UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest

[Godzuki]

Sheeda Pistol said:

Finally! It took you long enough. I made that pretty clear this morning. Hence why i felt the need to add a few words carefully selected to wake you up a little. Done the job.

There is nothing i nor anyone else can do to make you think otherwise of religion. You will always see us as violent and backwards and i see athiests as... well millitant athiests only as (can't say might get banned). I can do nothing that will appeal to you and you can do nothing that will appeal to me.

And BM thank you very much for misquiting me once again.

I'll argue / debate with atheists later. I have sdomething to do (still need to get back to the other thread).

I never misquoted you at all. Where did I misquote you?

I have been asking YOU questions as you are a moderate Muslim. You can twist it however you want, or pretend whatever, however, it was you that suggested that consequences should be dealt with. I simply pressed you on it, and you finally gave the answer. You see violence as an answer to offense. Did you, or did you not?

I have my opinion of religion, and the religious, however, I have said so many, many times on this, and other threads, as well as my website. none of it would get me banned. What is it you cannot say that would get you banned? You don;t have to worry about offending, as I won;t come after you with violence on my mind. I'll do the decent thing and discuss it with you.

I don't see YOU as violent and backwards, (well, not until, the last few posts), so please don't pretend I am tarring everyone with the same brush. My responses were based entirely on what YOU said. You are a moderate, are you not, and a strict adherer to the islamic faith, are you not, and yet you would condone violence? Is that right?

I also appreciate you being man enough to apologise for swearing, and calling me stupid. Whilst I would not attempt to dislodge your head for such insults, I did think you would be man enough to apologise on a public forum. Apparently not.

[anonymous-user]

Godzuki said:

I never misquoted you at all. Where did I misquote you?

I have been asking YOU questions as you are a moderate Muslim. You can twist it however you want, or pretend whatever, however, it was you that suggested that consequences should be dealt with. I simply pressed you on it, and you finally gave the answer. You see violence as an answer to offense. Did you, or did you not?

I have my opinion of religion, and the religious, however, I have said so many, many times on this, and other threads, as well as my website. none of it would get me banned. What is it you cannot say that would get you banned? You don;t have to worry about offending, as I won;t come after you with violence on my mind. I'll do the decent thing and discuss it with you.

I don't see YOU as violent and backwards, (well, not until, the last few posts), so please don't pretend I am tarring everyone with the same brush. My responses were based entirely on what YOU said. You are a moderate, are you not, and a strict adherer to the islamic faith, are you not, and yet you would condone violence? Is that right?

I also appreciate you being man enough to apologise for swearing, and calling me stupid. Whilst I would not attempt to dislodge your head for such insults, I did think you would be man enough to apologise on a public forum. Apparently not.

I hate PH sometimes, I really should log off and go for lunch but I’m going to sit here and talk to a complete stranger instead.

BM one should only apologise if you believe are genuinely sorry and believe that you have wronged someone. I do not feel any need to apologise to you as I genuinely do not feel bad about it. Okay I don't want you to take it personal or anything as I did not mean for it to dig so deep but seriously dude sometimes along with your buddies you are just fishing for a reaction. Which you got.

I appreciate the fact that you don't se me as violent or backwards and I am not violent at all. Granted there are some lines which you should not cross but then I am a bloke after all. I have honour and respect which I need to uphold. If I let one guy swear at my mother then everyone will think they can, if I nip it in the bud there and then, the message sent out is pretty clear.

I am not a strict follower of Islam. I wish I could better. I don't even have a beard. I swear and smoke cigarettes. I can't have a beard if I do these things. Although I have never personally wronged anyone. I have actually got more non Muslims friends than Muslims friends but I’m sure someone will say they are all 'token' anyway.

With regards to violence when the prophet (pbuh) was insulted he never turned around and decided to be violent. In fact he was used to a certain lady sweeping all her rubbish towards him as he walked by. When one day he walked by she was not there he knocked the door to see if she was okay. It is always better to turn the other cheek and walk away.

With me condoning violence that is the British part of me. English people call it Bulldog Spirit. A bit like my parents generation when faced when confrontation they would say "yes please, we no want no trouble" whereas my generation would say "bring it on" or run like fk...lol. I know as a good Muslim I should condemn violence but sometimes people are asking for trouble and if they get it then it what they deserve.

By the way it not really misquoting. More like deliberately taking the wrong meaning out of anything to cause more shock, horror, etc. A bit like the red tops.

