Pastor Jones: "We don't feel responsible."

[Botany]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/koran-burning-pastor-denies-claims-he-prompted-u-n-afghanistan-murders/ .... video @ link


“We do not feel responsible, no,” Jones said in an interview with ABC’s Nightline, speaking for his congregation. He
acknowledged the killings as a heinous act but distancing himself from them. “We feel the more that Muslims and the
radical elements of Islam, they use that as an excuse. If they did not have us as an excuse, they would use a different excuse.”




Somebody should fly the good Pastor over to Waziristan or Mecca and let him tell the locals in person how
he didn't do anything.

[RKP5637]

1. Does this look like a happy well adjusted being ... n/t

[Botany]

7. Germany told him to get out because of his actions.

Really the man needs some face to face time in some Islamic country w/ the locals.

[Canuckistanian]

46. He's dancing and laughing on the inside

He's FINALLY getting attention he's craved for so long. And some people died. Icing on the cake, for him.

[sakabatou]

2. Someone needs to be hit by a clue-by-four

The stupid and hate is strong with this one.

[FarLeftRage]

11. +10000...

He looks like your typical pedophile and or motherfucker...

[SharonAnn]

74. Of course he doesn't accept responsibility for his actions. He's Religious Right-wing.

[rrneck]

3. Capitalist media whore. nt

[JoePhilly]

4. Looks like he just tied a woman to the railroad tracks.

[Toucano]

76. +1

I love that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Let's be clear about this: Pastor Jones is not responsible, the murderers are.

Equivocating about that is simply wrong. We should not be giving up the right to freedom of speech to people who say "if you are rude to us, we will kill people".

[Modern_Matthew]

8. Exactly. nt

[physioex]

9. You have a point....

But the man was asked not to do this, yet he still proceeded.

[TorchTheWitch]

63. so what - he had a right to proceed

Why are people supposed to tiptoe around murderous psychos who kill innocent people because someone who had no connection to those people did something that pissed them off? And how does still doing something so minor as burning his own Koran whether he was warned about it or not being used as an excuse for the insane barbaric actions of murderous religious psychos?

Such murderous religious psychos will never stop and never believe their actions are deplorable as long as anyone is willing to tiptoe around them being afraid to do or say the most minor of things for fear of offending said psychos. It isn't this pastor - however annoying he is - that needs whacking on the head with a clue-by-four, it's the murderous religious nuts that are a ridiculous number of centuries behind the rest of the civilized world concerning religious and social tolerance.

The entire reason such murderous religious psychos still exist is because for FAR too long people have not stood up to it and instead tiptoed around it. Centuries ago Christians managed to learn that it's unacceptable to be going about burning people at the stake and other atrocities because of some perceived religious disagreement, and NOBODY here would be defending such behavior even though it was centuries ago, and would never have thought such thuggery in the name of religion for any reason should have been tiptoed around allowing it to continue or even going so far as to place blame on anyone that stood up to it.

[northernlights]

70. Choosing not to burn somebody else's holy book is hardly tiptoeing around them

It is simple civility.

And I am sick to fucking death of people who use "free speech" as a banner to hide behind while they go traipsing around shitting all over those around them.

There is such a thing a simple civility that holds society together. It is do unto other.

There was no fucking need and no fucking reason for him -- or anyone else -- to piss on somebody else's religion.

Freedom of political speech does not make it right or ok to harrass others for their beliefs. Period.

[TorchTheWitch]

92. why is his lack of religious tolerance what is at issue here

and not the murderous actions of psycho religious fanatics that were offended by it???

How is it that most of what has been said here concerning this issue has been finger wagging, name calling and even blaming of the guy that burned the book instead of at the THUGS THAT MURDERED A BUNCH OF INNOCENT PEOPLE THAT HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH IT???

WHERE is the outrage over the murderous actions of what those psychos did to innocent people? How is it that this guy burning a Koran gets FAR more scorn and derision and even BLAME then the murdering psychos that killed all those innocent people??? How is this NOT tiptoeing around the FAR more enormous and FAR more unacceptable behavior of the religious fanatical nutcases that KILLED A BUNCH OF TOTALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE???

