UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest
Discussion
Godzuki said:
He hasn't stood outside anyones house, and he hasn't insulted anyones close family member.
What difference does it make where he does it and who he insults? He was trying to cause offence or, in other words, being a t
t and incite an adverse reaction. As I mentioned earlier its no different to the Poppy-burners.So - what would you do if he was slagging your mum off on Youtube? Ignore it?
Godzuki said:
What he has done is burn a book... That's it, in his garage. Was it to make a point, of course, and that point has been proven.
So what was the "point" ?Godzuki said:
The question I would like to ask you is do you think you should be arrested for burning a Quran, or for that matter, the bible?
Definitely. There are plenty of non-offensive ways of debating free speech or th existence of god or whatever. This was done purely and simply to cause offence.Godzuki said:
Do you think violence attributed to these burnings, including murder and beheadings, is justified?
Absolutely not.Godzuki said:
You want violence, to keep the peace? Next time there is a flag burning in London, or America, you'll be fine with your Muslim brothers being shot on sight? It's a little more humane than a beheading, but as long as it keeps the peace, we're good, aren't we?
Are you seriously suggesting that violence is a solution to people being offended?
I would not be fine with it but then it is not me burning the flag or doing the shooting. You want to offend then fine, you face the consequences too. Simple really. It is what most English poeple would want to happen to the poppy burners, you know get rid of the police protection and let them face the mob. You think the same too. Don't lie about it. Just because i'm suggesting it works both ways you are getting your knickers in a twist. Is it terrorism? Hmm, all them white guys wanting to beat up the poppy burners are terrorists are they? Well that is what you / chummie just said. Oh them white guys would not kill the poppy buners though as they are all civilised and pigs can fly after all. It is what Britain wants, to be able to burn Qurans with no comeback so why no burning poppies without comeback? Double standards? or are you now going to attempt to dictate which is more meaningfull.Are you seriously suggesting that violence is a solution to people being offended?
Sheeda Pistol said:
Oh them white guys would not kill the poppy buners though as they are all civilised and pigs can fly after all.
I hate to break it to you, but the poppy burners are just as safe as the bible burners and the Piss Christ creators and their like. Unless you can prove me wrong?Sheeda Pistol said:
It is what Britain wants, to be able to burn Qurans with no comeback ...
It is called part of living in a free country. Our property is ours to do as we please with.Perra said:
If people are getting arsey over western society burning the Qu'ran, then boycott anything western. But they all know the western world has provided them with great things so they can't do that so they go around killing people and try and get us to conform with them. Love you! :P
The thing is, it isn't "western society" that is burning the Quran - its a few nobheads who don't like muslims. The BNP member wasn't burning the Quran for some high minded philosophical reason - it was done to cause offence, elicit the reaction, and then stand back smugly saying "Look - these muslims, they just take offense at everything etc etc etc". The sole purpose of burning the Quran seems to be aimed at creating division between people and exploiting this for political purposes.I'll try to put it another way - there's a Leeds fan who works in your office (which is full of man Utd supporters). So, every day you walk past his desk proclaiming loudly "Leeds fans are a bunch of illiterate monkeys". Are you going to be surprised if, one day he stands up and smacks you one? Are you going to look round and say "come on mate, it was just a bit of banter"? Were you upholding the principle of free speech ? Or were you thinking "Great - I'll get all these man U fans on my side and we'll get rid of this t
t?"(I dont mean you by the way - and I have nothing against Leeds fans)
Perra said:
The louder someone shouts at me the less I listen and the more aggressive they are the more confrontational I am.
Couldn't agree with you more 
Countdown said:
What difference does it make where he does it and who he insults? He was trying to cause offence or, in other words, being a tt and incite an adverse reaction. As I mentioned earlier its no different to the Poppy-burners.
So - what would you do if he was slagging your mum off on Youtube? Ignore it?
So what was the "point" ?
Definitely. There are plenty of non-offensive ways of debating free speech or th existence of god or whatever. This was done purely and simply to cause offence.
Absolutely not.
