Total Posts:136|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Burning Quran

Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:12:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Even if the act is just counter to burning of bibles or flags in other countries, isnt it still wrong to to counter speech that this way?

http://www.usatoday.com...

It can only accomplish bad effects. right now it seems the excuse for still burning it even though they now think declaring they would burn it was not the best idea, they don't want to look like America is 'backing down'

how can they think there church of 50 people stopping from doing something stupid will make america look like they are backing down?!
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:16:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not particularly smart, but the guv'ment has no right to stop these people burning Qu'rans.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:34:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:16:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Not particularly smart, but the guv'ment has no right to stop these people burning Qu'rans.

Indeed. However, turning on the taps of public opinion and pressuring them to try and change their minds is completely within government's right.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:39:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:34:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/8/2010 12:16:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Not particularly smart, but the guv'ment has no right to stop these people burning Qu'rans.

Indeed. However, turning on the taps of public opinion and pressuring them to try and change their minds is completely within government's right.

Asking them in a strongly worded letter to not do it? Sure. Grovel publicly? No.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:41:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:39:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Asking them in a strongly worded letter to not do it? Sure. Grovel publicly? No.

They are certainly allowed to "grovel publicly." This is something that they feel will endanger soldiers and government assets - the government has every right to let those concerns be known to the wider public.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:43:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:16:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Not particularly smart, but the guv'ment has no right to stop these people burning Qu'rans.
In terms of what? Your view, or their view? Do they have no right whatsoever to prevent further conflicts with a major religious group in the world and further endanger the lives of their soldiers? They have no right to be part of this?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:43:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:41:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/8/2010 12:39:16 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Asking them in a strongly worded letter to not do it? Sure. Grovel publicly? No.

They are certainly allowed to "grovel publicly." This is something that they feel will endanger soldiers and government assets - the government has every right to let those concerns be known to the wider public.

Grovelling public not only looks pathetic, it is generally two-sided coin. It shows the governments desperation which the opposition will pounce on.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:46:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:43:26 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 12:16:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Not particularly smart, but the guv'ment has no right to stop these people burning Qu'rans.
In terms of what? Your view, or their view? Do they have no right whatsoever to prevent further conflicts with a major religious group in the world and further endanger the lives of their soldiers? They have no right to be part of this?

They have no right to stop me burning my property, whether that be a Qu'ran, a house or a flag. Because it's, y'know, my property.

Prevent further conflicts? So, the US government can stop anti-war marches, lock up dissenting writers and do anything that makes the war look negative to keep the war machine going and stop endangering their soldiers lives? And also stop anyone with a dissenting opinion of Muslims from publishing their works?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:48:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:43:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Grovelling public not only looks pathetic, it is generally two-sided coin. It shows the governments desperation which the opposition will pounce on.

That doesn't make any sense. How is keeping everything under wraps and hidden away from the public purview something that denotes courage and confidence?

It's a public relations war, so you don't wage a public relations war by keeping everything hush-hush.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:54:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:46:24 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
They have no right to stop me burning my property, whether that be a Qu'ran, a house or a flag. Because it's, y'know, my property.

Prevent further conflicts? So, the US government can stop anti-war marches, lock up dissenting writers and do anything that makes the war look negative to keep the war machine going and stop endangering their soldiers lives? And also stop anyone with a dissenting opinion of Muslims from publishing their works?
A bomb can also be your property, but nobody gives you the right to detonate it whenever and wherever you wish to by your own desires. Burning the Qur'an will most certainly anger many people around the world, mot noticeably the militants, and this is a great negative. We cannot allow that. The U.S. government needs allies and good ties with Muslims and other religious groups, and instead of choosing to have to face much greater dangers than before, they should choose the other option. Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. In fact, no Qur'an belongs to the church of Devil-worship. What belongs to them is an alarm clock and education.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 12:58:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:48:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/8/2010 12:43:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Grovelling public not only looks pathetic, it is generally two-sided coin. It shows the governments desperation which the opposition will pounce on.

That doesn't make any sense. How is keeping everything under wraps and hidden away from the public purview something that denotes courage and confidence?

It's a public relations war, so you don't wage a public relations war by keeping everything hush-hush.

