Petraeus Says Quran Burning Endangers War Effort .

you obviously are clueless on what "chill speech" means....because you and the other idiots think it means making it illegal. when a four star general asks you to NOT exercise your first amendment rights, that is in fact putting a chill on the right. you need to go and read up on what chilling speech is, then you'll understand much more than you do now.

Can you provide the quote from Petraeus where he asks someone not to exercise their first amendment rights? I understand from this thread that you pay scrupulous attention to detail and would never misstate what other persons have said so surely you have a quote on this matter.


your OPINION that the pastor knew exactly what would happen is not fact, no matter how much you want to pass it off as fact. he is not responsible at all for the actions of crazy idiots. it is caving in, because but for the actions of a few nutjobs, you and petraeus would not be asking him to not exercise his rights.

Even assuming you are right, who cares? What's the problem with asking an idiot not to act like an idiot?
 
Nobody "kinew" that their actions would send some nutjob into a killing spree elsewhere. It is far more likely he thought they'd start burning bibles, flags, or some other nonsense rather than killing random people that had nothing to do with some other dude who burned the book. It's ridiculous to give anybody responsibility over the actions of a nutjob who projects blame randomly.

Perhaps my memory is faulty then, because I thought that is EXACTLY what happened when this same pastor threatened to burn the Quran last year. Violence intensified around our troops.
 
=NigelTufnel;794785]Can you provide the quote from Petraeus where he asks someone not to exercise their first amendment rights? I understand from this thread that you pay scrupulous attention to detail and would never misstate what other persons have said so surely you have a quote on this matter.

you should really click on links, then you would already have your answer....

Back in September, when Terry Jones of the World Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., first announced his intention to burn Islam's holy book, Gen. Petraeus publicly urged the preacher to abandon the plan, saying it would be exploited by the Taliban and endanger the lives of American soldiers

he is saying the same thing again....he wants to the pastor to not burn the quran, to not exercise his first amendment rights....
Even assuming you are right, who cares? What's the problem with asking an idiot not to act like an idiot?

you're asking him to NOT exercise his first amendment rights....that whats wrong and that is the problem. you would rather roll over for a few wacko muslims....
 
you obviously are clueless on what "chill speech" means....because you and the other idiots think it means making it illegal. when a four star general asks you to NOT exercise your first amendment rights, that is in fact putting a chill on the right. you need to go and read up on what chilling speech is, then you'll understand much more than you do now.

No yurt... I don't think it means making it illegal. I think it means a situation where someone uses fear or intimidation or threat of retaliation as a means to suppress someone else's speech. Simply ASKING someone not to do something in no way chills their speech. It is a friggin request.

You would know that is how I view 'chilling free speech' if you had bothered to read the very post you quoted....

Patreaus did not say 'you can't say that or you can't burn the book and if you do the military will come get you' or any other vague threat. Thus, in the absence of a threat of consequences, you can't make the case that there was ANY effort to chill free speech.

As I stated and you ignored, what he said was a REQUEST for help. He, like the majority of the world (yourself excluded) , understands that words and deeds have consequences. KNOWING that burning the Quran is something that the radicals will use as an excuse for violence, he is asking that idiots like this pastor refrain from burning the Quran.
 
This is really as dumb as the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" debate.

According to Yurt, if the guy sitting next to you says he's going to yell it, and you tell him that might not be such a good idea, you are "chilling" his speech, and telling him not to exercise his 1st amendment rights....
 
No yurt... I don't think it means making it illegal. I think it means a situation where someone uses fear or intimidation or threat of retaliation as a means to suppress someone else's speech. Simply ASKING someone not to do something in no way chills their speech. It is a friggin request.

You would know that is how I view 'chilling free speech' if you had bothered to read the very post you quoted....

once again, you're wrong and do not understand what "chill speech" means...it can be in form of a request, especially from a four star general who claims that lives will be lost....that is more than just a simple request coming from you....you do not need any consequence from petraeus in order to have speech chilled. you really need to read up on it because you're way off base. and repeating what you said earlier only makes you look silly because i suggested you to go read up on it....

what you guys and petraeus are saying is: please don't burn the book because we believe it puts troops in danger and lives will be lost.

yeah....that doesn't place any chill on the speech SF....give me a break
 
This is really as dumb as the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" debate.

According to Yurt, if the guy sitting next to you says he's going to yell it, and you tell him that might not be such a good idea, you are "chilling" his speech, and telling him not to exercise his 1st amendment rights....

not even remotely correct. burning the quran is PROTECTED speech....yelling fire in a theater is NOT protected speech....

what an embarrassing post
 
you should really click on links, then you would already have your answer....



he is saying the same thing again....he wants to the pastor to not burn the quran, to not exercise his first amendment rights....

Thanks. So, just so I understand, back in June Petraeus asked the guy not to do it because it would be exploited by the Taliban and endanger soldiers. The guy then went and did it a short while ago and then it was exploited by extremists and people were killed. And now Petraeus is basically saying "See what I mean?" Is that about right?


you're asking him to NOT exercise his first amendment rights....that whats wrong and that is the problem. you would rather roll over for a few wacko muslims....

I don't see how asking someone not to do something stupid is rolling over for anything. Yes, everyone has the right to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean that asking someone not to be an asshole is a major blow to freedom.
 
once again, you're wrong and do not understand what "chill speech" means...it can be in form of a request, especially from a four star general who claims that lives will be lost....that is more than just a simple request coming from you....you do not need any consequence from petraeus in order to have speech chilled. you really need to read up on it because you're way off base. and repeating what you said earlier only makes you look silly because i suggested you to go read up on it....

what you guys and petraeus are saying is: please don't burn the book because we believe it puts troops in danger and lives will be lost.

yeah....that doesn't place any chill on the speech SF....give me a break

A chilling effect is a term in law and communication which describes a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization at the interests of an individual or group.[clarification needed] It may prompt self-censorship and therefore hamper free speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/19/chilling-free-speech/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/juan-williams-thinking/story?id=11937951

Do show us where you are getting your definition of 'chilling' speech Yurt.

