Terry Jones arrested for attempting to burn 2,998 copies of the Koran.

Page 9 of 9
Conservationist
realist
Join date: Jun 2008
470 IQ
#321
Quote by AeroRocker
3000 Korans probably cost $15000.


This is what I'm wondering too. Or did he print them out from the internet?

Either way, he should be allowed to do whatever he feels he needs to. If the moderate Muslims riot, then that's doom on them.

Welcome to free speech.
Carnivean
UG Board King
Join date: Jun 2006
100 IQ
#322
Really? A guy from Afghanistan, recently moved to America, when questioned by an American, in 'America', tells him that Afganis, (especially himself, his friends and his family) don't take Qur'an burning as a declaration of war against Muslims ?

I wonder why?

I agree that the typical Muslim he knows probably is kind of embarrassed by the actions that extremists undertake in retaliation to book burning. The typical Muslims I know are too, but knowing that some Muslims are less sensative to it than others doesn't change the fact that burning the Qur'an is interpreted by many Muslims, especialy in the Middle East, to be a openly blatent threat.

I actualy had this different cultural way of thinking explained to me by several different Muslim friends of mine, (two of which study Muslim history) who would never in a million years react violently to Qur'an burning themselves but who understand how culturaly different Muslims to themselves would interpret it as a threat, given the history of Christians burning Muslims at the stake and given that the act of Qur'an burning in question was attempted by an openly armed Christian who calls himself a 'pastor'.


My friend knows that this country has free speech, so he knows he could tell me his true opinions no matter what they are and be protected. Plus, he trusts me as a friend. What the **** are you insinuating, Slacker? Are you trying to imply that no Muslim can ever feel safe or express themselves in this country? If that were true, you think he would openly identify as a Muslim here anyway? Stop pulling false claims out of your ass. Stop implying things about my country which are not true and of which you have no evidence.

And again, he grew up in the Middle East, he knows its history (and he studies it as well here in the states) and according to him and his experience, what you've implied (that Muslims in general interpret such actions that way) is false. The typical Muslim (meaning the overwhelming majority if Muslims) simply do not interpret such acts that way, and they certainly don't go killing people after it happens. And yes, there are 'many' EXTREMISTS who feel the need to do that, but they are a separate and shamed group. I'll take my friend's word over yours.

Not that it would matter if it were true anyway.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Last edited by Carnivean at Sep 29, 2013,
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
10 IQ
#323
We're already at war with the very kind of Islam that is likely to react violently to something such as a book burning, so whether or not this civilian is 'declaring war' (as if such a thing were even possible) is irrelevant.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
10 IQ
#324
Quote by Carnivean
My friend knows that this country has free speech, so he knows he could tell me his true opinions no matter what they are and be protected. Plus, he trusts me as a friend. What the **** are you insinuating, Slacker? Are you trying to imply that no Muslim can ever feel safe or express themselves in this country? If that were true, you think he would openly identify as a Muslim here anyway? Stop pulling false claims out of your ass. Stop implying things about my country which are not true and of which you have no evidence.

I have Muslim friends who moved here from America because of the constant stream of abuse they recieved there just for being Muslims.
And yes, I am implying that Muslims often do not feel safe in America, let's take just the first half of one month (Aug) out of last year as an example and take a look at reported abuse (and remember, not all cases of abuse are reported) aimed at Muslims living in America during that two week period.

On Aug. 4, teenagers pelted a mosque in Hayward, Calif, with fruit.
On Aug. 5, white supremacist Wade Michael Page murdered six congregants and wounded a police officer at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, apparently because he thought the Sikhs were Muslims. That same day, a man vandalized a mosque in North Smithfield, R.I.
On Aug. 6, a mosque in Joplin, Mo., was burned to the ground.
On Aug. 10, a man allegedly shot a pellet rifle at a mosque near Chicago while people prayed inside.
On Aug. 12, attackers fired paintball guns at a mosque in Oklahoma City, and a homemade bomb filled with acid was thrown at an Islamic school in Lombard, Ill.
On Aug. 15, assailants threw a Molotov cocktail at the home of a Muslim family in Panama City, Fla.

Even being a high-level member of the government doesn't make you safe from abuse if you're a Muslim in America. In July last year, Michele Bachmann and several other members of Congress falsely insinuated that Huma Abedin (one of only a few American Muslims who have ever held a high-level government job) was an operative of, or had family members who were operatives of Egypt’s 'Muslim Brotherhood' as part of a political smear campaign. As a result, after receiving threats from American citizens, Abedin now receives FBI security protection.

Quote by Carnivean

And again, he grew up in the Middle East, he knows its history (and he studies it as well here in the states) and according to him and his experience, what you've implied (that Muslims in general interpret such actions that way) is false. The typical Muslim (meaning the overwhelming majority if Muslims) simply do not interpret such acts that way, and they certainly don't go killing people after it happens. And yes, there are 'many' EXTREMISTS who feel the need to do that, but they are a separate and shamed group. I'll take my friend's word over yours.


The obvious problem you're missing is that the extremists live amongst the 'typical' Muslims and agitate them with propaganda. They show them a constant stream of examples, similar to the events of August last year in America and they also include whatever stunts that people like Jones happen to be pulling at any given moment, and cite them all as evidence of the 'evil' (their words, not mine) within America.
This is how 'typical' Muslims become extremists, this is where all the new extremists come from and why there always seems to be a constant flow of extremists, no matter how many are killed by American soldiers.
American anti-Muslim sentiment is the very thing that's helping to keep the numbers of Muslim extremists constantly topped up, by allowing public displays of anti-Muslim sentiment by Americans you're country is effectively helping to fuel your enemy's war effort against yourselves.

Think about it, the 'War in Afghanistan' (2001–present day) has been going on for 12 years so far and doesn't look like it's going to end any time soon, it's going on longer than the First World War (1914 to 1918) and the Second World War (1939 to 1945) combined, why do you think it's lasted so long?

