet the criteria I established, so no.
Killing people who don't conform to their religious views don't fit your criteria? You have a very careful and selective criteria.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 05:16 PM
Fuck Mohammed. I think he was a pervert, and probably fucked pigs.

No, no. Goats, maybe. Pigs are unclean to Muslims.

That was the point in choosing pigs.

Revenant Threshold
08-20-2010, 05:19 PM
Your point is illogical. You draw a distinction between Muslims and other religious groups, but fail to draw a distinction between Muslims in general and radical Muslims, or Muslims who call for everyone in the free world to follow their rules or be put to death. Your response is not to say "fuck those specific Muslims, those ones doing that" but "fuck Muslims, fuck their god (who doesn't exist), fuck their holiest books and religious figures". Your point about only putting blame where blame lies would be much better taken if you hadn't insulted pretty much all people and everything important to do with Islam.

Kinda like the usual suspects here say all conservatives are mean horrible stupid evil not nice people? Yes, indeed. I'm afraid it seems you can consider yourself in the list, I guess. But that's not the point I'm trying to make. If I post "Fuck Jesus", you aren't going to bat an eye. If I post "Fuck the Earth Mother", you don't care. For that matter, if I post, as I did, "Fuck Allah", you probably don't care in a personal way. I would tend to disagree. All of those would be silly things to say in general, let alone in specific situations. As an atheist, I would consider all three of those to be pointlessly insulting and, if in some debate thread, counter-productive. Certainly you are not going to take to the streets with your "Death to all that insult (whatevr flavor of religion you follow or like best or dislike least)" sign. Huge numbers of muslims might...if this was in a newspaper or I cut a radio promo that was played in one of those countries. They have done it over and over again. I don't know of any other religion that does that. You know of no religion that does that. You know of some adherents of a particular religion that does that. Again, you are conflating; it is, as you correctly point out, unreasonable to insult all religious people for the actions of some Muslims, and likewise it is unreasonable to insult all Muslims for the actions of some Muslims.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-20-2010, 05:21 PM
Let's blame all christians for Wetboro Baptist Church. They'e all the same, right? Clearly it's time to start burning bibles. Who's with me?

All conservatives are the same, right? Certainly around here, the usual suspects holler loud and long that we are.
Cite?

You do realize that critizing a specifically articulated opinion is not akin to making asumptions about people based on nothing but their membership in a religion that comprises almost a quarter of world's population, do you not?

begbert2
08-20-2010, 05:28 PM
Let's blame all christians for Wetboro Baptist Church. They'e all the same, right? Clearly it's time to start burning bibles. Who's with me?

All conservatives are the same, right? Certainly around here, the usual suspects holler loud and long that we are. Yet somehow that isn't wrong. Because dippy hippy liberals can never ever possibly be wrong about any damn thing.

See? I can toss out irrelevant hijacks with the best of them.It wasn't a hijack. It was an extremely on-topic commentary on your position. Argument by analogy dovetailing into an argument for absurdity, specifically.

And the lovely thing about your strawman tu quoque argument is that you just admitted that your own position is wrong, because it's wrong when "the usual suspects" do it.

Far from tossing my comment out; you conceded the argument.

Kimmy_Gibbler
08-20-2010, 05:33 PM
Clearly does not meet the criteria I established, so no.
Killing people who don't conform to their religious views don't fit your criteria? You have a very careful and selective criteria.

I quite agree. I would like to hear why it is problematic to take to the streets with signs bearing incendiary rhetoric but that lobbing actual incendiaries is apparently not.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 07:08 PM
Here's a new story about those peaceful, tolerant, loving muslims (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/20/world/main6789603.shtml). And not in East Yakistan or some other hellhole. This is in Saudi Arabia. Practically the Unitarians of the muslim world.

Fuck Hippocrates and his oath. Allah has spoken.
:rolleyes:

begbert2
08-20-2010, 07:19 PM
Here's a new story about those peaceful, tolerant, loving muslims (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/20/world/main6789603.shtml). And not in East Yakistan or some other hellhole. This is in Saudi Arabia. Practically the Unitarians of the muslim world.

Fuck Hippocrates and his oath. Allah has spoken.
:rolleyes:Get this - there was once an American president who claimed to be starting wars because, at least in part, he thought God was telling him to. Fuck peace - God has spoken.

Find as many anecdotes as you like, even of leaders who are muslim. It still will never add up to data about muslims in general. You Westboro Baptist guy you.

silenus
08-20-2010, 07:21 PM
Did you miss the part about the hospitals refusing to do such an operation? Or the King cracking down on nutjob clerics who call for such shit?

Look, a simple search will show that I regard most Islamic culture and all of Islamic law lower than I do rancid whale-shit (while we're at it, Mohammed's mother was a goat, and an ugly goat at that) and even I think you are off your rocker with this one. Time to punt, Oak.

elucidator
08-20-2010, 07:25 PM
Here's a new story about those peaceful, tolerant, loving muslims (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/20/world/main6789603.shtml). And not in East Yakistan or some other hellhole. This is in Saudi Arabia. Practically the Unitarians of the muslim world.

Fuck Hippocrates and his oath. Allah has spoken.
:rolleyes:

Not hardly. The Islamic subset that holds sway (offically) is of the sternest, most belligerantly self-righteous stripe, called "wahhabist", roughly parallel to the worse instincts of Baptists, Calvinists, and Fundamenalists. They have zero tolerance for just about everything, including Shia muslims. They are a long, long way from being the "Unitarians of Islam".

Kobal2
08-20-2010, 07:34 PM
This is in Saudi Arabia. Practically the Unitarians of the muslim world.

This might be out of line in GD but... are you off your meds ? Saudi Arabia is the strictest, most nutter-infused Muslim theocracy of them all.

Oakminster
08-20-2010, 07:41 PM
Look, a simple search will show that I regard most Islamic culture and all of Islamic law lower than I do rancid whale-shit (while we're at it, Mohammed's mother was a goat, and an ugly goat at that) and even I think you are off your rocker with this one. Time to punt, Oak.

Fuck a punt. I'm calling a direct snap to Reggie Bush.

Or not, but I am ready for football.

I think I've been....inartful....in attempting to express myself. I disagree with notions that free speech should be discouraged for fear of outraging the muslim world. I see that as a slippery slope.

Unfortunately, I attempted to express that notion in an over the top manner, and....er....presented a less than impressive argument in the process. Not one of my prouder SDMB moments.

Yeah, I've been an ass in this thread. Sorry guys.

griffin1977
08-20-2010, 07:51 PM
If only there was a book of moral guidelines containing such entreaties as "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" and "Do to others what you would have them do to you" that could be used to convince this Pastor that this is a really crappy idea.

elucidator
08-20-2010, 08:26 PM
He's got a bunch of 'em. Just about to burn them.

foolsguinea
08-20-2010, 09:02 PM
Somebody NEEDS to go there and start chucking bibles into the fire.Or Jack Chick comics.

SteveG1
08-20-2010, 09:28 PM
I just wish the idiots involved in this sort of nonsense realised what a victory their actions are for terrorists everywhere and the 9-11 perpetrators in particular.

And someone will jump on it and say

"There! See that! They really are no good scumbags who deserve to die!" and their followers will eat that shit up. And use it to justify whatever they do next.

Thanks a lot Reverend BookBurningFuckUp

This putz is exercising his free speech. Fair enough. Hopefully other people will exercise their free speech in telling him he is a moron.

SteveG1
08-20-2010, 09:37 PM
You're worried about offending Muslims in places they routinely burn the U.S. flag, and held massive demonstrations calling for the death of cartoonists?

Fuck em. Muslims need to be clubbed over the head with the notion that free speech is free speech. Yes, we can and will draw cartoons about your prophet. Yes, we can and will burn the Koran, or any other damn book we feel like. You wanna live under Islamic law? Fine. Don't expect me to, because I ain't gonna.
Good. I don't want to live under Muslim Sharia law. But I don't want to live under Christian Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist law either. It's surprising how many people fawn over the idea of the USA being a christian nation, whatever the hell that is. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, ... "

I wonder how fired up you'd be at a down home Bible burning.

SteveG1
08-20-2010, 09:49 PM
How about if Christians start blowing up abortion clinics and gay bars, shooting doctors, blowing up federal buildings, setting off bombs at the Olympics and harrassing families at the funerals of murdered kids and soldiers killed in combat? Those people represent all christians, do they not? Therefore all Christians should be insulted.
Yes. Yes. Yes. After all, what's good for the goose... or at least a hearty fuck em? :D

BrainGlutton
08-20-2010, 09:54 PM
Here's a new story about those peaceful, tolerant, loving muslims (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/20/world/main6789603.shtml). And not in East Yakistan or some other hellhole. This is in Saudi Arabia. Practically the Unitarians of the muslim world.

Fuck Hippocrates and his oath. Allah has spoken.
:rolleyes:

Not hardly. The Islamic subset that holds sway (offically) is of the sternest, most belligerantly self-righteous stripe, called "wahhabist", roughly parallel to the worse instincts of Baptists, Calvinists, and Fundamenalists. They have zero tolerance for just about everything, including Shia muslims. They are a long, long way from being the "Unitarians of Islam".

In fact, in Saudi Arabia, the only significant political opposition comes from ultra-Wahhabist clerics to whom the House of Saud is not Muslim enough.

SteveG1
08-20-2010, 10:08 PM
Not hardly. The Islamic subset that holds sway (offically) is of the sternest, most belligerantly self-righteous stripe, called "wahhabist", roughly parallel to the worse instincts of Baptists, Calvinists, and Fundamenalists. They have zero tolerance for just about everything, including Shia muslims. They are a long, long way from being the "Unitarians of Islam".

In fact, in Saudi Arabia, the only significant political opposition comes from ultra-Wahhabist clerics to whom the House of Saud is not Muslim enough.

Is there a No True Muslim fallacy I need to know about? :D

FriarTed
08-21-2010, 10:42 AM
And I was told to do so as a child, back when I was being taught to be a "good Christian".

What church? And what did you mother think about this?

In my church circles, over the years, we were shown "anti-rock" exposes' but I never have seen or even heard of an organized burning. I did hear of various kids either burning or otherwise destroying stuff deemed objectionable afterwards. A few months later, they usually started restoring their collections again.

FriarTed
08-21-2010, 10:46 AM
The church responsible for this is in the town I lived in for 5 years: Gainesville, FL.

They also brand themselves as a world outreach center. It's a scary place, to say the least.

They have a website if you actually want to see the crazy in action: http://www.doveworld.org/

How big is this church? Preliminary reports I heard was that it was just 50 people, unless that was another church planning a Quran burning. This one makes itself out to be much larger.

FriarTed
08-21-2010, 10:51 AM
Fuck Mohammed. I think he was a pervert, and probably fucked pigs.

No, no. Goats, maybe. Pigs are unclean to Muslims.

Let's not attribute vile sexual practices such as bestiality to Mohammed. No goats, no pigs, no animals at all.

A nine-year old girl, however....

Really Not All That Bright
08-21-2010, 12:20 PM
In my church circles, over the years, we were shown "anti-rock" exposes' but I never have seen or even heard of an organized burning. I did hear of various kids either burning or otherwise destroying stuff deemed objectionable afterwards. A few months later, they usually started restoring their collections again.
There were lots of church-organized record-burnings during the 80s - mostly metal records.

JKellyMap
08-21-2010, 12:25 PM
In my church circles, over the years, we were shown "anti-rock" exposes' but I never have seen or even heard of an organized burning. I did hear of various kids either burning or otherwise destroying stuff deemed objectionable afterwards. A few months later, they usually started restoring their collections again.
There were lots of church-organized record-burnings during the 80s - mostly metal records.

And let's not forget the Christian-Church-organized burnings of Beatles records following John Lennon's 1966 lament that the Beatles seemed to be, temporarily, "more popular than Jesus".

No need to cite the Rutles, thanks.

RickJay
08-21-2010, 01:18 PM
No, no. Goats, maybe. Pigs are unclean to Muslims.

Let's not attribute vile sexual practices such as bestiality to Mohammed. No goats, no pigs, no animals at all.

A nine-year old girl, however....
... would be the wrong gender for a Catholic priest.

tumbleddown
08-21-2010, 03:02 PM
Pastor Terry Jones arrested for Child Pornography (http://www.nbc.com/news/2010/08/06/pastor-terry-jones-arrested-for-child-pornography/).

The church says that nevertheless, they'll still be burning Qurans on 9/11.

qpw3141
08-21-2010, 03:12 PM
Pastor Terry Jones arrested for Child Pornography (http://www.nbc.com/news/2010/08/06/pastor-terry-jones-arrested-for-child-pornography/).

The church says that nevertheless, they'll still be burning Qurans on 9/11.

Seems they don't need a leader to make themselves look like a bunch of stupid, ignorant, ranting, bigots.

SecretaryofEvil
08-21-2010, 04:10 PM
I really need to go into the book business and put out loads of books that really offend people. Imagine how many of those Qurans they're buying just so they can burn them.

And if I stock American flags too I can sell to the Middle East market after they hear about the Quran burning.

Profit!

Brilliant!

qpw3141
08-21-2010, 06:44 PM
I really need to go into the book business and put out loads of books that really offend people. Imagine how many of those Qurans they're buying just so they can burn them.

And if I stock American flags too I can sell to the Middle East market after they hear about the Quran burning.

Profit!

Brilliant!

Apparently, stars and stripes toilet paper is a big seller in the Middle East.

