UN workers killed in Afghanistan

siniman

R0ot wrote: »

There is a slight degree of common sense required before anyone is entitled to do anything, I'm perfectly entitled to come to your house and kill you and your family however there would be consequences of Jail time etc.

Now yes he was perfectly entitled to go and burn a book but he did so knowing it would piss people off and cause other incidents so I defer to my earlier statement of "common sense required".

An idiot did a dumb thing, another group of idiots then did another dumb thing and innocent people were hurt/killed as a result really the people that hurt/killed the innocents.

Absolutely - the original act was done in the absolute knowledge of the reaction it would promote - did we not have a whole stand off a couple of months ago for that exact reason when another burning was threatened.

SamHarris

siniman wrote: »

Absolutely - the original act was done in the absolute knowledge of the reaction it would promote - did we not have a whole stand off a couple of months ago for that exact reason when another burning was threatened.

Whats your point? The responsibility still rests with the people who did the killing. Are you proposing the US should punish the pastor? Keep in mind you are talking about a country that recently reiterated how legal it is for people to hold a hate filled rally at the funerals of their soldiers.

SamHarris

R0ot wrote: »

There is a slight degree of common sense required before anyone is entitled to do anything, I'm perfectly entitled to come to your house and kill you and your family however there would be consequences of Jail time etc.

Now yes he was perfectly entitled to go and burn a book but he did so knowing it would piss people off and cause other incidents so I defer to my earlier statement of "common sense required".

An idiot did a dumb thing, another group of idiots then did another dumb thing and innocent people were hurt/killed as a result really the people that hurt/killed the innocents.

No, an idiot did a dumb thing and then a mob on the other side of the world killed a handful of people. The two incidents are not comparable to anyone with any sense.

siniman

I understand that the responsibility rests with those who carried out these killings. However i think the burning of the koran is definitely an incitment to further violence - and when it was suggested before, the white house intervened to prevent it happening. why would this burning be any different. though i also do wonder at the role of media in all of this - why report the burning with such relish? that is just facilitating further violence in my opinion. i don't understand why sensationalism always overcomes journalism.

SamHarris

siniman wrote: »

I understand that the responsibility rests with those who carried out these killings. However i think the burning of the koran is definitely an incitment to further violence - and when it was suggested before, the white house intervened to prevent it happening. why would this burning be any different. though i also do wonder at the role of media in all of this - why report the burning with such relish? that is just facilitating further violence in my opinion. i don't understand why sensationalism always overcomes journalism.

Because if every time someone does something in the US that is an incentive to violence elsewhere in the world, and the White House intervenes it is calling into question their own vaules. From a political perspecitve. I'm not defending that man personally, but his right to do what he wants to an inanimate object. "I may not agree with what you say etc etc"

Nodin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Answer my question. Irrelevant rhetoric is not an answer.

There's three sample incidents there that indicate that yes, theres a very good chance they would.

siniman

SamHarris wrote: »

Because if every time someone does something in the US that is an incentive to violence elsewhere in the world, and the White House intervenes it is calling into question their own vaules. From a political perspecitve. I'm not defending that man personally, but his right to do what he wants to an inanimate object. "I may not agree with what you say etc etc"

For sure - i agree - i thought it was extremely odd that they intervened the last time - but they did - perhaps the timing was more critical for the previous incident and that is why they intervened. no doubt the man has a right to do whatever he wishes - but knowing the consequences of those actions - and i guess that is to be proven - the action should be placed in the context of antipicated consequences.

partyatmygaff

Nodin wrote: »

There's three sample incidents there that indicate that yes, theres a very good chance they would.

Has that ever occurred though? If someone publicly destroyed Hindu statues here in Ireland would that incite Hindu extremists to launch a terrorist attack against Ireland? It just does not seem at all likely.

Nodin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Has that ever occurred though?.................

For the second time......

Low-caste Indian groups protesting the desecration of their leader’s statue burned train cars, buses and clashed with police in western India today in violence that left at least two people dead and 40 injured, police said.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/indians-riot-after-statue-desecration-287337.html#ixzz1IPP4BvuL

partyatmygaff

Nodin wrote: »

For the second time......

You haven't even answered my question a first time let alone a second time.

Let me reiterate one more time,

If someone publicly destroyed Hindu statues here in Ireland would that incite Hindu extremists to launch a terrorist attack against Ireland? Would that cause Hindu extremists to indiscriminately kill people who have nothing to do with Ireland?

Or let's say the pastor burnt a vedas instead of a Qur'an. Would the response have been the same? I seriously doubt it.

Nodin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You haven't even answered my question a first time let alone a second time.