Yes, BLAMING this guy for expressing his lack of religious intolerance after being warned of the possible consequences by doing something as minor as burning another religion's holy book most certainly IS tiptoeing around the murderous psycho religious fanatics that KILLED A BUNCH OF TOTALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE! If you have to be worried about such murderous consequences resulting from such a minor act as the burning of another religion's holy book that you feel the need to warn of those consequences then the problem isn't the book burning, the problem - which should be obvious to anyone - is that there is an enormous amount of people that are so religiously fanatical and barbaric that they believe murdering a bunch of totally innocent people "in retaliation" for someone burning their holy book. And the REASON that such an enormous group of religiously fanatical barbarians still exist in the world today is a DIRECT result of people tiptoeing around their religiously fanatical barbarism for centuries!

[Botany]

10. There would have never been the riot if he hadn't ....

.... burned the Koran in his awful publicity stunt.

[Teaser]

17. There never would have been a riot if Mohammed hadn't hallucinated angelic visitations

but he's not responsible for this event either.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Yes he is.

This happened precisely because he ordered his followers to kill blasphemers. It's entirely his responsibility.

[Teaser]

23. you know what...

that's actually a fair point.

But he no longer exists, so to that extant, there is no him to be responsible.

[NutmegYankee]

20. There wouldn't have been a riot if the Mullahs hadn't organized it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/asia/03afghanistan.html

The mob gathered after three mullahs at Friday Prayer urged action in response to the Koran burning by a pastor, Terry Jones, in Florida on March 20. This would have been a non-event if some religious leaders had not incited the crowd to action.

[Botany]

27. Granted the Mullahs and the rioters are responsible for ...

... the killing but the pastor gave them an excuse to act so savagely. He poured the gasoline all over the
house and dared some firebug to set it on fire. No Koran burning and the Mullahs might very well have
found another reason to insight anger in the crowd but Jones' actions sure didn't help things.

From what I have read about him is that he is an abusive hate monger w/ an extensive history of being a
no good son of a bitch.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Your last point is true, but not relevant.

>From what I have read about him is that he is an abusive hate monger w/ an extensive history of being a
>no good son of a bitch.

From what I know of him this is indeed the case, but that's not relevant to whether it's his responsibility that a group of muslims decided that burning the Koran was sufficient to justify murder.

[Botany]

38. Pastor Jones damn well knew he was lighting the fuse ...

.... to a potential powder keg in his burning of the Koran.

There is no excuse for his actions which in my mind are like a KKK leader getting some low
intellect follower all riled up and he then goes and commits some kind of a awful crime in order
to stir up "a race war."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Big difference: the KKK member wants the race war.

Violence is an undesired side effect of burning the Koran.

[beac]

57. Sorry, but I must disagree.

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing Jones wanted to provoke. It gives him the "proof" he wants that Islam is a violent religion.

He wants a "war" alright. A religious one.

Just because his "speech" in burning the Koran is allowed by our laws, doesn't make his actions justifiable. What POSSIBLE good could come from it? Nothing. ONLY bad things could result and now something has.

Jones is scum. And I would be shocked if he's anything less that thrilled about the killings. They allow him more time to spew his extreme and vile "religious" views in the worldwide media.

He is a horrible human being.

[NutmegYankee]

66. I know he's a piece of crap.

But his action didn't incite the violence. It was used by others who incited violence.

A gay couple being married in a church doesn't incite violence. However, a disturbed fundamentalist may state that "if you marry these people, we will burn your church down." The pastor marries the couple and a few wackjobs get riled up and burn the church down and kill a few children playing next door because the wedding "offended" them. The logic here is the couple and pastor are responsible for the children's deaths because they were warned that this would happen if they married. It's a repression of freedom and classic terrorism. It is never the fault of a free person. No matter how much of a shithead they may have been like this Koran burning pastor. In the above example, nearly this entire board would see nothing wrong with marrying a gay couple. But the Christian right would see it very differently. This is how many here see the Koran burning. We fail to separate our opinion from the issue at hand. There is no reason for violence due to an act of expression or equivalent. It's just being used as an excuse by the wicked for violence.

[PSzymeczek]

77. His action was intended

to incite violence.

[NutmegYankee]

98. Burning an object, if privately owned, should never incite violence.

If violence breaks out from a symbolic act there obviously exists something wrong with those engaging in the violence.

In this case, a few Mullahs urged the crowd to go out at Friday prayer and act to avenge this burning. This is a crowd who obediently follows their religious leaders and did just that. It was the responsibility of the religious leaders to discourage violence and work toward peace and understanding. At a minimum, preach some tolerance for acts we dislike. If they needed some tit for tat vengeance, burning a few Bibles would have been acceptable. But that is not what happened. They didn't use speech - they used terror.

