# Two U.N. staff killed in Afghanistan were beheaded: police



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

> (Reuters) - Eight foreign employees of the United Nations were killed on Friday in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif after protesters over-ran their compound, police said, in what looks to be the deadliest ever assault on the U.N. in Afghanistan.
> 
> Two of the dead were beheaded by attackers who also burned parts of the compound and climbed up blast walls to topple a guard tower, said Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, a police spokesman for the northern region.
> 
> ...



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/01/us-afghanistan-unitednations-deaths-idUSTRE7303VN20110401

Still not doing any favors for themselves...

And the worst part it was *likely*, albeit not confirmed, a set-up by some insurgent group pushing further uneducated Muslims (and feel free to debate this in Afghanistan of all fucking palces) to violence over something THAT NEVER ACTUALLY WENT DOWN (the Bible burning).  As for the other soldiers...well there's no excusing that.  The UN takes another hit, Muslims look even more vitriolic and unstable, and the military loses credibility.

Peachy. 

I also wonder where the fuck the Afghan security forces were to stop this?  Likely doing nothing...since that's par for the course.  As for ISAF?  Well shit...

EDIT: Turns out the Koran burning did actually happen...


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 1, 2011)

They need bigger guns.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 1, 2011)

One of those killed were a Norwegian.

Fun, since we have a heavy presence in northern Afghanistan, our tax dollars may have benefited the same barbarians that commited these murders.




> And the worst part it was likely, albeit not confirmed, a set-up by some insurgent group pushing further uneducated Muslims (and feel free to debate this in Afghanistan of all fucking palces) to violence over something THAT NEVER ACTUALLY WENT DOWN (the Bible burning). As for the other soldiers...well there's no excusing that. The UN takes another hit, Muslims look even more vitriolic and unstable, and the military loses credibility.



Actually, Jones and another Pastor burned a Quran on the 20th march this year


----------



## saprobe (Apr 1, 2011)

Just two notes:

1) Thanks a lot, Terry Jones, you stupid fuckface.

2) Thanks to everyone who reacted to Terry Jones' threats by giving him more publicity instead of ignoring him like your mommas taught you, you stupid fuckfaces.


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Actually, Jones and another Pastor burned a Quran on the 20th march this year



Well shit...fixed the OP. 



saprobe said:


> Just two notes:
> 
> 1) Thanks a lot, Terry Jones, you stupid fuckface.
> 
> 2) Thanks to everyone who reacted to Terry Jones' threats by giving him more publicity instead of ignoring him like your mommas taught you, you stupid fuckfaces.



Terry was within his freedom to troll, that much can be said.  It also proves the point that Muslims from those sections cannot and will not understand our way of life and vice versa.  It also proves that yes media publicity did make this thing worse than what it should have been, a non-issue.  Too bad freedom of the press is also something not curbed enough.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 1, 2011)

saprobe said:


> Just two notes:
> 
> 1) Thanks a lot, Terry Jones, you stupid fuckface.
> 
> 2) Thanks to everyone who reacted to Terry Jones' threats by giving him more publicity instead of ignoring him like your mommas taught you, you stupid fuckfaces.



Terry can burn all the qurans he wants. Its the fault of these protesters people died that day. Hell the people killed werent even from the US. Fan fucking tastic!


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Terry can burn all the qurans he wants. Its the fault of these protesters people died that day. *Hell the people killed werent even from the US. Fan fucking tastic!*



That's just the wrong attitude. 

I understand we're dealing with a region where most of the religious there are highly illiterate, relying instead on word of mouth than actually reading the book itself, but it's a two-sided coin.  Media wants sensational bullshit and Mr. Jones brought it to them.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> That's just the wrong attitude.
> 
> I understand we're dealing with a region where most of the religious there are highly illiterate, relying instead on word of mouth than actually reading the book itself, but it's a two-sided coin.  Media wants sensational bullshit and Mr. Jones brought it to them.



I think you misinterpret what I meant by that.

These protesters obviously wanted to protest their distaste for this pastor's actions. Well they go out and protest to the UN and kill non Americans which have nothing to do with it at all period. I do think its bad anyone has to die to this its even worse when you kill innocent people who have little to NO relevance to what they are protesting about.

Its like I just went out and killed some random dude in the town over cause my neighbor's dog just pooped in my yard.

Terry might be a tool but these protesters are far worse.


----------



## saprobe (Apr 1, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Terry can burn all the qurans he wants. Its the fault of these protesters people died that day. Hell the people killed werent even from the US. Fan fucking tastic!



Clearly, its their hands that did the killing and frankly, they could probably be whipped into a frenzy over anything real or imagined. I'm not doubting that. 

I just think it's a damn shame the way the media fed the troll that is Terry Jones until he was big enough to see from anywhere in the world. It was a totally irresponsible thing to do.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 1, 2011)

saprobe said:


> Clearly, its their hands that did the killing and frankly, they could probably be whipped into a frenzy over anything real or imagined. I'm not doubting that.
> 
> I just think it's a damn shame the way the media fed the troll that is Terry Jones until he was big enough to see from anywhere in the world. It was a totally irresponsible thing to do.



I think some media outlets have a bias against islam(fox news).

Those of course that practice islam arent helping their case a lot of the time.


----------



## Momoka (Apr 1, 2011)

Everybody mad


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

That's what the US and the UN gets for trying to castigate the Islamic foundations of a very devoted people. For all their vagaries, Arabs are not cowards. 

If riled enough, they will overrun your compound, murder your security and chop your fucking head off.

Allah Akbar style (meaning: God is great), motherfuckers.


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Derpie said:


> That's what the US and the UN gets for trying to castigate the Islamic foundations of a very devoted people. For all their vagaries, Arabs are not cowards.
> 
> If riled enough, they will overrun your compound, murder your security and chop your fucking head off.



First off, Afghans aren't Arabs.  They're mostly Pashtun, Uzbek, Hazari, etc., but not Arab.  Get your facts straight, kiddo.

Second, no...it doesn't make them cowards.  It makes them look like irrational savages.  It's like you're trying to excuse this behavior as compared to the more peaceful demonstrations done earlier.


----------



## saprobe (Apr 1, 2011)

Yeah, they're not Arabs. They're Central Asians.

And that behavior reinforces the stereotypes in the West that Muslims are overly violent at little provocation.


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> First off, Afghans aren't Arabs.  They're mostly Pashtun, Uzbek, Hazari, etc., but not Arab.  Get your facts straight, kiddo.
> 
> Second, no...it doesn't make them cowards.  It makes them look like irrational savages.  It's like you're trying to excuse this behavior as compared to the more peaceful demonstrations done earlier.



I think that, for the most part, they are considered under the general label of Arabs by the West, just a Gypsies are considered whites in America, despite the fact their genetics can vary.

Frankly, I don't see much irrationality in these actions. These people are being besieged by an invasion facilitated by Western countries with no one and nothing to turn to but violence. What is more irrational in my opinion are the United States'  reasons for entering Afghanistan in the first place, which for many people in the world seem wholly misguided and inhumane, not the mention the UN's complacency in allowing the US to carry on regardless. 

If the US can declare blank platitudes about terrorism and insurgency to justify invasion, then I see no comparative irrationality in this mob's goals to strike down the infidels that defile their nation, insult their religion and murder their people.


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Derpie said:


> I think that, for the most part, they are considered under the general label of Arabs by the West, just a Gypsies are considered whites in America, despite the fact their genetics can vary.



Are you high?

You're basically trying to cover for yourself now.



> Frankly, I don't see much irrationality in these actions. These people are being besieged by an invasion facilitated by Western countries with no one and nothing to turn to but violence. What is more irrational in my opinion would be the United States'  reasons for entering Afghanistan in the first place, which for many people in the world seem wholly misguided and inhumane, not the mention the UN's complacency in allowing the US to carry on regardless.



Again I ask if you are high.

It's simple.  TB had OBL.  We demanded they give him up.  They said no.  We came in.  Dead simple.  I mean what other reason that isn't some Zeitgeist drivel could they possible have?



> If the US can declare blank platitudes about terrorism and insurgency to justify invasion, then I see no comparative irrationality in this mob's goals to strike down the infidels that defile their nation, insult their religion and murder their people.



So murdering UN personnel who did absolutely nothing wrong to them is ok by you because of some irrational concept of association and "religious justice?"

Ok, roger, got it.


----------



## stream (Apr 1, 2011)

There seems to have been no beheadings; all the victims were shot.

Nevertheless, good job everybody involved, from Terry Jones to the protesters, for making the human species a little bit more stupid.


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

stream said:


> There seems to have been no beheadings; all the victims were shot.
> 
> Nevertheless, good job everybody involved, from Terry Jones to the protesters, for making the human species a little bit more stupid.



Religious ignorance, trolling, media shitstorming...it's the holy trifecta.


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> Are you high?
> 
> You're basically trying to cover for yourself now.



Please respond to my above points. Thanks.




> Again I ask if you are high.
> 
> It's simple.  TB had OBL.  We demanded they give him up.  They said no.  We came in.  Dead simple.  I mean what other reason that isn't some Zeitgeist drivel could they possible have?



This is the definition of senseless drivel. I don't understand a word. Who the hell is TB?





> So murdering UN personnel who did absolutely nothing wrong to them is ok by you because of some irrational concept of association?
> 
> Ok, roger, got it.



By choosing to work for and thereby directly support the operations of an organization partially responsible for the state of constant strife Afghanistan is mired in today, these people signed their own death warrants long ago.

The UN has been complicit in the murder of thousands of Afghani citizens, in addition to the defiling of the religious texts. Anyone who chooses to work for them, and is aware of the former crime on top of that is accordingly complicit as well.

An analogy can be drawn between those that worked administrative work for the KGB, and who were nevertheless killed during covert operations by US Special Forces, CIA, etc. For the most part, these people knew they were fighting against the United States, aiding the plots against its people, and paid the price.

And I don't see the irrationality in connecting the dots between a war-torn country, a weary populace, an ineffectual and unresponsive government, as well as a ravenous occupation force.


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Derpie said:


> Please respond to my above points. Thanks.



I did.  And your point didn't make sense. It wasn't a point to begin with, but a generalization with little backing.  



> This is the definition of senseless drivel. I don't understand a word. Who the hell is TB?



Because you don't know a God damn thing, that's why.

TB = Taliban.

Believe it or not, they were sheltering bin Laden.  We wanted him, they said no, so we dealt with it.  It's just now the mission became more questionable.



> By choosing to work for and thereby directly support an organization partially responsible for the fire state of strife Afghanistan is mired in today, these people signed their own death warrants long ago.
> 
> Anyone who chooses to work for them is accordingly complicit as well.



Wow dude.  This is pretty sad of you.  I mean that's like saying just because Ahmadinejad authorizes hanging gays means that some Iranian children are complicit and therefore ok to kill.  It's like saying Beslan was totally worth it.

Afghanistan was a clusterfuck long ago.  Perhaps if you read your history instead of spouting some Colorado-Boulder shit you'd understand that this was par for the course long ago.

But for now I'll call you Talibuddy.



> *The UN has been complicit in the murder of thousands of Afghani citizens, in addition to the defiling of the religious texts. *



Proof plox.



> In analogy can be drawn between those that worked administrative work for the KGB, and who were nevertheless taken to murdered during covert operations by US Special Forces.



