Petraeus Says Quran Burning Endangers War Effort .

Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

if you really don't believe a four star general asking you to not exercise a right because it could put troops in harms way and may even result in death....is not chilling that speech....have at it

you're essentially saying - hey, you can burn that book, but the blood of US soldiers will be on your hands....

yeah....doesn't chill it at all :rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
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
Click to expand...

If a General, in charge of our troops, who are in harms way says there is a 1 in a billion chance that a US soldier could be injured or killed if I burn a Quran.... I am going to err on the side of the 1. I am not going to take a chance with that soldiers life.

It is not rolling over to protect those who protect us. It is called RESPECT. No one is saying he doesn't have the right to burn it. They are just asking him not to.

If I tell you that jerking a chain will result in someone's murder... would you jerk the chain?
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/kashmir-protesters-killed-quran-row

http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/News/Kabul-riots-over-Koran-burning-plans/3822/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/a...claim-obama-behind-florida-quran-burning.html
Click to expand...

Riots are not the same thing as determined murder, nor do activity in Kashmir change the status of troops in Afghanistan. It is preposterous to suggest that protests and riots are the same thing as directed and determined murder of innocents by random blame placed by lunatics. When that Dutch dude created a cartoon with "The Prophet" in them there were riots as well, was he responsible for the actions of idiots or does it only apply when pastors do foolish things like that?
 
Yurt said:
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
Click to expand...


Because it's stupid. It isn't even a real protest against anything. It's like that "Draw Mohammed" nonsense. What value is there in it? Sure, he's go the right to do it but it's stupid, particularly so in light of the response it elicits. Exercising judgment and discretion isn't "rolling over," it's just exercising judgment and discretion.

I also don't really think its all that troublesome for the people who put their asses on the line to protect our freedoms asking us to use some sense when exercising those freedoms so as to not gratuitously increase the risk they are exposed to for no good reason whatsoever. But that's just me.
 
Superfreak said:
If a General, in charge of our troops, who are in harms way says there is a 1 in a billion chance that a US soldier could be injured or killed if I burn a Quran.... I am going to err on the side of the 1. I am not going to take a chance with that soldiers life.

It is not rolling over to protect those who protect us. It is called RESPECT. No one is saying he doesn't have the right to burn it. They are just asking him not to.

If I tell you that jerking a chain will result in someone's murder... would you jerk the chain?
Click to expand...

and you don't think that is chilling that speech? of course you and i aren't going to do it because we don't want the blood of soldiers on our hands....you just conceded that his request and accompanied threat of what could happen....will in fact CHILL your desire to use that speech....

it is rolling over...he is not asking out of respect, he is asking because he fears what a few wacko muslims would do....and the muslims will continue to act that way because they know americans will back down from insulting their religion because we fear their response....thats a simple fact, and i would agree that the pastor shouldn't burn the book, but it is still a chill on speech and i really don't want to back down, but in all likelihood, like you, i would err on the side of caution. but we are backing down from exercising our rights....
 
The only thing I object to is the attempt to lay blame for murder on the actions of the pastor, the only people responsible for murder are those who commit it, even if they use this slim excuse to do so.
 
Why should a general have less of a right to express himself than a nutty pastor?

It's weird that this debate is even continuing. No one is "chilling" speech by expressing themselves. Stupid OP, stupid continuation of argument...
 
Damocles said:
The only thing I object to is the attempt to lay blame for murder on the actions of the pastor, the only people responsible for murder are those who commit it, even if they use this slim excuse to do so.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone say that the perps aren't ultimately the responsible ones...just that what people say DOES have consequences.

Would you argue that? Would you argue that words don't have consequences?
 
Yurt said:
first off, i never said petraeus said it should be illegal, jarod can't read and his liberal idiot friends jumped on the wagon.

i'm surprised at some of you who believe he should not burn the book. you're caving into a few radical nutcases. and contrary to tom's moronic assertion, this is not about RACE. it is about religion and speech. we should not chill our speech because a few radical muslims kill each other. the pastor is in no way responsible for their actions. and petraeus is talking about CHILLING our speech. to claim he is not is ridiculous. he wants the pastor to NOT exercise his right and burn the quran. coming from such a high powered general, it carries a lot of weight and our military should not be chilling our speech by asking us not to do something we are entitled to do.
Click to expand...

Petraeus didn't even know about it until afterword so how can he be chilling free speech? The deed was done before the news hit A'stan. Petraeus was talking about the results of the action.

Nobody took away Jones' right to burn a Qur'an, i.e. symbolic free speech. Six months ago some prominent people asked him to consider what would be the consequences of his actions and he changed his mind. Then he flip-flopped, and now he's reaping the results.

