It Doesn't Get Any Clearer Than That: "Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war"

Here's what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said today about Florida pastor Terry Jones' burning of a Koran, which has been used an excuse by Afghanis to murder 22 people, including seven United Nations workers:

I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy.

More politician condemnations of Jones here.

You know what? We're always going to be in a war, thanks in no small part to the Lindsey Grahams of the world. Which means if we truly value our free speech, we're gonna have to bounce out every politician who subjects American expression to a wartime litmus test. Better yet, maybe start electing some who at least occasionally refrain from supporting new wars against majority-Muslim countries that have yet to make it through a Reformation.

Because when we have a political class as routinely venal as Lindsey Graham—or Time's Joe Klein, who really did write that "Jones's act was murderous as any suicide bomber's"—that means that war-inspired censorship is always just a shout away.

I wrote against "incitement" in the April issue of Reason.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Robert||

    What, like during World War 2 they were afraid that certain things said would make enemies even enemier?

  • Almanian||

    The evildoers will become more evildoerlierest. Or something.

  • BURN MEIN KAMPF!||

  • Crusader||

    The burning was about Islam, not Afghanistan. Who does that make the enemy in this war for which we must abrogate our Constitutional protections, Lindsey? Go ahead and spell it out, girl's name.

  • This Dave||

    If a bible was burned by Muslims, no one in this country or Europe would die. No matter what else is said about this whole affair, that's all that matters. Everything else is bullshit to pretend certain truths are not truths. Deal with it Muslims.

  • 4chan||

    I bet some Christians in Africa or Asia would go apeshit.?

  • Southerner||

    Nope. They'd just say "What a dick!" and get on with their lives.

  • Amateur Sociologist||

    Or maybe "forgive them Father for they know not what they do".

  • ||

    Mohammed loved to hose young girls. Pass it on.

  • TomB||

    Nope. When the Palistinians took over the Church of the Holy Sepulchre a few years back, they used the Bible as toilet paper and completely trashed the place. How many fundamentalist christian sects rampaged around beheading any muslim they could find? None.

  • Toe Nee||

    No they would!!!
    Seriously they would!!!
    Radical Christians are a threat to us all!!!
    They protest impertinent issues outside funerals using gay-colored signs!!!!
    Duh! Threat!

  • TMLutas||

    I believe that it is current govt policy to burn seized Bibles and other christian items that are caught by Saudi authorities so even the more benighted parts of the christian world aren't regularly rioting over this sort of thing.

  • ||

    Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition either...

  • JoshINHB||

    What, like during World War 2 they were afraid that certain things said would make enemies even enemier?

    Yes, the progressives proposed the NAZI respect act, but were blocked by venal republicans, leading directly to the holocaust.

    So now you know who really killed the Jews.

  • ||

    +1

  • cynical||

    "Jews are alright, I guess."

    You bastard! You just made the Nazis want to fight even harder!

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Graham is, of course, not indicating the size of his penis in the photo.

  • Robert||

    No, just the size of his penis outside of photos.

  • .||

    I thought he was indicating the size of his brain, but on second thought it is probably much smaller than that.

  • Rrabbit||

    Surely he was indication the combined size of his penis and his brain.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In a sane and just world, Lindsey Graham would be stripped nude, pilloried, and then raped by a donkey. Afterwards, he would then be led by a leash to a public square where he would have boiling pitch poured over him. He, or his corpse if he didn't survive the last part, would be rolled around in a gravel pit.

  • ||

    Geeze man that's brutal, what did that donkey ever do to you?

  • ||

    In a Muslim world, Lindsey Graham would be stripped nude, pilloried, and then raped by a donkey. Afterwards, he would then be led by a leash to a public square where he would have boiling pitch poured over him. He, or his corpse if he didn't survive the last part, would be rolled around in a gravel pit.

  • Almanian||

    Herioc, why do you hate donkeys?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    One drunken night in Tijuana, Almanian...one drunken night.

  • ||

    :) Epic lulz!

  • Hugh Akston||

    I assume the same punishment waits for people who burns copies of Harry Potter?

  • Hobie Hanson||

    reported

  • Warty||

    You are dumber than a steaming pile of horseshit, Dan. You know that. Does it constantly hurt to know how dumb you are, or do you just try not to think about it?

  • ||

    You presuppose the ability to think.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    This isn't World of Warcraft, you know.

  • Snobbit||

    I really like the donkey part, gotta remember that one.

  • Carol||

    Why do you want to reward Graham?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I had no idea Graham was an Onophile.

  • Carol||

    Geez, first donkeys and now Yoko? I can't keep up with you guys.

  • Almanian||

    "You like this"

    Yes, I do, t-shirt saleslady. Yes, I do.

  • Achtung Baby||

    Relax, I'm sure Obama is just restricting our freedom of speech to appeal to the mouth-breakers in the red states.

  • ||

    What's a mouth breaker?

  • Vinnie||

    Dat would be me.

  • ||

    So if you oppose the afgan war and by Burning Korans it hastens our retreat.....

    ...Wouldn't it be wise to burn Korans?

  • ||

    Apparently Sen. Graham is referring to the 1942 federal law against burning copies of Mein Kampf, lest Nazis start killing people in retaliation.

  • Almanian||

    YOU KNOW WHO ELSE WANTED TO BAN THE BURNING OF MEIN KAMPF!!!!!!???

  • Smokey the Nazi Bear||

    ONLY THE ARYANS CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES AND RACE CONTAMINATION

  • BURN MEIN KAMPF!||

    another copy

  • Nipplemancer||

    Charles Lindbergh?

  • Butts Wagner||

    National Socialism is the religion of peace.

  • Sleeping Dog||

    AFTER they've killed everyone off and have nothing else to kill, then TECHNICALLY you could call it "peaceful" but that's only because a graveyard is about as peaceful as it gets...

  • Sophist||

    The phrase you're looking for is "they make a desert and call it peace".

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Apparently Sen. Graham is referring to the 1942 federal law against burning copies of Mein Kampf, lest Nazis start killing people in retaliation.


    What was the text of this law? Where can I find it in the law books?

  • Xenocles||

    It's kept in the Sarcastic Law Archives at 123 Fake Street.

  • Nipplemancer||

    that sure is a big butt you've got there Sen. Graham.

  • MNG||

    This story about the riots in Afghanistan has been bothering me since I heard it. The US has, rightly or wrongly, spent hundreds of lives and billions of dollars trying to free those people from a tyrannical, Stone Age theocracy. This guy in Florida didn't harm any muslim at all, he simply burnt a book. What he did was silly and in poor taste but in any free and sane nation people can do silly things in poor taste and people do not riot and kill over it.

    I remember recently when Karzid got Gates to apologize for the accidental killing of several Afghanis by American forces. After what his people did to those UN workers and others over something like this he should have to get on his hands and knees and beg forgivness, and Gates should kick him in his ass when he does.

    This burns me up I tell you.

    And Lindsey Graham is a total fool for saying these things.

  • MNG||

    Also, all these people running around telling us "Islam is a religion of peace" and wailing about their faith being mischaracterized should be out screamingly denouncing these medieval nuts. If any one of them spends even 1/100th of the time criticizing the pastor that they do these murderous, rioting cretins then I don't ever want to hear their bitching again.

  • JoshINHB||

    That's not very progressive of you.

  • MNG||

    There's very little progressive about the current state of Islam in backwaters like Afghanistant apparently.

    Any "fellow progressive" who worries about "theocons" here in the US trying to put a creche in a park but can't muster outrage at this sort of thing can kiss my ass.

  • Ming, you're on a roll...||

    Say it loud!

  • Is that an N or a W?||

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's just what I thought!

  • MWG||

    Not me.

  • ||

    Also, all these people running around telling us "Islam is a religion of peace" and wailing about their faith being mischaracterized should be out screamingly denouncing these medieval nuts.

