Pastor who wants to burn the Qu'ran.

[Zierro]

I'm not supporting what he is doing, but how come Muslims can burn the American flag and no one cares, but when he burns there Qu'ran, the media goes nuts?

He's one of us. We expect better of our own for some reason.

 

Expecting less of Muslims isn't very fair to anyone. Americans have a higher etiquette they need to abide by which is unfair to us, and Muslims are perceived as incapable of being reasonable people which is unfair to them.

 

Funny story: I could see the clear double standards of this issue before book burning was even mentioned. I guess people just don't want to believe that there's quite a bit of hatred against America, and they will cover their ears and call you a bigot anytime you merely point out the hatred.

[sees_all1]

I have no idea who called in the threat, neither do you, and it would be irresponsible to blame any group or certain type of person with no evidence.

I agree; it was a jab at Bloomberg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srghy2IFBg&feature=related

 

What do "lefties" defend radicals on? I'm honestly interested what you think about this.

Nobody supports radical islamic violence.

If I had a nickel for every time the media in the US referred to Islam as the religion of peace, I'd probably be looking at retiring by now. Also the "we have to understand what's upsetting them" mentality that most liberals (or media) will take (and not just on Islam). "We can't blame the individual, they were a product of society," blah blah blah.

It's funny, because they'll go on and on about "Islam is the victim", or blame the west for upsetting them, but they'll refuse to call terrorism for what it is. A good example would be the Fort Hood shooting - this happened Nov. 6th last year, and the first time the White House publicly called it an act of terrorism was Jan 15th this year, but the person that did it asked to remain anonymous.

 

It isn't exclusive to Islam though, its the mainstream media against "right-wing nut jobs." When Scott Roeder murdered George Tiller, members of the media made a frenzy about it and wanted to know if Billy O'Reilly had incited the violence because of a few comments he'd made previously.

When James Lee took the Discovery Channel Headquarters hostage, I don't remember any in the mainstream media asking if Al Gore incited the violence due to his comments about civil unrest.

[Spiffeh]

Also the "we have to understand what's upsetting them" mentality that most liberals (or media) will take (and not just on Islam). "We can't blame the individual, they were a product of society," blah blah blah.

Why can't we look at the reasons they're angry? Constant US support for Israel while Palestine lives in poverty. If I was someone who felt that land was stolen, I'd be pretty mad about it too. I'd be pretty mad if the US overthrew my democratically elected president in 1953 and installed a shah that better fit their interests. I don't get why understanding why someone is angry is a bad thing.

 

It's funny, because they'll go on and on about "Islam is the victim", or blame the west for upsetting them, but they'll refuse to call terrorism for what it is. A good example would be the Fort Hood shooting - this happened Nov. 6th last year, and the first time the White House publicly called it an act of terrorism was Jan 15th this year, but the person that did it asked to remain anonymous.

I mean, of course the White House doesn't want to admit terrorism happened under it's watch, hah.

 

It isn't exclusive to Islam though, its the mainstream media against "right-wing nut jobs." When Scott Roeder murdered George Tiller, members of the media made a frenzy about it and wanted to know if Billy O'Reilly had incited the violence because of a few comments he'd made previously.

When James Lee took the Discovery Channel Headquarters hostage, I don't remember any in the mainstream media asking if Al Gore incited the violence due to his comments about civil unrest.

Do you think Scott Roeder should be considered a terrorist?

And I doubt Fox News passed on the chance to tie Al Gore to James Lee, haha

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/01/maryland-police-respond-hostage-situation-man-gun-enters-building/

mentions An Inconvenient Truth. I've never seen the movie, so can't really comment on particular things.

 

"O'Reilly began his jihad against Tiller back in 2005 and, according to Salon, Tiller's been mentioned on 28 separate occasions on his show. In addition to dubbing him "Tiller the Baby-Killer," O'Reilly has referred to Tiller's clinic as a "death mill" and called his work "Nazi stuff" for which he has "blood on his hands.""

hmm

[sees_all1]

Why can't we look at the reasons they're angry? Constant US support for Israel while Palestine lives in poverty. If I was someone who felt that land was stolen, I'd be pretty mad about it too. I'd be pretty mad if the US overthrew my democratically elected president in 1953 and installed a shah that better fit their interests. I don't get why understanding why someone is angry is a bad thing.

