Ignorance

[RSL]

Now, we are going to blame a person who is exercising his freedom.. or say he "caused deaths".. committed by others he doesn't know without his knowledge or consent?  We are saying the problem is with the person harming no one, who is merely exercising his freedoms, and not with the person(s) would would kill because of this?

Steve, Let's face it, we all understand that this "pastor" is doing what he's doing in order to get his fifteen minutes of fame (or in this case notoriety). And, wow, is he getting it!!, starting with a personal phone call from the Sec. Def. To suggest that the "pastor" is doing this without knowledge of what the result will be or without consenting to the result is, well, to avoid impoliteness I'll call it a stretch. As far as exercising freedoms is concerned, it's not a legitimate exercise of your freedom to incite murderers to murder people. Hitler was exercising his freedom too when he incited his people to murder the jews among them.

[Steve Weldon]

Steve, Let's face it, we all understand that this "pastor" is doing what he's doing in order to get his fifteen minutes of fame (or in this case notoriety). And, wow, is he getting it!!, starting with a personal phone call from the Sec. Def. To suggest that the "pastor" is doing this without knowledge of what the result will be or without consenting to the result is, well, to avoid impoliteness I'll call it a stretch. As far as exercising freedoms is concerned, it's not a legitimate exercise of your freedom to incite murderers to murder people. Hitler was exercising his freedom too when he incited his people to murder the jews among them.

I'd agree with you about his motives.. but I'm guessing just as you are.  But his motives shouldn't matter and they don't matter.  And there are limits to free speech and the SCOTUS has already ruled what they are.. things like yelling fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire isn't protected.  Burning flags and Bibles and the Quran clearly is or better minds than ours would have already filed an injunction to stop this guy.

As far as "inciting murderers" and comparing the guy to Hitler.. (why is it everyone thinks comparing someone to Hitler makes their point?  Kinda weak if you ask me..) No.  The same extremists who would murder innocent people simply because some nut job burns a Quran already want to kill those innocent people.  Stop fooling yourself that they need any more reason than someone being an infidel or is involved with their country or any of the other reasons Islamic extremists have been killing and bombing for, for well.. in modern times that would be decades.

It's okay when bibles and other religious texts get confiscated on entry into Saudi Arabia and burned/destroyed.. its okay when they burn effigies of our leaders, stamp our flag into the ground, kill people for even having a Bible on their person.. but wrong for some guy to burn a Quran he owns on private property without harming anyone? 

The fact is.. none of the above things are good.  But one of the first things opposing sides must learn to agree to.. is to agree to disagree.  When they have enough mutual respect to let someone say what's on their mind, or burn a religious text without running out and killing someone for it.. then we have a start.  But without the start.. we have nothing.  And nothing is what we have right now.

Will these actions force the issue?  Probably.  But don't you think its about time we start down the road of learning to agree to disagree?  And to not kill each other because of it?  We won't get it by sticking our heads in the sand.. we'll have to earn it.  And in their world 'earning it' means not capitulating.  Capitulate on this.. and their list of demands on our freedoms and behavior will increase.  I'm sorry, but the price has already been too high for the freedoms we have.  Previous generations (and this one) have given us these freedoms.. if we're not prepared to pay the rent on them.. we don't deserve them and we deserve to be ruled by those who will.  And we will be.  That is generally the plan with such things.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Guys give up ...... there are too many jerks in this otherwise gorgeous world and you won't stop them from breeding new jerks.
Lets all collect our worst prints and negatives and burn them and go on and make better photographs.
Amen.

[larryg]

Steve, Let's face it, we all understand that this "pastor" is doing what he's doing in order to get his fifteen minutes of fame (or in this case notoriety). And, wow, is he getting it!!, starting with a personal phone call from the Sec. Def. To suggest that the "pastor" is doing this without knowledge of what the result will be or without consenting to the result is, well, to avoid impoliteness I'll call it a stretch. As far as exercising freedoms is concerned, it's not a legitimate exercise of your freedom to incite murderers to murder people. Hitler was exercising his freedom too when he incited his people to murder the jews among them.


1st this guy is grandstanding for attention.  I did a google search and it appears his church/organization is affiliated with the organization that demonstrates at graveside ceremonies for servicement.

Shouldn't give him/them any more attention than we already have.  However, I wonder if some other group announced a burning of a Bible or Tora if anyone would sit up and take notice let alone be on national news?