Proof plox.

And you wouldn't be Pakistani or Afghan by chance would you?  Or one of those cutesy idealistic college kids?


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 1, 2011)

> That's what the US and the UN gets for trying to castigate the Islamic foundations of a very devoted people. For all their vagaries, Arabs are not cowards.
> 
> If riled enough, they will overrun your compound, murder your security and chop your fucking head off.



Afghans aren't Arabs and they're far from devout. People are morons and Religious mobs are the stupidest bunch of assholes since the dawn of civilization, murdering people just shows up for what they are, illiterate fucks who deserve nothing but left to rot.


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Afghans aren't Arabs and they're far from devout. People are morons and Religious mobs are the stupidest bunch of assholes since the dawn of civilization, murdering people just shows up for what they are, illiterate fucks who deserve nothing but left to rot.



No man...we're evil interfering Westerners.  We get what's coming to us even if we're just trying to help.

So sayeth Talibuddy.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 1, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> People are morons.



I disagree fair maiden


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 1, 2011)

> I disagree fair maiden


Not as individuals, but in groups they sadly become as such.

So apparently the groups were screaming "death to Israel" aswell, love how they fit them in to every march.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 1, 2011)

But we're in April.


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> I did.  And your point didn't make sense. It wasn't a point to begin with, but a generalization with little backing.



There is not a general consensus on what to call Afghanis, but most sources I've read seem to rest on Arab. For example, the "Arab League" is comprised of a bunch of nations that by your standards don't have Arab majorities, or even a significant number of Arabs, yet still are OK with calling themselves as such. In addition, I've noticed new outlets like Al Jazeera being mentioned by the likes of CNN, the New York Times, etc as Arab media companies. 




> Because you don't know a God damn thing, that's why.
> 
> TB = Taliban.
> 
> Believe it or not, they were sheltering bin Laden.  We wanted him, they said no, so we dealt with it.  It's just now the mission became more questionable.



Frankly, that any country can justify invading another and killing the other countries' people under the pretense of looking for one man is just a ridiculous sentiment. It's the same twisted logic European nations used when it came to invading each other for hundreds of years with regards to monarchical rights.



> Wow dude.  This is pretty sad of you.  I mean that's like saying just because Ahmadinejad authorizes hanging gays means that some Iranian children are complicit and therefore ok to kill.  It's like saying Beslan was totally worth it



No, the examples are not analogous because Iranian children do not work in offices for Ahmadinejad while being fully aware of what he supports and what he's doing. The UN is pretty open about what it does, what it funds, etc. This distinction, alongside the working one, is why its staff are culpable. 



> Afghanistan was a clusterfuck long ago.  Perhaps if you read your history instead of spouting some Colorado-Boulder shit you'd understand that this was par for the course long ago.
> 
> But for now I'll call you Talibuddy.



Didn't even bother reading this blather.




> Proof plox.



What greater proof do you need than the UN's complacency? The UN has not brought up the US officials for crimes against humanity, or sanctions against the US in general for obstruction of justice or anything of this manner. 

When Ghadhafi drops a bomb in Libya, it is genocide. When Obama drops a bomb in Afghanistan, it is liberation.




> Proof plox.



I'm confused. It was an example. Do you want me to dig up a Special Forces report? Do you believe Special Forces allow administrative staff to compromise them? Or that they are never at a risk of being compromised by non-combatants?


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

> I'm confused. It was an example. Do you want me to dig up a Special Forces report? Do you believe Special Forces allow administrative staff to compromise them?



You made the example, now back it up.



> What greater proof do you need than the UN's complacency? The UN has not brought up the US officials for crimes against humanity, or sanctions against the US in general or anything of this manner.
> 
> When Ghadhafi drops a bomb in Libya, it is genocide. When Obama drops a bomb in Afghanistan, it is liberation.



In other words, you are only speculating off of personal sentiment.

Fail.


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> You made the example, now back it up.






US Special Forces routinely kill Afghani civilians under normal conditions. 

I reasonably infer from these circumstances they have also killed innocuous KGB staff when or if compromised during secret Cold War operations. 




> In other words, you are only speculating off of personal sentiment.
> 
> Fail.



Wrong. 

All of what I said is true, and they act as support in and of themselves. Inaction in the face of injustice is complacency. Complacency, at least in the eyes of the law, is tantamount obstruction of justice and punishable at face. The UN is supposed to act as an enforcer  and mediator of international law between countries. When it chooses to do this for some nations but not others, then it is complicit in the crimes committed by those it will not stand against.


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Derpie said:


> US Special Forces routinely kill Afghani civilians under normal conditions.
> 
> *I reasonably infer from these circumstances they have also killed innocuous KGB staff when or if compromised during secret Cold War operations*.



Yet you have no proof of it...just inferring.


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> Yet you have no proof of it...just inferring.



Do you agree or not with the inference though/

I can probably dig up empirical evidence that US Special Forces or the CIA or something killed  KGB staff during missions. I'm just too lazy.

Also, do you disagree with my other statement about the UN's obstruction of justice?


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Derpie said:


> Do you agree or not with the inference though/
> 
> I can probably dig up empirical evidence that US Special Forces or the CIA or something killed  KGB staff during missions. I'm just too lazy.
> 
> Also, do you disagree with my other statement about the UN's obstruction of justice?



So let me get this straight.

The UN is an inherently evil organization that allows for military action conducted by nations, that apparently resolutions you disagree with such as Libya are all of a sudden some sort of satanic agreement to bomb innocents.  I don't see your whining with the UN in the cases of Rwanda or Iraq's gassing of Kurds or of Kosovo.  The UN was obstructing justice allowing the Kosovars to not be ethnically cleansed?



> Complacency, at least in the eyes of the law, is tantamount obstruction of justice and punishable at face.



Punishable at face by what written document?


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> So let me get this straight.
> 
> The UN is an inherently evil organization that allows for military action conducted by nations, that apparently resolutions you disagree with such as Libya are all of a sudden some sort of satanic agreement to bomb innocents.  I don't see your whining with the UN in the cases of Rwanda or Iraq's gassing of Kurds or of Kosovo.  The UN was obstructing justice allowing the Kosovars to not be ethnically cleansed?



I'll assume you err on the side of agreeing with my reasonable interference considering your total passing over of it.

With specific regards to your question, I'll keep it brief.

All I stated was that the UN has obstructed justice with regards to its complacency in bringing the US to account according to international law. I never said it was evil, etc. 

I also said that in the UN's complacency, it is complicit, and thereby punishable. This isn't to say it is evil, only that it is not wholly good. 




> Punishable at face by what written document?



In common law, complacency with regards to the investigation and/or prosecution of possible crimes is tantamount to obstruction of justice, which is in turn punishable at face.

The UN has been reluctant to bring the US to account for its crimes, and as such has hindered the work of prosecutors in resolving cases where US human rights issues are at issue.

It is the UN's mandate to apply international law equally, it is just that the organization cannot do so currently.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Apr 1, 2011)

Mael said:


> Religious ignorance, trolling, media shitstorming...it's the holy trifecta.



This seems like flawless logic but I'd have to add undeveloped country into the mix Mael.


----------



## Mael (Apr 1, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> This seems like flawless logic but I'd have to add undeveloped country into the mix Mael.



Ah damn...you got me.


----------



## saprobe (Apr 1, 2011)

So, Derpie, what you're essentially saying is that two atrocities make a right?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm lost on what our strategy is in Afghanistan. What are we trying to do?  What's our strategy to meeting our goals? I'm feeling like we're having little to no success in the country, and whatever success we do gain it's instantly whipped out by some event like this. 

I know this has been talked about a lot. but I keep forgetting what it is where doing there when events like this happen.


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

saprobe said:


> So, Derpie, what you're essentially saying is that two atrocities make a right?



I'm essentially saying that one killing is wrong and another is right; one is murder and the other is justice. I do not think killing is necessarily an atrocity, only that murder is. 

Governments affirm this position by making punishable some killings (murders by serial killers targeting civilians) and supporting others (killings by the military targeting insurgents).


----------



## saprobe (Apr 1, 2011)

Derpie said:


> Governments affirm this position by making punishable some killings (murders by serial killers upon civilians) and supporting others (murders by the military against insurgents).



Except that that comparison doesn't have any application here because when you murder someone they don't execute your neighbor's mom or your kid's teacher or anyone else who had only a passing association with you.

You're advocating the killing of individuals who had little to nothing to do with any instances of civilian deaths as retribution.  You may consider it "righteous anger" but it's not justice--it's just more murder.


----------



## Derpie (Apr 1, 2011)

saprobe said:


> Except that they don't because when you murder someone they don't execute your neighbor's mom or your kid's teacher or anyone else who had only a passing association with you.



Invalid analogy. 

The people at the UN building do not just have a "passing association" with the UN analogous to family members of a terrorist or something. They have a DIRECT association with the UN's nonfeasance mandate in Afghanistan and are culpable considering they are aware of and yet still choose to work for the UN in logistical as well as operational capacities.

It's the same as when Nazi officers worked for Hitler, simply followed orders, and yet were still prosecuted. 



> You're advocating the killing of individuals who had little to nothing to do with any instances of civilian deaths as retribution.  You may consider it "righteous anger" but it's not justice--it's just more murder.



I'll answer this when I return.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 1, 2011)

Problem with that is that the march was in retaliation to the apparent Quran burning in the US. In fact it was an Anti-US march so what justifies the killing of Foreign UN workers who have shit all to do with the situation?


----------



## impersonal (Apr 1, 2011)

Derpie said:


> By choosing to work for and thereby directly support the operations of an organization partially responsible for the state of constant strife Afghanistan is mired in today, these people signed their own death warrants long ago.
> 
> The UN has been complicit in the murder of thousands of Afghani citizens, in addition to the defiling of the religious texts. Anyone who chooses to work for them, and is aware of the former crime on top of that is accordingly complicit as well.



By the same logic, the whole population of Afghanistan deserves to be liquidated for supporting inhumane crimes through a barbaric government (Osama Bin Laden anyone?). This is not happening. This is because not everyone subscribes to your very personal brand of uncivilized "morality".

Also, I like how you somehow manage to claim that
(a) The UN is complicit to the defiling of the Qur'an (What? How?)
(b) The defiling of the Qur'an somehow justifies decapitating people (What? How?)


----------



## saprobe (Apr 1, 2011)

Derpie said:


> Invalid analogy.
> 
> The people at the UN building do not just have a "passing association" with the UN analogous to family members of a terrorist or something. They have a DIRECT association with the UN's nonfeasance mandate in Afghanistan and are culpable considering they are aware of and yet still choose to work for the UN in logistical as well as operational capacities
> 
> It's the same as when Nazi officers worked for Hitler, simply followed orders, and yet were still prosecuted.




Way to invoke Godwin so early in the thread. As Ennoea pointed out, the protest was initially a response to the Koran burning by Terry Jones so that's the first stretch in indicating the UN was deserving of slaughter.

Also, I'm not sure what you're talking about because for the most part the only Nazis prosecuted were high-ranking officials (who were not, for the most part, following orders but issuing them) or notorious mass killers. The rank-and-file foot soldiers were mostly forgiven. That aside, the Nazis were SYSTEMATICALLY EXTERMINATING AN ENTIRE RACE!

