News Is the U.S. Losing Its Freedom of Speech?

[mheslep]

The oldest terrorist organization in the world is the KKK;

Hardly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin#Etymology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes#Gunpowder_Plot

a white supremacist group - as I'm sure you know.

It is just insane to insinuate that the KKK represents Christianity as it is to say that Muslim extremists represent Islam.

Yes, though it is not a bad comparison if modified like so: today's Muslim jihadists are to Islam as the KKK was to Christianity, i.e. they distort the faith for their own violent purposes and it is near endemic. See the 1920's, when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence" and even the US president was very likely a sympathizer.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes and we're not talking about construction. The complaints, as now in Manhattan, largely come in the planning stages.

...and are nothing like this outrage over the community center. Talk about glib...

 

[FlexGunship]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes#Gunpowder_Plot

Aww, Guy Fawkes? Really? I've always had a soft spot for him (since V for Vendetta) even though he was kind of a terrorist.

 

[encorp]

Hardly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin#Etymology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes#Gunpowder_Plot

Yes, though it is not a bad comparison if modified like so: today's Muslim jihadists are to Islam as the KKK was to Christianity, i.e. they distort the faith for their own violent purposes and it is near endemic. See the 1920's, when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence" and even the US president was very likely a sympathizer.

Yes, the Hashshashin - it's where the world assassin comes from. They were quite different than modern terrorist organizations, however. I am arguing the definition of the term Terrorism, and Terrorist here - so we're pretty much splitting hairs. But as documented, it is widely considered that the KKK are the oldest known terrorist organization.

Of course the entire definition of Terrorism is yet to be defined by international law. So really, we're probably both completely right :P

Understood! Thanks.

And, yes, I strongly believe that our national military should be used for defense only. I am sympathetic to the need of the Bush administration to act in reaction to 9/11 but I find that the entire "War in Iraq" and "War in Afghanistan" is a waste of money and life.

Actually, the Iraq and Afghanistan war are two of the most successful conflicts in recent American history. While I do not agree with war at all - the goal of the U.S. was to disrupt the region. And they perfectly succeeded in that, with a VERY minor loss of only 5000 lives.

Really, in the grand scheme of conflicts - the amount of control the U.S. maintained was well worth the investment of money and peoples lives. What does not destroy you, will only make you stronger - and in the face of armed conflict the U.S. stands to benefit greatly from both of those wars.

The problem with only having an army for defense purposes; is that is entirely counter to the human condition. If you've got an army of men who spend their lives training and being conditioned to kill people at the flick of a finger - you can't hold onto them forever and tell them "We'll only do something if someone attacks us first" at some point you end up with a bulge of trained individuals and you HAVE to utilize them.

You would never ask a doctor to train his entire life to be a doctor and then never get the chance to work with a patient. While war is disgusting and terrible, and I in no way believe it is going to be the only way the human race functions - it is currently the only way the human race functions; and we have not evolved beyond it. Mostly because it is still hugely beneficial to our success.

One day, hopefully it will not be.

I highly suggest you read the book; The Next 100 Years by George Friedman; it's a fantastic novel. It should definitely be apart of every persons library.

 

[nismaratwork]

Um... the KKK is not one thing. There have been at least three distinct and separate incarnations of the group, and the original was about confederate soldiers dealing with the aftermath of losing a war.

First KKK
The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee by veterans of the Confederate Army. Although it never had an organizational structure above the local level, similar groups across the South adopted the name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement after the war. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan reacted against Radical Republican control of Reconstruction by attempting to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to white conservative Democrats' regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

The second was a lot of things, and mostly like Nazis frankly, in their loathing of Catholics, Jews, etc...

Second KKK
In 1915, the second Klan was founded. It grew rapidly nationwide after 1921 in response to a period of postwar social tensions, where industrialization in the North had attracted numerous waves of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and the Great Migration of Southern blacks and whites. The second KKK preached racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, nativism, and antisemitism. Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses, and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.[14]

The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[15]

and finally...

