Minister Jones

[GabeS14]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

I can only hope National Burn-A-Bible Day happens because of this

LOL, if something like
"THE BOOK OF ELI" ever happened, I would really be the bad guy, burning all the bibles in the world..hahaha
enough with that money making scam shit!!

I would save one bible and create my own"GOD THROUGH SEX" religion, preaching sex as the only way to truly reach god, undiscriminated, open sex every day 3 times a day.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by smellslikecurry

Please don't let a bunch of extremist assholes ruin your perception on Muslims as a whole.

What I find interesting about this sentence is.......

Add the word Americans instead of Muslims and that's exactly what this whole thing is about.

[smellslikecurry]

Originally Posted by Brian

What I find interesting about this sentence is.......

Add the word Americans instead of Muslims and that's exactly what this whole thing is about.

Yessir. Everyone has their crazies.

[Brian]

Agreed .

[5pecialist]

Originally Posted by JAtl

You'll see what kind of unrest this 'minor issue' has caused in Afganistan.

An ant pooping causes unrest in Afganistan. It's not my fault their culture aka "religion" is hot headed. Muslims have been an angry people for thousands of years.

[thefro526]

I really hope this whole Qur'an burning thing does not happen.

I don't think people (Americans) realize the magnitude of an action like that. It would offend the majority of the Arab and Muslim world and probably make them hate American's more and just fuel extremist views towards Americans.

I can't seem understand why America can't be more accepting towards Muslims. Sure, some of them have done some harm to Americans, but that's not a good enough reason to dislike them as a whole. Personally, I'm fond of some of the teachings of Islam, and I admire how devoted many Muslims are.

[yokotas13]

Originally Posted by 5pecialist

An ant pooping causes unrest in Afganistan. It's not my fault their culture aka "religion" is hot headed. Muslims have been an angry people for thousands of years.

i find this comment rather dumb

living in a muslim country, ive had nothing but great experiences with all of them.
seriously....the "angry people" must just be hiding

[Brian]

Originally Posted by thefro526

I really hope this whole Qur'an burning thing does not happen.

I don't think people (Americans) realize the magnitude of an action like that. It would offend the majority of the Arab and Muslim world and probably make them hate American's more and just fuel extremist views towards Americans.

I can't seem understand why America can't be more accepting towards Muslims. Sure, some of them have done some harm to Americans, but that's not a good enough reason to dislike them as a whole. Personally, I'm fond of some of the teachings of Islam, and I admire how devoted many Muslims are.

I would bet my money that there are many Americans who have no problem with Muslim people.

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by yokotas13

i find this comment rather dumb

living in a muslim country, ive had nothing but great experiences with all of them.
seriously....the "angry people" must just be hiding

What do Muslims in Saudi have to be pissed off about. I'd be surprised if you did find pissed off muslims in SA.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

What do Muslims in Saudi have to be pissed off about. I'd be surprised if you did find pissed off muslims in SA.

bin-laden is pissed about something...

[GabeS14]

Originally Posted by S14DB

bin-laden is pissed about something...

true, he's not on Bush's payroll anymore..lol
or maybe he still is but doesn't like living in caves that much..

[smellslikecurry]

Originally Posted by S14DB

bin-laden is pissed about something...

bin laden is only muslim by name but nothing he does is islamic despite what he says. the word "islam" means PEACE. sob has it all wrong.

[HalveBlue]

Originally Posted by GabeS14

true, he's not on Bush's payroll anymore..lol
or maybe he still is but doesn't like living in caves that much..

I doubt bin Laden was ever on Bush's payroll; Sr. nor Jr.

bin Laden is an ideologue, pure and simple. No amount of money in the world would buy him off.

[ronmcdon]

Obama's right here.
you can count on the media (esp Al Jareeza) to sensationalize it.
either it does nothing at all, or it's bad for our troops.
Not like Obama can do much to shut the press up.
(some censorship isn't such a bad idea imo).

it's not just a simple matter of freedom of speech or setting a good example.
real lives may or may not be at stake here.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by HalveBlue

I doubt bin Laden was ever on Bush's payroll; Sr. nor Jr.

bin Laden is an ideologue, pure and simple. No amount of money in the world would buy him off.

How on earth do you think the Afghanis beat back the Russians?

[HalveBlue]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

How on earth do you think the Afghanis beat back the Russians?