And yes, it is a passing association. They are not involved at all in making the policies to which you object. By declaring anyone and everyone associated with the UN as "fair game" you're using the same logic as the New Yorkers who were dragging Muslim cab drivers out of their cars and beating them after 9-11. Sure, they practice the same organized religion as al-Qaeda but that doesn't make them terrorist sympathizers.

Obviously, you have made up your mind that the UN are a great Evil Organization so I'm not going to change your mind.


----------



## Mathias124 (Apr 1, 2011)

Cant we just start the war we all know is going to come now?

Waltz in, take all the oil fields and send them back to the middle ages, thats where their mindset is anyways


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 1, 2011)

Lol@the usual suspects in this thread defending decapitating UN officials.

Pretty horrible crime, though I imagine the UN is going to stay rather mute on the whole thing given who is involved.


----------



## cape (Apr 1, 2011)

To my mind, I do not believe these angry people differentiate much between U_S_ and U_N_ (not to mention U_K_); all in their view would be something that represents the West, in which happened the burning Koran incident; and whom they also view, for that matter, as having invaded their country....


----------



## Coteaz (Apr 1, 2011)

Destitute, uneducated Afghans acting like barbarians?

What a surprise.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 1, 2011)

cape said:


> To my mind, I do not believe these angry people differentiate much between U_S_ and U_N_ (not to mention U_K_); all in their view would be something that represents the West, in which happened the burning Koran incident; and whom they also view, for that matter, as having invaded their country....



There wasnt much of a country to invade to begin with.


----------



## WT (Apr 1, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Lol@the usual suspects in this thread defending decapitating UN officials.
> 
> Pretty horrible crime, though I imagine the UN is going to stay rather mute on the whole thing given who is involved.



Bomb blasts which kill hundreds of people tend to do worse things, not only do they remove the heads but they also remove arms and legs and what not. 

Its sad that death has to happen, however, this year was the worst in civilian casualty. This is to be expected, especially from a vengeful race like the Pashtun.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 1, 2011)

Terry Jones got what he wanted.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 1, 2011)

Can the US media stop giving him so much airtime?


----------



## shinobimastuuuh (Apr 1, 2011)

It is sad that a "pastor" in Florida had to burn the Quran and the violence had to be taken out on innocent people :/


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 1, 2011)

Utterly senseless religious acts. 

Burning that Quran was a meaningless action designed to incite people. You got your reaction, Mr Jones, congratulations. 

That mob looks like a bunch mindless animals. American pastor burns book, therefore attack the UN? The pastor probably hates the UN.  It just reiterates that point that these are tribal types who cannot be part of a meaningful government because they understand nothing but force.


----------



## -Dargor- (Apr 2, 2011)

Meh, it's just that to them all westerners are the same, US or UN, they don't see the difference, just like most retards think muslims are all terrorists.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> That mob *looks* like a bunch mindless animals.



Because they are a bunch of mindless animals.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

Can't we just carpet bomb the country and start over like Sim City.


----------



## alchemy1234 (Apr 2, 2011)

Lack of education.


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Apr 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> Religious ignorance, trolling, media shitstorming...it's the holy trifecta.


Seriously why do they even broadcast something as sensitive like that on tv.


----------



## Coteaz (Apr 2, 2011)

Kirihara said:


> Seriously why do they even broadcast something as sensitive like that on tv.


Because the U.S. has given the media far, far too much freedom. 

It's painfully obvious that they cannot regulate themselves.


----------



## Zaru (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Utterly senseless religious acts.
> 
> Burning that Quran was a meaningless action designed to incite people. You got your reaction, Mr Jones, congratulations.
> 
> That mob looks like a bunch mindless animals. American pastor burns book, therefore attack the UN? The pastor probably hates the UN.  It just reiterates that point that these are tribal types who cannot be part of a meaningful government because they understand nothing but force.



It's not even about the UN. These retards set fire to and damaged LOCAL cars, shops and whatnot. They harmed AFGHAN people. They mindlessly harmed their own country because some other retard, who does not represent anything but himself and some of his equally retarded followers, burned a copy of their holy book half a planet away.

I'd really like to know how a person can become THAT illogical without influence of drugs, it's impressive.


----------



## Sunrider (Apr 2, 2011)

Zaru said:


> I'd really like to know how a person can become THAT illogical without influence of drugs, it's impressive.


Since this resembles pretty much every other riot in the last century, I'm sure examining other historical cases will give you some insight.


----------



## WorstUsernameEver (Apr 2, 2011)

Should the people who did the harm be brought to justice? Yes. Does this mean all Muslims are bad? No, murdering is not Islam and there are radicals in every religion which people seem to ignore whenever its convenient

Anyway, Terry Jones got what he wanted. Let the Islamophobia continue


----------



## Sunrider (Apr 2, 2011)

Sad bit is that when someone protests U.S. involvement in anything, they get bashed as un-American or un-Patriotic. 

Jones incites conflict, and I bet no one will bat an eye.


----------



## Zaru (Apr 2, 2011)

Sunrider said:


> Since this resembles pretty much every other riot in the last century, I'm sure examining other historical cases will give you some insight.



So basically people are stupid, regardless of religion or ethnicity


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 2, 2011)

Sunrider said:


> Sad bit is that when someone protests U.S. involvement in anything, they get bashed as un-American or un-Patriotic.
> 
> Jones incites conflict, and I bet no one will bat an eye.



I don't get this line of thought. Blaming him for a political act that doesn't hurt anyone. He's an idiot but you're allowed to be an idiot. You really can't see the absurdity in the concept that "if only he hadn't burned the Qu'ran, those people wouldn't have had to of been beheaded, shame on you Jones!". How about blaming the beheaders for it? You may as well use this same line of thought to claim "if only the Allies had given Germany what they wanted, World War II would have been avoided".

People batted an eye at Jones. They rolled their eyes and said "what an idiot". It certainly doesn't warrant anywhere near the same level of attention as murdering over a dozen people and beheading their corpses because of a harmless act, nor should the former be blamed for the latter.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

I like how the burning of a religious text is what is attracting attention here. People are treating that as if its on par with what these people did in reaction. All Jones did was prove his point, these people are acting like animals.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 2, 2011)

Derpie said:


> Invalid analogy.
> 
> The people at the UN building do not just have a "passing association" with the UN analogous to family members of a terrorist or something. They have a DIRECT association with the UN's nonfeasance mandate in Afghanistan and are culpable considering they are aware of and yet still choose to work for the UN in logistical as well as operational capacities.
> 
> ...



If you claim that the UN as an organisation are legally culpable for not stopping militaries from entering Afghanistan, then they are liable to be prosecuted... it doesn't follow that random workers are deserving of vicious murder, you thick twat. 

These nutters were motivated by the burning of the Quran, anyway, so all of your other bollocks is just that. According to your earlier post, 'the UN are complicit in the defiling of the religious texts'... well no, they're not. As for the Quran it is hate-filled, promotes bigotry and defiles all standards of morality. It is the content of that thing which leads to and justifies incidents like this. It is not a crime to disseminate the Quran in the USA because they commit to the freedom of expression and religion. They allow the Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals, they're not going to criminalise burning an old book.



Sunrider said:


> *Since this resembles pretty much every other riot in the last century*, I'm sure examining other historical cases will give you some insight.



Apart from the decapitation bit..


----------



## Valtieri (Apr 2, 2011)

Goddamn humans.


----------



## T4R0K (Apr 2, 2011)

Fucking retards. 

They seem to love staying medieval...


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 2, 2011)

UN Dispatch:



> Foreigners have been killed in Afghanistan before, and today’s attack was not the first fatal attack on UN staff.  But it was different than previous fatal attacks. Very different. The killers were ordinary residents of a city deemed peaceful enough to be one of the first places transferred to the control of Afghan security forces. The men who broke into the UN compound, set fires and killed eight people weren’t Taliban, or henchmen of a brutal warlord, or members of a criminal gang. They weren’t even armed when the protests began –they took weapons from the UN guards who were their first victims.
> 
> Foreigners committed to assisting in the rebuilding of Afghanistan have long accepted the possibility that they might die at the hands of warring parties, but this degree of violence from ordinary citizens is not something most of us factored into our decision to work here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

Then just fire at them? I don't get how you can get madder at the person burning a book than the people killing over it. One of the two actions is by itself harmless, the other is murder.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

Escargon said:


> *I dont know what to say. Im half persian and im christ and i have mixed feelings.
> 
> The muslims were demonstrating peacefully, then it went to violence somehow. The talibans should not represent Islam.
> 
> ...


No, the people killing people are bad people. 

And you can't blame this on the Taliban, these were regular people who did this, the people the UN is trying so hard to protect.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 2, 2011)

It's shocking to see people try to absolve Jones of responsibility in this. 

If a forum member is trolling, that person is banned when he incites a flame war. Even though it was the people overreacting who actually began the conflict, the troll is banned for his part in starting the war. 

This clown knew exactly what he was doing, and it's no different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in the hopes that someone dies. Didn't the Obama administration even warn this guy that his actions would endanger our people? He knew, but chose to do it anyway. He is partly to blame. I hope the families of the dead sue him for everything.


----------



## T4R0K (Apr 2, 2011)

> It's shocking to see people try to absolve Jones of responsibility in this.



Yes. But he didn't kill anyone. 

Or, if we use twisted logic, he killed these UN workers by incitating a crowd of medieval and easy to manipulate idiots. 

...

Also, don't try to make it "understandable". They are guilty of several murders and should tried as such. Not just be exempted because "Oh well, we did it because we were angry at a guy from florida, so we grabbed the first Westerns we had available even they weren't related to him in any way"


----------



## kayanathera (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> *It's shocking to see people try to absolve Jones of responsibility in this.
> 
> If a forum member is trolling, that person is banned when he incites a flame war. Even though it was the people overreacting who actually began the conflict, the troll is banned for his part in starting the war.
> *
> This clown knew exactly what he was doing, and it's no different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in the hopes that someone dies. Didn't the Obama administration even warn this guy that his actions would endanger our people? He knew, but chose to do it anyway. He is partly to blame. I hope the families of the dead sue him for everything.



common sense is so against the american way
If someone would have bitch-slapped some religious  crack head in Florida some people would have still been alive today


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> It's shocking to see people try to absolve Jones of responsibility in this.
> 
> If a forum member is trolling, that person is banned when he incites a flame war. Even though it was the people overreacting who actually began the conflict, the troll is banned for his part in starting the war.
> 
> This clown knew exactly what he was doing, and it's no different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in the hopes that someone dies. Didn't the Obama administration even warn this guy that his actions would endanger our people? He knew, but chose to do it anyway. He is partly to blame. I hope the families of the dead sue him for everything.



And Emmett Till had it coming an all.. 

Identifying the cause/s of something isn't equivalent to allocating moral responsibility for that thing. 

Terry Jones was seeking attention, he wasn't inciting murder.


----------



## Coteaz (Apr 2, 2011)

> Unless we, the internationals, want our guards to fire on unarmed protesters from now on, the day has come for us to leave Afghanistan.


A violent mob baying for the blood of innocents is not made up of "unarmed protesters." 