    Please explain why Muslims, alone among all large, diverse groups of people, have a responsibility to denounce their fellow group members.

  • MNG||

    Because they are doing this kind of thing in the name of their religion. It seems to be amazingly common place in many parts of the world. You don't get to bitch about your group being looked on unkindly when it becomes common for members of your group to act like this, especially if you cannot find the time and effort to denounce that but you can find much more time and effort to denounce the being looked on unkindly.

  • ||

    Anyone who looks unkindly on an American Muslim because of the actions of loonies halfway across the world who claim to profess the same religion, is a fucking ignorant bigot and deserves no consideration and no apologies.

    Do you disagree with this, MNG?

  • MNG||

    It would be wrong to condemn all Muslims, yes. But I sure as shit can condemn the ones that did the rioting, and I sure as shit can condemn any who have more words of denounciation for Pastor Jones than they do these murderous backwards thugs.

  • ||

    That's not what you were talking about before, so it's good to see you've moderated your opinion.

    However, in no way is giving undue balance in one's complaining even comparable to murder, so it's kind of bizarre that you keep pairing them together as if they were comparable.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Don't worry about it. Tulpa always gets touchy on this subject. He doesn't even see your argument (ie Muslims should condemn this and stop bitching about being suspect) rather he projects his own fear (he's and anti-Muslim bigot!)

  • This Dave||

    Anyone who says Muslims are violent intolerant savages deserves to be beheaded*.

    *Sounds silly in this context, but it's real life over there.

  • JoshINHB||

    Because they feel compelled to go on murderous rampages every time they imagine that their honor has been insulted.

  • ||

    Which group of people are you referring to by "they".

    With all this fucking collectivism, I would think I was at DailyKos.

  • JoshINHB||

    Which group of people are you referring to by "they".

    Maybe I'm referring the the murderous rampages by outraged Mormons, or Catholics, or Buddhists, or Sikhs, or Republicans or Communists...

    Except that there is only one group that habitually murders innocent civilians to avenge an insult half a world away, and it ain't none of the ones I mentioned.

  • .||

    Touche!

  • ||

    Oh, I know, you're referring to the group of monotheists. I don't understand why those monotheists don't condemn their fellow monotheists who kill in the name of monotheism from the rooftops.

  • ||

    Damn those murderous [insert large category here]!

  • ||

    "I don't understand why those monotheists don't condemn their fellow monotheists"

    Yeah, cause it's atheists condemning Islam, not those monotheistic Christians who can't be bothered condemning Islam...

    Wait, what?

  • Episiotomy||

    Except that there is only one group that habitually murders innocent civilians to avenge an insult half a world away, and it ain't none of the ones I mentioned.

    American Presidents?

  • sevo||

    "Please explain why Muslims, alone among all large, diverse groups of people, have a responsibility to denounce their fellow group members."

    AFAIK, no Muslim has a "responsibility" to do so.
    However, if Islam is the 'religion of peace', you'd think some of the people who are bleevers in that particular superstition would raise a stink when others claiming the same bleef acted as if it was the 'religion of murder'.
    None do so.

  • ||

    None do so.

    Bullshit.

  • sevo||

    "Bullshit."

    Cite missing.

  • ||

    If you want to make another being perform on your command, go to SeaWorld.

  • sevo||

    "If you want to make another being perform on your command, go to SeaWorld."

    If you want to make stupid claims without backing them up, please be awarded the 'stupid claim' award.

  • ||

    sevo, you're claiming that no Muslim anywhere has condemned the actions of any Islamic terrorists, ever.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|4.3.11 @ 11:38PM|#
    "sevo, you're claiming that no Muslim anywhere has condemned the actions of any Islamic terrorists, ever."

    I never made that claim. I pointed out that I haven't seen any. You claimed: "Bullshit".
    OK, let's see 'em.

  • ||

    I never made that claim. I pointed out that I haven't seen any.

    This is the part of the show where sevo wishes there were an edit button on his posts.

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|4.3.11 @ 11:49PM|#
    "I never made that claim. I pointed out that I haven't seen any.

    This is the part of the show where sevo wishes there were an edit button on his posts."

    This is the part where Tulpa admits his bullshit, is, well, bullshit.
    Right, Tulpa?
    Show it or shut up.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is the part where Tulpa admits his bullshit

    Don't hold your breath.

  • ||

    ""However, if Islam is the 'religion of peace', you'd think some of the people who are bleevers in that particular superstition would raise a stink when others claiming the same bleef acted as if it was the 'religion of murder'.
    None do so.""

    Sevo, your claim is that "no do so" and you did not say that you "have not seen", you clearly said "none do" and that is incorrect.

  • rather ||

    Extraordinary claims require singular acumen or common denseness.

  • ||

    sevo|4.3.11 @ 11:20PM|#|
    However, if Islam is the 'religion of peace', you'd think some of the people who are bleevers in that particular superstition would raise a stink when others claiming the same bleef acted as if it was the 'religion of murder'.
    None do so.

    sevo loses.

  • This Dave||

    Let's see riots this week against those who would riot over Koran burnings.

    Never gonna happen.

  • ||

    We mustn't dwell on the past... Let's not get technical about who made a dramatic allegation and then denied saying it within a half hour's time.

  • ||

  • ||

  • ||

    I've been denouncing the irish catholics for years. Granted I was drunk and looking for a fight, but I've done my part.

  • ||

    Karzai has nothing to do with the murders in the UN compound. Not so for Mr Gates (and moreso Mr Obama) and Afghan civilian deaths which happen as a direct result of the military actions they order.

    I know it's tough for leftists to get the hang of, but try to resist the urge to collectivize guilt.

  • MNG||

    If Karzai can be outraged over the accidental killing of his citizens by well-intentioned solidiers risking their lives for his nation then he better be 10 times as outraged when his fellow murderous thuggish citizens riot and kill people trying to help them over the burning of a single book half a world away.

  • ||

    Absolutely, he should be outraged at the people who committed the murders and they should be executed.

    That doesn't mean he needs to apologize to the US brass and be OK with our sloppy, careless targeting killing his citizens, which is what you're claiming.

  • MNG||

    Both Afghan and international news media had initially played down or ignored the actions of Mr. Jones, the Florida pastor. On Thursday, however, President Karzai made a speech and issued statements condemning the Koran burning and calling for the arrest of Mr. Jones for his actions. On Friday, that theme was picked up in mosques throughout Afghanistan.

    “Karzai brought this issue back to life, and he has to take some responsibility for starting this up,” said a prominent Afghan businessman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution if he was identified as a critic of the president.

    “Karzai’s speech itself provoked people to take such actions,” said Qayum Baabak, a political analyst in Mazar-i-Sharif. “Karzai should have called on people to be patient rather than making people more angry.”...

  • ||

    I see. The pastor is not responsible for actually burning the Koran, but Karzai is responsible for mentioning the fact he didn't like it. Is that your contention?

  • MNG||

    The Pastor is responsible, but responsible for boorish behavior at worst. Boorish behavior should not be responded to by murder or calls for the arrest of the boor.

  • ||

    murder or calls for the arrest of the boor

    Kind of a wide swath of behavior in that "or" statement, no?

  • ||

    That's not what he said and you know it.

  • ||

    Assuming you're responding to me, the 11:33 post indicates it is what he meant.

  • ||

    I'm not sure if this is the right place to endorse individualism, but to my mind the people responsible for the murders are those who committed them and those, if any, who ordered them to commit these murders.

    The people responsible for the civilian deaths are the people who mistakenly targeted civilians and those in the chain of command who give them orders.

    Karzai is in neither of these groups; Gates and Obama are in the second group.

  • Tony||

    If Karzai's words are causal then potentially so are Pastor Jones's "words."

  • ||

    Wasn't there a rumor a wile back that Karzai was a alcoholic? Maybe he was just straight up loaded when he said that...

