Afghan Militants Massacre People in UN HQ after Terry Jones Quran Burning.

theone86

I disagree. A private citizen in a free country should not have to shut the f*** up because some other private citizen on the other side of the planet threatens violence if he does not.

EDIT:

What would have happened if it had not been burned? Nothing, no speech that wasn't already out there would have been repressed, there would have been no killings, everybody would have been fine and happy.

theone86

How do you know this?

they did realise that the book was just a copy right...? not the "original".

Looks like we'll get along great, 'cause I don't understand a thing in your post:

1. Are you asking me if you don't get my point?
2. The GameSpot forums do have rules.
3. Yes, I could have posted that on other websites. Obviously.

I'm entirely unclear as to what your point is, and what you're wanting from me.

Palantas

The reason you probably got moderated was because of the image not adhereing to OT and Gamespot rules.

My point is, Yes you can post the uncensored version of the image, just not on this website.

Of course the liberals are going to put most of the blame on Terry Jones. If this had been a Muslim somewhere in the middle east burning a Bible and the reaction was Christians in America going to a random mosque and killing everyone inside, the Media would be all "SEE GUYS?! CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL TOO!!!". I think anybody who burns any religious book or another countrys flag is an idiot, but reacting like that is childish.

The reason you probably got moderated was because of the image not adhereing to OT and Gamespot rules.

Led_poison

That's very insightful, Led poison. Which rule would that be?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Palantas

I disagree. A private citizen in a free country should not have to shut the f*** up because some other private citizen on the other side of the planet threatens violence if he does not.

EDIT:

What would have happened if it had not been burned? Nothing, no speech that wasn't already out there would have been repressed, there would have been no killings, everybody would have been fine and happy.

theone86

How do you know this?

Again, it's not about having to shut the **** up, it's about having some basic common sense and decency towards other people and being able to understand the probable consequences of your own actions.

Again, it's not about having to shut the **** up, it's about having some basic common sense and decency towards other people and being able to understand the probable consequences of your own actions.

theone86

Why should there be consequences for doing something that's within his rights? It's up to the extremist to realise the world is not mcdonalds and they can't have it their way. Hundreds of millions of muslims seem to be able to live peaceful inspite of Terry Jones actions, why can't they? Why should an American have to second guess doing things he has the right to do because someone in Afghanistan might not like what he is doing?

Thanks for proving terry jones correct.

Espada12

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Again, it's not about having to shut the **** up, it's about having some basic common sense and decency towards other people and being able to understand the probable consequences of your own actions.

Espada12

Why should there be consequences for doing something that's within his rights? It's up to the extremist to realise the world is not mcdonalds and they can't have it their way. Hundreds of millions of muslims seem to be able to live peaceful inspite of Terry Jones actions, why can't they? Why should an American have to second guess doing things he has the right to do because someone in Afghanistan might not like what he is doing?

the blood is on terry jones hands

Again, it's not about having to shut the **** up, it's about having some basic common sense and decency towards other people and being able to understand the probable consequences of your own actions.

theone86

Ah, the common sense and decency to treat a non-valuable object in a certain way as prescribed by a particular faith of which you are not a member, so that people thousands of miles away don't go on a killing spree. I think that people should act sensibly and decently because they want to, not because they're being threatened.

I'd love to see you quantify your use of the term "probable" there. However, right now I'm more interested in "consequences." What do you mean by that? Are you saying that Jones caused these killings in some way? And did he cause them in a sense that makes him responsible? Other people have said exactly that, but I'm curious what you think.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Again, it's not about having to shut the **** up, it's about having some basic common sense and decency towards other people and being able to understand the probable consequences of your own actions.

Espada12

Why should there be consequences for doing something that's within his rights? It's up to the extremist to realise the world is not mcdonalds and they can't have it their way. Hundreds of millions of muslims seem to be able to live peaceful inspite of Terry Jones actions, why can't they? Why should an American have to second guess doing things he has the right to do because someone in Afghanistan might not like what he is doing?

