Koran Burning Kerfuffle

[Daniel]

The amount of media attention and the utter lack of common sense from the talking heads is driving me nuts.

Look people, it's a bunch of private citizens (wacky as they may be) burning a book. That this is something that is supposedly going to cause retaliation against Americans in general just goes to show that the people (if you can call them that) we're up against can't be appeased in any way. (And relatedly, I don't see Americans or Israelis blowing up stuff indiscriminately because of the routine American/Star of David flag burnings that are sponsored by Muslim religious institutions every day it seems.)

To our president/other elected officials/media, it would suffice to say "these are private citizens exercising their right to free speech in a way that does not harm anyone. There's no point in getting our panties caught in a twist for fear that there are some really overly-sensitive people out there that would kill people as a result of a harmless, albeit asinine act, since they can't be reasoned with anyway. The best we can say to those people... GROW THE F**K UP".

[squishyx]

I don't care that he is burning a koran, while it seems childish and spiteful to me imo one religion is as bad as another.

I do have a problem with this because our generals have come out and said "this will put our troops in harms way" and fvck anyone who makes their jobs harder then it already is. This fringe lunatic actions could get our soldiers killed, and anyone who condones his behavior to make a political point is an idiot.

To snidely sit their from your comfortable computer chair and say "nothing bad will happen from this it's harmless" is pathetic.

[Jimmy Leeds]

I do have a problem with this because our generals have come out and said "this will put our troops in harms way" and fvck anyone who makes their jobs harder then it already is. This fringe lunatic actions could get our soldiers killed, and anyone who condones his behavior to make a political point is an idiot.

Interesting.

Did you come out with the same position when the NY Times was publishing classified material?

[squishyx]

Interesting.

Did you come out with the same position when the NY Times was publishing classified material?

I'm not sure what you are referring too, do you have a link?

That said, not all classified material is crucial to security of our troops. If it were and it got leaked then yes I would be equally as disgusted.

[Daniel]

To snidely sit their from your comfortable computer chair and say "nothing bad will happen from this it's harmless" is pathetic.

Nice straw man you're beating down. I never said nothing bad will happen, and actually think the chances are pretty good that it will. The point is, is that something is going to set these people off anyway. And it sounds extremely extremely weak from our leaders to beg for forgiveness.

And what the hell can anyone do about it anyway. Yeah, I'm sure all those condemnations are going to make all the jihadis change their minds all the sudden.

[squishyx]

Nice straw man you're beating down. I never said nothing bad will happen, and actually think the chances are pretty good that it will. The point is, is that something is going to set these people off anyway. And it sounds extremely extremely weak from our leaders to beg for forgiveness.

Are you serious?

There's no point in getting our panties caught in a twist for fear that there are some really overly-sensitive people out there that would kill people as a result of a harmless, albeit asinine act, since they can't be reasoned with anyway.

What do you think the word "harmless" means?

And what the hell can anyone do about it anyway. Yeah, I'm sure all those condemnations are going to make all the jihadis change their minds all the sudden.

I think the condemnations are necessary for two reasons. 1) we can hope to persuade this guy not to do it (and it would be far more effective if people on the right bothered calling this guy out as well, now it looks like another partisan fight gg election season) but more importantly 2) it puts out the other side of the argument; that this fvcknut doesn't represent us because we are actively voicing our opinion against it.

Edited September 9, 2010 by squishyx

[Daniel]

What do you think the word "harmless" means?

"Harmless" is an objective description of what burning a book (any book) is. I never said the reaction from people who can't grasp that it is harmless wouldn't be.

Which brings another thought to mind, maybe instead of trying to spread democracy to the Muslim world, we can first explain the meaning of irony first.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Remember Daniel..........we need to suck off and kiss the arses of all the Muslims in the world...........yet be prepared to say Thank You when they shove something up our arses.........and then we need to apologize to them for being angry with us.

[squishyx]

"Harmless" is an objective description of what burning a book (any book) is. I never said the reaction from people who can't grasp that it is harmless wouldn't be.

Which brings another thought to mind, maybe instead of trying to spread democracy to the Muslim world, we can first explain the meaning of irony first.

Not going to get into a semantics war with you, I think everyone else and their grandmother knows what you meant to say by "harmless" in the context you put it in.

What this guy is doing is stupid, at the very least pointless at the very worst harmful to Americans. Their is no reason not to speak out against this fool when the stakes are what they are.

[Devils731]

Would this be something that I could say he is constitutionally protected to do so and not speaking out him is the only way to support his right, otherwise we're being either -phobia or -ism against him?

