Burn a Quran day - Page 8

Aepervius · 11th September 2010, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

Here's Bob Park's take on the situation:I think that speaks volumes.

If it is the same image I saw, it tells a lot that the camera was LOW key, and made it impossible to estimate the number of people pushing the signs. So unless they show a plan from a bit above to REALLY show that the street are litteraly *FULL* of people asking from Christian blood, I will state that this is only a few idiot which they filmed and do not represent the muslim world.

Just like the few christian idiot which burned down a cinema in fFrance for showing the last temptation of Christ (13 wounded, back in 1987).

JJM 777 · 11th September 2010, 11:26 AM

When I first saw this topic, I accidentally read the title as "Burn a Quran a day".

SnakeTongue · 11th September 2010, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Monkey Ghost

Still waiting for someone to tell me why it would have been a good idea.

Burning books they haven't read...

Intentionally insulting people who have done them no harm...

This whole "9/11 happened, we are wounded forever ,don't tread on me" garbage is just showing the world what a bunch of pussies we are.

Dear users,

I know few of you will call me a conspiracy fringe, but I cannot erase the words psychological operation from my thoughts after follow this stunt from the begin.

As many of you already cited, the media coverage was very exaggerated, putting a Pastor of 50 followers in the international spotlight.

Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management. ' US Department of Defense

http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/

Well, if something we know for sure, is how the whole international community reacts in face of a symbolic religious event covered by the media.

Marquis de Carabas · 11th September 2010, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I know few of you will call me a conspiracy fringe, but I cannot erase the words psychological operation from my thoughts after follow this stunt from the begin.

The third word is wrong.

Belgian thought · 11th September 2010, 12:34 PM

Downloaded a PDF version, and put it on a CD - did my bit...

godofpie · 11th September 2010, 12:50 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...with_grou.html
There is a poll embedded in this article. 47% believe the koran should have been torched. I don't know the NY Daily News demographics but that is really sad. One of the most ethnically diverse cities on the planet and almost half of the poll respondents wanted to see it torched.

SnakeTongue · 11th September 2010, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

The third word is wrong.

Where?

SnakeTongue · 11th September 2010, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by godofpie

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...with_grou.html
There is a poll embedded in this article. 47% believe the koran should have been torched. I don't know the NY Daily News demographics but that is really sad. One of the most ethnically diverse cities on the planet and almost half of the poll respondents wanted to see it torched.

I do not trust a poll if I cannot verify the evidence or criteria of how the data is mined.

Polls also serve as solo purpose to influence and trick the mind into define ideas over a "black and white" moral background.

Skeptic · 11th September 2010, 01:22 PM

I'm for virtual burning of the Koran. I'll order the Koran on Kindle and then ceremoniously delete it. In retaliation, Muslim extremists declare they'll delete the bible from their Kindle, so there.

Skeptic · 11th September 2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

I will state that this is only a few idiot which they filmed and do not represent the muslim world.

Do not represent the Muslim world, true; a few idiots, no. You can state that, if it makes you feel better. But reality need not agree with your statements.

Quote:

Just like the few christian idiot which burned down a cinema in fFrance for showing the last temptation of Christ (13 wounded, back in 1987).

Somehow, one always has to go back years or decades to find some Jewish or Christian fanatics who did something vaguely similar to what Muslim fanatics do every week. Doesn't seem to show the "all religions are equally violent" idea you wish to show.

bokonon · 11th September 2010, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I know few of you will call me a conspiracy fringe, but I cannot erase the words psychological operation from my thoughts after follow this stunt from the begin.

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

The third word is wrong.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Where?

It loses something when you have to explain it, but...

Where? In the part he quoted.

Where you called "few", "many" was chosen.

bokonon · 11th September 2010, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Belgian thought

Downloaded a PDF version, and put it on a CD - did my bit...

That's sticking it to those godmore heathens! You're a patriot AND a geek...

SnakeTongue · 11th September 2010, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by bokonon

It loses something when you have to explain it, but...

Where? In the part he quoted.

Where you called "few", "many" was chosen.

Ok, many of you will not even think about it.

I will try to gather few information to support my fringe idea.

SnakeTongue · 11th September 2010, 02:38 PM

This stunt had a really deep impact in the international community.

Conspiracy or not, I think you will agree with me that this event will be focus of debate for a long time.

Sounds fringe, I know, I know... But look that! Now is even a space in the Wikipedia for the event "2010 Qur'an-burning controversy"! (WTF?

