Burn a Quran day

[Checkmite]

Are they congress? Did they make a law abridging the right to do it? That's your answer.

Shouldn't we be screaming about intimidation, or the "chilling effect" or some such?

 

[noreligion]

At which point Pastor Jones said "Hey, that's no fair, how come that Imam guy gets to build a Mosque, but I can't burn these Qurans?"

He didn't use the free speech defense? How very strange.

 

[Piscivore]

I really don't think this is true. The point of terrorism is to invoke terror.

If that were true then anyone involved in a horror film would be a terrorist.

Terrorism is using threats and hurtful actions to try and alter someone elses' political behavior.

 

[Piscivore]

Shouldn't we be screaming about intimidation, or the "chilling effect" or some such?

Maybe. We'll have to ask noreligion if that "breaks the Constitution", I guess.

 

[Checkmite]

If that were true then anyone involved in a horror film would be a terrorist.

Terrorism is using threats and hurtful actions to try and alter someone elses' political behavior.

Threats and harmful actions.

A girl threatening to leave her boyfriend if he doesn't stop talking to his old-friend-who-is-a-girl isn't a terrorist.

 

[noreligion]

ETA: Trump offer derisively rejected.

Wow, this really is an unfolding story. As soon as we can post, details change.

Something about the news story is a bit muddied to me. The last line indicates the Muslim group has not come up with enough money for the mosque, is that true?

Elzanaty said he had invested in the site with an intention of making a profit and was willing to half the land for private development, and maybe all of it if a Muslim group doesn't come forward with enough money to build the mosque.

 

[Olowkow]

Derails are really annoying.

 

[Piscivore]

Threats and harmful actions.

Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to.

A girl threatening to leave her boyfriend if he doesn't stop talking to his old-friend-who-is-a-girl isn't a terrorist.

That's why I specified "political" behaviour.

 

[Checkmite]

That's why I specified "political" behaviour.

A girl who threatens to leave her boyfriend if he votes Republican isn't a terrorist either.

 

[Olowkow]

He didn't use the free speech defense? How very strange.

Why?

 

[Piscivore]

A girl who threatens to leave her boyfriend if he votes Republican isn't a terrorist either.

Whatever hair you are trying to split on my use of folksy language, terrorism is not "invoking terror".

 

[Checkmite]

Whatever hair you are trying to split on my use of folksy language, terrorism is not "invoking terror".

Terrorism means hurting people, not hurting feelings.

 

[noreligion]

Why?

Seems alot of people here are insisting that burning a koran is free speech. Some are even so foolish as to say it's indisputable that it is. I find it odd that although the government told him to knock off the crap yet nobody is screaming about the government censoring his free speech. It is also odd that he isn't screaming it either if it is free speech. Of course if it isn't, then it is perfectly understandable and not surprising in the least that alot of posters were wrong.

 

[Piscivore]

Terrorism means hurting people, not hurting feelings.

Not necessarily. A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies disagrees:

"Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

Smashing storefront windows is terrorism. Burning a cross in someone's lawn is terrorism. Hanging a noose outside an election site is terrorism. Throwing paint on a fur coat is terrorism. Smashing up a research lab is terrorism. Burning SUVs and homes under construction is terrorism. And burning something important to people you don't like unless they move elsewhere is terrorism.

 

[Checkmite]

Not necessarily. A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies disagrees:

"Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

Smashing storefront windows is terrorism. Burning a cross in someone's lawn is terrorism. Hanging a noose outside an election site is terrorism. Throwing paint on a fur coat is terrorism. Smashing up a research lab is terrorism. Burning SUVs and homes under construction is terrorism. And burning something important to people you don't like unless they move elsewhere is terrorism.

Give me a break. By destruction of...iconic symbols he's talking about things like...say, the World Trade Center. Transient objects like books, of which there are millions of copies? I don't think so. Lighting a Koran on fire and chucking it through a mosque window, maybe.

Do you think burning an American flag is an act of terrorism? Oh wait - how about drawing and then burning an image of Mohammed in order to protest Muslim calls to violence against free speech?

 

[Olowkow]

Seems alot of people here are insisting that burning a koran is free speech....

How is it not?

 

[Towlie]

Seems

of people here are insisting that burning a koran is free speech.

It is.

Some are even so foolish as to say it's indisputable that it is.

That's correct, it's indisputable.

I find it odd that although the government told him to knock off the crap

No, he was asked, not ordered.

yet nobody is screaming about the government censoring his free speech.

because they're not.

It is also odd that he isn't screaming it either if it is free speech.

Maybe he's as ignorant as you are about the Bill of Rights.

Of course if it isn't, then it is perfectly understandable and not surprising in the least that

of posters were wrong.

But it is and they weren't.

 

[noreligion]

It is.That's correct, it's indisputable.No, he was asked, not ordered.because they're not.Maybe he's as ignorant as you are about the Bill of Rights.But it is and they weren't.

Contact a lawyer and get them to defend Turner because his free speech was abridged by the government. If you and the others here are so positive, let's see the courage of your convictions. Are you guys cowards? Sounds to me like you guys are not much different from the idiots that scream 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Checkmite]

Rauf issued a statement later Thursday.

"I am glad that Pastor Jones has decided not to burn any Qurans. However, I have not spoken to Pastor Jones or Imam Musri. I am surprised by their announcement. We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter. We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony."

...

The imam told CNN's Soledad O'Brien on "Larry King Live" that "had I known [the controversy] would happen, we certainly would never have done this."

Asked if he meant he would not have picked the location, Rauf said, "we would not have done something that would create more divisiveness."

You know, this guy is really starting to get on my nerves with the "all we want is peace and harmony and unicorns and we never would've done anything to make people so angry if we had known" bulls***. Moving the mosque to a different location would create a hell of a lot more harmony than insisting on going ahead with it.

 

[Towlie]

Contact a lawyer and get them to defend Turner because his free speech was abridged by the government.

Again, he was asked not to go through with it. They didn't infringe on his right to free speech anymore that I infringed on yours by hinting that you should learn that the phrase "a lot" is two words.