Burning the Qur'an Places Canadian Soldiers at Risk

[EagleSmack]

Hopefully some one can answer the question in the way you want it answered.

It has already been answered, you just do not agree with it.

Point - Have you read in an US News Reports that this was against the law - No - Do you think for one minute that they would overlook that point - No

So blather on with your belief that is it against the law - Which of course is wrong.

Burning the quran is not against the law just as burning our own flag is not against the law.

However Burt was just echoing what many liberals and democrats were trying to do...limit free speech for something they do not want done... burning the quran. As fervently as the fought for American Flag Burning they came out against burning the quran. Not surprising at all.

Nevertheless, the preacher down in Florida isn't going to burn it but they were burning it all last weekend all over. Free Speech.

 

[Cliffy]

Burning the quran is not against the law just as burning our own flag is not against the law.

However Burt was just echoing what many liberals and democrats were trying to do...limit free speech for something they do not want done... burning the quran. As fervently as the fought for American Flag Burning they came out against burning the quran. Not surprising at all.

Nevertheless, the preacher down in Florida isn't going to burn it but they were burning it all last weekend all over. Free Speech.

That is funny. The liberals/democrats are against burning the Quran. They are against free speech but the republicans would rather just bomb the crap out of the whole Middle East. What do we all that?

 

[DaSleeper]

If you burn the quran and no one sees you doing it.......
Is it a crime???8O:lol:

 

[Cliffy]

If you burn the quran and no one sees you doing it.......
Is it a crime???8O:lol:

Why? You planning some secret clandestine Quran burnings in your garage?

 

[lone wolf]

Right now, I bet they're cheaper than firewood....

 

[DaSleeper]

Right now, I bet they're cheaper than firewood....

I'm sure it smells better than camel dung..........

 

[ironsides]

That is funny. The liberals/democrats are against burning the Quran. They are against free speech but the republicans would rather just bomb the crap out of the whole Middle East. What do we all that?

Geez, solves the problem doesn't it. Republican solution so simple, why complicate it anymore. :roll: :smile:

 

[Starscream]

And every time you get in a car there is a risk you will be killed in a car accident...yet some behaviour will increase that risk.

This isn't rocket science...If the threat is multiplied, then so is the risk.

Exactly. This isn't rocket science. So why can't you accept the fact that in a warzone (or just war in general) the risk to you is absolute even without any so called 'multipliers'?

 

[Tonington]

Because that's stupid? There is no such thing as absolute risk in the manner you're referring.

Think about it. I already mentioned the Afghan Police station which was nearly over-run by protesters. If there had been no mention in the media at all about the Qur'an burning, there would have been no protests. There would have been nobody trying to over-run that police station. The Afghan Army would not have had to go in there.

What needs to be protected? Who or what are the threats? What are the vulnerabilities? What are the implications?

The risk went up. If you can't grasp that, then I don't see much point in continuing to discuss this with you. Certain activities are inherently risky, even in a war zone some activities carry more risk than others. To state otherwise is sheer lunacy.

If the the threat goes up, so does the risk.

 

[DaSleeper]

What a strange world when we advocate denying the liberty of an individual because his actions could possibly reduce the security of others in a war zone....
Yet we bitch about about excessive security at an airport or at a border station claiming infringement on personal freedom and rights....
All a matter of perspective and personal political ideology;-)
And when it comes to politics we all go to great lenghst to validate our personal views:lol:

 

[Tonington]

What a strange world when we advocate denying the liberty of an individual because his actions could possibly reduce the security of others in a war zone....

Who is we? All I'm saying is that there are reactions to actions, a truism that I wouldn't think needs explaining.... Maybe he's comfortable with putting soldiers at a greater risk.

 

[JLM]

What a strange world when we advocate denying the liberty of an individual because his actions could possibly reduce the security of others in a war zone....
Yet we bitch about about excessive security at an airport or at a border station claiming infringement on personal freedom and rights....
All a matter of perspective and personal political ideology;-)
And when it comes to politics we all go to great lenghst to validate our personal views:lol:

So anyone should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of whether it increases the risk to others?????????????????? 8O8O

 

[DaSleeper]

So anyone should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of whether it increases the risk to others?????????????????? 8O8O

No...My point was that we feel the need to justify our point of view on to separate incidents of personal liberty even though these points of view would contradict each other...and both incidents I described involve security vs personal liberty...
PC often has such contradictions...:smile: