How much responsibility does Terry Jones have for the massacre in Afghanistan

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It would have left a mark if Reid were talking about trying detainees in New York. He was talking about closing Gitmo.

Don't let the facts get in your way.

Since we're discussing facts, the same amendment Reid was speaking of also said no funding could be used to “transfer, relocate, or incarcerate Guantánamo Bay detainees to or within the United States.”

Also, since we're mentioning facts, how about some proof of that "hue and cry from the right about scary bad men". I was unaware that the Senate was controlled by the Republicans in 09, when they voted 90-6 in FAVOR of the amendment. (48 D, 40 R, 2 I aye vs 6 D nay, with 3 D abstaining)

And, since you're claiming a difference re: Reid, make the proof match - only hue and cry about 'scary bad men' specifically connected with the trial, thanks.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If you think the Pastor is responsible for the riot and should be punished, FOR DOING SOMETHING PROTECTED BY THE 1st AMENDMENT, you're defending this message.

Maybe, you are fine with the KKK having nightly cross burnings? I suppose who are fine with the American Nazi Party passing out literature calling for the extermination of Jews. I take it that you find it acceptable for radical Muslims, right here in the U.S.A. to preach hate? Do you consider the Westboro Church to be champions of free speech.
When the intent of speech is to cause injury or death, there are limits.
I suppose that you would have a problem with peaceful Muslims placing billboards across America with passages from the Koran. How about one right outside your door, so that you see it everyday?
Jone's intent was to incite. There is no other reason for him to do what he did.

Quote

You're all for the first amendment...until it offends Muslims. Do you think it should be illegal to draw an offensive cartoon of Allah? Would that cartoonist be responsible for riots in Afghanistan? What other rights are you willing to give away?

I am against speech and action that is designed to cause harm and/or death, regardless of ones race, creed, or religion.

Quote

I am a true radical American. Thank you.

Just wondering, what branch of the service did/do you serve in?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[zoom1 0]

if you burn a book that some people live there life by thats ok,but if you live in germany and say or write that hitler never killed any jews you end up in jail, how does this work?

[muff528 3]

Quote

if you burn a book that some people live there life by thats ok,but if you live in germany and say or write that hitler never killed any jews you end up in jail, how does this work?

No 1st Amendment over there.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Following that logic, Charlie Manson did not commit murder

This preacher did not tell people to murder anyone, he burned some books. Without the instigator in Afghanistan there would have been no riot.

Quote

Hitler isn't responsible for the Holocaust. Did he personally round up the Jews and gas them?

He ordered it, this preacher did not order a riot.

Quote

The butterfly effect comes into play here.
Would you feel differently if the dead were all American soldiers?

Yes, I would blame the person actually responsible for the RIOT that killed people... I would not grandstand and pick a politically easy target.

A drunk driver hits a school bus full of kids on a day trip to care for the elderly.... Do you blame the guy that delivered the beer to the bar three weeks ago?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

This preacher did not tell people to murder anyone, he burned some books. Without the instigator in Afghanistan there would have been no riot.

Had the preacher not burned their book, there is a real possibility that the riot may not had occurred.

Quote

Yes, I would blame the person actually responsible for the RIOT that killed people... I would not grandstand and pick a politically easy target.

A drunk driver hits a school bus full of kids on a day trip to care for the elderly.... Do you blame the guy that delivered the beer to the bar three weeks ago?

Not picking politically easy target. Jones cast himself into the line of fire when he decided to enrage what he knew to be an enrage-able situation. He knew his action would have a domino effect.

Your beer analogy is silly. Now had the beer distributor personally got the man drunk with the intent to put him behind the steering wheel of a car, knowing that by doing so may cause injury or death. Then, yes I do feel that the distributor should be held responsible.

If you do something that you know will cause harm and/or death, that is negligence.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Had the preacher not burned their book, there is a real possibility that the riot may not had occurred.

Nonsense. The fanatic would have used some other event to incite the riot.

FACT: The burning was three weeks old and half a world away.

Why didn't the people riot the next day, the next week?

Quote

Your beer analogy is silly. Now had the beer distributor personally got the man drunk with the intent to put him behind the steering wheel of a car, knowing that by doing so may cause injury or death

Nope it is pretty good, and you just proved it. Did the pastor put the weapons in the hands of the attackers? Did the pastor claim the crowd should seek retribution?

The answer to both is no. He performed an act. The fanatic used that act to start trouble.... Just like the beer truck driver provided beer, but did not encourage the driver to drink and drive.

Quote

If you do something that you know will cause harm and/or death, that is negligence.

Burning a book does not cause harm or death. Yelling, "Kill them, they burned a book!!!!" Does.

[Trafficdiver 8]

Quote

Quote

If you think the Pastor is responsible for the riot and should be punished, FOR DOING SOMETHING PROTECTED BY THE 1st AMENDMENT, you're defending this message.

Maybe, you are fine with the KKK having nightly cross burnings? I suppose who are fine with the American Nazi Party......

Are these activities protected under the 1st amendment?

Yes.

So do you now admit you have a problem with the 1st amendment?

No, I was not in the military, does that mean that I can't advocate killing people who want to kill me?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This preacher did not tell people to murder anyone, he burned some books. Without the instigator in Afghanistan there would have been no riot.

Had the preacher not burned their book, there is a real possibility that the riot may not had occurred.

Which makes as much sense as: "if that black man hadn't decided to date and sleep with that white girl, there's a real possibility he wouldn't have been lynched."