)

The 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy arose when pastor Terry Jones of the non-denominational Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, United States, planned burning copies of the Qur'an on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he called "International Burn a Koran Day". The planned event was widely condemned by politicians and religious groups, though Jones later canceled the book burning and announced his intention to fly to New York to meet with the imam of Park51, Feisal Abdul Rauf.[1] He later stated that it was suspended, not canceled.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Qu...ng_controversy

SnakeTongue · 11th September 2010, 03:18 PM

I was reading again the posts of this thread:

31st July 2010, 09:50 PM

1-11 (10 posts)

1st August 2010, 12:07 AM

12-43 (31 posts)

2nd August 2010, 08:57 PM

44-45 (2 posts)

3rd August 2010, 12:43 AM

46-58 (12 posts)

4th August 2010, 01:59 AM

59-68 (9 posts)

[gap of 34 days]

8th September 2010, 09:36 PM

69-74 (5 posts)

9th September 2010, 12:11 AM

75-150 (75 posts)

10th September 2010, 12:11 AM

151-240 (89 posts)

11th September 2010, 12:11 AM

241-293 (52 posts)

----------------------------------

34 days of "silence" in this thread, and if the news agency had left out any focus on the Pastor Jones, this was to be a dead thread.

But I know everyone here like to read the headlines, right?

By 8th September the sparks hits the woods and the fire burn, again.

In my hypothesis, this back to debate just here represent a focus over a subject which was planed to be a new meme: "Burn the Q'uoran a day".

I am sure the USA have many institutions with huge potential and crew to shape the public opinion, just by selecting which headlines will be available in the international news agency.

Critical questions welcome.

westprog · 11th September 2010, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

But he would still go to jail for it. Because the only one responsible for his actions is him.

But if you decide to provoke some big biker, knowing that he's a psychopath, knowing that he is going to go off and kill some random person - and if you have no more good reason to provoke him than just for the hell of it - what does that make you?

westprog · 11th September 2010, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by jayh

Functionally this is NO DIFFERENT from the re-running of the Mo cartoons (after we already 'knew' it could cause trouble). It did not inform anything, it was an affront to religious sensibilities and hence a direct challenge, it only served to excite violent crackpots. Yet it was widely, and correctly in my opinion, defended as free speech. Now, perhaps because we don't like the guy doing it, most people here seem to have suddenly become so accommodationist. Yes it's insulting. Free speech often is.

Frankly I am disappointed he backed down. This will make it more difficult for others who wish to speak out.

Of course it's free speech. That doesn't mean that it's not disgusting, and that he should not be condemned. Defending the principle of free speech does not mean that every fool who says something offensive should be treated as a sacred martyr.

The principle of free speech means that we allow people to say offensive things. That doesn't make them not offensive. It's just that the right to say things that aren't offensive is no right at all.

westprog · 11th September 2010, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Where?

The third word of the Koran. The rest is the infallible word of god.

jayh · 11th September 2010, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

Of course it's free speech. That doesn't mean that it's not disgusting, and that he should not be condemned. Defending the principle of free speech does not mean that every fool who says something offensive should be treated as a sacred martyr.
....

Do you equally condemn the Mo-toons? Satanic Verses?

Do you condemn CFI as ignorant jerks for reprinting the toons?

bokonon · 11th September 2010, 07:20 PM

"The pastor who threatened to burn a Muslim book at his church Saturday now says his church will never burn a Koran."

A man, a plan, a Quran -- Duran Duran.

westprog · 12th September 2010, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by jayh

Do you equally condemn the Mo-toons? Satanic Verses?

Do you condemn CFI as ignorant jerks for reprinting the toons?

Why would I condemn a lot of different things equally?

The point about the burning of the Koran is that it served no purpose aside from deliberately antagonising Muslims, in order to provoke some kind of reaction. The more extreme the reaction - i.e. the more innocent people killed - the more it supposedly would justify the act. If nobody was hurt, it would be a pointless thing to do. (Much like the Myers communion stunt). That's what makes Jones a jerk.

The purpose of Rushdie in writing The Satanic Verses was not, presumably, just to provoke a bunch of crazies. Therefore I wouldn't condemn it in the same way.

Either case, however, is free speech, and the right to free speech should be held on to. The Blair law preventing criticism of religion is a bad law. The Irish law banning blasphemy is a bad law. That doesn't mean that they should be opposed by acting like Myers or Jones.

tsig · 12th September 2010, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

Why would I condemn a lot of different things equally?

The point about the burning of the Koran is that it served no purpose aside from deliberately antagonising Muslims, in order to provoke some kind of reaction. The more extreme the reaction - i.e. the more innocent people killed - the more it supposedly would justify the act. If nobody was hurt, it would be a pointless thing to do. (Much like the Myers communion stunt). That's what makes Jones a jerk.

The purpose of Rushdie in writing The Satanic Verses was not, presumably, just to provoke a bunch of crazies. Therefore I wouldn't condemn it in the same way.

