Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:
I think you need to read better.

I made up the fact that Dave will bomb Joe. I made it up, to use as a justification for preventing you doing what I cannot legally prevent you from doing.

Joe is not in any more danger than he normally is in his everyday life.

So you (American government) made up the terrorist threats (Reprisals) to stop me planting some grass (burning qur'an) Is that what your saying?

If I failed to get it again, please explain.

mattyrm wrote: All joking aside, they exist because they are largely true

Actually they exist because they make our lives much simpler. Instead of having to go through the complexities of existence and details of any given situation we create a cheat sheet.

mattyrm wrote: Its very simple - Labour- give more money to doley's, immigrants, poor people.
Conservative - somewhat racist, give less money to doley's immigrants and poor people.

Is anything about that broadbrush incorrect?

Political Parties =/= the building blocks of ideas and reality. They dumb it down to distill a message to try and get votes but even then they are generally more complex than that allows. I'm sure even within the Tories there are people who would disagree with things you think and vice-versa. Parties also change over time, thus again showing they are some immutable thing.

Toastedandy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I think you need to read better.

I made up the fact that Dave will bomb Joe. I made it up, to use as a justification for preventing you doing what I cannot legally prevent you from doing.

Joe is not in any more danger than he normally is in his everyday life.

So you (American government) made up the terrorist threats (Reprisals) to stop me planting some grass (burning qur'an) Is that what your saying?

If I failed to get it again, please explain.

It's a white lie.

The reason they said, specifically, that US forces were at risk of reprisals was a simple one.

US forces are always at risk of reprisals in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I can say, as the American government, that if you were to burn a Qur'an that you would be putting US forces at risk of reprisals in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Is it true? Not necessarily, but I could make the link regardless of it being true or not.

Just like Dave may one day bomb Joe's house, and I can say it's because you planted Bermuda grass when in reality it's because Dave was just a murderous jerk who seized upon a reason floating out there to perform a task he wanted to do anyways.

Kanluwen wrote:
It's a white lie.

Sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory. Any facts to back this up?


What I got was, the American government, were using fear tactics against its own citizens, and that, according to you, Americans weren't scared?

Toastedandy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
You really think it was because every single American was scared?

You have no idea how ridiculous that is.

The major reason to stop it has nothing to do with fear of reprisal.

You are hopelessly useless to talk to. Welcome to ignore, have a nice stay.

Awwwwww shucks. No more half guessed remarks to make?

Toastedandy wrote:Awwwwww shucks. No more half guessed remarks to make?

I think he's just probably had more than enough of your trolling for the time being. Well, trolling or lack of basic reading comprehension, which, judging by your posting standards, seems eminently possible.

Let me break it down for you: You don't have to be afraid of a thing to use the fear of that thing in order to get what you want. In this case, what was wanted was for the person in question not to burn the Koran, offending millions of muslims around the world, at a time when the USA and her allies have thousands of troops in Islamic countries, not to mention the delicate situation in North Africa. Oh, and deteriorating relationships with Pakistan. The last thing we want is for all Muslims around the world to feel that we are at war with their religion. This makes our lives, and the jobs of our politicians and servicemen/women more difficult, completely needlessly. In light of this, anything we can do to lessen the possibility of incidents occurring that make the current situation look like a 'clash of civilisations', we should do, if possible. Shutting this idiotic fething loudmouth up, and stopping him from purposely offending Muslims was something that could be done by working the 'national interest' angle. After all, shutting him up was in the national interest of the US - but only because it was embarrassing and pointless, not because the US feared a full-on armed insurrection by the American Muslim population or anything. If you think that, then I have no problems telling you how stupid you are for thinking that.

Albatross wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:Awwwwww shucks. No more half guessed remarks to make?

I think he's just probably had more than enough of your trolling for the time being. Well, trolling or lack of basic reading comprehension, which, judging by your posting standards, seems eminently possible.

Let me break it down for you: You don't have to be afraid of a thing to use the fear of that thing in order to get what you want. In this case, what was wanted was for the person in question not to burn the Koran, offending millions of muslims around the world, at a time when the USA and her allies have thousands of troops in Islamic countries, not to mention the delicate situation in North Africa. Oh, and deteriorating relationships with Pakistan. The last thing we want is for all Muslims around the world to feel that we are at war with their religion. This makes our lives, and the jobs of our politicians and servicemen/women more difficult, completely needlessly. In light of this, anything we can do to lessen the possibility of incidents occurring that make the current situation look like a 'clash of civilisations', we should do, if possible. Shutting this idiotic fething loudmouth up, and stopping him from purposely offending Muslims was something that could be done by working the 'national interest' angle. After all, shutting him up was in the national interest of the US - but only because it was embarrassing and pointless, not because the US feared a full-on armed insurrection by the American Muslim population or anything. If you think that, then I have no problems telling you how stupid you are for thinking that.

Well said , sir.

Albatross wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:Awwwwww shucks. No more half guessed remarks to make?

I think he's just probably had more than enough of your trolling for the time being. Well, trolling or lack of basic reading comprehension, which, judging by your posting standards, seems eminently possible.

