we have politicians here in the U.S. like lindsay asspumper graham talking about limiting political free speech! hey lindsay go fuck your self you worthless piece of shit.
we are truly heading towards a world upside down. with “leaders” who are more than willing to stomp on our rights, but are weasil/cowards who want to apease the barbarians trying to kill and subjugate us.
Unreal: RINO Sen. Lindsey Graham Wants to Make It a Crime to Burn the Koran…
Un-effen-believable, time for the people of South Carolina to step up to the plate and primary his ass out of the Senate.
(Politico) — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a military lawyer, is the first member of Congress to say the legislature needs to explore the possibility, however unlikely, of limiting some kinds of free speech — like Terry Jones’ Quran burning — that help America’s enemies.
“I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war,” he told CBS’s Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation.”
“During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy,” Graham said, adding that he wanted to do “anything we can to push back here in America against acts like this that put our troops at risk.”
he has got it ass backwards., when would we have locked someone up for expressing their political opinion by burning hitlers mien kampf? or saying nazis are vicious barbaric animals?
he thinks political free speech is a great idea but???? this fuckin guy does not deserve to be an american senator, and he has cemented his status as weasil.
the only people responsible for the death and destruction after the koran burning are muslims and islam, a rabid death cult that routinely murders and kills anyone they dont like. in just the last month they have murdered thousands of christians across the globe under trumped up falshoods and excuses fabricated for the sole purpose of giving themselves licensce to burn churches, destroy property artifacts of christians and murder christians. peruse my blog for just ten minutes and you will see the murder and mayhem committed by muslims becuase of their percieved insult to islam, they need no excuse they will allways have one.
Cluebat to Senator: Terry Jones isn’t the first performance artist to use an inferno.
A thought experiment: How long before Salvador Dali’s “blasphemous” caricature of Mohammed burning in hell is expunged from art history classes? How about Auguste Rodin? or Gustave Dore?
Each of these artists caricatured Mohammed roasting in Hell— as related in Dante’s trilogy “The Divine Comedy” [Inferno XXVIII, 19-42].
The same forces that repeatedly plot to destroy the fresco of Dante’s Inferno in Bologna’s Church of San Petronio remain at work today.
And if Western media remain unwilling to fight this battle, what’s to stop the global Taliban from silencing any and every expression Muslims deem “offensive”?
Archived depictions of Mohammed serve as a poignant reminder that firey expressions have been part of Western AND ISLAMIC culture since the Middle Ages— and serve as a resource for those interested in defending free expression.
But Joyner says something I disagree with:
Should Jones have burned the Koran? No. But not because doing so might incite some evil people halfway around the world to commit atrocities against innocents. Rather, he shouldn’t have done it was needlessly hurtful without adding any value to the debate. Indeed, aside from generating publicity for himself, he’s likely generated sympathy for Islam and disdain for churches of his ilk.
That’s exactly backwards. He shouldn’t have burned it only because it would inflame lunatics to kill people, and we don’t want to make things more difficult on our troops.
But as for “the debate”? What debate? The debate over whether or not I have to bow down to a primitive, alien religion and honor its symbols?
The proper thing is to burn ten Korans for each casualty inflicted by Muslim murderers. Now, I wouldn’t do that, because I am, in fact, deferring to the “murderers’ veto” and I don’t want to cause my fellow Americans any more difficulty than needed in Afghanistan.
But minus that? Minus that, I’d have a Koran on my barbecue this weekend.
The principle of politeness goes out the window when those who seek “respect” and “tolerance” are murdering people to get it. They’re not seeking respect; they’re seeking obedience through terror.
I don’t wish to offend moderate Muslims (and, contra some commenters claims — of course they exist; but unfortunately there aren’t enough of them to make a dominant, social-rules-establishing-and-enforcing majority), but I also need to establish that there is no alien religion’s claim of blasphemy over me.
and below in the last few days, these muslims certainly didnt need an excuse to start their killing did they?