You really do miss the point an awful lot, don't you? It doesn't matter where he does it, however, your analogy wasn;t accurate. he did it in the privacy of his own home. Simply a response to your post. With regards to him being a tt and incite an adverse reaction. As I mentioned earlier its no different to the Poppy-burners.So - what would you do if he was slagging your mum off on Youtube? Ignore it?
So what was the "point" ?
Definitely. There are plenty of non-offensive ways of debating free speech or th existence of god or whatever. This was done purely and simply to cause offence.
Absolutely not.
t, as far as I am aware, that is not illegal. The problem with freedom of speech is that people DO have the right to say what they want. However, whilst he has the right to be a tt, you have the right to be offended. What you DON'T have the right to do is become violent. THIS is the point. I find the likes of Chodery, (sp?), or Hamza to be offensive, but that is my right. What I don;t have the right to do is to go and get some muslims and kill them, because I happen to be offended.
I'm not sure why someone would be slagging my mum off on youtube, but if they did, again, I would not be storming anyones house, and killing them.
Sheeda Pistol said:
I would not be fine with it but then it is not me burning the flag or doing the shooting. You want to offend then fine, you face the consequences too. Simple really. It is what most English poeple would want to happen to the poppy burners, you know get rid of the police protection and let them face the mob. You think the same too. Don't lie about it. Just because i'm suggesting it works both ways you are getting your knickers in a twist. Is it terrorism? Hmm, all them white guys wanting to beat up the poppy burners are terrorists are they? Well that is what you / chummie just said. Oh them white guys would not kill the poppy buners though as they are all civilised and pigs can fly after all. It is what Britain wants, to be able to burn Qurans with no comeback so why no burning poppies without comeback? Double standards? or are you now going to attempt to dictate which is more meaningfull.
Face the consequences? What would that be? With regards to the Poppy burners, I agree entirely. many would like to be at them up, however, and this is the important bit, British people did not form, enmasse, and storm a Mosque, killing multitudes of them. THAT is the important difference, Shaid. The white folk did NOT beat anyone up. You seem to be missing these rather simple differences between when Islam is offended, and when British people are offended. I suggest you try to educate you on those differences, and you'll then see what the real issue is. I never called anyone a terrorist, but, if violence and murder is the response to being offended, then yes, that is terrorism. Offense does not justify violence. I am not getting my knickers in a twist over the burning, I am getting annoyed because the guy was arrested for it.
I do find it incredibly interesting that on the one hand you say that people are entitled to subject an offender with the 'consequences', and on the other hand you say it is 'absolutely not" justified... Which is it?
I say they can burn poppies if they want. I never said otherwise. Please point where I said that out, and quote me, thanks very much.
Countdown said:
What difference does it make where he does it and who he insults? He was trying to cause offence or, in other words, being a tt and incite an adverse reaction. As I mentioned earlier its no different to the Poppy-burners.
So - what would you do if he was slagging your mum off on Youtube? Ignore it?
So what was the "point" ?
Definitely. There are plenty of non-offensive ways of debating free speech or th existence of god or whatever. This was done purely and simply to cause offence.
Absolutely not.
You really do miss the point an awful lot, don't you? It doesn't matter where he does it, however, your analogy wasn;t accurate. he did it in the privacy of his own home. Simply a response to your post. With regards to him being a tt and incite an adverse reaction. As I mentioned earlier its no different to the Poppy-burners.So - what would you do if he was slagging your mum off on Youtube? Ignore it?
So what was the "point" ?
Definitely. There are plenty of non-offensive ways of debating free speech or th existence of god or whatever. This was done purely and simply to cause offence.
Absolutely not.
t, as far as I am aware, that is not illegal. The problem with freedom of speech is that people DO have the right to say what they want. However, whilst he has the right to be a tt, you have the right to be offended. What you DON'T have the right to do is become violent. THIS is the point. I find the likes of Chodery, (sp?), or Hamza to be offensive, but that is my right. What I don;t have the right to do is to go and get some muslims and kill them, because I happen to be offended.