[squishyx]

Remember Daniel..........we need to suck off and kiss the arses of all the Muslims in the world...........yet be prepared to say Thank You when they shove something up our arses.........and then we need to apologize to them for being angry with us.

Yep...political talking point

Nothing here on the consequences oh his actions, just so long as you can get a couple more jabs in at those damn muslims and loonie lefties.

[maxpower]

moral of the story in whackyville.... "my kook is better than theirs."

this guy is a living, breathing, internet troll. he gets his point out there, does something utterly ridiculous, gets a reaction, and then says "see, I told you so!" I hope he takes one to the dome on Saturday. it's bad enough that our soldiers have to be on these goofy nation building adventures with no realistic end, other than leaving, let's just have some redneck retard do something that puts a target on their back from essentially EVERYONE in the place they're supposed to be nation building. I don't think he'll actually be allowed to do it, but if he does, they are going to have a world of sh!t. it's easy to say "appease" and "kiss ass" and whatever when you're not there. they are totally outnumbered and having to deal with kookamania will not be a pleasant experience for them. especially when they're probably in the most backwards Muslim majority country of them all, unless Yemen is slumping lately

this guy would not be treated so nicely in many other places. you'd never see him again.

[squishyx]

Would this be something that I could say he is constitutionally protected to do so and not speaking out him is the only way to support his right, otherwise we're being either -phobia or -ism against him?

I think it's cute how conservatives want to compare the actions of muslims (who want to build a community center) to the actions of a christian (who wants to burn another relgions holy book for spite).

Actually it's not cute, it's disgusting. Hey if we are playing the association game, I guess all Christians are intolerant fvcks like this guy in flordia, because, you know.. its fair to judge everyone of one faith based on a few radical members. amirite?

Of course you weren't making that connection where you...

[Devils731]

I think it's cute how conservatives want to compare the actions of muslims (who want to build a community center) to the actions of a christian (who wants to burn another relgions holy book for spite).

Actually it's not cute, it's disgusting. Hey if we are playing the association game, I guess all Christians are intolerant fvcks like this guy in flordia, because, you know.. its fair to judge everyone of one faith based on a few radical members. amirite?

Of course you weren't making that connection where you...

I head the constitution is the constitution, even saying that despite having the right to build the community center and agreeing that the right exist, saying that they shouldn't do it was wrong. In this case, this guy is allowed to burn the Quran, but now speaking out against him is a must.

I don't think I've got a double standard, I think we should be free to speak out against both, just as they're allowed to do both.

[squishyx]

I head the constitution is the constitution, even saying that despite having the right to build the community center and agreeing that the right exist, saying that they shouldn't do it was wrong. In this case, this guy is allowed to burn the Quran, but now speaking out against him is a must.

I don't think I've got a double standard, I think we should be free to speak out against both, just as they're allowed to do both.

I don't think anyone is saying this guy is constitutionally not allowed to burn the koran, and while I support park51 to my opponents credit I recognize that their argument is not that they don't have the right, it's that they shouldn't.

So yes, essentially this boils down to, both have the right but "should" they? The disconnect here is the context.

A community center does not put Americans in harms way (unless you are stupid enough to assume all muslims are terrorists and that this community center is a secret terrorist head quarters... a secret terrorist head quarters that will actually have jewish and christian prayer rooms..). This guy burning the koran does. We know that because our generals have come out and said as much, it's not just hearsay arguments and speculation.

[Devils Dose]

Would this be something that I could say he is constitutionally protected to do so and not speaking out him is the only way to support his right, otherwise we're being either -phobia or -ism against him?

No, no, no. This is not the idea behind the 1st Amendment. Thought behind the free speech (and arguably freedom of the press) clause in the 1st Amendment is that all of our battles will be ideological ones, a "war of ideas" if you will. People have a right to make expressions like burining books (provided it complies with other general laws, like ones about fire safety), while others have a right to criticize them for it, and still others have a right to criticize the criticizers and so on and so on. It's then a tug-of-war of thoughts. Is it always fair? Not at all. But I don't know if I can think of a better way, and regardless of that, it's what we have.

[Deke]

back in the day the blank pages in a bible we're pretty good for rolling a joint when you had no papers.

[Neb00rs]

The amount of media attention and the utter lack of common sense from the talking heads is driving me nuts.

