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

[DaveC426913]

Given the "substance" (a word I use loosely in this context) of his earlier posts, I assume that he means all muslims, supporters of such, and anyone too blind to appreciate the truth of his singular viewpoint. You know, the usual horse****.

Yes, I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.


I'd like to hear him accuse all Islam of wanting to overrun the West (I'd also like to hear him explain his own country's actions in light of the America doing its own form of overrunning).

 

[nismaratwork]

Sorry, so you agree that they are misguided. That these feelings they have, that they'd like to have considered, do violate Basic Human Rights. Do I interpret correctly?

Yes, they are misguided, and yes they violate BHR. I agree with both of those statements.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.


I'd like to hear him accuse all Islam of wanting to overrun the West (I'd also like to hear him explain his own country's actions in light of the America doing its own form of overrunning).

He definitely already accused Islam of wanting to overrun the WORLD, but the rest I'd love to hear him explain too. Then again, maybe all we'd hear is a soft nickering and requests for sugar lumps?

 

[FlexGunship]

The terrorists claiming they did it in the name of their religion does not make that religion responsible.

I'm of the opinion that you can't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. But the religion can and should share some of the blame.

Islam really does preach violence as a solution to religious non-adherence. Really.

In contrast, consider Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism). The Jains peach an entirely non-violent religion. Funny that no one ever hears about these people. They have a purely pacifist region and they are never accused of "Terrorism" or "Violence."

If there were radical or extremist Jains they would only become MORE peaceful.

Yet, we routinely recognize extremist Muslims and Christians as becoming more violent.

Wouldn't you agree that we could attribute that difference to the religion?EDIT: for citation. These are some of the versus that "confuse" Muslims. The note is given in [Surah.Verse] format.

[2.190] ...fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[4.89] ...take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back [to their homes], then seize them and kill them wherever you find them... [4.90] Allah has not given you a way against them [Allah supposedly does not allow Muslims to fight people friendly to Muslims]. [4.91]...seize them and kill them wherever you find them...

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm of the opinion that you can't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. But the religion can and should share some of the blame.

Islam really does preach violence as a solution to religious non-adherence. Really.

In contrast, consider Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism). The Jains peach an entirely non-violent religion. Funny that no one ever hears about these people. They have a purely pacifist region and they are never accused of "Terrorism" or "Violence."

If there were radical or extremist Jains they would only become MORE peaceful.

Yet, we routinely recognize extremist Muslims and Christians as becoming more violent.

Wouldn't you agree that we could attribute that difference to the religion?

You're talking about broad global issues compared to a specific event and the reaction to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're talking about broad global issues compared to a specific event and the reaction to it.

Well, he's addressing his claim that Islam does, in essence, support the terrorists' actions.

It's a valid point.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, he's addressing his claim that Islam does, in essence, support the terrorists' actions.

It's a valid point.

It's valid in that I can probably use the collected works of Dr. Seuss to justify atrocities too if I felt like it. More relevant is how specific nations and their governments use this particular religion as a tool to manipulate their people and how that's now gotten out of hand. I don't think this can be contained within the rubric of a religious discussion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That sounds like serious sarcasm...but it is pretty silly. I'm sure you must see why that isn't analagous, don't you? When someone insults someone else who is under the same umbrella of ideology, you basically get a divide by zero error trying to apply that logic.

But tell me this: if you always use such logic to determine whether someone's feeling of being offended is reasonable, does that mean you still call black people "colored"?

And if death threats against American troops make Obama's opposition to the Koran burning reasonable, does that mean that if credible death threats were to occur against the Iman leading the Muslim center project in NY then opposition to the center would become reasonable?

Nothing that you've said here makes any sense. The analogy absolutely applies. The terrorists who attacked the wtc are no more representitive of Islam, than McVeigh was Christianity, or Capitalism, or the spirit or intent of the Constitution.

You really can't understand this?

 

[FlexGunship]

It's valid in that I can probably use the collected works of Dr. Seuss to justify atrocities too if I felt like it.