Quote by Carnivean

Not that it would matter if it were true anyway.

In what way does any of this not 'matter'?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 30, 2013,
sock_demon
Ol' Dirty
Join date: Jun 2005
60 IQ
#325
I just think it's kinda fucked up that people disrespect other religions by doing stuff like this.
hue
Rossenrot
👻
Join date: Nov 2007
76 IQ
#326
Most hate crimes in America are motivated by race, and of the hate crimes motivated by religion, Islam only makes up about 15% of them. Anti-Jewish crimes make up more than 60% of them, this is per-capita much more than Anti-Islamic hate crimes. Hate crimes against gays outnumbers all the religions combined. With these numbers, we are talking in the hundreds, not thousands. I'm not downplaying the importance of Islamic hate crimes, but a lot of the perceptions about the treatment of Muslims are blown out of proportion.

Source.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/victims
progdude93
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
20 IQ
#327
Yes, but the problem is that the actual number of hate crimes doesn't matter, as they're blown out of proportion in Muslim countries. Not to the extent Slacker is claiming, but recruitment benefits from being able to claim Americans or Europeans or Asians are abusing Muslims because of their religion. They inflate the numbers, but they almost don't have to. They just have to tell deeply moving stories about an innocent muslim who was beaten to death in front of his family for no reason, and BOOM.

The Jews aren't a threat to anything but leftovers. Same with gays. Fairly nonviolent people.
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
Join date: Jul 2010
110 IQ
#328
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Think about it, the 'War in Afghanistan' (2001–present day) has been going on for 12 years so far and doesn't look like it's going to end any time soon, it's going on longer than the First World War (1914 to 1918) and the Second World War (1939 to 1945) combined, why do you think it's lasted so long?


Because it's not a 'conventional' war, the objectives aren't clear and the 'enemy' isn't a homogenous and easily discernible group.

Also because it's being prosecuted in a very limited fashion, which while noble from a human cost aspect is grossly inefficient from a purely military perspective.

The Wars of today and the future don't (and won't) look anything like WWI and WWII, which makes the comparison useless.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
10 IQ
#330
Quote by Arby911
Because it's not a 'conventional' war, the objectives aren't clear and the 'enemy' isn't a homogenous and easily discernible group.

Also because it's being prosecuted in a very limited fashion, which while noble from a human cost aspect is grossly inefficient from a purely military perspective.

And because your country allowes it's citizens to constantly hurl abuse at and make enemies of people who previously were not their enemies. C'mon, there's no point in pretending it doesn't happen and isn't a factor.

Quote by jtees4
It's a free country. Well...used to be a free country. Free means for everyone, no matter how crazy they are and no matter how much you disagree with them. That's kind of the point of being free.

Wasn't one of the main points of setting up the original American colonies to establish a place of 'religious freedom' where people wouldn't be persecuted because of the religion they followed? Religious freedom just doesn't work if people are still allowed to abuse others for the religion they follow.

What exactly is the point of a system of 'freedom' that actualy protects someone's right to take freedom away from others?
How can a country claim to have religious freedom when it protects the rights of others to vilify all members of a religious group through campaigns of public smears and hate-mongering?
Surely it should be intuitively and blatently obvious to everyone how ludiocrously counter-productive and detrimental such a system is going to be?
progdude93
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
20 IQ
#331
Quote by SlackerBabbath
And because your country allowes it's citizens to constantly hurl abuse at and make enemies of people who previously were not their enemies. C'mon, there's no point in pretending it doesn't happen and isn't a factor.


It happens. It's not a factor. Other than the fact that America is far from being the worst offender in this regard (which I think you recognize), you vastly overestimate the significance of America "hurling abuse" at previous nonenemies.

Because I'm getting bored of this discussion and some of the ridiculous opinions, I'm actually going to get out a book and pull out some quotes and stats.

"If terrorist methods are as widely available as automobiles, why are there so few Islamist terrorists? In light of the death and devastation that terrorists have wrought, the question may seem absurd. But if there are more than a billion Muslims in the world, many of whom supposedly hate the West and desire martyrdom, why don't we see terrorist attacks everywhere, every day?"

"For several decades now, Islamist terrorists have called it a duty for Muslims to engaged in armed jihad-- against their own rulers, against the Soviets, and later against the Americans. Tens of thousands have obeyed, perhaps as many as 100,000 over the past quarter century, according to US govt estimates... At the same time, more than a billion Muslims-- well over 99 percent-- ignored the call to action. This is typical for revolutionary movements of all sorts, of course... (brings up other movements) Among terrorist groups, the most effective recruiters tend to be territorially based movements, such as the IRA, the Basque Homeland, ETA, or Hamas, whose military wing is said to have grown since its takeover in Gaza to approximately 1 in 100 residents. Global Islamist terrorists have managed to recruit fewer than 1 in 15,000 Muslims over the past quarter century, and fewer than 1 in 100,000 Muslims since 9/11."

progNOTE: Notice that the recruitment rates have been steadily dropping since 9/11 (even accounting for increases due to the Iraqi war), even though anti-Muslim sentiment has only grown since 9/11, with the highest amounts of American hate crimes committed against Muslims happening in the past 2 years.

"Since 9/11... the scale of terrorist recruitment has been further reduced. During five years of Taliban rule, 10,000 to 20,000 recruits passed through terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.... Since 9/11, the scale of terrorist training has dropped by 90 percent. The largest concentration of terrorist camps in the world... has trained fewer than 2,000 militants. The biggest single camp in the region consisted of approximately 250 recruits... However, US and Pakistani intelligence officials say that most of the camps in the region consist of only one dozen to three dozen men."

I got tired of typing up passages. Buuuut basically..

