Opinion: The Qur'an Burner

[Watch Me Sink]

Europe would probably be overpopulated.

Plus, I'd probably be overweight from all the cannolis and Italian cookies I'd eat. The nearest (decent) Italian bakery is a good 30 miles from my house, and if it was any closer I'd surely have to exercise more.

Not really, because in Europe the normal portions are 10x smaller than a normal portion here. When my relatives from Scotland come they are always like "Ya crazy buoy, ya cahnt ate daht oohle stok can ye neow"? referring to like a 6 ounce steak at outback. Same with my friend's English grandparents, they flip out at like a typical American hamburger because it's like 5x larger than what they eat.

And don't even get me started on Italians. American Italian restaurants are complete bullshit... it's just gigantic portions of pasta... senseless and unhealthy, but the American way. Hamburger tortellini, just like in Italy.. not.

*I'd be broke from spending all my money on Italian pastries.

And true that, real Italian pizza is actually quite thin compared to these 5" thick "deep dish" pizzas.

 

[Gimgak]

It's still the media's choice to broadcast it 'internationally'.

Also, all you are saying relies on the assumption that troops "may" get hurt as a result of this. You don't have evidence that they will get hurt as a result of this; it's all in theory and assumptions can be blown out of proportion.

If death threats are received for even drawing a picture of Mohammed, I'd guess extremists would be even more likely to do something if their most holy book is being destroyed.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

It's still the media's choice to broadcast it 'internationally'.

Also, all you are saying relies on the assumption that troops "may" get hurt as a result of this. You don't have evidence that they will get hurt as a result of this; it's all in theory and assumptions can be blown out of proportion.

If death threats are received for even drawing a picture of Mohammed, I'd guess extremists would be even more likely to do something if their most holy book is being destroyed.

Overreact much? :yes:

 

[Gimgak]

I've never said that extremists don't overreact. Hence they're called Extremists.

 

[David]

It's still the media's choice to broadcast it 'internationally'.

Also, all you are saying relies on the assumption that troops "may" get hurt as a result of this. You don't have evidence that they will get hurt as a result of this; it's all in theory and assumptions can be blown out of proportion.

If death threats are received for even drawing a picture of Mohammed, I'd guess extremists would be even more likely to do something if their most holy book is being destroyed.

It's still an assumption. Who's to say they even have the television or newspaper or Internet to hear the news? It's all an assumption that they will see the reports, it's all an assumption that they will react, it's all an assumption that troops will be injured as a result of this.

Qur'an burner or not, troops are always going to be endangered in war stricken nations. It's an inevitable 'fact' (not assumption), as noted by daily reports of soldiers being injured as a result of car bombings, or misfiring or raids etc. There is evidence of that, but no evidence to suggest that troops 'will' be injured.

 

[katy perry is hot]

It's still the media's choice to broadcast it 'internationally'.

Also, all you are saying relies on the assumption that troops "may" get hurt as a result of this. You don't have evidence that they will get hurt as a result of this; it's all in theory and assumptions can be blown out of proportion.

If death threats are received for even drawing a picture of Mohammed, I'd guess extremists would be even more likely to do something if their most holy book is being destroyed.

It's still an assumption. Who's to say they even have the television or newspaper or Internet to hear the news? It's all an assumption that they will see the reports, it's all an assumption that they will react, it's all an assumption that troops will be injured as a result of this.

I was fun acting like an idiot discussing portion sizes with Kirisute, but now I feel I have to step in.

David, these terrorists over there are very well informed. They have agents in the US government, agents in the English government, agents in your government, and agents in governments all over the world. I can tell you right now the government has found these types of spies before but don't release it to the public. It's just a common thing that everyone knows, but doesn't know. al-Queda and the extremists are not just idiots who live in a cave and eat rats and mice. They are a well funded, international terrorist organization, with cells in plenty of countries. They probably watch CNN and whatever other channel every day just like we do. I bet every time there's some sort of White House tour on TV, they watch it and map out every single piece of it that's shown on TV. They have people in the government on their payroll, who feed them information. As I previously said, they are not uninformed idiots.

 

[David]

Have they acted to the pastor's views? Have troops been injured as a result of the pastor? There is no substantial evidence to prove this. Troops have not been injured as a result of the pastor's actions, and so saying the pastor's actions "will" result in the troops being injured is clearly false.