(UPDATED & BUMPED)
At least 1,000 Christians were slaughtered this week in at the Salesian Saint Teresa of the Child Jesus mission in Duekoue, Ivory Coast by Muslim troops loyal to Alassane Ouattara. The state-run media has been slow to report the story.
The conflict in Ivory Coast began in 2002. The country is divided between the Muslim north and Christian south.
When Afghan President Hamid Karzai insisted that the desecrators of the Koran be “brought to justice”, he obviously meant “justice” as defined by Islamic law, and not by the United States Constitution. In other words, he is calling on President Barack Hussein Obama to uphold sharia law in a non-Muslim country.
At this point it’s hard to say to what extent Mr. Obama will oblige him. The signs are not auspicious, however — the most urgent official preoccupation of the United Nations and the U.S. government during the crisis is to somehow appease the anger of Muslims who are outraged by the burning of the Koran, and not to condemn the atrocities which were committed in response:
[UN envoy Staffan] de Mistura spoke in a somber tone as he described how three U.N. staff members and four Nepalese guards were killed Friday when the protesters stormed their compound in the normally peaceful city of Mazar-i-Sharif. He placed direct blame on those who burned the copy of the Muslim holy book in Florida.
“The demonstration was meant to protest against the insane and totally despicable gesture by one person who burned the holy Quran,” he said.
Notice that Mr. De Mistura spoke reverentially of “the holy Quran”, as if he were a Muslim himself. What’s more, the beheading of innocent victims is not described as “insane and totally despicable” — that description is reserved for the burning of a book.
However, that’s just the United Nations — and we all know how they are. How about the U.S. Military?
Below is the joint statement released by Gen. David Petraeus and the NATO command in Afghanistan:
Statement by ISAF Commander Gen. David Petraeus and NATO SCR Ambassador Mark Sedwill
International Security Assistance Force
ISAF Headquarters Public Affairs
KABUL, Afghanistan (April 3, 2011) — In view of the events of recent days, we feel it is important on behalf of ISAF and NATO members in Afghanistan to reiterate our condemnation of any disrespect to the Holy Qur’an and the Muslim faith. We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Qur’an.
We also offer condolences to the families of all those injured and killed in violence which occurred in the wake of the burning of the Holy Qur’an.
We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Qur’an, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people. [italics added]
As you can see, Gen. Petraeus also identifies the Koran as a holy book — just as if it were his own venerated scripture. Heck, for all I know, it might be.
Also notice that those individuals who burned the Koran are accounted culpable, and considered responsible for their actions, while the bombers and murderers and beheaders are like a natural disaster that “occurred in the wake of the burning of the Holy Qur’an”.
If this is the response of our brave men in uniform, you can imagine what their Commander-in-Chief is saying. Here’s the full text of a statement released yesterday by Barack Hussein Obama:
Today, the American people honor those who were lost in the attack on the United Nations in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan.
Once again, we extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those who were killed, and to the people of the nations that they came from.
The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity.
No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act.
Now is a time to draw upon the common humanity that we share, and that was so exemplified by the UN workers who lost their lives trying to help the people of Afghanistan. [italics added]
Once again, we are called to “honor those who were lost in the attack”, as if it were a tsunami or a forest fire. And the reference is to “those who were killed”, using the passive voice — no agentive is involved.
Mr. Obama, like the generals and the UN envoy, considers the Koran to be a “holy text”. If I didn’t know him to be a Christian, I would assume the president was speaking as a Muslim himself. And if that were the case, the statement “No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people” would be an instance of kitman, deliberate misdirection — under sharia, non-Muslims cannot be innocent. They are all kuffar, who are by definition guilty. Killing non-believers is not always mandatory, but a Muslim who does so cannot be punished under Islamic law except under certain narrowly-defined circumstances.
