U.N. Employees Beheaded Over Quran Burning

[PoliticalNick]

Actually I took it as good news, not on scale with some of the topics going around, that is why I was able to make light of it. Ever get the ID's of the ones killed, all I have seen is 'UN' as the whole identifier. Is that local UN workers or were they all Generals from various foreign countries?

That is really the saddest part of this whole story. It is blamed on the actions of an American pastor but those killed are all from other places.

Afghan riots over Quran-burning: 2 days, 20 dead - Yahoo! News

In Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghan demonstrators stormed a U.N. compound, shooting and killing four Nepalese guards, a Norwegian, a Romanian and a Swede. Afghan authorities suspect insurgents melded into the mob; they announced the arrest of more than 20 people, including a militant they suspect was the ringleader of the assault.

 

[DaSleeper]

Please read the first paragraph of this UN document.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/16/5/329.pdf

It is the most basic principle of cause and effect. If I were to leave my car parked out of gear and without a parking brake applied and the car then rolled down a hill and killed somebody I am held liable for the event as my actions were the cause and the death was the effect.

I understand direct cause and effect.....
But this cannot relate to a book burning in the US causing anger halfway around the world to kill someone unrelated to the original incident.
A more comparable situation and even this is remote; would be me being angry because of a kid causing a ruckus in front of me in the checkout line at the store ...then taking out my anger at the neighbour's kid when I get home and breaking his arm just because he looks like the kid in the checkout line.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I understand direct cause and effect.....
But this cannot relate to a book burning in the US causing anger halfway around the world to kill someone unrelated to the original incident.
A more comparable situation and even this is remote; would be me being angry because of a kid causing a ruckus in front of me in the checkout line at the store ...then taking out my anger at the neighbour's kid when I get home and breaking his arm just because he looks like the kid in the checkout line.

I would have to agree that it would be a very large stretch of the law to prosecute Rev Jones for murder but I think he could very well be held accountable for inciting the riot. The protest was directly related to and about his burning of the Quran. Even if he were to get off it would speak volumes to the Afghans and the entire world if he were at least charged. Of course the Rev himself is not likely to learn any lesson no matter what.

 

[ironsides]

Bottle the Japanese water and give it to them.

 

[YukonJack]

362 post on this thread, so far. And the resident Muslim apologist is conspicuous with his absence.

Anyone knows where eanassir is to give a spiritually compelling justification for the beheadings?

 

[DaSleeper]

I would have to agree that it would be a very large stretch of the law to prosecute Rev Jones for murder but I think he could very well be held accountable for inciting the riot. The protest was directly related to and about his burning of the Quran. Even if he were to get off it would speak volumes to the Afghans and the entire world if he were at least charged. Of course the Rev himself is not likely to learn any lesson no matter what.

I would aggree with you on inciting a riot but for the fact that the said riot is halfway around the world.

Now even the CHRC dropped the charges against Ezra Levant for something vaguely similar...non?

 

[ironsides]

I would have to agree that it would be a very large stretch of the law to prosecute Rev Jones for murder but I think he could very well be held accountable for inciting the riot. The protest was directly related to and about his burning of the Quran. Even if he were to get off it would speak volumes to the Afghans and the entire world if he were at least charged. Of course the Rev himself is not likely to learn any lesson no matter what.

Wonder could he be charged with anything, remember he broke no Canadian or U.S. civil laws. Book burning is not illegal.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Wonder could he be charged with anything, remember he broke no Canadian or U.S. civil laws. Book burning is not illegal.

I would say charge him with a hate crime and inciting a riot and let him defend it in court. It would at least send a strong message that this kind of inflamatory action is not acceptable.

 

[MHz]

That is really the saddest part of this whole story. It is blamed on the actions of an American pastor but those killed are all from other places.

Afghan riots over Quran-burning: 2 days, 20 dead - Yahoo! News

So basically it could be an Xe operation and nobody would be the wiser yet Muslims are branded as 'barbarians' when it is a false flag operation that has a desired end. It also shows one side will willingly kill 'it's own' if it serves a purpose, in this case it might be a ban on all demonstartion anywhere in Afghanistan rather than it being directed at the Pastor being banned from youtube for a week.

