Does violent speech of muslims have effect on violence?

[Quantum Windbag]

People who want to limit speech are just as dangerous as any imagined physical threat.

Do you apply that sentiment to the AZ legislature that just banned the funeral protests?

They did not ban the protesters, they just made sure the family did not have to see them. My right to free speech ends if I infringe on a grieving family's right to mourn their loss.

See how that works? You balance one set of rights against another.

 

[Truthmatters]

QW, Im not sure how you got the impression I accused you of not liking Muslims, I infact dont know if you do or not.

If you are refering to my OP then it was a general question about when and where violent speech matters.

I truely think it matters everywhere and that vulnerable people ( like the mentally ill) can be very effected by it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A very good Point there.

Seems like a lot of coverage recently on the rhetoric a Muslim Cleric said.
I even recall a thread on here from one on the right saying in essesce. See how evil they are.

How many were calling for him to be forced to preach Christianity? Why is it you do not see the difference?

they seemed more desiring of his death than conversion.

Seems fair. He wants to kill them, they want to kill him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the sole American to be on an alleged list of those targeted (in this case literally targeted) for death by the Obama Administration is on there for being a head of al qaeda who has not only training responsibility but also motivational responsibility (he motivated Maj Nidal Hasan, for example), the left insists that you cannot put an American on such a list for it would deprive him of his Constitutional rights.

Besides, they tell us, all he did was preach and yo can't kill a man for preaching.

Well, no. He did more than preach. But you sure as hell can kill an enemy leader for effective propaganda. Ask Goebbels.

In any event, the question is whether speech can lead people to commit crime. The answer is "yes." It can. If you were to try to persuade others to take up arms against the US, for example, you could be prosecuted for it -- and this is particularly true if they then act upon your urgings.

The Holy Book of Islam, the Qur'an preaches violence. Islam is not the religion of peace. It is not A religion of peace. It is a religion based upon violence and which still preaches and exhorts violence.

So, yes, SOME speech CAN lead to violence. Other speech -- even speech with which you disagree and even speech which you deem "hateful" -- does not necessarily lead to violence.

There is no valid comparison between the rhetoric which makes an analogy between a "hunt" and the rough and tumble "sport" of politics on the one hand and the preachings of the violence-prone bigotry of Islam on the other hand.

******* leftwing goons have long used violent sports and hunting analogies when describing their rabid desire to defeat their political opponents. But when the right uses similar analogies, the hypocritical lefties then pretend that it's "hate speech." When confused, just remember the liberal "rules" for such "discussions:"

"When LIBS do it, it's ok. When conservatives do it, it's intolerable."

When a football coach motivates his team to "cram this up the other side's ass," guess what? He's not actually endorsing sexual abuse. It's just a graphic motivating analogy. That's all.

If they find him on a battlefield shooting at them they can shoot back. Otherwise he has the same right to a trial as anyone else.

 

[Truthmatters]

I was wondering how people came down on this one.

Does it effect the actions of unbalenced muslim followers and possibly help spurn violent action?

Are you talking about thier religious leaders declaring jihad? A call to war?

For the most part no. Most muslims ignore the ramblings of thier half baked leaders.

some join up, for a variety of reasons. Patriotism, 3 hots and a cot, money, power, prestigue, chicks.

It takes a lot of work to get someone to actually kill themselves (I hope)

I think the metally ill would be very suceptable to this, depression is a pretty common affliction.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW, Im not sure how you got the impression I accused you of not liking Muslims, I infact dont know if you do or not.

If you are refering to my OP then it was a general question about when and where violent speech matters.

I truely think it matters everywhere and that vulnerable people ( like the mentally ill) can be very effected by it.

I never said you accused me of not liking Muslims. I have, however, posted here often about Islam and the danger it poses to the world.

Since you think you have some type of point about crazy people and words that can be construed to be violent, should we also voluntarily stop watching TV because some crazy people think the government uses it for mind control? Should we voluntarily stop using money because one crazy man gunned down a member of Congress because she did not understand his question about money?

Where do you want to draw the line? When does trying to accommodate the potential nuts stop being reasonable and flip into being ridiculous?