  • ||

    So, now it's ok to collectivize every U.S. military servicemember for actions that they are in no way directly responsible for, but it's not ok to collectivize members of a particular religion?

  • TULPA PROGRAMMING||

    APOLOGIZE FOR ISLAM

    HATE US MILITARY

  • Sophist||

    Uh, kinda? Since the military sort of is, you know, a collective already? An organization with an explicit command structure where leaders have a certain legal responsibility for the actions of their subordinates? Whereas Muslims are mostly only connected by a shared belief that there is only one God and Mohammad is his prophet?

  • Cytotoxic||

    sloppy, careless targeting killing his citizens

    We just need to whip out the NeverMissNoHurt (TM) guided missile system. But even if such a weapon existed, Tulpa wouldn't care. This isnt about helping Afghans this is about shitting on the US military.

  • ||

    Perhaps we should reconsider why we're launching missiles over there in the first place. Non-intervention is one hell of a way to avoid killing civilians.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's also a hell of way to let AQ and Iran do what they want and kill our people, so no.

  • sevo||

    "Free speech is a great idea, *but*..."

    'Nuff said to prove he hasn't a clue.

  • Rock Action ||

    I was wondering who would have enough insight and intellectual rigor to suggest that Jones was morally or legally responsible for the killings. I'm glad someone put in the extra effort and equated the two actions.

    Joe Klein, you win!

  • .||

    On Saturday, Mr. Obama called the burning “an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry” and extended condolences to families of the dead U.S. workers.

    Apparently the "extreme intolerance and bigotry" is well-deserved. Someone remind me once again why American service men and women are being maimed and killed to bring democracy to these barbarous savages.

  • Dave||

    More evidence that Obama is a friggin idiot. How is burning paper "an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry?" It's frigging paper, you idiot!!!! Burning any paper, whether it has words on it or not, is an essentially meaningless morally irrelevant act. The burning of the Koran, in no way, caused any harm to anybody. Violent sociopathoic Muslims harmed innocent people. For no rational reason. Period.

  • This Dave||

    Muslims are a protected class. Burning their holy book is not ok. Christians are not covered by those protections.

    No matte how extreme and sarcastic I try to get, I can't seem to pass the actual reality of the Left.

  • miroux||

    When did this conversation become about Christianity? I'm so sick of Christians in this country acting like the poor, oppressed, hated minority to the mean, awful, terrorizing, atheist Left. Muslims are no more or less protected in this country than Christians or anyone else. Had Pastor Jones been an extremist of any other religion, burning a Bible, you can guarantee there would be a total uproar about it.

    Conservatives are trying to shove their religion down the rest of the country's collective throat, and still have the nerve to think they deserve special treatment.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yeah, but:

    Koran grilled, people killed.

    Bibles fried, nobody died.

  • JoshINHB||

    Had Pastor Jones been an extremist of any other religion, burning a Bible, you can guarantee there would be a total uproar about it.

    Yeah,
    Remember when rampaging Christian mobs killed scores of people because of Serrano's Piss Christ "art".

    Me neither.

    What do you think would happen if some hipster on the government dole did some Piss Mohammed art?

  • miroux||

    You both have excellent points. I wasn't trying to argue that Christians would go on killing rampages should anyone offend them. Most of them get offended about something every day and don't kill anyone.

    I was simply responding because ThisDave was trying to insinuate that Obama only cared about the Koran burning because Muslims are a "protected" class and that if someone had been burning a Bible, no one would care because poor widdle Christians aren't "protected". I was just calling bullshit.

    Of course no Christians have ever decided to viciously slaughter several people because of their faith. After all, they conveniently forget that it even happens in the Bible.

  • ||

    Miroux,

    I would like to say this in a more diplomatic way, but your posting indicates that such would be lost on you. You are a bigoted, blindered idiot.

    Copies of the Ten Commandments, crucifixes, and other religious symbols, are removed from educational institutions and the public square DAILY, often as a result of the bullying tactics of the American Communist Liars Union.

    And, yet, we get colleges in the Midwest revamping their facilities to provide footbaths for their Muslim students. Muslims riot and kill over shit that Christians shrug off DAILY, and the President and useful idiots like Klein APOLOGIZE to them for our horrible "insults" to their "peaceful" faith. When was the last time anyone apologized to a Christian for "Piss Christ" or the infamous Madonna made of elephant dung???????

    If you can't see reality, perhaps you should cut a window in your bellybutton, 'cause your head is clearly in rectal defillade.

  • Tony||

    Calls for legal action against speech are out of line. But pretending speech has no consequences is to say there is no good reason to protect it. Extremist Christians are bad ambassadors when the target is extremist muslims. Or Muslims made extreme by American policy coupled with a perception of american islamophobia.

  • MNG||

    Tony
    These people rioted and killed people who were over there trying to help them because one guy over here burned a book. It's not Islamophobia to suggest they are medieval, murderous thugs. What the pastor did was nothing in comparison to their barbarism.

    These kind of people are the antithesis of what liberals should hold dear. Gay rights? They stone gays. Women's rights? They stone them for adultery. Girls? No Title IX there, they throw acid in the face of ones trying to go to school. Freedom or religion? Dude they are not trying to hang the 10 Commandments up in classrooms they are hanging people for converting to Christianity.

  • ||

    By "these people" do you mean the 6-12 extremists who mixed in with the protesters and infiltrated the compound, or all Muslims everywhere? Cause you seem to be leaning toward the latter despite there only being justification for condemning the former.

  • JoshINHB||

    Those 6-12 extremists must be some kind of anti-superheros. Constantly traveling around the Islamic world murdering people whenever Islamic honor is insulted.

  • Rearden||

    Anti-superheroes? Aren't those called supervillians?

  • MNG||

    I think there are more than 6-12 people in Afghanistan and many other Muslim nations that support things like criminalizing "apostasy" and Koran burning. In fact it seems like the mainstream feeling in much of the Muslim world.

  • ||

    And again we blur the distinction between violence and wrong-thinking.

    Have you been reading Atlas Shrugged?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    So you *don't* think there's such a thing as wrong-thinking? Odd view for someone who hews to and argue for a particular political philosophy instead of assigning them all equal merit.

    As a libertarian, you shouldn't be in favor of violent, punitive action against wrong-headed thinking not accompanied by action -- but as a rational, non-nihilistic human being, you shouldn't have a problem with using your speech to condemn wrong-headed views (like, say, one that says that hurting little girls for the high crime of going to school is OK).

  • ||

    MNG's original statement:

    These people rioted and killed

    Not really applicable to people who merely hold "bad" ideas.

  • This Dave||

    Are they the same 6-12 who beheaded little schoolgirls in Thailand for reasons that we can only assume are caused by Israeli aggression?

  • 20th man||

    They must have got 5 reinforcements in for 9-11

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Try the Muslims who we are ostensibly helping build a secular democracy. Try the ones who broadly support Sharia law in their home countries (and no, I'm not talking about the American Muslims who are by and large law-abiding citizens).

  • ||

    Maybe they don't want a secular democracy. Who the hell are we to say they have to have one?

  • Rock Action ||

    Tulpa, relativism and an endorsement of the primacy of positive law over natural rights? Perhaps Kos is for you tonight.

    And pointing out collective tendencies is not "collectivizing guilt." Collectivizing guilt is blaming all Muslims for this. Also, it would be ironic if we held ourselves to an individualist standard of guilt to judge collective-minded societies, which is what a society that chose Islamic fundamentalism as its guiding principles would likely be.

  • ||

    There's a sizeable number of libertarian thinkers, including myself, who don't believe in natural rights. So-called "natural law" theory requires an awful lot of question-begging and cultural chauvinism to justify itself. Look at private ownership of land, for instance; a strange (by global standards) European/Near Eastern custom that Locke went through the most excruciating contortions to imbue with the aura of a "natural right". Now I think the idea of private property is a useful one, but an inherent feature of human existence? Give me a break.