Edit : Piss poor spelling

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 14th April 13:49

[Godzuki]

Sheeda Pistol said:

BM one should only appologise if you believe are gneuinly sorry and believe that you have wronged someone. I do not feel any need to appologise to you as i genuinly do not feel bad about it. Okay i don't want you to take it personal or anything as i did not mean for it to dig so deep but seriously dude sometimes along with your buddies you are just fishing for a reaction. Which you got.

I am not fishing for a reaction. I am asking questions which current situations dictate. I am only asking YOU questions because YOU brought forward points which I wanted expanding. As I said, you mentioned consequences, and all that entails. If you don;t want to be questioned about those posts, then don't post them, it;s as simple as that. As for wronging someone, you got quite sweary, and called me "completely stupid", as well as mentioning Lund. You don't feel it requires an apology, then you have sunk even further in my opinion. Simple as that. As I said, I never insulted, abused, swore, or anything of that nature. You felt otherwise, (as is your right). Luckily for you I'm not going to uphold what you believe my right is as the offended, and get violent on you

I appreciate the fact that you don't se me as violent or backwards and i am not violent at all. Granted there are some lines which you should not cross but then i am a bloke after all. I have honour and respect which i need to uphold. If i let one guy swear at my mother then everyone will think they can, if i nip it in the bud there and then, the message sent out is reppty clear.

If one guy swears at your mum, everyone will think they can? Seriously? That is an argument you are putting forward?

I am not a strict follower of Islam. I wish i could better. I don't even have a beard. I swear and smoke cigarettes. I can't have a beard if i do these things. Although i have never personally wronged anyone. I have actually got more non Muslims friends than Muslims frinds but i'm sure someone will say they are all 'token' anyway.

This is the guy who said that if it's in the Quran, then 'rules are rules'? I believe your line of argument on the other thread that involved this was along the lines of "who are we to argue against scripture, and 1400 year old logic"?

With regards to violence when the prophet (pbuh) was insulted he never turned around and decided to be violent. In fact he was used to a certain lady sweeping all her rubbish towards him as he walked by. When one day he walked by she was not there he knocked the door to see if she was okay. It is always better to turn the other cheek and walk away.

Contrary to what you said earlier, and contrary to what happened when Rushdie wrote his book, the cartoons were published, when the Quran was burnt, etc

With me condoning violence that is the British part of me. English people call it Bulldog Spirit. A bit like my parents generation when faced when confrontation they would say "yes please, we no waqnt no trouble" whearas my generation would say "bring it on" or run like fk...lol. I know as a good Muslim i should condemn violence but sometimes people are asking for trouble and if they get it then it what they deserve.

It is not the Bulldog spirit. You do not see people murdered, beheaded, thousands storming embassies because of a cartoon in another land, or any other kind of insult. I for one don't think you understand Bulldog spirit at all. Violence is VERY seldom any response by british people, and certainly not due to 'offense.

By the way it not really misquoting. Mor elike deliberatly taking the wriong meaning out of anything to cause more shock, horror, etc. A bit like the red tops.

And how did I do that? The only time I made any 'judgement' was at the end, where I said that for a moderate Muslim to turn to violence because of offense proves something. That is not misquoting, nor is it twisting anything.

[Bill]

Godzuki said:

Utterly, and completely aside from the point. The question is, should you be arrested for burning a book? If people are concerned about violent reprisals by Islamic chaps, then surely THAT is the issue? Why exactly should freedom of speech be curtailed because of threats of violence?

Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, principally not to be offensive and just because you and I don't find book burning to be offensive doesn't mean that it isn't.

Bringing it back on thread this guy set out to be deliberately offensive, the poppy burners wouldn't (reasonably IMO) expect people to find burning a paper poppy offensive. That's the difference.

Should he have been arrested? Probably IMO, as I'd expect someone wandering down the road shouting "You're a fking " at people to be arrested.

[Godzuki]

Bill said:

Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, principally not to be offensive and just because you and I don't find book burning to be offensive doesn't mean that it isn't.

Bringing it back on thread this guy set out to be deliberately offensive, the poppy burners wouldn't (reasonably IMO) expect people to find burning a paper poppy offensive. That's the difference.

Should he have been arrested? Probably IMO, as I'd expect someone wandering down the road shouting "You're a fking " at people to be arrested.

People have a right to offend, just as much as someone has the right to be offended. That is not in question. What is in question is the response it received. tens of people have been killed in mass protests all over the world. let me repeat that. People have been killed because a book was burned. That is the issue.

