cancel2 2022
Canceled
Any sentient person can see that is the case. I would like to see one of these apologists explain to the relatives of the people killed, why that fundamentalist preacher is not culpable for his actions?
Petraeus Says Quran Burning Endangers War Effort .
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Any sentient person can see that is the case. I would like to see one of these apologists explain to the relatives of the people killed, why that fundamentalist preacher is not culpable for his actions?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Oh, what's that? More targets to test out our new drone technology on? Well, I hope their new cutting-edge stone technology is up to the challenge...
All the time...it is my specialty
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Non sequitur. He is culpable for his actions, which don't include killing anyone.
Your childish attempts to troll this thread could inspire someone to kick an Englishman's ass tonight. Does that make you responsible for the assault?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Holy shit, a troll accusing me of trolling.
Bullshit....The animals in the Middle East were barbarians before that clown burned a stupid book and they will remain barbarians long after those ashes cool...
Nick Berg
Paul Johnson
PAUL JOHNSON, CONTRACTOR
JACK HENSLEY
KEN BIGLEY (BRITISH)
EGYPTIAN SPY IN IRAQ
IRAQI WORKERS
NEPALESE HOSTAGES
IRAQI NATIONAL GUARD
TWO TURKS
SOSHEI KODA (JAPANESE)
CIA AGENT IRAQ
ENGINEER IRAQ
ALA AL-MALIKI IRAQ
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/category/beheadings-graphic/
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and lunatics who killed or bombed abortion clilnics....do you blame the doctors who performed the abortions?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Can't answer the question?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
I maintain that the consequences of excessive speech are far superior to the consequences of stifled speech.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
"Britain was once renowned around the world for defending people's right to speak out. Not any more..."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html
What do you consider to be "stifled speech"...could you provide an example?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
"Last week, a publicity seeking pastor from Florida held a ritual Qu’ran burning. The first time he threatened to do this, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and General David Petraeus implored him not to, with Petraeus saying he was worried that it could “could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort.”
The warning from Gates and Petraeus made me uncomfortable — I don’t like the idea of top government officials telling private citizens, even one as unbalanced as this Florida pastor, what to do. But the media was far more responsible this time around then it had been last time — rather than lavish press on this attention seeker, the incident went largely ignored in the national press until Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced the incident and called for the pastor to be “brought to justice.” Following Karzai’s announcement, riots and violence erupted all over the country, leading to the deaths of at least 20 people so far.
On Face the Nation this weekend, Harry Reid suggested that Congress was “taking a look” at the incident, and Reid himself has introduced a resolution condemning the incident. Senator Lindsey Graham went farther, implying there should be legal limits on speech in wartime:
BOB SCHIEFFER: Is there anything that actually can be done along this line?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So burning a Koran is a terrible thing. But it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify murder. But having said that, any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk we ought to do it. So I look forward to working with Senator Kerry and Reid and others to condemn this, condemn violence all over the world based in the name of religion. But General Petraeus understands better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country. And he was right to condemn it. And I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petraeus said.
Graham’s reaction — the response to a security threat is to curtail individual freedoms — is the most frustrating response imaginable, but it’s typical of the way the U.S. has responded to terrorism after 9/11. But while other mistakes made in the name of security that have stoked outrage in the Muslim world, such as Gitmo or legalizing torture, required an adjustment of U.S. policy, the fact is that the U.S. has all the laws against Qu’ran burning it needs: Zero. The adjustment that needs to be made here is among those who would react to hateful speech with violence. To abandon fundamental freedoms in the fight against terrorism is to abandon the very things the U.S. is supposed to be defending.
We shouldn’t make the mistake of lionizing this Florida pastor as a hero for free speech. This incident has elements that recall the riots and death threats that followed a Danish newspaper’s publication of the prophet Muhammad that many Muslims saw as offensive. As then, the ultimate blame for the violence rests more with the perpetrators than the provocateurs.
Still, the original Mohammed cartoon incident, and the subsequent “Draw Mohammed Day,” events that arose in solidarity, weren’t empty provocations. They were meant to emphasize that speech, even offensive or reprehensible speech, must always be protected. Terry Jones’ protest, on the other hand, is nothing more than a public cry for attention by someone who holds Muslims in contempt. As someone who was warned of the potential consequences of his actions, he bears some measure of responsibility for the results, although it’s unclear if there’s any way to hold him legally accountable, and I’d probably be against it if there were.