Just because someone else considers a legal action as offensive doesn't make you responsible for what they do in response.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe, you are fine with the KKK having nightly cross burnings? I suppose who are fine with the American Nazi Party passing out literature calling for the extermination of Jews. I take it that you find it acceptable for radical Muslims, right here in the U.S.A. to preach hate? Do you consider the Westboro Church to be champions of free speech.
When the intent of speech is to cause injury or death, there are limits.
I suppose that you would have a problem with peaceful Muslims placing billboards across America with passages from the Koran. How about one right outside your door, so that you see it everyday?
Jone's intent was to incite. There is no other reason for him to do what he did.

Jone's intent was to get publicity.

Cross burnings are legal, when done on private property. No problem there, unless they do it on some black person's lawn, or across the street. Then the intent is to intimidate - essentially assault.

Nazis are welcome to hand out poorly copied fliers talking about how Jews run the world and how blacks look like apes. But if they include a call to kill, no, that's no longer kosher.

There are muslims in the US that do preach hate. And if missionary types want to purchase billboard space, by all means take the money.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

But if they include a call to kill, no, that's no longer kosher.

Why not? The people doing the killing would be responsible. How do you reconcile the above with personal responsibility?

Some might see the burning of the Koran as symbolic of a call to kill muslims.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He has the right to say whatever he wants, but if what he says incites rioting and deaths, he's at least in some way responsible.

Inciting to riot is a serious crime in the US. I'm not saying he should be arrested and given five years of jail time, but he is absolutely responsible for inciting a riot. Further, he knew exactly what he was doing and had co-conspirators.

The guy is a fuggin' jackass.

this is about as close to my opinion that I can see

he's not responsible for killing anyone - but he is responsible for the incitement - and, worse, he had to be sure this would be the result (I doubt he gave the extremists the 'benefit of the doubt' that they'd take the 'sticks and stones' approach to his demonstration)

Dekker's note (or close to it) - "he's not directly or criminally responsible in any way, but he's morally irresponsible"

he's a jackass - but the murderers are....murderers

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Why not? The people doing the killing would be responsible. How do you reconcile the above with personal responsibility?

The "blame" would be:

1. The person who did the killings.
2. The person who ordered the killings.

You are correct that the final responsibility is the individual that did the killing. But the person who started the riot and incited the crowd to violence caused the dangerous situation.

The pastor may be a jackass... But the fact remains that his actions (while distasteful) were within our Constitution and in and of itself did not create a dangerous situation. If the act had been responsible, it would have happened three weeks earlier when the jackass actually burnt the books.

Quote

Some might see the burning of the Koran as symbolic of a call to kill muslims.

More likely a call to denounce the faith than to kill them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But if they include a call to kill, no, that's no longer kosher.

Why not? The people doing the killing would be responsible. How do you reconcile the above with personal responsibility?

Some might see the burning of the Koran as symbolic of a call to kill muslims.

they might, but that's their own doing. Not quite the same as crying out "Kill Muslims." The first part (crying out) is inciting. The second part (kill Muslims) is the violence.

the dog might hunt a bit better if there really was cause and effect here. Burn Koran - people see it, violence ensues. Instead you have considerable time and distance. The actual inciters of the violence were the ones on location.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Cross burnings are legal, when done on private property. No problem there, unless they do it on some black person's lawn, or across the street. Then the intent is to intimidate - essentially assault.

As I understand it, the State can ban cross burning.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

In 1992, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that prohibited
the placing on public or private property of a symbol, such as “a burning cross or Nazi swastika,
which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in
others, on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.”140 Read literally, this ordinance
would clearly violate the First Amendment, because, “f there is a bedrock principle underlying
the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply
because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”141 In this case, however, the
Minnesota Supreme Court had construed the ordinance to apply only to conduct that amounted to
fighting words. Therefore, the question for the Supreme Court was whether the ordinance,
construed to apply only to fighting words, was constitutional.
The Court held that it was not, because, although fighting words may be proscribed “because of
their constitutionally proscribable content,” they may not “be made the vehicles for content
discrimination unrelated to their distinctively proscribable content.”142 Thus, the government may
proscribe fighting words, but it may not make the further content discrimination of proscribing
particular fighting words on the basis of hostility “towards the underlying message expressed.”143
In this case, the ordinance banned fighting words that insult “on the basis of race, color, creed,
religion or gender,” but not “for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership,
or homosexuality.... The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions
on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.”144 This decision does not, of
course, preclude prosecution for illegal conduct that may accompany cross burning, such as
trespass, arson, or threats. As the Court put it: “St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to
prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.”145
In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court held that its opinion in R.A.V. did not mean that statutes
that impose additional penalties for crimes that are motivated by racial hatred are
unconstitutional. Such statutes imposed enhanced sentences not for bigoted thought, but for the
commission of crimes that can inflict greater and individual and societal harm because of their
bias-inspired motivation. A defendant’s motive has always been a factor in sentencing, and even
in defining crimes; “Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964], for example, makes it unlawful
for an employer to discriminate against an employee ‘because of such individual’s race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.’”146
In Virginia v. Black, the Court held that its opinion in R.A.V. did not make it unconstitutional for a
state to prohibit burning a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons.147

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In Virginia v. Black, the Court held that its opinion in R.A.V. did not make it unconstitutional for a
state to prohibit burning a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons.147

I have an easier time agreeing with this decision than the earlier mentioned St Paul decision. But it still skirts up against the decisions allowing flag burning.

To be certain, no one in the Middle East is intimidated by hearing that a preacher in Florida burned a Koran.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Where are all the right celebrations and kudos for Obama?

For breaking his promises? Why should we celebrate that?

Quote

Isnt any as they hate everything he does, no matter what.

BTW, do we really have to do the whole, "Where are the news stories," "why haven't all posters who ever supported Obama made new threads about how much they hate him," "," thing again?

Turn about is fair play, after 8 years of it in the reverse direction. Bush could have walked on water to save a child from drowning and all you would have heard on the news and from the Left (but I repeat myself) would have been "President Can't Swim".

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."