I'm not sure why someone would be slagging my mum off on youtube, but if they did, again, I would not be storming anyones house, and killing them.
Sheeda Pistol said:
I would not be fine with it but then it is not me burning the flag or doing the shooting. You want to offend then fine, you face the consequences too. Simple really. It is what most English poeple would want to happen to the poppy burners, you know get rid of the police protection and let them face the mob. You think the same too. Don't lie about it. Just because i'm suggesting it works both ways you are getting your knickers in a twist. Is it terrorism? Hmm, all them white guys wanting to beat up the poppy burners are terrorists are they? Well that is what you / chummie just said. Oh them white guys would not kill the poppy buners though as they are all civilised and pigs can fly after all. It is what Britain wants, to be able to burn Qurans with no comeback so why no burning poppies without comeback? Double standards? or are you now going to attempt to dictate which is more meaningfull.
Face the consequences? What would that be? With regards to the Poppy burners, I agree entirely. many would like to be at them up, however, and this is the important bit, British people did not form, enmasse, and storm a Mosque, killing multitudes of them. THAT is the important difference, Shaid. The white folk did NOT beat anyone up. You seem to be missing these rather simple differences between when Islam is offended, and when British people are offended. I suggest you try to educate you on those differences, and you'll then see what the real issue is. I never called anyone a terrorist, but, if violence and murder is the response to being offended, then yes, that is terrorism. Offense does not justify violence. I am not getting my knickers in a twist over the burning, I am getting annoyed because the guy was arrested for it.
I do find it incredibly interesting that on the one hand you say that people are entitled to subject an offender with the 'consequences', and on the other hand you say it is 'absolutely not" justified... Which is it?
People burning poppies if they want. I never said otherwise. Please point where I said that out, and quote me, thanks very much.
Countdown said:
Perra said:
The BNP member wasn't burning the Quran for some high minded philosophical reason - it was done to cause offence, elicit the reaction, and then stand back smugly saying "Look - these muslims, they just take offense at everything etc etc etc". The sole purpose of burning the Quran seems to be aimed at creating division between people and exploiting this for political purposes.
And would he be right? Would there be an overtly violent reaction to the burning?BM did I say it is justified for someone to take their revenge on some totally innocent person who happens to be of the same religion / colour / nationality as the outspoken tt? No, I did not.
If you confuse what I said to be justifying violence against someone totally innocent then your are frankly being yourself again (AAAARGH!).
I said you insult, you face consequences, the law should not protect you. Don't make out that given half a chance and the opportunity to get away with it people would not kill the poppy burners. You know very damn well they will so please get the fk off your high horse!
Oh and would you seriously not do anything about someone publicly insulting your mother? You really would not even feel remotely violent? You probably see that as being civilised whilst I see that as being ridiculous. Shame on you!
t? No, I did not. If you confuse what I said to be justifying violence against someone totally innocent then your are frankly being yourself again (AAAARGH!).
I said you insult, you face consequences, the law should not protect you. Don't make out that given half a chance and the opportunity to get away with it people would not kill the poppy burners. You know very damn well they will so please get the f
k off your high horse!Oh and would you seriously not do anything about someone publicly insulting your mother? You really would not even feel remotely violent? You probably see that as being civilised whilst I see that as being ridiculous. Shame on you!
Sheeda Pistol said:
You want to offend then fine, you face the consequences too. Simple really.
If you aren't hurting people, you are merely offending them, you ahve the right to be offended. It's the British way, so enjoy it while you are here. You should know that if you are British.Sheeda Pistol said:
It is what most English poeple would want to happen to the poppy burners, you know get rid of the police protection and let them face the mob. You think the same too. Don't lie about it.
I can't speak for all British people, just myself, and in no way do I want anyone to die for having an opinion that's absolutely rediculous. So please do not tell me how to think, a religion tried to that to me when I was young I realsied it was bullst whne I was 8 and noone had any answers whatsoever, we arent all sheep and we don't all think the same.Sheeda Pistol said:
Just because i'm suggesting it works both ways you are getting your knickers in a twist. Is it terrorism? Hmm, all them white guys wanting to beat up the poppy burners are terrorists are they? Well that is what you / chummie just said.