Let me reiterate one more time,

If someone publicly destroyed Hindu statues here in Ireland would that incite Hindu extremists to launch a terrorist attack against Ireland? Would that cause Hindu extremists to indiscriminately kill people who have nothing to do with Ireland?

I've answered it twice - Its quite possible. I've shown examples that illustrate that possibility. You seem to want to evade that, because it would disrupt the narrative of Islam as somehow unique in regards to fanaticism.

The only difference between the two is that the Hindu community is far less widespread than the muslim.

partyatmygaff

Nodin wrote: »

I've answered it twice - Its quite possible. I've shown examples that illustrate that possibility.

No you haven't. You've shown an example of a violent response within India for an act that occurred within India. Not at all comparable.

You seem to want to evade that, because it would disrupt the narrative of Islam as somehow unique in regards to fanaticism.

Evade what?


It all boils down to this

Someone draws a caricature of Jesus. No one bats an eyelid.
Someone draws a caricature of Abraham. No one bats an eyelid.
Someone draws a caricature of Buddha. No one bats an eyelid.
Someone draws a caricature of Shiva. No one bats an eyelid.
Someone draws a caricature of Muhammad and the entire world rises in massive violent outbursts and hundreds of death threats are made. Bombings and assassinations are attempted and the situation rises to become almost a major world crisis. Media outlets and governments across the world censor the images and silence themselves and kill free speech in an attempt to appease savages.

Logical Fallacy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't know about you but I would class burning a book as being a relatively peaceful form of protest. He didn't harm anyone directly, he caused offence but no physical harm.

Walk into his Church, pick up his bible and burn it. See how peaceful things stay.

partyatmygaff

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Walk into his Church, pick up his bible and burn it. See how peaceful things stay.

Arrest for criminal damage? He's not going to behead the first non-Christian he sees however.

That's quite beside the point however.

This pastor burnt a Qur'an thousands of miles away from Afghanistan. A bunch of barbarians decided to behead innocent people trying to help their village in response to what an unrelated man did a few thousand miles away.

Manic Moran

whiteonion wrote: »

It looks like the UN Guards were the once who started shooting, don't be surprised if you get angry reactions if you shoot at people.

Don't be surprised if people shoot at you if you don't behave yourself at a facility with armed guards.

NTM

BluePlanet

Don't be surprised if they shoot indiscriminately into a crowd, if some people in attendance don't behave at a facility with armed guards.

fixed that statement.

ScissorPaperRock

SamHarris wrote: »

No, an idiot did a dumb thing and then a mob on the other side of the world killed a handful of people. The two incidents are not comparable to anyone with any sense.

Typical western-centric understanding.

It's an entirely different culture with a differently history and different value system. They place a value on the Koran, and it's not for us to say it's wrong.

But the fundamental issue in this whole mess is that the pastor understood the value of the Koran to Muslims, and the extent to which it is intertwined with their lives/belief system/culture.

Regardless of whether Westerners disagree with their belief/value system, they are just as entitled to theirs. But if you want to think about how this could have been avoided, then it starts with the pastor.

partyatmygaff

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Typical western-centric understanding.

It's an entirely different culture with a differently history and different value system. They place a value on the Koran, and it's not for us to say it's wrong.

Why can we not? If these people were Catholics the mob of AH would now be screaming in unison calling them barbarians. Christians value the Bible equally as Muslims value the Qur'an. Yet in this day and age you will never see a Christian extremist of any kind beheading people indiscriminately because someone a few thousand miles away burnt their Holy Book.

But the fundamental issue in this whole mess is that the pastor understood the value of the Koran to Muslims, and the extent to which it is intertwined with their lives/belief system/culture.

He made a point and he succeeded. You criticise Islam (Whether you draw a caricature or burn a book) and Muslims respond violently and kill people indiscriminately despite them having no connection with the pastor.

Regardless of whether Westerners disagree with their belief/value system, they are just as entitled to theirs.

If someone's belief system entails beheading people trying to help them for something that someone else did a few thousand miles away I will condemn their beliefs. They are not a different species to us.

But if you want to think about how this could have been avoided, then it starts with the pastor.

Yes of course. The pastor must shut up in fear of violent responses.

The West claims to be the land of freedom and free speech but they censor themselves in an attempt to appease barbarians like these.

R0ot

R0ot wrote: »

There is a slight degree of common sense required before anyone is entitled to do anything, I'm perfectly entitled to come to your house and kill you and your family however there would be consequences of Jail time etc.

Now yes he was perfectly entitled to go and burn a book but he did so knowing it would piss people off and cause other incidents so I defer to my earlier statement of "common sense required".