Massacre them. Barbarians only understand force.



kayanathera said:


> common sense is so against the american way
> If someone would have bitch-slapped some religious  crack head in Florida some people would have still been alive today


Or, if the Muslim population would actually act like reasonable human beings, the murdered U.N workers would still be alive. 

But that's too much to ask, I know.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> It's shocking to see people try to absolve Jones of responsibility in this.
> 
> If a forum member is trolling, that person is banned when he incites a flame war. Even though it was the people overreacting who actually began the conflict, the troll is banned for his part in starting the war.
> 
> This clown knew exactly what he was doing, and it's no different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in the hopes that someone dies. Didn't the Obama administration even warn this guy that his actions would endanger our people? He knew, but chose to do it anyway. He is partly to blame. I hope the families of the dead sue him for everything.


Yeah no one cares what you said, you blame Americans for anything that happens and absolve anyone else. It doesn't matter if he burned the book, that's not something that should get someone murdered and your stupid forum example is an embarrassment to the lives of people who were lost.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Apr 2, 2011)

Rob said:


> Because they are a bunch of mindless animals.



Actually I was wrong, when an animal violently overreacts, I don't blame the animal because they they're animals. They're not capable of rationally thinking things through. They act on instinct.

I hold humans to a higher standards and these humans who are so spineless that they respond to being offended by turning into a violent mob fail those standards.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

Rob said:


> Actually I was wrong, when an animal violently overreacts, I don't blame the animal because they they're animals. They're not capable of rationally thinking things through. They act on instinct.
> 
> I hold humans to a higher standards and these humans who are so spineless that they respond to being offended by turning into a violent mob fail those standards.


Of course Jones murdered those people because the normal result of burning a book is someone getting killed


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Apr 2, 2011)

I hope you don't think that that's what I meant.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 2, 2011)

Actually one book won't. An hundred and then yes someone will die.. :33


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Actually one book won't. An hundred and then yes someone will die.. :33


I'm going to go buy a bunch of copies of The Watch Tower and burn them, let's see how many Jehovah's Witnesses flip out and kill people.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Apr 2, 2011)

Seriously, you didn't read what I typed and thought that I was doing anything than blaming the mob did you?


----------



## sadino (Apr 2, 2011)

I'm *re*cycling bibles and some Quran (they are hard to find here) to make toilet paper and some other way more useful stuff.No one cared for all i know.

Come at me bro.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 2, 2011)

These people who mob are riled up by outside influences in order to support those influences own causes.  The rioters are poor people who are not particularly educated, and have virtually no income, and see the Quran was a word of God. But more importantly than that, they have no real internet access, or information gathering skills, it was not covered on any major media networks. 

This was orchestrated by people who directly tell these people that America and Americans in general are responsible for all of their problems.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 2, 2011)

erictheking said:


> Terry Jones was seeking attention, he wasn't inciting murder.





> KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan *warned Tuesday an American church's threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops in the country and Americans worldwide.*






> *A Florida pastor's plan to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 could result in "serious violence" against American troops in Pakistan and Afghanistan and would be "a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda," President Barack Obama said* in an interview that aired today on "Good Morning America."






> "We do not feel responsible," Jones told ABC's Nightline on Friday,
> 
> Read more:



It's obvious he wasn't trying to incite violence and didn't know this sort of thing could happen. He doesn't share any responsibility. 


If you fall for that, you'll believe anything.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 2, 2011)

Apparently Imam's decided to tell a few fibs, something along the lines of 50 or so Quran's being burnt. 

Reminds me of the Imam's deciding to create havoc by adding the pic of a man wearing a Pig mask to the portfolio of the Danish drawings, and inciting the murder of so many by claiming it was to do with Mohammed.


----------



## Orion (Apr 2, 2011)

Easy solution, next time a bunch of protesters want to start getting violent you start machine gunning them.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> It's obvious he wasn't trying to incite violence and didn't know this sort of thing could happen. He doesn't share any responsibility.
> 
> 
> If you fall for that, you'll believe anything.



Jones _intended_ to get more innocent people killed by Muslims? That is what you're claiming, you haven't come close to proving it yet.

Providing quotes of other people imagining the barbaric Muslim reaction to his burning a Quran isn't proof of it, in case you didn't realise that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 2, 2011)

The pastor is a fucktard, but being a fucktard doesn't mean he is or should be held responsible for this. Those people IMO had that murderous urge in them all along and would've found any reason to unleash it one way or another.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> It's obvious he wasn't trying to incite violence and didn't know this sort of thing could happen. He doesn't share any responsibility.
> 
> 
> If you fall for that, you'll believe anything.



If you criticize my posts, I'm going to murder innocents. Note that this applies to anybody who disagrees with me anywhere in the forum.

I hope you won't reply to this, except to acknowledge that I'm right. Because when I kill people, you'll be responsible.


----------



## WorstUsernameEver (Apr 2, 2011)

If it "Proves his point", how could he do it if he knew what the response would be?  
He's as guilty as the guy who opens the tiger's cage and blames the carnage on the tiger  

We have a military force in their land and they don't have much going for them. Their country has been torn apart, people dying on a daily basis and now they are told one of the few things they have, has been disrespected by the country they have been told to hate. No one is trying to say they are innocent, no not at all they killed people and the one's who did it have to be held responsible, but the actions of a few radicals does not make *all* the people in that region "animals" who should be gunned down or bombed. Should we tell all Christians to shut the fuck up because Terry Jones is a nut? No, because not all of them are that way. Saying we should kill them all makes you no better than the mob to be honest. Those who murder in Islam’s name deserve nothing but contempt and prosecution, but don't try to paint all of them as bad because of a group of fanatics


----------



## impersonal (Apr 2, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver said:


> He's as guilty as the guy who opens the tiger's cage and blames the carnage on the tiger


Tigers are not considered guilty of their own actions because they're animals. The pastor did not unleash a tiger on anyone. He burned a book; his point was to send a message, to make a political symbol (as far as I understand it). Others used this as a pretext to encourage murder and to commit murder.


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 2, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver said:


> He's as guilty as the guy who opens the tiger's cage and blames the carnage on the tiger



This is hilariously racist towards Muslims.


----------



## WorstUsernameEver (Apr 2, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> This is hilariously racist towards Muslims.



Sure if you twist it to include all Muslims, I was talking about the people who killed the UN workers. Like I said the people who killed the UN workers are just murderers and should be held responsible

He knew there was a violent group there, but he stirred them up anyway


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 2, 2011)

More like the Imam's stirred that shit up.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 2, 2011)

> He's as guilty as the guy who opens the tiger's cage and blames the carnage on the tiger



Human beings have responsibility for their own actions.  I like that you start with an analogy comparing burning a book miles away with opening the cage of mindless animals that need to be confined to cages. And then later on say that the people are not animals. (Which might be a contradiction). Maybe you mean that only those who did the action were animals, in which case let me explain.

Even them obviously aren't. If some act mindlessly, since they are humans the responsibility is theirs. If they weren't humans, the responsibility would still not be for humans to deny their own freedom due to being afraid of the animals, but the opposite. The animals to lose freedom in relation to human beings. Human beings do not let animals blackmail them either. 

 There is actually a bit of a consistency in the way we treat mindless animals and mindless dangerous humans.  Of course we will still treat animals worse, but humans who infringe upon others rights and don't understand that they should not do so, are going to be punished. And humans who don't infringe upon the rights of others should not be blackmailed away from their rights.





WorstUsernameEver said:


> Sure if you twist it to include all Muslims, I was talking about the people who killed the UN workers. Like I said the people who killed the UN workers are just murderers and should be held responsible
> 
> He knew there was a violent group there, but he stirred them up anyway



Do you feel that the Danish cartoonist should also have self-censored himself because of some violent groups too? 

Obviously that is putting unfairly the pressure upon the wrong group of people. If there is a problem with a group of people being violent, the rest of society- no the rest of the world should not be blackmailed into not exercising their rights because someone else will be offended and react irresponsibly.(As for the group of people I am referring to, it is a  group inside a group. A subgroup. So one who does not belong to the subgroup does not have responsibility for their actions. But then again one ought to not only not belong in that subgroup but be clearly against it.) If then you blame the Jones of this world, for burning a book, you are blaming the wrong people. And you, yourself might be a danger to a person's human rights.

If some people are getting offended too easily, and overreact, I don't see the need for others to self-censor themselves. I certainly don't believe that democratic societies should adjust into paying attention to blackmail.

I think our attention should be adjusted and focused on the real inciters of the riot.


----------



## WorstUsernameEver (Apr 2, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> Human beings have responsibility for their own actions.  I like that you start with an analogy comparing burning a book miles away with opening the cage of mindless animals that need to be confined to cages. And then later on say that the people are not animals. Maybe you mean that only those who did the action were animals, in which case let me explain.
> 
> Even them obviously aren't. If some act mindlessly, since they are humans the responsibility is theirs. If they weren't humans, the responsibility would still not be for humans to deny their own freedom due to being afraid of the animals, but the opposite. The animals to lose freedom in relation to human beings. There is actually a bit of a consistency in the way we treat mindless animals and mindless dangerous humans.  Of course we will still treat animals worse, but humans who infringe upon others rights and don't understand that they should not do so, are going to be punished. And humans who don't infringe upon the rights of others should not be blackmailed away from their rights.
> 
> ...



Both groups deserve blame, no I never said he should be censored, but when we know there is a violent group of radicals out there that is easily manipulated and you do something that you know is gonna piss them off then you did it to get a reaction. Just like Jones has the right to say whatever he wants, I to have the right to call him a dumbass. You people see something and get entirely carried away, you're gonna have to show me where I said he should be censored. All I ever said was he knew exactly what he was doing.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 2, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver said:


> Both groups deserve blame, no I never said he should be censored, but when we know there is a violent group of radicals out there that is easily manipulated and you do something that you know is gonna piss them off then you did it to get a reaction.


Or you could just be doing it because you think it proves another point. The pastor's point might have been that freedom of expression is being attacked and that he would prove it in a simple manner. Or perhaps he thought there would be a fatwa against himself. It is highly doubtful that he intended for anyone else to be killed, though he knew there was a danger of this happening.



WorstUsernameEver said:


> Just like Jones has the right to say whatever he wants, I to have the right to call him a dumbass. You people see something and get entirely carried away, you're gonna have to show me where I said he should be censored. All I ever said was he knew exactly what he was doing.


All you ever said was that this was the same as unleashing a tiger from its cage so it'll kill somebody, which is criminal and not protected by freedom of speech... Not to mention the moral implications of the analogy: the actual murderers are not responsible, and the pastor is directly responsible for several deaths.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 2, 2011)

There are severe social and economic disparities between these protesters and the western world

How can one call an entire segment of people animals without understanding what the mental impact of their environment must be? I think its just like humanity to be selfish in that manner, Africa and places like Haiti are a wasteland for that very reason and everyone in this world is to blame for that inequality.

Terry Jones knows exactly what he's doing when he burns a Quran, he's inciting hate, hate that happens to cause a severe impact in people who know nothing but violence to achieve their objective, because they've never known anything else. 

And anyone who plays into that is indirectly joining the "Sharia Law is taking over the world", crowd's chorus of hate that started in the US after 9/11


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 2, 2011)

If burning a book offends you so much that it gets you to kill others there becomes a point where I start to really not give a darn about your existence.