If they use fear and violence to get what they want then of course they are terrorists, they are terrorising people are you insane, how can you not see that, I don't stick with a guy because he's white I stick with a guy because his views in my opinion ar ecorrect and what I think is for the fairest society, why would you not want this?Sheeda Pistol said:
Oh them white guys would not kill the poppy buners though as they are all civilised and pigs can fly after all.
Are you serious? I beleive some of them would, but have you watched EDL demonstrations turn nasty when the 'white' middleclass protest against the EDL? It's not pretty and I'm sure they would physically hurt those people too. Basically your argument is completely flawed and you are getting race involved. This has nothing to do with race.Sheeda Pistol said:
It is what Britain wants, to be able to burn Qurans with no comeback so why no burning poppies without comeback? Double standards? or are you now going to attempt to dictate which is more meaningfull.
I want it to be fair both ways, I want freedom of speech with no reprisals. Do you understand?So man can burn poppy if he wants aslong as its not inciteful and disturbing the peace if he disturbs the peace, he gets escorted away from the disturbance etc.
A man can burn a Qu'ran and do the exact same thing and get the exact same treatment, its fair and noone gets hurt.
It's called a peaceful protest, have you ever heard of one?
Edited by Perra on Thursday 14th April 12:28
So you are happy to see someone burn a poppy, it is their right to do so, are you glad they can enjoy this right as it is part of being British (according to you)?
Edit - Whilst i agree that beheading some innocent UN workers due to the action of some tt thousands of miles away is very wrong but i have no objection for some poppy burning / Quran burning lund to be dealt with by the very people they wish to offend however they see fit as long as anyone else is not affected. There you go is that PC enough for you?
Basically, you offend, you can explain it to the ones you wish to offend. If you get fked in the process then you only have yourself to blame.
Edit - Whilst i agree that beheading some innocent UN workers due to the action of some t
t thousands of miles away is very wrong but i have no objection for some poppy burning / Quran burning lund to be dealt with by the very people they wish to offend however they see fit as long as anyone else is not affected. There you go is that PC enough for you?Basically, you offend, you can explain it to the ones you wish to offend. If you get f
ked in the process then you only have yourself to blame.Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 14th April 12:35
Sheeda Pistol said:
So you are happy to see someone burn a poppy, it is their right to do so, are you glad they can enjoy this right as it is part of being British (according to you)?
I'm happy the get the right to freedom of speech, but I am not happy they are burning a poppy.Do you understand the difference.
Sheeda Pistol said:
BM did I say it is justified for someone to take their revenge on some totally innocent person who happens to be of the same religion / colour / nationality as the outspoken tt? No, I did not.
If you confuse what I said to be justifying violence against someone totally innocent then your are frankly being yourself again (AAAARGH!).
I said you insult, you face consequences, the law should not protect you. Don't make out that given half a chance and the opportunity to get away with it people would not kill the poppy burners. You know very damn well they will so please get the fk off your high horse!
Oh and would you seriously not do anything about someone publicly insulting your mother? You really would not even feel remotely violent? You probably see that as being civilised whilst I see that as being ridiculous. Shame on you!
You said any protection for someone who offended should be removed and they should take the consequences...So what consequences were you talking about? Protection from who? it has nothing to do with someone being innocent, or not. I am wondering what consequences would be for the offender? Explain that, if you don't mind.t? No, I did not. If you confuse what I said to be justifying violence against someone totally innocent then your are frankly being yourself again (AAAARGH!).
I said you insult, you face consequences, the law should not protect you. Don't make out that given half a chance and the opportunity to get away with it people would not kill the poppy burners. You know very damn well they will so please get the f
k off your high horse!Oh and would you seriously not do anything about someone publicly insulting your mother? You really would not even feel remotely violent? You probably see that as being civilised whilst I see that as being ridiculous. Shame on you!