[seabeyond]

12. yes... he has the freedom as speech as we do to shun, reject, shame him. nt

[MH1]

13. True, but that doesn't make this guy any less of an evil fuck.

Yeah, the people who led the actual mob are more evil. But not by much, in my book.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. You seriously think murder is not much worse than burning a book?

If so, you desperately need to get some perspective.

[MH1]

22. He knew he was inciting murder when he burned THAT book

and published the video.

The mob leaders may not have actually committed murder themselves, either. They just led others to do it.

Yes, I do think incitement to murder is nearly as bad as committing the murder by one's own hand.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Two points.

1) No, he didn't know he was inciting murder when he burned the Koran, just that he was risking it. I was genuinely surprised by the size of the response, and my impression is most people in the West are too.

2) Encouraging people who agree with you to commit murder by egging them on is nearly as bad as committing murder. Refusing to back down when your enemies use a threat of murder to try to cow you into not doing something is not. Jones' situation is analogous to someone who refuses to pay a ransom.

[MH1]

33. Sorry, I disagree on both points.

But have to go do other stuff now. Peace.

[sabrina 1]

28. Do you know anything about this guy before you start defending him?

Or his 'rights'. Aside from the fact that he does bear responsiblity, and is probably thrilled with what has happened as it affords him the opportunity to point his filthy fingers at this tragic incident and scream 'MUSLIMS! THEY ARE EVIL!, he has abused the rights granted to people in this country.

But aside from all that, I would suggest you read the information on him and his connections in Hannah Bell's post in GD today. This guy may not be who is pretending to be. From the start, months ago, I had a strong feeling that there was more to this guy than just a 'free speech' fundie 'pastor'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. I don't defend anything about him except his Koran-burning.

I am aware that he holds a great many deeply unpleasant views.

I do not think that this is relevant.

[sabrina 1]

37. Why doesn't he burn the Koran in Afghanistan if he feels so

strongly about it? He is using the protections he believes he has here to instigate violence. Now he got what he wanted. Do you seriously think the FFs had this in mind when they included the 1st Amendment in the Constitution? But aside from that, as I said, I would suggest you read more about this guy before protecting his right to burn the Koran.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. I think it's *exactly* what the first ammendment was framed with a view to protecting.

People trying to use violence to suppress religious debate? I think it's harder to think of a more clear-cut case where the first-ammendment applies.

>I would suggest you read more about this guy before protecting his right to burn the Koran.

I'm not defending "his" right to burn the Koran, I'm defending *the* right to burn the Koran. Who exercises it isn't important.

[sabrina 1]

49. If the 'religious debate' was confined to this country and subject

only to this country's laws, you might have a point. But the rest of the world doesn't adhere to this country's laws. Hate speech, eg, is against the law in many civilized countries. We do not rule the world and our laws do not apply anywhere but in this country.

He may now be subject to the laws of other countries. Depending on the nationalities of the victims. He did not just instigate violence here. He knew what he was doing. And if he didn't, then he needs to be under medical supervision.

Propagandists of hateful rhetoric were prosecuted at Nuremberg. What about their 1st Amendment rights?

I would not be surprised to see him prosecuted in other jurisdictions. Just as the Bush Six are under investigation in Spain which has jurisdiction over their actions no matter what laws protect them here, because many of their victims were from Spain.

[LAGC]

95. So let me get this straight.

You're for extraditing Terry Jones to a Middle Eastern country so they can try him for alleged "hate crimes" against their state religion?

At what point do we discard the Constitution and Bill of Rights and submit to foreign whims?

[sabrina 1]

115. We submit to Foreign Whims all the time.

That is why we have the Patriot Act and the MCA and naked scanners at airports, soon coming to a mall near you. That is why we can't take grandma in her wheel-chair onto a plane anymore without some stranger groping her.

Where is all the outrage over the loss of the right to Habeas Corpus here? What about our 4th Amend rights? 5th? In fact, do we have any rights left? According to our leaders, we MUST give up our rights because of 'foreigners'. And many, many Americans give them up without even a second thought.

As for Terry Jones, are the victims from ME countries? Are they from countries with whome we have extradition agreements? If any of the victims' families believe he was partially responsible for the death of their loved ones, they have a right to see him in court, either here if it is civil, I imagine that could be done here, or there if he violated their laws.

It's called consequences. He's free to play his hateful games, and he's also subject to the consequences of them. He should have thought about that and that he might not be able to hide here from those consequence.

Far as I'm concerned, he played with other people's safety, I won't shed a tear if he is held accountable for his total and depraved disregard for other people's lives.