The poppy burners were planning to be just as offensive as the quran burner, and to think otherwise is to be a little naive, I feel. A paper book, or a paper poppy... What is worse?

You seriously think people should be arrested for burning a book they have bought, and own? Seriously?

[Bill]

Godzuki said:

You seriously think people should be arrested for burning a book they have bought, and own? Seriously?

You seriously think people should be allowed to be as offensive as they like?

[carmonk]

Bill said:

Bringing it back on thread this guy set out to be deliberately offensive, the poppy burners wouldn't (reasonably IMO) expect people to find burning a paper poppy offensive. That's the difference.

So let's get this straight. A person burns a book on his own property and that's offensive. A person stages a demonstration on a street infront of a home-coming march, burns a poppy symbol and shouts at bereaved relatives, "Soldiers go to hell!" and "Murderers!" and that's not offensive? Just in the interests of clarity.

Bill said:

Should he have been arrested? Probably IMO, as I'd expect someone wandering down the road shouting "You're a fking " at people to be arrested.

See what you've written there. '...at people'. That's right, if I called you a then I'd be directing an insult, at you. However, if you or anyone else is moronic enough to be offended by my performing an undirected deed then that's your problem, not mine. Should we all be forced to catalogue in our heads all the irrational and idiotic beliefs of people across the world and double-check every action we make in case it causes offence?

[thegman]

Bill said:

You seriously think people should be allowed to be as offensive as they like?

I think short of harrasment, intimidation or threats of violence (which ARE already against the law) people should grow up.

[Perra]

Bill said:

Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, principally not to be offensive and just because you and I don't find book burning to be offensive doesn't mean that it isn't.

Bringing it back on thread this guy set out to be deliberately offensive, the poppy burners wouldn't (reasonably IMO) expect people to find burning a paper poppy offensive. That's the difference.

Should he have been arrested? Probably IMO, as I'd expect someone wandering down the road shouting "You're a fking " at people to be arrested.

The poppy burning and the guy getting arrested for burning the Qu'ran aren't really the same though are they?

If however the guy did the qu'ran burning outside a mosque then it would be equal to the poppy burning.

I can't believe you think that the poppy burners thought no one would be offended, I mean the situation, location, meaning of the poppy and the fact they were telling soldiers to die and calling them murderers is abit of a give away.

Basically anyone disturbing the peace should be moved away from the scene. How is that difficult?
If the Muslim4UK guys were being peaceful and just merely giving out flyers and trying to reason with people they would get a much better reception. Instead they feel that burning poppies and american flags is appropriate. They do this because they get emotional. fking n00b protestors man!

[Bill]

carmonk said:

See what you've written there. '...at people'. That's right, if I called you a then I'd be directing an insult, at you. However, if you or anyone else is moronic enough to be offended by my performing an undirected deed then that's your problem, not mine. Should we all be forced to catalogue in our heads all the irrational and idiotic beliefs of people across the world and double-check every action we make in case it causes offence?

That's the thing, it wasn't in private, and it wasn't undirected. He didn't happen to have an unwanted copy of the Koran kicking about and he didn't happen to decide that rather than give it or throw it away he'd light a little fire for it. He chose to do it because he knew he'd offend a group of people.

[carmonk]

Bill said:

carmonk said:

See what you've written there. '...at people'. That's right, if I called you a then I'd be directing an insult, at you. However, if you or anyone else is moronic enough to be offended by my performing an undirected deed then that's your problem, not mine. Should we all be forced to catalogue in our heads all the irrational and idiotic beliefs of people across the world and double-check every action we make in case it causes offence?

That's the thing, it wasn't in private, and it wasn't undirected.

In what way was it not in private? And who specifically was it directed at?

Bill said:

He didn't happen to have an unwanted copy of the Koran kicking about and he didn't happen to decide that rather than give it or throw it away he'd light a little fire for it. He chose to do it because he knew he'd offend a group of people.

There you go, 'a group' of people. So, taking your example, if I sat in my living room and said, "All people called Bill are s" then that, to your mind, would be as offensive as if I walked up to you in the street and said, "Bill, you are a ." Because to me and I suspect any right-thinking person, the first statement is simply silly and can be laughed off and the second is downright intimidating and insulting. Now if a group of people choose to have absurd beliefs and to be mortally offended by some silly person burning a book in his own garage that does not elevate the actual book-burning beyond what it actually is. My god, whatever you do don't go and see any live comedy shows because you know what, they make jokes about fat people, thick people, poor people, rich people, disabled people - oh, wait, no. My mistake. It's only the idiot beliefs of the religious that are protected by law and immune from criticism, everyone else has to like it or lump it.