Despite the fact that they didn't even use the stuff before.

Kobal2
08-22-2010, 04:08 AM
Amusing new development : the church's decision to go ahead and burn books against the decision of the fire department caused their insurance company to cancel their contract, AND their bank to call for immediate payment of their mortgage because of the fire risk. They now need to pony up $140.000 in short order. Cite (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/fire_department_denies_florida_churchs_plans_to_burn_korans.php).

Don't you love it when stupid is its own punishment ?

qpw3141
08-22-2010, 04:38 AM
Amusing new development : the church's decision to go ahead and burn books against the decision of the fire department caused their insurance company to cancel their contract, AND their bank to call for immediate payment of their mortgage because of the fire risk. They now need to pony up $140.000 in short order. Cite (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/fire_department_denies_florida_churchs_plans_to_burn_korans.php).

Don't you love it when stupid is its own punishment ?

What a wonderful start to the day. :)

Grumman
08-22-2010, 04:52 AM
Don't you love it when stupid is its own punishment ?
I would have preferred that they did it calmly and rationally, instead of hoisting themselves by their own petard.

FriarTed
08-22-2010, 08:57 AM
Amusing new development : the church's decision to go ahead and burn books against the decision of the fire department caused their insurance company to cancel their contract, AND their bank to call for immediate payment of their mortgage because of the fire risk. They now need to pony up $140.000 in short order. Cite (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/fire_department_denies_florida_churchs_plans_to_burn_korans.php).

Don't you love it when stupid is its own punishment ?

Actually, the article does not state a causal relationship between the decision to continue the Quran burning and the insurance cancellation/the bank call. The article reads like the insurance cancellation & the bank call are just other problems facing the church. Do you have another source that there's a causal relationship?

cosmosdan
08-22-2010, 09:36 AM
I saw a series of photos of people standing next to the westboro loons with signs mocking them. As stupid as this is I'm not sure it's worthy of outrage. Maybe some mocking would be approproate.

How about showing up with signs saying "Proud Member of Idiots for Jesus"

or Fanantics R Us.com or I'f ya can't read em, burn em. or Allah still loves You.

cosmosdan
08-22-2010, 09:41 AM
Pastor Terry Jones arrested for Child Pornography (http://www.nbc.com/news/2010/08/06/pastor-terry-jones-arrested-for-child-pornography/).

The church says that nevertheless, they'll still be burning Qurans on 9/11.


well that claerly calls for a new sign.

Burn the Quran, but save the Child Porn for our Pastor

Left Hand of Dorkness
08-22-2010, 10:52 AM
Oakminster, I was all ready with some righteous indignation, but good move on the apology, so I'll save it for the pastor and for the inevitable protests of the protest.

Guessing everyone here can agree on the following:
1) The church burning the Korans are a bunch of douchebags.
2) Their actions should remain legal.
3) It should remain legal for us to call them a bunch of douchebags.
4) Anyone who threatens them with violence is worse than a douchebag: they're a criminal, and their actions SHOULDN'T be legal.
5) Czarcasm's idea is freakin brilliant.
6) Saudi Arabia is no more Unitarian than the Inquisition was Sufi.
7) Karma's a bitch.

We all agreed?

Kobal2
08-22-2010, 07:23 PM
Actually, the article does not state a causal relationship between the decision to continue the Quran burning and the insurance cancellation/the bank call. The article reads like the insurance cancellation & the bank call are just other problems facing the church. Do you have another source that there's a causal relationship?

Nope, and I may have jumped the gun indeed.
However, the church itself made the link as well, as the newsletter which detailed their troubles said "the Fire dept refused to give us a permit BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS, the bank called our mortgage BUT WE WILL STILL [etc...]", making it sound like both the insurance and bank troubles are directly related to the planned book barbecue (cite (http://floridaindependent.com/6184/gainesville-fire-department-denies-permit-for-burn-a-koran-day)).

Really Not All That Bright
08-22-2010, 07:31 PM
Amusing new development : the church's decision to go ahead and burn books against the decision of the fire department caused their insurance company to cancel their contract, AND their bank to call for immediate payment of their mortgage because of the fire risk. They now need to pony up $140.000 in short order. Cite (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/fire_department_denies_florida_churchs_plans_to_burn_korans.php).

Don't you love it when stupid is its own punishment ?

Actually, the article does not state a causal relationship between the decision to continue the Quran burning and the insurance cancellation/the bank call. The article reads like the insurance cancellation & the bank call are just other problems facing the church. Do you have another source that there's a causal relationship?
If anything, it sounds like the Koran burning stunt might have been a desperate attempt to drum up extra donations to pay off the note.

elucidator
08-22-2010, 07:51 PM
Be great if it didn't work. But it will.

tomndebb
08-22-2010, 09:27 PM
Be great if it didn't work. But it will.Well, given the level of intelligence thus far displayed, it is always possible that sparks from the flaming Qur'ans will ignite the church. (Then, the delicious irony would be to have the fire department charge them with arson.)

elucidator
08-22-2010, 09:33 PM
Now, Universe, I know I haven't been a very good pantheist. But if you could just give me this sign....

Uzi
08-22-2010, 09:38 PM
All Muslims are anti-free speech? All Muslims need to be insulted for the offenses of a few?

Interesting. Are those Muslims who are pro-free speech likely to be insulted by this action? Being pro-free speech myself, I'm not really insulted much by what anyone says unless they are lying about it, that is. So, why would this likely be insulting to 'all' Muslims? Unless you really mean that most Muslims are not free speech advocates at all?

elucidator
08-22-2010, 09:55 PM
My Congressman, Mr. Ellison, assures me that the vast majority of American Muslims hold values more or less in line with mine own. I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

tomndebb
08-22-2010, 09:57 PM
All Muslims are anti-free speech? All Muslims need to be insulted for the offenses of a few?

Interesting. Are those Muslims who are pro-free speech likely to be insulted by this action? Being pro-free speech myself, I'm not really insulted much by what anyone says unless they are lying about it, that is. So, why would this likely be insulting to 'all' Muslims? Unless you really mean that most Muslims are not free speech advocates at all?This does not follow.

I advocate free speech, even to the acceptance of the idea that boors who desecrate the U.S. flag or the bible for vague political purposes should be free of legal sanctions for their actions, but I still consider such people rude and, on many occasions, I would consider their actions insulting.

Uzi
08-22-2010, 10:30 PM
... but I still consider such people rude and, on many occasions, I would consider their actions insulting.

If they aren't hurting you or someone else (eg. forcing Muslims to be at the event and watching them do it), then how is it insulting, or even rude for that matter? Really, I'm trying to think of someone saying something to me, about me, that being true, would be insulting to me, or doing something with their own property that I'd become offended over.
I'm not talking about someone screaming in your face, but about events that would have no affect on you otherwise if you hadn't heard about it on the news.
I'm asking more for clarification rather than arguing a point here, btw.

Really Not All That Bright
08-22-2010, 10:34 PM
Okay, Dio.

tomndebb
08-22-2010, 10:44 PM
... but I still consider such people rude and, on many occasions, I would consider their actions insulting.

If they aren't hurting you or someone else (eg. forcing Muslims to be at the event and watching them do it), then how is it insulting, or even rude for that matter? Really, I'm trying to think of someone saying something to me, about me, that being true, would be insulting to me, or doing something with their own property that I'd become offended over.
I'm not talking about someone screaming in your face, but about events that would have no affect on you otherwise if you hadn't heard about it on the news.
I'm asking more for clarification rather than arguing a point here, btw.I would not go out of my way to take offense or to seek some sort of "satisfaction" of the insult, but an action that shows disrespect for an idea or the symbol of an ideal that I hold is, pretty much by definition, insulting. While I dislike settling arguments with a dictionary, I don't think that we are to that point, yet, so I will note the Merriam-Webster definition the verb insult: "to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt." It is a transitive verb. It does not require a reaction on my part. That one engages in an action that demonstrates insolence, indignity, or contempt causes one to be insulting, regardless.

I can even take steps to defend their right to engage in that behavior, but that does not change the nature of their actions.

elucidator
08-22-2010, 10:47 PM
...I'm asking more for clarification rather than arguing a point here, btw.

In a word, fear. A thing like this creates fear. And fear not simply leads to evil, fear is evil.

BrightNShiny
08-22-2010, 10:57 PM
I'd bet if I were to burn a bunch of Bibles, the congregation of this church would find it insulting.

Uzi
08-22-2010, 11:24 PM
I would not go out of my way to take offense or to seek some sort of "satisfaction" of the insult, but an action that shows disrespect for an idea or the symbol of an ideal that I hold is, pretty much by definition, insulting.

While I dislike settling arguments with a dictionary, I don't think that we are to that point, yet, so I will note the Merriam-Webster definition the verb insult: "to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt." It is a transitive verb. It does not require a reaction on my part.

It does require an action on your part because if no one found their actions insolent, indignant, or contemptuous, then there wouldn't be an insult. You determine that it is an insult, not the people doing the actions. They may think they are doing so, but only you can say if it is true or not.

"Look at us! We're insulting you!"
"Uh, no you're not" <carries on with life> See what I mean?

The assumption here is that Muslims, who believe in free speech, would find this insulting. Carrying my thought further, if a Muslim believes in free speech and would find this insulting, then why should we care if it happens? They'll just chalk it up as that person's right to be an ass. If they think it is an insult and want to do something about it, like lop that person's head off, then they obviously don't believe in free speech or only if it doesn't gore their particular ox which is essentially the same thing.

tomndebb
08-23-2010, 12:05 AM
It does require an action on your part because if no one found their actions insolent, indignant, or contemptuous, then there wouldn't be an insult. You determine that it is an insult, not the people doing the actions. They may think they are doing so, but only you can say if it is true or not.

"Look at us! We're insulting you!"
"Uh, no you're not" <carries on with life> See what I mean?

I see that you and I have rather different understandings of the meaning of the word "insult." I can chhose to not take offense at an insult, (much as I can laugh at the ineffectiveness of a two-year-old striking me with a fist), but the fist blow and the insult both occurred.

Captain Amazing
08-23-2010, 12:40 AM
6) Saudi Arabia is no more Unitarian than the Inquisition was Sufi.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this point, because the Inquisition wasn't Sufi at all, but Saudi Arabia is very much Unitarian. That's the dominant religious school there. I mean, we call them Wahabis, but they don't call themselves that...they consider it insulting. They call themselves Muwahhidun, which means "the Unitarians". They don't have very much in common with American Unitarian Universalists, of course, although both groups deny the concept of the trinity, so I guess there's that.

Revenant Threshold
08-23-2010, 01:12 AM
I would not go out of my way to take offense or to seek some sort of "satisfaction" of the insult, but an action that shows disrespect for an idea or the symbol of an ideal that I hold is, pretty much by definition, insulting.

While I dislike settling arguments with a dictionary, I don't think that we are to that point, yet, so I will note the Merriam-Webster definition the verb insult: "to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt." It is a transitive verb. It does not require a reaction on my part.

It does require an action on your part because if no one found their actions insolent, indignant, or contemptuous, then there wouldn't be an insult. I think it's fair also to count intent into the equation. If someone insults me in a way that I can easily laugh off, they have still attempted to insult me; even if their attempt did not succeed, they made the attempt. So rather than find them offensive for their insult, rather, you might find them offensive for trying to insult you.

qpw3141
08-23-2010, 03:46 AM
It does require an action on your part because if no one found their actions insolent, indignant, or contemptuous, then there wouldn't be an insult. I think it's fair also to count intent into the equation. If someone insults me in a way that I can easily laugh off, they have still attempted to insult me; even if their attempt did not succeed, they made the attempt. So rather than find them offensive for their insult, rather, you might find them offensive for trying to insult you.

Quite.

People who are tolerant of others and believe that one should avoid insulting others find these book burning goons offensive because they are intending to behave in a gratuitously insulting manner - to whom is barely relevant.

Some may be offended because they are actually insulted.

Some may be offended for both reasons.

Kobal2
08-23-2010, 04:11 AM
My Congressman, Mr. Ellison, assures me that the vast majority of American Muslims hold values more or less in line with mine own.

But you can't trust him. His kind are known liars.

You know, politicians.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 10:32 AM
I just don't understand why they can't see their actions for the stupidity they are, or see the harm they are doing.

Cuz they're stupid. DUH

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 10:36 AM
Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it is necessarily a wise idea to do so.

Being annoyed by an offense, and deciding that the best course of action to stop offenses is to offend back, is the very opposite of wise. It's cognitive dissonance in rather stark action.

Maybe thats the point they are trying to make. Just having the right to buuild a mosque anywhere they want doesn't mean its necessarily a wise idea to do so.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 10:41 AM
Offending a bunch of retards doesn't make it unwise, either.

Czarcasm
08-23-2010, 10:41 AM
Having the right to do something doesn't mean that it is necessarily a wise idea to do so.

Being annoyed by an offense, and deciding that the best course of action to stop offenses is to offend back, is the very opposite of wise. It's cognitive dissonance in rather stark action.

Maybe thats the point they are trying to make. Just having the right to buuild a mosque anywhere they want doesn't mean its necessarily a wise idea to do so.And giving in to baseless intimidation isn't necessarily a wise thing to do in the long run. It gives the ignorant a power base to further their agenda.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 11:08 AM
All conservatives are the same, right? Certainly around here, the usual suspects holler loud and long that we are. Yet somehow that isn't wrong. Because dippy hippy liberals can never ever possibly be wrong about any damn thing.