[hlthe2b]

39. Hate begets more hate...

Those defending this monster's bigotry and hateful incitement should tell that to the families of those poor UN workers. I am so ashamed of some DUers here. What next? Defending the KKK burning crosses in black families' yards?


Despicable.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Please tell me you're not comparing Koran-burning to cross-burning?

One is a form of violent intimidation, the other an expression of a refusal to back down to such.

Hate is acceptable. Violence is not.

I am likewise ashamed that people like you are failing to stand up for freedom of speech and the right to offend the religious.

If Pastor Jones threatened to murder people if you insulted him, would you advocate backing down and not doing so?

[hlthe2b]

45. Both are forms of intimidation based on hate.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. No, burning the Koran is not a form of intimidation in any way.

It could become so, if there were a succession of violent attacks preceded by Koran burnings, but that has not been the case.

In Pastor Jones' case it appears to have been based on hate, but there are also many excellent reasons to burn the Koran.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MellowDem]

51. Maybe if he burned a Koran...

on a Muslim person's property. As it is, it's a bad analogy. There is not the same history there going on, and the context was purely political/religious, not meant to intimidate. He thinks Islam is wrong. And he can burn a Koran if he thinks so.

[hlthe2b]

53. He didn't burn it privately, he did so publicly, inviting the media

So, yes, it is quite the same. He is sending a worldwide message of his hateful bigotry. And, yes, he seeks to intimidate, just as those who have been fighting building mosques have done. Those who defend such actions are no better than those who would hang nooses or pictures of Matthew Shepherd hanging on that WY fence to intimidate GLBT or those who would burn crosses. It is hate and those defending it really need to take a very long look at themselves and their views IMO.

[MellowDem]

58. Burning it publicly...

doesn't make it intimidating. Though, from what I heard, he burned it in his church, which would seem pretty private to me. I suppose you could say that those who burn American flags are seeking to intimidate. Or hold signs that say mean things. It is nothing like burning a cross or hanging a noose in front of someone's home.

As it is, those who murdered and slaughtered innocents were doing it because they were offended, not because they were intimidated, which further goes against your "point".

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quaker bill]

56. The freedom of speech

is not the same as freedom from responsibility for content and consequence. I will not equivocate, the man is an a**hole. It is true that even a**holes have the freedom of speech in this country, but you won't see me coming to his defense.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. What about to your own defence.

America has "Freedom of Speech", not "Freedom of Speech for non-assholes". I entirely agree that Jones is an asshole, but if it's not permissible for him to offend the religious then it can't be permissible for us to do so either.

The important issue is not about Jones, it's about Koran-burning.

[quaker bill]

75. I did not say it was not permissable

I said it was stupid. It is bleedingly ignorant and insane. I will not defend it. If secular humanists and atheists had a sacred text, I am sure he would burn that too. I can't imagine he restricts his book burning ways to only religious texts. I am sure if it would get him facetime on CNN he would happily burn "Origin of the Species" as well. Quakers do not have sacred texts, times, places, or objects, but we would not choose to defile those things held in such regard by others.

What he did is permissable, in that no laws were violated. The neo-nazis can also march through Jewish neighborhoods on Holocaust rememberance day. I would not recommend that or defend it either.

We have the right to do many stupid things in this country, I do not recommend we do them nor do I waste my time defending those who choose that path.

As to my "defence" (defense), the Q'uran is either sacred to you or it isn't. If you do not see it as sacred, then burning it has no more meaning than burning a phone book. This is not an act of protest in any meaningful sense as Jones never had any reverence for the text in the first place. It is like an atheist being sworn in with his hand on the Bible, what is the point? (hint, there is none)

The act is meaningless provocation for the purpose of provocation and nothing more, it is not a political statement, it is only speech in the same sense that flipping someone off without cause is also "speech". The "freedom of speech" is real, but it has never served as a license to be an a-hole in public and not get called on it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. The good reason to burn the Koran is that the right to do so is under threat.

I've seen a good many DUers saying that they think Jones should be prosecuted.

There are a great many people out there trying to use the threat of violence to prevent people burning the Koran. I am not happy about the idea of giving in to them, and I think that the Life-Of-Brian "We'll agree that even though we can't actually burn the Koran we still have the right to burn the Koran" compromise doesn't work

[quaker bill]

99. This is complete BS

The right wing in the US House might consider voting to make such burnings a new sacrament. There is no threat. States are passing "Sharia Law" bans, as if this were any real threat.