Let me break it down for you: You don't have to be afraid of a thing to use the fear of that thing in order to get what you want. In this case, what was wanted was for the person in question not to burn the Koran, offending millions of muslims around the world, at a time when the USA and her allies have thousands of troops in Islamic countries, not to mention the delicate situation in North Africa. Oh, and deteriorating relationships with Pakistan. The last thing we want is for all Muslims around the world to feel that we are at war with their religion. This makes our lives, and the jobs of our politicians and servicemen/women more difficult, completely needlessly. In light of this, anything we can do to lessen the possibility of incidents occurring that make the current situation look like a 'clash of civilisations', we should do, if possible. Shutting this idiotic fething loudmouth up, and stopping him from purposely offending Muslims was something that could be done by working the 'national interest' angle. After all, shutting him up was in the national interest of the US - but only because it was embarrassing and pointless, not because the US feared a full-on armed insurrection by the American Muslim population or anything. If you think that, then I have no problems telling you how stupid you are for thinking that.

You guys have lost me here, your little arguments.

Its like nation politics!


"Breaking news: Kanluwen puts Toastedandy on ignore! what effect will this have on the higher levels of moderation, and the anarchy of the OT forums, which already threaten to disintegrate into war?"

TBH, I like to think of Dakka that way. Its sort of funny when you find a thread talking about Jews and then you just KNOW Warpcrafter will come in the thread and share his mind on the subject.

Or a thread on Islam (like this one..) where you KNOW that Mattyrm will come in.

Ahtman wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I know, I'm just saying that Phelps, while he should burn in a deep circle of hell, isn't anywhere near as bad as the terrorists.

He might not be atm but there are Christian extremists on the periphery and just waiting. Have we forgotten Oslo so soon?

Yes, but still; Phelps isn't bombing stuff, and we don't exactly punish people for what they MIGHT do.

Besides, I don't think Phelps is stupid enough to give everyone who wants to do anything about him an actual reason to be let off the chain. I hope to any god that is listening I'm wrong though.

Slarg232 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I know, I'm just saying that Phelps, while he should burn in a deep circle of hell, isn't anywhere near as bad as the terrorists.

He might not be atm but there are Christian extremists on the periphery and just waiting. Have we forgotten Oslo so soon?

Yes, but still; Phelps isn't bombing stuff, and we don't exactly punish people for what they MIGHT do.

Besides, I don't think Phelps is stupid enough to give everyone who wants to do anything about him an actual reason to be let off the chain. I hope to any god that is listening I'm wrong though.

I already said Phelps hadn't done anything violent, the point is that there are Christian extremists and they do take actions. Forgetting Norway there is also the Oklahoma City bombing as well as abortion clinic bombings/killings, and that is just in the US. Acting like only one group (Muslims) perpetrate violent acts is ridiculous, and smacks of cherry picking. What I really am trying to get at is that this shouldn't be about "X Extremists are not as bad as Y Extremist" because they are all extremists. They are all bad.

Oklahoma City wasn't religious, while he cited Waco as a reason for blowing up the building it was more because he believed in freedom from the government. It was why McVeigh was caught with a shirt saying something about the "Tree of Freedom being watered with the blood of...." or something like that. McVeigh wasn't a christian extremist, just someone fed up with the government(hint, hint, he attacked a government building).


But, this is freedom of speech. Even though it is disgusting, they have the right to do it even over here in most cases. Burning the flag is a protected form of speech because it serves no official purpose(burning draft cards is illegal because they serve a purpose, although I lost mine somewhere, should probably get a new one soon).

halonachos wrote:Oklahoma City wasn't religious, while he cited Waco as a reason for blowing up the building it was more because he believed in freedom from the government. It was why McVeigh was caught with a shirt saying something about the "Tree of Freedom being watered with the blood of...." or something like that. McVeigh wasn't a christian extremist, just someone fed up with the government(hint, hint, he attacked a government building).


But, this is freedom of speech. Even though it is disgusting, they have the right to do it even over here in most cases. Burning the flag is a protected form of speech because it serves no official purpose(burning draft cards is illegal because they serve a purpose, although I lost mine somewhere, should probably get a new one soon).

Most right wing militias also have a religious competent (WACO certainly did), and most white power groups do as well. When a Muslim does we only qualify it in terms of religion, but if a non Muslim in the west does it is because of their political beliefs. McVey was fairly contradictory in many of his statements so the role of it can be murky, so I will give you that it is debatable. OTOH many extremist christian groups have held him up as an icon. Couching it in terms of Amercian Exceptionalism doesn't make it a secular incident, especially if they think of America and Christianity as essentially the same things.

Ahtman wrote:

halonachos wrote:Oklahoma City wasn't religious, while he cited Waco as a reason for blowing up the building it was more because he believed in freedom from the government. It was why McVeigh was caught with a shirt saying something about the "Tree of Freedom being watered with the blood of...." or something like that. McVeigh wasn't a christian extremist, just someone fed up with the government(hint, hint, he attacked a government building).