[RSL]

I'd agree with you about his motives.. but I'm guessing just as you are.

Well, maybe you're guessing, but I'm not. If the guy's intention really were to burn some korans he'd simply shut up and burn them. Instead, he's grandstanding.

As far as "inciting murderers" and comparing the guy to Hitler.. (why is it everyone thinks comparing someone to Hitler makes their point?  Kinda weak if you ask me..) [[[I didn't and I don't intend to.]]] No.  The same extremists who would murder innocent people simply because some nut job burns a Quran already want to kill those innocent people. Stop fooling yourself that they need any more reason than someone being an infidel or is involved with their country or any of the other reasons Islamic extremists have been killing and bombing for, for well.. in modern times that would be decades.

Well, now that's a fair question: who do you suppose might be fooling himself? A lot of those "peaceful" muslims might be willing to murder innocent people, but they know it's a hassle to do that, and they know they might be killed in the attempt. But waving a burning koran in front of them can set them off on a jihad that gets them 72 virgins if they're killed during the attack. Obviously the people who thought that one up didn't consider the down side of being responsible for 72 women, but that won't slow down the jihadi faithful if they're exercised about a koran burning.

The rest of your statement is right on. Those people have been at war with us for more than thirty years but our "leaders" seemed incapable of understanding that until 9/11. It won't do to "pacify" them. The only way the war is going to end is for us to wipe them out. But we seem to have become too wussy to get on with it. Once Iran gets their bomb it may be too late to do it with anything less than a bomb of our own. That's a pretty terrifying thought.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It won't do to "pacify" them. The only way the war is going to end is for us to wipe them out...

Suddenly, the book-burning pastor looks as extreme as Mother Theresa

[DarkPenguin]

Suddenly, the book-burning pastor looks as extreme as Mother Theresa

I hope Bernard is properly punished for starting the thread that lead to the the destruction of, well, I kinda lost tack, who are we killing?

[RSL]

Suddenly, the book-burning pastor looks as extreme as Mother Theresa

What do you think, Slobodan? Are we at war or not?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What do you think, Slobodan? Are we at war or not?

With one billion of the Earth's population? If we are, I sincerely hope it is a war for "hearts and minds", in which any "bombing" would be with books and computers, teachers and doctors. Other types of wars, the wars of civilizations, which have been going off and on for centuries, are apparently as successful as "wars" on prostitution, alcohol and drugs. I am all for hunting down the extremists, though.

[RSL]

Slobodan,

No wars ever are "successful." At best they mitigate or postpone. But sometimes you have to accept mitigation or postponement as an alternative to obliteration. I agree with everything you said, but there are some flies in the soothing ointment we'd like to compound with books, computers, teachers and doctors.

Have you ever read the Koran ("Quran" in the current fad)? It's a worthwhile read, full of grand, stimulating visual word images -- "sparks bright as camels" -- that should be an electric jolt to any poet, painter, or photographer. But it's also a call to war. Mohammad was a warrior, not a peacemaker. According to the Koran, Islam's "final solution" will be to institute a worldwide Caliphate, forcibly convert, or as an alternative, kill unbelievers, and institute sharia law. It contains no "new testament" that teaches turning the other cheek, nor does it contain an equivalent of the Hebrew commentaries that teach moderation and peace.

Which is not to say that all or even a strong minority of Muslims are warriors. I suspect most want the same things people I've observed in various parts of the world want: peace, and the opportunity to raise their children in a sane environment.

But... and I base this assumption on what I've observed in photographs and stories of things like the congratulatory Palestinian celebrations following 9/11, the Libyan celebrations upon the return of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahii, the Lockerbie bomber, and similar events too numerous to list here... Unlike western Christians and jews who, in spite of high church and synagogue attendance, pretty much have abandoned serious religious beliefs, a majority of Muslims are strongly influenced by their religion, and believe deeply that when called to jihad they must respond.

So that leaves us face-to-face with this scenario: Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon and declares that an already prepared nuclear-armed missile will soon be launched against Tel Aviv. What do we do? What do the Israelis do? At that point it's unlikely conventional weapons on aircraft will stop the attack. The Iranians will launch their missile as soon as incoming aircraft are detected. Conventional explosives on missiles won't do the job either. Their radius of destruction just isn't wide enough. Unless the Israelis decide to wait and see if the Iranians are kidding, the only possible effective deterrent is a nuclear-armed missile.