The author goes on to suggest that the media exaggerates the impact of terrorism, which results in an exaggerated reaction to it. However, he also brings up that localized terror groups (which are more effective at recruitment, probably because the enemy is more tangible) cannibalize al-Qaida recruitment, which is the only one we really need to be worried about (incidentally, notice how they swallowed al-Shabab, a more localized group, because of recruitment issues).

Another great quote: "The symbol of resistance is detached from content." He says this after bringing up polls and surveys that indicate that:

a) supporting terrorism is surprisingly NOT akin to supporting radical Islamist agendas. Over half of Muslims who said they supported terrorism also supported the new ease of access of Western media. The same exact proportion as people who said they did NOT support terrorism. Many Muslim countries also claimed they supported Bin Laden (55% of Jordanians and Indonesians, 58% of Moroccans, 62% of Pakistanis, and 77% of Palestinians). However, most of those respondent also supported Western forms of democracy.

This indicates that the correlation between the radical Islamist agenda and supporting terrorism is quite weak. Those who support terrorism are unlikely to support the radical Islamist agenda. Why is there such a disconnect?

"Radical sheik disassociates terrorist symbols from terrorist activities, just as the global popularity of gangster rap removed the music from its origins in African-American gangs."

Muslims have been quoted as saying things like, "We are the black people of the Middle East." Hilariously enough, the next quote is, "Tupac, when he said "It's a white man's world," spoke to me, because I live as an Arab in a Jewish world." The quoted has a poster of Tupac next to his poster of Che Guevara.

Jihad is basically like a counterculture movement. It's their response to being oppressed. They support the idea of it because it comforts them, but the most significant factor in reducing Islamist violence has been ISLAMIST VIOLENCE.

I have more here, but I'm tired. Read this book, it's a great one.
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
10 IQ
#332
Quote by progdude93
It happens. It's not a factor. Other than the fact that America is far from being the worst offender in this regard (which I think you recognize), you vastly overestimate the significance of America "hurling abuse" at previous nonenemies.


Well there must be some reason why it's mainly America that the Muslims call the 'Great Satan' instead of all the other allies involved in the Middle Eastern conflicts.

I do agree that America is far from being the worst offender though, but isn't it strange that America is still easily considered as the most hated nation amongst Muslims worldwide, despite not being the worst offender?
progdude93
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
20 IQ
#333
Not in the least. It's because it's their perception of American foreign policy that drives their opinions.

They don't hate the American people, they hate what they view as the American MACHINE. Which is why they support symbols of anti-establishment, but hate the actual violence and ideology.

EDIT: It's like when we sent the polio vaccine to Nigeria, and all the Imams and religious leaders claimed it was a Western plot and used that to fuel anti-Western sentiment EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A PERFECTLY NICE THING TO DO. All the nice things we do don't have an impact on our reputation, but all the bad stuff does. This shows that the propaganda machine they have is immensely powerful, but also not powerful enough to cause much actual violence.
Last edited by progdude93 at Oct 1, 2013,
Jackal58
Pit Daddy
Join date: Mar 2007
30 IQ
#334
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Well there must be some reason why it's mainly America that the Muslims call the 'Great Satan' instead of all the other allies involved in the Middle Eastern conflicts.

I do agree that America is far from being the worst offender though, but isn't it strange that America is still easily considered as the most hated nation amongst Muslims worldwide, despite not being the worst offender?

Israel and the lack of a Soviet Union.
Most hated on most Muslims list of nations would be Israel. Not the US. Russia may surpass us on many of their lists.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
Carnivean
UG Board King
Join date: Jun 2006
100 IQ
#335
Quote by SlackerBabbath
I have Muslim friends who moved here from America because of the constant stream of abuse they recieved there just for being Muslims.
And yes, I am implying that Muslims often do not feel safe in America, let's take just the first half of one month (Aug) out of last year as an example and take a look at reported abuse (and remember, not all cases of abuse are reported) aimed at Muslims living in America during that two week period.

On Aug. 4, teenagers pelted a mosque in Hayward, Calif, with fruit.
On Aug. 5, white supremacist Wade Michael Page murdered six congregants and wounded a police officer at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, apparently because he thought the Sikhs were Muslims. That same day, a man vandalized a mosque in North Smithfield, R.I.
On Aug. 6, a mosque in Joplin, Mo., was burned to the ground.
On Aug. 10, a man allegedly shot a pellet rifle at a mosque near Chicago while people prayed inside.
On Aug. 12, attackers fired paintball guns at a mosque in Oklahoma City, and a homemade bomb filled with acid was thrown at an Islamic school in Lombard, Ill.
On Aug. 15, assailants threw a Molotov cocktail at the home of a Muslim family in Panama City, Fla.

Even being a high-level member of the government doesn't make you safe from abuse if you're a Muslim in America. In July last year, Michele Bachmann and several other members of Congress falsely insinuated that Huma Abedin (one of only a few American Muslims who have ever held a high-level government job) was an operative of, or had family members who were operatives of Egypt’s 'Muslim Brotherhood' as part of a political smear campaign. As a result, after receiving threats from American citizens, Abedin now receives FBI security protection.


The obvious problem you're missing is that the extremists live amongst the 'typical' Muslims and agitate them with propaganda. They show them a constant stream of examples, similar to the events of August last year in America and they also include whatever stunts that people like Jones happen to be pulling at any given moment, and cite them all as evidence of the 'evil' (their words, not mine) within America.
This is how 'typical' Muslims become extremists, this is where all the new extremists come from and why there always seems to be a constant flow of extremists, no matter how many are killed by American soldiers.
American anti-Muslim sentiment is the very thing that's helping to keep the numbers of Muslim extremists constantly topped up, by allowing public displays of anti-Muslim sentiment by Americans you're country is effectively helping to fuel your enemy's war effort against yourselves.