    Collectivizing guilt is blaming all Muslims for this.

    Placing blame on anyone purely because of their group affiliations is collectivizing guilt, even if you stop short of blaming the entire group. The vast majority of Muslims have never participated in any sort of terrorism, so even the weaker claim that it's a "tendency" of their group is bupkus.

  • Rock Action ||

    So private land ownership is subject to utilitarian and efficiency concerns. That's not the libertarianism I'm really familiar with, but it's a big tent.

    Placing blame on anyone purely because of their group affiliations is collectivizing guilt

    By "all," I necessarily mean "each and every." Per your definition, we're in total agreement. Collectivizing guilt is different than generalizing about tendencies within a society or country. When it comes to the generalizations, you sound like you're in dispute with the numbers, not the argumentative method.

  • ||

    Libertarianism is agreement with the principle of non-initiation of force. What underlying philosophy leads you to choose that principle is irrelevant. No need to treat utilitarian libertarians as second-class.

    I note that you don't actually respond to my criticisms of natural law, just huff and puff about the libertarian neighborhood going to hell.

  • Rock Action ||

    I note that you don't actually respond to my criticisms of natural law, just huff and puff about the libertarian neighborhood going to hell

    Oh, BS. I didn't huff and puff about anything. I said "it's a big tent." Do I need a "/" for everything, even literalism? I responded to your obvious utilitarian basis for private property. Natural law is not necessary for libertarianism, and that's not what I said. You attribruted that to me. I said "relativism and the primacy of positive law over natural rights" because you sounded more like a DailyKos commenter last night than one at this web site, which is exactly where you told people they should go if they were going to "collectivize guilt," which, by the way, was not what some people here were doing.

    And I notice you didn't respond to a pretty obvious distinction I made about your possibly well-intentioned but still suspect argument/debate tactic, which was the main point I was trying to make.

  • ||

    The original charge of "collectivizing guilt" was directed toward the comment by MNG:

    After what his people did to those UN workers and others over something like this [Afghan president Hamid Karzai] should have to get on his hands and knees and beg forgivness, and Gates should kick him in his ass when he does.

    No collective guilt there, eh Rock? Should Obama go on hands and knees begging for forgiveness and a punitive asskicking to a foreign leader whenever a foreigner is murdered in the US?

    And then he moves on to repeat the neocon canard about how Muslims, alone among religions, have an obligation to denounce the actions of their coreligionists. He then backed off somewhat after I called him on it, but JoshINHB didn't:

    Because they feel compelled to go on murderous rampages every time they imagine that their honor has been insulted.

    In the context, "they" refers to Muslims in general, and Mr INHB chose not to clarify his remarks when I called them on it. And then several other examples of placing extra moral burdens on individuals just because of the behavior of people half a world away who happen to profess the same (to some extent) religion.

    The weaker accusation of terroristic tendencies (which is NOT what these guys were talking about) isn't valid either, as acts of terrorism are perpetrated by a tiny minority of Muslims, so your main point was pretty much negligible both because they weren't talking about mere tendencies and because the tendencies aren't even there.

  • Rock Action ||

    Tulpa,

    They're talking about the tendencies towards extreme responses to blasphemy (which is what this was). Not necessarily terrorism. Now you're changing the definitions a bit.

    And it's perfectly valid to assess these tendencies, it's just not necessarily sound to draw erroneous conclusions.

    Heck, I just went to Gallup the other week to do some surface-level polling research about sharia and popular support in the Middle East. I'm not taking your word for it a low percentage of Muslims don't believe in some of these practices. I'm not Kevin Drum to your Obama. I say that with a laugh.

    And you omitted the first part of MNG's statement, which I know is a tactic you dislike. Even if the roles of Karzai and Gates w/r/t to the killings are not comparable because of the agency aspect of it, you're suggesting bad faith on his part, which I'm not so sure of.

  • DLM||

    And then he moves on to repeat the neocon canard about how Muslims, alone among religions, have an obligation to denounce the actions of their coreligionists.

    Actually, people do have and obligation to denounce 'harmful' actions by the coreligionists if they truly take that religion seriously. Either they agree with those actions that one would think *should* be condemned OR they don't care enough about their religion to defend it and correct the image of it that is getting projected.

  • ||

    Right. Other than the fact that "utilitarian libertarian" is an oxymoron.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Look at private ownership of land, for instance; a strange (by global standards) European/Near Eastern custom that Locke went through the most excruciating contortions to imbue with the aura of a "natural right".


    There is an analog in nature.

    Private land ownership is essentially the right to exclude outsiders from your land.

    Cell membranes do the same thing. What do they do, if not keep unwanted stuff from entering the cell?

  • ||

    And the society of cells comes out and punishes anything that enters the cell membrane?

    If your concept of property rights is "you own what you can defend", that a pretty meager right. It's just might makes right.

  • ||

    The geolibertarian argument is that natural land requires no labor inputs and therefore should not be considered "property" any more than the air should - and contrary to air, it is a finite resource that historically excluded many groups from ownership, allowing inherited land monopolies that contributed greatly to racial inequality. Exclusive use of the land can be purchased by paying rent on the land you wish to use, which should be the only form of taxation (and conveniently is also the only tax that has no deadweight loss). What is not used for the basic functions of a court system and military should be returned to the community, divided equally as a citizen's dividend, since land should be considered everyone's birthright. Adam Smith supported this concept, and Henry George fleshed it out.

    Right-libertarianism fails to address that property is a fantastic concept, but centuries of horrible, discriminatory government policies and rent-seeking by the wealthy and the majority have created a system of huge economic disparities far from a meritocracy. This should not be written off as "that was the past, now we've cut down those barriers. To the victims, good luck catching up." We understand the concept of paying reparations for victims of corrupt or inept prosecutions - but not victims of awful government policies. A citizen's dividend from land rent is the fairest and least intrusive way to do this.

  • Dave||

    Bullshit.

    You can't make up your own reality, dude.

    When essentially all acts of terrorism are committed by members of a certain group, it is a "tendency" of that group.

    Period.

  • ||

    All acts of terrorism are committed by humans. Therefore, terrorism is a tendency of humans. QED.

  • ||

    And of course not "essentially all" acts of terrorism are committed by Muslims, but that's another argument.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Non-sequitur, but I can't say that I'm particularly concerned with how another country organizes itself on any level that is not abstract, thanks for asking. I probably should be more high-minded than that, but in all honesty, I'm not.

    You asked earlier who "those people" are who stone gays, kill throw acid in little girls' faces, etc. By and large, it is Muslims living in particularly execrable totalitarian dictatorships (both those that advertise themselves as such and those that have a "Made in the USA" sticker of democratic approval stamped on them).

  • one of those||

    Maybe they don't want a secular democracy. Who the hell are we to say they have to have one?

    They? Who is they - the five or six individuals whom you claim are the guilty ones? Or the whole population of Afghanistan? You're engaging in the same "collectivization" of which you accuse others here.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So where are the Afghan condemnations of this action? Oh right I forgot they are barbarians so they won't.

  • Tony||

    Without making any sort of equivalence, to argue that the Muslims in question are murderous savages is, if anything, to support the argument that inflammatory anti-Muslim speech is dangerous to our troops and diplomats. Nothing is served by these kinds of stunts. Religious extremists in our country are not first amendment heroes. They are religious extremists, and as much as they have a right to engage in inflammatory behavior, everyone else has a right to condemn it. Extremism is the problem. It's kind of hard to condemn it in Afghanistan, where we should expect extremism to flourish, when it's increasingly prevalent in the US, where the grievances are completely misplaced.

  • sevo||

    Tony|4.3.11 @ 11:26PM|#
    "Without making any sort of equivalence,..."
    Which you preceded to do.