Jones "... called on the United Nations to act against “Muslim-dominated countries,” which he said “must alter the laws that govern their countries to allow for individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to worship, free speech and to move freely without fear of being attacked or killed.”

He wants to impose western cultural values on an illiterate, lower class, highly religious tribal society but people like you apparently think that's not a problem. Why do you expect the Afghans to behave like westerners?

It cracks me up the way you righties are all over Petraeus. How the worm has turned.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
Why should a general have less of a right to express himself than a nutty pastor?

It's weird that this debate is even continuing. No one is "chilling" speech by expressing themselves. Stupid OP, stupid continuation of argument...
Click to expand...

he can express himself....no one is saying he can't....you're just an idiot who thinks this is comparable to yelling fire in a crowded theater...this discussion is over your head, you should just stay out of it
 
Yurt said:
he can express himself....no one is saying he can't....you're just an idiot who thinks this is comparable to yelling fire in a crowded theater...this discussion is over your head, you should just stay out of it
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was "like" it; I said it was as dumb as that. How surprising that you're unable to discern that.

He's not chilling speech; he's expressing himself, and looking out for the people under his command. You're a total arse for thinking it's "rolling over." Get back to me when you have a family member in harm's way.

What an idiotic jerk.....
 
christiefan915 said:
Petraeus didn't even know about it until afterword so how can be be chilling free speech? The deed was done before the news hit A'stan. Petraeus was talking about the results of the action.

Nobody took away Jones' right to burn a Qur'an, i.e. symbolic free speech. Six months ago some prominent people asked him to consider what would be the consequences of his actions and he changed his mind. Then he flip-flopped, and now he's reaping the results.

Jones "... called on the United Nations to act against “Muslim-dominated countries,” which he said “must alter the laws that govern their countries to allow for individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to worship, free speech and to move freely without fear of being attacked or killed.”

He wants to impose western cultural values on an illiterate, lower class, highly religious tribal society but people like you apparently think that's not a problem. Why do you expect the Afghans to behave like westerners?

It cracks me up the way you righties are all over Petraeus. How the worm has turned.
Click to expand...

you should really click on links and learn what you're talking about BEFORE typing and looking like a fool. petraeus asked him to abandon the plan last year....BEFORE he burned it....he is merely reiterating his request

i never said anyone took away his right....let me repeat this because apparently many of you can't digest a simple concept....petraeus's request has a chilling EFFECT on the speech....let be clear again....petraeus does not want to make it illegal to burn a quran...but the request, followed by comments that people will die as a result of exercising a right, is in fact a chill on that right....even SF concedes he would not burn the quran so as to err on the side of caution....
 
Onceler said:
I didn't say it was "like" it; I said it was as dumb as that. How surprising that you're unable to discern that.

He's not chilling speech; he's expressing himself, and looking out for the people under his command. You're a total arse for thinking it's "rolling over." Get back to me when you have a family member in harm's way.

What an idiotic jerk.....
Click to expand...

you should really stay out of this...its above your head

and you really are the asshole here...you claimed i supported yelling fire in a theater...that is so far from the truth...and you can't admit you were wrong and wrong about the law. so now you will just get all pissy and engage in your typical onceler petulant bullshit

it is rolling over and backing down....that said, i would not burn the quran to err on the side caution....now stay out of this, thank you
 
Yurt said:
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....


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....
Click to expand...

No Yurtard, we'd rather save a match or two for a bunch of lives you idiot.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course we knew. We had the experience of seeing a fatwa put on Salman Rushdie because he "blasphemed" the Qur'an, we saw the violence that resulted when cartoons of Muhammad with a bomb on his head were circulated, we saw the violence that resulted when Benedict XVI called Islam "evil and inhuman."

We refuse to consider how our words and actions affect mostly illiterate people in a theocratic society, whose religion means everything to them.
 
I wonder what "freedoms" are being "protected" in Afghanistan. It's a senseless quaqmire.

A majority of Americans polled want US troops out ASAP.

"Obama said that he wanted a meaningful drawdown to start in July.

Complicating the debate is growing concern in Washington about the war’s cost, which is estimated to reach $120 billion this year, and polls that show increasing disenchantment, even among Republicans, with a war that seems to have no end.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now say the war in Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting, the highest proportion yet opposed to the conflict, Nearly three-quarters of Americans say Mr Obama should withdraw a “substantial number” of combat troops from Afghanistan this summer."

http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/01/white-house-divided-over-afghan-pullout.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top