No one serious with actual ability to influence policy is discussing such a ban. It would not hold up to scrutiny by SCOTUS even if attempted.

We have the rights to do many stupid things, I don't happen recommend them or or waste my time supporting them. This is not a compromise. Things can be legal and still have stupid written all over them. This was legal, stupid, and insane, all at the same time. We do not have the jail capacity to make mere stupidity illegal. This is a good thing in that one would not want that many people in jail, and a bad thing because stupidity is so common, and apparently worthy of considerable discussion and impassioned defense.

Let's just call the guy a fringe wackloon idiot, with the absolute right to free speech, using it as only a fringe wackloon idiot might. He should be dismissed as a jerk and embarrassment, not defended as some sort of patriot.

[sabrina 1]

116. Do you feel as strongly about the actual loss of the rest of

our Constitutional rights? How do you feel about being forced to be groped by strangers at the airport, and soon, at your local mall?

What about the Patriot Act, the MCA which eliminated Habeas Corpus?

You think burning a holy book will help restore all of our other rights? Are they worth fighting for? Doesn't seem so as I rarely see this kind of passion devoted to restoring them, in fact I have seen many people state that we do need to give up some rights in order to be safe.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

119. No, I don't, quite.

I think that those are both immensely important, but that freedom of speech is still more important, so that even a potential threat to it worries me more than the actual, major threats to other rights you correctly identify.

The reason I think it's the most important is that it's the one you need to address any other injustice. If you have freedom of speech, you can set about reversing things like the Patriot act; if you don't, you can't.

The Koran receiving any kind of legal protection in the USA is a terrifying prospect because it would inevitably lead to such protection being extended to the Bible, which might severely hamstring attempts to combat the religious right.

[emilyg]

59. +100

[Skip Intro]

80. +100

[1776Forever]

84. This is not about "Free Speech" to me - it is about doing something that one knows will incite even

more violence. There is nowhere in the Bible that says you should burn another religion's Holy Book. What this so called "Pastor" did was about doing something that evoked more violence and murder! This man was warned and still chose to do it. He was also kicked out of Germany because of his violent language which is NOT right from Muslim or Christian leaders.

Here's a link to the story about his being kicked out of Germany:

http://www.newser.com/story/100032/koran-torching-pastor-was-run-out-of-germany.html

[Matariki]

101. What you said...

although he's still a jerk.

[dorkulon]

103. +1

Both parties are awful, but the murderers are the worse.

[lynne]

104. Thank you! +1,000

[Bodhi BloodWave]

107. He is not guilty of murder, he is in my eyes guilty of incitement since he had been warned

by many people that doing what he did could cause harm to others, including a US general stating that US troops might be hurt if he does it.

So he did what he did knowing the potential consequences of incitement.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

120. Provocation is not quite the same thing as incitement. N.T.

[Modern_Matthew]

6. Because they aren't. Just ignorant. nt

[cali]

14. of course he doesn't, the nasty little inbred piece of shit psychopath

[Teaser]

15. He's not _responsible_.

He's an asshole, and a contributing factor, but I can burn a ton of bibles and nobody gets murdered.

[hatrack]

29. So far . . . give it time.

nt

[Teaser]

122. it's a fair cop.

.

[liberal N proud]

16. The ignorant never think they are responsible

Stupid fucker

[gort]

21. Good pastor. Go there and burn a Koran in front of them if your ballls are so big

nt

[TK421]

47. His balls are tiny, unless his God tells him otherwise n/t

[TK421]

24. They don't feel anything...common characteristic for those without a conscience, or fucking soul n/t

[1776Forever]

25. Is there anyway that he & his cohort could be arrested for manslaughter? He was warned!

Or for murder for that matter?

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

"Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation."

.......

Didn't he have malice aforethought? I think he did - what say you?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. Thankfully not - do you really want to criminalise burning the Koran?

Burning the Koran is a vital part of freedom of speech - more so now than ever.

Remarks like yours terrify me. We need to be defending the right to offend the religious, not willingly sacrificing it.

[Botany]

40. A wee bit over the top no?

"Remarks like yours terrify me." If you are so down w/ freedom of speech then you should
respect 1776Forever's right to state his thoughts w/out going hyperbolic.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. I'm not trying to *compel* them not to state their thoughts.

Freedom of speech is freedom from compulsion, not freedom from judgement.

It's entirely acceptable to try to persuade someone to change their mind, or to stop talking of their own free will.

It's entirely unacceptable to try to compel someone to do so.