Pardon?

My post specifically dealt with a significant contrast between religions. Some religions promote violence, and some promote peace. When adherents to those religions go into "extreme mode" the violent ones become more violent, and the peaceful ones become more peaceful.

I summarized by saying that no one had ever heard of a Jain terrorist. But there are plenty of Christian and Muslim terrorist stories.

Can't we acknowledge that as a significant difference amongst religions?

 

[JaredJames]

In all fairness, FlexGunship gave specific quotes to show where the religion promoted violence, or at the least where confusion could be created.

Yes, you can use most literature to justify pretty much anything, but that is not the point here. You aren't taking some random piece of literature and making it fit, you have a book that people live their lives by and it clearly shows acceptance of violence to non-muslims. (this applies equally to christians).

 

[nismaratwork]

Pardon?

My post specifically dealt with a significant contrast between religions. Some religions promote violence, and some promote peace. When adherents to those religions go into "extreme mode" the violent ones become more violent, and the peaceful ones become more peaceful.

I summarized by saying that no one had ever heard of a Jain terrorist. But there are plenty of Christian and Muslim terrorist stories.

Can't we acknowledge that as a significant difference amongst religions?

So... the sum total of your point is that there are extremes at both ends of the spectrum of violence in religions? Yeah, that's pretty basic, and doesn't do much to forward the discussion here, but I accept that's true. Of course, I can imagine a Jain terrorist given the proper motivation... maybe if they felt they could do something to end wars by causing a nuclear tragedy? Who knows how people are going to interpret their religion, and that's discounting their sanity.

 

[Jack21222]

Pardon?

My post specifically dealt with a significant contrast between religions. Some religions promote violence, and some promote peace. When adherents to those religions go into "extreme mode" the violent ones become more violent, and the peaceful ones become more peaceful.

I summarized by saying that no one had ever heard of a Jain terrorist. But there are plenty of Christian and Muslim terrorist stories.

Can't we acknowledge that as a significant difference amongst religions?

Three major religions in the world have such violent passages in their holy books. Yet somehow, only Islam seems to have the bad reputation. Centuries ago, the roles were reversed. The Islamic world was the center of culture and civilization, preserving ancient Greek works, developing medicine, mathematics, et cetera. They had the same holy texts that they have today.

Meanwhile, Christians were looting, raping, burning and pillaging anything that got in their way.

My point is, not all Muslims today nor throughout history live by those violent passages in the Quran. If we want to start railing against religious buildings, I see no reason to single out Islam and ignore Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old and New Testaments just as violent, if not more so, than the ones you posted from the Quran.

While I agree that Islam played a part in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, it has no bearing on whether or not a peaceful community center should be built. This has already been brought up before, but the violent passages in the Bible that lead to the murder of Dr. Tiller doesn't mean a church shouldn't be built next to an abortion clinic.

 

[FlexGunship]

Meanwhile, Christians were looting, raping, burning and pillaging anything that got in their way.

My point is, not all Muslims today nor throughout history live by those violent passages in the Quran. If we want to start railing against religious buildings, I see no reason to single out Islam and ignore Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old and New Testaments just as violent, if not more so, than the ones you posted from the Quran.

That's why I included Christians in my short list of "violent religions." (Here I use the term "violent religion" to contrast my earlier example of "peaceful religion" which is Jainism.)

So, to conclude my point: religions that promote violence should share some of the blame for the acts of violence perpetrated by its adherents (no matter how extreme). That does not mean that innocent practitioners of that religion share the blame, simply that the religion does. (i.e. If your policy causes injury to some, blame the policy, not the people who follow it and don't get injured.)

 

[mheslep]

Since when have real-estate development and feelings gone together?

If it has not been the case in every single historical transaction, I assure you that public and personal sympathies figure in everyday, continuously, speaking from my own experience in commercial development and other observation.

