UN workers killed in Afghanistan

Pasor Jones shares in the culpability because, metaphorically speaking, he pressed a 'bomb-release' button. A bomb fell and now those UN workers are dead.

no a bomb is an inanimate object, it has no emotions, makes no idle threats, and is engineered to do only one thing when given a very specific trigger event.

Jihadists are Human though. They are as capable of irrationality as anyone else, they are as Sentient as any one of us, they are responsible for their own actions based on a number of stimuli. By your same logic I can be exonerated for murder because Grand Theft Auto developers encouraged me to by rewarding me dollars/points for beating hookers to death.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Thank you.

The solution to the problem of the 'savages' is ethically challenging and ultimately points the way to a 'one world government' with an accompanying global police-force.

I'm not sure what can be done to bring the actual murderers to justice but I do see a simple solution to people like pastor Terry Jones.

Let him take it to Afghanistan and we will see if he has the courage of his convictions.

Why would he need to leave The Land of the Free? You can't travel to Somalia and be protected by waving around your bill of rights. Similarly I wouldn't walk into a pub in Manchester and burn a Man-U jersey. There's a clear distinction there between Convictions and Common Sense.

Not sure why you subscribe to the NWO conspiracy theories but it hardly seems necessary. This microcosm with the Pastor is about Ideology of religious freedoms. Just as the laws of the United States permit the WBC to burn Korans, it permits the Muslim community to establish places of worship anywhere any other religion would also be permitted to. On one side you have a burnt Koran; on the other you have a NYC Mosque/Islamic Center. Both have sparked some degree of controversy yet both are in keeping with First Amendment Ideals.

I said, paraphrasing, that some people have been motivated to murder by such things and therefore could be exonerated. Diminished responsibility perhaps?

Perhaps for a minor. The idea that the group that murdered these UN workers should be sympathized with is frankly ridiculous. There are plenty of Muslims who 'get' Freedom of Religion and do not become raging bulls when someone shows them red. But these Islamic Extremists who can get so riled up that something that happens 10,000 miles away causes them to carry out a murder should not be sympathized with.

jackiebaron wrote: »

It should also be noted that the Taliban were not great fans of Al-Qaeda or "Arabs" from outside Afghanistan. They tolerated them but were by no means in cahoots with them and certainly didn't sign up to their agenda of global jihad. Also you'll probably remember that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US could provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11. Of course the US couldn't provide any evidence (probably still can't to this day) but wanted to invade anyway. They had no interest in Bin Laden. He was just a convenient bogey-man to frighten the public into going along with the plans of their leaders to tighten their grip on the handles of power.

Also the neocons had been pressing Clinton to invade Iraq as early as 1996. He flatly refused to entertain their requests. Jeb Bush was one of the signatories of their requests and was Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Perle, etc.

History didn't start unfolding on September 11 2001. Years and years of related event and decisions going right back to the 1980s can be directly linked to the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Just examine the time-lines and it will all come clear.

I wrote a long reply pointing out the logical fallacies and assumptions in this, it got deleted and I couldnt be bothered writing it again.

I will say - I'm refering to Afghanistan, not Iraq. People benefiting/ using something does not equate to carrying it out.

The Taliban military wing included units under the command of al Qaeda. That is "in coohoots".

If you are trying to convince people that the Taliban are not unreasonable (they are, they refused to stop harbouring them following the embassy bombings, despite OBL taking direct responsibility) - they were trying to see how far they could continue to support al Qaeda, still believing perhaps that the US was a "paper tiger". They were wrong, and good.

Or is it thhat al Qaeda didnt carry out 9/11 and that it was all carried out by 1000's of American elected officials and emplyees then please, bring your evidence to official channels so they can be brought to justice. I await the case with baited breath

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, if I show a video of Osama Bin Ladin taking responsibility, it's part of the conspiracy, if I point out it is the biggest investigation in criminal history, involving 1000s of people THEY are part of the consiracy. If I say I helped organise the attacks and it was indeed OBL *I* am part of the conspiracy.

Anything so resistant to rational thinking and evidence is NOT an opinion built on facts - it is very clearly part of an ideology. In the Islamic world it is very prevalent (as backed up by the polls i linked earlier). A majority belief that it was not actually the Arabs, but other parties (mostly da joos or CIA) so that America could "humiliate Islam" with attacks. In the West conspiracy theorists usually come from the far left or right, who enjoy a simple narrative for their life or like to believe governments are all controlling. Both are pointless to argue with so I wont bother. It's an insult to my intelligence to google stuff so other people dont have to.

The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking...and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the “evidence” for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. --Michael ShermerThe belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking...and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the “evidence” for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. --Michael Shermer

Jakkass wrote: »

Every time you and others say this you are legitimising taking violent action because of offense. You do realise this? It's like saying that Salman Rushdie shouldn't have written the Satanic Verses due to the outburst that happened in the Islamic world, or that the Jylands Posten shouldn't have published the Muhammad cartoons. Every time we put the blame onto anyone else other than those who have lashed out in violence even if the others did serve as provocateurs we are pretty much saying it is acceptable and reasonable for people to lash out violently due to offense. Or was it justifiable that Lars Vilks was attacked for drawing offensive pictures of Muhammad as a dog?



My point is the blame is on the murderers.



You shouldn't have to sacrifice your liberty to murderers.

It was never a question of whether the violent response is an acceptable on. It clearly was not, nor was the response to Lars Vilks. These tendencies definitely need to be addressed if we are to live in harmony.

Lashing out, however, is clearly not how these sort of tendencies need to be addressed. It is probably counter-productive if anything, and is just irresponsible.

This pastor was aware that people's safety would be put at risk. He has to take responsibility for his part in this.

RichieC wrote: »

So manslaughter then, it's not murder if there's a proven Provocation, since we're working within the letter of the law, right?

Hmm...

Interesting. Let's run through a few scenarios

Obama makes a speech denouncing Gaddafi and saying that he needs to be removed from power.
Gaddafi feels insulted and so do his followers.
Gaddafi's followers then proceed to behead the nearest "American-looking" people they see.

Is Obama responsible for the killings or not? He could either shut up and let Gaddafi get on with what he believes are morally reprehensible acts of violence or he could protest against Gaddafi. In this scenario Obama did what he perceived to be right and that is protest.

Hypothetically, an extreme Irish nationalist would feel offended if someone defaced an Irish flag ( While protesting against one thing or another). So much so that they could kill the person who defaced the flag. If said killer is caught, are they charged with manslaughter due to the protestor's "provocation" or are they charged with murder for reacting like a wild animal at a relatively peaceful protestor's actions?

I think I'll send a letter to all the Irish newspapers. If they print anything bad about Fianna Fáil me and a few of my mates will go on a rampage and kill people. If they print it then they hold responsibility for the deaths.