And then Fox has a field day and Americans become more ignorant.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:02:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:58:35 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
And then Fox has a field day and Americans become more ignorant.

Only if people let Fox and other media control the narrative, which they so often do.

Half the reason why Obama's feeling the pain is because his communications and media relations teams fail to respond to attacks and events properly. Fox is a media outlet with 24/7 service, and you can't compete with that, but at the very least you can put up some sort of defense. Besides, half of Fox's narratives come out of the government anyways - why not start using that advantage?

Getting Petraeus and others to speak out about the entire thing is an exercise in smart media relations by the government. Fox News is actually following along.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:02:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:54:06 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 12:46:24 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
They have no right to stop me burning my property, whether that be a Qu'ran, a house or a flag. Because it's, y'know, my property.

Prevent further conflicts? So, the US government can stop anti-war marches, lock up dissenting writers and do anything that makes the war look negative to keep the war machine going and stop endangering their soldiers lives? And also stop anyone with a dissenting opinion of Muslims from publishing their works?
A bomb can also be your property, but nobody gives you the right to detonate it whenever and wherever you wish to by your own desires.

As long as I detonate it on my property and don't harm anyone elses property or anyone else withotu consent.

Burning the Qur'an will most certainly anger many people around the world, mot noticeably the militants, and this is a great negative. We cannot allow that. The U.S. government needs allies and good ties with Muslims and other religious groups, and instead of choosing to have to face much greater dangers than before, they should choose the other option. Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. In fact, no Qur'an belongs to the church of Devil-worship. What belongs to them is an alarm clock and education.

So suppressing this act is good? And then what? "Oh, I think that mightn't be good, let's stop it happening, and ban it!". There's a point where the government is unjustly interfering with people lives and their rights, and this is it. If I can't burn my own property, regardless of what the hell it is, then that's a suppressive government.

As for "Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. " is completely stupid. Sure, as long as I don't harm someone else and\ or their property with it, but otherwise, why should their be limits on what I can do with what I buy with my money?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:06:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:02:41 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
As long as I detonate it on my property and don't harm anyone elses property or anyone else withotu consent.
Burning the Qur'an will most probably harm many others. Soldiers are at high risk.

So suppressing this act is good? And then what? "Oh, I think that mightn't be good, let's stop it happening, and ban it!". There's a point where the government is unjustly interfering with people lives and their rights, and this is it. If I can't burn my own property, regardless of what the hell it is, then that's a suppressive government.
No, it is not. If a government risks losing its soldiers and weakening its ties with other governments, then it has all rights to take a step forward against that and prevent negative consequences. The Qur'an being burned, in this case, can harm both the government and the soldiers. Therefore, they have 100% right to stop it.

As for "Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. "

is completely stupid.
I said "necessarily" and you referred to it right after, so avoid these nonsensical comments.

Sure, as long as I don't harm someone else and\ or their property with it, but otherwise, why should their be limits on what I can do with what I buy with my money?
They do harm others, as we can easily predict. That is exactly the problem.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:10:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 12:43:26 PM, Mirza wrote:
In terms of what? Your view, or their view? Do they have no right whatsoever to prevent further conflicts with a major religious group in the world and further endanger the lives of their soldiers? They have no right to be part of this?

An annoyed group of anti free speech radicals claim they will shoot up a public school if you ever come on to this message board again. The government should be able to confiscate your interwebz, no? As well as take precautions to ensure that you never come in contact with the means to access the web.

I take it you also agree that Muslims should not be able to build a Mosque near Ground Zero/Any place rednecks live because it causes ignorant people to rage against Islam and create civil unrest?

People like you are why we can't have real free speech anymore. Doing/saying something controversial gets considered inciting a riot because absurd consequentialists argue that even something such advocating peace and equality can be considered inciting violence/riots if enough people respond violently to it.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:15:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:10:13 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
An annoyed group of anti free speech radicals claim they will shoot up a public school if you ever come on to this message board again. The government should be able to confiscate your interwebz, no? As well as take precautions to ensure that you never come in contact with the means to access the web.
The government should prevent harm coming closer to it if possible. They have soldiers that are at high risks if something like this happens, so the government has 100% right to prevent it. Nobody can tell them not to. Your "free speech" argument is void and pretty much nonsensical. Free speech is more worth than the lives of soldiers and your government's relations? Who do you think will give you free speech if not the soldiers that are there for you? So why be stubborn and endanger their lives?