JUst becauyse you have a right to do it, doesnt mean you should. There is no point in arguing why extremists have to do these actions, we know that they do these actions, so why the hell do something that will make them do these actions, it doesnt make sense.Sandvichman

So you are saying I should mind what I do in my country because it might offend someone in another country and make them go on a crazy rampage? So I can only do the things I have the right to do as long as no one is offended by it right?

JUst becauyse you have a right to do it, doesnt mean you should. There is no point in arguing why extremists have to do these actions, we know that they do these actions, so why the hell do something that will make them do these actions, it doesnt make sense.Sandvichman

As I just asked someone else, I'm interested how you know that certain actions will make someone else do something. I'm also interested in this idea of yours, that we should just stop doing things that "make" extremists behave badly. What are some examples of other things, that Americans (and others) should stop doing? What are some activities, as you say, it doesn't make sense to do?

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

JUst becauyse you have a right to do it, doesnt mean you should. There is no point in arguing why extremists have to do these actions, we know that they do these actions, so why the hell do something that will make them do these actions, it doesnt make sense.Espada12

So you are saying I should mind what I do in my country because it might offend someone in another country and make them go on a crazy rampage? So I can only do the things I have the right to do as long as no one is offended by it right?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"]

JUst becauyse you have a right to do it, doesnt mean you should. There is no point in arguing why extremists have to do these actions, we know that they do these actions, so why the hell do something that will make them do these actions, it doesnt make sense.lividitude

So you are saying I should mind what I do in my country because it might offend someone in another country and make them go on a crazy rampage? So I can only do the things I have the right to do as long as no one is offended by it right?

Then in that case the terrorists have already won. They are making you change your lifestyle out of a fear a backlash might occur by their hands.

Hey, you people saying that Jones was responsible for this. Let me get your thoughts on this one...

Religion is routinely mocked on this forum. It's called ridiculous, childish, illogical, and other adjectives. I'm a somewhat religious person. Every now and then I'll argue with someone who is condeming religion, if they're being particularly ridiculous and obnoxious about it, but for the most part, I just deal with it. People have different assumptions, react differently in their reasoning and emotions, and therefore people don't always agree. A forum is a place for the exchange of ideas, and like in life, sometimes you just have to deal with people who don't agree with you.

At least, that's what I thought. Let's say some crazy man--we'll call him Bob--creates an account here and posts a thread saying he'll go kill/bomb/break something or someone if all the religious debate/mockery on this GameSpot OT doesn't stop immediately. So, are you going to stop cricitizing religion because of this? Are you going to shut the f*** up? I mean, if you continued critizing religion, then you'd be provoking Bob. If Bob goes and does something crazy or violent, by your reasoning, you'd be responsible. Holy s***, we wouldn't want that.

And actually...it doesn't even have to be about religion. Let's say that Bob then makes another account (as the first one would have been banned), saying that he'll go on a shooting spree if anyone here ever makes fun of Justin Bieber again. So...? Should people shut the f*** up and stop making Bieber threads? We could be at fault for getting someone killed.

Hey, you people saying that Jones was responsible for this. Let me get your thoughts on this one...

Religion is routinely mocked on this forum. It's called ridiculous, childish, illogical, and other adjectives. I'm a somewhat religious person. Every now and then I'll argue with someone who is condeming religion, if they're being particularly ridiculous and obnoxious about it, but for the most part, I just deal with it. People have different assumptions, react differently in their reasoning and emotions, and therefore people don't always agree. A forum is a place for the exchange of ideas, and like in life, sometimes you just have to deal with people who don't agree with you.

At least, that's what I thought. Let's say some crazy man--we'll call him Bob--creates an account here and posts a thread saying he'll go kill/bomb/break something or someone if all the religious debate/mockery on this GameSpot OT doesn't stop immediately. So, are you going to stop cricitizing religion because of this? Are you going to shut the f*** up? I mean, if you continued critizing religion, then you'd be provoking Bob. If Bob goes and does something crazy or violent, by your reasoning, you'd be responsible. Holy s***, we wouldn't want that.

