Stupid stupid stupid!

[Graham]

UN attacks: How burning the Koran lead to murder in Afghanistan

Seven UN staff members were killed in Mazar-i-Sharif after a mob enraged by a Koran burning in the US stormed a UN compound, in the worst attack on the world body in the country since the 2001 invasion.

Jones threatened to burn copies of the Muslim holy book to mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on New York








UN attacks: How burning the Koran lead to murder in Afghanistan

Seven UN staff members were killed in Mazar-i-Sharif after a mob enraged by a Koran burning in the US stormed a UN compound, in the worst attack on the world body in the country since the 2001 invasion.

Wearing black robes and sitting as self-appointed judge, the radical evangelical pastor called the "court" to order from behind his pulpit.

On trial in the mock tribunal in Terry Jones' small and once-obscure Florida church was Islam's holy book, the Koran.

In the role of prosecutor was a former Egyptian Muslim who had converted to Christianity, while a Texas-based Sudanese imam defied death threats to fly in from Dallas to provide the defence.

A jury of nine men and three women – all members or supporters of Mr Jones' tiny congregation at the Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville – listened for several hours to proceedings often conducted in heavily accented English or translated from Arabic.

And they then reached the unanimous verdict that the Koran was guilty of several "crimes against humanity", including the promotion of terrorism and "the death, rape and torture of people worldwide whose only crime is not being of the Islamic faith".

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

I agree, it was stupid stupid stupid! And the dickhead who did it has no right to call himself a Christian. But please let me ask this as a counter point. If an Afghan burned a bible do you think the Christians would murder anybody?

 

[Graham]

I agree, it was stupid stupid stupid! And the dickhead who did it has no right to call himself a Christian. But please let me ask this as a counter point. If an Afghan burned a bible do you think the Christians would murder anybody?

No, I don't Pete, on that we very much agree. But this idiot must have known the consequences of his actions. He should feel those deaths on his conscience forever, but I sadly think he won't.

Let's condemn his actions for what they were, and realise that this has definitely set back a very fragile peace in Afghanistan.

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Agreed, I just watched him on the news, non repentant. So sad.

 

[Jason]

Whilst I think that the actions of Koran burning were provacative I do also think that there is an element of truth in what Jones was saying in that the people that perpetrated the horrendous murders in Afghanistan would have looked for any excuse.

Just what sort of fcukwitted mentality feels that killing innnocent people that are in your country to try to help you get back on your feet is in any way justified by someone in another country burning a book?

To those that argue that we shouldn't do anything to provoke the sensitivities of the Islamic faithful I would ask why? Why should we not ask for tolerance, understanding, explanation or justification of their actions and beliefs? Why should we simply sit back and say "well, that's their belief and we have to just accept it"? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. I am tired of listening to hand-wringers saying we shouldn't do anything to provoke a reaction - are they doing this out of fear of consequences? If yes then I fear we have already lost. The claims of governments that we will not submit to fear nor change our way of living to accomodate extremism and terrorism ring somewhat hollow, ask yourself how true this is the next time you stand and wait for two hours at the airport security check or the next time you are looking for a wastebin on the London Underground.

History has shown that appeasement is never a good course of action and we should not be afraid to demand adherence to certain standards of moral behaviour - of course what those standards should be is open to question and it does depend to some extent on where you believe moral behaviour and ethics originate, in other words are there such things as absolute morals and ethics, are they produced by man or are they derived from religious doctrines?

This story of the attack on the UN both sickened me and angered me, no matter how strongly these people may have felt about the book burning it is absolutely no justification for the abhorent barbaric reaction. Doubtless the hand-wringers will try to argue that it was.

 

[Graham]

Whilst I think that the actions of Koran burning were provacative I do also think that there is an element of truth in what Jones was saying in that the people that perpetrated the horrendous murders in Afghanistan would have looked for any excuse.

Just what sort of fcukwitted mentality feels that killing innnocent people that are in your country to try to help you get back on your feet is in any way justified by someone in another country burning a book?