What I'm putting forth isn't extremism. It's realism. Do you really believe the Iranians are bluffing? Can you afford to believe that? If the Iranians mean what they say, the only way to prevent a nuclear exchange is to go after their nuclear capability now, with conventional weapons. Once their nuclear weapons are in place it's too late, unless we or the Israelis are willing to use nuclear weapons to eliminate the threat.

So, how do you "hunt down the extremists," Slobodan? We already know that most of the Iranians are normal people who want peace, but it's the extremists who have the guns, and it's the extremists who'll have the nuclear weapons. Any attack on Iran is going to kill a lot of peaceful, blameless people. But what's the alternative? The alternative is for the Iranian extremists to kill even more peaceful, blameless people. Unfortunately, that's the kind of terrible arithmetic always central to war.

Hoping for the best isn't going to solve this problem, nor are books, computers, teachers or doctors. It seems to me that in Iran at least, we had won the war for hearts and minds after the last corrupt Iranian "election."  But our "leaders" were unwilling to pursue the enemy. Instead, they tried to sweet-talk the "winners" of the election. I don't need to recap how that worked.

In the end, the only thing that's going to win the hearts and minds of the world's muslims is for us to demonstrate that we're willing to use force when force is called for. Not long ago they understood that about us, and the response after 9/11 reinforced that understanding. We were the "strong horse." But since then we've shrunk ourselves through wussification into a horse about the size of Eohippus.

Unfortunately, the requirement for national defense is a bit like a mortgage: you make payments when they're due, and if you fall behind you eventually face a bone-rattling payment or lose the house. We're on the verge of having to pay up.

[Rob C]

Russ

Isn't the version of the religious motivation you quoted just the Wahabist one?

Regardless, I do fear that you are right, that an almighty conflagration is going to happen when the sleeping giant awakes.

Rob C

[RSL]

Rob, I'm sure it depends on who interprets the Koran, same as with interpretations of the Bible. Since I don't read Arabic I have no way of knowing how accurate the translation I have on my shelf is, but I've cross-checked a few entries with other translations and there doesn't seem to be much difference. I didn't mean to imply that the Koran is a fiery call to jihad. It isn't, and there are passages regarding things like responsibilities toward prisoners, etc., that are quite reasonable. But the bottom line is that Islam eventually must cover the world and sharia must be the law.

The Wahabis seem to interpret that as a call to murder, but it's clear that other sects don't see it that way. The problem to me is that most Muslims seem devout, and if a devout person in any religion is ignorant enough of the actual teachings of his religion, he's open to the interpretations of others who seem both knowledgeable and devout. It seems to me that that's how Wahabis turn the ignorant toward "jihad now." There are too many cases here in the U.S. of mosques where that's exactly what's going on. Same thing in England, Spain, etc., etc. What disturbs me most is the thundering silence of the "peaceful" Muslims.

[Steve Weldon]

"Steve, Let's face it, we all understand that this "pastor" is doing what he's doing in order to get his fifteen minutes of fame"

I do suspect you're right.. I'd even bet money on it.  Yet, I accept I don't 'know' what's in his mind anymore than I really know what's in anyones mind who hasn't told me, and even then..

The real sin in this mess is with the people giving him attention, almost all of them apparently to further their own agendas.  Without the 24/7 news coverage this guy would have been nor accomplished nothing.  But not only did he get the coverage, gladly, but then we had the highest level of our government giving him credit through phone calls or acknowledgments.  The immaturity of our President has never been so readily apparent as with his acknowledgment and words on the subject.

Yes, the world is full of loons, but more dangerous are the self-serving politicians and news organizations using them to their own design.

[stamper]

Quote

What I'm putting forth isn't extremism. It's realism. Do you really believe the Iranians are bluffing? Can you afford to believe that? If the Iranians mean what they say, the only way to prevent a nuclear exchange is to go after their nuclear capability now, with conventional weapons. Once their nuclear weapons are in place it's too late, unless we or the Israelis are willing to use nuclear weapons to eliminate the threat.