The Supreme Court recently dealt with this question in the case involving the homophobic protests staged by the Westboro Baptist Church at the funerals of U.S. servicemembers. One does not lose the right to free speech simply by using that right in a reprehensible fashion — otherwise the entire concept would be meaningless. Because this incident indirectly lead to people actually dying rather than simply hurt feelings, it may seem like a more difficult question. But it’s not."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ill-free-speech/2011/03/04/AF0wDubC_blog.html
The warning from Gates and Petraeus made me uncomfortable — I don’t like the idea of top government officials telling private citizens, even one as unbalanced as this Florida pastor, what to do. But the media was far more responsible this time around then it had been last time — rather than lavish press on this attention seeker, the incident went largely ignored in the national press until Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced the incident and called for the pastor to be “brought to justice.” Following Karzai’s announcement, riots and violence erupted all over the country, leading to the deaths of at least 20 people so far.
On Face the Nation this weekend, Harry Reid suggested that Congress was “taking a look” at the incident, and Reid himself has introduced a resolution condemning the incident. Senator Lindsey Graham went farther, implying there should be legal limits on speech in wartime:
BOB SCHIEFFER: Is there anything that actually can be done along this line?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So burning a Koran is a terrible thing. But it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify murder. But having said that, any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk we ought to do it. So I look forward to working with Senator Kerry and Reid and others to condemn this, condemn violence all over the world based in the name of religion. But General Petraeus understands better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country. And he was right to condemn it. And I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petraeus said.
Graham’s reaction — the response to a security threat is to curtail individual freedoms — is the most frustrating response imaginable, but it’s typical of the way the U.S. has responded to terrorism after 9/11. But while other mistakes made in the name of security that have stoked outrage in the Muslim world, such as Gitmo or legalizing torture, required an adjustment of U.S. policy, the fact is that the U.S. has all the laws against Qu’ran burning it needs: Zero. The adjustment that needs to be made here is among those who would react to hateful speech with violence. To abandon fundamental freedoms in the fight against terrorism is to abandon the very things the U.S. is supposed to be defending.
We shouldn’t make the mistake of lionizing this Florida pastor as a hero for free speech. This incident has elements that recall the riots and death threats that followed a Danish newspaper’s publication of the prophet Muhammad that many Muslims saw as offensive. As then, the ultimate blame for the violence rests more with the perpetrators than the provocateurs.
Still, the original Mohammed cartoon incident, and the subsequent “Draw Mohammed Day,” events that arose in solidarity, weren’t empty provocations. They were meant to emphasize that speech, even offensive or reprehensible speech, must always be protected. Terry Jones’ protest, on the other hand, is nothing more than a public cry for attention by someone who holds Muslims in contempt. As someone who was warned of the potential consequences of his actions, he bears some measure of responsibility for the results, although it’s unclear if there’s any way to hold him legally accountable, and I’d probably be against it if there were.
The Supreme Court recently dealt with this question in the case involving the homophobic protests staged by the Westboro Baptist Church at the funerals of U.S. servicemembers. One does not lose the right to free speech simply by using that right in a reprehensible fashion — otherwise the entire concept would be meaningless. Because this incident indirectly lead to people actually dying rather than simply hurt feelings, it may seem like a more difficult question. But it’s not."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ill-free-speech/2011/03/04/AF0wDubC_blog.html
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Are you yet another manifestation of the the Legion troll? Answer that first and I might grant your wish.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Can't answer the question?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Won't answer the question?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Suggesting that the preacher shouldn't exercise his right to burn the Koran. I don't agree with it, but it's symbolic speech and I'll be damned if we lose the right to express ourselves, whether it be by law or by culture.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Did the doctors perform the abortions in a public arena and invite the world's media in to watch?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Won't answer the question?
That's not stifling speech. It's exercising your right to speak.
Petraeus has as much right to offer his opinion as anyone. That's what some seem to be missing here.
Now, I wonder how someone like Yurt felt about something like the boycott of the Dixie Chicks. To me, THAT is stifling, or "chilling" free speech. In that case, you're actually promising or engaging harmful ramifications against the party speaking.
But merely making a suggestion? That's called speech.