See? I can toss out irrelevant hijacks with the best of them.It wasn't a hijack. It was an extremely on-topic commentary on your position. Argument by analogy dovetailing into an argument for absurdity, specifically.

And the lovely thing about your strawman tu quoque argument is that you just admitted that your own position is wrong, because it's wrong when "the usual suspects" do it.

Far from tossing my comment out; you conceded the argument.

I think Oakminster's point (and its a fair point) is that pretty much everyone (Christians included, or at least every Christian I have ever met) think that the Westboro baptist Church is nucking futz and they are very very exceptional. On the other hand there seem to be entire countries that follow the extremist muslim philosophy that Oakminster is criticizing.

Burning books may be the title of chapter one in the dummies guide to asshattery but I don't know that we can shrug off all the terroism we see around the world (coming largely from islam) as just a few bad apples. There seems to be a movement in the Islamic sphere that makes the propogation of their religion more important than not only their lives but more important than your life or my life.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 11:20 AM
Offending a bunch of retards doesn't make it unwise, either.

Are we talking about bruning the Quran or building the mosque here?

There was ONE placquard ont hat stupid atals shrugged site that made sense to me. It was a skinny middle aged balding dude with glasses holding up a card saying "sensitivity goes both ways, if you really care, don't build it here"

Why are we stepping so gingerly on the feelings of Muslims when muslims don't seem to give a shit about the feelings of people who are victims of the more extreme elements of islam?

Why can't we criticize Islam generally (despite the fact that most of them are peaceful law abiding global citizens) when there is a large enough concentration of assholes in their midst?

For example, I really don't give enough of a crap about the feelings of conservatives to avoid shitting on conservatives generally despite the fact that most conservatives I know are good decent people, because there is a large enough concentration of assholes and flat out evil men and women among them that I don't really feel it is unjust.

Uzi
08-23-2010, 11:23 AM
I see that you and I have rather different understandings of the meaning of the word "insult." I can chhose to not take offense at an insult, (much as I can laugh at the ineffectiveness of a two-year-old striking me with a fist), but the fist blow and the insult both occurred.

No, I think we're both on a similar page regarding the meaning. Maybe on the consequences is where we differ. If I'm insulted it usually means that I likely will have to give a response to the insult. Someone calls me stupid in front of my boss for example, is going to get a response from me. Well, unless I've actually done something stupid that deserves such a reaction.
The meaning I took from Dio's post is that by insulting Muslims there is an unspoken assumption that there will be consequences by doing so. I would think that those that are free speech advocates may or may not be insulted, but are not likely to do anything about it if they are. In which case, why the concern?

qpw3141
08-23-2010, 11:24 AM
I think Oakminster's point (and its a fair point) is that pretty much everyone (Christians included, or at least every Christian I have ever met) think that the Westboro baptist Church is nucking futz and they are very very exceptional. On the other hand there seem to be entire countries that follow the extremist muslim philosophy that Oakminster is criticizing.

Burning books may be the title of chapter one in the dummies guide to asshattery but I don't know that we can shrug off all the terroism we see around the world (coming largely from islam) as just a few bad apples. There seems to be a movement in the Islamic sphere that makes the propogation of their religion more important than not only their lives but more important than your life or my life.

You are making a very common mistake - that of equating Muslim terrorism with a desire to propagate their religion around the world (Like the Jehova's witnesses).

This is not a true picture of what is happening.

The Muslims who are indulging in terrorism are doing so because various other people are interfering in their lands and they are being treated unfairly by the international community.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 11:25 AM
Are we talking about bruning the Quran or building the mosque here?

There was ONE placquard ont hat stupid atals shrugged site that made sense to me. It was a skinny middle aged balding dude with glasses holding up a card saying "sensitivity goes both ways, if you really care, don't build it here"
This is a false equivalence. There is no legitimate purpose to the Koran burning other than to piss off some Muslims. Do you think the sole purpose of the Cordoba/Park51 project is to piss off 9/11 survivors?

Let's say this middle aged bald guy is right, and it's insensitive to build a mosque within a half-mile of Ground Zero. Should we also make an effort to hide any other vestiges of Islam in the area in the name of sensitivity? Close the falafel stands? Ban hijabs? Request that Muslims kindly refrain from renting apartments south of 14th?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 11:26 AM
Maybe thats the point they are trying to make. Just having the right to buuild a mosque anywhere they want doesn't mean its necessarily a wise idea to do so.And giving in to baseless intimidation isn't necessarily a wise thing to do in the long run. It gives the ignorant a power base to further their agenda.

But you agree that doing stupid offensive shit (like burning the Quran) is protected by the same principle that protects the right to build that mosque right? And perhaps building a mosque so close to the twin towers is not as offensive to you as burning the quran but I bet there are some people who think nothing of burning the Quran but think that a mosque on that site is truly and deeply offensive.

jjimm
08-23-2010, 11:31 AM
We need people to mail in these or the equivalent (http://compare.ebay.com/like/220657556585?var=vl&sort=BestMatch) for the bonfire, then publicize their Bible-burning afterward.I do recall an episode of the Waltons where the local townsfolk were burning German books, and John Boy started translating one of them, and it turned out to be the Bible.

Plagiarist!

;)

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 11:36 AM
It wasn't a hijack. It was an extremely on-topic commentary on your position. Argument by analogy dovetailing into an argument for absurdity, specifically.

And the lovely thing about your strawman tu quoque argument is that you just admitted that your own position is wrong, because it's wrong when "the usual suspects" do it.

Far from tossing my comment out; you conceded the argument.

I think Oakminster's point (and its a fair point) is that pretty much everyone (Christians included, or at least every Christian I have ever met) think that the Westboro baptist Church is nucking futz and they are very very exceptional. On the other hand there seem to be entire countries that follow the extremist muslim philosophy that Oakminster is criticizing.
And there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't, so who gives a shit?

Czarcasm
08-23-2010, 11:36 AM
And giving in to baseless intimidation isn't necessarily a wise thing to do in the long run. It gives the ignorant a power base to further their agenda.

But you agree that doing stupid offensive shit (like burning the Quran) is protected by the same principle that protects the right to build that mosque right? And perhaps building a mosque so close to the twin towers is not as offensive to you as burning the quran but I bet there are some people who think nothing of burning the Quran but think that a mosque on that site is truly and deeply offensive.I'm not willing to equate idiots that want to burn the Koran with reasonable people that want to build a civic enter. Having rights is not the same thing as being right.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 11:38 AM
Offending a bunch of retards doesn't make it unwise, either.

Are we talking about bruning the Quran or building the mosque here?

There was ONE placquard ont hat stupid atals shrugged site that made sense to me. It was a skinny middle aged balding dude with glasses holding up a card saying "sensitivity goes both ways, if you really care, don't build it here"
This is an absolute bullshit false equivalency. There's nothing insensitive about building a Mosque. The insensitivity is from the bigots trying to rob fellow citzens of their Constitutional rights.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 11:42 AM
I think Oakminster's point (and its a fair point) is that pretty much everyone (Christians included, or at least every Christian I have ever met) think that the Westboro baptist Church is nucking futz and they are very very exceptional. On the other hand there seem to be entire countries that follow the extremist muslim philosophy that Oakminster is criticizing.

Burning books may be the title of chapter one in the dummies guide to asshattery but I don't know that we can shrug off all the terroism we see around the world (coming largely from islam) as just a few bad apples. There seems to be a movement in the Islamic sphere that makes the propogation of their religion more important than not only their lives but more important than your life or my life.

You are making a very common mistake - that of equating Muslim terrorism with a desire to propagate their religion around the world (Like the Jehova's witnesses).

This is not a true picture of what is happening.

The Muslims who are indulging in terrorism are doing so because various other people are interfering in their lands and they are being treated unfairly by the international community.

Frankly, I don't give a shit why they're doing it but extremist asshatery in Islam seems to be far more prevalent than extremist asshattery in almost any other community. Why is that? Is it my imaginiation?

There are US military bases in Germany, Japan, Korea, Guam, the Philipinnes, and yet we do not see a rash of Korean terrorists trying to blow up Times Square. And noone is walking on eggshells around the Filipinos for fear that they might throw a fucking tantrum and blow up a building in NYC. WTF is it about Islam that makes this sort of shit so common?

There are poor people all over the world. Go to India's slums and ask if these people are so muchy better off than the guys who flew a plane into the twin towers? Poverty is no excuse.

There are people who suffer GRAVE injustice all over the world that makes the injustice heaped on muslims pale in comparison. Suffering injustive is no excuse. What makes these guys so fucking special that we have to delve into their motives and try to understand WHY they are pissed off enough to come and kill people indiscriminately?

Treated unfairly by the international community? Are you fucking kidding me? I routinely get into head shitting contests with Finn Again because I am constantly criticizing Israel and exposing the plight of the Palestinians and for every stupid fuckhead move that Israel makes in worsening the situation, the Palestinians feel like they have to one up them on the stupidity meter. If it weren't for the fact that I hold Israel to a higher standard than a people who have been oppressed for 60+ years, I don't think I would criticize them as much as I do.

Isn't it about time we started asking WTF is wrong with Islam? What is their fucking problem?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 11:47 AM
Are we talking about bruning the Quran or building the mosque here?

There was ONE placquard ont hat stupid atals shrugged site that made sense to me. It was a skinny middle aged balding dude with glasses holding up a card saying "sensitivity goes both ways, if you really care, don't build it here"
This is a false equivalence. There is no legitimate purpose to the Koran burning other than to piss off some Muslims. Do you think the sole purpose of the Cordoba/Park51 project is to piss off 9/11 survivors?

Let's say this middle aged bald guy is right, and it's insensitive to build a mosque within a half-mile of Ground Zero. Should we also make an effort to hide any other vestiges of Islam in the area in the name of sensitivity? Close the falafel stands? Ban hijabs? Request that Muslims kindly refrain from renting apartments south of 14th?

No, I think they would be happy with not building the mosque.

I personally don't care about the 9/11 mosque. I do care about some of the hypocrisy on this subject. Oakminster made some inartful but valid points and a people started shitting down his throat for it. (I don't have a good enough memory to remember if oakminster is one of the assholes on this board I dislike or one of the assholes on this board i tend to agree with but he seemed to be getting shitted on for defending free speech book burning (the link to a site with an Ayn Rand reference makes me think he is probably one of the former types)).

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 11:48 AM
The meaning I took from Dio's post is that by insulting Muslims there is an unspoken assumption that there will be consequences by doing so.
No, I don't think so. I just think it's bad maners. I also said I think they have every right to do it. My objection was not that I think such an action would inspire any more violence (the ones who hate us already hate us), but just to he gneral idea that we should accept Islamaphobic insults as socially acceptable just because of the actions of a few.

The suggestion that a Muslim civic center is "insensitive" to 9/11 victims is beyond asinine and is just an excuse to express anti-Muslim bigotry. There is absolutely no way anyone would have a problem with someone building a Christian curch or civic civic center near the site where an abortion clinic was bombed. The offense at this civic center in New York is completely hypocritical, disingenuous and bigoted.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 11:50 AM
Frankly, I don't give a shit why they're doing it but extremist asshatery in Islam seems to be far more prevalent than extremist asshattery in almost any other community. Why is that? Is it my imaginiation
Yes, it's your imagination.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 11:52 AM
This is a false equivalence. There is no legitimate purpose to the Koran burning other than to piss off some Muslims. Do you think the sole purpose of the Cordoba/Park51 project is to piss off 9/11 survivors?

Let's say this middle aged bald guy is right, and it's insensitive to build a mosque within a half-mile of Ground Zero. Should we also make an effort to hide any other vestiges of Islam in the area in the name of sensitivity? Close the falafel stands? Ban hijabs? Request that Muslims kindly refrain from renting apartments south of 14th?

No, I think they would be happy with not building the mosque.

I personally don't care about the 9/11 mosque. I do care about some of the hypocrisy on this subject. Oakminster made some inartful but valid points and a people started shitting down his throat for it. (I don't have a good enough memory to remember if oakminster is one of the assholes on this board I dislike or one of the assholes on this board i tend to agree with but he seemed to be getting shitted on for defending free speech book burning (the link to a site with an Ayn Rand reference makes me think he is probably one of the former types)).
Everybody here is defending the free speech right to burn the books. Oakminster was getting grief for comments completely unrelated to that.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 11:53 AM
I think Oakminster's point (and its a fair point) is that pretty much everyone (Christians included, or at least every Christian I have ever met) think that the Westboro baptist Church is nucking futz and they are very very exceptional. On the other hand there seem to be entire countries that follow the extremist muslim philosophy that Oakminster is criticizing.
And there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't, so who gives a shit?

Did you miss the part where one side is holding forward the westboro baptist church on the one hand and the other side is holdig forward half the middle east on the other? What percentage of terrorism worldwide do you think is comitted by muslims? Its a staggeringly huge percentage, how do you explain the huge concentration of terrorism among muslims? I mean, if you got rid of terrorism by muslims you hardly have any terrorism left.

Lust4Life
08-23-2010, 11:53 AM
I haven't read my way through all the pages of this thread.

The people who want to burn Korans are idiots who are helping Al Quidas cause no end and underminding the Wests position as the vanguard of liberty and progress.

The next time some extreme Islamist carries out an atrocity they can quite honestly point at the people who came up with this adventure in stupidity as an example of Western lies and hypocrisy.
I.E. We talk about freedom of religion on the one hand and then carry out acts like this..........