Unquote

Russ even in their "maddest" moments the leaders of Iran must realise that they will die if they launch a nuclear weapon. I don't - I can't prove it just as you can't - believe they want to die. If your statement is true then the nuclear deterrent that Israel has is worthless because it doesn't deter! That goes for America as well because they would also launch their missiles because Israel is a servant of America. Nobody can ever prove that Iran is a threat especially if you annihilate the country. It suits the West to have a bogey man because it justifies them having the weapons. BTW if the West goes ahead what do you think China will do? If they see the destruction of Iran then they may think they have nothing to lose and launch a "preventative" attack and the world will be spiralling to it's doom.

[Rob C]

I think that once the first salvo is detonated it will be the end.

The danger of it happening is, in my mind, far more likely at the hand of a society that believes in suicide combined with a heady dose of murder as the next step to happiness, than from China, where political self-preservation is of paramount importance.

As for the 'west' doing it, dropping the first modern nuke, I think it has been as traumatised by the two Japanese bombs as was the enemy. It's my guess that the west is far more concerned about the use of such weaponry than is the rest of the world.

Politics and religion aside - I wish - there is the fact that a people with not a lot to lose is far more inclined to undervalue what it has than does a populace with a degree of affluence that makes life seem more tolerable. A rich man has simply more to lose.

Rob C

[RSL]

Russ even in their "maddest" moments the leaders of Iran must realise that they will die if they launch a nuclear weapon. I don't - I can't prove it just as you can't - believe they want to die.

Really..? And how about the people who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center? Do you suppose they thought they'd just bail out at the last second and be okay? These weren't zonked out peasants with dynamite strapped to their waists; they were educated people who knew full well they were going to die.

If your statement is true then the nuclear deterrent that Israel has is worthless because it doesn't deter!

If Israel's missiles are launched in advance to destroy Iran's nuclear capability then they're an absolute deterrent. A much better deterrent would be for Israel or the U.S. to destroy, or at least inhibit Iran's nuclear capability using conventional munitions before the window of opportunity closes so far that a nuclear strike is necessary.

That goes for America as well because they would also launch their missiles because Israel is a servant of America.

Come on, Stamper, I'm not going to dignify that kind of silliness with a response.

Nobody can ever prove that Iran is a threat especially if you annihilate the country.

Then your solution to the problem is to hope for the best, wait, and see if Iran does what they're telling the world they're going to do: obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons. By any sane definition Iran already is a threat: they make threatening statements daily and continue to advance toward a nuclear capability while the world shakes fingers at them and dithers. Whether or not they'd carry out their threat remains to be seen. But once seen, it's too late. As far as annihilating the country is concerned, what I'm proposing is just the opposite: take out their ability to be a nuclear threat before they become a nuclear threat. If we do that, people will be killed, but if it isn't done, orders of magnitude more people will be killed. Which would you choose?

[Steve Weldon]

"Russ even in their "maddest" moments the leaders of Iran must realise that they will die if they launch a nuclear weapon. I don't - I can't prove it just as you can't - believe they want to die."

Of course they realize they'd die.  This isn't the question.  Extremists from difficult cultures have already demonstrated their willingness to die for their beliefs.  This includes western cultures.  In the middle east they call them martyr's, in the west we call them hero's. 

The differences can be found in our values of life.  It is a huge mistake to assume other cultures hold the same values.

I've been in many countries during my life, and lived in a small number of them.  The one constant which holds among all of them:  The more poor, the more uneducated, the more isolated, the less value on life.  They have less to lose, and know less about what they do have.

Examples of this mistake would include going to war with 'the enemy' and believing they'll respect us more for playing by our rules and not theirs, offering to help them on our terms in our ways, and that a change of this mindset (democracy for example) is anything less than a decades long endeavor..

[stamper]

Quote

If Israel's missiles are launched in advance to destroy Iran's nuclear capability then they're an absolute  deterrent. A much better deterrent would be for Israel or the U.S. to destroy, or at least inhibit Iran's nuclear capability using conventional munitions before the window of opportunity closes so far that a nuclear strike is necessary.

Unquote

Russ have you learnt anything from history? Vietnam....a disaster. Afghanistan..... nine years ongoing and nowhere near winning. Iraq.... an expensive folly. I saw the soldier on TV waving his arms from a truck who was glad he was leaving shouting .... we won. Who won out of that illegal war? Which nations are going to join America in an invasion of Iran? Tony Blair the hubris friend of Bush is no longer in charge of the UK. America will be alone in this folly and if just like Iraq they don't find any weapons of mass destruction, what then? America is bankrupt and your thinking is the same. As to Israel it wouldn't exist without America. 100 million dollars in aid since the end of WW2. How can a small country without natural resources afford a nuclear weapon? They should be stripped of it and the middle east would be a more peaceful place. Iran isn't the threat to world peace it is America who just as Rob C pointed out used nuclear weapons on a civilian population that couldn't defend itself. That war was effectively over but it meant that the Japanese soldiers fought on in the islands for years after because they thought the mainland had been obliterated. Nuff said.