    "Religious extremists in our country are not first amendment heroes. They are religious extremists, and as much as they have a right to engage in inflammatory behavior..."
    And murder is not one of those 'rights'.

  • Tony||

    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

    I'm not making an equivalence between killing people and burning holy books. But it's quite likely that Muslim extremists will have a different equation. If you are going to argue that they're wrong because they're savages, then they are also dangerous for the same reason. If nothing else, the Koran burning stunt could be plausibly compared to shouting fire in a crowded theater to people with an itch to deny speech rights. That's why religious extremists are not the most helpful ambassadors for free speech.

  • sevo||

    Tony|4.3.11 @ 11:34PM|#
    "...I'm not making an equivalence between killing people and burning holy books...."

    Uh:
    "They are religious extremists, and as much as they have a right to engage in inflammatory behavior, everyone else has a right to condemn it."
    The "inflammatory behavior" you're excusing is MURDER!
    Tony, how may times can you contradict yourself without getting dizzy?

  • Tony||

    The behavior I'm referring to is the book burning. The guy engages in behavior tailor-made to inflame Muslims, so what, you defend his actions because they aren't as bad as the consequences of them?

  • sevo||

    Tony|4.3.11 @ 11:45PM|#
    "The behavior I'm referring to is the book burning."

    Gee, what did you mean by:
    "Extremism is the problem. It's kind of hard to condemn it in Afghanistan,..."
    ----------------------

    "The guy engages in behavior tailor-made to inflame Muslims, so what, you defend his actions because they aren't as bad as the consequences of them?"

    Yes, as a matter of fact I do. "Inflaming" those who are superstitious really doesn't measure up to murder.

  • Tony||

    So they are murderous savages who don't respect innocent people's fundamental right to life... yet they are expected to appreciate the extremely tolerant free speech rights of Americans?

    One wrong here was definitely worse than the other, but they were both wrongs. Freedom of speech doesn't mean all speech is to be celebrated.

  • sevo||

    Tony|4.3.11 @ 11:57PM|#
    "So they are murderous savages who don't respect innocent people's fundamental right to life... yet they are expected to appreciate the extremely tolerant free speech rights of Americans?"
    Uh, you should be glad strawmen can't hit back; you'd be injured. How about you don't put words to my posts, asshole?

    "One wrong here was definitely worse than the other, but they were both wrongs. Freedom of speech doesn't mean all speech is to be celebrated."
    Yeah, and murder is only a 'little bit' worse than the alternative, right?

  • .||

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean any of it is to be celebrated - it means it is to be tolerated.

  • Dave||

    Seriously????

    Using your illogic, any speech which prompts an irrational violent sociopath to commit a violent act is somehow equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Therefore, all speech should be banned.

    Seriously????

  • Tony||

    Um no. No speech should be banned. But this behavior is closer to the line than most. I would certainly not place it over the line, but some might. And they'd have an argument that might be convincing to some on their side: people have died as a result of this speech.

  • Knutsack||

    Interesting take. One guy burns a book in the USA, so Afghanis kill people that might be allied with the US in their country.

    Now, some might be spurred to violence after seeing the American flag burned and decide to kill some "Muslim-looking" people over here. What would be your take on that? Would you say that, since "extremism is increasingly prevalent in the US", we would have a hard time condemning it?

  • ||

    And they'd have an argument that might be convincing to some on their side: people have died as a result of this speech.

    How did someone die as a result of this speech? Smoke inhalation is the only way I can see somebody dying from what he did, and I don't remember hearing about that.

    Sorry, Tony. Those people in Afghanistan were murdered by thugs. Period. Full stop. Those murderers are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what inflamed them.

    If someone tells me my girlfriend is a whore and I punch them, are they gonna be charged with accessory to assault? Hell fucking no, because I and I alone am responsible for my actions.

  • Rock Action ||

    If someone tells me my girlfriend is a whore and I punch them, are they gonna be charged with accessory to assault?

    No, but the speech isn't necessarily protected.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ted_States

    Also, questioning the chastity of a woman can also be grounds for a defamation lawsuit, IIRC.

    /pedantic, hoping for a high-scoring UConn win. Peace.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    I think what Tony meant is there's a causal line that can be drawn between the speech and the murders. Which is true. Where he's wrong is implying that Jones is in any way responsible for the murders because of that.

  • Dave||

    People did not die as a result of this speech/book burning. There is no causality. People died because some violent sociopathic Muslims killed them FOR NO RATIONAL REASON. These sociopaths could have used any excuse - they could have stated that some girl saying a prayer at dinner was the reason for the behavior. But that doesn't, in any way, mean that the girl's prayer was a cause of their behavior. IT IS NOT.

    Did I get that through your thick skull???

  • Tony||

    I still think that arguing that they are irrational psychopaths is all the more reason not to add to the provocation. Burning the Koran is hardly an innocent exercise of speech. It is meant to be inflammatory. It's just about the most inflammatory thing I can imagine in this circumstance.

  • .||

    There is no such thing as the right not to be offended. You can't think of anything more imflamatory? Shit, I can - burn a few Muslims instead of their damned Koran.

  • DLM||

    Therefore, all speech should be banned.

    Now you're getting it.

  • Fat Crack Ho||

    The panicked reaction of people stampeding out of a theater they believe to be on fire differs somewhat from the shenanigans of a frenzied mob out for blood over a desecrated religious bauble. The fact that you hold the two groups to a similar standard of accountability (i.e.. no accountability) for their actions is telling.

  • JoshINHB||

    Yes,
    Burning a book is the same as murdering 11 people.

  • MNG||

    Jones burnt a book, at most an act of boorish behavior. To spend a 100th of the time condeming his behavior as that of the murderers is shameful.

  • Tony||

    A book devout Muslims see as the actual word of God. Maybe the Muslims in question are hypersensitive, barbaric, whatever. That's only more of an argument not to inflame them. We are an invasion force, after all, and if we're going to be so patronizing to the locals, the least we can do is not act like our own brand of barbarians. My only point is that it's entirely within the rights of public officials to condemn such an action--if only to clean up the diplomatic mess.

  • sevo||

    Tony|4.3.11 @ 11:38PM|#
    "A book devout Muslims see as the actual word of God..."

    So
    fucking
    what?
    For starters, there is no fucking sky daddy, and murdering people because of your superstition is *not* 'freedom of speech'.
    Bleevers can stuff it up their butts; I don't care about their stupid 'bleefs'.

  • Tony||

    Well why don't we just offer up to the Muslims a seminar on enlightened western secularism. We can tell them how burning their holy book is in actuality just a silly frivolity.

  • sevo||

    Tony|4.3.11 @ 11:48PM|#
    "Well why don't we just offer up to the Muslims a seminar on enlightened western secularism. We can tell them how burning their holy book is in actuality just a silly frivolity"

    I see.
    So instead of your ducking and weaving, you're now 'fessing up to the fact that 'freedom of speech' means nothing with you're dealing with stupid bleevers?
    Oh, good. I guess we'll change the 1st to read "Congress shall make no law unless those who bleeve in Santa Claus really get pissed"

  • Tony||

    To argue that speech is to be protected is to say that speech has consequences. Otherwise, who cares?

  • ||

    Most speech doesn't have consequences. Does that mean it shouldn't be protected?

  • Tony||

    The most relevant types of speech do. Idle chitchat is not something under threat of government oppression, or generally involved in free speech test cases.

    I would argue that not only does speech deserve protection because it can have influence, but that in the process of parsing consequential speech it is good to decide which forms of speech are not useful. I think it's perfectly fine for even public officials to condemn and discourage bigotry, because in the process of speech performing its function in society, we should be able to reject the bad ideas.

  • sevo||

    Tony|4.3.11 @ 11:59PM|#
    "To argue that speech is to be protected is to say that speech has consequences. Otherwise, who cares?"

    So 'consequences' mean murder?