An idiot did a dumb thing, another group of idiots then did another dumb thing and innocent people were hurt/killed as a result really the people that hurt/killed the innocents.

I believe the pastor said that if it this incident hadn't happened, something else would have been used as an excuse. I agree with that. Muslim extremists (and many not-so-extreme Muslims) spend their time just waiting for an excuse to kick off. Constantly playing the victim and overreacting to any perceived slight. How can you even compare killing someone's family leading to jail time to burning a book leading to mass murder? A sensible comparison would be killing someone because they burned your Bible. And how much public sympathy do you think you'd get for that?

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Typical western-centric understanding.

It's an entirely different culture with a differently history and different value system. They place a value on the Koran, and it's not for us to say it's wrong.

But the fundamental issue in this whole mess is that the pastor understood the value of the Koran to Muslims, and the extent to which it is intertwined with their lives/belief system/culture.

Regardless of whether Westerners disagree with their belief/value system, they are just as entitled to theirs. But if you want to think about how this could have been avoided, then it starts with the pastor.

Religious books are important in every religion. It has nothing to do with East and West, so why are you making it about that? Most people would be offended by someone burning their religious book. They just wouldn't throw all their toys out of the pram and bully the rest of the world into silence. As always, the extremist Muslims want one rule for them and another for everyone else. They want to be respected and they want people to bend over backwards to accommodate them, but they won't tolerate opposing viewpoints. All this has done has illustrate the point that these people are incapable of behaving like civilized human beings. Why is it always up to US to have to 'understand' THEM? Where is their tolerance and open-mindedness?

Palmach

partyatmygaff wrote: »

He made a point and he succeeded. You criticise Islam (Whether you draw a caricature or burn a book) and Muslims respond violently and kill people indiscriminately despite them having no connection with the pastor.

Precisely. Had they tried to kill him I'd sort of understand it. Instead they killed the nearest non-Muslim they could get their hands on. If I was the UN I'd pull out immediately and not give them a further cent. Lets see how clever they'd be then.

ScissorPaperRock

Well the fact that we condemn their reaction is not really the issue. This kind of reaction was obviously going to happen and could have been avoided.

Given that the reaction was obvious, the fact is that the pastor deemed it OK that lives would be lost to prove a point.

That doesn't sound like civilised behaviour to me.

partyatmygaff

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Well the fact that we condemn their reaction is not really the issue. This kind of reaction was obviously going to happen and could have been avoided.

Why was it obviously going to happen? If you are only to answer one section of my post, answer this section.

Given that the reaction was obvious, the fact is that the pastor deemed it OK that lives would be lost to prove a point.

The pastor was sure of the response? I am sure he expected a less than civil reaction but I do not think he foresaw indiscriminate beheadings of UN staff.

That doesn't sound like civilised behaviour to me.

The pastor is uncivil by burning a book in protest but the barbarians who beheaded innocent people trying to help them for the actions of an unrelated man are not?

ScissorPaperRock

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why was it obviously going to happen? If you are only to answer one section of my post, answer this section.

Because of the threats that were made in September when he first threatened to burn the book

The pastor was sure of the response? I am sure he expected a less than civil reaction but I do not think he foresaw indiscriminate beheadings of UN staff.

It was made clear before that there would be a backlash. I doubt he ruled out that people could be killed. I wouldn't have.

The pastor is uncivil by burning a book in protest but the barbarians who beheaded innocent people trying to help them for the actions of an unrelated man are not?

I used the word civilised because it was used in a previous post. For what it's worth I don't think the reaction was in any way justified, but of course that's coming from my set of beliefs and value system.

But the point is that it could have been avoided. What has the pastor gained? If there had been no lives lost, what would he have gained?

philologos

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

But the point is that it could have been avoided. What has the pastor gained? If there had been no lives lost, what would he have gained?

On a quick youtube search I found hundreds of videos of Qur'an burning. This is one of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywu4OhJryVw

Equally you find hundreds of videos of people burning Bibles. This is one of them including ripping pages out of the New Testament and having a sadistic look on her face. Funnily enough much of what she says she believes in Biblical, some not obviously:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlyIIFu4afU

There are billions of these books in the world, going out and buying one and then burning it is not going to decrease the number of Bibles in the world, or indeed the number of Qur'ans.

If we seriously are to expect violence for each Qur'an burning we would expect a lot of blood for these videos alone on youtube.

There are more important things to get offended about.

partyatmygaff

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Because of the threats that were made in September when he first threatened to burn the book

Why were threats made?

I used the word civilised because it was used in a previous post. For what it's worth I don't think the reaction was in any way justified, but of course that's coming from my set of beliefs and value system.

