I half agree with you. Take burning the flag here in the U.S. I can’t imagine I’d ever burn a flag, and I don’t think much of those who do. But I agree that it is a legitimate means of expression, one that is rightly protected by our laws. So if some one wants to make a point by doing so, they are free to do so. Regardless how offended some people might be. So, if someone feels like they’d like to make a point by burning the Koran, we’re as free to regard them as jerks as they are to burn that book. We protect burning of the flag, an asshole “artist’s” right to to display Piss Christ in the Brooklyn Museum, and endless manner of other forms of expression. I can’t see that the book of or religion and one religion only is off limits. Fuck that. And fuck those murderous barbaric scumbags who get in such a tizzy over cartoons that they kill people. The world should not encourage their barbarism. Better for the world to stand up and say, “Sorry, the civilized among us tell you to EITHER enter the 21st century or go fuck yourselves.”
Yes, a warrior and a pacifist would be considered different. As far as the interpretation of words, that would depend on how clearly they were communicated.
If I get a ticket for running a red light and it states I’m to appear in court there is no interpretation of what the ticket means. It is a codified instruction that was given in response to specific actions on my part.
As of this morning according to CNNand the Today show, it looks like it’s been cancelled. Again. For real this time.
I’m not saying that the response should be to protect the Koran (or other meaningful icons, such as a flag) from destruction to prove a point. I’m really not a huge fan of using flags as symbols of patriotism and the like, but even I would say that to burn them is not exactly a rational, reasonable response. I think the argument that is most compelling (though not convincing) to me in destroying such icons is that they’re a “shocking” response; yes, they may be assholish acts, but the depth to which one is willing to sink is a sign of how important the cause in question is. But in cases such as this, I don’t think the importance of the situation is really in doubt.
As I see it, it’s like trolling. If you respond to trolling by taking the bait, that’s certainly what the troll wants, and he is happy. But if you instead berate the troll for being a troll, that’s what he wants too. He just wants a reaction. He wants to have an affect on you. In the same way, terrorism can be identified by the desire to strongly affect your target. That there are people burning Korans who would not have been before is a victory just as much as if 9/11 had made people scared to burn them. It is a big signal saying, “Yes, your attacks did affect us. Our character has been changed by them; our willingness to perform unpleasant acts has increased. We are a different people, thanks to your efforts.” Whereas the signal you want to send is, “Your attacks had no affect on the continuation of our nation. You wounded us, but those wounds will heal with time. We will hunt down the perpetrators, as we would any who hurt us, but you have not changed us. We are not affected by you.”
And, simply as a matter of communication, I think your analogy of burning Korans to the notion of “enter the 21st century or go fuck yourselves” is perfectly apt. It is attempting to persuade by attacks. You can’t convince someone if you’re offending them or insulting them at the same time. You and I can debate quite easily (if not necessarily productively ;)). But what is your response to those who say, as often seems to happen, “Gay marriage is coming. It doesn’t matter that you don’t like it, bigot, it’s coming anyway”. Is it respect for the poster? Is it a desire to listen to what they have to say?
And he’s been sentenced to death. You have to love those world leaders and their silly ways.
Not, yet, he hasn’t.
From your own link:
Now, the Iranian theocrats are nasty birds that are wrong issuing such declarations, but they are among the most extreme of the various Muslim sects and can be counted upon to make stupid declarations as often as Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity, or Coulter.
Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, or Coulter never declared a death sentence on anybody.
contrast that to your nasty birds (nice attempt at marginalizing). They’re the spiritual leaders of 74 million people and sponsor terrorists such as Hezbola.
Congrats on working Limbaugh into the conversation.
I never claimed that the radio clowns called for death, (although Coulter has); I merely noted that they were given to stupid statements–statements that encourage hatred in the same manner as the theocrats–and with a sizable audience that compares with that of the theocrats. While Iran has over 70,000,000 citizens, (many of whom are opposed to the theocrats), the four rascals I named have combined audiences of nearly half that (all by choice), and with the addition of Lou Dobbs and similar nutcases, we could probably find as many “adherents” to the hate-spewing radio demagogues as to the theocrats.
(Not sure why you think Limbaugh should not be included. He spews as much hatred as any of them save Coulter.)
None of the people you mentioned has never suggested harm to anyone. You on the other hand continuously drag their names up and call them haters. Looks to me like you’re the one who is the hater.
You have been misinformed. Ann Coulter on the 9/11 hijackers, 9/13/2001:
This is the first thing I’ve ever read from Ann Coulter. I’ve seen her on the TV for all of maybe 5 minutes, so I don’t know have much context other than the column. But, you did see the date on the that column, right? Sept 13, 2001. The fact she was writing about a friend of hers who died on one of the planes 2 days before. I’d be inclined to give anyone a little slack given the circumstances.
Is this better?
Is this the American fighting for the Taliban against other Americans? And you think it is odd for someone to say to kill an actual traitor? Hey, if she said to kill the liberals mentioned before they became traitors just in case, you’d have an argument.
‘physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors’
There is no other way to read the phrase other than as a call to threaten the lives of those who don’t share an extreme right-tard viewpoint.
Physically intimidate - they can be killed too - Otherwise (eg ‘Before’ they become traitors).
Sickening. And if Micheal Moore had said it we’d never hear the frickin end of the wailing, the moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
Just to break in here, I went out to dinner this evening and looked at the local paper. There are two stories and a couple of editorials about this. The lead story did not make it clear the Nut from Florida did not burn anything.
Reports of several deaths and riots in Pakistan.
One of the reasons people are put in jail is to demonstrate to others that they are subject to those rules, too. In this case, at least it seems to me, it is being said that to prevent others from being traitors the maximum penalty should be used. No where is it being said that the penalty should be applied to those who are anything but ‘outright traitors’.
Now I personally don’t think being a liberal makes you a traitor or anywhere near being so. It doesn’t mean I agree with them, though.
Texas has already written him out of their school textbooks.
The way Ann Coulter shamelessly lies, I would be surprised to find out she actually knew anyone who died that day.
Yes, Ann Coulter is the Devil because of her political hyperbole. Concentrate on her instead of the people who burned woman and children in Pakistan over the mere mention of burning Korans. it was only a couple of people rioting and nothing like that could happen here.