 

[nismaratwork]

Three major religions in the world have such violent passages in their holy books. Yet somehow, only Islam seems to have the bad reputation. Centuries ago, the roles were reversed. The Islamic world was the center of culture and civilization, preserving ancient Greek works, developing medicine, mathematics, et cetera. They had the same holy texts that they have today.

Meanwhile, Christians were looting, raping, burning and pillaging anything that got in their way.

My point is, not all Muslims today nor throughout history live by those violent passages in the Quran. If we want to start railing against religious buildings, I see no reason to single out Islam and ignore Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old and New Testaments just as violent, if not more so, than the ones you posted from the Quran.

While I agree that Islam played a part in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, it has no bearing on whether or not a peaceful community center should be built. This has already been brought up before, but the violent passages in the Bible that lead to the murder of Dr. Tiller doesn't mean a church shouldn't be built next to an abortion clinic.

To me, this is the beginning and the end of this debate. Well said, especially your last point. I would feel a little uncomfortable with your last example, but that's MY problem, and not reasonable. Given time, I'd get over it... good advice for others in the case of this islamic center.

The whole "these are SUFFIs" issue is not tiny either. I'm not worried about Episcopalians gunning me down if I abort a fetus, I'm worried about fundies. Likewise, if I'm worried about pissing off Muslims, it's hardcore Shiites and Wahhabis that scare me.

 

[nismaratwork]

If it has not been the case in every single historical transaction, I assure you that public and personal sympathies figure in everyday, continuously, speaking from my own experience in commercial development and other observation.

Definitely, but academic research and excavation is the only factor that can generally halt construction, unless we're talking about a significant burial ground or the like. I realize that it's a nightmare for a developer to break ground only to find an arrowhead, but nothing they face matches this kind of outrage, and let's be honest... one was mass murder, the other was genocide.

 

[mheslep]

I don't think logic or facts have much impact here anymore... *sigh.

Good point however.

Here's another...

The USA has a military base (agreed upon by all parties I should add), in Tokyo. [...]

When recognizing the highlighted point why didn't you stop there, and at least dispense with the glib dismissals?

 

[FlexGunship]

I just want to (again) reiterate that I never had a problem with the mosque/multi-cultural center being built where it is, so long as the property is paid for (which it is). My problem was that we were letting international pressures (which I initially attributed wrongly to Imam Rauf) affect how we feel about real-estate construction.

Frankly, I'm still bothered by the fact that Muslim extremists feel that they have any say in where a mosque gets built in the U.S.. If Afghani Joe Bin Laden wants to build a mosque in my neighborhood, he can't just yell about it and threaten people from the streets of Afghanistan. He needs to come over here, buy some property, get quotes on construction, apply for a zoning waiver, and raise funds for it.

 

[mheslep]

Definitely, but academic research and excavation is the only factor that can generally halt construction,

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

 

[Jack21222]

Frankly, I'm still bothered by the fact that Muslim extremists feel that they have any say in where a mosque gets built in the U.S.

American troops are roaming their streets, conducting traffic stops, kicking in doors, searching houses, and blowing up buildings with unmanned drones. They're told his is not a war against Islam.

Then, American citizens at home are protesting an Islamic community center? But, this isn't a war against Islam, they were told!

Lets make a deal, Gunship. We remove all of our troops from the Middle East and Persia, and then I agree that they have nothing to say about Americans protesting an Islamic building in America.

 

[FlexGunship]

Lets make a deal, Gunship. We remove all of our troops from the Middle East and Persia, and then I agree that they have nothing to say about Americans protesting an Islamic building in America.

Deal, Jack. Can I also have all of my tax money back that went to helping/hurting these countries?

 

[FlexGunship]

Lets make a deal, Gunship. We remove all of our troops from the Middle East and Persia, and then I agree that they have nothing to say about Americans protesting an Islamic building in America.

Also... dude... Persia?

Note: I'm actually not aware of a significant American troop presence in Iran. I know we've got ground forces in about 10 countries around it.

EDIT: I'm not claiming there AREN'T American troops in Iran, I just didn't know it. Details?