Less of the politically correct rubbish if you don't mind. How can anyone justify beheading innocent people trying to help them because of the actions of an unrelated man? Even a wild animal wouldn't do that.

Nodin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No you haven't. You've shown an example of a violent response within India for an act that occurred within India. Not at all comparable.

......................

Yes, one can imagine the conversation between religous fanatics

Fanatic 1 - ' They Have Defiled The Scriptures'
Fanatic 2 - ' They were outside our Internationally recognised borders'
Fanatic 1 - ' O.......That's different'

Your original hypothetical scenario wasn't so dependent on Geography.....

There is also the question of why is it ALWAYS Muslim extremists who respond violently to incidents like these? Take the burning of the poppy on armistice day. Surely there are extreme British Nationalists living in England? Did they go on an indiscriminate killing spree? No, they did not. They just expressed their distaste at the protest in a largely civil manner.

I'd suggest you're just moving the goal posts.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You criticise Islam (Whether you draw a caricature or burn a book) and Muslims respond violently and kill people indiscriminately despite them having no connection with the pastor.

Some muslims do. You'll note this seems to be the only country where its occurred.

partyatmygaff

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, one can imagine the conversation between religous fanatics

Fanatic 1 - ' They Have Defiled The Scriptures'
Fanatic 2 - ' They were outside our Internationally recognised borders'
Fanatic 1 - ' O.......That's different'

They wouldn't even discuss it. I am quite sure that if the same pastor did the same thing with a Vedas there would have been no media attention nor any "backlash".

Mark200

Deleted User wrote: »

The pastor did it to show the problem... It's an effective statement. "All I have to do is burn this book on the other side of the world and wait till you see what happens".

Barbarians.. No room for it in a modern world.

Yes it was a great statement from him to put other peoples lives on the line to prove his point. His actions led to people who had nothing to do with his actions being killed and beheaded. It doesn't matter how stupid the extremist Muslim reaction was - the pastor was warned over and over what would happen if he went ahead with it, yet he did it anyway. If he wants to go to Afghanistan himself, and ensure that he is the only one who has to suffer for his stupid actions - then fine by me. In fact I'd almost encourage it.

If someone with a big temper was threatening the lives of people you knew, you wouldn't do anything to incite his/her violence - regardless of how illogical the violence would be.

Obama added: "Look, this is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda. You know, you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090904983.html

The above post also applies to the repetitive posts by 'partyatmygaff'. It is absolutely irrelevant whether other religions would react the same way. That doesn't change the fact that the pastor could be very confident with the knowledge that many lives would be risked if he went ahead with his idiotic actions.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The pastor is uncivil by burning a book in protest but the barbarians who beheaded innocent people trying to help them for the actions of an unrelated man are not?

That was never even implied.

Nodin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

They wouldn't even discuss it. I am quite sure that if the same pastor did the same thing with a Vedas there would have been no media attention nor any "backlash".

....but I've already illustrated the kind of rank fanaticism which would, in any reasonable assesment, lead one to conclude there could indeed be a reaction.

Low-caste Indian groups protesting the desecration of their leader’s statue burned train cars, buses and clashed with police in western India today in violence that left at least two people dead and 40 injured, police said.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/indians-riot-after-statue-desecration-287337.html#ixzz1IPP4BvuL

New Delhi - Richard Gere's kissing and hugging Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty during an AIDS awareness function triggered protests in India Monday over the 'obscene act' with people burning effigies of the Hollywood star, officials and media reports said.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1292112.php/Richard_Gere_causes_riots_in_India_over_Shetty_kiss_n_hug

Valentine's Day in India has been marred by a spate of attacks on young couples as Hindu radicals battle what they claim are foreign influences corrupting Indian culture.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hindus-in-valentines-day-attack-on-lovers-20090215-884e.html

Thousands of terrified Indian Christians are hiding in the forests of the volatile Indian state of Orissa after a wave of religious 'cleansing' forced them from their burnt-out homes with no immediate prospect of return.
A mob of Hindu fundamentalists rampaged through villages last week, killing those too slow to get out of their way, burning churches and an orphanage, and targeting the homes of Christians. Up to 20 people were reported dead, with at least two deliberately set alight, after the murder of a Hindu leader last Saturday provoked the violence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/31/india.religion

Now, be as good as to explain why, if its a problem with "muslims", this violent reaction seems to have been confined to Afghanistan.

ScissorPaperRock

Jakkass wrote: »

On a quick youtube search I found hundreds of videos of Qur'an burning.

There are more important things to get offended about.

That doesn't change the fact that it was made clear to him that there would be a backlash.

So that pastor, having been made aware of this, made a judgement on whether it was worth risking the safety of others - but to the benefit of who or what?