UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest

[thegman]

Anyway. Worst comes to the worst, just say Satan made me write it and then you can pretty much get away with whatever you want.

[Bill]

carmonk said:

The deed was done in private. Why are you finding that hard to understand?

The deed was done in private but then (and this is the crucial bit, so pay attention) the video was published on youtube, so the act didn't remain private.

Now, I realise you think the religious are deluded fools who should grow thicker skin, but honestly, can you not understand the point that's being made?

[carmonk]

Sheeda Pistol said:

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.

You don't understand what I'm saying. The intention is irrelevant, it's the reaction that's important. Religious reaction is misplaced and disproportionate because of the irrational beliefs of believers, and yet these beliefs are given protection under law. It's absurd and it's obscene.

And the armies of Muslims were in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I simply transposed them to fit my argument being that I doubt many Pakistanis are called Bill.

[Countdown]

carmonk said:

The deed was done in private. Why are you finding that hard to understand?

As I said earlier, you're being obtuse. It was videoed. Why do you think that was? So he could make it available to a wider audience perhaps?

carmonk said:

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.

Its exactly the same. Except that the Poppy Burners weren't hiding behind the safety of an Internet keyboard. Using your reasoning I assume you personally weren't offended by the poppy burners because you could just change the channel? Strange how so many people were offended when all they had to do, by your logic, was ignore the perpetrators.

carmonk said:

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

carmonk said:

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.

How can there be a "target group" and, at the same time, not be "directed" ? How big or small does the target group have to be for the act to be significant?

[Bill]

Perra said:

Bill said:

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

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?

IIRC the poppy burning incident was in London during the Remembrance Day Parade, but a fair way away fro the parade. If they're shouting at bereaved soldiers' families then they too should be arrested.

Perra said:

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.

So you'd be happy for muslims to burn poppies and shout insults about soldiers and their families in a garage, video it and publish it on youtube?

[carmonk]

Bill said:

carmonk said:

The deed was done in private. Why are you finding that hard to understand?

The deed was done in private but then (and this is the crucial bit, so pay attention) the video was published on youtube, so the act didn't remain private.

Now, I realise you think the religious are deluded fools who should grow thicker skin, but honestly, can you not understand the point that's being made?

Of course. People were offended. So what? People are offended every minute of every day, in far more direct manners, yet they do not enjoy any protection under law. Disabled people are abused regularly and on a personal level on a daily basis, yet how many times do you see the offenders brought to justice? Fat people are ridiculed, as are bald people, short people, Labour voters, Conservative voters, pidgeon fanciers, model railway enthusiasts, white van drivers, the list is endless. And this is all fine, it's part of life, yet when someone burns a book then they are arrested. It defies belief that such a thing can happen.

And you know why he burned the book? To illustrate the utter absurdity and the religious pandering that I've just described. I never considered burning the Koran but the more I think about it the more appealing it sounds. Maybe I should buy a couple in for those times when I run out of toilet paper. Does that offend anybody? Well, that's just tough, suck it up. Happily for everyone, however, I won't post the associated video.

Edited by carmonk on Thursday 14th April 16:23

[carmonk]

Countdown said:

carmonk said:

The deed was done in private. Why are you finding that hard to understand?

As I said earlier, you're being obtuse. It was videoed. Why do you think that was? So he could make it available to a wider audience perhaps?

Was it or was it not done in private? What is confusing you here? If I run into the street naked I'll be arrested. If I video myself naked and put it on the internet I'll be laughed at, and if you don't want to see me naked, which is understandable, don't watch the damn video. If you want to be offended then fine, watch it but don't expect anybody to care when you complain.

Countdown said:

carmonk said:

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.

Its exactly the same. Except that the Poppy Burners weren't hiding behind the safety of an Internet keyboard. Using your reasoning I assume you personally weren't offended by the poppy burners because you could just change the channel?

That is perfectly correct. Well done for using logic for once.

Countdown said:

Strange how so many people were offended when all they had to do, by your logic, was ignore the perpetrators.

Could you ignore someone shouting with a megaphone in your ear that your dead relatives were burning in hell? I commend you on your calm detachment if so but I suspect it's like much of what you say - nonsense.

Countdown said:

carmonk said:

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

carmonk said:

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.

How can there be a "target group" and, at the same time, not be "directed" ? How big or small does the target group have to be for the act to be significant?

There are no specific figures but I recommend the use of common sense. "All humans are idiots." Offended? No, thought not. Get a grip.