Third KKK
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[16] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Today, researchers estimate that there may be approximately 150 Klan chapters with 5,000[17]–8,000 members nationwide.[citation needed]

Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan to be a "subversive or terrorist organization".[17][18][19][20] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[21] A similar effort was made in 2004 when a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization so it could be banned from campus.[22] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK

Not the first terrorist group, and at first more of a cloistered insurgency than anything else. I imagine that you could say that throughout European history, anti-royalists were seen as terrorists, culminating in The French Revolution! Anyway, this has gone waaaaaaaaay off topic from the OP.

I'm still waiting to hear how all of this whining isn't the soft part, and what "soft" means anyway.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, the Hashshashin - it's where the world assassin comes from. They were quite different than modern terrorist organizations, however. I am arguing the definition of the term Terrorism, and Terrorist here - so we're pretty much splitting hairs. But as documented, it is widely considered that the KKK are the oldest known terrorist organization.

Of course the entire definition of Terrorism is yet to be defined by international law. So really, we're probably both completely right :P




Actually, the Iraq and Afghanistan war are two of the most successful conflicts in recent American history. While I do not agree with war at all - the goal of the U.S. was to disrupt the region. And they perfectly succeeded in that, with a VERY minor loss of only 5000 lives.

Really, in the grand scheme of conflicts - the amount of control the U.S. maintained was well worth the investment of money and peoples lives. What does not destroy you, will only make you stronger - and in the face of armed conflict the U.S. stands to benefit greatly from both of those wars.

The problem with only having an army for defense purposes; is that is entirely counter to the human condition. If you've got an army of men who spend their lives training and being conditioned to kill people at the flick of a finger - you can't hold onto them forever and tell them "We'll only do something if someone attacks us first" at some point you end up with a bulge of trained individuals and you HAVE to utilize them.

You would never ask a doctor to train his entire life to be a doctor and then never get the chance to work with a patient. While war is disgusting and terrible, and I in no way believe it is going to be the only way the human race functions - it is currently the only way the human race functions; and we have not evolved beyond it. Mostly because it is still hugely beneficial to our success.

One day, hopefully it will not be.

I highly suggest you read the book; The Next 100 Years by George Friedman; it's a fantastic novel. It should definitely be apart of every persons library.

Let me get this straight... helping to save Europe, and possibly the world from the Axis powers, at whatever cost in lives, got us less than Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you drunk?!

 

[encorp]

Let me get this straight... helping to save Europe, and possibly the world from the Axis powers, at whatever cost in lives, got us less than Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you drunk?!

I did not say that anywhere.

 

[Jack21222]

He's likely referring to modern Afghanistan with that old world term, as the Persian empire once encapsulated today's Afghanistan.
http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson_images/EvalGraphics/PersianEmpire03.jpg

Yes, exactly. I'm not sure if that technically counts as "middle east" so I was trying to be more accurate.

 

[nismaratwork]

I did not say that anywhere.

ually, the Iraq and Afghanistan war are two of the most successful conflicts in recent American history. While I do not agree with war at all - the goal of the U.S. was to disrupt the region. And they perfectly succeeded in that, with a VERY minor loss of only 5000 lives.

This sounds like it, with the addition that you've assumed what the goal of the US was in Iraq.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, the Hashshashin - it's where the world assassin comes from. They were quite different than modern terrorist organizations, however.

Yes and the KKK is quite different from (and similar to) Al Qaeda.

I am arguing the definition of the term Terrorism, and Terrorist here - so we're pretty much splitting hairs. But as documented, it is widely considered that the KKK are the oldest known terrorist organization.

You may have some good reasons to view the KKK that way, but please don't attribute what is or is not 'widely considered' without a single reference, which are required in PF for statements of fact.

2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

 

[jreelawg]

I find it kind of ridiculous that this "man plans on burning koran" story got/gets so much or even any media coverage. I can't believe that this one event, planned by one person, has led to such a media frenzy and is making such a large impact. I read a story the other day, about how people in Afghanistan are protesting this guys plan, burning American flags and marching in the streets in the hundreds.

None of this would be going on if the media didn't broadcast this guy's statement to the whole world. Meanwhile there is plenty of real news to be covered, and 24 hour news channels are instead running this BS constantly. I guess you ignite controversy pit people against each other, and you get ratings, or maybe advance political objectives?