What all these official pronouncements have in common is that they grant no agency to the Muslims who commit violent atrocities. The murderers of Kandahar and Mazar-i-Sharif are not responsible for their behavior.
But Terry Jones is responsible for what he does. He is judged culpable for his “desecration”. The violence that follows is like the wind and the rain — it just happens. It’s tragic but inevitable, once the flames rise up from the pages of the book. There’s nothing that can be done about it.
The Psychopath’s Argument: Free Speech Kills People
by Dr. Nicolai Sennels
“But she’s asking for it! She knows I’ll beat her if she says things like that. And still she says it — it’s like she’s begging me to hit her!”
This is the typical psychopathic husband’s explanation for domestic violence, and as an experienced psychologist I can smell this kind of sick logic from miles away. Unfortunately, far too often this is also the explanation given by the media, politicians, and not least violent Muslims when they explain the Islamists’ aggressive reactions to cartoons and Quran-burnings. We are even responsible when Muslims run amok and commit terror after we create art or satire based on their prophet and religion. Either we cease to tease and criticize, or we must accept the consequences.
Jyllands-Posten and Kurt Westergaard have been held responsible for more than a hundred deaths — often trampled by their fellow Muslims — in the wake of the publication of the famous Mohammed cartoons. The same accusations now hit Terry Jones and his minister colleague Wayne Sapp, as eleven UN staff in Afghanistan were killed by Muslims in response to Jones’ and Sapp’s Quran-burning event. Several of the UN staff were beheaded.
But drawings and Quran burnings do not kill. They do not trample people to death and they do not chop their heads off. Only people do such things.
and from sultan kinish
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants an investigation into Koran burning. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that this form of free speech could be banned. Senator Lindsey Graham is also looking for ways to limit free speech, saying, “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war”.
Free speech is more than a great idea, it’s a fundamental freedom untouchable by legislators. But all it takes is a few Muslim murders– and Reid, Breyer and Graham eagerly hold up their lighters to the Constitution. Free speech has been curtailed before in the United States during a time of war– but only free speech sympathetic to the enemy. During WW1 a suspected German propagandist filmmaker was jailed. But could anyone have imagined anti-German propagandists being jailed? The Wilson administration was behaving unconstitutionally, but not insanely.
Today we aren’t jailing filmmakers who traffic in anti-American propaganda in wartime. If we did that half of Hollywood would be behind bars. Instead Democratic and Republican Senators are discussing banning speech offensive to the enemy. Because even though they’re killing us already– we had better not provoke them or who knows how much worse it will become.
Traditionally it’s the victors who give their laws to the defeated. But massive immigration at home and nation building occupations abroad mean that the defeated of failed states are imposing their Sharia law on us. We’re asked to trade in our Constitutional freedoms out of fear of Muslim violence. And so the murderers impose the terms of peace on us. And then don’t abide by them.
Violence in the Muslim world is a constant. We have been fighting Muslim violence since George Washington’s time. And we have been subject to it even longer. Whether it’s Muslims killing Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians or any and every religion under the sun– there is a pattern here. It’s a story as old as time. And it’s not one that we can stop by ladling out honeyed words of appeasement.
Senator Graham warns us to shut up in a time of war– but is there any foreseeable future in which we won’t be fighting in a Muslim country? Democrats elected the most anti-war candidate of the bunch only to see him begin his 2012 reelection campaign by bombing another Muslim country. And what’s surprising about that. Most of the trouble spots in the world that directly or indirectly affect us are located in Muslim countries. The major threat to the United States comes from the Muslim world. And that means we’re going to be tied up dealing with the Muslim world in one way or another, whether as soldiers, diplomats or aid workers. And even if we weren’t– there are hundreds of thousands of Americans still living and working in Muslim countries. Hostages to the latest Muslim temper tantrum.