Either case, however, is free speech, and the right to free speech should be held on to. The Blair law preventing criticism of religion is a bad law. The Irish law banning blasphemy is a bad law. That doesn't mean that they should be opposed by acting like Myers or Jones.

Then how would you oppose them? You seem to like rights in the abstract but are uncomfortable with rights in action.

westprog · 12th September 2010, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Then how would you oppose them? You seem to like rights in the abstract but are uncomfortable with rights in action.

You oppose speech with speech. It's a simple enough concept.

Checkmite · 12th September 2010, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

But if you decide to provoke some big biker, knowing that he's a psychopath, knowing that he is going to go off and kill some random person - and if you have no more good reason to provoke him than just for the hell of it - what does that make you?

You're not the only person to give this answer. Do you realize that after making this argument, if you ever in the future say Jones is a bigot for calling Muslims violence-prone that would make you a hypocrite?

westprog · 12th September 2010, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

You're not the only person to give this answer. Do you realize that after making this argument, if you ever in the future say Jones is a bigot for calling Muslims violence-prone that would make you a hypocrite?

Obviously not. To observe that there are violent Muslims who will kill people when a Koran is burned is not bigotry - it's in the realm of the bleedin' obvious.

I think most intelligent people can tell the difference between "There exist Muslims who are violent" and "All Muslims are violent". Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't seem to want to distinguish between the two very different statements.

Incidentally, in many jurisdictions, it will be Muslims getting killed as a result of Jones stupidity and bigotry.

BillyJoe · 12th September 2010, 02:53 PM

This was my solution when I first read about this.
Now someone's done it:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/athei...ml?from=age_ft

It's even more apt now seeing as both muslims and christians have decided it's not a good idea to burn each other's book because they both contain parts of the other and so it would be akin to burning your own book.

And this is nothing like what the Nazi's did, their purpose being to prevent people from reading certain ideas. The purpose here is quite different. After all, it would be impossible to burn all the korans or all the bibles. The idea is to challenge the right not to be offended. The right not to be offended sounds the death-nell of free speech.

Checkmite · 13th September 2010, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

I think most intelligent people can tell the difference between "There exist Muslims who are violent" and "All Muslims are violent".

Kind of waters down the statement into meaninglessness, doesn't it? There exist members of just about any large group of like-minded people who are violent, even dangerously so. Yet doing things to offend this particular group is "idiotic" while doing things to offend other groups (or even the same group, but for different reasons) is taking a principled stand. That's...um, yeah.

If Muslims should be expected to put up with people drawing Mohammed against their wishes, they should be expected to put up with people desecrating their other sacred symbols. The ones who would react with violence are the ones who really need to be the focus of all the energy spent on the ones who do things that offend them. Offense is never an excuse for violence.

westprog · 13th September 2010, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Kind of waters down the statement into meaninglessness, doesn't it? There exist members of just about any large group of like-minded people who are violent, even dangerously so. Yet doing things to offend this particular group is "idiotic" while doing things to offend other groups (or even the same group, but for different reasons) is taking a principled stand. That's...um, yeah.

There are two different issues being confused here.

Firstly, is it OK to cause offence when the sole purpose is to cause offence, regardless of the consequences? As I said some months ago when condemning PZ Myers in the case of the host desecration, causing offence just for the sake of it is being an offensive bigoted fool. PZ Myers didn't cause anything bad to happen that I know of. It was still a stupid thing to do.

Secondly, provoking a violent, unreasonable reaction from violent, unreasonable people is a stupid thing to do if it has no other purpose. We know that there are crazy people out there. It's not as if anything will be revealed that we didn't already know. No, they shouldn't be allowed to act as they do. Yes, they will act that way, and people who stir them up should accept that there are consequences to their actions.

Quote:

If Muslims should be expected to put up with people drawing Mohammed against their wishes, they should be expected to put up with people desecrating their other sacred symbols. The ones who would react with violence are the ones who really need to be the focus of all the energy spent on the ones who do things that offend them. Offense is never an excuse for violence.

So why make excuses for it? I certainly don't. Violent threats should not be accomodated. One of the annoying things about this incident is that it gave the thugs a chance of an easy win - which they've taken.

Robin · 13th September 2010, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I'm for virtual burning of the Koran. I'll order the Koran on Kindle and then ceremoniously delete it. In retaliation, Muslim extremists declare they'll delete the bible from their Kindle, so there.

Why would they do that?

The Bible, Old and New Testaments are considered holy books, the revelation of God, by Muslims just as the Quran is.

Checkmite · 13th September 2010, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

There are two different issues being confused here.

Firstly, is it OK to cause offence when the sole purpose is to cause offence, regardless of the consequences? As I said some months ago when condemning PZ Myers in the case of the host desecration, causing offence just for the sake of it is being an offensive bigoted fool. PZ Myers didn't cause anything bad to happen that I know of. It was still a stupid thing to do.

