Petraeus Says Florida Church Koran Burning Threatens Troops

[Ravi]

His late father was my brother. Any more ******* gags you want to make!

Temper, temper. Tissue?

In the USA that would make him your nephew.

Oh you do have the semblance of a brain then do you. Like semantics do we? ******* ****! Yes he's my nephew. He's also my adopted son. Now go **** yourself you objectionable excuse for womanhood!

I didn't realize you were the only one at USMB was allowed to crack a joke.

What a wussy twit you are...get a sense of humour.

 

[Colin]

Stop complaining! Think of the overtime!!

Military personnel are paid a set amount per month based on rank and time in service, and, because we are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day, there is no such thing as overtime........that's a civilian perk.

Bootneck has just told you that things are ramping up over there and that they are having to take extra safety measures because of this idiot preacher.

What are you stupid ***** advocating for the book burning going to do when a whole bunch of troops end up taking a suicide bombing, and then the Taliban comes out and announces the reason they did it was retaliation for this idiot in Florida?

Are you still going to tout free speech even though it kills several of our soldiers over there? Are you going to be like the preacher and say "sorry, but we can't back down"?

I'm sure that will be great consolation for the dead soldier's family......"he died for free speech".

um, colin is bootneck's brother in law.

just sayin

Nephew, but adopted dad would be nearer Del. I'm too old to be his brother in law!

 

[Sheldon]

I wonder if this would be as big a story if Petraeus hadn't said anything?

If I were a right wing loon I'd say it was the Wall Street Journal's fault for asking his opinion and then publishing it.

True story.

I was under the impression that you are a rightwingnut. This is not true?

The reason I asked was because I didn't even hear about this happy campfire until the OP article. But maybe this thing was already getting mainstream attention beforehand. I don't watch TV news.

Al-Jeezera is probably going to cover it, and they'll probably over-inflate the reported number of people in attendance.

 

[Colin]

Temper, temper. Tissue?

In the USA that would make him your nephew.

Oh you do have the semblance of a brain then do you. Like semantics do we? ******* ****! Yes he's my nephew. He's also my adopted son. Now go **** yourself you objectionable excuse for womanhood!

I didn't realize you were the only one at USMB was allowed to crack a joke.

What a wussy twit you are...get a sense of humour.

Your stupidity really shines through doesn't it Ravi.

 

[Ravi]

Oh you do have the semblance of a brain then do you. Like semantics do we? ******* ****! Yes he's my nephew. He's also my adopted son. Now go **** yourself you objectionable excuse for womanhood!

I didn't realize you were the only one at USMB was allowed to crack a joke.

What a wussy twit you are...get a sense of humour.

Your stupidity really shines through doesn't it Ravi.

Prolly...but at least I'm not a humourless twit such as yourself.

 

[Ravi]

I wonder if this would be as big a story if Petraeus hadn't said anything?

If I were a right wing loon I'd say it was the Wall Street Journal's fault for asking his opinion and then publishing it.

True story.

I was under the impression that you are a rightwingnut. This is not true?

The reason I asked was because I didn't even hear about this happy campfire until the OP article. But maybe this thing was already getting mainstream attention beforehand. I don't watch TV news.

Al-Jeezera is probably going to cover it, and they'll probably over-inflate the reported number of people in attendance.

People have been discussing it here for at least a month...here's an earlier thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/128840-burn-the-koran-on-9-11-a.html

 

[Jack Fate]

I have the solution. Tell Imam Rauf that the Quran doesn't get burned if he moves the mosque.

 

[Sheldon]

I have the solution. Tell Imam Rauf that the Quran doesn't get burned if he moves the mosque.

No. That's retarded.

 

[manifold]

I said it may be a hate crime. If burning a cross on someone's lawn is a hate crime I'm not sure why this can't be considered one. If it is a hate crime then it is not legal. I'm not convinced either way.

If you're not sure that this is protected speech then you DEFINITELY need to take some time off to clear your head.


PS: You do realize that for something to be a hate crime, the act itself has to be criminal... right?

Does it? I'm not so sure.

According to the law it does.

Don't you remember all those debates about hate crime laws? How you argued that they don't criminalize hatred, only make the penalties for CRIMINAL ACTS more severe if the motive is hatred? Do you not remember making this your central argument against those who said hate crime laws are criminalizing thought? Are you now conceding that hate crime laws do indeed criminalize thought? Yet you still support them anyway?

Seriously Ravi, you need to take a break. Your senses have taken a leave already, you really ought to follow.

 

[Ravi]

If you're not sure that this is protected speech then you DEFINITELY need to take some time off to clear your head.


PS: You do realize that for something to be a hate crime, the act itself has to be criminal... right?

Does it? I'm not so sure.

According to the law it does.

Don't you remember all those debates about hate crime laws? How you argued that they don't criminalize hatred, only make the penalties for CRIMINAL ACTS more severe if the motive is hatred? Do you not remember making this your central argument against those who said hate crime laws are criminalizing thought? Are you now conceding that hate crime laws do indeed criminalize thought? Yet you still support them anyway?

Seriously Ravi, you need to take a break. Your senses have taken a leave already, you really ought to follow.

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have always been undecided about hate crime laws and I am certainly against criminalizing thought.

Actions are not the same thing as thought. Burning religious texts for the purpose of intimidation is NOT thought, it is action.

 

[manifold]

Does it? I'm not so sure.

According to the law it does.