As Muslim terror has gotten worse, we have started treating the Muslim world like a ticking bomb– tiptoeing around them to avoid setting them off. Whatever they don’t like about us, we’re willing to change.
a poster from hot airhad some salient insight:
If this was a culture and community (Islam) that had any “moderates” that everyone keeps telling us exist and we must prostrate ourselves toward the end of appeasing, then these “madmen” (read, everyday muslims) would not feel it is perfectcly acceptable to run out and start killing people becasue their feelings were hurt by an act of a stranger more than 5,000 miles away. the idea that we must “be careful” what we say or do b/c it may “incite” a barbarian to act barbaric is idiotic at best and harmful to our very survival at worst.
When is the West going to wake up and realize that we are not dealing with a sane, adult, rational culture? We are dealing with barbarism. Any alleged moderates are the outliers of this “culture” and are very few in number in relation to the vast majority of muslims and have no power or control. And, we are not going to somehow make the alleged “moderates” powerful in islam by prostrating ourselves to islam to show them how tolerant we are. All that will do is encourage and strenthen the mainstream (read radical) muslim world by demonstrating our weakness.
the west is living under an illusion that the muslim world thinks like we do, wants the same things we want, values the same things we value. They don’t, and we cannot make them through acting nice.
The only thing “putting our troops in danger” (aside from the actual mission) is our stupid insistence on using the LEAST amount of force possible, not targeting “civilians”, not fighting to win. By using silly rules of engagement, but having stupid goals, but tying one arm behind our backs, these are the things that put soliders’ lives at much more risk than is necessary. All of the things we do to be “PC” at war and appease the alleged “moderate” muslims and world opinion – those are the things that cause U.S. deaths – NOT the exercise of free speech.
If these barbarians believed that the U.S. would retaliate with proper brutality and force, they would not have engaged in killing the U.N. workers over the koran burning. Because they know we will do nothing but try to appease them, they will act out like the children they are.
What is the muslim world but a 2 year old? The muslim world ha the intelligence and maturity level of a 2-year old. I have no respect for islam and don’t believe in the much ballyhooed but never seen moderat muslim center. Sure, there are a few good and decent people who are muslims. But, again, they are a small minority and they have no power in the islam world. And, those individuals are good and decent despite islam, not because of it. I’m sure there were some really great guys in the upper reaches of the Soviet Politburo or who were members of the NAZI party. That such people exist is not an argument that islam is not a barbaric death cult that should be opposed like the ideology that it is.
To all the people who claim you can’t “blame islam”, who or what is to blame? “radicals”? they aren’t radicals when they are the majority of the religion. When christianity or judiasm can be preached and followed openly in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt without fear of arrest or death, then maybe islam has some “moderates”. When women are not legally murdered for being raped in countries like Saudi, Iran, et al, we can talk about this “moderate islam”.
When the islamic world does not take to the streets and threaten death for perceived slights, we can talk about “moderate islam”.
tolerance is a 2-way street. This idea that we owe something to islam is pure insanity. A logical and rational person can come to an opinion on islam based on facts.
it is a legitimate opinion to say that Jim Jones’ church was a death cult based on the facts surrounding that religion. It is legitimate opinion that David Koresch’s church was a death cult based on the facts surrounding that religion.
What is the difference here? That there are more people practisingthe islamic religion than those other 2?
this idea that we are not allowed to judge or have opinions about things – even with facts staring us in the face – is the left’s new religion: the religion of moral equivalency, where nothing can be considered better or worse than anything else, where people cannot judge other people or other things or ideas (except conservatism, which is always bad and evil). The idea that “tolerance” means turning a blind eye to facts is insane. tolerance does not mean ignoring conduct, ignoring what the people of islam actually say and do, ignore islam’s history.
Tolerance means that if and when islam decides to join the modern world and reciprocate tolerance to everyone else, we leave them alone and they leave us alone. Until that day, why be tolerant? Why defer to islam? Why ignore the truth?