"I'm being myself again (AAARRGGH)", what oj earth does that mean? I'm simply responding to YOUR posts, Shaid. Sorry for actually questioning things.
Again, "the laws should not protect you"... From what? Again, no-one died as a result of the poppy burning. Get that in your head please, because your argument makes no sense in that regard. people may be angry, but no-one will die from it. ("f
king high horse"? Please, stop getting so angry. It doesn't look good on you)Would I get violent against someone insulting my mother? No, I wouldn't I would argue with them, but again, death would not result from it. This is the key to this thread, Shaid, and you seem to miss it entirely. The difference in reaction from offense from differing sections of society.
Sheeda Pistol said:
BM did I say it is justified for someone to take their revenge on some totally innocent person who happens to be of the same religion / colour / nationality as the outspoken tt? No, I did not.
If you confuse what I said to be justifying violence against someone totally innocent then your are frankly being yourself again (AAAARGH!).
I said you insult, you face consequences, the law should not protect you. Don't make out that given half a chance and the opportunity to get away with it people would not kill the poppy burners. You know very damn well they will so please get the fk off your high horse!
Oh and would you seriously not do anything about someone publicly insulting your mother? You really would not even feel remotely violent? You probably see that as being civilised whilst I see that as being ridiculous. Shame on you!
Are you serious? You would seriously commit violence on somebody for insulting your mother? How old are you? Perhaps you are angry because somebody stole your pokemon cards. I am insulted by your idiotic post. PREPARE TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.t? No, I did not. If you confuse what I said to be justifying violence against someone totally innocent then your are frankly being yourself again (AAAARGH!).
I said you insult, you face consequences, the law should not protect you. Don't make out that given half a chance and the opportunity to get away with it people would not kill the poppy burners. You know very damn well they will so please get the f
k off your high horse!Oh and would you seriously not do anything about someone publicly insulting your mother? You really would not even feel remotely violent? You probably see that as being civilised whilst I see that as being ridiculous. Shame on you!
Edited by thegman on Thursday 14th April 12:36
Countdown said:
The thing is, it isn't "western society" that is burning the Quran - its a few nobheads who don't like muslims. The BNP member wasn't burning the Quran for some high minded philosophical reason - it was done to cause offence, elicit the reaction, and then stand back smugly saying "Look - these muslims, they just take offense at everything etc etc etc". The sole purpose of burning the Quran seems to be aimed at creating division between people and exploiting this for political purposes.
HAHA I love how you left my 'I love you' comment in, legend!Serious mode: But this is the thing, he has every right to do that. Once you take away his right for that you take away rights for women to speak for themselves and gays to have a voice. It's a slippery slope.
When you say its a few nobheds that dont like Muslims, is it? From my perspective its a few nob heds (granted) that dont like Extreme Muslims. To be fair they MAY NOT like muslims, but they mainly protest against extreme muslims though right? If regular muslims are getting annoyed at them burning the Qu'ran and think violence is the answer then they seriosuly need a reality check. From my point of view it only seems the extremists are getting offended, or have I got that wrong.
Countdown said:
I'll try to put it another way - there's a Leeds fan who works in your office (which is full of man Utd supporters). So, every day you walk past his desk proclaiming loudly "Leeds fans are a bunch of illiterate monkeys". Are you going to be surprised if, one day he stands up and smacks you one? Are you going to look round and say "come on mate, it was just a bit of banter"? Were you upholding the principle of free speech ? Or were you thinking "Great - I'll get all these man U fans on my side and we'll get rid of this tt?"
(I dont mean you by the way - and I have nothing against Leeds fans)
What is this football you speak of? :P To be fair if that guy is being an absolute nob and disturbing teh peace then you would speak to your manager surely and he would be spoken to, if it carried on he surely would get fired. It's ok to be offended but if you are consistantly and aggressively doing it then reprecussions will happen, and no I don't mean violence.t?"(I dont mean you by the way - and I have nothing against Leeds fans)
Countdown said:
Perra said:
The louder someone shouts at me the less I listen and the more aggressive they are the more confrontational I am.