Think about it, the 'War in Afghanistan' (2001–present day) has been going on for 12 years so far and doesn't look like it's going to end any time soon, it's going on longer than the First World War (1914 to 1918) and the Second World War (1939 to 1945) combined, why do you think it's lasted so long?


In what way does any of this not 'matter'?


But you didn't even answer my question. You made up your own answer to your own question. I asked "are you implying that NO Muslim can express themselves and their beliefs in America?" because you denied the honesty of my friend's testimony. You still have not answered that question. I have no doubts that there may be Muslims in this country who feel uncomfortable in certain ways, and I have no doubts that there is hate and hate crimes against Muslims in this country. That's not a mystery to anyone who's interested in politics and current issues. You don't need to tell us. In fact, this BBC article on anti-Muslim hate crime in the UK shouldnt be a mystery to you either:

This week, one of the UK's largest Islamic organisations has called for a tougher government response to a "dramatic escalation in violence" against British Muslims.

The call from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) comes amid fears of a rise in anti-Islamic attacks following the killing of Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich in May.

So what do we know about what is actually happening? It depends where you look for answers.

The official data is pretty patchy because hate crime is very difficult to measure.

The National Community Tension Team, which is run by police chiefs, found that in the five days after the death of Lee Rigby, there was a spike of 72 anti-Muslim incidents nationwide.

One of the gravest incidents in the days after Woolwich was a petrol-bomb attack on a mosque in Grimsby, north-east Lincolnshire. Three men have been charged in relation to that alleged arson and are awaiting trial.

The day after Lee Rigby died, there was an attempt to set alight a mosque in Milton Keynes.

In London, a Somali mosque and community centre was razed to the ground. The Metropolitan Police is still investigating what happened and the fact that the letters "EDL" were sprayed on the building.

Later, an Islamic school in Chislehurst, in the south-east of the capital, was set alight. Five people have been arrested in connection with that incident and are on police bail while investigations continue. Scotland Yard was so concerned that it subsequently increased patrols around Islamic sites.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23436960

I included mainly the examples of hate crimes in YOUR country, and there's more if you want to continue reading the article, and if you google search you'll find even more. But you seem to think for some reason that NO Muslim can ever feel comfortable enough to speak frankly in MY country, am I right? Or is that not what you are implying? Because I too can sit here and say yes, Muslims often may feel uncomfortable in my country AND in yours too--whatever "often" means.

And yes, I realize that extremists recruit Muslims across the world, and that they may use examples like Jones's book burning to ignite hate and a desire for vengeance in people's hearts, but like all extremists and hate groups, they twist and warp their message specifically to make others hate too. Meanwhile, most Muslims in this world learn of Jones's actions themselves and never come into contact with extremists or simply ignore them, and they judge our people for themselves, in a tolerable, rational, and ungeneralized way, which is what my Afghani friend has explained. The extremists don't need to rely on news of book burning and hate crimes, they can make fabricate things and ignite hate in people's hearts themselves, without anything happening at all. This is why 9/11 happened. This is why the London Bombings happened. And to be honest, Slacker, you're no better than an uninformed follower of extremism if you too point your hypocritical finger at our country and excuse those who seek to deceive others for hate and vengeance.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Last edited by Carnivean at Oct 6, 2013,
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
10 IQ
#336
Quote by Carnivean
But you didn't even answer my question. You made up your own answer to your own question. I asked "are you implying that NO Muslim can express themselves and their beliefs in America?" because you denied the honesty of my friend's testimony. You still have not answered that question. I have no doubts that there may be Muslims in this country who feel uncomfortable in certain ways, and I have no doubts that there is hate and hate crimes against Muslims in this country. That's not a mystery to anyone who's interested in politics and current issues. You don't need to tell us. In fact, this BBC article on anti-Muslim hate crime in the UK shouldnt be a mystery to you either:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23436960

I included mainly the examples of hate crimes in YOUR country, and there's more if you want to continue reading the article, and if you google search you'll find even more. But you seem to think for some reason that NO Muslim can ever feel comfortable enough to speak frankly in MY country, am I right? Or is that not what you are implying? Because I too can sit here and say yes, Muslims often may feel uncomfortable in my country AND in yours too--whatever "often" means.

I'd be an idiot if I claimed it didn't happen here too. Let's face it, discrimination is present in practicaly all cultures to a greater or lesser degree, but the point is that Britain's government isn't considered to be pandering to the people like Jones by protecting their right to carry out something that would be callad a 'hate crime' here under the special heading of 'freedom of speech', like America's government is seen to do.


Quote by Carnivean

And yes, I realize that extremists recruit Muslims across the world, and that they may use examples like Jones's book burning to ignite hate and a desire for vengeance in people's hearts, but like all extremists and hate groups, they twist and warp their message specifically to make others hate too. Meanwhile, most Muslims in this world learn of Jones's actions themselves and never come into contact with extremists or simply ignore them, and they judge our people for themselves, in a tolerable, rational, and ungeneralized way, which is what my Afghani friend has explained. The extremists don't need to rely on news of book burning and hate crimes, they can make fabricate things and ignite hate in people's hearts themselves, without anything happening at all.

You've basicaly just said 'Yeah, but not all Muslims hate America' which is laughably obvious to everyone and is obviously not something that I'm going to argue against.

Look at the two bolded parts. In one instance you're admitting that extremist Muslims use examples such as Qur'an burnings to ignite hatred in ordinary Muslims and convince them to join the extremist cause, in the next instance you're claiming that they don't need to do that because they can just make stuff up instead, but ask yourself, which would be the more effective method for extremists to use, made up stuff or real instances of public expressions of hatred against all of Islam (not just the extremists) made by Americans?