  • This Dave||

    Agreed. I don't care how they view that book. If they want to act that way, then they deserve to die. We have neglected to say so, but since 9/11 this war has been against people who think that way. Their ideology is enemy ideology. They are enemies. We need not tolerate them.

  • Rock Action ||

    If we banned sockpuppet stupidity, you'd be at the front of the line. You can't be real. You can't be. You're too much of a fucking caricature.

    http://chasingflyingkitesofdreams.blogspot.com/

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That's only more of an argument not to inflame them.


    They are inflamed by pretty much everything- Israel, cartoons, films, gay rights, women's rights, Jews' rights (includingthe right to life), etc.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    A book devout Muslims see as the actual word of God. Maybe the Muslims in question are hypersensitive, barbaric, whatever. That's only more of an argument not to inflame them.

    Tony finally discovers a state-sponsored religion he can really, truly get behind, by golly!

  • rather ||

    I wonder if the media is culpable.

  • Tony||

    A lot if media figured are placing part if the blame on themselves for offering this guy a soapbox.

  • ||

    Seriously. It's quite clear this has just been an attention ploy on the part of the silly pastors who did it. At least Fred Phelps has to travel around the country to force people to pay attention to him, these guys can just sit at home talking about burning things and the media rushes to cover them.

  • rather ||

    Tony,
    I'm actually writing a story on Obama's quote from another angle-our retrogradation. Is it the coverage of the Fahrenheit451ing the issue? Or, the lack of coverage of American Muslims' responding with the fact that this incident is isolated?

  • This Dave||

    If American Muslims had a strong response against these acts in Aghanistan, can someone please post a source confirming it? Otherwise, as far as I know, it didn't exist.

  • DLM||

    Michael Medved indicated the response by Ibrahim Hooper (of CAIR) was at least a far more reasonable response than that of many Senators. I didn't catch the details.

  • ||

    If by media you mean the way that facts are disseminated through the internet in a flat, unnuanced manner, which makes a quixotic book burning appear the equal of a massive crusade against Islam, then yes, the media is culpable.

  • ||

    It was NPR that first reported on this, not the blogosphere.

  • rather ||

    Hmm, never mind the words. Most of them cannot read in their own language. It is the photographs.

  • Matt||

    The pastor is an idiot but he also didn't kill anyone. What he did was offensive to Muslims but also nonviolent and very, very small-scale. Religious nutjobs aren't cool but as long as they aren't hurting anyone they are entitled to equal protection under the law.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Burning book != extremism

    Killing people for burning book = extremism

  • sevo||

    Tony|4.3.11 @ 11:06PM|#
    "But pretending speech has no consequences is to say there is no good reason to protect it."

    Would you like to, well, make some attempt at tying that abstraction to the facts at issue?

  • Dave||

    Speech or burning paper does not cause other people to commit violent acts. Other people commit violent acts because they are violent people. Period.

  • Tony||

    And I suppose people buy shit completely notwithstanding the effects of advertising?

  • ||

    That's a swell advertisement for Non Sequitur Inc.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And I suppose people buy shit completely notwithstanding the effects of advertising?


    How far should we take it?

    It could be argued that ni**ers trying to sit in the front of the bus provoked Byron De La Beckwith into killing Medgar Evers.

  • This Dave||

    I'd like to know how many Muslims deserve to die in America because Saudi Arabia destroys bibles and attempts at Christian churches. Can i get a number please?

  • Tony||

    Muslims made extreme by American policy

    "... 'cause, see: it's the poor, put-upon Muslims who are the real, actual victims, here. Because a copy of their godbook got burned. So, naturally, they absolutely HAD to start lopping off random heads, and suchlike."

  • ||

    Terry Jones is as mad as Gaddafi.
    Anyone who pronounces he knows the intent of God is a megalomaniac.
    He should calm down, stop spreading fear and hatred, and see a shrink.

  • ||

    Jones, my fellow Christian, is a douche. But he is no Ghaddafi. He is a publicity whore with a church of 30 knuckle-draggers: not a despot with an army and forty years of abuse.

  • Southerner||

    Jones is a guy who burned a book because he said it was evil for having inspired those who believe in its words to murder people.

    In response, those who believed in that book's words went out and murdered some people.

    If Jones is wrong, how come his critics keep proving him right?

  • This Dave||

    I don't care what he is. He destroyed sheets of paper. To compare him to someone who actually kills human beings is deeply flawed.

  • Gregory Smith||

    You're comparing a preacher to a terrorist, a torturer and a murderer? What are you? A progressive?

  • ||

    >Terry Jones is as mad as Gaddafi.

    Last I checked, Terry Jones hadn't seized control of a country in a military coup and carried on a decades-long campaign of sponsoring terrorism.

    -jcr

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war.

    We're in a war? I must have missed the official Article 1, Section 8 declaration of war against...whoever it is we're at war with. We did get a nice general "authorization of force against terrorists" which means the president may indefinitely detain and assassinate both aliens and citizens.

    If Lindsey feels that free speech needs to be curtailed, why not dust off the 1918 Espionage Act?

    SEC. 3-Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully...advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favour the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...

  • Graham||

    Hi ho, hi ho,
    'tis off to jail I go,
    For sedition,
    I've been snitched on.
    Hi ho, hi ho!

  • ||

    OK. The limericks are gonna be making their triumphant return veeeeeeery soon.

  • Greer||

    Starting with"

    there once was a fuckhead named Lindsay...

  • Dumbass||

    what's so wrong with the Alien and Sedition act?

  • one of those||

    They were repealed a coupla hundred years ago?

  • .||

    "I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy.

    Tell ya what, Senator, it's gutless wonders like yourself who inspire the enemy. When we get to the point where we are restricting our own natural rights who do you suppose is winning the "war on terror," you fool? I don't who is worse - you or that damned apologist, Obama.

  • .||

    know I don't know who is worse...

  • This Dave||

    He's missing the fact that "inspiring the enemy" didn't include calling them fuckheads.

  • Au H20||

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only way to be successful occupying army in Afghanistan is by imitating the only people to have done it: the Mongol Empire.

    When you are dealing with a bunch of Stone Age fucks who make a game out of a dead goat corpse, you don't pull them screaming into the 21rst century nicely (and yes, I do have some respect for the "Why the hell even bother?" argument, but my point is that if we insist on civilizing them, and let's be honest, that's what we are trying to do in that country, we should do it effectively, or not at all).

    Firstly, the Mongols controlled water and food. Very hard to be a rebel without both of those. Secondly, under no circumstances did you kill a Mongol, because your city would be burned to the ground, looted, and your people enslaved/raped. If you really pissed them off, they would poison the wells and salt the earth, or destroy your irrigation system. Either way, your people would die of starvation and thirst.

    Funnily enough, eventually, people learned to stop pissing the Mongols off, and they ruled Afghanistan for 100+ years.

    Now, for any number of reasons, that kind of occupation is not longer practiced by civilized people. Unfortunately, as incidents such as this demonstrate, we are not dealing with a civilized people.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    We shouldn't be wasting our time in that shithole: no point in civilizing a place that doesn't want to be civilized. Get out, have a liberal immigration policy, and bomb the country to rubble if it continues to host terrorists who harm the US. Not a very libertarian sentiment on my part, but there it is.

  • Dave||

    +1000

    We need to quit fucking around with these dirtbags and quit wasting American blood and money.

  • Almanian||

    Nukes, orbit, being sure.

  • Snobbit||

    With their moutains, it's not exactly clear how effective nukes would be. Unless you're ready to carpet bomb the whole Afghan-Pakistan border region.

  • Snobbit||

    Once upon a time there was a beginning, and in the beginning there were barbarians....etc etc.

    Nowhere in this story do I ever recall a barbarian saying "Ooo! Civilize me!".