"Stupid" and "OK" aren't mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by westprog

Secondly, provoking a violent, unreasonable reaction from violent, unreasonable people is a stupid thing to do if it has no other purpose. We know that there are crazy people out there. It's not as if anything will be revealed that we didn't already know.

Are we sure that was the purpose, and that there was no other? I can think of a couple of possible reasons for what Jones planned to do besides "he just wants to provoke them for provoking's sake".

Originally Posted by westprog

No, they shouldn't be allowed to act as they do. Yes, they will act that way, and people who stir them up should accept that there are consequences to their actions.

And here is where our opinions most definitely part. Yes, people who exercise their right to free expression should be willing to accept that there will be consequences. Reasonably speaking, these consequences will be in the form of counter-speech. It would be foolish, for instance, for this Jones fellow to get all hopping mad over some Muslims buying and then burning a Bible after he bought and then burnt a Koran; or for him to complain that a local business stopped sponsoring his activities, as a way of expressing that they do not support his speech. That's all good. But you can't tell J D Salinger, for example, to "accept the consequence" that because he wrote Catcher In The Rye, John Lennon is dead.

Originally Posted by westprog

So why make excuses for it? I certainly don't. Violent threats should not be accomodated. One of the annoying things about this incident is that it gave the thugs a chance of an easy win - which they've taken.

By "violent threats should not be accomodated", are you saying Jones shouldn't cave to threats of killings by extremists?

Towlie · 13th September 2010, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

The Bible, Old and New Testaments are considered holy books, the revelation of God, by Muslims just as the Quran is.

Muslims believe Jesus is God? Wow, you learn something new every day on this forum!

Robin · 13th September 2010, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

The third word is wrong

Where?

I never actually finished my maths degree - but I am guessing after the second word and before the fourth word.

Robin · 13th September 2010, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Towlie

Muslims believe Jesus is God? Wow, you learn something new every day on this forum!

Rethinking this ... is your objection that Muslims only believe that the Gospel is the revelation of God and not the New Testament in whole?

Or are you saying that they don't accept the Gospel as a revelation from God either?

If the first, then I correct myself - Muslims believe the Gospel is a direct revelation from God, but I am not sure if they regard that rest of the NT as such.

However in desecrating the NT they would also be descrating the Gospel - so they would not do it.

Towlie · 13th September 2010, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Some of us do, but I doubt that you ever will (learn).

Thank you for rethinking and removing your abusive retort, but just so you'll know, I did see it before you removed it.

The Gospel According of John alone is both part of the Gospel and clear on the position that Jesus is God right from its beginning. Therefore, Muslims could not possibly believe that "the Gospel is the revelation of God." without believing that Jesus is God. Please rethink it some more.

Robin · 13th September 2010, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Towlie

Thank you for rethinking and removing your abusive retort, but just so you'll know, I did see it before you removed it.

Not abusive - just responding in kind to you.

Nice double standard there Towlie!

Quote:

The Gospel According of John alone is both part of the Gospel and clear on the position that Jesus is God right from its beginning. Therefore, Muslims could not possibly believe that "the Gospel is the revelation of God." without believing that Jesus is God. Please rethink it some more.

OK, you are right. Muslims could not possibly believe something that was inconsistent.

What was I thinking?

Let us get this completely clear.

Muslims do believe that the Gospel is a direct revelation from God.

It says so in the Quran.

Robin · 13th September 2010, 06:38 PM

Let me requote just in case the point is not clear:

3.002 Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.

3.003 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

Quran 3.002-3.003

I don't see how there could be any doubt about this.

tsig · 13th September 2010, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

You oppose speech with speech. It's a simple enough concept.

That's what Koran burners are doing.

Robin · 13th September 2010, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

That's what Koran burners are doing.

But what are they opposing by doing this?

Do you think that extremist Islamists will be upset by American Christians burning Qurans?

Or do you think that maybe, they will be jumping with joy at such a lucky circumstance?

Towlie · 13th September 2010, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

Nice double standard there Towlie!

Yes, it is nice. Let me teach it to you:

Standard #1: Ridiculing a statement made by your opponent that you consider to be ridiculous is perfectly acceptable.

Standard #2: Personally attacking your opponent, such as questioning his ability to learn, is called an ad hominem^WP attack and is considered an argumentative fallacy. It is also forbidden on many Internet forums.

tsig · 13th September 2010, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

But what are they opposing by doing this?

Do you think that extremist Islamists will be upset by American Christians burning Qurans?

Or do you think that maybe, they will be jumping with joy at such a lucky circumstance?

Who cares what extremists do. You've already told us they don't represent Islam .