So our word is obviously not to be trusted, so its pointless to negotiate.

And the nut jobs murdering innocent people are "justified "in their actions.

All Muslims aren't the same and don't think and act the same.

Unfortunately all small minded bigots appear to think the same and act the same whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish or worshippers of the Gianrt Flying Spaghetti monster etc..

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 11:56 AM
But you agree that doing stupid offensive shit (like burning the Quran) is protected by the same principle that protects the right to build that mosque right? And perhaps building a mosque so close to the twin towers is not as offensive to you as burning the quran but I bet there are some people who think nothing of burning the Quran but think that a mosque on that site is truly and deeply offensive.I'm not willing to equate idiots that want to burn the Koran with reasonable people that want to build a civic enter. Having rights is not the same thing as being right.

So we should protect people'
s right to practice their religion where people murdered 300 folks in the name of that religion but we should restrict people's ability to burn an icon of that religion?

qpw3141
08-23-2010, 11:56 AM
You are making a very common mistake - that of equating Muslim terrorism with a desire to propagate their religion around the world (Like the Jehova's witnesses).

This is not a true picture of what is happening.

The Muslims who are indulging in terrorism are doing so because various other people are interfering in their lands and they are being treated unfairly by the international community.

Frankly, I don't give a shit why they're doing it but extremist asshatery in Islam seems to be far more prevalent than extremist asshattery in almost any other community. Why is that? Is it my imaginiation?

Almost certainly, yes.

There are US military bases in Germany, Japan, Korea, Guam, the Philipinnes, and yet we do not see a rash of Korean terrorists trying to blow up Times Square. And noone is walking on eggshells around the Filipinos for fear that they might throw a fucking tantrum and blow up a building in NYC. WTF is it about Islam that makes this sort of shit so common?
This is a straw man.

Who said anything about US bases?

Anyway, there is a considerable difference between a country giving the US permission to have a base there and getting invaded. I would have thought that would have been obvious to anyone. :rolleyes:

There are poor people all over the world. Go to India's slums and ask if these people are so muchy better off than the guys who flew a plane into the twin towers? Poverty is no excuse.
Another straw man.

Who said it was, or that that was a reason?

There are people who suffer GRAVE injustice all over the world that makes the injustice heaped on muslims pale in comparison. Suffering injustive is no excuse. What makes these guys so fucking special that we have to delve into their motives and try to understand WHY they are pissed off enough to come and kill people indiscriminately?

Erm, let me see ...

Perhaps because if we understand what their grievances are we would be in a better position to work something out and stop any future bloodshed.

Too simple?

Just ask yourself what is the difference between yourself and some hotheaded blow hard Iraqi who asks the same questions about the US who invaded his country and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

He's actually got a lot more to get worked up about than you have. ;)

Isn't it about time we started asking WTF is wrong with Islam? What is their fucking problem?

Only if you have so little knowledge of what's going on in the middle East that you don't find the answer blindingly obvious.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 12:00 PM
And there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't, so who gives a shit?

Did you miss the part where one side is holding forward the westboro baptist church on the one hand and the other side is holdig forward half the middle east on the other?
An irrelevant point. It's still less than one percent of all Muslims who are extremists. and it's still equally stupid to villify a billion and a half people you've never met for the actions of a few extremists.

The extremism has nothing to do with the religion, by the way. It's political. Religious;ly motivated violence and fanatacism within a culture is a symptom, not a cause. Muslims integrated into the US tend to be completely law abiding and non-violent because they aren't subjected to the stresses (or ghettoization) they are subjected to in some other countries.

Lock a bunch of Christians behind barbed wire and armed guards for a while, and Christians would start putting bombs in backpacks too. The religion has nothing to do with it. Any religion will do. It's the stresses on the population that causes extremism.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm not willing to equate idiots that want to burn the Koran with reasonable people that want to build a civic enter. Having rights is not the same thing as being right.

So we should protect people'
s right to practice their religion where people murdered 300 folks in the name of that religion but we should restrict people's ability to burn an icon of that religion?
Name one person in this thread who has said we should restrict anyone's right to burn Qur'ans.

Uzi
08-23-2010, 12:37 PM
Lock a bunch of Christians behind barbed wire and armed guards for a while, and Christians would start putting bombs in backpacks too. The religion has nothing to do with it. Any religion will do. It's the stresses on the population that causes extremism.

There are millions of Americans in jail in the US and the vast majority are of a christian derivative. Few (none actually) are putting bombs in backpacks.

but just to he gneral idea that we should accept Islamaphobic insults as socially acceptable just because of the actions of a few.

Then you're concern is that those Muslim's who don't hate us know that we don't agree with the actions of this church? I somewhat agree, but I think we should also emphasize that even if we find it objectionable, it is still something that we will tolerate because we believe in the concept of free speech over someone being offended.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 12:39 PM
The fact that it is occurring at all makes that taken as read.

Uzi
08-23-2010, 12:41 PM
The extremism has nothing to do with the religion, by the way.

There are things in the Koran that specifically call for 'extremist' actions. These haven't been left on the scrap heap of history like similar things have been in Christianity. So, you can't say it has nothing to do with the religion based upon small minorities of people living within another culture.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 12:44 PM
Yeah, it's a good thing modern Christians don't blow up abortion clinics or anything.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 12:47 PM
Lock a bunch of Christians behind barbed wire and armed guards for a while, and Christians would start putting bombs in backpacks too. The religion has nothing to do with it. Any religion will do. It's the stresses on the population that causes extremism.

There are millions of Americans in jail in the US and the vast majority are of a christian derivative. Few (none actually) are putting bombs in backpacks.
I'm not talking about jail, I'm talking about apartheid.
Then you're concern is that those Muslim's who don't hate us know that we don't agree with the actions of this church?
No. I think they're smart enough to figure that out. My concern is that we don't allow sweeping anti-Islamic rhetoric to become socially acceptable. I wasn't even talk about the book burning, which I don't give a shit about, but the spewing by some posters in this thread which is indistingushable from spewing about "niggers" or Jews.
I somewhat agree, but I think we should also emphasize that even if we find it objectionable, it is still something that we will tolerate because we believe in the concept of free speech over someone being offended.
Who's saying we shouldn't tolerate it?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 12:49 PM
The extremism has nothing to do with the religion, by the way.

There are things in the Koran that specifically call for 'extremist' actions.
There are just as many things in the Bible that call for extremist action.
These haven't been left on the scrap heap of history like similar things have been in Christianity.
For the vast majority of Muslims, yes they have.

Uzi
08-23-2010, 01:13 PM
Yeah, it's a good thing modern Christians don't blow up abortion clinics or anything.

How many abortion clinics have been blown up?

I'm not talking about jail, I'm talking about apartheid.

What apartheid?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 01:21 PM
Frankly, I don't give a shit why they're doing it but extremist asshatery in Islam seems to be far more prevalent than extremist asshattery in almost any other community. Why is that? Is it my imaginiation
Yes, it's your imagination.

OK, so what percentage of acts of terrorism in the last 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years do you think were committed by Muslims? I'm not saying that any appreciable percentage of mulsims are terrorists but I am saying that a significant percentage of terrorists are muslims.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 01:23 PM
No, I think they would be happy with not building the mosque.

I personally don't care about the 9/11 mosque. I do care about some of the hypocrisy on this subject. Oakminster made some inartful but valid points and a people started shitting down his throat for it. (I don't have a good enough memory to remember if oakminster is one of the assholes on this board I dislike or one of the assholes on this board i tend to agree with but he seemed to be getting shitted on for defending free speech book burning (the link to a site with an Ayn Rand reference makes me think he is probably one of the former types)).
Everybody here is defending the free speech right to burn the books. Oakminster was getting grief for comments completely unrelated to that.

OK I guess you are right but I did see a lot of "this pastor is an asshole for wanting to burn books" with percious few "that imam is an asshole for wanting to build a mosque so close to the twin towers"

I don't think its offensive to build a mosque near the twin towers but I can see how someone else might.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 01:26 PM
Yeah, it's a good thing modern Christians don't blow up abortion clinics or anything.

How many abortion clinics have been blown up?
41 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_crime) in the US and Canada since 1977, not including unsuccessful attempts or arson. Why?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 01:27 PM
I haven't read my way through all the pages of this thread.

The people who want to burn Korans are idiots who are helping Al Quidas cause no end and underminding the Wests position as the vanguard of liberty and progress.

The next time some extreme Islamist carries out an atrocity they can quite honestly point at the people who came up with this adventure in stupidity as an example of Western lies and hypocrisy.
I.E. We talk about freedom of religion on the one hand and then carry out acts like this..........

So our word is obviously not to be trusted, so its pointless to negotiate.

And the nut jobs murdering innocent people are "justified "in their actions.

All Muslims aren't the same and don't think and act the same.

Unfortunately all small minded bigots appear to think the same and act the same whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish or worshippers of the Gianrt Flying Spaghetti monster etc..

So you're saying that burning the Quran might encourage or terrorism taht kills innocent people so we shouldn't do it? That we should walk on eggshells around them?

When the fuck can we call out the global Muslim community for these assholes in their midst? We call out the otherwise inoffensive teabaggers for the racists in their midst and attribute some of that racism to all of them, why can't we call out the muslims for the murdering terrorists that their population seems to generate with such frequency?

Nobody is saying that most muslims are terrorists but aren't most terrorists muslims (at least right now)?

ZPG Zealot
08-23-2010, 01:36 PM
I really need to go into the book business and put out loads of books that really offend people. Imagine how many of those Qurans they're buying just so they can burn them.

And if I stock American flags too I can sell to the Middle East market after they hear about the Quran burning.

Profit!

I must say that would be a most meaningful gesture to symbolize what America is all about.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 01:41 PM
When the fuck can we call out the global Muslim community for these assholes in their midst? We call out the otherwise inoffensive teabaggers for the racists in their midst and attribute some of that racism to all of them, why can't we call out the muslims for the murdering terrorists that their population seems to generate with such frequency?
We don't call out teabaggers. We call out the Tea Party. We don't call out Muslims. We call out radical Islam.

Get it?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 01:42 PM
Frankly, I don't give a shit why they're doing it but extremist asshatery in Islam seems to be far more prevalent than extremist asshattery in almost any other community. Why is that? Is it my imaginiation?

Almost certainly, yes.

what percentage of terrorism is commtted by muslims?

This is a straw man.

Who said anything about US bases?

Osama Bin Laden

Anyway, there is a considerable difference between a country giving the US permission to have a base there and getting invaded. I would have thought that would have been obvious to anyone. :rolleyes:

I didn't think we invaded Saudi Arabia. You do realizet aht 9/11 happened BEFORE we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan right?

Another straw man.

Who said it was, or that that was a reason?

Its one of the common rationales I hear for why these places breed terrorists.

Perhaps because if we understand what their grievances are we would be in a better position to work something out and stop any future bloodshed.

Too simple?

Just ask yourself what is the difference between yourself and some hotheaded blow hard Iraqi who asks the same questions about the US who invaded his country and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

He's actually got a lot more to get worked up about than you have. ;)

You don't think we've been trying to "work something out"?

I've spent the last ten years trying to udnerstand why soemone would do seomthing like 9/11 and after years of trying to walk a mile in their shoes, I can't empathize with them. There is simply no excuse for what they are doing. Perhaps we play nice because we simply can't get rid of them militarily but I think its time we stopped trying to be so understanding.

As for the Iraqi hothead, I would say that we had no right to invade Iraq and Iraq had every right to defend itself and all that blood is on our hands. But after the democratic elections in Iraq, all that insurgent activity falls on the heads of the insurgents.

Isn't it about time we started asking WTF is wrong with Islam? What is their fucking problem?

Only if you have so little knowledge of what's going on in the middle East that you don't find the answer blindingly obvious.

Don't be coy. Why don't you enlighten me?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 01:43 PM
Yeah, it's a good thing modern Christians don't blow up abortion clinics or anything.

How many abortion clinics have been blown up?
How many World Trade Centers have been blown up? What difference does it make how many? A terrorist site is a terrorist site.

I'm not talking about jail, I'm talking about apartheid.

What apartheid?
There's this country in the Middle East I forget the name of. I think it was in the Bible.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 01:46 PM
Yes, it's your imagination.

OK, so what percentage of acts of terrorism in the last 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years do you think were committed by Muslims? I'm not saying that any appreciable percentage of mulsims are terrorists but I am saying that a significant percentage of terrorists are muslims.
The population in US prisons is disproprtionately black. What does that say about black people?

Uzi
08-23-2010, 01:47 PM
How many abortion clinics have been blown up?
41 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_crime) in the US and Canada since 1977, not including unsuccessful attempts or arson. Why?

October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage.

And you equate this in scope and numbers with someone strapping on a bomb and killing themselves and a cafe full of people, or planes full of passengers, and the destruction of billions of dollars of property and the people in them, correct?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 01:48 PM
Everybody here is defending the free speech right to burn the books. Oakminster was getting grief for comments completely unrelated to that.

OK I guess you are right but I did see a lot of "this pastor is an asshole for wanting to burn books" with percious few "that imam is an asshole for wanting to build a mosque so close to the twin towers"
Because there is absolutely zero equivalency there. Building a mosque is not offensive and not an insult. It's offensive to say it's offensive.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 01:50 PM
Did you miss the part where one side is holding forward the westboro baptist church on the one hand and the other side is holdig forward half the middle east on the other?
An irrelevant point. It's still less than one percent of all Muslims who are extremists. and it's still equally stupid to villify a billion and a half people you've never met for the actions of a few extremists.

