If this pastor is going to put Mohammed on trial, then he should summon Osama bin-Laden to the hearing. Wouldn't that be a hoot if bin-Laden was devout enough to show up to defend his faith!

Talk about egg on the gov't's face--all that money looking for him, only to find out how easy it was to find him.

If he wants to summon OBL he better rent an excavator & head over to Tora Bora

I doubt that the government has any problem finding him either.

Knowing OBL & how he was does anyone really believe he would have been silent all these years? Especially now with all that is going on in the Middle East?

There is only one reason the legend? is kept alive.

If this pastor is going to put Mohammed on trial, then he should summon Osama bin-Laden to the hearing. Wouldn't that be a hoot if bin-Laden was devout enough to show up to defend his faith!

Talk about egg on the gov't's face--all that money looking for him, only to find out how easy it was to find him.

If he wants to summon OBL he better rent an excavator & head over to Tora Bora

I doubt that the government has any problem finding him either.

Knowing OBL & how he was does anyone really believe he would have been silent all these years? Especially now with all that is going on in the Middle East?

There is only one reason the legend? is kept alive.

I agree. With his ego no way he would stay silent so long. What about his #2, Zawahiri? Is that his name? It's been so long I can't remember. Being Egyptian, he must have made some comments on the situation there?

I agree. With his ego no way he would stay silent so long. What about his #2, Zawahiri? Is that his name? It's been so long I can't remember. Being Egyptian, he must have made some comments on the situation there?

I think he was considered dead since 2005-06... & yes that was his name

I have never heard anything about him since...

There was some news about Zawahiri's brother being arrested or re-arrested in Egypt a few days ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/egypt-re-arrests-zawahiri-s-brother-two-days-after-freeing-him.html

If this pastor is going to put Mohammed on trial, then he should summon Osama bin-Laden to the hearing. Wouldn't that be a hoot if bin-Laden was devout enough to show up to defend his faith!

Talk about egg on the gov't's face--all that money looking for him, only to find out how easy it was to find him.

If he wants to summon OBL he better rent an excavator & head over to Tora Bora

I doubt that the government has any problem finding him either.

Knowing OBL & how he was does anyone really believe he would have been silent all these years? Especially now with all that is going on in the Middle East?

There is only one reason the legend? is kept alive.

I agree. With his ego no way he would stay silent so long. What about his #2, Zawahiri? Is that his name? It's been so long I can't remember. Being Egyptian, he must have made some comments on the situation there?

there is no doubt that bin-Laden is dead. the [then] Leader of the Free World™ personally smoked him and his followers out of their caves and stated "mission accomplished".

Don't get carried away. I'm not talking about censorship or burning all editions of a book. If I want to burn the Koran or the phone book that should be my individual right - as long as I don't violate any fire codes in the process.

I'm with you in part, but tell me how you feel about flag burners. I don't mean how you feel about their right to burn the Stars & Stripes, but how would you feel at the (supposed) affront?

If you don't give a dam_n...that's fine....but can you understand how some US patriots are very offended by the act of flag burning?

I don't like flag burners but it's their right. There isn't a law against it just as there is no law against burning a book. Just because there aren't laws against either doesn't mean you have to have a favourable opinion of those who do it.

Here's my favorite flag burner:

Ok.....you don't like flag burners...you even go so far as to promote the credit card ad parody which calls a flag burner an asshol_e, assumes he's a terrorist, and infers he deserves to burn.

I daresay that sacriledge would be considered by some as much more hienous than political symbolism.

Why are Muslims not to be enraged when their holy book is disrespected?

Ok.....you don't like flag burners...you even go so far as to promote the credit card ad parody which calls a flag burner an asshol_e, assumes he's a terrorist, and infers he deserves to burn.

I daresay that sacriledge would be considered by some as much more hienous than political symbolism.

Why are Muslims not to be enraged when their holy book is disrespected?