Look people, it's a bunch of private citizens (wacky as they may be) burning a book. That this is something that is supposedly going to cause retaliation against Americans in general just goes to show that the people (if you can call them that) we're up against can't be appeased in any way. (And relatedly, I don't see Americans or Israelis blowing up stuff indiscriminately because of the routine American/Star of David flag burnings that are sponsored by Muslim religious institutions every day it seems.)

To our president/other elected officials/media, it would suffice to say "these are private citizens exercising their right to free speech in a way that does not harm anyone. There's no point in getting our panties caught in a twist for fear that there are some really overly-sensitive people out there that would kill people as a result of a harmless, albeit asinine act, since they can't be reasoned with anyway. The best we can say to those people... GROW THE F**K UP".

I would say that it is almost certain that Madrasah's will teach the kids about this Koran burning. The burning just makes it easier to brainwash Muslim kids into hating the West. Could it lead directly to a terrorist attack? I don't know. Could it provoke the terrorists to kidnap and kill a foreigner and display it internationally in retalation? Absolutely.

[Devils Dose]

back in the day the blank pages in a bible we're pretty good for rolling a joint when you had no papers.

Talk about taking the edge off.

[Neb00rs]

I don't think anyone is saying this guy is constitutionally not allowed to burn the koran, and while I support park51 to my opponents credit I recognize that their argument is not that they don't have the right, it's that they shouldn't.

So yes, essentially this boils down to, both have the right but "should" they? The disconnect here is the context.

A community center does not put Americans in harms way (unless you are stupid enough to assume all muslims are terrorists and that this community center is a secret terrorist head quarters... a secret terrorist head quarters that will actually have jewish and christian prayer rooms..). This guy burning the koran does. We know that because our generals have come out and said as much, it's not just hearsay arguments and speculation.

You're making the wrong connection. They shouldn't build the Community Center because it is insulting. They shouldn't burn the Koran because it is insulting.

[squishyx]

You're making the wrong connection. They shouldn't build the Community Center because it is insulting. They shouldn't burn the Koran because it is insulting.

I disagree, while both may be insulting to some people, they are not equal on those grounds alone. In a world with 7 billion people it is likely that someone somewhere will always be insulted and you can't run around making policy trying to appease everyone because you can't.

The difference between the two however, as our generals have warned us, is one of these things could get our soldiers killed in retaliation.

[Neb00rs]

I disagree, while both may be insulting to some people, they are not equal on those grounds alone. In a world with 7 billion people it is likely that someone somewhere will always be insulted and you can't run around making policy trying to appease everyone because you can't.

The difference between the two however, as our generals have warned us, is one of these things could get our soldiers killed in retaliation.

I agree that you can't stop everything that is insulting. But the building is insulting to Americans and the burning is insulting to Muslims - both large populations. Not every American is going crazy over the building and not every Muslim is furious at the Koran burners. Both are uneccessary, neither should happen. I probably would be less against the Mosque if the Imam running the show hadn't said the things he's said (America inviting Sept. 11 on itself, etc...).

[squishyx]

I agree that you can't stop everything that is insulting. But the building is insulting to Americans and the burning is insulting to Muslims - both large populations. Not every American is going crazy over the building and not every Muslim is furious at the Koran burners. Both are uneccessary, neither should happen. I probably would be less against the Mosque if the Imam running the show hadn't said the things he's said (America inviting Sept. 11 on itself, etc...).

Let me put it another way, we shouldn't not do something because people might be offended.

For example remember the south park debacle? I couldn't care less that muslims are "offended" by animations of mohammad. I thought it was a travesty that the episode got censored. We shouldn't be making policy based on certain people getting offended.

If our generals had come out and said "this community center, or this episode of south park puts out troops directly in danger" as they have with this pastor then I would say ok sure, block the episode or construction. For me this is simple, trying to score political points at the expense of our troops safety is not ok. None of these issues should be judged based on if they are offending people.

Edited September 9, 2010 by squishyx

[Devils731]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

Fla. minister cancels burning of Qurans on 9/11

If our generals had come out and said "this community center, or this episode of south park puts out troops directly in danger" as they have with this pastor then I would say ok sure, block the episode or construction. For me this is simple, trying to score political points at the expense of our troops safety is not ok with me. This isn't about offending people.

That's the same reason some people were giving to say people protesting the community center needed to be quiet. So anything that might offend Muslim Radicals shouldn't be done for fear of attack, which leads to the Radicals getting to control things they have no right controlling, such as American Free Speech.

[maxpower]

that must have been one interesting "FBI" meeting. methinks the group that met up with him also had a three-letter initial, but it sure as hell wasn't FBI.