Don't put words in my mouth Umar. Never in my posts did I say all muslims were terrorists nor did I ever suggest you were a terrorist. You made up those claims based on your own low level of intelligence and poor analytical skills.
Is your world really that binary? The only possible states of being are 1) terrorist sympathizer or 2) burner of the Muslim holy book? Really?
I never said you said anything, nor did I make any claims that you suggested I was a terrorist. I said "I guess" - note the use of the first person singular personal pronoun. "I" and "you" are two completely separate words, dear child. I fear that your poor analytical skills are getting the better of you.
No, because there is only one person talking about burning korans that has made worldwide news. Therefore, there are more points of views. There are those who support the burning of the koran even though they themselves aren't actually doing the burning. There are those who truly value the freedom of speech and favor the preacher burn the koran if he wishes (Umar). I for the record don't want to see the koran burned nor do I want to see the islamic center built in the currently proposed location. Although the preacher may have some screws loose, he has the balls to stand up for what he believes in. As a result, Donald Trump has come out of the woodwork and offered a viable solution to the escalating problem by offering to buy out the islamic center investors at 125%.
I just like the fact that I can see my opponents for what they are, instead of what they claim to be. It's a refreshing change.
You were suggesting that I believed you were a terrorist just because you are muslim, which is entirely false. Anyone can read the previous posts and agree with me on that. I know you've lost your temper and logic because you've resulted to name calling because you've failed to prove your argument.
Forgive me, it is just impossible to pass up a USA 2 Mexico 0 themed post. And sorry we've met? It must have been on the corner of Smartass and Dumbfukc.
If you like to object to everything I say, then that sounds familiar. "I say the sky is blue. They say NO. I say there's fish in the sea. They say NO."
Oh, I see. What you are saying is that it is possible to look beyond the literal use of language by a poster, and come to a conclusion about their views, without them having expressly stated their position on a particular topic. For example, hypothetically speaking, if someone (lets call this someone "Timon") supports the rights of a moderate mosque Imam who happens to be a Muslim, and is called a terrorist sympathiser by another poster (for arguments sake, lets call the other poster "Mexigol"), then it's fair to assume that the second poster is insinuating that moderate Muslims are terrorists, despite him never using those actual words. Thank you for educating me about how insinuations work, I've learned alot
I have it Mexico 5 USA 0. Wait that's not really fair though, it's the Z team. You have a poor, poor memory sir, very poor.
Consider yourself fortunate to have not waded into the California high speed rail thread. The score of that one was B.S.-200 MexiGol-0, but boy, he sure didn't give up....
Ok, for the sake of argument. Lets say that there is intelligence that tells us that if a video of an American preacher burning the Koran is circulated in Muslim countries, it would indeed incite radicals to use violence against Americans. Lets assume that the evidence is credible. So, lets say we agree to give the government the power to interfere with the preacher's rights and forbid him from burning the Koran. Now lets say the preacher or some of his followers defy the government order, and burn some copies of the Koran anyway. And lets say CNN obtains exclusive footage of the event. Would you also say, by the same argument, that just as you gave the government the right to forbid the preacher from burning the Koran, the government would also have the right to interfere with CNN, and forbid CNN from releasing the video that shows the burning of the Koran? Would the government also have the right to confiscate the video as a matter of national security? How far do we allow the government go, to interfere with our rights in order to protect us? Where do you stop?
Nice try by changing the subject from you suggesting I believed you were a terrorist just because you were muslim. You know you put words in my mouth. You assume too much Umar. I never suggested in the fashion that you suggested by saying, "I guess all moderate muslims are terrorits". I am not alone in thinking the building of an islamic center near ground zero is extremely distasteful. I'm actually in the majority here. You're welcome. I'll always happy to offer you more lessons. Next lesson will be "How to remember what I previously posted". Invite your friend Vfish too.
Forget this, how about erroneous reports about Qurans in toilets like those published by Newsweek? Are we going to shut down the media because 90% are left wing dolts? No.
I'm not a fan of direct government intervention into what seems to be a "protest" covered under 1st amendment rights. But there's 2 effective "indirect" means I can think of. 1) Send Joe Biden down there to watch (lousy job, but time to earn your salary, buddy). For "security reasons", implement a half-mile security zone around there. No cameras. No cellphones. Burn all you want, Pastor McBurnyButt - there won't be any cameras to report it. 2) Apply indirect pressure to news organizations for this or similar events. CNN wants to show a Koran burning? Go right ahead. But welcome to the shitlist - say goodbye to your presidential press conference seat, and wave goodbye to any meaningful access to the white house. I'm guessing your top editor would kill any story on Koran burning if it puts his organization at a competitive disadvantage.
3) Deny their burn permit due to the dry conditions, then arrest them and extinguish the burning books when they violate it. Crazies thwarted using existing laws, no federal intervention required, and Muslims around the world get to see us dealing with our own extremists. Oh, and Smokey the Bear breathes a sigh of relief.
Oh, that's highly... insignificant. Treacher puts it best: "Terry Jones went to school with Rush Limbaugh, which explains it all. Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church for decades, which explains nothing."
Interesting, but I'm not sure it passes the sniff test. I don't think Florida has ever had any "dry conditions", and unfortunately, there's no hurricane/tropical storm available to douse cigarette smokers, much less a book burning. But that's a decent idea for the american west. Of course, there's always option #4 - security lockdown. Considering the extensive buildup and the negative publicity in the muslim world, an uberhyped burning of a Koran is a prime target for islamic terrorists. Islamic radicals might just show up and blow things up. That's a definite safety danger. News cameras? Didn't the taliban hide an explosive device in a big news camera, interviewed a powerful afghan warlord, and blew the place up? Why yes they did. So sorry - no news cameras allowed. And that reminds me - didn't an AQ suicide bomber hide some C4 up his ass, interview a Saudi royal family member, and then let the shit hit the fan (literally)? Why yes - that happened too. (Big Airlines that make us take off our shoes squashed that story toot suite) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8276016.stm So we gotta be careful. The local police and FBI can setup fences, keep out any cameras, and pull out the latex gloves& give an extensively thorough cavity search to anyone who comes within 200 yards of the church on 9/11. Pastor included. If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to complain about a legitimate anal probing for security reasons. Burn some more next week - latex gloves are cheaper than Korans. The more I think about it, the more I like option 4. And it definitely passes the constitutional sniff test (as long as you don't go near the biohazard bins containing used latex gloves)