 

[arunma]

I find it kind of ridiculous that this "man plans on burning koran" story got/gets so much or even any media coverage. I can't believe that this one event, planned by one person, has led to such a media frenzy and is making such a large impact. I read a story the other day, about how people in Afghanistan are protesting this guys plan, burning American flags and marching in the streets in the hundreds.

None of this would be going on if the media didn't broadcast this guy's statement to the whole world. Meanwhile there is plenty of real news to be covered, and 24 hour news channels are instead running this BS constantly. I guess you ignite controversy pit people against each other, and you get ratings, or maybe advance political objectives?

I hate to say this, but the Quran burner guy has won in the sense that he made his point about the nature of the Islamic world. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. This is a non-issue. The media shouldn't have covered it, President Obama shouldn't have given him recognition by having his Defense Secretary contact the guy, and in general we just shouldn't give a rip.

But look what's happened. The guy wants to burn a few books (albeit sacred books to some people), and Muslims take to the streets in protest, supposedly even endangering our troops. There are lots of people in America who fly off the handle when you burn a flag, but you don't see those people protesting and attacking mosques because the people in Afghanistan are burning flags. My point, and perhaps the pyromaniac pastor's point, is this: our religious fundamentalists are better than their religious fundamentalists. Fundie Christians in America kick gays out of churches. Fundie Muslims in the Middle East simply behead them. American fundie Christians preach about how evil adultery is. Fundie Muslims stone them. Obviously I can go on and on. But if you were to quantify and histogram the insanity level of American Christians and Middle Eastern Muslims, the peak for the latter distribution would be far more towards the "more insane" side.

I hate to give credence to a lunatic pastor of 50 congregants. But he's got a point.

 

[Office_Shredder]

This sounds like it, with the addition that you've assumed what the goal of the US was in Iraq.

He said that the war was more successful. He didn't say the objectives attained are more valuable.

For example, we could just nuke the hell out of some small, poor nation with the objective of killing everyone in the country. We would be wildly successful at killing everyone, but that doesn't mean there was a point to it

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm still waiting to hear how all of this whining isn't the soft part, and what "soft" means anyway.

Soft is a pejorative I used. Slang, yes. But the impression I had of the U.S. is that we were a beacon of democracy valuing the rights of individuals above all else. And then Obama comes out and says: "Gosh... guys, couldn't you please not burn the Koran? Someone's gona get mad! <pouty face>"

Obama should've said: 'Hey, screw you crazy extremists! We have rights in this country too bad if you don't like it!"

EDIT: keep in mind, the office of the presidency was established for the purpose of upholding the constitution. I assume that also means the amendments to it.

 

[jreelawg]

Soft is a pejorative I used. Slang, yes. But the impression I had of the U.S. is that we were a beacon of democracy valuing the rights of individuals above all else. And then Obama comes out and says: "Gosh... guys, couldn't you please not burn the Koran? Someone's gona get mad! <pouty face>"

Obama should've said: 'Hey, screw you crazy extremists! We have rights in this country too bad if you don't like it!"

EDIT: keep in mind, the office of the presidency was established for the purpose of upholding the constitution. I assume that also means the amendments to it.

Most the time they say one thing, and mean another. What they say has to do with what they are trying to accomplish. In other words, people lie to achieve objectives. In this case we are at war in the middle east and tensions are high.

In other words maybe the "soft" statement is really a lie, which is used as a weapon. For example, if I was planning on stealing a persons car, would it be soft for me to go public prior to stealing it stating I think stealing cars isn't nice.

What would be soft, would be to sacrifice advancement of war/political objectives or efforts in the name of being honest and making hard public statements.

What is hard about making a statement which gives power to your enemy?

 

[FlexGunship]

Most the time they say one thing, and mean another. What they say has to do with what they are trying to accomplish. In other words, people lie to achieve objectives. In this case we are at war in the middle east and tensions are high.

In other words maybe the "soft" statement is really a lie, which is used as a weapon. For example, if I was planning on stealing a persons car, would it be soft for me to go public prior to stealing it stating I think stealing cars isn't nice.