To those that argue that we shouldn't do anything to provoke the sensitivities of the Islamic faithful I would ask why? Why should we not ask for tolerance, understanding, explanation or justification of their actions and beliefs? Why should we simply sit back and say "well, that's their belief and we have to just accept it"? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. I am tired of listening to hand-wringers saying we shouldn't do anything to provoke a reaction - are they doing this out of fear of consequences? If yes then I fear we have already lost. The claims of governments that we will not submit to fear nor change our way of living to accomodate extremism and terrorism ring somewhat hollow, ask yourself how true this is the next time you stand and wait for two hours at the airport security check or the next time you are looking for a wastebin on the London Underground.

History has shown that appeasement is never a good course of action and we should not be afraid to demand adherence to certain standards of moral behaviour - of course what those standards should be is open to question and it does depend to some extent on where you believe moral behaviour and ethics originate, in other words are there such things as absolute morals and ethics, are they produced by man or are they derived from religious doctrines?

This story of the attack on the UN both sickened me and angered me, no matter how strongly these people may have felt about the book burning it is absolutely no justification for the abhorent barbaric reaction. Doubtless the hand-wringers will try to argue that it was.

Jason, I don't see you denouce the "pastors" actions.

Mate, you can't have it both ways. We bitch and moan that moderate muslims don't spend enought time denouncing their fundamentalist brethren, and yet you get a chance to call the "pastor" a stupid cunt, but you don't... You couch your words and then move on.

So Jason, do you categorically agree that the "pastor's" actions were inflammatory and stupid and full of consequence?

The argument about what others choose to do in the event of a bible being burnt aren't valid. Two wrongs, as we all know, do not make a right.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think any "hand wringers" (of which I am not) would condone ANY actions that came off the back of this stupid man's actions.

 

[Jason]

Jason, I don't see you denouce the "pastors" actions.

Mate, you can't have it both ways. We bitch and moan that moderate muslims don't spend enought time denouncing their fundamentalist brethren, and yet you get a chance to call the "pastor" a stupid cunt, but you don't... You couch your words and then move on.

So Jason, do you categorically agree that the "pastor's" actions were inflammatory and stupid and full of consequence?

The argument about what others choose to do in the event of a bible being burnt aren't valid. Two wrongs, as we all know, do not make a right.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think any "hand wringers" (of which I am not) would condone ANY actions that came off the back of this stupid man's actions.

I'm not condoning the pastor's actions in any way, I did already state that I consider them provocative. If it makes you feel any happier, I condemn all actions by all groups that are deliberately intended to cause offence and I believe in this case the pastor's actions were clearly either aimed at causing maximum offence or maximum publicity, in either case inacceptable behaviour.

I disagree with you on whether the hand wringers will condone the reactions or not, a glance through today's press on the internet already garnered a few "it's understandable" type comments. Yes the pastor acted stupidly, yes the reaction was out of all proportion. Who am I to call the pastor a "stupid cunt" to use your phrase - I know nothing about him other than what's been in the press. I can of course draw my own conclusions from what I've seen of his actions and I think he acted with either incredible stupidity or cunning, knowing full well what sort of reaction he might anticipate.

I agree with you that the bible burning question is completely irrelevant.

My whole point was that I am sick of hearing about atrocities committed by some group because someone, somewhere decided to poke fun at their chosen set of preciously held delusions and in turn use this to justify cold blooded murder by claiming they were acting out of faith. These are the ones I would term "Cupid Stunts". Remember the fuss over the Mohammed cartoons? What puzzled me was how the thousands of spontaneously protesting people were all able to get hold of a Danish flag to use in protest and burn. I wouldn't know where to get hold of a few thousand Palestinian/Jordanian/Saudi or whatever flag at such short notice and this does make you wonder just how spontaneous such protests really are.

 

[Tom P]

While burning the Koran or any other religious book is a incredibly stupid act, killing in retalliation is a incredibly barbaric act.

 

[Jim Craik]

Religion without tolerance is not religion at all, it's just gang war fair, Crips and Bloods on a world scale.