US support of the Mujahideen started under the Carters administration and increased during Reagan's. The support the US lent to the Mujahideen consisted primarily of delivering arms and ammunition and also training. Like most covert programs, the operations in Afghanistan were conducted by the CIA.

The CIA worked in close conjunction with Pakistan's ISI which has historically provided much of the training, weapons, supplies, and financing for groups active in Afghanistan. In fact, most of the "aid" delivered to the Mujahideen by the CIA was actually given to the ISI who in turn distributed among the different insurgent groups in Afghanistan.

In addition to Pakistani and US involvement in the region, significant amounts of funding and manpower came from other groups and nations, mostly located in the Middle East, most prominently from Saudi Arabia. While many of these groups and individuals benefited from the ISI's and CIA's programs in Afghanistan many were independently financed and trained - like Osama bin Laden.

When Iraq was poised to invade Saudi Arabia in the early 90's, Osama bin Laden objected to the Saudi royal family's acceptance of US assistance, offering instead to fight off any invasion with his own group of Muslim mujahideen - as he had done in Afghanistan.

His criticism of the Saudi relationship with the US eventually led to his exile from the kingdom.

In conclusion, I stand by my original statement. I doubt bin Laden was ever on either Bush's payroll.

It's a factually inaccurate statement that has no evidence to support it.

[GabeS14]

Originally Posted by HalveBlue

I doubt bin Laden was ever on Bush's payroll; Sr. nor Jr.

bin Laden is an ideologue, pure and simple. No amount of money in the world would buy him off.

That's why his family was the only people allowed to fly out of the united states just an hr after the sept 11 attacks right?

And it's not like they had to buy tickets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matej]

Hey ya'll. Saw Afghanistanis burning Bibles and American flags in protest of the proposed Koran burning.
How do you Christian Americans feel about that? Because they burned quite a large amount of Bibles and flags.

[waxball88]

That place is right around the corner from me.... like less than a mile

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Matej

Hey ya'll. Saw Afghanistanis burning Bibles and American flags in protest of the proposed Koran burning.
How do you Christian Americans feel about that? Because they burned quite a large amount of Bibles and flags.

So, is their country having a real shit fit about those guys? I bet not....



hey-o

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Brian

So, is their country having a real shit fit about those guys? I bet not....



hey-o

I always thought the US was the standard, I never knew we were suppose to be the same as third world countries...

Either way, First Amendment allows both the burning, and the building of the center. End of story, the media is full of whores.

[Brian]

The way I feel is that America was, is, and should continue to be the best country in the world. However, We need to stop bending over for everybody and their brother these days or else we will sink fast and fall.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Brian

The way I feel is that America was, is, and should continue to be the best country in the world. However, We need to stop bending over for everybody and their brother these days or else we will sink fast and fall.

Is it not one of our fundamental values as a nation to "bend over" for everyone in this country. The ones we agree with, as well as disagree with? The reason this country is the pillar of the world, and will always be the "greatest" nation is because we do not say you can only believe this or that "within reason." We say, and believe, that you may believe whatever you want, for whatever reason you want, and that is that (within the bounds of the constitution). This pastor, without a ridiculous media, would be nothing and no one would ever hear of him. But because our media is full of whores, we turn a guy who some how managed to get 50 people to listen to him into a national figure. It is disgusting and disturbing, and anyone who is involved with it should be considered less than the dirt on a person's shoes.

[Brian]

I 100% agree with most of everything you wrote.

The media should never have promoted this. It really made a mountain out of a mole hill.

I don't think you and I are grasping at the same rope when I mentioned bending over and whatnot. It goes beyond the bounds of this specific topic, so I'll just leave it as is. It would be nice if there was a simple "black and white" answer to it all, but unfortunately there is a lot of gray matter.

Question about something on the topic.

So, this guy has every right to burn the Koran, right? There is no law in this country that says he cannot do it as far as I know. But, by doing it, he might directly endanger many many American lives here and overseas. So, should he still do it simply because he can?

[ronmcdon]

I see the mass media & it's lack of accountability in 'freedom of speech' as the main problem.

Well there's only so much you can do to enforce the behavior of every existing citizen here in the U.S
Now the major media, I believe should really be held to higher standards as their publicity arguably creates more of an effect than the given event itself.
But then again, media is driven by profits first, and regards to the safety of others second.
It brings to the matter of whether freedom of speech or the safety of individuals are more important.

