You think its absurd to attack Saudi Arabia but ok to attack Islam?
I just want to be clear on this.
Nope didn't say that.
You think its absurd to attack Saudi Arabia but ok to attack Islam?
I just want to be clear on this.
Well actually you're agreeing with me there. The US soldiers will die argument was one used by Obama and his supporters on the issue made.
And remember I just pointed out that people had died in "their" protests.That seemed outlandish to you for some reason.
Days of unrest over the threatened Koran-burning coincided with rising tensions in advance of Saturday's parliamentary elections. Many observers fear that vote will be plagued by both fraud and violence.
Taliban fighters have vowed to try to disrupt the balloting for the lower house of parliament, the second such vote since the austere Islamist movement was toppled by a U.S.-led invasion nearly nine years ago.
So why then would Obama have Defense Secretary Robert Gates call the guy and convince him to not do it by saying it could harm US soldiers?Yeah cos there's no one trying to kill western forces in Afghanistan at the moment
Presumably they were playing nice before this?
Most radical Christians I know today seem to be in the mold of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell...All talk and no action.
They are usually stupid, distasteful and may look at something(or a particular situation such as Haiti earthquake, Asian Tsunami, or Ariel Sharon's stroke) and say "God wanted it to happen", "you deserved it", or "that's your punishment for supporting a particular political position" but they haven't killed anyone or done any terrorist attack that I know off.
Radical Muslims on the other hand...
Shall we play guess the real reason for those protests?
No, actually. Let's make a little chart.
Action: Build a Mosque near ground zero
Right: that is offensive to do, but he has the right to do it.
Left: The right is full of BIGOTS and RACISTS and HATE-MONGERING TEABAGGERS!!!!
Wow... do you seriously believe this stuff yourself or do you just say it for a laugh? Surely you can't be that high... all the time.The left has similar positions, it's the right who's all over the map depending which side is doing the action, and they say it's the left changing positions.
So why then would Obama have Defense Secretary Robert Gates call the guy and convince him to not do it by saying it could harm US soldiers?
Surely, the Defense Secretary has much more important things to do than to waste time convincing an idiot from burning the Quran(or some other holy book) when US troops would still be killed anyways regardless of whether he burns the book or not?![]()
I'm sure their concerns about fraud pushed them to burn an American flag... Do you try to see the world as it is or do you try to see it in the way that will hurt your opponent's argument?
So you think if that guy hadn't threatened to burn the koran those demonstrations wouldn't have happened?
I think the guys bitching about the Koran and burning flags (maybe it was another article) were definitely protesting about the Koran. Do you doubt that there are muslims in other countries that aren't offended by something a florida dumbass didn't do?
So, you support the "mosque" being built at "ground zero?"
BUT he has a Right to be an asshat if he so desires. Just like the insensitive muslims building the mosque.
I agree he has the right to be an asshat, but what he did is not even remotely like the folks trying to build the community center. The "offensiveness" of the building is entirely a result of people viewing the action through their terrorism colored glasses...there is nothing INTENDED to be offensive about the building. On the other hand, burning a Koran is INTENDED to be as offensive as possible to Muslims, that's why this guy burned it and that's why you burn the holy books of other religions in general. If you don't think motivation makes a difference...
You're a fool if you don't think the mosque is being built specifically to be offensive.
You're a fool if you don't think the mosque is being built specifically to be offensive.
You're a fool if you don't think the mosque is being built specifically to be offensive.
We don't know for sure either way. All we can do is look at the evidence and infer.
No intent: Muslims have already been present in that area praying. They say it's not meant as an insult. They have offered space for other religions to pray.
Intent: It's named after the capital of a Islam expansion into Western Europe. Obstinance despite the fact that the builders would lose nothing by moving the building three more blocks away and showing the rest of the world that Muslims believe in compromise or sensitivity. Funding by Saudis (who happen to own share 5% of News Corporation.)
But whether or not they intend it to be offensive, it is still insensitive.
That would be my point, Chuvalo...
\just wondering where Darwin333 stood on this....
Well since something being insensitive can be entirely up to the perception of people being offended, I personally think that the motive matters more than the outcome. Whether it's your right or not, doing something for the sole purpose of pissing people off makes you a douche...happening to piss people off in the course of doing something for another reason is much less objectionable, IMHO.
I don't think you know their motives any more than Spidey does. And other Muslims have come out and said their motives are bogus.
Has anyone actually been killed/assaulted because of this koran burning? Or have 'they' just been protesting as well?
And would this be all muslims? What proportion would you say? 80%? 60%
I'd just like to get a handle on your reality.
Evidently the threat was valid enough for the Defense Secretary of the United States of America to personally call some nobody pastor with a flock that totaled a whopping 50 to persuade him not to burn the Koran. I believe that Obama got personally involved at some point as well.
...Because politicians are morons more worried about their domestic press ratings than reality?
Because politicians are morons more worried about their domestic press ratings than reality?
