Church burning copies of The Quran on 9-11

captainanddew wrote:

Whether or not one has a legal right, spewing hate is not a very bright idea.

Lots of things aren't bright ideas. That doesn't make calls for mass killing acceptable.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

So let me see if I understand this twisted logic, such as it is. We should practice tolerance but not demand it of others?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

Whether or not one has a legal right, spewing hate is not a very bright idea.

Lots of things aren't bright ideas. That doesn't make calls for mass killing acceptable.

In the case of the protests of soldiers funerals I would condone that though and its legal.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

So let me see if I understand this twisted logic, such as it is. We should practice tolerance but not demand it of others?

Are you are making a reference back to our previous discussion about the mosque?

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

Whether or not one has a legal right, spewing hate is not a very bright idea.

Lots of things aren't bright ideas. That doesn't make calls for mass killing acceptable.

In the case of the protests of soldiers funerals I would condone that though and its legal.

You think KILLING the morons from Westboro is morally acceptable?

They boycotted a childhood friend of mine's funeral and I think you sound fucking crazy.

so because a few 100 nutbags did it all billion are terrorists?

Who killed Lincoln?
Who tried to kill Reagan?
Who blew up a building in Oklahoma?
Who flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin?
Who was a priest known as BTK?
Who killed 32 at Virginia Tech?
What was a Columbine killers fathers job?

we dont burn bibles cause of them

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

So let me see if I understand this twisted logic, such as it is. We should practice tolerance but not demand it of others?

Are you are making a reference back to our previous discussion about the mosque?

I thought I was asking a very simple question. Should we have a single standard for tolerance or multiple standards based on the risk of violence of the potentially offended?

I am like Jesus Christ, I stand up to hedonistic snobs to inspire weak and defenseless people - Cho in one of his rants

Marble, I didn't say it made calls for mass killing acceptable. I just made a plain straightforward statement.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

Whether or not one has a legal right, spewing hate is not a very bright idea.

Lots of things aren't bright ideas. That doesn't make calls for mass killing acceptable.

In the case of the protests of soldiers funerals I would condone that though and its legal.

You think KILLING the morons from Westboro is morally acceptable?

They boycotted a childhood friend of mine's funeral and I think you sound fucking crazy.

Hell yes. Call me crazy but if thats my son who they protested I would go on a killing spree. I know I make no sense to you I realize that. LOL

I think there are just some things in life that are unforgivable.

Birdofthad wrote:

theres a BILLION muslims in the world but 19 attacked us they must all be the same

That is neither here nor there. No, I don't think they all feel the same, in fact most of them just want to live their lives, love their families, and worship their God. I want them to have all those things too. But I am not a Muslim, I am not from the middle-east, and my responsibilities fall in a very exact order. God, Family, Country.

I defend my God and when called by him will do as ordered, hope that doesn't happen soon, I want to watch my daughter grow. Defend my family against all foes and those that would do it harm. Since my family and I reside in the U.S. and choose to be American's, a people of free will, liberty and law, I defend it. Since I want to defend and serve my country, I will do so to the best of my ability. Since I believe a best defense is a good offense, that is how I handle it. So if those same, peaceful, hoping, dreaming Muslims are sitting by watching their brethren have parties and parades and cheers in the streets while my country is attacked by the same, don't ask me for mercy, that is the Lord's providence. Since I know many believe "We had it coming", remember that. Because when a real disaster hits and you are looking to Uncle Sam to send troops, aid, money, medicine, engineers, experts, food, etc. we might just say fuck you and have a party of our own. We are the most charitable nation on Earth and we take pride in it and we do it better than everybody else combined. All the help and monies donated from other countries was nothing more than gestures of friendship, in post Katrina Louisiana/Mississippi. We can actually fix our own problems.

Birdofthad wrote:

so because a few 100 nutbags did it all billion are terrorists?

Who killed Lincoln?
Who tried to kill Reagan?
Who blew up a building in Oklahoma?
Who flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin?
Who was a priest known as BTK?
Who killed 32 at Virginia Tech?
What was a Columbine killers fathers job?

we dont burn bibles cause of them

Bird you aren't asking WHY on each of those. By the way Dennis Rader wasn't a priest.

The causes for the rest are all over the place. The self-professed causes for everything I named was Islam

It cannot be 100 men when these thiongs happen all over the world across 40 years. These people are trained, financed, provided with false documents, transported etc. Read the public opinion polls taken in the MOST LIBERAL of the Islamic nations. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS THINK bin Laden is a good guy.