----------



## Zaru (Apr 2, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> This is hilariously racist towards Muslims.



Muslims are a race?


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 2, 2011)

The stupid riots in Greece a few months ago, because a cop arrested a criminal who had a Quran in his pocket, (and stupid rumors came up) makes me all the more confident of my views on the subject. Some pressure should be applied on this issue. 

Of course in Greece far-leftist terrorists and extremists are a much bigger problem. (Also irrational/blackmailing society and so on) And it has its far right extremists too. A country with a lot, lot of problems unfortunately. 

See here for that  

And even in that case the truth was distorted from the inciters. I am not sure if anyone would blame the cop for making an arrest here. I wonder how much we are willing to go with this blaming both sides thing and how much we are willing to put the pressure upon cops or people like Jones, not because we have evidence of their wrongdoing but because of overreactions of others.



WorstUsernameEver said:


> Both groups deserve blame, no I never said he should be censored, but when we know there is a violent group of radicals out there that is easily manipulated and you do something that you know is gonna piss them off then you did it to get a reaction. Just like Jones has the right to say whatever he wants, I to have the right to call him a dumbass. You people see something and get entirely carried away, you're gonna have to show me where I said he should be censored. All I ever said was he knew exactly what he was doing.



You are comparing burning a book with killing human beings here. There is only one side (from the two) here that deserves blame for the events, free that you are to consider him a dumbass. I am not sure why though since you believe he wanted this to happen.  As for Jones he is not only the pretext and not the real problem here but there should not be a problem with the Jones of the world burning books. We should separate the irrational reactions to the act they are reacting to, and not put the pressure upon the one they are irrationally reacting upon.  As I said in my above post. All that rhetoric about pressure and blackmail, and self-censorship, wasn't for show. And you are putting pressure upon people to self-censor themselves when you blame them for actions they are not responsible for. 



> You people see something and get entirely carried away, you're gonna have to show me where I said he should be censored. All I ever said was he knew exactly what he was doing.



Where is your evidence that Jones knew that people were going to be killed and that is why he did it? I think he wanted to make a political statement instead.


----------



## Zaru (Apr 2, 2011)

kayanathera said:


> If someone would have bitch-slapped some religious  crack head in Florida some people would have still been alive today



For each religious crack head in the US you got dozens if not hundreds in the middle east. Who's gonna bitch-slap THEM?


----------



## Pseudo (Apr 2, 2011)

Is it just me or is working for the U.N the worst job in the world? These guys always get kidnapped.


----------



## Zaru (Apr 2, 2011)

Being in Afghanistan sounds like a pretty bad idea in general


----------



## WorstUsernameEver (Apr 2, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Or you could just be doing it because you think it proves another point. The pastor's point might have been that freedom of expression is being attacked and that he would prove it in a simple manner. Or perhaps he thought there would be a fatwa against himself. It is highly doubtful that he intended for anyone else to be killed, though he knew there was a danger of this happening.
> 
> 
> All you ever said was that this was the same as unleashing a tiger from its cage so it'll kill somebody, with is criminal and not protected by freedom of speech... Not to mention the moral implications.



The Tiger analogy was for all the people calling them animals and I already said they should be held responsible for killing the UN Workers so what is your point.

Highly doubtful he intended for anyone to be killed? There is no excuse for playing with lives, he was warned by the President that his actions could endanger lives and sure enough he did it anyway just to prove something that we already know(that there is a radical element of Islam)


^The Presidents warning


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 2, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver said:


> The Tiger analogy was for all the people calling them animals and I already said they should be held responsible for killing the UN Workers so what is your point.
> 
> Highly doubtful he intended for anyone to be killed? There is no excuse for playing with lives, he was warned by the President that his actions could endanger lives and sure enough he did it anyway just to prove something that we already know(that there is a radical element of Islam)



Beating around the bush is going to get you nowhere. Your analogy is what it is.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 2, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver, you have just disagreed with one of my posts. You may not know Anna and Sonja, but trust me they're sorry you did. Well, they _were_.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 2, 2011)

impersonal said:


> WorstUsernameEver, you have just disagreed with one of my posts. You may not know Anna and Sonja, but trust me they're sorry you did. Well, they _were_.



Good job, Dostoyevsky


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

Rob said:


> Seriously, you didn't read what I typed and thought that I was doing anything than blaming the mob did you?


I wasn't talking about you.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Apr 2, 2011)

Okay, I wasn't sure


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 2, 2011)

impersonal said:


> If you criticize my posts, I'm going to murder innocents. Note that this applies to anybody who disagrees with me anywhere in the forum.
> 
> I hope you won't reply to this, except to acknowledge that I'm right. Because when I kill people, you'll be responsible.



If I yell "fire" in a theater, it's not my fault if people get trampled. 

And if I did believe that you would murder someone, I could be held legally responsible for it, either monetarily or criminally.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> If I yell "fire" in a theater, it's not my fault if people get trampled.
> 
> And if I did believe that you would murder someone, I could be held legally responsible for it, either monetarily or criminally.



On what legal basis?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> If I yell "fire" in a theater, it's not my fault if people get trampled.
> 
> And if I did believe that you would murder someone, I could be held legally responsible for it, either monetarily or criminally.


Okay but in what world does burning a book lead to someone getting hurt or killed normally? 

You as usual don't have a leg to stand on, you should just find some forum where apologists and people with a white guilt issue gather, no one here is buying it.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> If I yell "fire" in a theater, it's not my fault if people get trampled.
> 
> And if I did believe that you would murder someone, I could be held legally responsible for it, either monetarily or criminally.


So basically, when extremists make threats, it is not only the easy way to submit to them, but it is also a moral obligation. Is that the idea you're trying to convey?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 2, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> There are severe social and economic disparities between these protesters and the western world
> 
> How can one call an entire segment of people animals without understanding what the mental impact of their environment must be? I think its just like humanity to be selfish in that manner, Africa and places like Haiti are a wasteland for that very reason and everyone in this world is to blame for that inequality.
> 
> ...



Bleating about socioeconomic inequalities isn't going to absolve these people of any degree of responsibility for their heinous crimes. That rhetoric is insulting to the peaceful Afghanis, as far as I'm concerned. 

This isn't the first we've seen of Muslim lynch mobs going after blasphemers, not by a long stretch. We've seen the same fucking thing in Europe when some cartoons were printed in a newspaper, it's fuck all to do with economics. Islam is the primary cause, and in this case the imams organised the mobs and ignited their lust for kafir blood. Same old story..

I don't care in the slightest if I'm 'indirectly joining' the far right in my condemnation of Islamic fuckwittery. By the same token you're 'indirectly joining' Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists in your Islamist apologist stance. It means nothing.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> If I yell "fire" in a theater, it's not my fault if people get trampled.
> 
> And if I did believe that you would murder someone, I could be held legally responsible for it, either monetarily or criminally.



Well that is a dumb comparison cause if you just yell "fire" that is inciting chaos which if you live in the US is not covered by your 1st amendment rights.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 2, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> On what legal basis?



In the US you can be held at fault civilly as long as the plaintiff can prove that you caused him economic loss. 

It's very interesting, judges can actually apportion blame based on a percentage. For instance, he could say Jones was 20% responsible and the imams + mob 80%, but that would still leave Jones paying the families 20% of all future lost earnings of their loved ones. 



impersonal said:


> So basically, when extremists make threats, it is not only the easy way to submit to them, but it is also a moral obligation. Is that the idea you're trying to convey?



Nobody is submitting by not burning a holy book in an action meant to incite. 

We have 1st Amendment rights in this country, but that doesn't absolve us of responsibility for the things we say. If I don't slander someone for fear of the ensuing lawsuit, does that mean I'm submitting? No. 

Jones isn't a 1st Amendment crusader, he's a religious troll who, in seeking attention, is partially to blame for dead UN workers. By using common sense with your entitlement to free speech, it shows wisdom, not submission.

I see a lot of responses attempting to say that I'm absolving the mob of their responsiblities. Of course not, they are mostly to blame. But Jones is partially to blame, I'd say 25-30% responsible if I were a judge.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 2, 2011)

> KANDAHAR: At least 10 people have been killed and 83 wounded in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, officials said on Saturday, on a second day of violent protests over the burning of a Quran by a radical fundamentalist Christian in the United States.
> 
> A suicide attack also hit a Nato military base in the capital Kabul, the day after protesters over-ran a UN mission in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif and killed seven foreign staff, in the deadliest attack on the UN in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...




10 more dead because of this fool. The Taliban is now using him as a recruiting tool. 

Well done, Mr Jones.


----------



## N120 (Apr 2, 2011)

killing innocent people is inexcusable regardless of where they are. They had nothing to do with the book burning so they shouldnt have been targeted let alone mudered in cold blood, but i can say that from where i'm sitting.

 But this is afghanistan, a warzone, where being 'innocent' depends on which side your fighting for. If your the taliban then these people were already your enemy, the occupier of your land and the murderer of your people, so this was just another excuse to fight them. This violent backlash shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone, especially the UN. 

 They should've upped their security.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 2, 2011)

Save a Qur'an, burn an Afghan.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> 10 more dead because of this fool. The Taliban is now using him as a recruiting tool.
> 
> Well done, Mr Jones.



There is no causality between these events.

The Afghan rioters and murderers were not helpless puppets who had no choice but following Jones sinister master plot. They could have just as well ignored the issue or protested peacefully, but choosed not to. Two wrongs doesnt make a right.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 2, 2011)

No book needed to be burned to incite fanatical morons to riot and kill people.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 2, 2011)

I like how everyone here pretty much has the same argument and he's still on about it.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> 10 more dead because of this fool. The Taliban is now using him as a recruiting tool.
> 
> Well done, Mr Jones.


All the more reason to turn the entire region into a glowing glass parking lot then.


----------



## thunderbear (Apr 2, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> 10 more dead because of this fool. The Taliban is now using him as a recruiting tool.
> 
> Well done, Mr Jones.



It isn't Terry Jones' fault that all of this got started though.  Terry Jones didn't offer to to announce of national television that: "I'm going to burn a Q'uran at my church service!"  It was a planned event at his church that the media found out about.  And what happens when the media finds out about something they can sensationalize on an international scale?  Why, they sensationalize it and ride it like a freaking golden ticket on an international scale, of course!  

Believe it or not, people around the U.S. and everywhere else in the world do, and have at some point or another on multiple occasions, burned a Q'uran.  This entrie incident in Florida would not have been spread to nearly as a wide an extent if MSNBC and other such easily inflamed news outlets hadn't made it into a headlne.  

Now, had Terry Jones offered to tell the Middle East/ Muslim world of his plans from the get-go, then it wouldn't be as unreasonable to put part of the blame on him for inciting violence.  However, that was not at all his intention, and I am sure that even though he is not at fault, he feels guilty for the deaths of innocent U.N. officials.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 2, 2011)

Only one truly effective way to show these fucking Afghani protestors who's boss: spray them with pig's blood, forcefeed them pork and then put a bullet through their skulls.

Then we'll see who still feels like risking their lives for their religion.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 2, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> Only one truly effective way to show these fucking Afghani protestors who's boss: spray them with pig's blood, forcefeed them pork and then put a bullet through their skulls.
> 
> Then we'll see who still feels like risking their lives for their religion.