And actually...it doesn't even have to be about religion. Let's say that Bob then makes another account (as the first one would have been banned), saying that he'll go on a shooting spree if anyone here ever makes fun of Justin Bieber again. So...? Should people shut the f*** up and stop making Bieber threads? We could be at fault for getting someone killed.

Palantas

[QUOTE="lividitude"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

So you are saying I should mind what I do in my country because it might offend someone in another country and make them go on a crazy rampage? So I can only do the things I have the right to do as long as no one is offended by it right?

Espada12

Then in that case the terrorists have already won. They are making you change your lifestyle out of a fear a backlash might occur by their hands.

These analogies are easy to come up with. Hey, anybody ever have a hamburger? Guess what, any time animal rights extremists do something crazy, it's your fault. You did something to provoke them, so you're responsible. I guess you can't eat burgers anymore. That sucks.

And get your girlfriend out of that f***ing miniskirt and into a burqa. Muslim extremists don't much like that. For Godssake, you're going to get someone killed.

Speaking of girlfriends, be careful about dating that cute person from another ethnic group. You might cause a hate crime two states away. You better be timid and keep to yourself in your daily life. There are a lof of extremists out there, and you wouldn't want to be responsible for anything they might do.

Tell you what, if all these analogies are a little too exagerrated and theoretical, fine. I'll find something that actually occured. Gimme a second...

You have a better option? Why do something when you know its going to piss off someone?Sandvichman

Because I want to? I see no other justification I should need other than that. Now let's ask the next question, why should what I do cause you to go on a rampage and attack people? You are trying to tell me that Terry Jones should have been more reasonable, yet you are not condemning the other side for being even more unreasonable than terry was.

Look I'm not defending terry jones here, I think he's an idiot, but that doesn't change the fact, when it comes down to it, he did nothing wrong. Alot of people on these boards talk about and fight for rights, yet are quick to dismiss them if they result in angering someone. It seriously baffles me.

Terry Jones is bad, but the people responsible for the murders are disgusting animals.

Yes we would be responsible if we provoked him.

Treflis

Responsible in what sense? You are only provoking an extremist because they are making demands on you that are not reasonable. What is your definition of responsibility?

You have a better option? Why do something when you know its going to piss off someone?Sandvichman

Because the person getting pissed off is making demands that are not within their rights to make. It may piss a burglar off that you lock your doors when you go out to dinner, because it makes your house harder to rob. Fine, f*** the burglar. The things he wants are unreasonable.

These analogies are easy to come up with. Hey, anybody ever have a hamburger? Guess what, any time animal rights extremists do something crazy, it's your fault. You did something to provoke them, so you're responsible. I guess you can't eat burgers anymore. That sucks.

And get your girlfriend out of that f***ing miniskirt and into a burqa. Muslim extremists don't much like that. For Godssake, you're going to get someone killed.

Speaking of girlfriends, be careful about dating that cute person from another ethnic group. You might cause a hate crime two states away. You better be timid and keep to yourself in your daily life. There are a lof of extremists out there, and you wouldn't want to be responsible for anything they might do.

Tell you what, if all these analogies are a little too exagerrated and theoretical, fine. I'll find something that actually occured. Gimme a second...

Palantas

Hey, you people saying that Jones was responsible for this. Let me get your thoughts on this one...

Religion is routinely mocked on this forum. It's called ridiculous, childish, illogical, and other adjectives. I'm a somewhat religious person. Every now and then I'll argue with someone who is condeming religion, if they're being particularly ridiculous and obnoxious about it, but for the most part, I just deal with it. People have different assumptions, react differently in their reasoning and emotions, and therefore people don't always agree. A forum is a place for the exchange of ideas, and like in life, sometimes you just have to deal with people who don't agree with you.