The point I was making was that public displays of hatred towards Muslims, like the one Jones attempted, and America's stance on protecting an American's freedom to publiclly express such hatred, is a part of what is fueling the extremists cause against America, which I haven't actualy seen you or anyone else deny yet.
The point I'm making is that it would seem sensible to use the law to stop Americans from helping to fuel the extremists cause against America.

If you give everyone a stick, and if some of the people start hitting themselves and the other people around them with the sticks, it's probably a good idea to take the sticks away from those few people.


Quote by Carnivean

This is why 9/11 happened. This is why the London Bombings happened.


It's been argued that 9/11 was possibly a strategic move with the objective of provoking America into a war that would in turn incite a pan-Islamic revolution, I couldn't personaly comment on whether that's true or not, but if it was, then I think we can consider it to have been quite a success.

The London bombings are often considered as happening because of Britain's alliance with America, I remember that was certainly a strong sentiment in Britain at the time.
Quote by Carnivean

And to be honest, Slacker, you're no better than an uninformed follower of extremism if you too point your hypocritical finger at our country and excuse those who seek to deceive others for hate and vengeance.

Please point out exactly where I have 'excused' anyone who seeks to deceive others for the purpose of hate and/or vengeance. If you cannot, then could I ask you to please refrain from defaming me in this way?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 7, 2013,
EqualOfHeaven
The Great Sage
Join date: Feb 2013
20 IQ
#337
Quote by Arby911
Because it's not a 'conventional' war, the objectives aren't clear and the 'enemy' isn't a homogenous and easily discernible group.

Also because it's being prosecuted in a very limited fashion, which while noble from a human cost aspect is grossly inefficient from a purely military perspective.


This never was, is not, and never will be the case. War is perpetual, the lines we draw in the dirt are there to preserve the waning illusion that war at any point in history ceases; it in fact, does not. In every war there has been subterfuge and uncertainty, even in wars we like to paint in black and white like WWII, there were partisans, a myriad of ideologies clashing beyond just 'Good guys vs. Nazis'.

Quote by Arby911
The Wars of today and the future don't (and won't) look anything like WWI and WWII, which makes the comparison useless.


WWI led to WWII led to the Cold War led to the War on Terror. There was plenty of conflict precipitating WWI aswell. There's only ever been one war in the history of humanity, it started when one caveman thrust a sharp rock into another, it's carried on that way ever since. When the hysteria surrounding Islamic fundamentalism has died away and we realise they're just a drop in the ocean of ideologically-motivated murder, we'll find another face of all evil to project our fears upon.

As for the subject of the OP? Hysterical idiot provokes hysteria. Is consequently imprisoned for a minor offense in an effort by authorities to detain an individual for expressing their right to freedom of speech. Assholery all around, no surprises there.
Vinland, Vinland Über Alles

"Why do they still call me a warlord? And mad? All I want to do is create the perfect genetic soldier!"
Mr E Meat
Custom User Title
Join date: Mar 2012
60 IQ
#338
lol this is still alive

kil ragheds

murica
Carnivean
UG Board King
Join date: Jun 2006
100 IQ
#339
Quote by SlackerBabbath
I'd be an idiot if I claimed it didn't happen here too. Let's face it, discrimination is present in practicaly all cultures to a greater or lesser degree, but the point is that Britain's government isn't considered to be pandering to the people like Jones by protecting their right to carry out something that would be callad a 'hate crime' here under the special heading of 'freedom of speech', like America's government is seen to do.


Comparing our laws wasn't your point at all. Your point (implied) was that all Muslims in this country are too scared to express themselves and tell the truth about how they feel towards our western society because of an alleged extreme level of hate and anti-Muslim crime that exists only here in America, and thus my friend's testimony cannot be truthful as he is simply too scared. You made your case by giving examples of CITIZEN anti-Muslim hate crime here in America. This is also highly hypocritical given that there is the exact same anti-Muslim sentiment/hate crime in your own country.

Look at the two bolded parts. In one instance you're admitting that extremist Muslims use examples such as Qur'an burnings to ignite hatred in ordinary Muslims and convince them to join the extremist cause, in the next instance you're claiming that they don't need to do that because they can just make stuff up instead, but ask yourself, which would be the more effective method for extremists to use, made up stuff or real instances of public expressions of hatred against all of Islam (not just the extremists) made by Americans?


It really doesn't matter. It's no more effective if Jones actually burns books or not. Again, this is why 9/11 happened in the first place. Extremists can brainwash people on their own. People will believe it whether it actually happened or not.

The point I was making was that public displays of hatred towards Muslims, like the one Jones attempted, and America's stance on protecting an American's freedom to publiclly express such hatred, is a part of what is fueling the extremists cause against America, which I haven't actualy seen you or anyone else deny yet.
The point I'm making is that it would seem sensible to use the law to stop Americans from helping to fuel the extremists cause against America.


And I would argue that they didn't need to see any book burning to hate us and retaliate against us in the first place, so it simply doesn't matter.

If you give everyone a stick, and if some of the people start hitting themselves and the other people around them with the sticks, it's probably a good idea to take the sticks away from those few people.


Jones is not hitting anyone with a stick, man. He burned books. He didn't harm anyone; he insulted a religion. And again, this is something my friend has made clear that the MAJORITY of Muslims on this earth can deal with.

It's been argued that 9/11 was possibly a strategic move with the objective of provoking America into a war that would in turn incite a pan-Islamic revolution, I couldn't personaly comment on whether that's true or not, but if it was, then I think we can consider it to have been quite a success.


Sure, but the reason why that HAPPENED, why people felt the need to hijack and fly planes into big buildings, was because extremists fabricated and instilled reasons to hate enough to do so. This was their own twisted making.

The London bombings are often considered as happening because of Britain's alliance with America, I remember that was certainly a strong sentiment in Britain at the time.


Okay so I guess Britain should stop allying with America, because it has actually happened and it IN PART could fuel extremism?