But, this is freedom of speech. Even though it is disgusting, they have the right to do it even over here in most cases. Burning the flag is a protected form of speech because it serves no official purpose(burning draft cards is illegal because they serve a purpose, although I lost mine somewhere, should probably get a new one soon).

Most right wing militias also have a religious competent (WACO certainly did), and most white power groups do as well. When a Muslim does we only qualify it in terms of religion, but if a non Muslim in the west does it is because of their political beliefs. McVey was fairly contradictory in many of his statements so the role of it can be murky, so I will give you that it is debatable. OTOH many extremist christian groups have held him up as an icon. Couching it in terms of Amercian Exceptionalism doesn't make it a secular incident, especially if they think of America and Christianity as essentially the same things.

I can see why people would want to use him as an example of religious extremism, Christian Extremists use him as an example because they're idiots and don't understand why he did what he did. He felt 'bad' because there was a daycare, in fact he said that he would probably change his target had he known there was a daycare, but when asked about it he said that it wasn't like they were the first to lose a son or daughter. The guy never cited religion, but he cited a lot of anger towards government, saying that he started to garner a lot of it during the Gulf War(yep the guy was a vet). And like I said, he was arrested wearing an anti-government that said "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.-Thomas Jefferson" and featured the etching of a tree behind it. I would say that it was secular, the Waco event was a source of inspiration for him but he didn't do the bombing to get revenge for religious means, but he did it because he thought that the government was infringing on rights the government was supposed to give.

He said something about being in hell with the fighter pilots who 'had to bomb innocents' and said something about people who go against the constitution are evil. So far a lot of Islamic fanatics use religious reasons(if you call something a Jihad, its a holy war). If an arabic person uses politics then I will call them political fanatics, if one of the protesters in Egypt blew up an Egyptian government building, it would be a political action.

Not sure if these guys are using religion or not, but seeing as though there have been rallies in England featuring signs saying things like "Kill the Pope" I will say that they tend to be religious.

Let's all calm down and take a step back, and think about what we're saying.

See this wouldn't have happened at all if we put down our bibles and Korans, and simply studied evolution or form of natural science. But hey, who's going to be able to change someones view if it has been unchanged for thousands of years.

Meh those London Islamist douchbags are obnoxious, but nowhere near as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church. People can be douchebags in the name of Jesus or Allah. At least there was an Islamist counter protest, which reminds me of how Christians come out to counter protest the Westboro Baptist Church when they show up at a soldier's funeral.

TrollPie wrote:It's times like this when I think that Frazzled may have the right idea.

You have spoken His Name. Now you are marked by His Sign. (here hold this sign).

I suspect that MGS might disagree with me, but I'm proud to live in a country where we defend the rights of grade-a douchenozzles like the Westboro bunch to freely speak their own special brand of stupid. If it was popular speech, it wouldn't need to be defended.

Goddard wrote:Let's all calm down and take a step back, and think about what we're saying.

Lets do this.

Slarg232 wrote:For all his sins, Fred Phelps aint piloting planes into buildings, either.

No, but he's preaching hate, the antithesis of everything Christianity stands for.

Then again, given the amount of non-Phelps Christians who preach hate themselves and therefor don't exactly have much of a moral high ground to stand on, it's hardly surprising that he isn't spoken out against more.

KingCracker wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I'm more impressed by the group who traveled hundreds of miles just to stage a counter-demonstration to rebut the extremists.

Agreed 100% here.

Yes, indeed.

ineptus astartes wrote:Who is Fred Phelps?

Phelps is a homophobic gakfether and a worthless clown, who goes around disrespecting the dead (specifically arranging protests at any and all military funerals he can find), attacking all western countries, blaming all natural disasters on the country "angering god", and doing his best to incite Islam into attacking the United States so that more people whom haven't converted to his very specific version of Christianity which essentially boils down to "we're right, and everyone else is going to hell".

Basically, he's just your average Christian extremist (they're all utter nutjobs and pretty much trash), except he's gotten more press than is normal. He's one of the few people whom I honestly hope will get hit by a tornado as part of "god's wrath".

Slarg232 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I know, I'm just saying that Phelps, while he should burn in a deep circle of hell, isn't anywhere near as bad as the terrorists.

He might not be atm but there are Christian extremists on the periphery and just waiting. Have we forgotten Oslo so soon?

Yes, but still; Phelps isn't bombing stuff, and we don't exactly punish people for what they MIGHT do.

Mandatory insurance is punishment for what you might do, fwiw.

Yeah, Phelps is a nut-job and needs to acknowledge himself as one. If you do anything against them then his family is also comprised of lawyers so they'll sue the hell out of you, I think that if you take the time to draw out the Phelps' family tree it would resemble the "troll-face" some people on the internet are familiar with.

As far as stereotypes go they do exist in real life, I actually met some Catholics who believed that dinosaur bones were put on Earth by satan to trick us and that evolution never occured. I of course compare them to myself and our church's now retired priest who happen to believe in evolution and that homosexuality in itself is not a sin.

But back to the topic at hand, they obviously feel displeasure towards America and maybe were trying to get warm by burning the flags. Either way, when you play with fire...