At least, that's what I thought. Let's say some crazy man--we'll call him Bob--creates an account here and posts a thread saying he'll go kill/bomb/break something or someone if all the religious debate/mockery on this GameSpot OT doesn't stop immediately. So, are you going to stop cricitizing religion because of this? Are you going to shut the f*** up? I mean, if you continued critizing religion, then you'd be provoking Bob. If Bob goes and does something crazy or violent, by your reasoning, you'd be responsible. Holy s***, we wouldn't want that.

And actually...it doesn't even have to be about religion. Let's say that Bob then makes another account (as the first one would have been banned), saying that he'll go on a shooting spree if anyone here ever makes fun of Justin Bieber again. So...? Should people shut the f*** up and stop making Bieber threads? We could be at fault for getting someone killed.

Palantas

Irrespective of Bob's lunacy and assuming the threat was remotely credible, if one were to make fun of Justin Beiber after said threat was made, while nowhere near as guilty as Bob for the end result, one would have knowingly caused the death of whoever Bob went psycho on. Granted, one could dismiss the threat of either the Qu'ran or Beiber threads as unknowable what the consequences would be. However, Jones predicted that his Qu'ran ceremony would get someone killed and did it anyway. Even if he wasn't really responsible for what happened in Afghanistan, his intentions showed nothing more than an utter disregard for the alleged victims of the terrorists, in my opinion.

They are exaggerated because none of them are done in a deliberate manner to cause a reaction such as burning a religious book and posting it for all to see on the internet, or even encouraging suicide is.Treflis

They're my examples, so obviously I could change them to be deliberate. Like, someone sees a bunch of protesters outside a KFC, then goes and gets some meat. So he's responsible for some packing plant that gets bombed three months later, because he made sure some extremists saw him eating a chicken sandwich? Secondly, how deliberate does something have to be to make someone responsible? There are all manner of crimes that are based on negligence, not malevolence. And most importantly, what do you mean by "responsible"?

Even if he wasn't really responsible for what happened in Afghanistan, his intentions showed nothing more than an utter disregard for the alleged victims of the terrorists, in my opinion.

coolbeans90

Fine. I can be disinterested in someone's fate, but also not be responsible for what happens to them.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]

Yes we would be responsible if we provoked him.

Palantas

Responsible in what sense? You are only provoking an extremist because they are making demands on you that are not reasonable. What is your definition of responsibility?

You have a better option? Why do something when you know its going to piss off someone?Sandvichman

Because the person getting pissed off is making demands that are not within their rights to make. It may piss a burglar off that you lock your doors when you go out to dinner, because it makes your house harder to rob. Fine, f*** the burglar. The things he wants are unreasonable.

Religion is violent yet again confirmed?

Screw rights, screw your rights, apply some common szense into this, why piss someone into doing something horrible simply because you can? I love your logic, im going to piss of a maniac and send him to you, after all, its my right to do so.Sandvichman

If you mean you're going to trick or coerce a maniac into coming after me, then that's illegal. That is not your right to do. If you mean that some maniac has told you, "You're not allowed to do ____ anymore, or I'm gonna go after Palantas," then I say f*** the maniac. I am not a moral coward. You shouldn't have to abandon your rights because some nut might come after me. You know why? Because maniacs are in great supply. You can't let crazy people get you to let go of your basic rights because they threaten violence.

Religion is violent yet again confirmed?

DroidPhysX

Well I would say that it confirmed that human nature is violent. I know it is fun to generalize and bash religiion in Off topic. But you can't say the actions of a number of nutjobs means that religion is violent.

You can't really compare the burning of a book with the murder of 12 people.

MetalGear_Ninty

For me this pastor and the terrorists are the exact same kind of crap, two faces of the same coin. They are both religious fanatics trying to prove their point by killing innocent people. We would do better without any of them.kuraimen

When did the pastor kill innocent people?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]For me this pastor and the terrorists are the exact same kind of crap, two faces of the same coin. They are both religious fanatics trying to prove their point by killing innocent people. We would do better without any of them.DroidPhysX

When did the pastor kill innocent people?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]For me this pastor and the terrorists are the exact same kind of crap, two faces of the same coin. They are both religious fanatics trying to prove their point by killing innocent people. We would do better without any of them.kuraimen

When did the pastor kill innocent people?

