UN workers killed in Afghanistan

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ok let me apply your thinking to a similar scenario.


An atheist figure of importance (Let's say leader of Atheist Ireland) decides to publicly burn a Bible in protest. Two days following his burning of the Bible, there are protests and violent outbursts across the globe as well as death threats.

A week following the incident, in the US, a group of Christian extremists break in to an Atheist meeting of some sort and behead ten people and thousands around the globe chant "Death to the infidels".

Knowing the run of people here on AH, there would be posts supporting the man in his "struggle" and for his "valiant protest in promotion of rational thought" and there would be widespread condemnation of the killers. If someone even so much as attempted to support the extremists who indiscriminately murdered people they'd be ripped to shreds by the mob of AH. No one would dare apportion any blame to the person who burnt a Bible because according to them they were simply exercising their right to protest. If someone burns a Bible, it's a protest. If someone burns a Qur'an, it's an act of great provocation and the waging of war against Muslims.

Double standards. How I hate them.

To use another example. Let's just say some guy acquires a photo of the wife or daughter of a fairly hard criminal or gangster and proceeds to edit that photograph with Photoshop so as to depict the woman with a cock in her mouth, another in her ass and her face all splattered with semen and puts it online or prints it off and distributes it all over the place with some various other extremely distasteful comments and derogatory allegations about the person.
If the guy later winds up in the emergency room with broken legs or worse I can pretty much guarantee that you'd say that he only has himself to blame. You wouldn't bleat a word about "freedom of expression". If he committed this act of provocation in the knowledge that he was safe from retribution, like this cowardly pastor, but the criminal and his henchmen had an idea of who was responsible and beat the shït out of a few of his acquaintances and torched their houses, again you'd say that he (the guy who doctored the photo) was playing with fire. He knew what he was doing would spark an orgy of violence but went ahead and did it anyway.

You see some people get offended to the nth degree by certain things, certain insults, and this pastor knew that. The fact that this is Muslims just shows that you are prejudiced against them. And comparing the reaction of Muslims to the desecration of their religious icons to the reactions of Christians in the same situation is meaningless. It just shows that you are ill-informed about their cultural sensitivities. You would never commit suicide if you brought eternal shame upon yourself and your family because the company that you were in charge of went balls to the wall as a result of your incompetence and hundreds lost their jobs yet a Japanese man wouldn't think twice about committing hara-kiri in the same situation.

If I start chatting up your wife or girlfriend in a bar not knowing that she's attached and you arrive you'd probably just politely say "sorry mate but this lady is spoken for" and leave it at that. A Brazilian would start swinging his fists straight away. An Italian might probably kill.

Nobody on here is stating that the killers of the UN workers were justified. Nobody is stating that the blame should rest solely on the moron pastor's shoulders. They are guilty of murder and that's that. But this idiot should share some of the blame for his cold and calculated act of childish provocation. Strangely enough if anyone is apprehended for these crimes they can actually plead a crime of passion rather than 1st degree, premeditated murder and thus recieve a lighter sentence thanks to this fool's antics.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Fixed your post.



So what? If someone told me "Don't dare buy an Audi RS4 or I will kill every single person I see" why should I have to appease them? Why should I limit my freedom to appease people whose sole method of communication is through blood.

If you were told to stop criticising Christianity or Christian extremists would kill the first atheist they see would you shut up and appease them? If not, then another set of double standards have been exposed.

A few years back there was a football match in Turkey between Leeds and Turkish side Galatasaray. An element of Leeds fans were in a pub in Istanbul and acting the role. They spat on and tore down a Turkish flag. They whipped out their cocks and started waving them in the faces of Turkish women in the pub in front of their men. You can probably guess what happened next. At least one Leeds fan fan was stabbed to death and dozens of others were kicked to within inches of their lives by enraged and insulted Turkish men. Were these Turkish men the savages? The things that they felt most strongly about, i.e. their country and their womenfolk were desecrated, disrespected and humiliated in front of their eyes by ignoramuses and they exploded. Again I can pretty much bet the farm that you will have said that the Leeds fans got what they deserved.

You know full well that if you insult the mother of an Italian man then you are lighting the fuse to a powder keg. Just because you are free to do so are you going to do it just for a laugh? Just to prove that it's your right under freedom of expression and then cry foul when he goes ballistic. People like you kick a dog and then have the audacity to call animal welfare when the beast bites you back.