I take it you also agree that Muslims should not be able to build a Mosque near Ground Zero/Any place rednecks live because it causes ignorant people to rage against Islam and create civil unrest?
Yes they should. A mosque there is no different to a church or a temple, all of which are allowed in USA. They are also allowed in countries where Christians had their grips in the flesh of innocent people throughout years. And what civil unrest? Civil unrest comes from many things.

People like you are why we can't have real free speech anymore. Doing/saying something controversial gets considered inciting a riot because absurd consequentialists argue that even something such advocating peace and equality can be considered inciting violence/riots if enough people respond violently to it.
Not true. Free speech is fine unless you are using it to inflict harm upon others. Free speech is guaranteed to <you> because your <government> has the power to give it to you. Burning the Qur'an can harm the government in many ways, and if you want your free speech, then support your government when it wants to minimize risks.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:16:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:06:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:02:41 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
As long as I detonate it on my property and don't harm anyone elses property or anyone else withotu consent.
Burning the Qur'an will most probably harm many others. Soldiers are at high risk.

So? If I own a gun factory and I decide to start making Cabbage Patch Dolls instead I'm putting soldiers lives at risks, but it's my choice. It's an externality.


So suppressing this act is good? And then what? "Oh, I think that mightn't be good, let's stop it happening, and ban it!". There's a point where the government is unjustly interfering with people lives and their rights, and this is it. If I can't burn my own property, regardless of what the hell it is, then that's a suppressive government.
No, it is not. If a government risks losing its soldiers and weakening its ties with other governments, then it has all rights to take a step forward against that and prevent negative consequences. The Qur'an being burned, in this case, can harm both the government and the soldiers. Therefore, they have 100% right to stop it.

And therefore suppress peoples rights as laid down in the First Amendment. It'll have a negative effect on soldiers, but that's an externality, the main effect is to protest Muslims


As for "Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. "

is completely stupid.
I said "necessarily" and you referred to it right after, so avoid these nonsensical comments.

Wut?


Sure, as long as I don't harm someone else and\ or their property with it, but otherwise, why should their be limits on what I can do with what I buy with my money?
They do harm others, as we can easily predict. That is exactly the problem.

They harm others by accident, as an unintended side effect. If I say something, and that causes someone to attack someone else, arrest the attacker, not me.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:17:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Mirza, al Qaeda couldn't care that much. It's not going to induce any more activity then before just because some Christians burnt some Qur'ans. The burning of the Qur'ans is unlikely to be a cause for increased aggression, because even al Qaeda now you can't stop what has already happened. If they do become more aggressive what have they gained, but more casualties, loss of morale and more support for the invaders initiative? They'll complain but they won't do jack.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:20:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:15:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
Yes they should. A mosque there is no different to a church or a temple, all of which are allowed in USA. They are also allowed in countries where Christians had their grips in the flesh of innocent people throughout years. And what civil unrest? Civil unrest comes from many things.

So if people threaten violence in response to Muslims building mosques, you still think it should be allowed? How is this any different from Muslims threatening violence when people burn Qurans?

Not true. Free speech is fine unless you are using it to inflict harm upon others. Free speech is guaranteed to <you> because your <government> has the power to give it to you. Burning the Qur'an can harm the government in many ways, and if you want your free speech, then support your government when it wants to minimize risks.

What you are describing is clearly not free speech.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:22:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:16:49 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
So? If I own a gun factory and I decide to start making Cabbage Patch Dolls instead I'm putting soldiers lives at risks, but it's my choice. It's an externality.
And who gives you the right to determine what kind of harm is to be accepted?

And therefore suppress peoples rights as laid down in the First Amendment. It'll have a negative effect on soldiers, but that's an externality, the main effect is to protest Muslims
And? What does it change? External, internal, who cares about that? The U.S. could not care less. Its soldiers are at risk, and it needs to do something.

"Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. "

is completely stupid.
I said "necessarily" and you referred to it right after, so avoid these nonsensical comments.