Don't you remember all those debates about hate crime laws? How you argued that they don't criminalize hatred, only make the penalties for CRIMINAL ACTS more severe if the motive is hatred? Do you not remember making this your central argument against those who said hate crime laws are criminalizing thought? Are you now conceding that hate crime laws do indeed criminalize thought? Yet you still support them anyway?

Seriously Ravi, you need to take a break. Your senses have taken a leave already, you really ought to follow.

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have always been undecided about hate crime laws and I am certainly against criminalizing thought.

Actions are not the same thing as thought. Burning religious texts for the purpose of intimidation is NOT thought, it is action.

And you have yet to make an even remotely reasonable argument that the purpose is intimidation.

 

[Bootneck]

I didn't realize you were the only one at USMB was allowed to crack a joke.

What a wussy twit you are...get a sense of humour.

Your stupidity really shines through doesn't it Ravi.

Prolly...but at least I'm not a humourless twit such as yourself.

I think it must be pretty clear to most of the people here just who is the humourless twit. It certainly isn't Colin, so I assume it must be you.

 

[Ravi]

According to the law it does.

Don't you remember all those debates about hate crime laws? How you argued that they don't criminalize hatred, only make the penalties for CRIMINAL ACTS more severe if the motive is hatred? Do you not remember making this your central argument against those who said hate crime laws are criminalizing thought? Are you now conceding that hate crime laws do indeed criminalize thought? Yet you still support them anyway?

Seriously Ravi, you need to take a break. Your senses have taken a leave already, you really ought to follow.

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have always been undecided about hate crime laws and I am certainly against criminalizing thought.

Actions are not the same thing as thought. Burning religious texts for the purpose of intimidation is NOT thought, it is action.

And you have yet to make an even remotely reasonable argument that the purpose is intimidation.

riight! It's just for roasting marshmallows.

 

[Sheldon]

According to the law it does.

Don't you remember all those debates about hate crime laws? How you argued that they don't criminalize hatred, only make the penalties for CRIMINAL ACTS more severe if the motive is hatred? Do you not remember making this your central argument against those who said hate crime laws are criminalizing thought? Are you now conceding that hate crime laws do indeed criminalize thought? Yet you still support them anyway?

Seriously Ravi, you need to take a break. Your senses have taken a leave already, you really ought to follow.

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have always been undecided about hate crime laws and I am certainly against criminalizing thought.

Actions are not the same thing as thought. Burning religious texts for the purpose of intimidation is NOT thought, it is action.

And you have yet to make an even remotely reasonable argument that the purpose is intimidation.

Location, location, location.

If this was done outside the front of a mosque, or on a Muslim's driveway, then yeah there's a good case that it's intimidation. And then if witnesses can testify that threats were shouted at the Muslims, it's an even better case for intimidation.

I think this thing is being done on the "church" property. It's expression. The KKK can burn as many crosses as they want in their backwoods shitholes in Mississippi. If they burn a cross--or bleach a swatstika--on a black person's front yard, then it's a hate crime. I think vandalism is the most common form of hate crime.

The ACLU defended the KKK in a cross-burning case a few years ago, when SCOTUS said that cross-burning is not automatically intimidation.


edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Such a provision, the Court argued, blurs the distinction between proscribable "threats of intimidation" and the Ku Klux Klan's protected "messages of shared ideology." However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.​

 

[saveliberty]

The NYC Imam says he wishes he hadn't started the mosque project. Of course, that isn't stopping him from continuing. Remember, it is not considered a lie in Islam to tell a fib to unbelievers. I'm thinking the phrase lieing asshole applies here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For any flagwaving, guntoting LDS or former LDS or wannabee LDS:

"Pastor Terry Jones is under pressure to drop his plan to burn copies of the Muslim holy book Some of the criticisms of the plan on Wednesday:

1. Latter-day Saints _ “A key tenet of our faith is to accord everyone the freedom to worship as they choose. It is regrettable that anyone would regard the burning of any scriptural text as a legitimate form of protest or disagreement.” — Scott Trotter, LDS Church spokesman

2. Community of Christ, previously RLDS: “As a people who experienced religious persecution, we are alarmed by the growing tide of religious fear, intolerance and violence evident throughout the world. We join our voices with other religious leaders to denounce any religious persecution and specifically anti-Muslim actions, such as Dove World Outreach Center in the USA, which plans to burn the Quran on Sept. 11.” — First Presidency, Community of Christ

People aren't saying Terry Jones does not have the "right" to do it; they are saying he is a religious bigot fool for doing it.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50247628-76/religious-secretary-church-community.html.csp

 

[Valerie]

I just saw a headline that Fox News is going to refuse to cover it.

 

[manifold]

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have always been undecided about hate crime laws and I am certainly against criminalizing thought.

Actions are not the same thing as thought. Burning religious texts for the purpose of intimidation is NOT thought, it is action.

And you have yet to make an even remotely reasonable argument that the purpose is intimidation.

riight! It's just for roasting marshmallows.

Actually, I'd say it's a political statement.

Do you not think political statements are protected by the 1st Amendment?

 

[Ravi]

It depends on the form of the political statement.

The pastor said it is meant to be a warning to moderate Muslims.

I can't see how you can claim his aim is not to intimidate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It depends on the form of the political statement.

The pastor said it is meant to be a warning to moderate Muslims.

I can't see how you can claim his aim is not to intimidate.

So every warning of any kind is Intimidation? I do not believe the Supreme Court agrees with you. Nor the law.