Where do I vilify all muslims? I am asking why does islam produce so much terrorism.

The extremism has nothing to do with the religion, by the way. It's political. Religious;ly motivated violence and fanatacism within a culture is a symptom, not a cause. Muslims integrated into the US tend to be completely law abiding and non-violent because they aren't subjected to the stresses (or ghettoization) they are subjected to in some other countries.

Lock a bunch of Christians behind barbed wire and armed guards for a while, and Christians would start putting bombs in backpacks too. The religion has nothing to do with it. Any religion will do. It's the stresses on the population that causes extremism.

And if Palestinian terrorism was all that we saw then I might see where you are coming from but that is not even close to what we see. In fact palestinian terrorism barely even makes the news here. Its the stuff perpetrated by Egyptians and Saudis and Jordanians in places like Spain and Times Square.

Religion might be a very powerful language with which to communicate extreme political points of view and Christianity has certainly had its periods of ultra-extremism but right here, right now, it is Islam that is being used to justify terrorism, isn't it?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 01:51 PM
So we should protect people'
s right to practice their religion where people murdered 300 folks in the name of that religion but we should restrict people's ability to burn an icon of that religion?
Name one person in this thread who has said we should restrict anyone's right to burn Qur'ans.

My mistake. I just saw oakminster taking a pounding for defending the book burners on EXACTLY the same grounds that people used to defend the mosque.

But there were certainly people who thought we shouldn't do it because it would provoke more terorrism. I say fuck em.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 01:51 PM
Almost certainly, yes.

what percentage of terrorism is commtted by muslims?
Who's killed more civilians in the past 20 years, Muslims or the US?

Incidentally, are you familiar with the ethnic cleansing (i.e genocide and mass rape) of Muslims by Christians that occurred in Bosnia in very recent memory? Why don't the Islamaphobes ever bring that up?

magellan01
08-23-2010, 01:52 PM
How many World Trade Centers have been blown up?

All of them.

What difference does it make how many? A terrorist site is a terrorist site.

This is unfortunate. You're equating the murder of 3,000 people, which could easily have been 30,000 with the blowing up of a small abortion clinic with no one in it. Come on, man.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 01:53 PM
Name one person in this thread who has said we should restrict anyone's right to burn Qur'ans.

My mistake. I just saw oakminster taking a pounding for defending the book burners on EXACTLY the same grounds that people used to defend the mosque.
No you didn't. Oakminster got no flak at all for defending the book burners, and once more, there is NO EQUIVALENCY to the mosque.

Uzi
08-23-2010, 01:55 PM
There's this country in the Middle East I forget the name of. I think it was in the Bible.

Which is as much the fault of the Palestinians as the Israelis as any impartial observer would know.

magellan01
08-23-2010, 01:56 PM
Where do I vilify all muslims? I am asking why does islam produce so much terrorism.


Which is a perfectly valid question. It doesn't go down well here, because the answer is, the Koran. And, oh..oogie-boogie...how dare anyone judge another's religion? :eek:

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 01:57 PM
41 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_crime) in the US and Canada since 1977, not including unsuccessful attempts or arson. Why?

October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage.

And you equate this in scope and numbers with someone strapping on a bomb and killing themselves and a cafe full of people, or planes full of passengers, and the destruction of billions of dollars of property and the people in them, correct?
Yes. It's exactly the same, and you can also add in the bombing of Olympic Park, the Murrah building, the gay bars that Eric Rudolph bombed, the genocide in Bosnia, the Christian terrorist sects in Ireland, etc. Also, you can factor in the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by the United States for no reason in Iraq.

Osama is a piker compared to us.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 01:58 PM
41 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_crime) in the US and Canada since 1977, not including unsuccessful attempts or arson. Why?
October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage.
And you equate this in scope and numbers with someone strapping on a bomb and killing themselves and a cafe full of people, or planes full of passengers, and the destruction of billions of dollars of property and the people in them, correct?
Which part of "unsuccessful attempts or arson" was unclear to you? In any case, you have totally missed the point. I was responding to your own earlier contention:
There are things in the Koran that specifically call for 'extremist' actions. These haven't been left on the scrap heap of history like similar things have been in Christianity. So, you can't say it has nothing to do with the religion based upon small minorities of people living within another culture.
You implied that extremist actions have been left on the scrap heap of history by Christianity. The fact that Christians continue to blow things up would seem to put the lie to that claim, even if they aren't very good at it.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 02:05 PM
Yeah, it's a good thing modern Christians don't blow up abortion clinics or anything.

I think we should tell those fuckers to fuck off too (and for the most part we do) but abortion clinic bombing doesn't have nearly the death toll or the frequency of terrorism from Islamic terrorists. You can't point to a score of anti-abortion religiously motivated acts and say "see, Christians do it too so there's really no difference between Christianity with its score of anti-abortion acts of terrorism" (or any other religion really) and Islam and its recent association with terrorism.

There is a qualitative difference of scale.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 02:06 PM
An irrelevant point. It's still less than one percent of all Muslims who are extremists. and it's still equally stupid to villify a billion and a half people you've never met for the actions of a few extremists.

Where do I vilify all muslims? I am asking why does islam produce so much terrorism.
It doesn't. Political pressures create terrorists. Subject any religious culture to the right pressures (including Christians in the late 20th Century), and you get terrororists who use their religion to justify it. It happens with any religion.
The extremism has nothing to do with the religion, by the way. It's political. Religious;ly motivated violence and fanatacism within a culture is a symptom, not a cause. Muslims integrated into the US tend to be completely law abiding and non-violent because they aren't subjected to the stresses (or ghettoization) they are subjected to in some other countries.

Lock a bunch of Christians behind barbed wire and armed guards for a while, and Christians would start putting bombs in backpacks too. The religion has nothing to do with it. Any religion will do. It's the stresses on the population that causes extremism.

And if Palestinian terrorism was all that we saw then I might see where you are coming from but that is not even close to what we see. In fact palestinian terrorism barely even makes the news here. Its the stuff perpetrated by Egyptians and Saudis and Jordanians in places like Spain and Times Square.

Religion might be a very powerful language with which to communicate extreme political points of view and Christianity has certainly had its periods of ultra-extremism but right here, right now, it is Islam that is being used to justify terrorism, isn't it?
I was using the Palestinians as one example, not as an explanation for all of it. I do know that when Muslims are allowed to live and function without despreate political pressures (and that includes a lot of bullshit from their iown ostensible leaders in many countries), they assimilate very well. The US actually has some of the least problems and violence in the world from native and transpalnted Muslims because we don't ghettoize them as in some other parts of the world, but give them the same rights and opportunities we have. We don't have riots and petty terrorism like in France because we treat them as equals. That is our greatest strength, and doing shit like trying to stop a perfectly legal, peaceful non-offensive religious structure from being built is about the most counter-productive thing we could possibly do.

griffin1977
08-23-2010, 02:09 PM
Pastor Terry Jones arrested for Child Pornography (http://www.nbc.com/news/2010/08/06/pastor-terry-jones-arrested-for-child-pornography/).

The church says that nevertheless, they'll still be burning Qurans on 9/11.

Ironic as this would be the linked story looks decidedly fake to me.

That said I find Rev. Jones refusal to address these allegations quite telling :)

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 02:09 PM
There are things in the Koran that specifically call for 'extremist' actions.
There are just as many things in the Bible that call for extremist action.

Yeah but a lot more terrorist seem to be quoting stuff from the Quran than from Leviticus.

These haven't been left on the scrap heap of history like similar things have been in Christianity.
For the vast majority of Muslims, yes they have.

Absolutely. The vast VAST majority of Muslims (especially Muslims in America) are regular folks but when you look at terroism around the world these days most terrorists seem to be associated with islam.

Uzi
08-23-2010, 02:09 PM
The US actually has some of the least problems and violence in the world from native and transpalnted Muslims because we don't ghettoize them as in some other parts of the world, but give them the same rights and opportunities we have.

You could also translate this as long as you keep them from gathering into sufficient numbers you have no problems with them.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 02:10 PM
How many World Trade Centers have been blown up?

All of them.

What difference does it make how many? A terrorist site is a terrorist site.

This is unfortunate. You're equating the murder of 3,000 people, which could easily have been 30,000 with the blowing up of a small abortion clinic with no one in it. Come on, man.
To the loved ones of those killed at those abortion clinics,there's no difference, and this is missing the point anyway. The question was whether anyone would consider it offensive to build a Christian church near a site which ahd been a target of Christian terrosim. The scale of the particular act is irrelevant to the point.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 02:11 PM
Yeah, it's a good thing modern Christians don't blow up abortion clinics or anything.

I think we should tell those fuckers to fuck off too (and for the most part we do) but abortion clinic bombing doesn't have nearly the death toll or the frequency of terrorism from Islamic terrorists. You can't point to a score of anti-abortion religiously motivated acts and say "see, Christians do it too so there's really no difference between Christianity with its score of anti-abortion acts of terrorism" (or any other religion really) and Islam and its recent association with terrorism.

There is a qualitative difference of scale.
There certainly is a difference of scale. We've had two successful acts of Islamic terrorism on US soil (including the Fort Hood shooter). We've had dozens of Christian terrorist attacks.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, there is no difference. I am neither a Christian nor a Muslim, and I am to all intents and purposes equally likely to be blown up by one as by the other.

Uzi
08-23-2010, 02:13 PM
You implied that extremist actions have been left on the scrap heap of history by Christianity. The fact that Christians continue to blow things up would seem to put the lie to that claim, even if they aren't very good at it.

No, just the interpretation of the writings. If both said kill unbelievers while one is interpreted to be just stories in the past and the other the actual spoken word of god that is as current today as when it was spoken, then it is likely that the latter will be used as a justification more so than the latter.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 02:13 PM
Yeah, it's a good thing modern Christians don't blow up abortion clinics or anything.

How many abortion clinics have been blown up?

Only a couple but it seems like a handful of them were set on fire or had someone drive their car into through them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

I'm not talking about jail, I'm talking about apartheid.

What apartheid?[/QUOTE]

I think he's talking about Palestine.

Its a crime what is going on over there.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 02:14 PM
How many abortion clinics have been blown up?
41 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_crime) in the US and Canada since 1977, not including unsuccessful attempts or arson. Why?

I stand corrected. I only read the examples I didn't realize they were only select examples.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 02:15 PM
When the fuck can we call out the global Muslim community for these assholes in their midst? We call out the otherwise inoffensive teabaggers for the racists in their midst and attribute some of that racism to all of them, why can't we call out the muslims for the murdering terrorists that their population seems to generate with such frequency?
We don't call out teabaggers. We call out the Tea Party. We don't call out Muslims. We call out radical Islam.

Get it?

No, what are you trying to get at?

Uzi
08-23-2010, 02:16 PM
I think he's talking about Palestine.

See post #170

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 02:18 PM
You implied that extremist actions have been left on the scrap heap of history by Christianity. The fact that Christians continue to blow things up would seem to put the lie to that claim, even if they aren't very good at it.
No, just the interpretation of the writings. If both said kill unbelievers while one is interpreted to be just stories in the past and the other the actual spoken word of god that is as current today as when it was spoken, then it is likely that the latter will be used as a justification more so than the latter.
Are you under the impression that there aren't presently Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant spoken word of god?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 02:21 PM
Where do I vilify all muslims? I am asking why does islam produce so much terrorism.


Which is a perfectly valid question.
It's a question with an unsupported premise. I could just as easily as why Catholicism produced so many terrorsist in ireland, or why Serbian Orthodox Church produced so many mass murderes and rapists.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 02:22 PM
OK, so what percentage of acts of terrorism in the last 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years do you think were committed by Muslims? I'm not saying that any appreciable percentage of mulsims are terrorists but I am saying that a significant percentage of terrorists are muslims.
The population in US prisons is disproprtionately black. What does that say about black people?

Prison population might mean a lot of things, but if you told me that most crimes were committed by blacks, I would say that it probably means that the black community has a problem with crime. That no matter how badly we can feel about the raw deal they have gotten in this country we cannot excuse that we crime or pussyfoot around the fact that the crime exists in an effort to spare the feelings of the majority of blacks who are not criminals. We have to say: WTF is causing all this crime in the black community. What we shouldn't do is pretend that there isn't a crime problem in the black community and say "well white people commit crime too" Now I think a large part of the prison population in the black community (to the extent that it is not explained by socioeconmic forces) boil down to federal drug sentencing guidelines and rap music but that's just me.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 02:24 PM
There are just as many things in the Bible that call for extremist action.

Yeah but a lot more terrorist seem to be quoting stuff from the Quran than from Leviticus.
And most Christian terrorsist quote from the Bible.

For the vast majority of Muslims, yes they have.

Absolutely. The vast VAST majority of Muslims (especially Muslims in America) are regular folks but when you look at terroism around the world these days most terrorists seem to be associated with islam.
I disagree. I think we're just very selective about what we want to label as "terrorism."

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 02:29 PM
The US actually has some of the least problems and violence in the world from native and transpalnted Muslims because we don't ghettoize them as in some other parts of the world, but give them the same rights and opportunities we have.

You could also translate this as long as you keep them from gathering into sufficient numbers you have no problems with them.
No you couldn't. We have not done that, and in fact, trying to STOP them from gathering is what's going to cause problems (aside from just being ethcally wrong).