1) If someone goes out in a crowd, starts squirting gasoline around then lights it, I hope they get burned no matter what their religious background or political affiliation. This dumbass in Paklistan just got caught on film. I bet his own friends are still laughing to this day - unless a drone has already taken them out of the picture. It's a better bet one of his own feloow Muslims did it though.

2) Sacriledge? Funny how when Christians are offended then God is as real as the Easter Bunny. But when a Muslim gets offended all of a sudden it is sacriledge. FYI - they worship the same god.

3) Muslims can be enraged but that doesn't give them the right to go around killing people. Many millions were "enraged" over flag burning in America but no one has been killed over it.

there is no doubt that bin-Laden is dead. the [then] Leader of the Free World™ personally smoked him and his followers out of their caves and stated "mission accomplished".

Oout of curiousity, on a scale of 1 to 10, with ten being the highest, what do you rate your own wit?

btw - "Mission Accomplished" was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That was accomlished in 3 weeks. Not quite a blitzkrieg but still pretty quick.

I'm sorry to hear about the legal state in the US. Apparently, it is not a mature democracy. In my country, anybody who proposes hatred against any group (religious or otherwise) will stand trial. Period. It does not matter what religion he belongs to himself, and if it is a religion (or sect) that preaches hatred, it will be outlawed too.

Hatred is not a right protected under the theory of democracy or the freedom of speech, nor is it protectable as a religion.Never mind whether it is propagated under the umbrella of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion that is abused for the purpose.

Which part of Far Far Away land are you from? I doubt there is a country on the planet that would put a Muslim on trial for religious intolerance.

Nor is there is any country who would put the authors of the Bible on trial for religious intolerance or racism. Point in case:

5 Mose 20, verse 16-18, King James version:

¹⁶But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

¹⁷But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: ¹⁸That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

I still think this pastor, while not violating his religion (as proven above) violates the principles of democracy and freedom of religion. He can have his religion, whatever he wants, as long as he does not harm other people's beliefs. On the other hand, why should he be respected for his views if he does not respect others'?

I think I'd better stay out of religious discussions, but this is a political question. How much intolerance can be tolerated?

Are you suggesting we be intolerant of intolerance?

In the US people are free to hate whom they want. They aren't allowed to act on that hatred toward others. A group of Muslims are more than welcome to protest in front of his church. They can burn Bibles if they want.

Are you suggesting we be intolerant of intolerance?

I am, to a degree. As with everything, I am against extremes. Extremely so, I might add.

In the US people are free to hate whom they want.

I am sorry to hear that.

They aren't allowed to act on that hatred toward others.

This pastor is.

A group of Muslims are more than welcome to protest in front of his church. They can burn Bibles if they want.

With the gun laws in place in the US, I don't think that would be a smart move.

I don't recall any Muslims being killed or any riots taking place when the following incidents took place.

Rather strange, huh?

_______________________________________________________

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan

May 22, 2009 -- Updated 0624 GMT (1424 HKT)

(CNN) -- 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 unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.

Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation, Wright said.

"The decision was made that it was a 'force protection' measure to throw them away, because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," Wright told CNN on Tuesday.

For the rest of the story... http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/

I don't recall any Muslims being killed or any riots taking place when the following incidents took place.

Rather strange, huh?

_______________________________________________________

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan

May 22, 2009 -- Updated 0624 GMT (1424 HKT)

(CNN) -- 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 unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.

Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation, Wright said.

"The decision was made that it was a 'force protection' measure to throw them away, because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," Wright told CNN on Tuesday.

For the rest of the story... http://edition.cnn.c....bibles.burned/

Silly counter...... It was the US that did the burning. Why would fanatical Christians want to kill Muslims over that?

there is no doubt that bin-Laden is dead. the [then] Leader of the Free World™ personally smoked him and his followers out of their caves and stated "mission accomplished".

