U.N. Employees Beheaded Over Quran Burning

[SLM]

It is also quite likely a lot of people that were in that 'mob' also had dealings in some fashion with the UN, like having friends and relatives killed and mangled who had nothing to do with 'causing harm'. How many civilians can we kill before they can justifiably strike back at us.

Has the Pastor done any updates after knowing his 'antics' are putting troops in danger?

A mob mentality exists when passion takes over reason. A reasonable response to the burning of the Q'uran, in my opinion, is the burning of the Bible. An unreasonable response is the beheading of another human being.

I would not argue that there are 'likely' millions of Afghani civilians who, after living for nearly a decade in a war zone, are feeling quite justifiably tired, angry and frustrated. I can understand that, I can empathize with that, but I cannot use that as justification for the incident that occured.

 

[MHz]

BTW: My opening remark excludes you Ton.

Thy being clear, you don't want an innocent to die.

1, No one should get so upset that beheading someone is a reasonable reaction.

Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of a State (leaving Lebanon and Gaza out of it for a second) doing just that and this is the act you decide to respond too. Too much, lol

 

[earth_as_one]

...We attacked Afghanistan because we were ATTACKED from Afghanistan.

WTF would you have done after 9-11???

Apologized???

And don't tell me the WTC was a "false flag" CD.............you might as well say the Martians did it.

None of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghans, nor were any members of the Taliban. I support finding those responsible for 9/11 and prosecuting them as criminals. We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban wanted the US to go through a formal extradition process first. We were impatient for retribution. Justice had little to do with the Afghan invasion.

Freedom of speech is the principle that we enjoy the right to express our thoughts and opinions without the threat of persecution or censorship. It's a principle that I feel very strongly about, regardless of the opinion being expressed. I do not have to agree with the opinion being expressed, in point of fact I do not personally agree with what the Florida pastor did. My personal opinion is that the guy is an idiot, I listened to his enough of his rhetoric the last time and really think he's just looking for his 15 minutes. That's my opinion, and I'm free to express it.

As for the deaths of the UN workers, that was a result of a mob mentality whipped up to a frenzy by the Iman in that mosque as a response to the video of the Q'uran burning. A more appropriate response would have been to burn the Bible. Instead, this incident was used as a launching pad to inflame the anger and frustration that exists from almost 10 years of war and turmoil and directed, or misdirected it towards the UN compound. That is what is unacceptable and inexcusable. It is not a reflection on all Afghani's nor is it a reflection on all citizens of the middle east.

Most Muslims consider burning the Quran and other religious texts including the Bible as crimes. While burning a Bible might seem an appropriate response, its not really an option for devout Muslims.

Since Islam forbids punishing someone for the actions of others, I doubt many Muslims would approve attacking a UN compound in Afghanistan as an appropriate response either.

Ultimately its up to the US authorities to take appropriate action. Free speech does not include hate crimes. If the Pastor's comments and actions crossed that line, he should be arrested. Personally I think an appropriate response would be for government and religious leaders to condemn the act (done) and then some concrete symbolic gesture indicating the US is a free society which includes freedom of religion. I'd invite a few of the most influential Imams from Afghanistan to visit the US and meet Muslim Americans, so they get an accurate view of the US.

 

[CDNBear]

Thy being clear, you don't want an innocent to die.

What does that have to do with my exclusion of Tonnington, from the rest of you nutters?

Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of a State (leaving Lebanon and Gaza out of it for a second) doing just that and this is the act you decide to respond too. Too much, lol

Yes, too much, considering I do not support the Afghan conflict,and I never supported invading Iraq.

Try and not be such a tard when you're ignoring reality. You might get to spend more time out of your tard corner, then in it.

 

[MHz]

I would not argue that there are 'likely' millions of Afghani civilians who, after living for nearly a decade in a war zone, are feeling quite justifiably tired, angry and frustrated. I can understand that, I can empathize with that, but I cannot use that as justification for the incident that occured.

Just what do you think the military commanders have in store for that mob, not that we will ever see/hear anything about their fate.