But that doesn't fully explain the rest of the Middle East, and concluding that "we have ourselves to blame" doesn't help the situation; even after we apologize for whatever wrongs we may have committed, terrorists will still be terrorists.

 

Do you think Scott Roeder should be considered a terrorist?

And I doubt Fox News passed on the chance to tie Al Gore to James Lee, haha

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/01/maryland-police-respond-hostage-situation-man-gun-enters-building/

mentions An Inconvenient Truth. I've never seen the movie, so can't really comment on particular things.

 

Yes, Roeder is a terrorist. I have no problem saying that, which is why I brought him up. Even with everything Bill O'Reilly has said, never has he called for a vigilante, which is in direct contrast to Al Gore:

If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now' date=' and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.0

[/quote']

Civil disobedience has an honourable history' date=' and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play. And I expect that it will increase, no question about it.

[/quote']

 

I also consider Fox News to be an outlier in what it reports, which is why I wouldn't call it "mainstream".

 

 

"O'Reilly began his jihad against Tiller back in 2005 and, according to Salon, Tiller's been mentioned on 28 separate occasions on his show. In addition to dubbing him "Tiller the Baby-Killer," O'Reilly has referred to Tiller's clinic as a "death mill" and called his work "Nazi stuff" for which he has "blood on his hands.""

hmm

I know enough about Tiller's history (questionable activity, boorish manners, and seemingly complete disregard for the law) that merits Bill O'Reilly bringing him up on the show. I would quote some of the things Tiller said during his career, but I don't think this is the appropriate thread to do it in. We're already pretty far off topic :wink:

[magekillr]

But that doesn't fully explain the rest of the Middle East, and concluding that "we have ourselves to blame" doesn't help the situation; even after we apologize for whatever wrongs we may have committed, terrorists will still be terrorists.

 

"We're so sorry for killing a million people with our sanctions against Iraq! We're sorry for invading Iraq, destroying your government, making the country more unstable and ready to be sucked up by the power vacuum, killing over one hundred thousand people, and continuing to occupy it! We're sorry for bombing civilians in Afghanistan! We're sorry for destroying Iran's democracy because British Petroleum asked the CIA to do it! We're sorry for favoring Israel on every single issue no matter how wrong they are, and we'll continue to do so in the future! We're sorry for funding money to brutal dictators who favor our country's interest, even if it means your people will be oppressed! We're sorry that we pushed our military onto your Holy Ground in order to enforce our brutal sanctions! We're sorry for bombing civilians in Yemen! We're sorry for our sanctions on Syria! We're sorry for saber rattling Iran! We're sorry for giving the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan defacto Taliban rule and control!" (there's lots more to "apologize" for, btw).

 

Yeah, when's the last time you heard that apology, and when's the last time that after our apology on anything we actually seemed to learn from it (as we're still engaging in the same behavior. We haven't apologized for anything)? I've actually heard Sean Hannity say that Iraq should pay us back for what we did to their country. Or you have George Bush I "I will never apologize for the United States America."Your mentality is sickening, bigoted, and like most issues you have an opinion on lacks all empathy.

 

Meanwhile, right here in America, the American Taliban:

 

IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, 'do you have any Jewish people in your house?' and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler.

 

O’DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!

 

MAHER: God is not there. Hitler's there and you’re there.

 

O’DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.

[Alg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sphere_of_influence

Because clearly there was only one country that was ever involved in the Middle East. And that whole "Cold War" thing had no effect on it at all, what with two superpowers fighting each other through proxy wars.

[MisterGreen]

My brother told me he saw an atheist burn the Kuran on youtube. No uproar about that... It's only when someone religious does something like that it's deemed to be abhorrent. Meh.