What would be soft, would be to sacrifice advancement of war/political objectives or efforts in the name of being honest and making hard public statements.

What is hard about making a statement which gives power to your enemy?

Non sequitur? Sorry. I missed something. Can you explain again in terms of my post? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't follow.

 

[DaveC426913]

Soft is a pejorative I used. Slang, yes. But the impression I had of the U.S. is that we were a beacon of democracy valuing the rights of individuals above all else. And then Obama comes out and says: "Gosh... guys, couldn't you please not burn the Koran? Someone's gona get mad! <pouty face>"

Obama should've said: 'Hey, screw you crazy extremists! We have rights in this country too bad if you don't like it!"

EDIT: keep in mind, the office of the presidency was established for the purpose of upholding the constitution. I assume that also means the amendments to it.

Flex, why do you think it is only the extremists who are harmed by this act of hate?

 

[FlexGunship]

Flex, why do you think it is only the extremists who are harmed by this act of hate?

Because "rational" Muslims wouldn't care. Just like rational Americans wouldn't care where a multicultural center is built.

I'm not offended when people burn textbooks or books by Brian Greene or Michio Kaku. I think it's silly, but I'm not offended. If I decided to be offended by it, would we have to stop that? How about if I'm offended by Afghanis burning American flags?

This political correctness is one-sided and absurd.

EDIT: Thought experiment: how accurately must a Koran be printed before it is offensive to burn it? What about a Koran with typos or a crappy translation? What about a Koran with every other word printed? What about blank books with "Koran" written on the cover?

EDIT2: Remember that you don't need a constitutional amendment to protect speech that no one finds offensive.

EDIT3: What if I told you I was going to burn a Koran but burnt a copy of the Constitution instead? Woah! Did I blow your mind?

To be clear NO ONE is harmed in a burning of the Koran unless someone gets burnt or gets smoke in their eyes (I hate that).

 

[jreelawg]

Because "rational" Muslims wouldn't care. Just like rational Americans wouldn't care where a multicultural center is built.

I'm not offended when people burn textbooks or books by Brian Greene or Michio Kaku. I think it's silly, but I'm not offended. If I decided to be offended by it, would we have to stop that? How about if I'm offended by Afghanis burning American flags?

This political correctness is one-sided and absurd.

EDIT: Thought experiment: how accurately must a Koran be printed before it is offensive to burn it? What about a Koran with typos or a crappy translation? What about a Koran with every other word printed? What about blank books with "Koran" written on the cover?

EDIT2: Remember that you don't need a constitutional amendment to protect speech that no one finds offensive.

But the problem isn't that he is burning the koran. The problem is that the media is broadcasting it all around the world, damn near half the world is muslim, and as ridiculous as they are, the whole thing is causing problems. Words can be powerful especially when broadcasted to the whole world.

Like it or not this one guy happens to have a stage where he can preach to millions of people. It just might be that the smartest thing to do, is try and prevent him, from igniting, or inflaming a religious war.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because "rational" Muslims wouldn't care.

Of course they would.

I'm not offended when people burn textbooks or books by Brian Greene or Michio Kaku.

You think physics textbooks are comparable to the Qur'an??

I think you drastically fail understand the importance and breadth of the spiritual foundations of people.

To be clear NO ONE is harmed in a burning of the Koran unless someone gets burnt or gets smoke in their eyes.

This is shockingly naive.

I guess no one is hurt when they burn crosses on the lawns of blacks in the South?

Intimidation is harm.

 

[Andy]

I hate to say this, but the Quran burner guy has won in the sense that he made his point about the nature of the Islamic world. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. This is a non-issue. The media shouldn't have covered it, President Obama shouldn't have given him recognition by having his Defense Secretary contact the guy, and in general we just shouldn't give a rip.

But look what's happened. The guy wants to burn a few books (albeit sacred books to some people), and Muslims take to the streets in protest, supposedly even endangering our troops. There are lots of people in America who fly off the handle when you burn a flag, but you don't see those people protesting and attacking mosques because the people in Afghanistan are burning flags. My point, and perhaps the pyromaniac pastor's point, is this: our religious fundamentalists are better than their religious fundamentalists. Fundie Christians in America kick gays out of churches. Fundie Muslims in the Middle East simply behead them. American fundie Christians preach about how evil adultery is. Fundie Muslims stone them. Obviously I can go on and on. But if you were to quantify and histogram the insanity level of American Christians and Middle Eastern Muslims, the peak for the latter distribution would be far more towards the "more insane" side.