[Countdown]

Perra said:

The poppy burning and the guy getting arrested for burning the Qu'ran aren't really the same though are they?

If however the guy did the qu'ran burning outside a mosque then it would be equal to the poppy burning.

Exactly the same IMO. They both intended to offend (and they both succeeded). Can't see how you can defend one and not the other. If the BNP guy had done it oustide a mosque he would have got a kicking. If the police hadn't been around the same would have happened to the poppy burners.

[otolith]

carmonk said:

Bill said:

That's the thing, it wasn't in private, and it wasn't undirected.

In what way was it not in private? And who specifically was it directed at?

I would guess the key issue for the police was that he video recorded it and the tape came into their possession. The case has now been dropped, of course.

[Countdown]

carmonk said:

In what way was it not in private? And who specifically was it directed at?

My understanding was that it was video'd. No doubt it was for his own personal use . With regards to who it was directed at, please don't be so obtuse.

carmonk said:

There you go, 'a group' of people. So, taking your example, if I sat in my living room and said, "All people called Bill are s" then that, to your mind, would be as offensive as if I walked up to you in the street and said, "Bill, you are a ." Because to me and I suspect any right-thinking person, the first statement is simply silly and can be laughed off and the second is downright intimidating and insulting.

So you don't mind people posting "carmonk is a of the highest order" ? In that case good on you for being able to laugh it off. Personally I would find it as insulting as if it had been done in person.

[Bill]

Perra said:

I can't believe you think that the poppy burners thought no one would be offended, I mean the situation, location, meaning of the poppy and the fact they were telling soldiers to die and calling them murderers is abit of a give away.

They were no where near the remembrance ceremony, or any soldiers. Pretty much no one was there barring the EDL and the police.

And ETA: what countdown said. The act was calculated to be offensive to muslims.

Edited by Bill on Thursday 14th April 15:46

[anonymous-user]

carmonk said:

There you go, 'a group' of people. So, taking your example, if I sat in my living room and said, "All people called Bill are s" then that, to your mind, would be as offensive as if I walked up to you in the street and said, "Bill, you are a ." Because to me and I suspect any right-thinking person, the first statement is simply silly and can be laughed off and the second is downright intimidating and insulting. Now if a group of people choose to have absurd beliefs and to be mortally offended by some silly person burning a book in his own garage that does not elevate the actual book-burning beyond what it actually is. My god, whatever you do don't go and see any live comedy shows because you know what, they make jokes about fat people, thick people, poor people, rich people, disabled people - oh, wait, no. My mistake. It's only the idiot beliefs of the religious that are protected by law and immune from criticism, everyone else has to like it or lump it.

Carmonk you’re trying to do the whole belittling thing again. If you made a video calling all 'Bills s' and then aired it on youtube then yes you are deliberately offending and please there is plenty of Muslim for and against comedy around. Nowhere is religion immune from criticism only in your eyes but then a lot can be said about that too.

[carmonk]

otolith said:

carmonk said:

Bill said:

That's the thing, it wasn't in private, and it wasn't undirected.

In what way was it not in private? And who specifically was it directed at?

I would guess the key issue for the police was that he video recorded it and the tape came into their possession. The case has now been dropped, of course.

Of course, but what I'm saying is that it's very different to actually standing physically in front of someone and insulting them, as the poppy-burners did. I literally couldn't imagine a video that would personally offend me unless it was directed at me.

Countdown said:

carmonk said:

In what way was it not in private? And who specifically was it directed at?

My understanding was that it was posted on Youtube - how is that "private" ? With regards to who it was directed at, please don't be so obtuse.

The deed was done in private. Why are you finding that hard to understand? And if you see a video on Youtube entitled 'Burning the Koran' and you watch it in the full knowledge that it will offend you, then you are an idiot. If you don't want to be offended, don't watch it. Hardly the same as a bunch of Muslims chanting obscenities into the faces of bereaved families at a home-coming march. Or maybe in your eyes it is, I don't know.

And why I am being obtuse to suggest that a target group comprising 1.6 billion people does not constitute directed offence?

Countdown said:

carmonk said:

There you go, 'a group' of people. So, taking your example, if I sat in my living room and said, "All people called Bill are s" then that, to your mind, would be as offensive as if I walked up to you in the street and said, "Bill, you are a ." Because to me and I suspect any right-thinking person, the first statement is simply silly and can be laughed off and the second is downright intimidating and insulting.