Oout of curiousity, on a scale of 1 to 10, with ten being the highest, what do you rate your own wit?

btw - "Mission Accomplished" was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That was accomlished in 3 weeks. Not quite a blitzkrieg but still pretty quick.

you mean the Leader of the Free World™ did not smoke them out of their caves?

to satisfy your curiosity... i don't need your history lessons. i knew bloody well when and where the ridiculous statement "mission accomplished" was made. ridiculous, because nothing was accomplished with "Mission Iraqi Freedom" (aka "he wanted to kill my Daddy!"). the same applies to all "operations" and "missions" as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

in Texas they'd say "big hats, no cattle!"

there is no doubt that bin-Laden is dead. the [then] Leader of the Free World™ personally smoked him and his followers out of their caves and stated "mission accomplished".

Oout of curiousity, on a scale of 1 to 10, with ten being the highest, what do you rate your own wit?

btw - "Mission Accomplished" was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That was accomlished in 3 weeks. Not quite a blitzkrieg but still pretty quick.

you mean the Leader of the Free World™ did not smoke them out of their caves?

to satisfy your curiosity... i don't need your history lessons. i knew bloody well when and where the ridiculous statement "mission accomplished" was made. ridiculous, because nothing was accomplished with "Mission Iraqi Freedom" (aka "he wanted to kill my Daddy!"). the same applies to all "operations" and "missions" as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

in Texas they'd say "big hats, no cattle!"

You like to hide your ignorance of historical events behind a very thin sheet of what you presume to be wit. That leads to others feeling compelled to set the record straight and we inevitably get led off topic.

there is no doubt that bin-Laden is dead. the [then] Leader of the Free World™ personally smoked him and his followers out of their caves and stated "mission accomplished".

Oout of curiousity, on a scale of 1 to 10, with ten being the highest, what do you rate your own wit?

btw - "Mission Accomplished" was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That was accomlished in 3 weeks. Not quite a blitzkrieg but still pretty quick.

I'd give him a 9 at times.

0 - 1. Low to high range.

Texans would say...all hat, no cattle. Even the folks in Georgetown would not say...big hats, no cattle.

The latest on the lunatic.

______________________________________________________

’400 Death Threats’ Follow Koran-Burning Preacher To OC

April 6, 2011 10:08 AM

SANTA ANA (CBS) — A Florida pastor blamed for inciting unrest in Afghanistan by burning a Koran was in town on Wednesday to appear on Truth TV, an Arabic language Christian network.

Rev. Terry Jones told reporters he had no plans to burn any more Korans upon his arrival at LAX on Tuesday night, but that he may hold another mock trial for the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

“We’ve had about 400 death threats,” he said, adding that Hezbolla, the Shia Muslim militant group, had put out a “reward out on my head for $2.4 million.”

More here... http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/06/400-death-threats-follow-koran-burning-preacher-to-oc/

You like to hide your ignorance of historical events behind a very thin sheet of what you presume to be wit.

VERY thin. 0 - 1 on a good day.

Tombkk: My personal feelings are similar to yours, however, the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights and the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Burning books and Flags are among those freedoms. Personally, I find both offensive, but I find it scary to have those rights removed.

Burning a book does not injure anyone. It may offend, but there would be very few liberties if it everything that offended someone was prohibited. Roughly speaking, the pastors right to burn the Koran is the same right that the Muslims have to build a Mosque near Ground Zero.

Exactly. Right on.

Are you suggesting we be intolerant of intolerance?

In the US people are free to hate whom they want. They aren't allowed to act on that hatred toward others. A group of Muslims are more than welcome to protest in front of his church. They can burn Bibles if they want.

In the US, Hate Speech is not against the law except in cases where said speech is intended to incite violent acts. There is legislation proposed that would widen the definition and who might be charged. While it isn't pretty I'm pretty much in favor of hows things stand now, balancing various freedoms. I'd hate to think what might come next if it were too widely broadened. "Hate Think" would be next on the agenda I suppose.

Are you suggesting we be intolerant of intolerance?

In the US people are free to hate whom they want. They aren't allowed to act on that hatred toward others. A group of Muslims are more than welcome to protest in front of his church. They can burn Bibles if they want.