Islam is not a race – so one can’t be a racist for thinking islam is evil. Islam is a religion, and chosing what religion to practice and to what extent (i.e., beheading infidels) is a choice. You cannot be racist for judging people based on the choices they make.
So, the racist card is idiotic from the get-go. And, it’s played out. America is the least racist country in teh world. where are the high level black or hispanic leaders in European nations? Where are the indigenous high level leaders in South American nations? Where would you rather be a black man today – in some african country or the U.S.? Would you rather want to be a christian or jew living in an arab country or a muslim living in the U.S.?
I’m sick of the race card, it has no meaning anymore. It has no power b/c it is used so often for so many things that one expects to be called a racist for chosing white eggs over brown eggs.
To summarize – engaging in free speech in America is not to blame for barbarians killing innocent people in Afghanistan. Or, do you believe that a rape victim should be blamed b/c of the way she dresses?The idea that it is somehow off limits to form an opinion of islam because it is a religion is stupid. And, for the record, leftists have never defended christianity from attacks. It was always perfectly o.k. for people to attack christianity for the last 30 years, but suddenly, it is off-limits to say anything bad about a religion, and really, only one religion – islam?
Monkeytoe on April 4, 2011
and a final note on this rolling post, this from Matt Patterson:
So let me get this straight. Florida preacher Terry Jones burns the Koran as part of a religious protest and is promptly condemned by General David Petraeus? Jones’ act, the general says, “was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible.”
Meanwhile, the United States military condones and participates in the burning of the Christian Bible. As CNN reported in May of 2009:
Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday.
The American media elite are also wringing their hands over the burning of the Koran, and not just on the Left. Even Jonah Goldberg of National Review laments that “(b)urning books — any books — is bad. Burning holy books is really bad.” Uh, no. A book is a product, a piece of property, which can legitimately be used for reading, propping a door open, hiding cash (senior citizens only), decorating a shelf, shredding for an art project, burning in protest, or anything else its owner may desire.
You see, I’m terribly old fashioned. I believe that our constitutionally protected rights to free speech and private property were designed exactly for men like Jones (whose views are unpopular), and to provide sanctuary for exactly his kind of protest (which we may find morally unsavory). I also was under the impression that untold numbers of Americans have given their lives overseas so that all of us can enjoy these privileges here at home.
Terry Jones may be a bigot, but that is hardly the point. As far as I’m concerned, he is more of an American patriot that General Petraeus, who ought to be ashamed of himself for siding with the savages in Afghanistan, who have rioted and killed dozens because their “sensitivities” have been inflamed by the actions of one private American citizen. Really, who does he think he is? How dare Petraeus, the president, or any other U.S. official condone the state ordered burning of the Christian Bible, which is a far, far graver offense than the preacher’s inconsequential conflagration. You see it is when, and only when, the government decides which books are to be consigned to the flames that it is “really bad,” to use Goldberg’s eloquent formulation.
How long is the West going to remain hostage to the primitive sensibilities of illiterate thugs in the Third World? For how long will we let the Muslim world off the ethical hook, even going so far as to blame ourselves when they riot and slaughter over some perceived grievance? How long are we going to kid ourselves about this religion? In his response to Goldberg’s commentary on the Koran burning episode, Andrew McCarthy at NRO gives us a lesson on what the Islamic holy book actually teaches its adherents:
Sura 9 of the Koran, for example, states the supremacist doctrine that commands Muslims to kill and conquer non-Muslims (e.g., 9:5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).”
And that’s not even the most reprehensible exhortations in Muhammad’s book. The Koran, McCarthy notes, implicitly endorses a “dehumanization of non-Muslims” that provides the psychological and moral sanction for their murder. Sounds to me like the Koran provides plenty of justification in its own pages for a non-Muslim like Terry Jones (or me) to be outraged enough to protest.
But no, protest is only admirable if it’s from the anti-war movement; burning is OK only for Bibles and American flags. Sure, burn the flag and the Bible — those Christian Americans won’t do a thing.