[Botany]

67. Wow!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U

[1776Forever]

79. I appreciate the response. I have a son in the area where these murders are taking place & I am not

taking it well at all.

[Botany]

83. I hope your son gets out of harm's way ASAP and that ..

... you find some peace.

BTW He (Jones) also admits in that interview: "It was intended to stir the pot... ...Did our action provoke them? Of course."

Jones got what he wanted and for some people to make this a free speech issue is beyond me.

good wishes to you and your son.

[1776Forever]

86. Thank you so much. You don't know how much I appreciate that. I am putting a link to a news report

about when this so called "Pastor" was thrown out of Germany for a lot of reasons including inciting violence below. He is supposedly running his business out of the Church and also has written a book. I believe that hates begets hate and we need to stop allowing this type of jerk, who is not so much different from Glenn Beck, et al, get away with this murderous talk and actions! It is NOT right from any religious leader of any religion!

http://www.newser.com/story/100032/koran-torching-pastor-was-run-out-of-germany.html

[Botany]

87. I understand just a little bit of what you are going through

A good friend of mine had a son go through 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan
she was a nervous wreck all the time ..... right before xmas she called me crying
because her son was going to Italy and then back to the states and out of the Army.

But I do understand the damage that "hate speech" from the likes of Glen Beck
causes ..... In Ohio we had a wonderful Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner, who I am lucky
enough to call a friend ..... In 2008 Sean Hannity night after night pushed the total lie
that Brunner and ACORN were "fixing" the Ohio election. Well even though there was
not once of truth to the story she, Sec. of State Brunner, got death threats from some
mouth breathers who listen to that garbage on Fox.

[1776Forever]

89. I just found this great editorial and posted it - Please take a look & again thank you!

Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x595973

[Bragi]

52. Agreed /nt

[1776Forever]

78. I think you are going to far with "protecting" people who deliberately incite violence. This is more

then "free speech" it is screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. When someone does what this man did he knew what could and probably would happen. If someone does anything to encourage violence from another then they must and should be held responsible! Remarks like yours scare me! Do you have a son or daughter in the area where these murders are happening? I do and it is not something that I take lightly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

97. The Muslims incited violence, Jones merely didn't back down.

Saying "if people burn the Koran, we should respond with violence" is incitement to violence.

Refusing to back down to those threats is not.

If Jones had burned a Koran with the deliberate intention of causing violence, that would be incitement. But so far as I know there is not one shred of evidence that he did ("he's an asshole" certainly doesn't cut it) - it appears that his intention was to stick two fingers up at Islam, and people getting hurt by angry Muslims was merely a regrettable side effect.

[bluerum]

26. A$$hat provocateur.

[Rex]

35. Well he is partially responsible, but I would expect nothing but hate

out of Jones. This is hate fighting hate and murder winning best in show. This will escalate and arleady has...thankfully Jones cannot do anything more than burn books. If people lose it over that(a book), then I am right and most of the planet is ruled by insane people.

[MellowDem]

36. Good, he shouldn't.

Perhaps he should feel guilty for being an asshole in general, but he is not responsible for the murders of others half a world away because he burned a book. 100% of the responsibility lies with them.

[ellie]

44. Racist Fuckhead Feels No Shame, Remorse

Film at 11

[Initech]

55. No, fuck you, Jones, you're completely totally guilty.

[emilyg]

60. Remember free speech?

[Zynx]

65. He had a right to do it. I have a right to condemn him for the consequences of what he did.

[emilyg]

72. Correct.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

123. You do, but "guilty" is at best a poor choice of word, because of the legal connotations.

To what extent Jones is *morally* responsible for the deaths in Afghanistan is hotly debateable.

But that he is not *legally* guilty of anything is not, and I think that it's important not to lose sight of that in light of suggestions from e.g. Lindsey Graham (and various DUers) that koran-burning should be banned.

So even if you want to condemn him, I'd suggest either using a word other than "guilty", or make clear that you mean "morally" rather than "legally".

[Initech]

69. Explain how it's free speech when it's sole purpose is to incite violence, which it did.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

110. I'm not sure I can go much beyond "It is, and it wasn't", but I'll try.

It's free speech because *everything* that doesn't fall under one of a few highly-specific limitations is free speech.

You're right that "incitement to violence" is one of those limitations*

But "Incitement to violence" is a much more specific thing than "speech likely to result in violence". If a group of people threaten violence if you do something otherwise-legal, that does not make refusing to give in to their blackmail "incitement to violence".