    Libertarian philosophy would be a tad more realistic on foreign policy if it was ever able to confront this inconvenient detail. Nonetheless,

    ...and bomb the country to rubble...

    while I doubt air campaigns alone are going to do much to subjugate Afghans, I agree with your sentiment in spirit.

  • Satan||

    I agree with your sentiment in spirit.

    so do I

  • Rather Retarded||

    I made peepee!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Agreed. I used to have some compassion for these people now I don't bat an eye at reports of civilian casualties. I just want to prevent AQ and others from using the country as a base. This is something libertarians just can't answer with their excuse for a foreign policy.

  • ||

    HERP DERP.

  • ||

    ""I just want to prevent AQ and others from using the country as a base.""

    How much of your personal money do you care to spend for that purpose in the decades to come?

  • Cytotoxic||

    A great deal actually. Protection from exogenous rights violators is a legitimate state function. I'm sure it'll be much cheaper sans nation-building BS.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    I've been maintaining for a while that there are two ways to "win" an occupation:

    1) Don't get involved.

    2) Be ruthless as fuck.

  • Old Salt||

    I'll quote/paraphrase one of the few American comic books that are still worth reading:

    "You go to war against your enemy...
    You hit him with everything you got until he's on the ropes...
    Once he's there, don't let up...
    You fill his lungs with blood...
    You fill his ears with screams...
    You fill his eyes with horror...
    You grind him up...
    And if he won't fall down..
    You go ahead and bleed that fucker to death!"

    -Frank Castle a.k.a. The Punisher

  • Dumbass||

    I could be wrong but that sound like a very Garth Ennis Punisher

  • DLM||

    The problem is no one has any idea why we are still there. I think they wing it from day to day.

  • ||

    A pox on all their houses.

  • Dave||

    The only answer to this lunacy is for everybody to burn Korans and post Mohammed cartoons. Then any Muslim who flips out and hurts somebody should be imprisoned or shot.

  • Training Day||

    "Just let the animals all wipe each other out?"

    "God willing!"

  • Hugh Akston||

    I find it odd how many commenters on a blog dedicated to a nominally individualist political philosophy are willing to paint an entire country with the colors of a few of its murderous nutcakes.

  • Snobbit||

    You're right. It would be far, far better if we wasted trillions of dollars, many thousands of American lives, and endless years, running down just exactly and only those couple of Afghan fools who fit whatever your idea is of "Wow, they've finally gone too far".

  • Hugh Akston||

    The fact that you responded to my comment indicates that you have some objection to what I said, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out from your post.

  • Snobbit||

    Sometimes, painting in broad strokes makes a lot of sense.

  • ||

    How about we just get the hell out and stop worrying about them so much?

    We could waste trillions of dollars trying to prevent lightning deaths, which are greater than the average number of terrorism deaths per year in the US, and it would be just as pointless.

    I guess we should also declare war upon that Other Great threat to our citizens lives: Jaws. A perpetual war until every last shark is dead.

    Instead of spending our time and money dicking around in the Middle East, we could have spent all that money perfecting cars that drive themselves, reducing traffic deaths to nearly nil. While it's not the role of government, it would have been a far more efficient use of government money than either military involvement or the innumerable unintended consequences that would result from an immoral "nuke-em-all" approach that doesn't respect the individual rights of the innocent.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This could allow the rights of Americans to be violated and that's unacceptable. The US government's job is not to save as many American or Afghan lives as possible but to protect the rights of Americans.

    There's nothing immoral about killing civilians if and only if it's necessary to protect the rights of free people. Afghans are not necessarily innocent. Many support the Taliban/AQ morally and/or practically. This is not a trial; their lives are forfeit. It would be unfortunate if the truly innocent get killed but that is the fault of the aggressor, which is AQ/the Taliban, not America.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Seriously? You're saying it's okay to kill innocent people because just killing guilty people would be difficult?

  • DLM||

    How about a compromise. Just get the hell out and let them kill each other?

  • Snobbit||

    Your counter-proposal?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    1. Let the guilty people get away with it.
    2. Commit enough resources to finding and arresting/killing the guilty that you can do it without hurting the innocent.

  • Rock Action ||

    Like I said to Tulpa upthread, it's different to point out a general tendency within a country or society than to accuse each and every individual in that country as harboring those sentiments. That would be a violation of "nominal individualism," which isn't what everyone who has made a generalization has done.

    I haven't said a word about Afghanistan or its people, but I think this is a valid distinction to make.

  • .||

    ...willing to paint an entire country with the colors of a few of its murderous nutcakes.

    Only a few? Just how many "murderous nutcakes" do you supppose it has then?
    And if it's only the murderous ones, then how many nutcakes are there in all if we include the non-murderous ones? Just asking.

  • Kolohe||

    I find it odd how many commenters on a blog dedicated to a nominally individualist political philosophy are willing to paint an entire country with the colors of a few of its murderous nutcakes.

    I am, because
    1) The mob was largely 'ordinary people'
    2) M-e-S due to history and ethnic makeup is not a hotbed of Taliban activity
    3) While this is an extreme example of the type, overreacting to perceived slights on Islam happens all the time in Afghanistan.

    (note that I'm not painting 'muslims' with so broad a brush, but I'm perfectly willing to paint *Afghanistan* with such after all that has happened over the last 30+ years)

  • ||

    Most people in the mob had nothing to do with the killings.

  • JoshINHB||

    They were only there for the free rock concert.

  • Almanian||

    Can't we all get along? I guess not.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    Watch, they're going to build a mosque on the site of the UN compound with an altar where the brave workers were dragged out and beheaded. It's how they operate.

  • Snobbit||

    ...majority-Muslim countries that have yet to make it through a Reformation...

    I think you need to have something like a Renessaince before you can have something like a reformation. These people aren't even all the way out of the Dark Ages yet.

    But remember, we're going to bring them modern democracy.

  • ||

    What the fuck is with the libertarian love for the Reformation lately? From a secular point of view, all it did was create a thousand petty tyrannies on the Protestant side and an even greater centralization of religious authority on the Catholic side.

    Let's stop confusing the Reformation with the Enlightenment, shall we?

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    The reformation gave some of the Galileos of the day a place to flee to and was arguably the catalyst for the recognition of many of the rights, both spiritual and temporal, that we take for granted in the west today. So it wasn't all that bad, no.

  • What about Bob?||

    Baby steps to the door...

  • ||

    Ask Giordano Bruno how that worked out.

    Protestant authorities were just as hostile to the first green shoots of the Scientific Revolution as the Catholic Church, if not more so.

  • Snobbit||

    I didn't say I loved it...

  • Snobbit||

    btw, not everything that came out of the Enlightenment was all roses and cream.

  • one of those||

    What the fuck is with the libertarian love for the Reformation lately?

    It was the beginning of the end of the Roman Catholic Church's near absolute power over the people of Europe. It has never completely recovered. But you knew that already.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I addressed this in a Usenet post .

    There is nothing more effective in encouraging evil than appeasing
    it. Indeed, gay rights groups in London OPPOSED a gay pride event in
    the East End because it might offend Muslims, nevermind that the
    organizers never intended to challenge Islam or Muslims, only to
    preach a message of peaceful coexistence.


    And these sand Nazis- for there is no more an accurate description
    for these nithings than this- always find excuses to wage their jihad.
    From Israel, to Danish cartoons, to a film, it is always the same end
    result. Similarly, Hitler claimed that "provocations" by Poland were
    his reason for the invasion, but many people in their seventies and
    eighties, with tattoos on their arms, can attest to Hitler's true
    motivations.

    If the Holocaust or 9/11 ever taught us anything, it is that evil
    must be confronted, not appeased.
  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Graham's a bigger blight on the GOP than all the northeastern republicans combined, not that I respect them very much either.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    ...or Democrats of course, although I might be willing to wager that a Democrat in his seat would be less shitty.

  • SIV||

    You fucks are missing the point. The real enemy here isn't backward Afghanis it's Lindthy Graham!