Here's the big difference for me. What do we do to men who committt he acts you name? We hunt them, find them, try them and either imprison or execute them.

In the Islamic worl, men who committ similar acts are treated as heroes.

Birdofthad wrote:

so because a few 100 nutbags did it all billion are terrorists?

Who killed Lincoln?
Who tried to kill Reagan?
Who blew up a building in Oklahoma?
Who flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin?
Who was a priest known as BTK?
Who killed 32 at Virginia Tech?
What was a Columbine killers fathers job?

we dont burn bibles cause of them

And we are not blaming Muslims for it either! That is a U.S. problem and we will deal with these setbacks as they come. It doesn't mean here while the U.S. handles their issues, we get a free shot. Besides, attacking New York City is like ass raping one of my sister's. You are gonna get hurt and the police can't save you.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

So let me see if I understand this twisted logic, such as it is. We should practice tolerance but not demand it of others?

Are you are making a reference back to our previous discussion about the mosque?

I thought I was asking a very simple question. Should we have a single standard for tolerance or multiple standards based on the risk of violence of the potentially offended?

If we were practicing tolerance everyone would condem him for burning the quran or better yet it would not be happening. Also there is no clear cut solution or standard for any part of life. We are dictated by cause and effect. I could go out and burn a bible publically and nothing would happen to me but you know as well as I do that if you do it to the quran you could be hurt or killed. That is the difference to me. So multiple is the real life answer. The ideal would be to have a world were you could have one standard. Does that make sense?

I desecrate bibles for different reasons. This discussion is out of hand.

Wow and you had the temerity to call me a bad Christian?

my fault Rader was jsut president of a church

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article538016.ece

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I desecrate bibles for different reasons. This discussion is out of hand.

Wolf I know you dont care but I really fear for your soul.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

So let me see if I understand this twisted logic, such as it is. We should practice tolerance but not demand it of others?

Are you are making a reference back to our previous discussion about the mosque?

I thought I was asking a very simple question. Should we have a single standard for tolerance or multiple standards based on the risk of violence of the potentially offended?

If we were practicing tolerance everyone would condem him for burning the quran or better yet it would not be happening. Also there is no clear cut solution or standard for any part of life. We are dictated by cause and effect. I could go out and burn a bible publically and nothing would happen to me but you know as well as I do that if you do it to the quran you could be hurt or killed. That is the difference to me. So multiple is the real life answer. The ideal would be to have a world were you could have one standard. Does that make sense?

Not even a little bit. Your solution is to appease the most violent and unpredictable among us at the expense of the tolerant and forbearing. Your way of thinking argues that one shouldn't jog at night, women shouldn't wear skimpy outfits etc because it might incite violence and if it does it is their own fault. That's a horriffic worldview. Conceding freedom to the worst of us.

I think I probably like you Sooner, but that view is despicable.

Yes Bird and that is America's problem. We will deal with that. Not saying we don't have our issues, for we obviously do. I know we don't execute people in the public square as they do in other countries.

my point was to link ass holes to religion

i did

Quote :

Not even a little bit. Your solution is to appease the most violent and unpredictable among us at the expense of the tolerant and forbearing. Your way of thinking argues that one shouldn't jog at night, women shouldn't wear skimpy outfits etc because it might incite violence and if it does it is their own fault. That's a horriffic worldview. Conceding freedom to the worst of us.

I think I probably like you Sooner, but that view is despicable.

I know what you are saying. If a woman dresses like a whore it doesn't make her a whore. But if I dressed as a policeman and went out in public...I will let you figure the rest out.

Birdofthad wrote:

my point was to link ass holes to religion

i did

LOL, hardly.

Joseph Stalin, Moa Tse Dong (spelling) and Pol Pot were all atheists and they killed how many hundreds of millions?

Andrew the Raider King wrote:

Quote :

Not even a little bit. Your solution is to appease the most violent and unpredictable among us at the expense of the tolerant and forbearing. Your way of thinking argues that one shouldn't jog at night, women shouldn't wear skimpy outfits etc because it might incite violence and if it does it is their own fault. That's a horriffic worldview. Conceding freedom to the worst of us.

I think I probably like you Sooner, but that view is despicable.

I know what you are saying. If a woman dresses like a whore it doesn't make her a whore. But if I dressed as a policeman and went out in public...I will let you figure the rest out.

LOL, [scratching head] can I get a little help?