Don't forget to coat the bullets with pig blood.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 2, 2011)

Inciting hate is the same for all humans, whether from those rioters in the middle east, or people here talking about putting a bullet through other people's heads.

 The "us versus them" mentality is exactly what the groups who take advantage of these environments want the most. You could probably say that the debate ended before it began on this kind of thing but it would go without saying, that.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Apr 3, 2011)

Emasculation Storm said:


> Only one truly effective way to show these fucking Afghani protestors who's boss: spray them with pig's blood, forcefeed them pork and then put a bullet through their skulls.
> 
> Then we'll see who still feels like risking their lives for their religion.



nah. cut off their dicks and force feed that to them.


----------



## Syed (Apr 3, 2011)

People here obviously don't know how insane Pathans are in general. They will fuck shit up cause it`s in their blood. Piss them off and there is hell to pay. Hence why the US is struggling there.


----------



## Mael (Apr 3, 2011)

Syed said:


> People here obviously don't know how insane Pathans are in general. They will fuck shit up cause it`s in their blood. Piss them off and there is hell to pay. Hence why the US is struggling there.



Pashtunwali.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 3, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfCWy6dmco[/YOUTUBE]

"Unless liberals realize there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies" Sam Harris


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 3, 2011)




----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 3, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfCWy6dmco[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> "Unless liberals realize there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies" Sam Harris



Hilarious considering Dick Cheney was the brain behind engineering a war that has killed over 100,000 people, a death count that Islamic terrorists can't even hope to match.

I'd sooner believe Bush is a scholar than that guy is a liberal.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Hilarious considering Dick Cheney was the brain behind engineering a war that has killed over 100,000 people, a death count that Islamic terrorists can't even hope to match.
> 
> I'd sooner believe Bush is a scholar than that guy is a liberal.



Nobody was talking about body count. Not even a little.

It's like you try, you really try to make sense, but instead of actually doing it you rape a kitten and then choke up a furball of absurdity.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 3, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't think Pilaf has ever posted anything truer, the only real hope in all of this is that more young Liberals wake the fuck up, but by looking at people I see in every day life it just doesn't seem to be the case. And what I've been saying for a long time, and what a lot of people seem to agree with is being shown to be true, its not like we're dealing with a super small minority. It's not a majority, but even then it could be far more than we could ever deal with.
> 
> I don't know what its going to take people to wake up and realize, it seems the UN is starting to get the picture and I'm sure that some more will follow suite.



What we are dealing with is a strong manipulative minority that either silences the minority and or manages to rile them up to cause chaos.

Regardless this silent majority remains passive towards the dangerous majority and does nothing to help against this massive threat to their welling being and religion.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Hilarious considering Dick Cheney was the brain behind engineering a war that has killed over 100,000 people, a death count that Islamic terrorists can't even hope to match.
> 
> I'd sooner believe Bush is a scholar than that guy is a liberal.



"That guy" is a world renowned Humanist and bestselling author. He's a very intelligent and compassionate man, and more worthy of the title of a liberal intellectual than most other people I could think of. He sees Islam as the marauding beast it is, and has the balls to point out this fact.


----------



## WorstUsernameEver (Apr 3, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfCWy6dmco[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> "Unless liberals realize there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies" Sam Harris



The only one with their heads in the sand are the one's with this "us versus them" mentality, when the real problem is our constant foreign meddling, our presence on their land, our bombs killing their people and this fantasy that we can rule the world. His mindset is one that promotes more violence and honestly with or without religion a violent nut will act like a violent nut. He can demonize them all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the Warmongers in the Western world ain't no Saints either.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 3, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver said:


> The only one with their heads in the sand are the one's with this "us versus them" mentality, when the real problem is our constant foreign meddling, our presence on their land, our bombs killing their people and this fantasy that we can rule the world. His mindset is one that promotes more violence and honestly with or without religion a violent nut will act like a violent nut. He can demonize them all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the Warmongers in the Western world ain't no Saints either.



I dont think a lot of people fully understand the important of our international dominance is to our way of life for both the US and its allies.

If you throw that all out the window you need to keep in mind there will be another nation who would strive for this level of dominance and if you look at the past it most likely would of been Russia.


----------



## Renaissance (Apr 3, 2011)

Cold world were living in, and I'm not referring to the protest but yet what I read here.


----------



## WorstUsernameEver (Apr 3, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> I dont think a lot of people fully understand the important of our international dominance is to our way of life for both the US and its allies.
> 
> If you throw that all out the window you need to keep in mind there will be another nation who would strive for this level of dominance and if you look at the past it most likely would of been Russia.



This way of life is destined to fail and it is falling apart right before our eyes. That deficit is real and many other domestic issues that the govt. has turned a blind eye to.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 3, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Nobody was talking about body count. Not even a little.
> 
> It's like you try, you really try to make sense, but instead of actually doing it you rape a kitten and then choke up a furball of absurdity.



Okay, let's talk about scary. I think Dick Cheney in power is scarier than Islamic radicals because he is responsible for far more death in this world than Islamic radicals. 

Sauf, it's like you literally can't mentally get from point A to point C without someone shining a bright light on point B. Was it so hard for you to figure out that Dick Cheney's engineering of that war is the basis for my disagreement? Shaking my head.  


Pilaf said:


> "That guy" is a world renowned Humanist and bestselling author. He's a very intelligent and compassionate man, and more worthy of the title of a liberal intellectual than most other people I could think of. He sees Islam as the marauding beast it is, and has the balls to point out this fact.



I remember him. He's the good "liberal" people like Tucker Carlson bring on when they wants a convenient opinion and a good sound bite.

And a book peddler.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Okay, let's talk about scary. I think Dick Cheney in power is scarier than Islamic radicals because he is responsible for far more death in this world than Islamic radicals.


... Are you sure of that? I frankly doubt it. The war in Afghanistan was mostly necessary (due to the local regime supporting terrorism), and a huge part of the casualties consists of the Taliban killing other Afghans. If you add other conflicts involving islamic radicals... (think Somalia -- for example)...

Besides, as much as I dislike Cheney, if Islamic radicals were given the kind of power a presidents of the united states has, the carnage wouldn't be measured in tens of thousands, but in tens or hundreds of millions.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Apr 3, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver said:


> The only one with their heads in the sand are the one's with this "us versus them" mentality, when the real problem is our constant foreign meddling, our presence on their land, our bombs killing their people and this fantasy that we can rule the world. His mindset is one that promotes more violence and honestly with or without religion a violent nut will act like a violent nut. He can demonize them all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the Warmongers in the Western world ain't no Saints either.



They are both very serious, but largely independent problems. I don't think, at least I wouldn't expect that Harris would deny the terrible crimes that the USA's government have perpetrated around the world. 

His point is clear, the Islamic extremist problem is rooted in Islam itself, something vehemently denied by almost every Muslim (and accompanying left-wing apologist), and significantly, also denied by virtually every politician here that isn't a far right-wing nutcase. 

I'm certainly not saying the history of the foreign policies of certain Western countries plays no part in the anti-Western attitudes of several Muslim-majority countries — but it would be a mistake to imagine that Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism was born out of political conflicts with the British and the Americans, or whoever. Hatred of non-Muslims and the violence inflicted upon them has clearly been a part of Islam since Muhammad started it. There's absolutely no question that these Afghans thought that burning a Quran was a crime punishable by death, because they savagely killed people that had nothing whatsoever to do with it. They've become murderers because of Islam, not because of the Americans or the British or whoever.



Shinigami Perv said:


> Okay, let's talk about scary. I think Dick Cheney in power is scarier than Islamic radicals because he is responsible for far more death in this world than Islamic radicals.



An empty statement. 

What about Islamic radicals with the same power that Dick Cheney had?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 3, 2011)

impersonal said:


> ... Are you sure of that? I frankly doubt it.
> 
> Besides, as much as I dislike Cheney, if Islamic radicals were given the kind of power a presidents of the united states has, the carnage wouldn't be measured in tens of thousands, but in tens or hundreds of millions.



Well yeah, that's the point: Cheney is scary because people know he's crazy and yet he still got re-elected. And he's got powerful and influential people behind him. 

Unlike Islamic radicals, who seem to be on the other side of the world, and whom the FBI seems able to handle in this country. I probably fear them about as much as biker gangs, which is to say not very much at all.



erictheking said:


> An empty statement.
> 
> What about Islamic radicals with the same power that Dick Cheney had?



See above. An Islamic radical obviously wouldn't win the presidency or a position in the cabinet.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Hilarious considering Dick Cheney was the brain behind engineering a war that has killed over 100,000 people, a death count that Islamic terrorists can't even hope to match.
> 
> I'd sooner believe Bush is a scholar than that guy is a liberal.



1.) Islamic terrorists and Jihadis of various stripes were the culprits in the murder of the majority of those 100 000+ people killed in that war.

2.) If Cheney(and the other war architects) gets the wrap for killings not commited by American troops in wars that the US started, then the same principle should apply to the extremists. Since 9/11 was a major, if not THE major, cause for the Afghanistan&Iraq war, then Al Qaeda should collectively be held responsible for all the deaths in those conflicts by following that line of thought.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Well yeah, that's the point: Cheney is scary because people know he's crazy and yet he still got re-elected. And he's got powerful and influential people behind him.
> 
> Unlike Islamic radicals, who seem to be on the other side of the world, and whom the FBI seems able to handle in this country. I probably fear them about as much as biker gangs, which is to say not very much at all.



You live in the US. Of course you don't fear Islamic radicals. You also shouldn't fear Cheney, because the chances he kills you are actually even lower.

If you lived in Afghanistan (or in pretty much any other Muslim country, though on various degrees depending on the place), you'd maybe fear the US army, but you'd fear the extremists even more.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 3, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> 1.) Islamic terrorists and Jihadis of various stripes were the culprits in the murder of the majority of those 100 000+ people killed in that war.
> 
> 2.) If Cheney(and the other war architects) gets the wrap for killings not commited by American troops in wars that the US started, then the same principle should apply to the extremists. Since 9/11 was a major, if not THE major, cause for the Afghanistan&Iraq war, then Al Qaeda should collectively be held responsible for all the deaths in those conflicts by following that line of thought.



9/11 wasn't even the justification for war in Iraq, that was Afghanistan. The premise for war in Iraq was that Saddam had mobile labs that created WMD, specifically nukes. 

This was something Dick Cheney's office fabricated. The deaths are something he unleashed by sending US troops to Iraq, fueling insurgency. The insurgents themselves were actually less religious Sunnis associated with the Baath Party, which is nationalistic and not religious.

He did mention "oh btw we think Al Qaeda is in Iraq," but of course that was proven false and not the real selling point. 



impersonal said:


> You live in the US. Of course you don't fear Islamic radicals. You also shouldn't fear Cheney, because the chances he kills you are actually even lower.
> 
> If you lived in Afghanistan (or in pretty much any other Muslim country, though on various degrees depending on the place), you'd maybe fear the US army, but you'd fear the extremists even more.



The Iraq war is responsible for over 3,000 American deaths, more than 9/11, but even more than the deaths I feared his horrible governance and ruinous diplomacy. 