The problem with assuming troops will be in danger is that if we view it from the opposing perspective that "if the media had not taken an active and passive role, troops would not be in danger" etc., this would be a fallacy in itself. Troops have not been injured, and so we can't view it from if the media had not been involved. So that suggests that if the media had not been involved, the current situation and assumptions would not have occurred.

I'm not saying terrorist organizations are not well informed, but you don't know that for sure, unless you are the inside man. You can only infer from what has happened in the "past", but you can't just say that they are well informed without actual evidence. Until I see the evidence, troops will not be in danger as a result from the pastor's actions; they will always be in danger from being in a danger zone, but not from the pastor's actions.

I could start a protest towards my Muslim friends right now. The media wouldn't care, and I don't think terrorist organizations would care either. I'm not being broadcast worldwide so you can't say that because I am showing hostility towards my Muslim friends will lead to terrorist groups harming the troops.

 

[katy perry is hot]

But again, how would it not further aggravate the terrorists? You're totally right, it will not just bring them into danger, because realistically, it's not like they aren't already in danger.. but it will certainly further aggravate the terrorists and insurgents in the middle east. If you think it won't, then you're crazy.

You're making some pretty brash statements here... I mean pretty much everything we do is based on the old saying "better safe than sorry" or "let's play it safe". I mean think about your logic here, you don't know for sure that you will die if you suddenly veer into oncoming traffic so you can arrive at work faster, so why not do it? You don't know for sure if you will die if you jump out of a building so you can get to the ground faster rather than using the stairs or elevator, so let's do it! You don't know for sure if you will gain weight by eating 10 cannoli and 5 hamburger tortellinis (sorry for the reference, but had to keep our discussion about food in here somewhere) so do it. That's what your logic is, just realize that.


I fully support your christian beliefs. I was baptized, I did my communion, and I believe there is some sort of god, but I am not going to sit here and say things like "islam is wrong because they don't believe _____" and say "I'm right Islam is wrong". Because truth is, we don't know which one of us is right. There is no historical evidences that either religion is right on these things. All we have is our book, and their book. If god thinks I am wrong, may he smite me right now and have me never log in and post another response here again. That's how it comes down to.

 

[David]

But again, how would it not further aggravate the terrorists? You're totally right, it will not just bring them into danger, because realistically, it's not like they aren't already in danger.. but it will certainly further aggravate the terrorists and insurgents in the middle east. If you think it won't, then you're crazy.

I said a few posts up, they will always be in danger, but an act by that pastor, by itself, isn't going to aggravate the terrorists, but with the media involved, they will. That's what I've been saying.

You're making some pretty brash statements here... I mean pretty much everything we do is based on the old saying "better safe than sorry" or "let's play it safe".

Um no, not everyone has the sense of impunity, at least I look at the possibility that the troops will not be directly harmed by the pastor's actions. Wouldn't you prefer to opt into the better, positive thought? I'm guessing not by your posts.

I mean think about your logic here, you don't know for sure that you will die if you suddenly veer into oncoming traffic so you can arrive at work faster, so why not do it? You don't know for sure if you will die if you jump out of a building so you can get to the ground faster rather than using the stairs or elevator, so let's do it! You don't know for sure if you will gain weight by eating 10 cannoli and 5 hamburger tortellinis (sorry for the reference, but had to keep our discussion about food in here somewhere) so do it. That's what your logic is, just realize that.

That's pathetic. I think you should realize that this event hasn't been publicly made before, so we can't assume what will happen. People have crashed or jumped out of buildings, so we can infer and expect what will happen. Any logical person would come to that understanding easily. "Just realize that".

I fully support your christian beliefs. I was baptized, I did my communion, and I believe there is some sort of god, but I am not going to sit here and say things like "islam is wrong because they don't believe _____" and say "I'm right Islam is wrong". Because truth is, we don't know which one of us is right. There is no historical evidences that either religion is right on these things. All we have is our book, and their book. If god thinks I am wrong, may he smite me right now and have me never log in and post another response here again. That's how it comes down to.