Please point out exactly where I have 'excused' anyone who seeks to deceive others for the purpose of hate and/or vengeance. If you cannot, then could I ask you to please refrain from defaming me in this way?


You've effectively excused extremism time and time again in this thread. We're all sitting here saying there is no excuse for killing innocent people because you're mad that someone burnt your goddamn bible. But you are excusing them by essentially saying that it's in their "nature" to react to book burning that way, and that that should be taken into consideration when writing our laws.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Lost Dog
Born on the Bayou
Join date: Feb 2011
184 IQ
#340
Quote by Jackal58
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/pastor-arrested-before-he-could-burn-nearly-3000-qurans

Personally I think the guy is an idiot but I don't know why he was arrested.


He was arrested because the crazies in the middle east would go even more apeshit than they already have if he wasn't. Case in point:

The most violent protest happened after the 2011 Quran burning as hundreds of protesters stormed a U.N. compound in Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan, killing seven foreigners, including four Nepalese guards.


An Egyptian court convicted Jones, along with seven Egyptian Coptic Christians in absentia, sentencing them to death on charges linked to the film.
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
10 IQ
#341
Quote by Carnivean
Comparing our laws wasn't your point at all. Your point (implied) was that all Muslims in this country are too scared to express themselves and tell the truth about how they feel towards our western society because of an alleged extreme level of hate and anti-Muslim crime that exists only here in America, and thus my friend's testimony cannot be truthful as he is simply too scared. You made your case by giving examples of CITIZEN anti-Muslim hate crime here in America. This is also highly hypocritical given that there is the exact same anti-Muslim sentiment/hate crime in your own country.

So kind of you to tell me what my point was.
I didn't imply that 'all' Muslims are too scared to express themselves in America, I implied that there are a lot of Muslims in America who are too scared to express themselves because of the extreme level of hate and anti-Muslim crime that exists in America, and I certainly didn't say or imply that it exists 'only' in America.
Really, if the only way you can find to argue against me is to twist what I actualy said into something else, then it's probably time to give it up.


Quote by Carnivean

It really doesn't matter. It's no more effective if Jones actually burns books or not. Again, this is why 9/11 happened in the first place. Extremists can brainwash people on their own. People will believe it whether it actually happened or not.

But the fact is that it did happen, the fact is that Jones' past Qur'an burnings were reported worldwide in the press drawing criticism from all walks of life, not just Muslims, and because it attracted worldwide criticism that just made it easier for extremists to use it as anti-American propaganda rather than using 'made up' propaganda.

Real events, especialy if they are confirmed, reported and criticised by the global community, are far more effective as propaganda than fictional events.

Quote by Carnivean

And I would argue that they didn't need to see any book burning to hate us and retaliate against us in the first place, so it simply doesn't matter.

Are you excusing the intentional goading of extremists into violence towards others by saying that the extremists could have 'made it up' anyway?

Quote by Carnivean

Jones is not hitting anyone with a stick, man. He burned books.

Yeah, the stick thing was something that we call a 'metaphor', which is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated subject.
Quote by Carnivean

He didn't harm anyone; he insulted a religion. And again, this is something my friend has made clear that the MAJORITY of Muslims on this earth can deal with.

So now you're confirming something that I've already said?
I've already called the extremists a 'minority' amoung Muslims, remember? But it still doesn't stop what Jones attempted to do being completely repugnant to practicly all Muslims though.


Quote by Carnivean

Sure, but the reason why that HAPPENED, why people felt the need to hijack and fly planes into big buildings, was because extremists fabricated and instilled reasons to hate enough to do so. This was their own twisted making.

And the reason why they could fabricate reasons for Muslims to hate Americans so effectively was because they could base their fabrications upon real anti-Muslim sentiment that was already present in America.

Quote by Carnivean

Okay so I guess Britain should stop allying with America, because it has actually happened and it IN PART could fuel extremism?

If you say so... personally I couldn't possibly comment on whether Britain should stop allying with America or not.... well... I could probably make a case for it, but any argument I'd make in favour of ending the alliance would be be based on a list of pros and cons, (and only if the list of pros outweigh the cons for ending the alliance) of which this would be just one issue.

But it's a fact that following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, senior British government representatives criticized the refusal of the US Government to heed advice regarding post-war plans for Iraq, specifically the Coalition Provisional Authority's de-Ba'athification policy and the critical importance of preventing the power vacuum in which the insurgency subsequently developed. Speaking on the same topic, The Duke of York said there were "occasions when people in the UK would wish that those in responsible positions in the US might listen and learn from our experiences", that there was 'healthy skepticism' in the United Kingdom toward what was said in Washington DC, and a feeling of 'why didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given'. CNN acknowledged that the Prince's views were widely shared in the UK at the time too.


Quote by Carnivean

You've effectively excused extremism time and time again in this thread. We're all sitting here saying there is no excuse for killing innocent people because you're mad that someone burnt your goddamn bible. But you are excusing them by essentially saying that it's in their "nature" to react to book burning that way, and that that should be taken into consideration when writing our laws.

I've done nothing of the sort and you know it, or you should know it if you'd actualy read and taken on board my comments during the conversation in this thread rather than trying to find ways of twisting my words, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is 'no excuse' for the killing of innocents and that those who willingly goad others into violence should be held 'partially' responsible, not 'fully' responsible.