So we (NATO supporting Nations) can bomb all sorts of civilian with impunity and they should not get upset and want revenge. We us 9/11 as the excuse to go into foreign Nation asn kill millions of 'innocents' and you condemn them for taking a handful of lives of soldiers (over civilians). Seem like you are saying they have you sympathy for all the damage being inflicted but it evaporates as soon as they do something to 'hit back'.
How does that make you any better than the book-burning Pastor?

Yes, too much, considering I do not support the Afghan conflict,and I never supported invading Iraq.

Try and not be such a tard when you're ignoring reality. You might get to spend more time out of your tard corner, then in it.

Do they have the right to fight back, using whatever means they can?

Just to get a chance to stand with the, I'm not so sure the view is any clearer from where you stand, the floor is anything but level and I'm not sure you are even aware of that fact. I will gladly be a tard because of the many spelling/grammer errors, that is a long ways from being a tard because I can't decipher fact from fiction.

 

[CDNBear]

Do they have the right to fight back, using whatever means they can?

Of course. Just as much of a right, as I have to condemn the beheading of innocent bystanders.

Just to get a chance to stand with the, I'm not so sure the view is any clearer from where you stand, the floor is anything but level and I'm not sure you are even aware of that fact.

I'm convinced you aren't sure of much, (not that that has stopped you from posting and removing all doubt), about what I am more then well aware of. Which would include facts. Especially since you wouldn't know what one looked like.

I will gladly be a tard because of the many spelling/grammer errors, that is a long ways from being a tard because I can't decipher fact from fiction.

I spelled it your way, so you'd understand. Given the amount of spelling and grammar issues encompassed in your posts. I'm surprised you've manage to convey your erroneous thoughts as well as you have thus far.

 

[YukonJack]

The Afghans who did this in the name of their religion are primitive animals.

I certainly would not call them primitive animals. It would be an insult to my four-legged and feathered friends.

 

[TenPenny]

The simple solution is for us to get out of Afghanistan. We are accomplishing nothing by being there.

 

[YukonJack]

And you calling them primitive animals makes you no better. In fact it degrades you even further for your inability to empathize with the reasons for their actions....even if those actions are unconsienable.

Political Nick, you forgot: ALLAHU AKBAR!!!

 

[SLM]

Just what do you think the military commanders have in store for that mob, not that we will ever see/hear anything about their fate.

So we (NATO supporting Nations) can bomb all sorts of civilian with impunity and they should not get upset and want revenge. We us 9/11 as the excuse to go into foreign Nation asn kill millions of 'innocents' and you condemn them for taking a handful of lives of soldiers (over civilians). Seem like you are saying they have you sympathy for all the damage being inflicted but it evaporates as soon as they do something to 'hit back'.
How does that make you any better than the book-burning Pastor?


Do they have the right to fight back, using whatever means they can?

Just to get a chance to stand with the, I'm not so sure the view is any clearer from where you stand, the floor is anything but level and I'm not sure you are even aware of that fact. I will gladly be a tard because of the many spelling/grammer errors, that is a long ways from being a tard because I can't decipher fact from fiction.

No, what I'm saying is I don't believe we can use it to rationalize a wrongful act in this specific incident.

As an analogy, I'll use the L.A. Riot after the Rodney King verdict. While I completely understand and empathize with the crowd on that day, with their frustration and anger, and with the injustice they felt (which I happen to agree with, the verdict was the wrong one), I cannot use that to justify some people in the crowd pulling Reginald Denny from the cab of his truck and beating him senseless. That act was, in my opinion, clearly and definitely wrong and inexcusable. But once again, mob mentality-where passion over rules reason. I can understand how that happens but that doesn't make it right or excusable.

I absolutely think they have every right in the world to 'hit back', but that doesn't mean every instance of them doing so is justifiable. In other words, the burning of a book does not justify the beheading of a man.

To be clear here, I do not condone what the Pastor did, I do not pretend to understand it, I think it is an asinine way to express his opinion. But it's his opinion to express, I don't have to like it and I can, and do, wish like hell he had chosen not to express it. But the alternative is censorship which, I honestly believe, in the end does far more harm.

 

[taxslave]

The Afghans who did this in the name of their religion are primitive animals.

So is the religious nutbar in florida.

 

[Liberalman]

Burning the Holy Quran is an expression of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I refuse to allow anyone other than the US Supreme Court to censor me or any other American in the exercise of free speech.