 

[mheslep]

Three major religions in the world have such violent passages in their holy books. Yet somehow, only Islam seems to have the bad reputation. Centuries ago, the roles were reversed. The Islamic world was the center of culture and civilization, preserving ancient Greek works, developing medicine, mathematics, et cetera. They had the same holy texts that they have today.

Meanwhile, Christians were looting, raping, burning and pillaging anything that got in their way.

Could you provide a historical source for this view, perhaps just one sourced example illustrating the comparison of violent tendencies you indicate? I believe you are mistaken in the using the term reversal with respect to violence based on religious governance, and I suggest a more accurate appraisal is that with respect to violence born of religion both Islam and Western religion had much in common centuries ago. The West began to depart from that philosophically, if temporarily, with the birth of Christianity in the 1st century AD, recaptured that lost idea in the Reformation, culminating in the separation of church and state with the founding of the American republic. The Islamic religion, as I understand it, has not made that journey with few exceptions (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attaturk#Modernization_efforts.2C_1926.E2.80.931930" on a another continent.

 

[encorp]

EDIT: I should be clear that I have NOOOOO anti-Muslim tendencies. Simple minded people will make this into an "us vs. them" post. If Obama told me not to burn a Bible, I would burn a Bible.

Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame tension
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEincsjPzkZo6_gBr4jVuVlkB_OwD9I45DSG0

This is incredible. This is literally the definition of terrorism. "Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" (Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism)

Our friendly neighborhood Imam is telling us that if we speak out as a nation (or as factional divisions of a nation as per our 1st amendment righs) that he "can't be held responsible for the consequences." This is no better than 1930s era mobsters threatening to rough up a store clerk if he doesn't pay his protection money.

Obama wants Koran burning cancelled
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hJo3TrJgNxQFSKtdLWpGG4ERuLlg

Furthermore, our own president is advocating the abridgment of our freedom to demonstrate.
I am not religious in the slightest, and I had no inclination to support this event, but now that it's a statement about my freedoms as an American I'm forced to support it. This is disgusting. I have a really nice edition of the Koran that I'm tempted to burn now. Maybe I'll take out a few of the books in my Bible collection, too. Surely, someone will burn a copy of the "Origins of Species" just to make a point.

This is getting ridiculous. And people wonder why Obama is so adamantly loathed. Buddy, it's got nothing to do with your birth certificate, your skin color, or your suspected religious leanings. Honestly! It has to do with the fact that you're a jerk. A jerk that can't leave the people of your country alone for a week without asking for more money, limiting our freedoms just a little more, and proposing some other crazy-*** scheme that involves penalizing hardworking people.

The oldest terrorist organization in the world is the KKK; 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.

 

[FlexGunship]

The oldest terrorist organization in the world is the KKK; 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.

Welcome to the discussion?

One of those is about extremist pressure on real-estate development in the U.S. (as voiced by Imam Rauf) and the other is about Obama asking someone to voluntarily limit their 1st amendment rights.

 

[encorp]

Welcome to the discussion?

One of those is about extremist pressure on real-estate development in the U.S. (as voiced by Imam Rauf) and the other is about Obama asking someone to voluntarily limit their 1st amendment rights.

Thanks!

Truthfully, when you're going to do more harm than good assisting your nation in maintaining the rights you're apparently fighting for you should probably be shot.

I mean, this pastor is not fighting for rights (not that rights actually exist, they are completely made up anyways) he's just an uneducated bigot.

 

[mheslep]

Also... dude... Persia?

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

 

[lisab]

The oldest terrorist organization in the world is the KKK; 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.

I agree with your conclusion, but I doubt that the KKK is the oldest terrorist organizaton in the world.

 

[encorp]

I agree with your conclusion, but I doubt that the KKK is the oldest terrorist organizaton in the world.

It is in terms of what modern terrorism is. There have been resistances since the first days of man of course; but as far as our recorded history goes the KKK (And arguably Billie The Kids group of thugs) were the first modern terrorist organizations.

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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.

 

[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.