But he didnt kill innocent people. The fundamentalist mulsims did.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

When did the pastor kill innocent people?

DroidPhysX

But he didnt kill innocent people. The fundamentalist mulsims did.

He knew that his actions were going to end up with innocent people dead, in fact everyone knew. So his actions are as despicable as those of the terrorists.

kuraimen

In 1998, Robert Sanderson, a police officer, was working security at an abortion clinic in Birmingham. He was killed when the clinic was bombed by Eric Rudolph, the guy who also bombed the 1996 Olympics. I guess the medical staff at that clinic--possibly every woman who ever received treatment--was responsible for Robert Sanderson's death. They received threats, but continued to operate their legal practice in broad daylight. They provoked a crazy man. We've established a delightful chain of reasoning in this thread:

1. If a crazy person tells you to stop doing something that is within your legal rights, you are provoking them.
2. If the crazy person threatens violence against someone, *or just violence in general, you know this violence will occur (through some indescribable mechanism).
3. If violence does occur, you're responsible for the violence, because you didn't cave in the first place, and obey the crazy person's demands.

Medical doctors who give abortions are as despicable as terrorists, if a bombing at their clinic causes collateral deaths.

EDIT: *.

Seriously guys, some extremists killed 12 people. Who the hell cares what their motivations were? These people probably would have gone and killed even if Terry Jones hadn't done what he did.

I don't want to live in a world where things that I do in my own country cause deaths because of nutjobs in another country far away don't like what I do.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] He knew that his actions were going to end up with innocent people dead, in fact everyone knew. So his actions are as despicable as those of the terrorists.kuraimen

But he didnt kill innocent people. The fundamentalist mulsims did.

Terrible analogy.

With that logic, Mike Huckabee should be arrested for triple homicide since he pardoned a convict, who later committed triple homicide.

Doesn't matter that he didn't pull the trigger directly. It is like putting a bomb on a building, blowing it up and saying that the people died because the building fell on them not because of the bomb.kuraimen

Bombs are not moral agents that are capable of rational thought.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

He knew that his actions were going to end up with innocent people dead, in fact everyone knew. So his actions are as despicable as those of the terrorists.

Palantas

In 1998, Robert Sanderson, a police officer, was working security at an abortion clinic in Birmingham. He was killed when the clinic was bombed by Eric Rudolph, the guy who also bombed the 1996 Olympics. I guess the medical staff at that clinic--possibly every woman who ever received treatment--was responsible for Robert Sanderson's death. They received threats, but continued to operate their legal practice in broad daylight. They provoked a crazy man. We've established a delightful chain of reasoning in this thread:

1. If a crazy person tells you to stop doing something that is within your legal rights, you are provoking them.
2. If the crazy person threatens violence against someone, you know this violence will occur (through some indescribable mechanism).
3. If violence does occur, you're responsible for the violence, because you didn't cave in the first place, and obey the crazy person's demands.

Medical doctors who give abortions are as despicable as terrorists, if a bombing at their clinic causes collateral deaths.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

But he didnt kill innocent people. The fundamentalist mulsims did.

DroidPhysX

Terrible analogy.

With that logic, Mike Huckabee should be arrested for triple homicide since he pardoned a convict, who later committed triple homicide.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Doesn't matter that he didn't pull the trigger directly. It is like putting a bomb on a building, blowing it up and saying that the people died because the building fell on them not because of the bomb. His action provoked the death of these people and he knew it, in fact it was his only motivation for doing it. So he's as guilty as the ones who actually pulled the trigger. In fact he's a coward hiding behind the fact that he didn't pull the trigger himself to justify being irresponsible and stupid.kuraimen

Terrible analogy.

With that logic, Mike Huckabee should be arrested for triple homicide since he pardoned a convict, who later committed triple homicide.

And how do you know Terry Jones motive was for people in the middle east to kill UN civilians?

Both sides are religious nut jobs. I wish we could get rid of it.