11th September 2010, 11:00 AM	#281
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,761	Originally Posted by Sherman Bay Here's Bob Park's take on the situation:I think that speaks volumes. If it is the same image I saw, it tells a lot that the camera was LOW key, and made it impossible to estimate the number of people pushing the signs. So unless they show a plan from a bit above to REALLY show that the street are litteraly FULL of people asking from Christian blood, I will state that this is only a few idiot which they filmed and do not represent the muslim world. Just like the few christian idiot which burned down a cinema in fFrance for showing the last temptation of Christ (13 wounded, back in 1987).
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

11th September 2010, 12:28 PM	#284
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by SnakeTongue I know few of you will call me a conspiracy fringe, but I cannot erase the words psychological operation from my thoughts after follow this stunt from the begin. The third word is wrong.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

11th September 2010, 12:34 PM	#285
Belgian thought Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 664	Downloaded a PDF version, and put it on a CD - did my bit...
Belgian thought Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 664

11th September 2010, 12:50 PM	#286
godofpie Chief Cook & Bottle Washer Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: south of the mason dixon Posts: 958	http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...with_grou.html There is a poll embedded in this article. 47% believe the koran should have been torched. I don't know the NY Daily News demographics but that is really sad. One of the most ethnically diverse cities on the planet and almost half of the poll respondents wanted to see it torched.
	__________________ king of all that is pizza _{"You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out" - Warren Buffett} _{"Gods don't write books, people do. Gods create Universes. When you refuse to study the Universe, but choose instead to study a book, you are studying the work of men, not God." -Brainache}

11th September 2010, 01:27 PM	#290
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Quote: I will state that this is only a few idiot which they filmed and do not represent the muslim world. Do not represent the Muslim world, true; a few idiots, no. You can state that, if it makes you feel better. But reality need not agree with your statements. Quote: Just like the few christian idiot which burned down a cinema in fFrance for showing the last temptation of Christ (13 wounded, back in 1987). Somehow, one always has to go back years or decades to find some Jewish or Christian fanatics who did something vaguely similar to what Muslim fanatics do every week. Doesn't seem to show the "all religions are equally violent" idea you wish to show.
	Last edited by Skeptic; 11th September 2010 at 01:31 PM.

11th September 2010, 11:26 AM	#282
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	When I first saw this topic, I accidentally read the title as "Burn a Quran a day".

11th September 2010, 11:51 AM	#283
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by Monkey Ghost Still waiting for someone to tell me why it would have been a good idea. Burning books they haven't read... Intentionally insulting people who have done them no harm... This whole "9/11 happened, we are wounded forever ,don't tread on me" garbage is just showing the world what a bunch of pussies we are. Dear users, I know few of you will call me a conspiracy fringe, but I cannot erase the words psychological operation from my thoughts after follow this stunt from the begin. As many of you already cited, the media coverage was very exaggerated, putting a Pastor of 50 followers in the international spotlight. Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management. ' US Department of Defense http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/ Well, if something we know for sure, is how the whole international community reacts in face of a symbolic religious event covered by the media.

11th September 2010, 01:03 PM	#287
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas The third word is wrong. Where?

11th September 2010, 01:07 PM	#288
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by godofpie http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...with_grou.html There is a poll embedded in this article. 47% believe the koran should have been torched. I don't know the NY Daily News demographics but that is really sad. One of the most ethnically diverse cities on the planet and almost half of the poll respondents wanted to see it torched. I do not trust a poll if I cannot verify the evidence or criteria of how the data is mined. Polls also serve as solo purpose to influence and trick the mind into define ideas over a "black and white" moral background.

11th September 2010, 01:22 PM	#289
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	I'm for virtual burning of the Koran. I'll order the Koran on Kindle and then ceremoniously delete it. In retaliation, Muslim extremists declare they'll delete the bible from their Kindle, so there.

11th September 2010, 01:29 PM	#291
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Originally Posted by SnakeTongue I know few of you will call me a conspiracy fringe, but I cannot erase the words psychological operation from my thoughts after follow this stunt from the begin. Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas The third word is wrong. Originally Posted by SnakeTongue Where? It loses something when you have to explain it, but... Where? In the part he quoted. Where you called "few", "many" was chosen.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

11th September 2010, 01:35 PM	#292
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Originally Posted by Belgian thought Downloaded a PDF version, and put it on a CD - did my bit... That's sticking it to those godmore heathens! You're a patriot AND a geek...
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

11th September 2010, 01:42 PM	#293
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	Originally Posted by bokonon It loses something when you have to explain it, but... Where? In the part he quoted. Where you called "few", "many" was chosen. Ok, many of you will not even think about it. I will try to gather few information to support my fringe idea.