Wut?
Read again.

They harm others by accident,
We have several warning on the issue and that is certainly not an accident. An accident is something that is unexpected. We are expecting conflicts.

as an unintended side effect. If I say something, and that causes someone to attack someone else, arrest the attacker, not me.
This is almost like direct harm because we have great negative expectations.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:24:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:20:09 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
So if people threaten violence in response to Muslims building mosques, you still think it should be allowed? How is this any different from Muslims threatening violence when people burn Qurans?
I am not saying that people should threaten the church. I am against it. What I am saying is that there is a high risk of maybe bombings or greater conflicts in the areas where U.S. soldiers are present, therefore it is highly probable that their lives become endangered. The U.S. has the right to prevent this and make use of strict measures.

What you are describing is clearly not free speech.
Yes it is, just a gross part of it.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:26:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:17:03 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Mirza, al Qaeda couldn't care that much. It's not going to induce any more activity then before just because some Christians burnt some Qur'ans. The burning of the Qur'ans is unlikely to be a cause for increased aggression, because even al Qaeda now you can't stop what has already happened. If they do become more aggressive what have they gained, but more casualties, loss of morale and more support for the invaders initiative? They'll complain but they won't do jack.
There are risks. The U.S. has little time and resources today to take risks. It should pull itself together otherwise, with all the risks it takes, it will drown to the bottom of the ocean. It needs to lead straightforward politics once and for all.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:28:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:22:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:16:49 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
So? If I own a gun factory and I decide to start making Cabbage Patch Dolls instead I'm putting soldiers lives at risks, but it's my choice. It's an externality.
And who gives you the right to determine what kind of harm is to be accepted?

Me, myself and I. I own the factory.


And therefore suppress peoples rights as laid down in the First Amendment. It'll have a negative effect on soldiers, but that's an externality, the main effect is to protest Muslims
And? What does it change? External, internal, who cares about that? The U.S. could not care less. Its soldiers are at risk, and it needs to do something.

Look up the definition of externality and don't come back with idiocy please.


"Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. "

is completely stupid.
I said "necessarily" and you referred to it right after, so avoid these nonsensical comments.

Wut?
Read again.

I read it again, still not making sense.


They harm others by accident,
We have several warning on the issue and that is certainly not an accident. An accident is something that is unexpected. We are expecting conflicts.

Accident as in an unintended effect. They aren't burning Qu'rans to make life difficult for the soldiers abroad.


as an unintended side effect. If I say something, and that causes someone to attack someone else, arrest the attacker, not me.
This is almost like direct harm because we have great negative expectations.

Who said I had negative expectations?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:33:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:26:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:17:03 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Mirza, al Qaeda couldn't care that much. It's not going to induce any more activity then before just because some Christians burnt some Qur'ans. The burning of the Qur'ans is unlikely to be a cause for increased aggression, because even al Qaeda now you can't stop what has already happened. If they do become more aggressive what have they gained, but more casualties, loss of morale and more support for the invaders initiative? They'll complain but they won't do jack.
There are risks. The U.S. has little time and resources today to take risks. It should pull itself together otherwise, with all the risks it takes, it will drown to the bottom of the ocean. It needs to lead straightforward politics once and for all.

Every time they hit a blanc building there's risks, everytime they interrogate there's risks, every time someone takes the piss of Mohammed there's risks.

This is no different.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:33:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:28:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Me, myself and I. I own the factory.
And who gives you the right to say what kind of harm is allowed? Libertarians boast about "direct" harm, which is just absurd. What kind of harm is to be allowed?

Look up the definition of externality and
Inform me.

don't come back with idiocy please.
Anger does not help your case.

"Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. "

is completely stupid.
I said "necessarily" and you referred to it right after, so avoid these nonsensical comments.

Wut?
Read again.

I read it again, still not making sense.
I said, "Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it."

Then you said it was completely stupid. How is it completely stupid? Please tell.

Accident as in an unintended effect. They aren't burning Qu'rans to make life difficult for the soldiers abroad.
Unintended, unexpected, unplanned. However, those devil worshipers know very well that soldiers may be at high risks and that there would be no accident if they got killed because there were and are warnings/predictions about it.