You have free speech as long as what you say does not endanger another person’s life and liberty.
You have the right to say whatever you want but other people can seek damages against you in a court of law.

With all the amendments in the US Constitution makes it a flawed document and with the Patriot Act makes most of it null and void.

We also have to remember that the pastor was warned before of the dangers he would be putting people in if he did this act, a pastor who is a leader in a religion.

 

[DaSleeper]

I have come to the realisation that the number of Dhimwits is constantly growing in this country.....probably at about the same rate as political correctness8O

 

[YukonJack]

The Pentagon is a major world terrorist organization - front men for your military/industrial complex. If it wasn't for US foreign policy there would be no terrorists pissed at you.

Long before there was a Pentagon in Washington, Muslims - ever since Mohammed unleashed his hate on the world - were always Hell bent on conquering the world and kill or convert the infidels.

Islam IS the major terrorist organization, and has always been, with or without American military-industrial complex.

 

[CDNBear]

No, what I'm saying is I don't believe we can use it to rationalize a wrongful act in this specific incident.

SLM, you're trying to have a reasoned discussion with someone whose brand of moral relativism is a monumental flaw and ingrained in their psyche.

 

[taxslave]

Burning the Holy Quran is an expression of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I refuse to allow anyone other than the US Supreme Court to censor me or any other American in the exercise of free speech.

This manifestation of free speech was designed to offend. That's the purpose. It was intended to have political consequences. Otherwise what good is free speech unless it can be used for political purposes? If one starts to limit and censor free speech where does one stop?

The fact that this manifestation of free speech offends primitive Afghans is irrelevant. They do not have the right to impose any censorship on any American's free speech. If they did, Americans would cease to be the free people they have been for so many generations. They would become something other than Americans.

I have a right to commit blasphemy despite the fact that it offends Muslims or others. I can say that Allah or Jesus Christ or Krishna is a joke who never really existed, and as long as I say that on American soil, I cannot be silenced. My blasphemy must be accepted.



Free speech doesn't care who the good guy is or who the bad guy is. Good and bad are irrelevant to free speech. Americans have the most robust free speech rights in the world. That isn't going to change any time soon.

Hate to break your poor uneducated little heart but the US constitution means jack **** to the rest of the world. By your wacked out reasoning the KKK has a right to exist as well.
Free speech in the US is a right wing myth I seem to remember some students in the US being murdered by government agents for excersising their right to free speach.

 

[CDNBear]

By your wacked out reasoning the KKK has a right to exist as well.

It does.

Free speech in the US is a right wing myth I seem to remember some students in the US being murdered by government agents for excersising their right to free speach.

I seem to remember them being violent, but I digress. Freedom of speech is not a right wing myth, unless you're referring to the fact that the left progressives think it's solely for their use. Freedom of speech laws, have protected the rights of groups like NAMBLA to the Westborough Baptist asshats.

 

[Unforgiven]

As I have said: fundamentalism is fundamentally flawed. The pastor knew what the consequences of his actions would be yet he chose to go ahead anyway. He holds just as much responsibility for those deaths as the perpetrators.

Eventually sitting quietly doing everything you're told will consequently get heads chopped off. Everyone own's their own reactions.

You might as well justify killing everyone in that city and blaming it on the guys who behead people.

 

[CDNBear]

Does the usual moral relativism from the usual suspects mean that Israeli's could justify beheading a couple innocent Palestinians, because some ass hat in Gaza burns the Torah?

Or would that be another crime against humanity.

 

[Colpy]

You have free speech as long as what you say does not endanger another person’s life and liberty.
You have the right to say whatever you want but other people can seek damages against you in a court of law.

With all the amendments in the US Constitution makes it a flawed document and with the Patriot Act makes most of it null and void.

We also have to remember that the pastor was warned before of the dangers he would be putting people in if he did this act, a pastor who is a leader in a religion.

Every time you open your mouth....oh, never mind.

The Patriot Act does not, and can not nullify the Constitution which is, by definition, the supreme law of the United States. That is not a matter of opinion, it is the simple fact.

The Pastor is a moron. Being a moron is completely legal in the USA. And in Canada.

Obviously.