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 02:32 PM
You implied that extremist actions have been left on the scrap heap of history by Christianity. The fact that Christians continue to blow things up would seem to put the lie to that claim, even if they aren't very good at it.

No, just the interpretation of the writings. If both said kill unbelievers while one is interpreted to be just stories in the past and the other the actual spoken word of god that is as current today as when it was spoken, then it is likely that the latter will be used as a justification more so than the latter.
The Qur'an doesn't say to kill unbelievers. That is a myth.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 02:33 PM
The population in US prisons is disproprtionately black. What does that say about black people?

Prison population might mean a lot of things, but if you told me that most crimes were committed by blacks, I would say that it probably means that the black community has a problem with crime.
That would not be a supportable conclusion.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 02:47 PM
OK I guess you are right but I did see a lot of "this pastor is an asshole for wanting to burn books" with percious few "that imam is an asshole for wanting to build a mosque so close to the twin towers"
Because there is absolutely zero equivalency there. Building a mosque is not offensive and not an insult. It's offensive to say it's offensive.

Hey its not offensive to me but I can certainly see how it would be offensive to others. If your brother or daughter or lover was killed on 9/11 by people who were citing the Quran as the authority under which they committed that crime, you don't think there is anything offensive about building a mosque right there?

OK, let me try this analogy (although I'm sure there will be someone who will point out why it is totally inapposite without even trying to get the point I am trying to make):

In 1950, 9 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the some japanese folks in Hawaii decide to build a Shinto temple and Japanese cultural center across the street from Pearl Harbor, don't you think it would be understandable that some people would get upset?

Some people seem to bend over backwards and go out of their way to try and understand why terrorists and could give fuck all about the sensitivities of the folks who lost loved ones on 9/11.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 02:50 PM
what percentage of terrorism is commtted by muslims?
Who's killed more civilians in the past 20 years, Muslims or the US?

Incidentally, are you familiar with the ethnic cleansing (i.e genocide and mass rape) of Muslims by Christians that occurred in Bosnia in very recent memory? Why don't the Islamaphobes ever bring that up?

By terrorism? I'm pretty sure the answer is islamic terrorists.

If you want to include civilian casualties in Iraq and stuff like that I guess I'd have to say Islamic terrorists/insurgents but that's kind fo besides the point.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 02:58 PM
Because there is absolutely zero equivalency there. Building a mosque is not offensive and not an insult. It's offensive to say it's offensive.

Hey its not offensive to me but I can certainly see how it would be offensive to others. If your brother or daughter or lover was killed on 9/11 by people who were citing the Quran as the authority under which they committed that crime, you don't think there is anything offensive about building a mosque right there?
No. There's nothing remotely offensive about it. If you had a loved one killed by an abortion bomber, would you be offended if someone built a church nearby?
In 1950, 9 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the some japanese folks in Hawaii decide to build a Shinto temple and Japanese cultural center across the street from Pearl Harbor, don't you think it would be understandable that some people would get upset?
No I don't think it would be understandable at all. The Shinto religion had nothing to do with pearl harbor. Do you think it would be offensive to build a Christian church in Tokyo or Hiroshima?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 03:01 PM
Who's killed more civilians in the past 20 years, Muslims or the US?

Incidentally, are you familiar with the ethnic cleansing (i.e genocide and mass rape) of Muslims by Christians that occurred in Bosnia in very recent memory? Why don't the Islamaphobes ever bring that up?

By terrorism? I'm pretty sure the answer is islamic terrorists.
"Terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. Killing civilians is, by definition, terrorim as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to include civilian casualties in Iraq and stuff like that I guess I'd have to say Islamic terrorists/insurgents but that's kind for besides the point.
You would be quite wrong on that. American bombing killed hundreds of thousands.

qpw3141
08-23-2010, 03:09 PM
"Terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. Killing civilians is, by definition, terrorim as far as I'm concerned.

You would be quite wrong on that. American bombing killed hundreds of thousands.

I doubt if you will get anywhere on that tack.

Damuri Ajashi is quite obviously one of those people who has a mindset that whatever one prefered 'tribe' does is naturally right and can never be likened to what another 'tribe' does which must be naturally wrong.

If you ask which grouping has flown more things into more other countries and killed more people than anyone else during the last 50 years the answer, by a vast margin, is the US.

And yet you have people obsessing about one act that was performed by some people who are not even representative of the group to which they are being primarily assigned.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 03:10 PM
Where do I vilify all muslims? I am asking why does islam produce so much terrorism.


Which is a perfectly valid question. It doesn't go down well here, because the answer is, the Koran. And, oh..oogie-boogie...how dare anyone judge another's religion? :eek:

I don't think its a religion problem and unlike you, I don't think Muslims deserve special scrutiny but why is there so much hesitancy to admit that islam seems to breeding the vast majority of today's terrorists.

I think there is hesitancy among some muslims to entirely condemn terrorism AND THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT in light of what is going on in Palestine.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 03:26 PM
That last point is busllshit. The vast majority of mainstream mosques and Muslim leaders constantly and consistently condemn terrorism. There is no "hesitancy." That's completely false.

Really Not All That Bright
08-23-2010, 03:29 PM
Which is a perfectly valid question. It doesn't go down well here, because the answer is, the Koran. And, oh..oogie-boogie...how dare anyone judge another's religion? :eek:

I don't think its a religion problem and unlike you, I don't think Muslims deserve special scrutiny but why is there so much hesitancy to admit that islam seems to breeding the vast majority of today's terrorists.
I don't think there's any such hesitancy. There is a question about whether we can, or should, do anything about it.

In other words, literalist Christian churches don't get singled out for special attention because they breed naughty people. Why should Islam?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:05 PM
Subject any religious culture to the right pressures (including Christians in the late 20th Century), and you get terrororists who use their religion to justify it. It happens with any religion.

I don't think Islam as a religion is any worse than any other religion but the current incarnation of Islam seems to be producing a lot more terrorists than other religions. People keep talking about all these "other reasons" that correlate to Islam and terrorism, that are suppose dissociate teh causal connection between the two but all i ever get are vague arguments about social pressures (that frankly don't seem very unique absent the demagoguery of the Islamic clerics). Perhaps Islam has been hijacked but I have seen a lot of Islamic extremists talk about what amounts to imposing islamic theopcracy everywhere. Perhaps this is just the symptomo of some other poltical issue but its not clear what that other political issue is.

I was using the Palestinians as one example, not as an explanation for all of it.

I think Palestine has a lot more to do with it than you think. Whenever I hear extremists talk about how evil America is, they always mention Israel and Palestine in the same breath. I think that there is a lot of sympathy for palestine in islam and the Palestinian use of terrorism has sanitized terrorism for some people deep in the heart of Islam. I hear moderate muslims unequivocally condemn terrorist acts but all too frequently they smypathize with the terrorist and they refuse to condemn the organizations that support that terrorism. Too often the guy on camera telling muslims to go kill people are religious figures.

I do know that when Muslims are allowed to live and function without despreate political pressures (and that includes a lot of bullshit from their iown ostensible leaders in many countries), they assimilate very well.

What sort of desperate political pressure are we talking about here?

The US actually has some of the least problems and violence in the world from native and transpalnted Muslims because we don't ghettoize them as in some other parts of the world, but give them the same rights and opportunities we have.

I agree, despite this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Terrorism_Related_to_Islamic_Extremism

I think its better here than anywhere else. What does that tell you?

I don't blame Islam as a religioun for this, I know any religion can get perverted by people with an agenda but the fact remains that Islam has been hijacked by clerics who seem to think terrorism is OK.

Then I see shit like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Honor_suicides

And it makes me want to cry. There are all sorts of atrocities that are committed in the name of God but these days we see too many of them coming from muslims.

elucidator
08-23-2010, 04:12 PM
You'll think different when they tear the bacon salt out of your hand and make you sing "M-M-M-My Sharia!"

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:13 PM
No, just the interpretation of the writings. If both said kill unbelievers while one is interpreted to be just stories in the past and the other the actual spoken word of god that is as current today as when it was spoken, then it is likely that the latter will be used as a justification more so than the latter.
Are you under the impression that there aren't presently Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant spoken word of god?

Well all parts except the "love your neighbor" (which Jesus (God) actually said as opposed to Moses telling us that God said the stuff we read in Leviticus).

When asked which is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied,

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matt22:37-40]

IOW, EVERYTHING flows from these two principles. Somehow, "thou shalt not have gay marriage or allow fags to serve openly in the military" became more important.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:16 PM
Which is a perfectly valid question.
It's a question with an unsupported premise. I could just as easily as why Catholicism produced so many terrorsist in ireland, or why Serbian Orthodox Church produced so many mass murderes and rapists.

Well, I can tell you what caused the Irish to use terrorism to fight oppression and I can tell you what made it all go away.

I can tell you the ethnic conflicts that caused Serbian war crimes and what made them stop too. What is going to make the Islamic terrorists stop?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:20 PM
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi;12832441]

Yeah but a lot more terrorist seem to be quoting stuff from the Quran than from Leviticus.
And most Christian terrorsist quote from the Bible.


Leviticus is one of the early chapters in the bible. Its the book that says don't be gay or each shellfish.

I disagree. I think we're just very selective about what we want to label as "terrorism."

How would you define it? I'm not trying to invent facts. What would you label as "terrorism" Are the Iraqi civilians who died during our unjustified invasion of Iraq the victims of terrorism?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:23 PM
Prison population might mean a lot of things, but if you told me that most crimes were committed by blacks, I would say that it probably means that the black community has a problem with crime.
That would not be a supportable conclusion.

WTF are you talking about? How is that an unsupportable conclusion? If you tell me that most crimes are committed by blacks (despite the fact that blacks only make up about 1/8 of the country) then how is the conclusion that the black community has a problem with crime unsupportable? I would think its self evident.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:27 PM
Hey its not offensive to me but I can certainly see how it would be offensive to others. If your brother or daughter or lover was killed on 9/11 by people who were citing the Quran as the authority under which they committed that crime, you don't think there is anything offensive about building a mosque right there?
No. There's nothing remotely offensive about it. If you had a loved one killed by an abortion bomber, would you be offended if someone built a church nearby?

If the bomber was motivated by religion and pastors and priests were all justifying the bombing and Christian around the world were celbrat6ing the bombing then, yes, I would be offended by building a church near the abortion clinic site. I think it would be insensitive.

In 1950, 9 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the some japanese folks in Hawaii decide to build a Shinto temple and Japanese cultural center across the street from Pearl Harbor, don't you think it would be understandable that some people would get upset?

No I don't think it would be understandable at all. The Shinto religion had nothing to do with pearl harbor. Do you think it would be offensive to build a Christian church in Tokyo or Hiroshima?

OK forget the Shinto, lets just leave it at a Japanese cultural center with a big statue of the Japanese Emperor.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 04:30 PM
Are you under the impression that there aren't presently Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant spoken word of god?

Well all parts except the "love your neighbor" (which Jesus (God) actually said as opposed to Moses telling us that God said the stuff we read in Leviticus).
"Love your neighbor as yourself" is from Leviticus 19:18. Jesus was quoting from it.
When asked which is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied,

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matt22:37-40]

IOW, EVERYTHING flows from these two principles. Somehow, "thou shalt not have gay marriage or allow fags to serve openly in the military" became more important.
That's one way to interpret Jesus, but one could also decide to fixate on the verse where he says to slay everyone who will not accept him as king (Luke 19:27). Most Christians, don't and they find more palatable ways to interpret that verse, but a motivated preacher could probably use it to manipulate folowers aginst a ahted enemy and a perceived enemy of Christ if he wanted. A person who wanted to paint the New Testament in a violent and intolerant light could also use that verse as exhibit one.

Czarcasm
08-23-2010, 04:30 PM
That would not be a supportable conclusion.

WTF are you talking about? How is that an unsupportable conclusion? If you tell me that most crimes are committed by blacks (despite the fact that blacks only make up about 1/8 of the country) then how is the conclusion that the black community has a problem with crime unsupportable? I would think its self evident.If your conclusion is based on prison population, it could mean that blacks are convicted at a higher rate than whites for similar crimes and/or police tend to concentrate their patrols in black neighborhoods and/or the rich(predominately white) can afford the type of legal council that will keep them out of jail.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 04:36 PM
And most Christian terrorsist quote from the Bible.


Leviticus is one of the early chapters in the bible. Its the book that says don't be gay or each shellfish.
They quote from the NT too.
How would you define it? I'm not trying to invent facts. What would you label as "terrorism" Are the Iraqi civilians who died during our unjustified invasion of Iraq the victims of terrorism?
I've already said exactly this earlier in the thread. I define unnecessary killing of civilians as "terrorism" and the civilians deaths from US bombing as victims of US terrorism.

More important than how I perceive it is how THEY perceive it, though. You can bet your ass that THEY think it was terrorism, and why shouldn't they?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 04:38 PM
That would not be a supportable conclusion.

WTF are you talking about? How is that an unsupportable conclusion? If you tell me that most crimes are committed by blacks (despite the fact that blacks only make up about 1/8 of the country) then how is the conclusion that the black community has a problem with crime unsupportable? I would think its self evident.
It's unsupportable because you're assuming that a higher arrest and conviction rate actually proves a higher crime rate.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:39 PM
By terrorism? I'm pretty sure the answer is islamic terrorists.
"Terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. Killing civilians is, by definition, terrorim as far as I'm concerned.