In the US, Hate Speech is not against the law except in cases where said speech is intended to incite violent acts. There is legislation proposed that would widen the definition and who might be charged. While it isn't pretty I'm pretty much in favor of hows things stand now, balancing various freedoms. I'd hate to think what might come next if it were too widely broadened. "Hate Think" would be next on the agenda I suppose.

There is legislation that states hate 'crimes' are a Federal offense, but not hate speech.

This law, signed by Barack Obama, seems to protect every class of citizen except the straight, White, Anglo Saxon, Protestant male.

White, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, Straight Males are also protected, provided the prosecutors can show that someone was targeted for a violent hate crime simple because they were White, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, Straight Males.

But your point is taken and it is arguably valid (as were the people who didn't get jobs because of affirmative action).

So will the US be better off it doesn't allow burning the Koran (or Bible), but you can burn "Catcher in the Rye", for example? Perhaps we should ban burning the US Flag, and The Union Jack, because they are close ally's, but it's OK to burn the Cuban Flag and maybe the French? Perhaps Congress could vote weekly on what freedoms US citizens can express.

White, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, Straight Males are also protected, provided the prosecutors can show that someone was targeted for a violent hate crime simple because they were White, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, Straight Males.

But your point is taken and it is arguably valid (as were the people who didn't get jobs because of affirmative action).

So will the US be better off it doesn't allow burning the Koran (or Bible), but you can burn "Catcher in the Rye", for example? Perhaps we should ban burning the US Flag, and The Union Jack, because they are close ally's, but it's OK to burn the Cuban Flag and maybe the French? Perhaps Congress could vote weekly on what freedoms US citizens can express.

We already have a document for the freedoms of citizens. It is called the Constitution.

It seems that some posters think it should be thrown out the window.

The Danes seemed to have had a few problems with some cartoons they published as well. Should those be outlawed as well?

And then there is the South Park cartoon show. Another one that should be banned?

Tombkk: My personal feelings are similar to yours, however, the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights and the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Burning books and Flags are among those freedoms. Personally, I find both offensive, but I find it scary to have those rights removed.

Burning a book does not injure anyone. It may offend, but there would be very few liberties if it everything that offended someone was prohibited. Roughly speaking, the pastors right to burn the Koran is the same right that the Muslims have to build a Mosque near Ground Zero.

Thanks for your opinion. You are entitled to it. I am not a US citizen and should not even be discussing any interpretations of your Constitution. This man is a US citizen acting in the US, so it is a domestic issue.

Well, is it? Apparently, there were riots in Afghanistan over his words, and people got harmed. I must be missing something about the ideas of the "Land of the Free".

In fact, I think this pastor is just grabbing for attention and does not care whether or how many people get hurt. And I am surprised that the Constitution of the "Land of the Free" allows him to do that. But then, that's your domestic issue again, isn't it.

Exactly. Right on.

You were against the building of the mosque at ground zero because you considered it "religious provocation". You concede the right, but feel that the mosque should not be built because it is deliberate provocation.

Are you saying that Jones was not being provocative?

You like to hide your ignorance of historical events behind a very thin sheet of what you presume to be wit.

VERY thin. 0 - 1 on a good day.

good to hear from you UG. i was getting worried. what took you so long?

Exactly. Right on.

You were against the building of the mosque at ground zero because you considered it "religious provocation". You concede the right, but feel that the mosque should not be built because it is deliberate provocation.

Are you saying that Jones was not being provocative?

I think that Jones is a raving idiot, but he has as much right to his stupid opinion as the mosque Imam does. However, neither one should have done what they did IMHO and I would have been happy if both were prevented by legal means from doing so.

You like to hide your ignorance of historical events behind a very thin sheet of what you presume to be wit.

VERY thin. 0 - 1 on a good day.

good to hear from you UG. i was getting worried. what took you so long?

A kindly mod felt that I could use a few days of rest and relaxation.