My stance is that I think freedom of speech in mass media ought to be limited in cases where anyone's personal safety is in question.
To me, that's arguably more severe than say libel & slander (existing legal limitations to freedom of speech) where you have the potential to ruin another party's reputation.
I'd like to think, at least in this cultural norm, lives are considered more valuable than reputations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by ronmcdon

My stance is that I think freedom of speech in mass media ought to be limited in cases where anyone's personal safety is in question.

What you propose is a serious can of worms.

I refuse to allow to government in any form the ability to limit freedom of speech. Once you give them that they can and will claim what ever they want to be a "safety issue".

What really should happen is the media needs to go back to being it's own watchdog. In stead of the constant bandwagon jumping to fight for the highest ratings they need to be CONSTANTLY fact checking each other and fighting for the most important news faster than any one else.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by Brian

So, this guy has every right to burn the Koran, right? There is no law in this country that says he cannot do it as far as I know. But, by doing it, he might directly endanger many many American lives here and overseas. So, should he still do it simply because he can?

i think a local radio show burned a box of them this morning. looking for audio

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Brian

So, this guy has every right to burn the Koran, right? There is no law in this country that says he cannot do it as far as I know. But, by doing it, he might directly endanger many many American lives here and overseas. So, should he still do it simply because he can?

As far as a "speech" issue, there is nothing that says he can not do it. However, there maybe public ordinances that do not allow mass book burnings, worst case scenario you end up with a fine and the fire department puts your fire out real quick.

As far as doing it, he has every constitutional right to do it. Just like the KKK has every constitutional right to do cross burnings and have rallies/parades. Should they? Well obviously their views are extreme and not the norm by any standard, however, they are well withing their constitutional rights to believe them.

My stance is that I think freedom of speech in mass media ought to be limited in cases where anyone's personal safety is in question.
To me, that's arguably more severe than say libel & slander (existing legal limitations to freedom of speech) where you have the potential to ruin another party's reputation.
I'd like to think, at least in this cultural norm, lives are considered more valuable than reputations.

Libel and Slander, which are different (one is written speech, the other is actual speech), only apply to private citizens. If you run for public office you no longer can claim them, reason being to protect the people from having political speech censored.

The only time where speech is limited is "incitement" which is a very difficult standard to meet. The problem with what you propose is that you could make an argument that just about everything you hear could potentially frustrate someone and cause them to harm someone else. It would be impossible to control, and would also be very contrary to our constitution.

[bb4_96]

^Agree intirely.

Fuck the media. It's impossible to get anyhting done with them flapping their gums. But thats freedom of the press so you can't really do anything about it.

[ronmcdon]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

What you propose is a serious can of worms.

I refuse to allow to government in any form the ability to limit freedom of speech. Once you give them that they can and will claim what ever they want to be a "safety issue".

What really should happen is the media needs to go back to being it's own watchdog. In stead of the constant bandwagon jumping to fight for the highest ratings they need to be CONSTANTLY fact checking each other and fighting for the most important news faster than any one else.

What incentive is there for the media to be it's 'own watchdog'?
It's there to make $$$, and does so by stirring publicity, and/or giving their target demographic what they want (i.e. fox/cnn).
The mass media will continue to operate the way it always has, if left unchecked.
And that's just thing, there is no accountability to all that power.
Is it fair that the safety of individuals (in this case, it's pretty unambiguous imo) ought to be compromised as a result?

About censorship, I don't see what's wrong with some level of government discretion in decision making is pretty much everywhere already.
It's just a matter of whether you trust the mass media, or the government to hold your best interests.
At least the government's primary incentive isn't to make $, and elected officials have some degree of accountability.

Originally Posted by ineedone

Libel and Slander, which are different (one is written speech, the other is actual speech), only apply to private citizens. If you run for public office you no longer can claim them, reason being to protect the people from having political speech censored.

The only time where speech is limited is "incitement" which is a very difficult standard to meet. The problem with what you propose is that you could make an argument that just about everything you hear could potentially frustrate someone and cause them to harm someone else. It would be impossible to control, and would also be very contrary to our constitution.

A lot of legal matters are already a matter of discretion.
Judgment calls are made all the time, and even court cases can be appealed.
I think what's important is that there are checks and balances for anything as powerful as the mass media.
Of course, even calls for censorship would have to be considered reasonable.
It's just a matter of how much faith you have in our judicial system.

TBH - I don't trust our judicial system that much at all.
I just have more faith in someone motivated by re-election, rather than someone motivated by their own financial gain.