So most of the deaths in WWII caused by the Allies was really terrorism? You have an overexpansive view of terrorism and the fact that tterrorism doesn't have a concerte meaning doesn't mean it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

If you want to include civilian casualties in Iraq and stuff like that I guess I'd have to say Islamic terrorists/insurgents but that's kind for besides the point.
You would be quite wrong on that. American bombing killed hundreds of thousands.

Cite please.

I'm not condoning anything we did in Iraq but our bombing didn't kill hundreds of thousands. The invasion by the most Iraqi Body Cont website counts 7200 civilians killed during the invasion, after the invasion, most of the deaths were caused by insurgents and intersect violence.

I may be missing something but I don't see any evidence that American bombing killed hundreds of thousands. Can you provide a cite?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:40 PM
"Terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. Killing civilians is, by definition, terrorim as far as I'm concerned.

You would be quite wrong on that. American bombing killed hundreds of thousands.

I doubt if you will get anywhere on that tack.

Damuri Ajashi is quite obviously one of those people who has a mindset that whatever one prefered 'tribe' does is naturally right and can never be likened to what another 'tribe' does which must be naturally wrong.

If you ask which grouping has flown more things into more other countries and killed more people than anyone else during the last 50 years the answer, by a vast margin, is the US.

And yet you have people obsessing about one act that was performed by some people who are not even representative of the group to which they are being primarily assigned.

Its the curse of the moderate. Everyone thinks you are an extremist from the other side.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 04:41 PM
No. There's nothing remotely offensive about it. If you had a loved one killed by an abortion bomber, would you be offended if someone built a church nearby?

If the bomber was motivated by religion and pastors and priests were all justifying the bombing and Christian around the world were celbrat6ing the bombing then, yes, I would be offended by building a church near the abortion clinic site. I think it would be insensitive.



No I don't think it would be understandable at all. The Shinto religion had nothing to do with pearl harbor. Do you think it would be offensive to build a Christian church in Tokyo or Hiroshima?

OK forget the Shinto, lets just leave it at a Japanese cultural center with a big statue of the Japanese Emperor.
Why would Americans erect a statue of the Japanese Emperor? I wouldn't have a problem with it if they did, but you're stretching the analogy. The Muslims building this Mosque are not putting up a statue of Osama bin Laden. If they did, that would be offensive (but still legal).

Czarcasm
08-23-2010, 04:43 PM
I doubt if you will get anywhere on that tack.

Damuri Ajashi is quite obviously one of those people who has a mindset that whatever one prefered 'tribe' does is naturally right and can never be likened to what another 'tribe' does which must be naturally wrong.

If you ask which grouping has flown more things into more other countries and killed more people than anyone else during the last 50 years the answer, by a vast margin, is the US.

And yet you have people obsessing about one act that was performed by some people who are not even representative of the group to which they are being primarily assigned.

Its the curse of the moderate. Everyone thinks you are an extremist from the other side.I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing "the other side" condemning you for being an extremist, which would sort of be necessary for you to paint yourself as some sort of "moderate".

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:44 PM
That last point is busllshit. The vast majority of mainstream mosques and Muslim leaders constantly and consistently condemn terrorism. There is no "hesitancy." That's completely false.

No, what YOU are saying is complete and utter bullshit based on what you would like the facts to be, not on what the facts are.

They condemn the terrorist act, they even condemn the terrorist but I rarely hear unequivocal condemnation of Hamas or Hezbollah.

Or were you just talking about the universal condemnation of Osama bin laden and al qaeda? Because when I think of the Palestinian conflict, I think of Hamas and hezbollah.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:45 PM
I don't think its a religion problem and unlike you, I don't think Muslims deserve special scrutiny but why is there so much hesitancy to admit that islam seems to breeding the vast majority of today's terrorists.
I don't think there's any such hesitancy. There is a question about whether we can, or should, do anything about it.

In other words, literalist Christian churches don't get singled out for special attention because they breed naughty people. Why should Islam?

Well why the heck don't we single out those churches that breed extremists? Don't you think its fair game to point out that a lot of the Christian whackos all seem to follow the same brand of Christianity?

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:47 PM
You'll think different when they tear the bacon salt out of your hand and make you sing "M-M-M-My Sharia!"

on a related note, I tried baconaise and "beef bacon" for the first time this weekend. I love the baconaise and wonder why i am just discovering it and I was surprisingly satisfied by the beef bacon.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:51 PM
WTF are you talking about? How is that an unsupportable conclusion? If you tell me that most crimes are committed by blacks (despite the fact that blacks only make up about 1/8 of the country) then how is the conclusion that the black community has a problem with crime unsupportable? I would think its self evident.If your conclusion is based on prison population, it could mean that blacks are convicted at a higher rate than whites for similar crimes and/or police tend to concentrate their patrols in black neighborhoods and/or the rich(predominately white) can afford the type of legal council that will keep them out of jail.

Well maybe theres some confusion. if you look at my original reply I said that I would not be able to make any conclusions based on prison population then i went on to blame the federal drug sentencing guidelines and rap music for much of the disparity in prison population (seriously, take a look at when black prison [population exploded and when the federal drug guidleines went into effect and when rap music became popular, its just my pet theory, noone else seems to take it seriously).

But if you told me that blacks ACTUALLY COMMIT most of the crimes then i would say that the black community has a crime problem.

In the case of Islam and terrorism, we know that muslims ACTUALLY COMMIT most terrorist acts, so I conclude that Islam has a terrorism problem.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:56 PM
They quote from the NT too.
How would you define it? I'm not trying to invent facts. What would you label as "terrorism" Are the Iraqi civilians who died during our unjustified invasion of Iraq the victims of terrorism?
I've already said exactly this earlier in the thread. I define unnecessary killing of civilians as "terrorism" and the civilians deaths from US bombing as victims of US terrorism.

More important than how I perceive it is how THEY perceive it, though. You can bet your ass that THEY think it was terrorism, and why shouldn't they?

Well, most people think terrorism is a version of assymetrical warfare so it is generally not practiced by the folks with the biggest fucking military man has ever known but if you want to expand the definition of terrorism, can i call every murderer in this country a terrorist? Can i call every rapist a terrorist?

If I were Iraqis i would be thinking invasion and occupation, not terrorism. Your definition of terrorism just seems way too expansive.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 04:58 PM
WTF are you talking about? How is that an unsupportable conclusion? If you tell me that most crimes are committed by blacks (despite the fact that blacks only make up about 1/8 of the country) then how is the conclusion that the black community has a problem with crime unsupportable? I would think its self evident.
It's unsupportable because you're assuming that a higher arrest and conviction rate actually proves a higher crime rate.

Did you read my original reply where I don't give a lot of weight to prison population. Then I CHANGE the hypo and say that if you told me that blacks actually commited mroe crimes then that would tell me something.

WTF was the point of that question? Were you just trying to catch me in some sort of semantic footfault? How is the distinction you are making (prison population in the black community versus the actual incidence of criminals in the black community) relevant to the debate we are having?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-23-2010, 04:58 PM
Yes, I would call all those things terrorism. I also call domestic violence a form of terrorism. It's a word that can be used so broadly and selectively that it's essentially meaningless.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 05:04 PM
If the bomber was motivated by religion and pastors and priests were all justifying the bombing and Christian around the world were celbrat6ing the bombing then, yes, I would be offended by building a church near the abortion clinic site. I think it would be insensitive.



OK forget the Shinto, lets just leave it at a Japanese cultural center with a big statue of the Japanese Emperor.
Why would Americans erect a statue of the Japanese Emperor? I wouldn't have a problem with it if they did, but you're stretching the analogy. The Muslims building this Mosque are not putting up a statue of Osama bin Laden. If they did, that would be offensive (but still legal).

I told you you would try to pick nits on the analogy. Sorry I couldn't come up with a perfect analogy for a unique situation.

I understand that this wouldn't offend YOU but I can understand how it would offend someone... even if you can't. I don't think its an unreasonable reaction, perhaps its not perfectly rational (and maybe this is what trips you up) but it is a natural human response. I don't share that response but but I can understand it.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 05:05 PM
Its the curse of the moderate. Everyone thinks you are an extremist from the other side.I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing "the other side" condemning you for being an extremist, which would sort of be necessary for you to paint yourself as some sort of "moderate".

Well you'd have to see my posting in the thread where magellan criticizes me for saying that we shouldn't profile muslims. Everyone from your side was probably nodding their heads at my posts in that thread. In this one not so much.

Damuri Ajashi
08-23-2010, 05:12 PM
Yes, I would call all those things terrorism. I also call domestic violence a form of terrorism. It's a word that can be used so broadly and selectively that it's essentially meaningless.

Well if you want the word to be meaningless then i guess the word can be meaningless. If you wanted to give the word terrorism any meaning at all, I think the best option is to consider it an illegal form of assymetrical warfare.

I think its pretty ridiculous to say words don't have meanings because they don't have precise definitions.

Czarcasm
08-23-2010, 05:14 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing "the other side" condemning you for being an extremist, which would sort of be necessary for you to paint yourself as some sort of "moderate".

Well you'd have to see my posting in the thread where magellan criticizes me for saying that we shouldn't profile muslims. Everyone from your side was probably nodding their heads at my posts in that thread. In this one not so much.I guess if you redefine "extremist" so broadly and imagine how others are reacting to your posts at home, you can go ahead and call yourself a "moderate" if you want.

begbert2
08-23-2010, 07:35 PM
In the case of Islam and terrorism, we know that muslims ACTUALLY COMMIT most terrorist acts, so I conclude that Islam has a terrorism problem.Assuming you're correct about them being, at the moment, the big winner in actual instance counts, this shows correllation. It doesn't show causation.

If you show that the disproportional percentage of crimes are committed by blacks, I would not conclude that black people have a crime problem, and I would especially not conclude that blacks are as a race inherently predisposed to be criminals. I would instead conclude that blacks as a class have a being poor problem, and that the poor have a crime problem.

I strongly suspect that the same reality is at play regarding muslim terrorism. The cause of the terrorism isn't the religion - or at least, it's not that their religion is any more malleable towards inciting violence than yours is. It's that their countries suck. Terrorism is by and large a product of the societal environment, and people in various levels of power in the middle east can get a lot of mileage by pointing the populace's ire at some other target, and fanning the flames.

Further, the specific use of terrorism as opposed to say crusades-styly military invasion or inquisition-style societal oppression is also a product of their environment, as it's a form of violence well-suited to a weaker and smaller force facing a larger and more financially and technologically advanced force. So that's why the US Army doesn't send suicide bombers in to attack the enemy - it's not cost effective, since they can afford to buy bombers and have to worry about their populace blogging at them. It's certainly not because the military is populated by people with religions averse to terrorist-style attacks specifically.

So yeah. Even if muslims at the moment are outnumber the christians for terrorist-style murder, it's not because Christianity has some kind of failure in its terrorist-producing mechanism. The religion in question has nothing to do with it, aside from all religions having the ability to be used to make the populace malleable.

elucidator
08-23-2010, 07:39 PM
Was it that the Hutu were Christian, and the Tutsis were Christian, or was it the other way around?

Left Hand of Dorkness
08-23-2010, 08:34 PM
No. There's nothing remotely offensive about it. If you had a loved one killed by an abortion bomber, would you be offended if someone built a church nearby?
Indeed. Our local abortion provider was bombed in 1999. The Catholic Church has built a services provider immediately next door to the abortion provider. Far from finding this offensive, I'm perfectly okay with it.

Revenant Threshold
08-23-2010, 10:32 PM
They condemn the terrorist act, they even condemn the terrorist but I rarely hear unequivocal condemnation of Hamas or Hezbollah. Out of interest, how many mosques did you visit in order to come to an accurate summation of this lack of condemnation?

Oddly enough, the situation of non-unequivocal condemnation is one i've heard before, but the last time I heard it it was an accusation against the U.S., in general, with regards to the IRA.

Trepa Mayfield
08-23-2010, 11:34 PM
Fuck Allah. He doesn't exist anyway.


I just want to point out that, technically, Allah is just the translation of the word "God". He's not some other entity entirely. So (again technically) you're saying 'Fuck God. He doesn't exist anyway'.

Whether or not you care is another matter, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

elucidator
08-24-2010, 12:05 AM
We can only hope they don't resort to their previous tactic, of flooding America with inexpensive but primo Pakistani hash. That would be terrible.

Kobal2
08-24-2010, 12:29 AM
They condemn the terrorist act, they even condemn the terrorist but I rarely hear unequivocal condemnation of Hamas or Hezbollah.

One argument would be : why should they ? It's not like we lot keep apologizing for groups we're not part of, don't support and who do things we don't approve of. Have you apologized to the nearest gay for Westboro Baptist Church, to the nearest Irish for the IRA recently ? Of course not, that'd be silly.

Why do you expect Muslims to do silly things ?

Another is that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't merely terrorist platforms. They also do a lot of objective good in their community when they're not busy lobbing rockets and booby trapped 9 year olds at Israel - building blood banks and hospitals, setting up schools and helping the Palestinian victims of the latest round of dickishness of one side or the other. They hand out money to the poor and setup charities (a very important thing to Muslims, I'm given to understand).
They're kind of like the Yakuza that way : hateful pricks who still have a good side, or at least a good PR department.

cosmosdan
08-24-2010, 12:38 AM
In the case of Islam and terrorism, we know that muslims ACTUALLY COMMIT most terrorist acts, so I conclude that Islam has a terrorism problem.