Look, take a bit of free advice from a seasoned debater, you stand a much better chance at success in a debate if you actualy made structured, well-thought-out arguments against the points your opponent raises instead of simply trying to smear your opponent with blatently false accusations. Y'see, the whole purpose of a debate between two sides is for each side to attempt to convince others who are watching, (our 'peers') to side with their particular argument, which our peers usualy decide by considering which side has the strongest argument. When you try obvious smear tactics in a debate, then, to our peers, it makes it look like you're clutching at straws and in turn makes your argument look weaker to them.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 9, 2013,
rabidguitarist
Ethnomusicologist
Join date: Apr 2006
80 IQ
#342
Obviously he hasn't realised that they can just print more.
VENUSIAN
FB SC BC TW
Patterns In The Ivy present ethnicity on an intriguing and dedicated level. ~Ambient Exotica
A mesmeric melange of yearning voice, delicate piano and carefully chosen samples. ~Lost Voices
VanTheKraut
How tough am I?!
Join date: Jun 2008
160 IQ
#343
Quote by Jackal58
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/pastor-arrested-before-he-could-burn-nearly-3000-qurans

Personally I think the guy is an idiot but I don't know why he was arrested.


Terry Jones and Marvin Sapp — an associate pastor in Jones' church — were arrested Wednesday on a felony charge of unlawful conveyance of fuel. Jones was also charged with unlawful open-carry of a firearm, a misdemeanor.

Nothing to do with the Qurans.
Better, Faster, Stronger

Kansas City Chiefs

Kansas State Wildcats
Quote by airbrendie
Hey guys in the last 3 weeks I ****ed all the girls in this picture, what do you think?

Jackal58
Pit Daddy
Join date: Mar 2007
30 IQ
#344
Quote by VanTheKraut
Nothing to do with the Qurans.

That came out several hours after I posed my original question.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
Carnivean
UG Board King
Join date: Jun 2006
100 IQ
#345
Quote by SlackerBabbath
So kind of you to tell me what my point was.
I didn't imply that 'all' Muslims are too scared to express themselves in America, I implied that there are a lot of Muslims in America who are too scared to express themselves because of the extreme level of hate and anti-Muslim crime that exists in America, and I certainly didn't say or imply that it exists 'only' in America.
Really, if the only way you can find to argue against me is to twist what I actualy said into something else, then it's probably time to give it up.


Okay, fair. I'm not trying to twist your words at all, Slacker. Sorry if it came off that way.

Here's the deal: You didn't SAY all Muslims were too scared in this country. I know this because you never actually answered my question in the first place. Here was the question:
Are you trying to imply that NO Muslim can ever feel safe or express themselves in this country?


To which you answered:
Yes, I am implying that Muslims often do not feel safe in America.


So you did not actually answer my question. You see? I asked specifically if NO (meaning ZERO) Muslims could feel safe, because you had alleged that my friend's testimony was untruthful because he was too fearful to express himself within our borders. But alas, you have now unwittingly answered the question. You've acknowledged that not ALL Muslims feel too scared to express themselves, which would render your accusation against my friend's testimony unreliable and bogus, as clearly not all Muslims here shake in their boots when they express themselves. And in fact, based on the fact that the same hate and hate crime exists in your country, id say the vast majority of Muslims here feel just fine expressing themselves, which is probably the case in your country as well.

Also, it is true that your point had nothing to do with comparing our countries' laws, which you claimed in your previous post (would you like me to quote it?). Your point was about hate crime and fear of hate crime in America.


But the fact is that it did happen, the fact is that Jones' past Qur'an burnings were reported worldwide in the press drawing criticism from all walks of life, not just Muslims, and because it attracted worldwide criticism that just made it easier for extremists to use it as anti-American propaganda rather than using 'made up' propaganda.

Real events, especialy if they are confirmed, reported and criticised by the global community, are far more effective as propaganda than fictional events.


Again, I'll point you to 9/11, and any other random attacks against Christians or westerners. Propaganda and misinformation does happen in these groups. That's the extremist business.


Are you excusing the intentional goading of extremists into violence towards others by saying that the extremists could have 'made it up' anyway?


No I'm excusing Jones's book burning because his actions are protected by 1st amendment (this is also proven by looking at case law, but we've already been through this).

So now you're confirming something that I've already said?
I've already called the extremists a 'minority' amoung Muslims, remember? But it still doesn't stop what Jones attempted to do being completely repugnant to practicly all Muslims though.


But, while it was repugnant to many people who practiced Islam, only a very small percentage of those people chose to retaliate in a senseless and violent way. Funny huh? And if insult and repugnance against a religion is all you require to arrest someone, then you'd have to arrest a whole lot of other people on a daily basis, for instance the writer in my scenario who makes fun of and insults Islam.

And the reason why they could fabricate reasons for Muslims to hate Americans so effectively was because they could base their fabrications upon real anti-Muslim sentiment that was already present in America.


So, you've just admitted that they FABRICATE reasons to act violently towards America. And just to let you know, it had nothing to do with fabricating a perception of hate coming from America. The 9/11 terrorists fabricated a reality that America was trying to abolish and infringe upon their culture, country, and general way of life, which wasn't actually true. They had to convince others that it was true. They had to convince others that ramming airplanes into buildings was the only way to rectify the situation.


If you say so... personally I couldn't possibly comment on whether Britain should stop allying with America or not.... well... I could probably make a case for it, but any argument I'd make in favour of ending the alliance would be be based on a list of pros and cons, (and only if the list of pros outweigh the cons for ending the alliance) of which this would be just one issue.

But it's a fact that following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, senior British government representatives criticized the refusal of the US Government to heed advice regarding post-war plans for Iraq, specifically the Coalition Provisional Authority's de-Ba'athification policy and the critical importance of preventing the power vacuum in which the insurgency subsequently developed. Speaking on the same topic, The Duke of York said there were "occasions when people in the UK would wish that those in responsible positions in the US might listen and learn from our experiences", that there was 'healthy skepticism' in the United Kingdom toward what was said in Washington DC, and a feeling of 'why didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given'. CNN acknowledged that the Prince's views were widely shared in the UK at the time too.


Well, I didn't ask for you to elaborate on and support your claim for why terrorists bombed London. I asked: end the alliance with the U.S. or not? You've gotten bombed by terrorists for simply allying with the U.S. I think it's an interesting question to ask since you are hinging on things that have actually happened.