Wonder could he be charged with anything, remember he broke no Canadian or U.S. civil laws. Book burning is not illegal.

Posting it on a public forum yourself might alter the 'intent' if the Pastor had any info that doing that has caused deadly problems in the past.

 

[Corduroy]

I would have to agree that it would be a very large stretch of the law to prosecute Rev Jones for murder but I think he could very well be held accountable for inciting the riot. The protest was directly related to and about his burning of the Quran.

He didn't incite the riot. His action were only the reason for the riot. There was a riot in Vancouver in 1994 when the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup finals. Did the New York Rangers incite the riot by winning? Did the Vancouver Canucks poor performance in the final game incite the riot?

This is the kind of logic you are employing. Conscious personally-responsible human beings made the choice to riot and murder UN personnel. They could have chosen not to do it. If cause and effect were involved in the manner your bizarre car analogy would suggest, they would have had no choice but to riot.

 

[MHz]

I would say charge him with a hate crime and inciting a riot and let him defend it in court. It would at least send a strong message that this kind of inflamatory action is not acceptable.

Should the trial be in the same district where the killings took place or in the county where the burning took place?

 

[CDNBear]

You can classify it as philosophical if you like but the principle is applied throughout legal decisions all the time.

I'm not the one that classified it as philosophical.

If your actions are the cause of something you can be held legally accountable both civily and criminally as applicable whether your actions are part of your exercising your first ammendment rights or not. If your 'free speech' is determined to incite a riot you can be held acountable under the law.

Care to show me some case law?

Wrongful death suits are often related to this principle and are won based upon it all the time.

Yes because of negligence. Good luck proving the pastor was negligent.

The principle is also applied as a mitigating factor in the detrmination of liability. While it does not absolve anyone of their actions entirely it is often used when considering sentencing for an act.

And I can't imagine a court even entertaining that nonsense, that the burning of a book, should be considered mitigating circumstance.

Not all law and judgements are contained within a dictionary.

I never said there was. We have law libraries for that.

Judges are given judiciary discretion to apply the principles of justice.

But still have to operate within the law.

ain't gonna happen.

I know that. He's been proven wrong so many times, and to dat has not once ever conceded. he just plays word games and dances around the issue with a list of fallacies.

I would have to agree that it would be a very large stretch of the law to prosecute Rev Jones for murder but I think he could very well be held accountable for inciting the riot. The protest was directly related to and about his burning of the Quran. Even if he were to get off it would speak volumes to the Afghans and the entire world if he were at least charged. Of course the Rev himself is not likely to learn any lesson no matter what.

Corduroy takes care of the nonsense.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Should the trial be in the same district where the killings took place or in the county where the burning took place?

I would have it at the international court in the Hague. It is an international incident that affected many nations so that would be the best forum.

I want to be clear, I don't actualy think there is a probability of a conviction for anything, but the message should be sent and forcing him to defend himself is the best way IMHO.

That's a philosophical term.

I'm not the one that classified it as philosophical.

Yes you did.

 

[CDNBear]

I want to be clear, I don't actualy think there is a probability of a conviction for anything, but the message should be sent and forcing him to defend himself is the best way IMHO.

I already knew you don't believe in free speech, there was need to clarify it.

Yes you did.

No I didn't. I stated a fact. It is a philosophical term, I'm not the one that classified it as such. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Cause and effect (also written as cause-effect or cause/effect) refers to the philosophical concept of causality, in which an action or event will produce a certain response to the action in the form of another event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_and_effect

Regardless, if you think he's culpable. Women are just as culpable, for dressing like ****s. You can't have it both ways.

 

[MHz]

I would have it at the international court in the Hague. It is an international incident that affected many nations so that would be the best forum.