[Perra]

Bill said:

So you'd be happy for muslims to burn poppies and shout insults about soldiers and their families in a garage, video it and publish it on youtube?

Like I said before to Sheeda, I am happy for them to have freedom of speech, people need freedom of speech its endemic of a great society, which they hate. But I am obviously saddened by the hate for the people that were there.

Now I don't think Sheeda understood the difference, but hopefully you will.

It's all about upholding freedom of speech. FACT.

Now all in all I would obviously prefer it if they just did a nice peaceful protest with no hatred. I'm not going to be burning a Qu'ran because it seems very hateful. But I will be drawing a picture of mohammed for a laugh on 'Draw a picture of mohammed day', it's going to be amazing!

Basically the premise of the drawing is Mohammed with two MASSIVE swords, woah whats he doing with those swords you say? All he's doing is cutting up some carrots as he's making a tasty meal. Also I'm depicting mohammed as a white guy with a curly pierre moustache because everyone knows the best cooks are French.

Peaceful, funny protest. IMO. Let's hope noone dies.

[Bill]

Perra said:

Like I said before to Sheeda, I am happy for them to have freedom of speech, people need freedom of speech its endemic of a great society, which they hate. But I am obviously saddened by the hate for the people that were there.

Now I don't think Sheeda understood the difference, but hopefully you will.

It's all about upholding freedom of speech. FACT.

So, now the poppy burning guys and the ones shouting at bereaved families are ok, because it's freedom of speech? IMO (as I've said) freedom of speech carries responsibilities.

[Godzuki]

Bill said:

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

To be honest, and to a degree, yes. There is offense, and there is incitement to hatred, or inciting terrorism, and all that jazz. Where does your offense line stop? Comedians? Pub talk? banter? If I want to burn a Hitchens book, and post it on youtube, do you think the atheist world would be in uproar, and start killing people, demonstrating, and demanding action? If I burned a book by a politician, do you think there would be the same? What about a book on a football team, or a book about Homeopathy? What do you think the reaction to that would be? Why is religion given special privilege when it comes to being offended?

[Countdown]

carmonk said:

The deed was done in private. Why are you finding that hard to understand?

carmonk said:

Was it or was it not done in private? What is confusing you here?

Yep - private, in the "private" section on that little-know website called Youtube. FFS

carmonk said:

Countdown said:

Strange how so many people were offended when all they had to do, by your logic, was ignore the perpetrators.

Could you ignore someone shouting with a megaphone in your ear that your dead relatives were burning in hell? I commend you on your calm detachment if so but I suspect it's like much of what you say - nonsense.

I'm not talking just about the people who were there. I'm talking about the rest of the country. An awful lot of people were offended, quite rightly IMO. However, what you're saying is, unless you were there you didn't have the right to be offended, because you could just ignore them and change the channel? bks.

[Godzuki]

So it was posted on youtube, where a user has to make the effort to go and find it?

[Godzuki]

Bill said:

So, now the poppy burning guys and the ones shouting at bereaved families are ok, because it's freedom of speech? IMO (as I've said) freedom of speech carries responsibilities.

I don't think anyone said they shouldn't have the right to do it. People can still express their displeasure about it. There is nothing wrong with that. What people on here seem to have issue with is disproportionate reaction.

[Perra]

Bill said:

Perra said:

Like I said before to Sheeda, I am happy for them to have freedom of speech, people need freedom of speech its endemic of a great society, which they hate. But I am obviously saddened by the hate for the people that were there.

Now I don't think Sheeda understood the difference, but hopefully you will.

It's all about upholding freedom of speech. FACT.

So, now the poppy burning guys and the ones shouting at bereaved families are ok, because it's freedom of speech? IMO (as I've said) freedom of speech carries responsibilities.

Yes of course that's what freedom is, but with freedom comes great responsibility! haha Roosevelt quote there.

Again even you didn't understand what I said, I said it's fine to say whatever you want, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it though.

But then if you go around delibrately being aggressive, threatening, destructive of other peoples property or inciting hatred, then like I have said before you should be moved away from the situation.

Iv'e already said the above in a previous post, that burning the quaran in public and burning poppies in public is hateful so should 100% be moved from the situation. If the Muslim4UK people just want to protest about the war in Iraq/afghanistan, maybe give out some flyers showing they disagree. If they did that I may even agree with their agenda, but until they stop acting like they are from the dark ages, I won't even consider their opinion.

[Bill]

Godzuki said:

Why is religion given special privilege when it comes to being offended?

Because only the religious would be offended by the burning of a book.

In comparison look at the poppy burning thread. Plenty of people here found that offensive and I really can't see any difference between the two events. Both are paper symbols that have important meanings attached to them, both were burnt to be deliberately provocative.

Personally I find both over-reactions bemusing but there's nowt as queer as folk.

[Godzuki]

Bill said:

Because only the religious would be offended by the burning of a book.

In comparison look at the poppy burning thread. Plenty of people here found that offensive and I really can't see any difference between the two events. Both are paper symbols that have important meanings attached to them, both were burnt to be deliberately provocative.

Personally I find both over-reactions bemusing but there's nowt as queer as folk.

• sigh Again, the offense isn't the issue. We can all be as offended as we want by the poppies, or the Quran burnings. We have every right to say;

"hey, those guys are numpties, and they probably smell like sprouts",

but that's not the issue, is it? The issue is, and I think I may have mentioned this before, when people get offended, they do NOT have the right to go on a mental, at all, no matter how emotional they may be. People have every right to wave a counter placard, or organise a counter demonstration, or write a strongly worded letter to an MP. Where the 2 cultures seem to differ is that

1) One gets quite angry, and says so.
2) The other behead people, and go on rampages en masse, issuing death threats, fatwas, and generally going far too mental about the whole thing. (See Rushdie, danish cartoons, Quran burning)

Now, do you understand the real issue, and not the 'well, those people were offended too" issue. They are different animals entirely.

[Perra]

Bill said:

Godzuki said:

Why is religion given special privilege when it comes to being offended?

Because only the religious would be offended by the burning of a book.

In comparison look at the poppy burning thread. Plenty of people here found that offensive and I really can't see any difference between the two events. Both are paper symbols that have important meanings attached to them, both were burnt to be deliberately provocative.

Personally I find both over-reactions bemusing but there's nowt as queer as folk.

I think the main thing, is that in the UK with the poppy burnings is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob1rYlCpOnM

Watch it all.

[Bill]

Godzuki said:

*sigh Again, the offense isn't the issue. We can all be as offended as we want by the poppies, or the Quran burnings. We have every right to say;

"hey, those guys are numpties, and they probably smell like sprouts",

but that's not the issue, is it? The issue is, and I think I may have mentioned this before, when people get offended, they do NOT have the right to go on a mental, at all, no matter how emotional they may be. People have every right to wave a counter placard, or organise a counter demonstration, or write a strongly worded letter to an MP. Where the 2 cultures seem to differ is that

1) One gets quite angry, and says so.
2) The other behead people, and go on rampages en masse, issuing death threats, fatwas, and generally going far too mental about the whole thing. (See Rushdie, danish cartoons, Quran burning)

Now, do you understand the real issue, and not the 'well, those people were offended too" issue. They are different animals entirely.

Agreed, absolutely. But do you really think that if the BiB weren't there to protect them the poppy burners wouldn't have been on the receiving end of a right kicking.

[Godzuki]

Not really, no... There would be shouting, and yelling, but I don;t think there would have been any violence, of note. maybe one or 2 incidents, but there would certainly be no en masse storming of anywhere, and there would certainly be no deaths. People will get angry, but violence is a step too far.

[carmonk]

Countdown said:

carmonk said:

The deed was done in private. Why are you finding that hard to understand?

carmonk said:

Was it or was it not done in private? What is confusing you here?

Yep - private, in the "private" section on that little-know website called Youtube. FFS

That's answered my question, at least. Clearly you don't understand the difference between someone physically being present in front of someone else and insulting them and a person posting a video on Youtube which is then viewed by someone who wishes to view it.

Countdown said:

carmonk said:

Countdown said:

Strange how so many people were offended when all they had to do, by your logic, was ignore the perpetrators.

Could you ignore someone shouting with a megaphone in your ear that your dead relatives were burning in hell? I commend you on your calm detachment if so but I suspect it's like much of what you say - nonsense.

I'm not talking just about the people who were there. I'm talking about the rest of the country. An awful lot of people were offended, quite rightly IMO. However, what you're saying is, unless you were there you didn't have the right to be offended, because you could just ignore them and change the channel? bks.

I didn't say that nobody else has the right to feel offended. If someone wants to feel offended then they can go right ahead. What I object to is the the clear bias that is applied to whose offence is worthy of legal protection and whose is not.