Who said I had negative expectations?
If you have been warned strictly about it, and still did not care, then yes, you are guilty.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:34:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:33:01 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:26:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:17:03 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Mirza, al Qaeda couldn't care that much. It's not going to induce any more activity then before just because some Christians burnt some Qur'ans. The burning of the Qur'ans is unlikely to be a cause for increased aggression, because even al Qaeda now you can't stop what has already happened. If they do become more aggressive what have they gained, but more casualties, loss of morale and more support for the invaders initiative? They'll complain but they won't do jack.
There are risks. The U.S. has little time and resources today to take risks. It should pull itself together otherwise, with all the risks it takes, it will drown to the bottom of the ocean. It needs to lead straightforward politics once and for all.

Every time they hit a blanc building there's risks, everytime they interrogate there's risks, every time someone takes the piss of Mohammed there's risks.

This is no different.
Yes, and burning the Qur'an will burn their nerves.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:37:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:24:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
I am not saying that people should threaten the church. I am against it. What I am saying is that there is a high risk of maybe bombings or greater conflicts in the areas where U.S. soldiers are present, therefore it is highly probable that their lives become endangered. The U.S. has the right to prevent this and make use of strict measures.

As far as I can tell you are effectively saying that the people who don't want the Mosque built should be as vulgar, rowdy, and threaten as much violence as possible, which will should result not in them being punished, but in the government doing exactly what they want. In other words, political power is measured by how homicidally insane a group/person is.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:39:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:37:11 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
As far as I can tell you are effectively saying that the people who don't want the Mosque built should be as vulgar, rowdy, and threaten as much violence as possible, which will should result not in them being punished, but in the government doing exactly what they want. In other words, political power is measured by how homicidally insane a group/person is.
Tell me how post indicated it, please. And a government is allowed to protect its own interests is they are justified. USA is allowed to prevent too many casualties of its soldiers if possible.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:41:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:34:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:33:01 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:26:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:17:03 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Mirza, al Qaeda couldn't care that much. It's not going to induce any more activity then before just because some Christians burnt some Qur'ans. The burning of the Qur'ans is unlikely to be a cause for increased aggression, because even al Qaeda now you can't stop what has already happened. If they do become more aggressive what have they gained, but more casualties, loss of morale and more support for the invaders initiative? They'll complain but they won't do jack.
There are risks. The U.S. has little time and resources today to take risks. It should pull itself together otherwise, with all the risks it takes, it will drown to the bottom of the ocean. It needs to lead straightforward politics once and for all.

Every time they hit a blanc building there's risks, everytime they interrogate there's risks, every time someone takes the piss of Mohammed there's risks.

This is no different.
Yes, and burning the Qur'an will burn their nerves.

They won't do anything, even muslims and terrorists don't care for symbolism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:41:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:33:35 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:28:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Me, myself and I. I own the factory.
And who gives you the right to say what kind of harm is allowed? Libertarians boast about "direct" harm, which is just absurd. What kind of harm is to be allowed?

Look up the definition of externality and
Inform me.

Seriously, look it up. I'm not your English teacher.


don't come back with idiocy please.
Anger does not help your case.

And? Calling you an idiot is a bit of fun [inb4 psychoanalysis]


"Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it. "

is completely stupid.
I said "necessarily" and you referred to it right after, so avoid these nonsensical comments.

Wut?
Read again.

I read it again, still not making sense.
I said, "Just because something belongs to you does not necessarily give you the right to do what you want with it."

It does give you the right to do what you please so long as nobody\nothing that's not yours is harmed.


Then you said it was completely stupid. How is it completely stupid? Please tell.

Because it's my property. I own it.


Accident as in an unintended effect. They aren't burning Qu'rans to make life difficult for the soldiers abroad.
Unintended, unexpected, unplanned. However, those devil worshipers know very well that soldiers may be at high risks and that there would be no accident if they got killed because there were and are warnings/predictions about it.

O rly? If decide to burn a Qu'ran I'm suddenly aware of every implication facing me?


Who said I had negative expectations?
If you have been warned strictly about it, and still did not care, then yes, you are guilty.

"What you do might spark violence". It's a chance. No guarantee.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.