Sometime around the invasion of Iraq I read a article by a Arab American. In it he made the point that the Middle East had been held back by the corruption of it's own governments. One way for a government to deal with the disatisfaction of it's population is to blame thier problems on an external enemy. Israel and the US became that enemy. We helped in that blame by offering real offenses.

The tragic truth is that now the same thing is happening here as ruthless people want to use 9/11 as a tool to focus the anger of Americans upon terrorism and Islam as they grasp for power and money. Things like this book burning and and Christian leaders talking of some kind of Holy War against Islam are a reflection of that kind of manipulation. IMO a threat from within is more accurately the fear mongers and a totally dishonest media rather than Muslims in the US. Fanning the fires of fear and hatred increase the chances of violence.

qpw3141
08-24-2010, 03:55 AM
Well, most people think terrorism is a version of assymetrical warfare so it is generally not practiced by the folks with the biggest fucking military man has ever known

Correction:

The people with biggest militaries define terrorism in a certain way so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they are the biggest terrorists.

For everyone else, a terrorist is someone who causes others terror.

And by that definition the US have been, since the end of WWII the worst terrorists in the world.

Not a comfortable fact which is why people delude themselves by tweaking the meaning of the word 'terrorism' so that they can pretend it doesn't apply to them.

Damuri Ajashi
08-24-2010, 11:03 AM
In the case of Islam and terrorism, we know that muslims ACTUALLY COMMIT most terrorist acts, so I conclude that Islam has a terrorism problem.Assuming you're correct about them being, at the moment, the big winner in actual instance counts, this shows correllation. It doesn't show causation.

If you show that the disproportional percentage of crimes are committed by blacks, I would not conclude that black people have a crime problem, and I would especially not conclude that blacks are as a race inherently predisposed to be criminals. I would instead conclude that blacks as a class have a being poor problem, and that the poor have a crime problem.

I agree with that. I don't think terorism is something that is intrinsic to the muslim faith. How much islamic terrorism was there in the first half of this century? In history?

If I told you that blacks commited MUCH MUCH more than their share of crime even after taking into account socioeconomic status, I STILL wouldn't think that being black made you more likely to be a criminal but I would suspecft that there is something going on in your community that is not going on in poor Appalachian communities.

I've said this before btu i think that the federal drug laws and rap music have glorified criminal behaviour in the black community. I know I sound like that old guy yelling at the kids to get off his lawn but I really think that a lot of rap music is poisonous and it is fed by the large incarceration rates that result from the federal drug sentencing guidelines. I feel that this has removed much of the stigma of going to jail or engaging in criminal activity.

It's that their countries suck. Terrorism is by and large a product of the societal environment, and people in various levels of power in the middle east can get a lot of mileage by pointing the populace's ire at some other target, and fanning the flames.

A lot of countries suck and they don't all resort to terrorism. There is something that has made terrorism acceptable in that culture and i think it all stems from the aplestinian conflict. There seems to be broad populist sympathy for the palestinians, which is why you rarely see muslim leaders (moderate or otherwise) condemn Hamas or Hezbollah. I feel that this has created a greater acceptance of terrorism in the muslim community than in the general population.

Damuri Ajashi
08-24-2010, 11:17 AM
They condemn the terrorist act, they even condemn the terrorist but I rarely hear unequivocal condemnation of Hamas or Hezbollah. Out of interest, how many mosques did you visit in order to come to an accurate summation of this lack of condemnation?

Oddly enough, the situation of non-unequivocal condemnation is one i've heard before, but the last time I heard it it was an accusation against the U.S., in general, with regards to the IRA.

Well, I am mostly going by public statements by Muslim leaders.

As for the lack of full throated condemnation of the IRA. Its probably because there was significant support for the IRA here in the states. Not the car bombings but there was solidarity for the oppressed Irish.

Gyrate
08-24-2010, 11:19 AM
The people with biggest militaries define terrorism in a certain way so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they are the biggest terrorists.I understand your point and to a certain extent am sympathetic to it but think it continues to fail on semantic grounds that have nothing to do with an international conspiracy to define the word in a certain way. "Terrorism" is a form of asymmetric guerilla warfare, usually carried out by groups that do not have the means to conduct conventional warfare as official militaries do.

Your argument suggests that we should use "terrorism" instead of "war" because "terrorism" is somehow a worse thing. I happen to think "war" is quite bad enough.

Damuri Ajashi
08-24-2010, 11:28 AM
They condemn the terrorist act, they even condemn the terrorist but I rarely hear unequivocal condemnation of Hamas or Hezbollah.

One argument would be : why should they ? It's not like we lot keep apologizing for groups we're not part of, don't support and who do things we don't approve of. Have you apologized to the nearest gay for Westboro Baptist Church, to the nearest Irish for the IRA recently ? Of course not, that'd be silly.

Why do you expect Muslims to do silly things ?

Another is that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't merely terrorist platforms. They also do a lot of objective good in their community when they're not busy lobbing rockets and booby trapped 9 year olds at Israel - building blood banks and hospitals, setting up schools and helping the Palestinian victims of the latest round of dickishness of one side or the other. They hand out money to the poor and setup charities (a very important thing to Muslims, I'm given to understand).
They're kind of like the Yakuza that way : hateful pricks who still have a good side, or at least a good PR department.

I guess i was trying to point to sub-surface level of acceptance of terrorists within the muslim community. I understand that the vast majority of hamas and hezbollah spends its time doing good charitable work but there is a militant arm of hamas that everyone should either reject or admit that they believe that terrorism is a legitimate form of resistance to Israeli oppression. I think that many in the muslim community have accepted terroism as acceptable the case of Palestine and Israel and this acceptance has led to a greater willingness to consider terrorism in other cases as well. Like flying a plane into the twin towers.

I don't think that islam as a religion is pushing anyone towards terorism but the example of palestine has made some portion of the muslim community view terrorism as legitimate and this percolates out to the broader muslim community.

Damuri Ajashi
08-24-2010, 11:34 AM
In the case of Islam and terrorism, we know that muslims ACTUALLY COMMIT most terrorist acts, so I conclude that Islam has a terrorism problem.

Sometime around the invasion of Iraq I read a article by a Arab American. In it he made the point that the Middle East had been held back by the corruption of it's own governments. One way for a government to deal with the disatisfaction of it's population is to blame thier problems on an external enemy. Israel and the US became that enemy. We helped in that blame by offering real offenses.

The tragic truth is that now the same thing is happening here as ruthless people want to use 9/11 as a tool to focus the anger of Americans upon terrorism and Islam as they grasp for power and money. Things like this book burning and and Christian leaders talking of some kind of Holy War against Islam are a reflection of that kind of manipulation. IMO a threat from within is more accurately the fear mongers and a totally dishonest media rather than Muslims in the US. Fanning the fires of fear and hatred increase the chances of violence.

I personally think that we have more to fear from the fringe elements of the teabaggers than the the domestic muslim population. I see the hatemongering and it offends me.

Lets put aside these jackholes that aren't even from NYC, who have no connection with the victims of 9/11, who come in by the busload to protest the building of a mosque that isn't even in their state. They seem more like bigots than people who have any reasopn to be offended.

BUT if your family died on 9/11 and you are offended by the notion of a mosque opening so close to the twin towers, I would probably say you are irrational but I don't think its mere bigotry, I can understand how they might feel that way.

Damuri Ajashi
08-24-2010, 11:36 AM
Well, most people think terrorism is a version of assymetrical warfare so it is generally not practiced by the folks with the biggest fucking military man has ever known

Correction:

The people with biggest militaries define terrorism in a certain way so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they are the biggest terrorists.

For everyone else, a terrorist is someone who causes others terror.

And by that definition the US have been, since the end of WWII the worst terrorists in the world.

Not a comfortable fact which is why people delude themselves by tweaking the meaning of the word 'terrorism' so that they can pretend it doesn't apply to them.


Why since the end of WWII?

WTF was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

WTF was the firebombing of Dresden?

If you want to redefine already poorly defined words then I don't see how we proceed when I define terrorism as an ILLEGITIMATE form of assymetrical warfare and you define terrorism as killing people.

qpw3141
08-24-2010, 11:46 AM
Correction:

The people with biggest militaries define terrorism in a certain way so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they are the biggest terrorists.

For everyone else, a terrorist is someone who causes others terror.

And by that definition the US have been, since the end of WWII the worst terrorists in the world.

Not a comfortable fact which is why people delude themselves by tweaking the meaning of the word 'terrorism' so that they can pretend it doesn't apply to them.


Why since the end of WWII?

WTF was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

WTF was the firebombing of Dresden?

Saying something is the case since some time does not mean that it was not the case before that time. :rolleyes:

If you want to redefine already poorly defined words then I don't see how we proceed when I define terrorism as an ILLEGITIMATE form of assymetrical warfare and you define terrorism as killing people.

I've no particular desire to 'proceed' with you.

I was just pointing out that your tweaking your definition does not mean that it is accepted by everyone.

Anyway, I suspect that many people would consider floating in the sea and lobbing munitions at a country when they don't have the technology to either properly defend themselves or fight back to be asymmetric warfare.

qpw3141
08-24-2010, 11:48 AM
The people with biggest militaries define terrorism in a certain way so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they are the biggest terrorists.I understand your point and to a certain extent am sympathetic to it but think it continues to fail on semantic grounds that have nothing to do with an international conspiracy to define the word in a certain way. "Terrorism" is a form of asymmetric guerilla warfare, usually carried out by groups that do not have the means to conduct conventional warfare as official militaries do.

Your argument suggests that we should use "terrorism" instead of "war" because "terrorism" is somehow a worse thing. I happen to think "war" is quite bad enough.

I'm just saying that countries with large and/or sophisticated military capabilities define it that way.

I'm not sure that the whole world agrees with that definition.

Damuri Ajashi
08-24-2010, 11:50 AM
The people with biggest militaries define terrorism in a certain way so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they are the biggest terrorists.I understand your point and to a certain extent am sympathetic to it but think it continues to fail on semantic grounds that have nothing to do with an international conspiracy to define the word in a certain way. "Terrorism" is a form of asymmetric guerilla warfare, usually carried out by groups that do not have the means to conduct conventional warfare as official militaries do.

Your argument suggests that we should use "terrorism" instead of "war" because "terrorism" is somehow a worse thing. I happen to think "war" is quite bad enough.

Here is one example of why we don't want to play so fast and loose with words like terrorism:

My friend went to Kenya to work on the Rwandan war crimes tribunal. One of the most contentious debates was what to categorize as a war crime.

In one case they were faced with an squad of militants that had killed every adult male in a village and then gang raped the women hoping to impregnate them.

In another case a squad of militants ran into village, kidnapped a few girls and serially gang raped them over time, killing some of them in the process.

One was a war crime the other was not. Both were horrible things and both are punishable as crimes in Rwanda.

We can condemn all killing or military action (and rightly so) but we can't call all of it terrorism.

qpw3141
08-24-2010, 12:18 PM
I understand your point and to a certain extent am sympathetic to it but think it continues to fail on semantic grounds that have nothing to do with an international conspiracy to define the word in a certain way. "Terrorism" is a form of asymmetric guerilla warfare, usually carried out by groups that do not have the means to conduct conventional warfare as official militaries do.

Your argument suggests that we should use "terrorism" instead of "war" because "terrorism" is somehow a worse thing. I happen to think "war" is quite bad enough.

Here is one example of why we don't want to play so fast and loose with words like terrorism

Who is to say whom is 'playing fast and loose'?

Americans, generally, consider American forces who sit in extremely well defended ships and fire explosives into the capital city of some country virtually immune to any counter attack to be 'our brave troops'.

On the other hand they consider people who undertake extreme dangerous missions inside the US to be 'cowardly terrorists'.

I'm just saying that carefully defining words so that your own side isn't covered is itself pretty asymmetric and certainly will not be agreed by everyone.

Uzi
08-24-2010, 12:57 PM
Americans, generally, consider American forces who sit in extremely well defended ships and fire explosives into the capital city of some country virtually immune to any counter attack to be 'our brave troops'.

Assuming you are an American, would you rather have your brave troops, acting on your orders, btw, in the line of fire with a chance of getting killed just so you can call it 'fair'?
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

qpw3141
08-24-2010, 01:15 PM
Americans, generally, consider American forces who sit in extremely well defended ships and fire explosives into the capital city of some country virtually immune to any counter attack to be 'our brave troops'.

Assuming you are an American, would you rather have your brave troops, acting on your orders, btw, in the line of fire with a chance of getting killed just so you can call it 'fair'?
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

That's a ridiculous response.

We're talking about the characterisation of actions, and use of words, not who wants whom killed.

I'd actually far rather no one was killed or injured.

I just wish people would be more honest - with themselves as much as with anyone else - when they consider these matters.

Uzi
08-24-2010, 01:57 PM
We're talking about the characterisation of actions, and use of words, not who wants whom killed.

I'd actually far rather no one was killed or injured.

Then don't start wars your not willing to finish and there would be little need for these sorts of discussions.

qpw3141
08-24-2010, 02:04 PM
[QUOTE=qpw3141;12836563]Then don't start wars your not willing to finish and there would be little need for these sorts of discussions.

I've never started a war. ;)

Diogenes the Cynic
08-24-2010, 03:30 PM
They hand out money to the poor and setup charities (a very important thing to Muslims, I'm given to understand).
It's one of the Five Pillars.