I've done nothing of the sort and you know it, or you should know it if you'd actualy read and taken on board my comments during the conversation in this thread rather than trying to find ways of twisting my words, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is 'no excuse' for the killing of innocents and that those who willingly goad others into violence should be held 'partially' responsible, not 'fully' responsible.


Partially responsible means that the other side is partially excused, for you've now determined that part of the violent retaliation of the other side has at least been partially caused without choice, by the person "goading" them into violence. That's what responsible means: you have power or control over something and thus are accountable. It means that you are the cause of something.

Look, take a bit of free advice from a seasoned debater, you stand a much better chance at success in a debate if you actualy made structured, well-thought-out arguments against the points your opponent raises instead of simply trying to smear your opponent with blatently false accusations. Y'see, the whole purpose of a debate between two sides is for each side to attempt to convince others who are watching, (our 'peers') to side with their particular argument, which our peers usualy decide by considering which side has the strongest argument. When you try obvious smear tactics in a debate, then, to our peers, it makes it look like you're clutching at straws and in turn makes your argument look weaker to them.


So are you assuming that you are a more "seasoned" debater than me?
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Last edited by Carnivean at Oct 12, 2013,
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
10 IQ
#346
Quote by Carnivean
Okay, fair. I'm not trying to twist your words at all, Slacker. Sorry if it came off that way.

Here's the deal: You didn't SAY all Muslims were too scared in this country. I know this because you never actually answered my question in the first place. Here was the question:


To which you answered:


So you did not actually answer my question. You see? I asked specifically if NO (meaning ZERO) Muslims could feel safe, because you had alleged that my friend's testimony was untruthful because he was too fearful to express himself within our borders. But alas, you have now unwittingly answered the question. You've acknowledged that not ALL Muslims feel too scared to express themselves, which would render your accusation against my friend's testimony unreliable and bogus, as clearly not all Muslims here shake in their boots when they express themselves. And in fact, based on the fact that the same hate and hate crime exists in your country, id say the vast majority of Muslims here feel just fine expressing themselves, which is probably the case in your country as well.

Just read what I'm saying.
My answer obviously implied that you are correct that not all Muslims in America feel threatened, and I didn't accuse your friend's testimony of being 'bogus', I mearly 'suggested' that because he's a Muslim in America talking to an American then it 'might' not be 'reliable' testimony because he 'might' not want to tell the American how he truly feels about America. The fact is, I don't know the guy, so I have no idea if his testimony is relaible or not, but I have to take the way that the information is presented to me into consideration.

Quote by Carnivean

Again, I'll point you to 9/11, and any other random attacks against Christians or westerners. Propaganda and misinformation does happen in these groups. That's the extremist business.


That still doesn't change the fact that 'real events', especialy if they are confirmed, reported and criticised by the global community, are far more 'effective' as propaganda than fictional events.


Quote by Carnivean


No I'm excusing Jones's book burning because his actions are protected by 1st amendment (this is also proven by looking at case law, but we've already been through this).

And the argument I'm making is that it's a mistake to protect his actions under the First Amendment , that there are already exceptions to First Amendment protections, and that this sort of public behaviour should be added the exceptions to First Amendment protections.


Quote by Carnivean

But, while it was repugnant to many people who practiced Islam, only a very small percentage of those people chose to retaliate in a senseless and violent way. Funny huh? And if insult and repugnance against a religion is all you require to arrest someone, then you'd have to arrest a whole lot of other people on a daily basis, for instance the writer in my scenario who makes fun of and insults Islam.

I think you're failing to see the significance in the difference between just words and burning the Qur'an from a Muslim's point of view.


Quote by Carnivean

So, you've just admitted that they FABRICATE reasons to act violently towards America. And just to let you know, it had nothing to do with fabricating a perception of hate coming from America. The 9/11 terrorists fabricated a reality that America was trying to abolish and infringe upon their culture, country, and general way of life, which wasn't actually true. They had to convince others that it was true. They had to convince others that ramming airplanes into buildings was the only way to rectify the situation.

What's to admit? It's blatently obvious that Muslim extremists fabricate reasons for Muslims to hate America. I just stated that there's no point in making their spreading of hate propaganda against America and Americans easier by allowing Americans to give Muslims real reasons to hate America.


Quote by Carnivean

Well, I didn't ask for you to elaborate on and support your claim for why terrorists bombed London. I asked: end the alliance with the U.S. or not? You've gotten bombed by terrorists for simply allying with the U.S. I think it's an interesting question to ask since you are hinging on things that have actually happened.

And as I just hinted, I'd have to do a lot of research and weigh up the pros and cons of ending the alliance with the U.S. before I could give you an answer. In short, I've got better things to do than spending time on it.


Quote by Carnivean

Partially responsible means that the other side is partially excused, for you've now determined that part of the violent retaliation of the other side has at least been partially caused without choice, by the person "goading" them into violence. That's what responsible means: you have power or control over something and thus are accountable. It means that you are the cause of something.


"Partially responsible means that the other side is partially excused"? What sort of logic is that? If two guys in America teamed up to murder someone, do they get one person's life sentence split between them (so that they only serve half a life sentence each) or do they both get a full life sentence each?

Quote by Carnivean

So are you assuming that you are a more "seasoned" debater than me?


According to you're profile, you were born on March 24, 2001, I was born In 1966 and have been actively debating with people since I was at school, which I left in 1981, where I was an active member of the debating team. I've continued to regularly get involved with debates and debating since leaving school, especialy since the the internet became widely available in the mid 90s, so, according to your profile, I've been debating for about 20 years longer than you've even been alive.

Does that answer your question?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 12, 2013,
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
10 IQ
#347
Is 'debate' really poor rhyming slang?
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.