I hate to give credence to a lunatic pastor of 50 congregants. But he's got a point.

So you see a few hundred muslims burning american flags and assume that they represent the islamic faith?

The only point that the lunatic pastor has made is that it only takes one fundamentalist to upset many thousands of people. How do you think muslims in the middle east view what's going on in america? do you think that they are hearing the same reports that we are? Or do you think that the media in the middle east are slanting the coverage to make it look like all americans hate muslims?

 

[jgens]

EDIT: keep in mind, the office of the presidency was established for the purpose of upholding the constitution. I assume that also means the amendments to it.

President Obama can still uphold the Constitution and ask the pastor to stop the planned book burning. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[lisab]

Because "rational" Muslims wouldn't care. Just like rational Americans wouldn't care where a multicultural center is built.

True that, rational Americans don't give a rat sass about the cultural center. But moderate Muslims are affected by the fundamentalists in their midst, if only because in places like Saudi Arabia the fundies have real power (the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutaween" ).

I'm not offended when people burn textbooks or books by Brian Greene or Michio Kaku. I think it's silly, but I'm not offended. If I decided to be offended by it, would we have to stop that? How about if I'm offended by Afghanis burning American flags?

This political correctness is one-sided and absurd.

Yes it makes me sick. When there was all that uproar about the Mohammed cartoons I felt the same...but this situation has a twist, because it could cause real harm to our troops. And for what?

EDIT: Thought experiment: how accurately must a Koran be printed before it is offensive to burn it? What about a Koran with typos or a crappy translation? What about a Koran with every other word printed? What about blank books with "Koran" written on the cover?

Wow, FG, are you trying to merge the never-ending "how conscious must an observer be, in order for Schrodinger's cat to be dead or alive?" question with outrage over holy book burning? Nice, I like that...made me laugh !

 

[FlexGunship]

Of course they would.

Then why aren't rational Americans allowed to be offended by the location of a multicultural center? I think you drastically fail to understand the importance and breadth of the spiritual foundations of people.

You think physics textbooks are comparable to the Qur'an??

Hah, they're certainly more useful.

This is shockingly naive.

I feel the same way about your viewpoints. You sound like you formed them right after a "diversity day" at work.

 

[FlexGunship]

President Obama can still uphold the Constitution and ask the pastor to stop the planned book burning. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

That's reasonable. I think it's inappropriate for him to do so, though. His personal opinions should be kept private until he leaves office.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then why aren't rational Americans allowed to be offended by the location of a multicultural center?

Because that's religious persecution.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hah, they're certainly more useful.

Wow. That's just free-floating utter derision for about a fifth of the world's population.

The religion-bashing has commenced.

It's against PF rules. Requesting thread lock.

 

[jgens]

That's reasonable. I think it's inappropriate for him to do so, though. His personal opinions should be kept private until he leaves office.

To what extent then, does the President keep his personal views quiet until he leaves office? For example, the President's decision to sign or veto a bill is often indicative of his personal opinions, even if he doesn't say them publicly.

 

[Andy]

Forgive me if I am wrong (which chances are i am) but wasnt the reason that the settlers left britain and went to america so that they could set up a culture/community that was free from religious persecution? where every man had the right to practice the belief of their choice?

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes it makes me sick. When there was all that uproar about the Mohammed cartoons I felt the same...but this situation has a twist, because it could cause real harm to our troops. And for what?

Isn't that the fundamental reason why we have troops: to protect the freedoms afforded to us in the Constitution. Now that a real problem arises (one in which real people could really die) in the expression of our rights we back down?

We might as well spit in the face of our troops if we don't have enough respect for them to let them defend our rights. This is it; this is a real case of the military existing to protect our freedoms. One of our freedoms was put on the line, and we backed down. I don't see any other interpretation.