There are plenty of arguments to suggest that Islam is wrong (keyword: suggest). I could go through a whole list, but I will just mention a few:

1. the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is an inevitable fact, accepted by many New Testament scholars (eg. Jacob Kremer) who have dedicated their lives in search if Jesus was crucified. Sure many scholars may have been Christians, but inevitably, there is a general agreement that Jesus was crucified. The Qur'an disagrees with that and says Jesus was not crucified, therefore suggesting a historical flaw.
   
2. Jesus was the Son of God, as mentioned in the Bible by Jesus himself, written and recorded by witnesses, skeptics and unbelievers of the time. Of course I don't have a first hand account of this to back up my claim, but Islam doesn't as well, yet makes the claim that Jesus was just a prophet, not the Son of God. Basically, you're putting the evidence against the claim. Sure the evidence may have been altered, but it is consistent that Jesus was the Son of God in the Bible. The Qur'an disagrees. The Qur'an, written 600 years after the events with no first hand witnesses and the accounts in the Bible, by witnesses, within 40 years of the event are the two propositions put forward. Which one sounds historically correct?
   
3. God, in the Bible, is a loving God, who loves followers, and also loves those who aren't followers. He loves them because he knows people can change. This is undeniable in both religions. However, in the Qur'an, the Islamic God clearly loves followers, but shows hostility and hatred to unbelievers. If God is the most morally just being in the world, why does the Islamic God hate so much? What about respect to women? Why does God allow the mistreatment towards women? I'm not questioning the Islamic God, but if he is deemed as perfect and moral, why the hostility towards women, and especially continuing on today?

I'm not saying Christianity is better than Islam, but I am saying it offers and suggests the far better explanation, historically just explanations and morally better explanations, and therefore if you were to choose the best explanation, I'm sure Christianity appeals more.

 

[Cosmic]

Wow, Islam is suuuuuch a peaceful religion. Death threats are given every time someone draws Mohammed or burns Korans, but they're just radical extremists. them pesky Christians are peaceful - all they do is worship some zombie thing. They are all dirty Christians and dirty Jews, because they are. Muslims are sooo nice and sooo peaceful. :roll:

Imma change mah name to machmood auchmed al shabaz. Imma be peaceful cuz dat. Immza be racial discrimanated cuz iz a bez brown nawt white cuz a KKK nd white spremcist george bush.

 

[Gimgak]

Cosmic, are you a member of stormfront?

 

[Nuke]

LOL COSMIC.

90% of Islam supports Islamic terror, as stated in the GZ Mosque topic. How about we inject all the terrorists and stealth terrorists trying to make Sharia with pig blood (Sentence for them to burn in hell for all eternity) and use Korans to burn them alive on GZ? YEAAAAAHHHHH!

My Jewish friend had that idea.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

The shit you believe is laughable.

 

[katy perry is hot]

LOL COSMIC.

90% of Islam supports Islamic terror, as stated in the GZ Mosque topic. How about we inject all the terrorists and stealth terrorists trying to make Sharia with pig blood (Sentence for them to burn in hell for all eternity) and use Korans to burn them alive on GZ? YEAAAAAHHHHH!

My Jewish friend had that idea.

What the fuck are you talking about? Where the fuck is your statistic that 90% of Islam supports terror?

 

[Gimgak]

LOL COSMIC.

90% of Islam supports Islamic terror, as stated in the GZ Mosque topic. How about we inject all the terrorists and stealth terrorists trying to make Sharia with pig blood (Sentence for them to burn in hell for all eternity) and use Korans to burn them alive on GZ? YEAAAAAHHHHH!

My Jewish friend had that idea.

Another wonderful, potential stormfront member. It brings such joy to see these wonderful users on FP.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

LOL COSMIC.

90% of Islam supports Islamic terror, as stated in the GZ Mosque topic. How about we inject all the terrorists and stealth terrorists trying to make Sharia with pig blood (Sentence for them to burn in hell for all eternity) and use Korans to burn them alive on GZ? YEAAAAAHHHHH!

My Jewish friend had that idea.

Another wonderful, potential stormfront member. It brings such joy to see these wonderful users on FP.

They're no better/worse than the NAACP.

 

[Gimgak]

So the NAACP believes that all white people should be shipped out to Afrika, and that the holocaust was caused by Jews?

You learn something new every day.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

No, but both promote hate. I'm against black hate and white hate (and all other hate).