It is NOT 'chilling' to simply REQUEST a person not to do something.... whether that request comes from a general or not is irrelevant.

I could care less if you 'suggest I go read up on it' because out of the two of us, I am the one that actually understands what the phrase means. So take your own advice and go read up on it.
 
not even remotely correct. burning the quran is PROTECTED speech....yelling fire in a theater is NOT protected speech....

what an embarrassing post

Yurt... the fact that Oncelor, Nigel and I are actually AGREEING on this... that should tell you just how wrong you are.
 
haters_gonna_hate.gif
 
Perhaps my memory is faulty then, because I thought that is EXACTLY what happened when this same pastor threatened to burn the Quran last year. Violence intensified around our troops.

Your memory is faulty then. Previously some people gathered in cities in Saudi Arabia, etc. to protest the action that may take place, but didn't.
 
This is really as dumb as the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" debate.

According to Yurt, if the guy sitting next to you says he's going to yell it, and you tell him that might not be such a good idea, you are "chilling" his speech, and telling him not to exercise his 1st amendment rights....

Not really a very good analogy. What the pastor did wasn't illegal, while yelling "fire" unnecessarily in a theater would be.
 
Yurt... the fact that Oncelor, Nigel and I are actually AGREEING on this... that should tell you just how wrong you are.

no, it just shows me how stupid you are on this issue....

i mean really SF...because you're agreeing with them that means i'm wrong....LMAO....damo agrees with me, so there....neener weener
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/19/chilling-free-speech/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/juan-williams-thinking/story?id=11937951

Do show us where you are getting your definition of 'chilling' speech Yurt.

It is NOT 'chilling' to simply REQUEST a person not to do something.... whether that request comes from a general or not is irrelevant.

I could care less if you 'suggest I go read up on it' because out of the two of us, I am the one that actually understands what the phrase means. So take your own advice and go read up on it.

It should be noted that I am not saying Patraeus did anything wrong. Simply stating his opinion is as protected as the pastor's action. Neither the pastor nor Patraeus has anything to do with the actions taken by lunatics who blame random strangers for the actions of the pastor. The only people responsible for the murders that took place are the people who actually committed them.
 
Thanks. So, just so I understand, back in June Petraeus asked the guy not to do it because it would be exploited by the Taliban and endanger soldiers. The guy then went and did it a short while ago and then it was exploited by extremists and people were killed. And now Petraeus is basically saying "See what I mean?" Is that about right?




I don't see how asking someone not to do something stupid is rolling over for anything. Yes, everyone has the right to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean that asking someone not to be an asshole is a major blow to freedom.

why do you want him not to burn the quran? because a few wacko muslims will kill people and "could" be a threat to our military....you're rolling over
 
1) Calling the religion of a billion people 'ridiculous' is a sign of complete intolerance. The same intolerance being displayed by the radical element of the Islamic faith.

2) By your standards, we should all be held accountable by the actions of the extremists within our groups. That is insane.

You are on a roll! :good4u: :good4u:
 
On Friday, September 10 in the northern Afghan city of Fayzabad, thousands took part in a protest against the planned Qur'an-burning following Eid ul-Fitr prayers.

Violent demonstrators threw stones at a German-controlled NATO base. Initial reports said troops inside opened fire, killing up to three people and injuring several others, but a local police official said that only local police, not the NATO troops, were involved in the shooting.

According to the acting police chief of Badakshan the protesters broke down the first perimeter gate surrounding the base and beat Afghan security guards and police on duty with sticks. Before opening fire police allegedly fired warning shots and were also fired upon from the direction of the demonstrators, said the police official.

Protest rallies were held in several other Afghan provinces: Nimruz, Kunar, Nangarhar, Parwan, Baghlan, Kunduz, Balkh and Farah.

Protests continued throughout the next two days, with three protesters wounded on September 11 and four on September 12 as Afghan security forces shot into groups of protesters, some armed with sticks or throwing stones, to disperse them.

Two died in hospital due to severe gunshot wounds.[58] On September 11, protests continued in the country, when Afghan security forces fought back thousands of demonstrators. Four demonstrators were wounded by security forces; firing when they tried to storm several government buildings in Pul-e-Alam, in Logar province. They also hurled stones at such buildings as the department for women's affairs. In Badakhshan province, another thousand people protested three separate districts, though the police chief said it was peaceful.

Small rallies were reported in Pakistan in Karachi and the central Pakistani city Multan with around 200 protesters.

There were also protests in Indonesia, Gaza, and India, a non-Muslim majority country.

Protests in Kashmir escalated over several days, as Koran demonstrations quickly turned into separatist protests against the Indian government in the Muslim-majority province. On September 13, protesters defied a military-imposed curfew, setting fire to a Christian missionary school and government buildings. At least 13 people were shot dead by police, and one policeman was killed by a thrown rock; at least 113 policemen and 45 protesters were wounded.

On September 12, a church was burned and a curfew instituted in Punjab. Violence also spread into Jammu, with three protesters shot by police.

Protesters burned several government offices and vehicles.

Police prevented the burning of a Christian school in Poonch, and another in Mendhar the next day, in clashes leaving four protesters killed, 19 wounded, but dozens of government offices, a police station, and eight vehicles were burned.

As of September 16, the Hindustan Times placed the death toll at 90.

In Somalia, the al-Qaida-inspired group Al-Shabaab organized a protest rally against the Qur'an-burning attended by thousands.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Qur'an-burning_controversy#International
 
Back
Top