Couldn't agree with you more I generally only get like that against bullies. This could be politically and in general real life, I hate seeing people get bullied. And I also hate ideas like freedom of speech being bullied.
Also Countdown can I ask, are you a Muslim?
Edited by Perra on Thursday 14th April 12:45
Godzuki said:
You said any protection for someone who offended should be removed and they should take the consequences...So what consequences were you talking about? whatever they may be Protection from who? those that they are offending it has nothing to do with someone being innocent, or not. I am wondering what consequences would be for the offender? Explain that, if you don't mind. i don't mind, whatever the offended wish to dish out to them
"I'm being myself again (AAARRGGH)", what oj earth does that mean? I'm simply responding to YOUR posts, Shaid. Sorry for actually questioning things.Your not questioning things, your just being BM
Again, "the laws should not protect you"... From what? FFS, are you seriously stupid? What do you think? The tooth fairy perhaps! Again, no-one died as a result of the poppy burning. But they very well could have if the police were not there Get that in your head please, because your argument makes no sense in that regard. people may be angry, but no-one will die from it. ("fking high horse"? Please, stop getting so angry. It doesn't look good on you)
Would I get violent against someone insulting my mother? No, I wouldn't I would argue with them, but again, death would not result from it. This is the key to this thread, Shaid, and you seem to miss it entirely. The difference in reaction from offense from differing sections of society.
"I'm being myself again (AAARRGGH)", what oj earth does that mean? I'm simply responding to YOUR posts, Shaid. Sorry for actually questioning things.
Your not questioning things, your just being BM Again, "the laws should not protect you"... From what? FFS, are you seriously stupid? What do you think? The tooth fairy perhaps! Again, no-one died as a result of the poppy burning. But they very well could have if the police were not there Get that in your head please, because your argument makes no sense in that regard. people may be angry, but no-one will die from it. ("f
king high horse"? Please, stop getting so angry. It doesn't look good on you)Would I get violent against someone insulting my mother? No, I wouldn't I would argue with them, but again, death would not result from it. This is the key to this thread, Shaid, and you seem to miss it entirely. The difference in reaction from offense from differing sections of society.
Perra said:
Serious mode: But this is the thing, he has every right to do that. Once you take away his right for that you take away rights for women to speak for themselves and gays to have a voice. It's a slippery slope.
When you say its a few nobheds that dont like Muslims, is it? From my perspective its a few nob heds (granted) that dont like Extreme Muslims. To be fair they MAY NOT like muslims, but they mainly protest against extreme muslims though right? If regular muslims are getting annoyed at them burning the Qu'ran and think violence is the answer then they seriosuly need a reality check. From my point of view it only seems the extremists are getting offended, or have I got that wrong.
The ridiculous thing is that it isn't the question of the violent acts that resulted coming under scrutiny, rather it is the burning of inanimate objects that seems to be 'more offensive'... Seriously, even if a complete tWhen you say its a few nobheds that dont like Muslims, is it? From my perspective its a few nob heds (granted) that dont like Extreme Muslims. To be fair they MAY NOT like muslims, but they mainly protest against extreme muslims though right? If regular muslims are getting annoyed at them burning the Qu'ran and think violence is the answer then they seriosuly need a reality check. From my point of view it only seems the extremists are getting offended, or have I got that wrong.
t, who wants to wind you up to the nth degree does burn your favourite book, killing people because of it is utterly, utterly retarded, and is not in any way justifiable. That's the issue. It's not who offended who, or "he started it!", it;s the reaction of violence that needs to be under the eyes of the world. The simple fact that a man was arrested for burning a Quran shows the extent to which things are wrong in the UK. If that is wrong, then surely any extremist cleric or imam should be immediately thrown in prison when they open their mouth...Won't they? Godzuki said:
Shaid, do you believe violence is the right of the offended?
Nope, but in some cases a smack in the mouth is deserved. Someone giving abuse to your mother is one of them people.I would have no sympathy for poppy burners getting a slap up or worse. Same thing for this bnp nutter.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff