UK people arrested for burning Koran

wbjones wrote:

captainzib wrote: You guys all act like burning a book that's holy to a few extremists is ok, as if it's not gonna piss off the VAST MAJORITY of Muslims who happen to not be extremists. An entire group of people cannot be held responsible for the shiny happy people of their group.

I say they CAN be held responsible if that group of people make ABSOLUTELY no effort to repudiate the despicable acts committed by the few...and even more so if they use their bases (the mosques) to lend support to those groups

But they do make an effort, unfortunately that effort isn't deemed "news" so you don't hear about it.

Here, this is for you... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/opinion/19kristof.html?_r=2&hp

I've always liked the "extreme minority" angle. Actually, they probably dislike us just as much as a lot of white people dislike them. But since we're white, we're not allowed to be racist. Actually, I guess we're not allowed to be religulous, because muslim ain't no race I ever heard of.

aircooled wrote: "hate crime" legitimizes the indefensible? So when someone goes out and kills someone because they are black / gay / jewish / American etc., the liberals created the term / definition "hate crime" to legitimize that action? The only thing hate crime legitimizes is the increased sentences for crimes defined as such. Are you saying increased sentences for such crimes are indefensible?

Yes. Killing someone because you hate the color of the skin isn't any more wrong than killing him for his wallet. The crime is in the murder, not the motivation! I'm completely against making ANY belief illegal, no matter how awful that belief is.

Furthermore, the completely arbitrary and subjective application of hatecrime statutes is often unfair and speculative.

And if you want to play tough on crime, how about we just give violent criminals the sentences they deserve in the first place?

I'm with Will. 'Hate crime' laws do nothing but create protected classes. In the eyes of the law, everyone should be a protected class and the sentence should fit the crime with race etc not taken into consideration.

If someone kills a gay guy because he's gay, is that any worse than killing him because he was wearing a shirt which had the wrong football team on it? How is that any worse than a gay guy killing a straight guy just because he's straight? Either way the victim is dead and the perp should have the book thrown at him.

Yeah, yeah I have heard all that about how blacks/Jews/etc were killed with impunity compared to whites. You don't see that much any more and it sure wasn't cleared out through passing hate crime laws. HC laws are a product of the New Nanny Nation.

wbjones wrote: I say they CAN be held responsible if that group of people make ABSOLUTELY no effort to repudiate the despicable acts committed by the few...and even more so if they use their bases (the mosques) to lend support to those groups

You know what they should do- they should build an Islamic Community Center dedicated to peace right near Ground Zero. That would show the world...

Oh, wait.

Maybe they do and people just don't want to see it. Just sayin'.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wbjones wrote: I say they CAN be held responsible if that group of people make ABSOLUTELY no effort to repudiate the despicable acts committed by the few...and even more so if they use their bases (the mosques) to lend support to those groups

You know what they should do- they should build an Islamic Community Center dedicated to peace right near Ground Zero. That would show the world... Oh, wait. Maybe they do and people just don't want to see it. Just sayin'.

Probably meant to put the word tactfully in there somewhere. Just sayin'.

"Oh HAI, we bombed the E36 M3 out of your country (insert wherever here), now we are going to put an American/Christian/Whatever Peace Centre where 500 babies died in a care centre"

Ya, that is about how it sounds to me.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You know what they should do- they should build an Islamic Community Center dedicated to peace right near Ground Zero. That would show the world... Oh, wait. Maybe they do and people just don't want to see it. Just sayin'.

Remove the doubts over motivation and funding; you'll have a better argument. With or without, the proposed mosque is not a crime.

Try not to present straw-man arguments to make a point. You can do better.

Just sayin'...........

oldsaw wrote: Try not to present straw-man arguments to make a point. You can do better.

Didn't realize it was a competition. Just injecting a thought. Take it. Leave it. No skin off my nose.

Remove doubts about crap that people made up. Kinda like saying "Obama would be a better President if he would remove the doubt about him being an Islamic Terrorist sent to take over out country from the inside". Yeaaahhhh. But, no.

HiTempguy wrote: "Oh HAI, we bombed the E36 M3 out of your country (insert wherever here), now we are going to put an American/Christian/Whatever Peace Centre where 500 babies died in a care centre" Ya, that is about how it sounds to me.

Wait, "we bombed the E36 M3 out of your country"? Who is "we" and what country are you referring to?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Try not to present straw-man arguments to make a point. You can do better.

Didn't realize it was a competition. Just injecting a thought. Take it. Leave it. No skin off my nose. Remove doubts about crap that people made up. Kinda like saying "Obama would be a better President if he would remove the doubt about him being an Islamic Terrorist sent to take over out country from the inside". Yeaaahhhh. But, no.

It's not a competition.

It's about injecting a thought, taking or leaving it (with no skin off your nose) vs. making such actions a criminal act.

YMMV, as driving styles differ...........

oldsaw wrote: It's about injecting a thought, taking or leaving it (with no skin off your nose) vs. making such actions a criminal act.

We totally agree there. No criminal act. I never said there was. Burn all the books you like. I may not like it, but I'll defend your right to do it. Said the same about that guy in Fla. He was (is) an idiot, but honestly, that's my opinion. There are people who would call me an idiot. So I'm damn glad being someone's idea of an idiot isn't illegal. Shoot, my neighbors who heard me revving my '72 Capri motor at 7:30 tonight were probably saying "idiot" under their breath. Or yelling it really loud so their spouse could hear it over the open headers. My buddy who just read the e mail where I told him I had two of the plug wires swapped is probably calling me an idiot. So yeah. Do stuff. Smart stuff. Stupid stuff. But if you're speaking your mind, I'll defend your right to do it.

Burning those books is practically the definition of first amendment freedom. That's what makes America awesome. Nobody can put you in jail for speaking your mind no matter how you chose to speak it.

The whole thing comes back to inappropriate responses to aggravating circumstances. Yes, the proper response to 9-11 would've been to clean up the wreckage and go about our business...This applies to anyone who identified himself/themselves as 'we're all Americans today'.

But the knee-jerk (and wrong) reaction was to immediately begin to assign blame and throw suspicions where they didn't belong. I'm personally glad there were no Mormons piloting those planes, or the LDS community would've caught grief it didn't deserve. Just as the Muslim community has, more's the pity...

And then there's the extended wrong-headed response of 'Homeland Security'. THAT is one long cluster of a train wreck that continues to unfold. Who had any IDEA that would grow so many heads?? It's poked into most aspects of most lives in the USA, and I doubt the authors had any clue it would do so. SOOO many things can be made to apply to 'Homeland Security', and most of them are mostly hysteria.

The USA was founded on the principles that the common man had enough brains to work out his own way in the world, without a great deal of intervention from a Nanny-state government. Has it really been that long since the common man thought for himself, and decided important things without resorting to 'The Government' for answers and relief? Have we really gotten that weak-minded? I guess we must have, because we've allowed this all to unfold over the last 140 years since the War Between the States.

Hmmm. Maybe the recent and continuing troubles are just giving the world what it's earned over the years of intolerance.

Is there an answer? Probably, but it's going to take some serious effort to be as kind and tolerant and forgiving and patient as we possibly can be. All that, and still be willing to stop a fight before it consumes the combatants.

Nuts! This is something that will consume some of us for years as we muddle through the darkness of the moment.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Jensenman wrote: If someone kills a gay guy because he's gay, is that any worse than killing him because he was wearing a shirt which had the wrong football team on it?

Do gay guys wear football shirts? and it would depend on what team....

Yup there is a whole group of them. They wear green and yellow jerseys and cheese on their heads.

Jensenman wrote: I'm with Will. 'Hate crime' laws do nothing but create protected classes. In the eyes of the law, everyone should be a protected class and the sentence should fit the crime with race etc not taken into consideration. If someone kills a gay guy because he's gay, is that any worse than killing him because he was wearing a shirt which had the wrong football team on it? How is that any worse than a gay guy killing a straight guy just because he's straight? Either way the victim is dead and the perp should have the book thrown at him. Yeah, yeah I have heard all that about how blacks/Jews/etc were killed with impunity compared to whites. You don't see that much any more and it sure wasn't cleared out through passing hate crime laws. HC laws are a product of the New Nanny Nation.

I'm so glad a few of you realize the insanity of "hate crime" laws.

It's like so many other liberal policies that institutionalize racism.

Jensenman has it. Hate Crimes are total insanity. Almost all domestic crimes for the most part can be called hate crimes. The crime is the crime itself, not the motive. Do a little research on criminal law.

While I don't condone the burning of any book, I don't see it as a crime. Unless the book was stolen, they purchased it, they can do with it as they please. Now if they set it on fire and threw it through the window at a mosque, or something to that effect, that would be a different story. But even so, the crime would be throwing a burning object through a window of another party. Now if I were a Muslim, I might be pissed off at the burning of Koran, but that shouldn't be a riot causing activity. A lot of people get pissed off in this world, get over it. If you start a riot, you need to go to jail instead of the book burning guys, they didn't break the law and you did. It's amazing to me the excuses people use for bad behavior for themselves or others.

Now to the topic of Muslims in general. I find that most are great people just as most Christians are. We are entitled to believe any religion we want in America, and I would support anyone's right to practice any one they wanted. However, a lot of you need to do a bit more research on the types of terrorists we're facing. If you honestly believe a bit of understanding will stop them, you are sadly mistaken. It emboldens them to know that you are backing down, it shows your weaknesses. They're number one goal is to rid the world of western culture and create chaos in the process. They believe that the only way to get Alah to come back is bring the world to chaos. There are numerous news clips from Iran's president admitting to it on TV. They don't try to hide what they want to do, we just choose not to listen or believe it.

Will wrote: Yes. Killing someone because you hate the color of the skin isn't any more wrong than killing him for his wallet. The crime is in the murder, not the motivation! I'm completely against making ANY belief illegal, no matter how awful that belief is. Furthermore, the completely arbitrary and subjective application of hatecrime statutes is often unfair and speculative. And if you want to play tough on crime, how about we just give violent criminals the sentences they deserve in the first place?

Holy cow, I never thought of it like that. Granted I haven't though of "hate crimes" much at all. But damn that really puts into an interesting perspective.

Not to condone the use of the Hate Crime definition (I can see how it could easily be abused). I believe the (intended) differentiation from a "standard" murder (let's say) is that the motivation is based on a general "group" that the person belongs to, thus it is far more likely to be a random style killing (which of course can be much harder to solve).

Of course this would mean gang killings should be Hate Crimes, since many of them are based on a group the victim belongs to, I suspect they won't be classified as such.

There are certainly varying degrees of murder, and it would be inappropriate to treat them all the same (from accidental to pre-planned). Is killing someone because they are a Scientologist worse then hunting down someone you don't like with a well laid out plan.. I don't know.

That's the whole point: if you hate someone enough to do them harm, what difference is the source of the hate? Should beating up someone because they are gay be any worse than beating up an ex-wife because she took you to the cleaners?

Burning books is just plain stupid, it doesn't matter what the book is about. Burning books is about trying to kill an idea, and it's been proven again and again that ideas can't be killed. But it's not a hate crime, again it's just plain stupidity.

As far as our response to 9/11 re Muslims: if you compare the reaction to that to the reaction where the Japanese were concerned after Pearl Harbor, it's much more muted. There have been some individual incidents, but the nation and its government as a whole putting people in camps etc? Nope.

Jensenman wrote: That's the whole point: if you hate someone enough to do them harm, what difference is the source of the hate? Should beating up someone because they are gay be any worse than beating up an ex-wife because she took you to the cleaners?

I think you will find that the punishment is similar for each of those examples.

It is based on how reasonable your behavior is in each situation. For example-shooting someone who is trying to strangle you is perfectly reasonable. Shooting someone for fun or because they are gay is not. The action was the same, but the motivation turned the action from reasonable to heinous. The problem is that certain courts in certain areas didn't consider those acts heinous so the entire country gets very restrictive laws turning any altercation with anybody any different than you into a hate crime.

Good point about the Japanese. To put this into that kind of perspective, about the enemy that is facing us and other western countries, let's compare them to the Japanese at the time. I think in a way they are very similar; willing to die for their cause without question.

Many years ago i used to work with a man that was trained as a kamikaze pilot. Fortunately for him the war ended before he was to leave on his mission. This man later went on to be an engineer for NASA and came to the US for a better life. We once talked about his war time activities, and he basically said that he and everyone in his country would have died for their country without question. In his mind it was the only choice. They were taught that we were pure evil and that dying was a noble activity. It wasn't until later that he learned that there were ways, other then what his government was telling them, that he really thought about what he was doing. He also basically said he would never speak about what other things he did in the war they were so horrible.

Anyway, the point is, they were taught that dying for the emperor was their mission in life, and that the emperor was a god-like person to worship. Everyone on their island would have died should a US invasion have taken place, along with many Allied servicemen. If you really study them, it is very much like the extremist terrorists we face today. No amount of reasoning is going to work. Only through education and resistance is anything going to matter.

That's one reason I think having a stable democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is so important (although I didn't think the Iraq invasion was justified at the time). Until they can see one up close and working, there is nothing that will make them think we are anything other than infidel dogs that must be killed. It's all in what they are taught. Just like in Japan, you have to show the populace of those neighboring countries what their life could be like.

One of the most important aspects to winning any war is knowing your enemy. Here's where I think a lot of Americans fail. They don't seem to realize this is a religious war we are in. It may not be to us, but it certainly is to them. Until you realize this and learn all you can about them, there is no way you can stop the terrorist attacks, let alone beat them.

racerdave600 wrote: Hate Crimes are total insanity. Almost all domestic crimes for the most part can be called hate crimes. The crime is the crime itself, not the motive. Do a little research on criminal law.

I pretty much agree with you. But let me throw this out there for consideration. In a perfect world, the crime would be the crime and nothing else would matter.

But that's not how it is now. Example: Two men in two parts of the same city on the same night take loaded guns, point them at someone and pull the trigger. They both hit their targets.

One victim is close to a level one trauma center. The ambulance gets there quickly and the doctors and facility are able to keep him alive. He recovers fully.

The second victim is on the outskirts of town. It takes 20 minutes for the ambulance to arrive, and another 20 to get to a hospital. It's an older hospital - they do their best, but the victim dies.

So, two criminals who did exactly the same thing. One is charged with attempted murder, the other with murder one. The crime was the same, but the result of the crime dictates the punishment.

Now, back to hate crimes. It's easy to think of a scenario where there is some manner of unrest. Someone does something like burning a book that otherwise wouldn't be as big a deal, but under the circumstances, it is a big deal. People riot in the streets, burn buildings, loot and kill. The result is a lot worse than it would be under other circumstances.

I'm not arguing for hate crime laws, I'm just exploring the ideas for myself as much as anything. The first scenario I laid out has always bothered me. It has always seemed to me that if you try to kill someone it shouldn't matter if you're a good shot or not. You don't aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger.

Just food for thought.

Wow, just found out that one person in Colorado - who started the most destructive wild fire in the state's history- will not face any charges.

Another guy who started a much smaller fire will face felony charges. The difference, so it seems, is that the second guy should have known better because of the fire the first guy caused! So he is guilty of "gross negligence".

It does speak to the point- but in this case, it's not even the result that detemins the outcome, but the intent- which is very much like hate crime laws.

Man, this is pretty interesting to think about really. What if you throw a cigarette out the window of your car. 999 times out of 1,000 you won't even get a citation for littering. But if it sparks a massive fire...

This is just IMHO: if someone burns a (insert your favorite religious tome/national flag/etc here) then that person is doing it strictly to get under your skin. That's all the crazy pastor was planning to do. No different from calling someone a motherberkeleyer or whatever.

Allowing something like that to generate hateful killing feelings which are then acted upon is a failing of the person who decides to let that happen in themselves, not the crazy pastor. Repressing those emotions is part of something we call being an adult.

I know someone's gonna pipe up and say 'what about burning flags on the battlefield in war?' and no that's not the same thing, 'cuz the other guy is, along with desecrating the image, trying to kill your ass.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: Hate Crimes are total insanity. Almost all domestic crimes for the most part can be called hate crimes. The crime is the crime itself, not the motive. Do a little research on criminal law.

I pretty much agree with you. But let me throw this out there for consideration. In a perfect world, the crime would be the crime and nothing else would matter. But that's not how it is now. Example: Two men in two parts of the same city on the same night take loaded guns, point them at someone and pull the trigger. They both hit their targets. One victim is close to a level one trauma center. The ambulance gets there quickly and the doctors and facility are able to keep him alive. He recovers fully. The second victim is on the outskirts of town. It takes 20 minutes for the ambulance to arrive, and another 20 to get to a hospital. It's an older hospital - they do their best, but the victim dies. So, two criminals who did exactly the same thing. One is charged with attempted murder, the other with murder one. The crime was the same, but the *result* of the crime dictates the punishment. Now, back to hate crimes. It's easy to think of a scenario where there is some manner of unrest. Someone does something like burning a book that otherwise wouldn't be as big a deal, but under the circumstances, it *is* a big deal. People riot in the streets, burn buildings, loot and kill. The result is a lot worse than it would be under other circumstances. I'm not arguing for hate crime laws, I'm just exploring the ideas for myself as much as anything. The first scenario I laid out has always bothered me. It has always seemed to me that if you try to kill someone it shouldn't matter if you're a good shot or not. You don't aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Just food for thought.

I think that's a bad thought experiment although I do see what you're getting at.

MrJoshua wrote:

Jensenman wrote: That's the whole point: if you hate someone enough to do them harm, what difference is the source of the hate? Should beating up someone because they are gay be any worse than beating up an ex-wife because she took you to the cleaners?

I think you will find that the punishment is similar for each of those examples. It is based on how reasonable your behavior is in each situation. For example-shooting someone who is trying to strangle you is perfectly reasonable. Shooting someone for fun or because they are gay is not. The action was the same, but the motivation turned the action from reasonable to heinous. The problem is that certain courts in certain areas didn't consider those acts heinous so the entire country gets very restrictive laws turning any altercation with anybody any different than you into a hate crime.

That's an excellent point. There have definitely been some 'wink and nod' sentences handed down for truly heinous crimes like the OJ Simpson travesty of justice. Or Emmett Till's death.

The problem with the way hate crime legislation is handled is that it does not get to the core problem as shown in those two examples: manipulating the courts via tortured interpretations of the law to get a certain outcome. It's treating the symptom, not the disease.