I see no evidence at all that your claim that "it's sole purpose was to incite violence" is correct - it seems far more likely that its purpose was to stick two figners up at Islam, which is entirely legitimate. Even if it were the case that the burners actively wanted violence against non-Muslims - which I very much doubt - it still probably wouldn't constitute incitement to violence, any more than refusal to pay a ransom does.





*Ish - you might want to look up Brandenburg v Ohio, and to explain it to me if you understand it; even incitement to violence appears to be legal if there isn't a "clear and present danger" of "imminent" violence. Or something.

[Initech]

114. I'll defend his right to free speech, but I will not defend murder in any way shape or form.

[Zynx]

62. I think some people here confuse supporting free speech with endorsing every act of free speech.

This man should be condemned just in the same way any provocateur should be.

[Mimosa]

68. The Afghani people have heard of the Kill Team. That angered them too. n/t

[Obamanaut]

71. He's right - he and his group are not responsible. Muslim extremists have

been hacking off people's heads, murdering, and other atrocities long before Terry Jones appeared on the scene.

Women are killed for extra-marital sex. There is stoning. Just recently we read about a teen age girl who was beaten and later died for allegedly having sex with an adult male. Men have young boys as sex toys.

Nutbaggery is the operative word here.

All Jones did was burn a book.

[emilyg]

73. +1

[1776Forever]

81. You have a right to your thoughts. To those who killed those people this was more than any "book".

What they did was not right true, but what was done to incite this was also not right when the person who did it was warned of the danger in doing it.

[Obamanaut]

94. You say that to the murderers the 'book' was more than just a book. Well,

christians believe the bible is more than a mere book as well, but look how many people - right here on this very board - look upon that belief with disdain.

Interesting how one group will have approval of their belief (but not necessarily their actions), while the other group will be sneered upon.

Why is that? Is it because it has become popular, politically correct even, to say that we should give the one group understanding? That we should be more tolerant? Well, to this I say 'horse squeeze!' If one group is embracing a mythological belief (as many say of the christians) then the other group is as well.

Why in the world has it become necessary to kowtow to this bunch of extremists under the guise of 'understanding and tolerance' when they persist in performing atrocities - simple murders, beheadings (extreme murder), torturing, through stoning and beating, of women, killing because of sexual preference, making young boys into the sex slaves of perverted old men.

Terry Jones burned a book. If these people *really* believed the eye for eye, tooth for tooth business they would have burned a bible. But no, they killed several (including lopping off some heads.) All Jones did was burn a book. A book that was NOT writ by the finger of allah/god/great pumpkin, but printed by a person using a machine.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

109. so since we are talking about things being 'just a book' and such

I assume you wouldn't have minded at all if i dropped by the National Archives and burned the constitution then? After all, its just a piece of paper yes?

[Obamanaut]

111. It is an old piece of paper, and the contents are printed in numerous

other places. The information will not be lost.

I certainly would not go lop the heads off of complete strangers by way of retaliation.

The burned copy/copies of the koran were copies, printed by machines, possibly even operated by non-muslims.

A big difference in the old paper in the National Archives (and the brazillion copies) and the burned book is, to the best of my knowledge, is the constitution does not suggest/condone head lopping, little boy sex by perverted old men, stoning women, etc.

Hard to imagine anyone comparing the two writings.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

118. only reason i compared it is i've seen a number here on DU as well as

over on the 'site that should not be named' being extremely defensive and protective over it, and while you might not yourself start lopping heads off, I'm fairly sure some of those on both sides would want to form a mob to 'show' just what they think about somebody who burned their constitution.

Aka, the constitution is more 'valued' then the bible to a number of people

[Marr]

82. I don't think we should be censoring ourselves because a group of religious lunatics

responds with violence when they feel slighted.

He's not responsible for anything more than a little air pollution. He burned a book. The blame for any resulting violence-- all of it- belongs squarely on the shoulders of the lunatic committing the violence.

[Botany]

85. Jones' own words

He (jones) also admits in that interview: "It was intended to stir the pot... ...Did our action provoke them? Of course."

Jones burned the book to piss people off ..... end of story.

Jones lit the fuse to the dynamite by his actions ..... That horrid man should be put on a plane and flown to
some remote town in Afghanistan or Pakistan and given a chance to explain himself to the locals ... Jones can then also find out
if his all powerful Jesus can help him out too.

[David__77]

88. Obscurantists murder over book burning? This is nonsense.

He's a kook, but he doesn't have blood on his hands. Those who act on fatwas should be jailed. Murderous religious extremism should be firmly restrained.