If he posted it himself I got no respect for him. I can't say for sure if the locals in Afghanistan were set up or not. It is certainly possible that it was an operation from the finding a suitable vid to use as the bait for the demonstration (and a few dollars for showing up and don't mind the silent strangers)

 

[Colpy]

I would have it at the international court in the Hague. It is an international incident that affected many nations so that would be the best forum.

I want to be clear, I don't actualy think there is a probability of a conviction for anything, but the message should be sent and forcing him to defend himself is the best way IMHO.





Yes you did.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!

The man is an idiot, but he did NOTHING wrong.........his actions are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and by the principles of free speech everywhere.......

Persecution by prosecution is becoming a habit of the left, and it is dangerous in itself.

There may be questions asked about why we are trying to civilize these freaking barbarians, why we don't just walk away from Afghanistan and let Karzai twist in the wind, or why we don't just shoot the corrupt SOB in the head and take over gov;t ourselves......

But the LAST thing we should do is betray the basic principle of freedom of speech in the face of the actions of cult murderers.

It would be much preferable if we had a national "burn the Koran" day............

Oh, let's compare Christianity and lunatic Islam!!!!

Read......ever hear of this???? I bet not....no one died.

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan - CNN

 

[PoliticalNick]

I already knew you don't believe in free speech, there was need to clarify it..

I do believe in free speech, say whatever you want but be ready to be held accountable for what you say too.

Do you really believe if you were to stand in the street making inflamatory statements and urging people to revolt and that results in a riot causing damages and injuries you should be protected from liability?

No i didn't. I stated a fact. It is a philosophical term, I'm not the one that classified it as such. If you don't believe me, look it up

You made no such reference in your statement, you put it out there as your opinion, nothing more.

 

[Colpy]

I do believe in free speech, say whatever you want but be ready to be held accountable for what you say too.

Do you really believe if you were to stand in the street making inflamatory statements and urging people to revolt and that results in a riot causing damages and injuries you should be protected from liability?


You made no such reference in your statement, you put it out there as your opinion, nothing more.

No you don't believe in freedom of speech, that is obvious.,

The people that riot are behaving criminally...........

 

[PoliticalNick]

No you don't believe in freedom of speech, that is obvious.,

Free speech is to protect the free exchange of ideas and thoughts in an open and free society, not to allow people to promote hate against others or other immoral acts. The entire principle has been twisted to include so many things that are morally wrong the whole idea has lost much credibility. I am sure the founding fathers would spin in their graves if they saw some of the things people do and say whle claiming protection under the 1st ammendment.

The people that riot are behaving criminally...........

I agree, so is someone inciting the the riot.

 

[CDNBear]

I do believe in free speech, say whatever you want but be ready to be held accountable for what you say too.

So you believe in free speech, so long as you agree with the message. Gotchya.

Do you really believe if you were to stand in the street making inflamatory statements and urging people to revolt and that results in a riot causing damages and injuries you should be protected from liability?

Nope. Because that would be another false analogy.

You made no such reference in your statement, you put it out there as your opinion, nothing more.

Irrelevant. It wasn't my determination that it is a philosophical term. I simply stated a fact.

Two fallacies in one post? Stop taking pages from Cannucks play book.

Free speech is to protect the free exchange of ideas and thoughts in an open and free society, not to allow people to promote hate against others or other immoral acts.

The KKK, NAMBLA, the Westborough Baptist asshats, all say you're completely wrong.

Thank gawd the SC is inhabited by people like you.

The entire principle has been twisted to include so many things that are morally wrong the whole idea has lost much credibility.

We're talking about the law, not morals. And if I were you, I wouldn't be talking about morals. Your position on womens dress, and this Pastor, express a serious case of moral relativism.

I am sure the founding fathers would spin in their graves if they saw some of the things people do and say whle claiming protection under the 1st ammendment.

I'm sure you're wrong, since it's a living document, and you can't apply a contemporary mindset to a premise in antiquity.

I agree, so is someone inciting the the riot.

Ok, if you say so...

Here's a fun exercise. Make a case for it. You throw around legal jargon like you know something about law. Prove to me he was negligent and should have known the outcome of his actions.