11th September 2010, 02:38 PM	#294
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	This stunt had a really deep impact in the international community. Conspiracy or not, I think you will agree with me that this event will be focus of debate for a long time. Sounds fringe, I know, I know... But look that! Now is even a space in the Wikipedia for the event "2010 Qur'an-burning controversy"! (WTF? ) The 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy arose when pastor Terry Jones of the non-denominational Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, United States, planned burning copies of the Qur'an on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he called "International Burn a Koran Day". The planned event was widely condemned by politicians and religious groups, though Jones later canceled the book burning and announced his intention to fly to New York to meet with the imam of Park51, Feisal Abdul Rauf.[1] He later stated that it was suspended, not canceled.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Qu...ng_controversy
	Last edited by SnakeTongue; 11th September 2010 at 03:27 PM.

11th September 2010, 03:18 PM	#295
SnakeTongue Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,090	I was reading again the posts of this thread: 31st July 2010, 09:50 PM 1-11 (10 posts) 1st August 2010, 12:07 AM 12-43 (31 posts) 2nd August 2010, 08:57 PM 44-45 (2 posts) 3rd August 2010, 12:43 AM 46-58 (12 posts) 4th August 2010, 01:59 AM 59-68 (9 posts) [gap of 34 days] 8th September 2010, 09:36 PM 69-74 (5 posts) 9th September 2010, 12:11 AM 75-150 (75 posts) 10th September 2010, 12:11 AM 151-240 (89 posts) 11th September 2010, 12:11 AM 241-293 (52 posts) ---------------------------------- 34 days of "silence" in this thread, and if the news agency had left out any focus on the Pastor Jones, this was to be a dead thread. But I know everyone here like to read the headlines, right? By 8th September the sparks hits the woods and the fire burn, again. In my hypothesis, this back to debate just here represent a focus over a subject which was planed to be a new meme: "Burn the Q'uoran a day". I am sure the USA have many institutions with huge potential and crew to shape the public opinion, just by selecting which headlines will be available in the international news agency. Critical questions welcome.
	Last edited by SnakeTongue; 11th September 2010 at 03:25 PM.

11th September 2010, 03:19 PM	#296
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Checkmite But he would still go to jail for it. Because the only one responsible for his actions is him. But if you decide to provoke some big biker, knowing that he's a psychopath, knowing that he is going to go off and kill some random person - and if you have no more good reason to provoke him than just for the hell of it - what does that make you?
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

11th September 2010, 03:26 PM	#297
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by jayh Functionally this is NO DIFFERENT from the re-running of the Mo cartoons (after we already 'knew' it could cause trouble). It did not inform anything, it was an affront to religious sensibilities and hence a direct challenge, it only served to excite violent crackpots. Yet it was widely, and correctly in my opinion, defended as free speech. Now, perhaps because we don't like the guy doing it, most people here seem to have suddenly become so accommodationist. Yes it's insulting. Free speech often is. Frankly I am disappointed he backed down. This will make it more difficult for others who wish to speak out. Of course it's free speech. That doesn't mean that it's not disgusting, and that he should not be condemned. Defending the principle of free speech does not mean that every fool who says something offensive should be treated as a sacred martyr. The principle of free speech means that we allow people to say offensive things. That doesn't make them not offensive. It's just that the right to say things that aren't offensive is no right at all.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

11th September 2010, 03:30 PM	#298
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by SnakeTongue Where? The third word of the Koran. The rest is the infallible word of god.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

11th September 2010, 03:58 PM	#299
jayh Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NJ USA Posts: 525	Originally Posted by westprog Of course it's free speech. That doesn't mean that it's not disgusting, and that he should not be condemned. Defending the principle of free speech does not mean that every fool who says something offensive should be treated as a sacred martyr. .... Do you equally condemn the Mo-toons? Satanic Verses? Do you condemn CFI as ignorant jerks for reprinting the toons?

11th September 2010, 07:20 PM	#300
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	"The pastor who threatened to burn a Muslim book at his church Saturday now says his church will never burn a Koran." A man, a plan, a Quran -- Duran Duran.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy. Last edited by bokonon; 11th September 2010 at 07:24 PM.

12th September 2010, 07:56 AM	#301
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by jayh Do you equally condemn the Mo-toons? Satanic Verses? Do you condemn CFI as ignorant jerks for reprinting the toons? Why would I condemn a lot of different things equally? The point about the burning of the Koran is that it served no purpose aside from deliberately antagonising Muslims, in order to provoke some kind of reaction. The more extreme the reaction - i.e. the more innocent people killed - the more it supposedly would justify the act. If nobody was hurt, it would be a pointless thing to do. (Much like the Myers communion stunt). That's what makes Jones a jerk. The purpose of Rushdie in writing The Satanic Verses was not, presumably, just to provoke a bunch of crazies. Therefore I wouldn't condemn it in the same way. Either case, however, is free speech, and the right to free speech should be held on to. The Blair law preventing criticism of religion is a bad law. The Irish law banning blasphemy is a bad law. That doesn't mean that they should be opposed by acting like Myers or Jones.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