[Steve Weldon]

"Who won out of that illegal war?"

It's not easy to respond to this sort of thing.  Perhaps you could define a "legal war" and give us a few examples?  The perspective would be enlightening I'm sure.

"They should be stripped of it and the middle east would be a more peaceful place."

For whom?  Certainly not the Israelis who have been repeatedly attacked.   You're probably right though, if we strip a country of its defenses the neighboring countries will be very happy.  Not sure about peaceful though.  Weapons don't make or break peace.  Its the mindset of the people who exercise ownership over the weapons which defines peace. 

"used nuclear weapons on a civilian population that couldn't defend itself."

Its a mistake to use modern values in judging the values of the past.  It's probably a bigger mistake to forget the values of the past.  Don't you know attacking civilian populations were all the rage back then?  Everyone was doing it, it was in vogue, and the threat to civilian populations was part of warfare.  You could even say the side with the ability to inflict the most damage to civilian populations was considered "victorious."  And in fact they were.  So were complimenting the USA for it's military prowess, or criticizing it for not doing more to lose the war?

"That war was effectively over "

I wonder.. well.. this is tongue in cheek of course.. but I wonder if you would have said this if you were one of the men who would have had to invade Japan's mainland or keep fighting on the islands until it was "actually over?"   

[Rob C]

 "Iran isn't the threat to world peace it is America who just as Rob C pointed out used nuclear weapons on a civilian population that couldn't defend itself."

That's not exactly the colour of the meaning of what I wrote, stamper; I was stating that I suspect that the Allies were as taumatised by what they had unleashed there as the Japanese must have been. All civilians in any war are pretty much without any defence, but at least in a democratic system they should have the power to control those who might lead us into conflict. In the Iraq case, I was originally for the intervention; it never occurred to me that a government of the UK would be able, would dare, to lie so openly. I have watched Blair grandstanding a lot, since then, and I honestly think the man is a little deranged; the ego and thirst for money seems unbelievable. Perhaps it really is a final benediction of office - one loses the sense of judgement. Our old friend Mrs T was, in many ways, a saviour of the country, but even she, towards the end, lost the plot. That community charge (cleverly represented as a poll tax by the opposition) was a great, eqalizing idea, but as with everything, you can't please all of the people all of the time and even the best ideas have to be introduced with care. So what did she do? She took it into her head to introduce it in Scotland, the least blue area of the kingdom! She could have introduced free pensions without contributions, a car for every person, and Scotland would still have screamed NO!  Of course, we will disagree on this, but that's not the problem - isn't a problem, we are both (I think) sane people.

I watched two union leaders on Sky this morning; calls for general strikes, civil ‘disobedience’, whatever the hell that means, and never, once, did either man face up to the fact that the country just hasn’t got the money to maintain the status quo. Governments don’t have any bloody money: they use ours! And where the hell does either of those two unionistas think the money to float all the huge public debts is going to come from? Taxation levels that would wipe out more companies? Tax rises that would just convince entrepreneurs that the time has come to call in their dough, buy a bigger boat and retire? Is the lower paid section of the populace, the greater user of all those public services, then going to have to face a tax rise of its own, and ultimately by itself, to finance the bloated dream of free life-care? No, what one sees on tv is just more grandstanding, more securing of the personal power base of the various segment leaders – just more politicians in (poor) disguise.

I am all for the health services – have used them, as well as private, and still do. What has to be faced, though, is that they are badly organised and suffer from many attitude problems, not least of which is the attitude of the public, which sees many doctors as not a lot more than providers of sick-notes, nannies for the running nose. There is no respect, either, only this emphasis on ‘my right to instant attention’. As for attitude problems on behalf of public employees… that’s an entire bloody book I should/could write from experienced of dealing with the sector.

Maybe, as in the past, war is the only efficient gardener of the weed patch that society is becoming.

I need another coffee, but couldn’t face it right now…

;-)

Rob C