All these folks should be condemned in the strongest way!

 

[Mike]

Stupid, ignorant, malicious, deliberately provocative and more, these clowns invent some asinine “religion” mostly to take advantage of tax laws and find other morons to donate money to them. Look at the idiots that bother funerals for military KIAs, God punishes us for allowing gays or some such bullshit. That’s the price we pay for freedom. Fine.

My point, however, is: why is it if one Muslim terrorist/Taliban/Al Quaida puke commits an atrocity, they are quick to say (and rightfully so) that we should not judge ALL Muslims because of one fanatic…yet let one Western fool do or say something questionable (cartoon?) or stupid and the response is “Kill The Infidels”, ALL infidels, whichever ones we can reach, either in Denmark or the US or Afergeranistan? Absolute intolerance, and yet we (The Western World…and the media) cater to this sort of crap. We allow all sorts of insults and humor to any/all of the religions EXCEPT Islam. What the hell makes them so damn special? This intolerance certainly does nothing for Islamic relations.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

If you want to understand Mr. Jones' action, read about them- but also read "Elmer Gantry" A lot of being a minister is salesmanship, which is unfortunate but true. Mr. Jones is now an international celebrity because of his (incredibly selfish and foolish) actions. The man is a moral pygmy but not exactly stupid. Thanks to this series of actions, he is now a player of sorts on the international stage.

There used to be a saying that freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "fire!!" in a crowded theatre. This is kind of that situation- the man clearly knew that his actions were inflammatory and likely to provoke exactly the reaction that they did. What is most distressing is that he doesn't see anything wrong with what he did.

Whoever pointed out that if Muslims burned a copy of the Bible or the Torah that no one would get killed is exactly right. There is, in fact, nothing holy or sacred about a book. A book is paper and ink and binding. It is the IDEAS in the book that have power and weight. This is why burning one copy of a book says nothing about what is in the book- but it says a great deal about the idiot who lit the match.

Mr. Jones ironically now resembles those he professes to despise- he is an agitator with bloody hands. More ironically, the chance of his being martyred by Muslims is far less than the chance of his being martyred by his own government, who are not pleased at all about the ruckus he's stirred up- and the people that died because of that ruckus.

 

[Graham]

I'm not condoning the pastor's actions in any way, I did already state that I consider them provocative. If it makes you feel any happier, I condemn all actions by all groups that are deliberately intended to cause offence and I believe in this case the pastor's actions were clearly either aimed at causing maximum offence or maximum publicity, in either case inacceptable behaviour.

I disagree with you on whether the hand wringers will condone the reactions or not, a glance through today's press on the internet already garnered a few "it's understandable" type comments. Yes the pastor acted stupidly, yes the reaction was out of all proportion. Who am I to call the pastor a "stupid cunt" to use your phrase - I know nothing about him other than what's been in the press. I can of course draw my own conclusions from what I've seen of his actions and I think he acted with either incredible stupidity or cunning, knowing full well what sort of reaction he might anticipate.

I agree with you that the bible burning question is completely irrelevant.

My whole point was that I am sick of hearing about atrocities committed by some group because someone, somewhere decided to poke fun at their chosen set of preciously held delusions and in turn use this to justify cold blooded murder by claiming they were acting out of faith. These are the ones I would term "Cupid Stunts". Remember the fuss over the Mohammed cartoons? What puzzled me was how the thousands of spontaneously protesting people were all able to get hold of a Danish flag to use in protest and burn. I wouldn't know where to get hold of a few thousand Palestinian/Jordanian/Saudi or whatever flag at such short notice and this does make you wonder just how spontaneous such protests really are.

Jason, we're on the same page 100%. Anyone who would condone killing because of burning a book is as loony as the pastor.

 

[Jack]

Dumb, and stupid!

 

[tom pritchett]

I think that they proved the pastors point, didn't they?

Yes, it was stupid for the pastor to do this. What does burning a book really have to do with anything? Without reading a book, it is just words on pages. Meaningless.