Perhaps, but that's not what Sam Harris is talking about. He's not talking to an Afghan audience, he's speaking to "liberal" Americans.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> 9/11 wasn't even the justification for war in Iraq, that was Afghanistan. The premise for war in Iraq was that Saddam had mobile labs that created WMD, specifically nukes.
> 
> This was something Dick Cheney's office fabricated. The deaths are something he unleashed by sending US troops to Iraq, fueling insurgency. The insurgents themselves were actually less religious Sunnis associated with the Baath Party, which is nationalistic and not religious.



Tell me, do you really think Congress would have voted for the Iraq war if 9/11 never happened? Sure, there would be hawks calling for his overthrow but there's no reason to assume that the majority would give up the "boxing in Saddam" strategy with sanctions in favor of a costly occupation without the game changer that 9/11 was. Furthermore, Bush in his own words say explicitly that he uptil that date assumed he would mostly deal with domestic issues in his presidency. So theres no evidence that he thought of grandiose regime change plans prior to 9/11. 

The trauma of 9/11 and the following (at that moment)fear about Saddam arming terrorists changed this. Bush rightly or wrongly, linked it to the "War on Terror". 

As for the level of religious observance among the insurgents, you only have to look into their propaganda videos and communiques to know how much Salafism/Jihadism has influenced them. Part of the reason is that ever since the mid 90's, Saddam advocated a "faith campaign" that called for a return to traditional religious values. Salafi tracts that were once banned were allowed to circuit freely, Mosques were rebrandished and redecorated and Saddam presented himself as an man of faith and attended mosque services. This generally made Iraq's Sunni population more pious than they had been a mere decade earlier.

While Baathist insurgents were indeed nationalistic, that in itself doesnt disprove conservative religious beliefs, something that the Taliban has demonstrated.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> The Iraq war is responsible for over 3,000 American deaths, more than 9/11



I find it funny that you blame the deaths of American soldiers on Cheney rather than on the (mostly) Islamist guys who actually shot them.


----------



## Mael (Apr 3, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I find it funny that you blame the deaths of American soldiers on Cheney rather than on the (mostly) Islamist guys who actually shot them.



Or all those friendly fire incidents. 

Like Pat Tillman, except not exposed as much.

Shini's making some point with Cheney helping to be responsible for the run-up to Iraq, but the direct responsibility i.e. trigger-pulling makes it invalid.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 3, 2011)

Burning paper does not qualify as a crime, the sheer absurdity is ludicrous.

Anyone arguing that 'if one expects people to riot they are morally held responsible if they do burn said book' is a ridiculous argument, *essentially that means morality is defined by THREATS*.

In fact that kind of ridiculous logic would mean Martin Luther King was a criminal for standing up for black rights, because he knew he would piss people off.

Anyway, not surprising this barbaric behaviour from Muslims in the middle-east, it always happens.

Islam is truly a cancer on this world.


----------



## Gextiv (Apr 3, 2011)

Derpie said:


> That's what the US and the UN gets for trying to castigate the Islamic foundations of a very devoted people. For all their vagaries, Arabs are not cowards.
> 
> If riled enough, they will overrun your compound, murder your security and chop your fucking head off.
> 
> Allah Akbar style (meaning: God is great), motherfuckers.



Savages.. I'd gladly be glad with a plan to nuke them all. 

Doesn't the U.N help these little shits?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 3, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> *Tell me, do you really think Congress would have voted for the Iraq war if 9/11 never happened?* Sure, there would be hawks calling for his overthrow but there's no reason to assume that the majority would give up the "boxing in Saddam" strategy with sanctions in favor of a costly occupation without the game changer that 9/11 was. Furthermore, Bush in his own words say explicitly that he uptil that date assumed he would mostly deal with domestic issues in his presidency. So theres no evidence that he thought of grandiose regime change plans prior to 9/11.



To be fair, you're partially right. It is very uncertain as to whether Bush would have had authorization to invade Iraq. On one hand, Republicans had enough votes in congress at the time if they had wanted to push it. But it was obvious Bin Laden wanted us to invade an Islamic country with his 9/11 attacks. I doubt he thought it would be Iraq, it seems like he planned on it being just Afghanistan. 

Although I think these former Bush officials said it best



> (CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
> 
> "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."






> As early as Sept. 12, 2001, Clarke says, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged bombing Iraq despite repeated assurances from intelligence officials that the threat emanated from Afghanistan.




The idea of defeating Saddam and finishing what his father started began before 9/11.



impersonal said:


> I find it funny that you blame the deaths of American soldiers on Cheney rather than on the (mostly) Islamist guys who actually shot them.



You'd be surprised at how many blame Robert McNamara for Vietnam deaths despite the shooters being Vietnamese communists. It's not difficult to understand why the architects of a war will get blamed for the deaths in the ensuing war.

I'm guessing that's why he's one of the most hated Americans of the 20th century.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 3, 2011)

Wanting and keeping plan for overthrowing a tyrant like Saddam ain't exactly what I would qualify as bad.

Using Fear and Propangada to put people in a state where they will kill UN officers is.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You'd be surprised at how many blame Robert McNamara for Vietnam deaths despite the shooters being Vietnamese communists. It's not difficult to understand why the architects of a war will get blamed for the deaths in the ensuing war.
> 
> I'm guessing that's why he's one of the most hated Americans of the 20th century.


I get the idea. But in that case, you're comparing the people killed by Cheney with those killed by islamist extremism, and you're actually taking those killed by the bullets of the latter, and adding them to the death toll of the former. You have to admit it's a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 3, 2011)

Did Bush senior even really care enough to end Iraq? He already had the opportunity in 91.


----------



## ximkoyra (Apr 3, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> I dont think a lot of people fully understand the important of our international dominance is to our way of life for both the US and its allies.
> 
> If you throw that all out the window you need to keep in mind there will be another nation who would strive for this level of dominance and if you look at the past it most likely would of been Russia.



In the pre-9/11 world, you would find that the majority of the Muslim populations in Arab countries and those found in South Asia wanted to become part of the American hegemony, despite its relationship with Israel.  The romantic idea of hard work = good, safe life trumped most other feelings.

This Quran burning was not the sole cause of these riots.  Burning the Quran was the tipping point because it was an attack on these people's identity.  Calling yourself a Muslim in Afghanistan and Pakistan is very much a cultural thing in addition to obviously being a religious one.  Even an aimless drifter who's never opened a Quran and scantly knows anything about Muhammad was, will call themselves a Muslim because that is their identity.

There is a reason that these people are so enraged.  Foreigners are in their country killing their people, running their government, all actions perceived to be in the name of Christianity,  and then in addition to this,  a Christian leader goes out of his way and attacks their identity(burning the Quran) with impunity.  You don't think the same thing would happen in America?

We are supposedly one of the most civilized, humane people in the world yet, in 1992, there was a perceived attack and injustice against blacks and look what happened.  Wiki says that 53 people died and over $1 billion of damage was caused by the L.A. riots.  A lot worse than what has so far happened in Afghanistan.  Calling these people 'barbaric savages' or whatever only strengthens the dogma that we've created about these 'scary brown people'.  What do you think would happen if foreigners invaded our country, dominated the media and overwhelmingly showed a negative image of black people, and then do something like burning effigies of MLK or be responsible for some event like the court case that 'started' the LA riots.

You better believe that our black population would go insane and attack anything and everything that represents these foreigners who have repeatedly dehumanized them.  Everybody has their breaking point.  We like to believe that we are so much better than these 'Afghan savages', but if we were put in the same position, I'm predicting that we would be a lot worse.

I believe that Robert Gates and gang understand this reality and is why they had Terry Jones initially hold off.  They didn't pressure Jones because of some sort of respect they had for other religious beliefs, they did it because it would just cause them more headaches in their aimless trek.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 3, 2011)

You guys should have learned by now SP is beyond all logic and to anyone who thinks this "all ways of life are equal" bullshit, its just that. Bullshit. You don't want to live in an Islamic world controlled by these people because 90% of the shit you enjoy would be ended.


----------



## Mael (Apr 3, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You guys should have learned by now SP is beyond all logic and to anyone who thinks this "all ways of life are equal" bullshit, its just that. Bullshit. You don't want to live in an Islamic world controlled by these people because 90% of the shit you enjoy would be ended.



Now now man.

Do you not recall our Talibuddy Derpie?

Let's not fight over a more reasonable guy (from time to time).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 3, 2011)

I believe Derpie to actually be a troll account though.


----------



## Mael (Apr 3, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I believe Derpie to actually be a troll account though.



Hmmmm...good point.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 3, 2011)

Muslims killing Americans will result in Quran burnings, so obviously terrorists are responsible for the burning of the Qurans.

I love how this reasoning works, you can place responsibility anywhere you want.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 3, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Muslims killing Americans will result in Quran burnings, so obviously terrorists are responsible for the burning of the Qurans.
> 
> I love how this reasoning works, you can place responsibility anywhere you want.



All they gotta do is stop killing people and we will stop burning their books and drawing Mohammad doing it with Jesus.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 3, 2011)

Sounds like a good plane to me, burn them all.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 3, 2011)

A few pages back, I posted a story about riots in Greece, again about the Quran. Greece is one of the less enthusiastic NATO members. And Western nations, as far as military campaigns go. And from my knowledge any contribution it makes, it doesn't have to do with its military killing anyone or being in situations to kill people, in Afghanistan or anywhere. If it even has a military there anymore. It isn't oppressing people. 

Yet, in Greece there were a riot that was started due to an unsubstituted rumor of a Quran being defiled. Which was nothing than BS, started by a criminal who was arrested by a cop. This incident among other similar incidents, shakens any belief I might once naively had, over the motives of the ones who participate in the rioting. And especially make me disbelieve some rationalizations/justifications for the actions, and apologizing. It is actually scary how easy it is for over the top reactions to happen.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 3, 2011)

ximkoyra said:
			
		

> We are supposedly one of the most civilized, humane people in the world yet, in 1992, there was a perceived attack and injustice against blacks and look what happened. Wiki says that 53 people died and over $1 billion of damage was caused by the L.A. riots. A lot worse than what has so far happened in Afghanistan. Calling these people 'barbaric savages' or whatever only strengthens the dogma that we've created about these 'scary brown people'. What do you think would happen if foreigners invaded our country, dominated the media and overwhelmingly showed a negative image of black people, and then do something like burning effigies of MLK or be responsible for some event like the court case that 'started' the LA riots.
> 
> You better believe that our black population would go insane and attack anything and everything that represents these foreigners who have repeatedly dehumanized them. Everybody has their breaking point. We like to believe that we are so much better than these 'Afghan savages', but if we were put in the same position, I'm predicting that we would be a lot worse.


I have no problem burning a book that calls for me to be tortured in hell for eternity.

I find people having some issue with this amusing.

I also find it amusing of those whom follow said book to call such a burning an 'insult' considering whats contained inside it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 3, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> A few pages back, I posted a story about riots in Greece, again about the Quran. Greece is one of the less enthusiastic NATO members. And Western nations, as far as military campaigns go. And from my knowledge any contribution it makes, it doesn't have to do with its military killing anyone or being in situations to kill people, in Afghanistan or anywhere. If it even has a military there anymore. It isn't oppressing people.
> 
> Yet, in Greece there were a riot that was started due to an unsubstituted rumor of a Quran being defiled. Which was nothing than BS, started by a criminal who was arrested by a cop. This incident among other similar incidents, shakens any belief I might once naively had, over the motives of the ones who participate in the rioting. And especially make me disbelieve some rationalizations/justifications for the actions, and apologizing. It is actually scary how easy it is for over the top reactions to happen.