12th September 2010, 09:51 AM	#302
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by westprog Why would I condemn a lot of different things equally? The point about the burning of the Koran is that it served no purpose aside from deliberately antagonising Muslims, in order to provoke some kind of reaction. The more extreme the reaction - i.e. the more innocent people killed - the more it supposedly would justify the act. If nobody was hurt, it would be a pointless thing to do. (Much like the Myers communion stunt). That's what makes Jones a jerk. The purpose of Rushdie in writing The Satanic Verses was not, presumably, just to provoke a bunch of crazies. Therefore I wouldn't condemn it in the same way. Either case, however, is free speech, and the right to free speech should be held on to. The Blair law preventing criticism of religion is a bad law. The Irish law banning blasphemy is a bad law. That doesn't mean that they should be opposed by acting like Myers or Jones. Then how would you oppose them? You seem to like rights in the abstract but are uncomfortable with rights in action.

12th September 2010, 11:22 AM	#303
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by tsig Then how would you oppose them? You seem to like rights in the abstract but are uncomfortable with rights in action. You oppose speech with speech. It's a simple enough concept.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

12th September 2010, 11:37 AM	#304
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,892	Originally Posted by westprog But if you decide to provoke some big biker, knowing that he's a psychopath, knowing that he is going to go off and kill some random person - and if you have no more good reason to provoke him than just for the hell of it - what does that make you? You're not the only person to give this answer. Do you realize that after making this argument, if you ever in the future say Jones is a bigot for calling Muslims violence-prone that would make you a hypocrite?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

12th September 2010, 12:56 PM	#305
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Checkmite You're not the only person to give this answer. Do you realize that after making this argument, if you ever in the future say Jones is a bigot for calling Muslims violence-prone that would make you a hypocrite? Obviously not. To observe that there are violent Muslims who will kill people when a Koran is burned is not bigotry - it's in the realm of the bleedin' obvious. I think most intelligent people can tell the difference between "There exist Muslims who are violent" and "All Muslims are violent". Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't seem to want to distinguish between the two very different statements. Incidentally, in many jurisdictions, it will be Muslims getting killed as a result of Jones stupidity and bigotry.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

12th September 2010, 02:53 PM	#306
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	This was my solution when I first read about this. Now someone's done it: http://www.smh.com.au/national/athei...ml?from=age_ft It's even more apt now seeing as both muslims and christians have decided it's not a good idea to burn each other's book because they both contain parts of the other and so it would be akin to burning your own book. And this is nothing like what the Nazi's did, their purpose being to prevent people from reading certain ideas. The purpose here is quite different. After all, it would be impossible to burn all the korans or all the bibles. The idea is to challenge the right not to be offended. The right not to be offended sounds the death-nell of free speech.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it. Last edited by BillyJoe; 12th September 2010 at 02:55 PM.

13th September 2010, 02:31 PM	#307
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,892	Originally Posted by westprog I think most intelligent people can tell the difference between "There exist Muslims who are violent" and "All Muslims are violent". Kind of waters down the statement into meaninglessness, doesn't it? There exist members of just about any large group of like-minded people who are violent, even dangerously so. Yet doing things to offend this particular group is "idiotic" while doing things to offend other groups (or even the same group, but for different reasons) is taking a principled stand. That's...um, yeah. If Muslims should be expected to put up with people drawing Mohammed against their wishes, they should be expected to put up with people desecrating their other sacred symbols. The ones who would react with violence are the ones who really need to be the focus of all the energy spent on the ones who do things that offend them. Offense is never an excuse for violence.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

13th September 2010, 02:44 PM	#308
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Checkmite Kind of waters down the statement into meaninglessness, doesn't it? There exist members of just about any large group of like-minded people who are violent, even dangerously so. Yet doing things to offend this particular group is "idiotic" while doing things to offend other groups (or even the same group, but for different reasons) is taking a principled stand. That's...um, yeah. There are two different issues being confused here. Firstly, is it OK to cause offence when the sole purpose is to cause offence, regardless of the consequences? As I said some months ago when condemning PZ Myers in the case of the host desecration, causing offence just for the sake of it is being an offensive bigoted fool. PZ Myers didn't cause anything bad to happen that I know of. It was still a stupid thing to do. Secondly, provoking a violent, unreasonable reaction from violent, unreasonable people is a stupid thing to do if it has no other purpose. We know that there are crazy people out there. It's not as if anything will be revealed that we didn't already know. No, they shouldn't be allowed to act as they do. Yes, they will act that way, and people who stir them up should accept that there are consequences to their actions. Quote: If Muslims should be expected to put up with people drawing Mohammed against their wishes, they should be expected to put up with people desecrating their other sacred symbols. The ones who would react with violence are the ones who really need to be the focus of all the energy spent on the ones who do things that offend them. Offense is never an excuse for violence. So why make excuses for it? I certainly don't. Violent threats should not be accomodated. One of the annoying things about this incident is that it gave the thugs a chance of an easy win - which they've taken.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