 

[Graham]

If you want to understand Mr. Jones' action, read about them- but also read "Elmer Gantry" A lot of being a minister is salesmanship, which is unfortunate but true. Mr. Jones is now an international celebrity because of his (incredibly selfish and foolish) actions. The man is a moral pygmy but not exactly stupid. Thanks to this series of actions, he is now a player of sorts on the international stage.

There used to be a saying that freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "fire!!" in a crowded theatre. This is kind of that situation- the man clearly knew that his actions were inflammatory and likely to provoke exactly the reaction that they did. What is most distressing is that he doesn't see anything wrong with what he did.

Whoever pointed out that if Muslims burned a copy of the Bible or the Torah that no one would get killed is exactly right. There is, in fact, nothing holy or sacred about a book. A book is paper and ink and binding. It is the IDEAS in the book that have power and weight. This is why burning one copy of a book says nothing about what is in the book- but it says a great deal about the idiot who lit the match.

Mr. Jones ironically now resembles those he professes to despise- he is an agitator with bloody hands. More ironically, the chance of his being martyred by Muslims is far less than the chance of his being martyred by his own government, who are not pleased at all about the ruckus he's stirred up- and the people that died because of that ruckus.

Jim,

That was well put. I can't really add to what you have said, because you said exactly what I would have typed.

Cheers,

Graham.

 

[Jeff Young]

US soldier admits killing unarmed Afghans for sport | World news | The Guardian

 

[TimB]

Quite frankly as well as condeming the pastor I would add the media who surely allowed those in Afghanistan to know about his actions. If we wouldn't give nutballs on the fringe of the right or left the time of day this type of thing couldn't be inflamed as it has.....but that doesn't sell ad time does it.

 

[Nick]

Stupid, ignorant, malicious, deliberately provocative and more, these clowns invent some asinine “religion” mostly to take advantage of tax laws and find other morons to donate money to them.

Bullet the Blue Sky U2

So I'm back in my hotel room
With John Coltrane and A Love Supreme
In the next room I hear some woman scream out
That her lover's turning off, turning on the television
And I can't tell the difference between ABC News, Hill Street Blues
And a preacher on the old time gospel hour
Stealing money from the sick and the old
Well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister!

 

[Cliff Beer]

I'm sorry, but anyone who kills another in cold blood just because they saw a book being damaged on TV (or reported on in a newspaper) is just an animal. Such a person is not civilized and doesn't deserve to be viewed as a rational and thinking human being.

 

[Graham]

I'm sorry, but anyone who kills another in cold blood just because they saw a book being damaged on TV (or reported on in a newspaper) is just an animal. Such a person is not civilized and doesn't deserve to be viewed as a rational and thinking human being.

Cliff, That's because you are an educated man. Believe me, I fully agree with your sentiment, but...

Put yourself in the position of being born desperately poor, ill-educated and indoctrinated from an early age. Shit, I don't condone the killing of anyone in a circumstance like this, but you can see how it can happen.

Guys, we see the issue in front of us, but we dont address the root cause. The "pastor" listens to a higher being (or so he thinks). His default position of protest is to burn a qu'ran. This is probably the most radical thing that his conscience could do.

The guy in Afghanistan fires his AK47, because that is the most radical thing that his conscience can do. The upshot is that people die. One is (almost) as guilty as the other because he had the intelligence to see the consequences of his actions.

It's all about degrees. They are both expressing themselves in the only way that they know how to.

Charles Mason went down for life (or the death penalty, I can't remember), but he didn't kill people himself, he persuaded others to do it for him. I believe that the pastor belongs in the same boat. Because of his fundamental beliefs, he was willing to absolve himself of the responsibility of other peoples' lives for the sake of his beliefs.

It's desperately sad that the pastor didn't think before he did what he did. Maybe some people would still be alive now.

BTW, I'm NOT suggesting that what happened with the UN killings is in anyway forgiveable, I'm just saying that there is a roadmap for what happened, many years ago in grinding poverty, manipulation, fundamental religion and control has now ended for some people by the actions of a small town pastor looking for god and fifteen minutes of fame.

Sad.