[Botany]

90. "but he doesn't have blood on his hands"

Oh yes he does have blood on his hands. The son of bitch was warned about inciting violence by burning a Koran
many many times.

He (Jones) also admits in that interview: "It was intended to stir the pot... ...Did our action provoke them? Of course."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/04/02/2011-04-02_pastor_terry_jones_has_blood_on_his_hands_after_afghan_attack_in_response_to_kor.html#ixzz1IQlH2N9N

[David__77]

91. No to mob rule.

Was it smart, no. But it does not excuse or explain the irrational and hysterical actions of a gangs of bestial killers.

[JoeyT]

93. So we're going to use the "You made me hit you" defense for murderers now?

Provoking people isn't illegal. It isn't even immoral.
Koran sacred to you? Don't burn one. Everyone else can. Get over it. Same goes for the Bible, OoS, or any other book.

And no, this is absolutely nothing like the KKK burning crosses, however much some might want to contrast the two. Both involve something burning, both involve intimidation, but the similarities end there. The intimidation is being carried out by the opposite side of the ones that are doing the burning, which is exactly the opposite of the Klan burning crosses.

[CanonRay]

100. I wish the CIA could render him to Waziristan

just let him loose in the streets.

[JoePhilly]

108. Send him on a Christian Mission to Afganistan to spread Jesus' love!!!

[Obamanaut]

112. So, CIA rendition is condoned if it is someone currently disliked by a

group of murderers.

[CanonRay]

113. Geez, lighten up already

[CJCRANE]

102. The issue is not "should" or "should not" but *WHY*?

The same thing happened with the "Ground Zero Mosque" story - "it should be allowed!", "it shouldn't be allowed!", "it should be!", ad infinitum.

The real question is "why is he doing this? What's the real agenda? Who are his backers?"

What if he was working for Russia? What if he was indirectly working for the Taliban to help make them stronger. There are national security implications behind his actions.

This whole thing looks like the usual neocon double-game of stirring up conflict to make both sides of fundamentalists stronger, and liberal democracy weaker.

[1776Forever]

106. Thank you for this comment! I believe you are right on! Read about the book Jones is selling...

http://www.newser.com/story/100032/koran-torching-pastor-was-run-out-of-germany.html

Newser – Rev. Terry Jones was ranting against Islam long before his plan to burn Korans on the anniversary of 9/11 made him internationally infamous. According to the church blog, Jones has been preaching Islamophobia since before 9/11, when he ran a sister church in a poor area of Cologne, Germany. The church says he left because the community had begun to fill with Muslim Turkish immigrants hostile to his message, the Daily Beast reports.

But Jones’ estranged daughter says he was actually kicked out of Cologne for using church funds to buy personal luxuries and pay for his eBay business. Now, Jones is running that business out of the Gainesville church, and living in the church’s 1,500-square-foot luxury parson’s quarters. But he won’t be for long. In what's surely not an attempt to cash in on the publicity, the church is reportedly selling its campus, recently slashing the asking price to $1.1 million. Did we mention Jones has a new book, entitled Islam is of the Devil?

.........

This shows he has no intent on being a peaceful and loving person that he should be per Jesus teaching. This man is only out for himself much as those in the church in Kansas are that protest at fallen soldier's funerals. I read that they are forming a group that will be teaching this maniacal behavior. Their energy is so wrongfully hate driven it is a form of terrorism in itself.

[treestar]

105. This is somewhat like those cartoons of Mohamed that enraged

Muslims.

Though they have a right to their feelings, they have no right to hurt anybody. This is something Muslims must learn to live with - if I'm being western-centric, fine. It's like FGM or other things - some things are too barbarous for the modern world to tolerate, even if it is still culturally acceptable in a country.

I simply can't work up sympathy in this kind of case. They had not right to kill Jones himself. Yet they killed others for being from the same culture as he is. That's just wrong, no matter what their beliefs. We have to draw a line somewhere and this is one.

[Hannah Bell]

117. now he gets a spot on nightline. i repeat, why is this guy getting so much press?

a 50-member church that's a front for a for-profit furniture business?

an uncredentialed paster with long-standing ties to the psy-ops wing of the christian far-right.

and DU eats it up with big spoons. "he's responsible!" "no he's not!"

totally beside the point.

why did our guy karzhai publicize what this guy was saying?

[Baby Bear]

121. Pastor Jones is a Hater

May God forgive him.