13th September 2010, 03:16 PM	#309
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Skeptic I'm for virtual burning of the Koran. I'll order the Koran on Kindle and then ceremoniously delete it. In retaliation, Muslim extremists declare they'll delete the bible from their Kindle, so there. Why would they do that? The Bible, Old and New Testaments are considered holy books, the revelation of God, by Muslims just as the Quran is.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

13th September 2010, 03:34 PM	#310
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,892	Originally Posted by westprog There are two different issues being confused here. Firstly, is it OK to cause offence when the sole purpose is to cause offence, regardless of the consequences? As I said some months ago when condemning PZ Myers in the case of the host desecration, causing offence just for the sake of it is being an offensive bigoted fool. PZ Myers didn't cause anything bad to happen that I know of. It was still a stupid thing to do. "Stupid" and "OK" aren't mutually exclusive. Originally Posted by westprog Secondly, provoking a violent, unreasonable reaction from violent, unreasonable people is a stupid thing to do if it has no other purpose. We know that there are crazy people out there. It's not as if anything will be revealed that we didn't already know. Are we sure that was the purpose, and that there was no other? I can think of a couple of possible reasons for what Jones planned to do besides "he just wants to provoke them for provoking's sake". Originally Posted by westprog No, they shouldn't be allowed to act as they do. Yes, they will act that way, and people who stir them up should accept that there are consequences to their actions. And here is where our opinions most definitely part. Yes, people who exercise their right to free expression should be willing to accept that there will be consequences. Reasonably speaking, these consequences will be in the form of counter-speech. It would be foolish, for instance, for this Jones fellow to get all hopping mad over some Muslims buying and then burning a Bible after he bought and then burnt a Koran; or for him to complain that a local business stopped sponsoring his activities, as a way of expressing that they do not support his speech. That's all good. But you can't tell J D Salinger, for example, to "accept the consequence" that because he wrote Catcher In The Rye, John Lennon is dead. Originally Posted by westprog So why make excuses for it? I certainly don't. Violent threats should not be accomodated. One of the annoying things about this incident is that it gave the thugs a chance of an easy win - which they've taken. By "violent threats should not be accomodated", are you saying Jones shouldn't cave to threats of killings by extremists?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

13th September 2010, 03:42 PM	#311
Towlie ancillary character Join Date: May 2009 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,476	Originally Posted by Robin The Bible, Old and New Testaments are considered holy books, the revelation of God, by Muslims just as the Quran is. Muslims believe Jesus is God? Wow, you learn something new every day on this forum!

13th September 2010, 04:57 PM	#312
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by SnakeTongue Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas The third word is wrong Where? I never actually finished my maths degree - but I am guessing after the second word and before the fourth word.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

13th September 2010, 05:44 PM	#313
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Towlie Muslims believe Jesus is God? Wow, you learn something new every day on this forum! Rethinking this ... is your objection that Muslims only believe that the Gospel is the revelation of God and not the New Testament in whole? Or are you saying that they don't accept the Gospel as a revelation from God either? If the first, then I correct myself - Muslims believe the Gospel is a direct revelation from God, but I am not sure if they regard that rest of the NT as such. However in desecrating the NT they would also be descrating the Gospel - so they would not do it.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 13th September 2010 at 05:51 PM.

13th September 2010, 06:00 PM	#314
Towlie ancillary character Join Date: May 2009 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,476	Originally Posted by Robin Some of us do, but I doubt that you ever will (learn). Thank you for rethinking and removing your abusive retort, but just so you'll know, I did see it before you removed it. The Gospel According of John alone is both part of the Gospel and clear on the position that Jesus is God right from its beginning. Therefore, Muslims could not possibly believe that "the Gospel is the revelation of God." without believing that Jesus is God. Please rethink it some more.

13th September 2010, 06:29 PM	#315
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Towlie Thank you for rethinking and removing your abusive retort, but just so you'll know, I did see it before you removed it. Not abusive - just responding in kind to you. Nice double standard there Towlie! Quote: The Gospel According of John alone is both part of the Gospel and clear on the position that Jesus is God right from its beginning. Therefore, Muslims could not possibly believe that "the Gospel is the revelation of God." without believing that Jesus is God. Please rethink it some more. OK, you are right. Muslims could not possibly believe something that was inconsistent. What was I thinking? Let us get this completely clear. Muslims do believe that the Gospel is a direct revelation from God. It says so in the Quran.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"