I do not believe anything that anyone said had anything to do with what happened in Tucson, so I see no need to change anyone's behavior.

 

[chanel]

Shotgun wedding. Bulls Eye. Caught in the line of fire. Do or die. Dressed to kill. You slay me. Target population. Target audience. Target Department Store.

Shall I go on TM? I am an English teacher. I encourage my students to use figurative language in persuasive writing. I'll be damned if fools like you censor ANYONEs speech. There are laws on the books regarding slander and threats. Metaphors are still lawful

I am really getting sick of this shit.

Will "go **** yourself" still be legal in bizarro world?

 

[Liability]

When the sole American to be on an alleged list of those targeted (in this case literally targeted) for death by the Obama Administration is on there for being a head of al qaeda who has not only training responsibility but also motivational responsibility (he motivated Maj Nidal Hasan, for example), the left insists that you cannot put an American on such a list for it would deprive him of his Constitutional rights.

Besides, they tell us, all he did was preach and yo can't kill a man for preaching.

Well, no. He did more than preach. But you sure as hell can kill an enemy leader for effective propaganda. Ask Goebbels.

In any event, the question is whether speech can lead people to commit crime. The answer is "yes." It can. If you were to try to persuade others to take up arms against the US, for example, you could be prosecuted for it -- and this is particularly true if they then act upon your urgings.

The Holy Book of Islam, the Qur'an preaches violence. Islam is not the religion of peace. It is not A religion of peace. It is a religion based upon violence and which still preaches and exhorts violence.

So, yes, SOME speech CAN lead to violence. Other speech -- even speech with which you disagree and even speech which you deem "hateful" -- does not necessarily lead to violence.

There is no valid comparison between the rhetoric which makes an analogy between a "hunt" and the rough and tumble "sport" of politics on the one hand and the preachings of the violence-prone bigotry of Islam on the other hand.

******* leftwing goons have long used violent sports and hunting analogies when describing their rabid desire to defeat their political opponents. But when the right uses similar analogies, the hypocritical lefties then pretend that it's "hate speech." When confused, just remember the liberal "rules" for such "discussions:"

"When LIBS do it, it's ok. When conservatives do it, it's intolerable."

When a football coach motivates his team to "cram this up the other side's ass," guess what? He's not actually endorsing sexual abuse. It's just a graphic motivating analogy. That's all.

If they find him on a battlefield shooting at them they can shoot back. Otherwise he has the same right to a trial as anyone else.

Enemies in war don't get trials.

This particular ****** (if and only if "caught" within the territorial limits of the USA) might (might) deserve a trial. Otherwise, like many of the other scumbag leaders of al qaeda who ended up on the receiving end of one of our laser guided missiles, I have no problem whatsoever with him getting blown away. We can't go and arrest some ****** for an alleged "crime" (not really mere criminality at all, in the first place, actually) when he's hiding out in Yemen or some other god-forsaken place. But we can target our enemies in war. And if he goes by way of the pounding effect of a cruise missile, frankly, that's perfectly ok.

All of which (your post and mine) is off topic. It's a discussion for another thread (or several). The point of this thread is whether or not speech can motivate people to commit a killing. The answer to that very narrow question is, "of course." But not all speech can do this.

 

[Truthmatters]

QW, Im not sure how you got the impression I accused you of not liking Muslims, I infact dont know if you do or not.

If you are refering to my OP then it was a general question about when and where violent speech matters.

I truely think it matters everywhere and that vulnerable people ( like the mentally ill) can be very effected by it.

I never said you accused me of not liking Muslims. I have, however, posted here often about Islam and the danger it poses to the world.

Since you think you have some type of point about crazy people and words that can be construed to be violent, should we also voluntarily stop watching TV because some crazy people think the government uses it for mind control? Should we voluntarily stop using money because one crazy man gunned down a member of Congress because she did not understand his question about money?

Where do you want to draw the line? When does trying to accommodate the potential nuts stop being reasonable and flip into being ridiculous?

I do not believe anything that anyone said had anything to do with what happened in Tucson, so I see no need to change anyone's behavior.

I thought I made it clear that my line was in the political sphere.

I just dont think it helps us get to where we need to get for the sake of solving our problems