So you don't mind people posting "carmonk is a of the highest order" ? In that case good on you for being able to laugh it off. Personally I would find it as insulting as if it had been done in person.

I do not mind it in the slightest. It would demonstrate very well the mindset of anybody posting it. Furthermore, even if it did offend me, as you say you would understand it because it would be directed at me. It's not some abstract deed that via some twisted mindset I took it upon myself to become mortally offended by.

[carmonk]

Sheeda Pistol said:

carmonk said:

There you go, 'a group' of people. So, taking your example, if I sat in my living room and said, "All people called Bill are s" then that, to your mind, would be as offensive as if I walked up to you in the street and said, "Bill, you are a ." Because to me and I suspect any right-thinking person, the first statement is simply silly and can be laughed off and the second is downright intimidating and insulting. Now if a group of people choose to have absurd beliefs and to be mortally offended by some silly person burning a book in his own garage that does not elevate the actual book-burning beyond what it actually is. My god, whatever you do don't go and see any live comedy shows because you know what, they make jokes about fat people, thick people, poor people, rich people, disabled people - oh, wait, no. My mistake. It's only the idiot beliefs of the religious that are protected by law and immune from criticism, everyone else has to like it or lump it.

Carmonk you’re trying to do the whole belittling thing again. If you made a video calling all 'Bills s' and then aired it on youtube then yes you are deliberately offending

You really believe that? You actually believe that if I posted a video saying 'All people called Bill are s' then everyone called Bill in the world would be offended? Would armies of Bills march through the streets of London and Manchester and Dallas calling for me to be murdered? Would a fatwa be issued and my car blown up in my driveway by manic Bills with spittle in their beards?

[Perra]

Bill said:

Perra said:

I can't believe you think that the poppy burners thought no one would be offended, I mean the situation, location, meaning of the poppy and the fact they were telling soldiers to die and calling them murderers is abit of a give away.

They were no where near the remembrance ceremony, or any soldiers. Pretty much no one was there barring the EDL and the police.

And ETA: what countdown said. The act was calculated to be offensive to muslims.

Edited by Bill on Thursday 14th April 15:46

Sorry, I'm getting confused.

So the poppy burning was infront of the EDL?
And then Muslim4UK were outside a March at a seperate time and location protesting calling soldiers murderers and hoping they would die? And all this while 6 people had died from that regiment and so their family could have been in the crowd? Am I correct?

Edited by Perra on Thursday 14th April 16:02

Bill said:

And ETA: what countdown said. The act was calculated to be offensive to muslims.

Well obviously, I even said that, I never said it wasn't. I said it wasn't comparable because the koran burning wasn't actually infront of a group of people to offend them, it wa sin a garage to offend them, I merely think its not the same due to location. That's why I said if he did it outside a Mosque then it would be the same.

Edited by Perra on Thursday 14th April 16:05

[anonymous-user]

carmonk said:

Sheeda Pistol said:

carmonk said:

There you go, 'a group' of people. So, taking your example, if I sat in my living room and said, "All people called Bill are s" then that, to your mind, would be as offensive as if I walked up to you in the street and said, "Bill, you are a ." Because to me and I suspect any right-thinking person, the first statement is simply silly and can be laughed off and the second is downright intimidating and insulting. Now if a group of people choose to have absurd beliefs and to be mortally offended by some silly person burning a book in his own garage that does not elevate the actual book-burning beyond what it actually is. My god, whatever you do don't go and see any live comedy shows because you know what, they make jokes about fat people, thick people, poor people, rich people, disabled people - oh, wait, no. My mistake. It's only the idiot beliefs of the religious that are protected by law and immune from criticism, everyone else has to like it or lump it.

Carmonk you’re trying to do the whole belittling thing again. If you made a video calling all 'Bills s' and then aired it on youtube then yes you are deliberately offending

You really believe that? You actually believe that if I posted a video saying 'All people called Bill are s' then everyone called Bill in the world would be offended? Would armies of Bills march through the streets of London and Manchester and Dallas calling for me to be murdered? Would a fatwa be issued and my car blown up in my driveway by manic Bills with spittle in their beards?

Yes, if you did do the whole bill thing then you ARE deliberately offending. I don't know where the rest of your dramatisation has come from as i've yet to see armies of Muslims marching through London and Manchester calling for murder.