Welcome to reality. I mean most people have realized this since the cartoonist thing.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 3, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Welcome to reality. I mean most people have realized this since the cartoonist thing.



My views haven't changed much on the issue since then. But I am more certain of both them, and of how BS some opposing views are.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 4, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver said:


> The only one with their heads in the sand are the one's with this "us versus them" mentality, when the real problem is our constant foreign meddling, our presence on their land, our bombs killing their people and this fantasy that we can rule the world. His mindset is one that promotes more violence and honestly with or without religion a violent nut will act like a violent nut. He can demonize them all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the Warmongers in the Western world ain't no Saints either.


Your mindset feeds right into what he was talking about and proves that you just don't get the video. The us versus them mentality is what they have and remember that long before anyone over there died they were protesting us, long before there was an America they were killing people just for being different and they haven't changed since their creation.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 4, 2011)

WorstUsernameEver said:


> The only one with their heads in the sand are the one's with this "us versus them" mentality, when the real problem is our constant foreign meddling, our presence on their land, our bombs killing their people and this fantasy that we can rule the world. His mindset is one that promotes more violence and honestly with or without religion a violent nut will act like a violent nut. He can demonize them all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the Warmongers in the Western world ain't no Saints either.


Terrorists, and for that matters almost all Muslim fundies, have an "us versus them" mentality. This is what lead to 9/11. This is why there are armed forces in Afghanistan. Because the people in there decided unilaterally to harbour terrorism; and unlike Iraq, this wasn't a fabrication but the crude reality.

Other people are now conflating Afghanistan with Iraq, trying to rewrite history.

...The western world has its bad guys alright. I'm the first to criticize them. But there's simply no comparison between the evil seen in western governments and the evil seen in muslim fundamentalism. Case in point: one crazy pastor in the US burnt a Qur'an; hundreds of degenerates riot and kill innocents in Afghanistan. Hundreds more burn churches in Pakistan.


----------



## Talon. (Apr 4, 2011)

Way to go, Terry Jones.  

I've been good to ignore that dipshit up until now (mostly because I forgot about it til now ) but this is just outrageous. I think hes cheering himself on for this shit, too.


----------



## N120 (Apr 4, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Terrorists, and for that matters almost all Muslim fundies, have an "us versus them" mentality. This is what lead to 9/11. This is why there are armed forces in Afghanistan. Because the people in there decided unilaterally to harbour terrorism; and unlike Iraq, this wasn't a fabrication but the crude reality.



Except released US papers showed the taliban were willing to extradite OBL. 

The taliban negotiator asked for proof (which the US didnt have at the time) in order to minimise resistance amongst the top ranking taliban members that would've allowed them to hand over OBL with minimum fuss, the US rejected. After further pressure was put on the taliban, they offered to extradite him to saudi instead(the next best option for them), and let them handle the case, again the US rejected.

  So this flat out claim that they 'decided to harbour terrorism' isnt true, there were splits within the leadership and not everyone wanted OBL or a war with the US, it was never as simple as that.  



> Other people are now conflating Afghanistan with Iraq, trying to rewrite history.
> 
> ...The western world has its bad guys alright. I'm the first to criticize them. But there's simply no comparison between the evil seen in western governments and the evil seen in muslim fundamentalism. Case in point: one crazy pastor in the US burnt a Qur'an; hundreds of degenerates riot and kill innocents in Afghanistan. Hundreds more burn churches in Pakistan.



you forget that the US is dropping bombs on pakistan and is occupying afghanistan, this is the environment they live in.  

Its one thing to be critical about your own govt and talking about how they're not _that_ evil while sipping coffee and reading a paper, its another to be at the recieving end of that very govts 'not so evil plans' and dodging bullets and hiding from drones.

You are as evil to them as you make them out to be.


----------



## Coteaz (Apr 4, 2011)

Talon. said:


> Way to go, Terry Jones.


You mean, "Way to go, Islamic extremists." 

Because, you know, they weren't forced to kill people because some guy in Florida burned a book. They chose to.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 4, 2011)

N120 said:


> Except released US papers showed the taliban were willing to extradite OBL.
> 
> The taliban negotiator asked for proof (which the US didnt have at the time) in order to minimise resistance amongst the top ranking taliban members that would've allowed them to hand over OBL with minimum fuss, the US rejected. After further pressure was put on the taliban, they offered to extradite him to saudi instead(the next best option for them), and let them handle the case, again the US rejected.
> 
> ...



I'm not American. The Taliban were not only about Ben Laden. They also had been harbouring terrorists before (hence why Ben Laden was there in the first place).

Also, from what I could gather from your complete lack of sources, it seems you are mixing up timelines so hard that your argument doesn't make much sense at all.






N120 said:


> You are as evil to them as you make them out to be.


I'm not committing or supporting the voluntary murder of innocents as a means to protest against the burning of a book.


----------



## N120 (Apr 4, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I'm not American. The Taliban were not only about Ben Laden. They also had been harbouring terrorists before (hence why Ben Laden was there in the first place).



 Maybe, im not too sure what went on in afghanistan before 9/11, wasnt that interested in these topics back then, but i'll try read up on it now that you've mentioned this.

Edit:





> Also, from what I could gather from your complete lack of sources, it seems you are mixing up timelines so hard that your argument doesn't make much sense at all.



No, that was a seperate incident. 

The saudis also wanted OBL before 9/11(what you've linked), they also hppened to be US allies and had relations with afghanistan to some extent, its why the offer to extradite him to saudi was put on the table.

The US released official documents/minutes of the convo between an ISI mediator,taliban and US rep in regards to OBLs extradition after 9/11.

It was released 1-2 years back, when i have time i'll look it up and edit this post with the link.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 4, 2011)

N120 said:


> Maybe, im not too sure what went on in afghanistan before 9/11, wasnt that interested in these topics back then, but i'll try read up on it now that you've mentioned this.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> ...


I don't think it was a separate incident, you're just mixing up timelines. In 2001, the Taliban only considered a negociated extradition after the bombing had started and they were losing. You'll also note that the Taliban had been protecting Ben Laden for years (in 1998 already). All in all, your own arguments work better against you than against me.


----------



## saprobe (Apr 4, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> You mean, "Way to go, Islamic extremists."
> 
> Because, you know, they weren't forced to kill people because some guy in Florida burned a book. They chose to.



Jones' Quran-burning clearly wasn't the proximate cause of death for the UN workers (that was the frenzied protestors who shot them), nor was it even the ultimate cause (that would be the incitement by insurgents). It was a catalyst for violence because it was perceived as representative of Americans' hatred for Islam. 

Why was it interpreted as such? The first reason was that irresponsible 24 hour news outlets conferred a crazy podunk preacher with 50 parishioners with implied credibility when they gave him a soapbox. They gave Jones talk time on international news channels for DAYS until the story was so inflamed that the White House waded in to the controversy. I'm sick of seeing these same news hosts reporting on the deaths of these UN workers and placing the blame on Terry Jones seemingly without even a twinge of guilt, themselves.

The second reason was that this story was seized upon by the better educated and influential insurgent elements that knew full well they could use it to manipulate the the tribesment into violence.

The third reason was that there was a local populace angry to the point of violence for various reasons.

Blaming this incident entirely on one party or factor whether it be Terry Jones' Quran BBQ or "Pashtun blood" or the UN or Islam or anything else is too simplistic. 

That said, even though it's clearly not entirely -- or even mostly -- Terry Jones' fault there's nothing wrong with calling the guy out for being a stupid asshole.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 4, 2011)

The party responsible for the killing, are the killers and those Imams who incited them. Anyone's else indirect responsibility is too small in comparison, even if one can find it there.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 4, 2011)

I think this is the beginning of the end of sympathy for Muslims as a large group. Before this anything Muslim extremists did was largely attributed to someone else, now it looks as if they've been ousted and it wasn't even by people considered extremist enough to be a threat.


----------



## T4R0K (Apr 4, 2011)

You know, some of you are scarying me. So much that I wanna go crazy and lyrical and insult both sides through an insane and non-sensical fury of words. I'll take my chill pills after I'm done. 

*Inhales* humphhhhhhaaaaaaaahhhh... Pfuuuuuuu....

"Have it, your war ! Slaughter each other for the vanity of feeling like the ones that have the truth ! Destroy the world and bring forth the Armaggedon you are wishing for ! For Peace brings you nothing, no glory, no validation, no meaning !

And then cry. Cry ! Cry over the corpses of all that died for nothing ! Just to prove that Allah or Jesus should prevail and then there is nothing left ! No salvation, for no one ! Stare at the ruins ! Remember the world that was ! Remember the world that would have been ! Remember the children that didn't come !

DESPAIR ! You have nothing left ! Regress and cower ! God brought the End, but didn't talk ! God kill us all, but didn't fire a shot ! God has no face, and yet has many ! God is a man with a gun, God is a man with a sword ! God is a muslim, God is a christian ! God commits suicide ! 

Ah ! How foolish we are ! Thinking we were God ! Now, we accomplish His prophecy ! Thinking we have become God, we can end the World ! 

Peace. Silence. Void. Everlasting."

TADAAAAA !!! OK, send the crazy wagon, I have my own straitjacket.

PS : in case of a global religious war, I would make it my life to kill any soldier of either side trying to get to me. A beast, a mercenary with no alliance, wanting to survive in a world of fanatics. The West would reject me for simply having muslim origins, and the muslims would reject me for not following them.

...


----------



## fieryfalcon (Apr 4, 2011)

T4R0K said:


> You know, some of you are scarying me. So much that I wanna go crazy and lyrical and insult both sides through an insane and non-sensical fury of words. I'll take my chill pills after I'm done.
> 
> *Inhales* humphhhhhhaaaaaaaahhhh... Pfuuuuuuu....
> 
> ...



You'd be hard pressed to get any more disconnected from reality.  The West isn't fighting a holy war; our generals and high ranking political officials are out bending over backward to apologize for any real, imagined, or implied disrespect to the, erm, _Holy_ Koran.  Meanwhile, Islam is fighting a holy war against us.  Someone burns a book (or not, mere rumor of some slight insult will suffice) and suddenly U.S. troops are getting shot by people they're protected, trained, and poured billions of tax dollars into.


----------



## Mael (Apr 5, 2011)

fieryfalcon said:


> You'd be hard pressed to get any more disconnected from reality.  The West isn't fighting a holy war; our generals and high ranking political officials are out bending over backward to apologize for any real, imagined, or implied disrespect to the, erm, _Holy_ Koran.  Meanwhile, Islam is fighting a holy war against us.  Someone burns a book (or not, mere rumor of some slight insult will suffice) and suddenly U.S. troops are getting shot by people they're protected, trained, and poured billions of tax dollars into.



You should know for the record he's just playing around.


----------



## T4R0K (Apr 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> You should know for the record he's just playing around.



Shhhhhh !! It's a secret !!!! 

BTW, Fiery, read. I said I was going nuts for the lulz because the delirium of other posters inspired me this piece.

OK, back to thread people.


----------