  • Banjos||

    Come on SIV, all neocons love freedom, they just believe that we need to abandon freedom in order to save it.

  • Otto||

    Worked for the PATRIOT ACT...

  • A Serious Man||

    Abridging free speech to satisfy the demands of Islamic fundamentalists? Way to let the terrorists win Sen. Graham.

  • Rock Action ||

    Oh, and even though Graham's statement was overtly stupid and noxious, leave it to Harry Reid to hop in the passenger seat of the idiot car.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....rning.html

  • Adonisus||

    I do feel rather badly for muslims here in America, to an extent. They can condemn terrorism and the al Qaeda cult (yes, al Qaeda is indeed a cult and not just a terrorist organization)until they are blue in the face, but people just seem to ignore them.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I do feel rather badly for muslims here in America, to an extent. They can condemn terrorism and the al Qaeda cult (yes, al Qaeda is indeed a cult and not just a terrorist organization)until they are blue in the face, but people just seem to ignore them.
    reply to this


    It should be important to remember that out of a billion Muslims, only a few thousand reacted violent, and the violent reaction happened in one city.

  • Adonisus||

    I know, but it stills pisses me off to no end.

    I KNOW some muslims personally. There's a mosque a couple of miles from my house with some worshippers whom I happen to be friends with. Some of them are native born Americans, some of them are immigrants. I've eaten at their houses, met their families and played with their children.

    These people are GOOD AMERICANS. They don't wish ill on ANY human being. But because of the actions of a few assholes on the other side of the fucking PLANET, they have to suffer the blame. It STINKS.

  • Old Salt||

    Kind of like how a lot of Europeans treat Americans; like somehow every one of us they run into personally planned whatever shit storm we're involved in!

  • Southerner||

    Then they turn around and start a genuine war for oil in Libya. See, wars for oil are only bad when Americans start are accused of starting them. When Europeans start a war for oil, that's a humanitarian cause. Only real people are allowed to be all about the oil.

  • ||

    Precisely why I get worked up when supposed libertarians (and liberals in MNG's case) spew the sort of bigoted bilge we've witnessed here.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, you get worked up because it's instinctual for you to view criticism of Islam as 'bigoted'. That's your fucking problem not ours.

  • ||

    So basically according to Graham our free speech rights are subject to the actions of barbaric lunatics. Fuck you Graham. You need to resign and die in a fire.

  • Spider Man||

    Ain't my fault that the Green Goblin is nuts!

  • daveinboca||

    This RINO moron should be disbarred. Reid is a senile idiot and Schieffer probably doesn't hear half of what his "guests" mutter while they're being "interviewed" by this illiterate.

  • ||

    The statement about what could and could not be said during WWII is interesting; but Mr. Graham, when EXACTLY did we declare war? Until the POTUS and the Congress have testes that have fully descended, I would suggest that they leave the 1st Amendment the hell alone...

  • ||

    Correct me If I am wrong, but the War on Terror ended in 2008, the government has even banned using the words. So America is not at war anyway.

    If America were actually at war could the government really ban propaganda against the enemy, because it might make them angrier. The only reasonable ban could be stories about troop deployments.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I've seen a lot of WWII propaganda posters, and there are a lot of things about loose lips sinking ships, keeping quiet about troop movements, being productive to keep soldiers equipped, victory gardens, not wasting food/fuel/rubber/etc, and buying war bonds - but I've never seen a single one about not saying something bad about the enemy because it might make them angry.

  • ||

    You have never seen the famous "Be nice, Gerry is listening and it might offend him" poster?

  • ||

    Nobody censored foaming-at-the-mouth liberals during the Bush administration. Why should we censor anybody now?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    I'm tired of the massive double standard when it comes to muslims.

    When they riot, kill people and destroy property, the prevailing message is that is isn't their fault - it's the fault of whoever "provoked" them.

    If Christians had rioted and killed people when the NEA sponsored "art" that showed a crucifix in a jar of urine, they would have been immediately condemed for their actions.

    But somehow it's supposed to be different with muslims.

  • ||

    Outside of a few lefty douches, who is pushing this double standard? Smells like strawman.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Who is pushing it?

    The entire mainstream media, that's who.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Who is pushing it?

    The entire mainstream media, that's who.


    They are equivalent to lefty douches.

  • ||

    Fox News is mainstream media.

  • ||

    You are making a claim, so you need to provide evidence.

  • ||

    ""When they riot, kill people and destroy property, the prevailing message is that is isn't their fault - it's the fault of whoever "provoked" them.""

    Ah I remember back in the day when the christian right held such a philosphy.

  • ||

    I file this under the "I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire" tab. Lindsey Graham disgraces his state as well as his country. I'm now a member of ABG (anybody but Graham) club. He's got to go. All RINO's need to be in a zoo not congress.

  • ||

    Read again this morning in one of the papers I read that the Koran burning "caused" the killings in Afghanistan. I wrote about "cause" a few days ago on this topic, and I find it to be a misunderstood concept. There is no way under anglo-saxon law that the burning can be seen as legal causation. They are separate incidents, both wrongs, one more wrong than the others because what was done in Afghanistan is murder. I wish idiots lke Graham would stop furthering the misconception.

  • Bob||

    It's not wrong to burn a book.

    Imagine if someone burned Atlas Shrugged. Do you think the denizens of this board would riot in protest? Of course not.

    And there's a whole hell of a lot more truth in Atlas Shrugged than the ancient ramblings of a known pedophile.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Over twenty years ago, homosexualist fundamentalist protesters disrupted a Catholic Mass .

    How many gay bashings did that "cause"?

  • ||

    Outside of a few lefty douches, who is pushing this double standard?

    The President? Oh, but you said "lefty douches". Never mind.

  • ||

    Obama's not a lefty? Does Fox News know? ;-)

  • ||

    Obama said the murders weren't the murderers' fault? Really?

    It's fucking irritating how you guys make broad, expansive, bold statements and then pretend it was really a narrow one when called on it.

  • ||

    ""Obama said the murders weren't the murderers' fault? Really?""

    It common for government to do that when it's in their interest.

    You hear someone kicking your door in, you get your weapon, then you're killed by a cop, but hey, it wasn't the cop's fault.

  • IceTrey||

    This is a great way to get us out of Afcrapistan. Everyone keep burning Korans driving the Afghan morons into such a fit it becomes obvious we should get the hell out of there.

  • ||

    the article author is ridiculously ignorant of islam. he is waiting for a reformation in islam when they already had it, its called wahabi islam

  • Bob||

    "the article author is ridiculously ignorant of islam."

    I assume that's a compliment? He's not aware of the hundreds of virulent strains of this primitive, savage belief system? Well neither am I.

  • Bob||

    At this rate, how long until disrespecting sharia law is an act of treason?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    At this rate, how long until disrespecting sharia law is an act of treason?

    TIME Mag Editor: Burning the Koran Is Worse Than Burning Bible (Video)

    http://gatewaypundit.rightnetw.....ble-video/

    Next question...?

  • ||

    They take their religion way to seriously. Good thing bible thumpers think less of their religion. Else they help God destroy all the non-believers.

    http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/15-13.htm

    That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

  • DLM||

    That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

    Yeah. Those Jews are barbarians.

  • RyanXXX||

    Strange how Republicans are the ones calling for censorship of anti-muslim speech........

  • ||

    It was great to see that Nazi references appeared so early and often in this thread. One could claim that it began with post #3 although in a somewhat veiled manner. Anyway, congratulations! Almost forgot, Graham is a nancy boy loser and any Muslim nation that cracks wise should be nuked before breakfast. Have a marvelous day!

  • Alan K. Henderson||

    The Left would be treating violent Muslims a lot differently if al-Qaeda had flown planes into abortion clinics, gay bars, and AFL/CIO headquarters.

  • ||

    The WTC and Pentagon housed many unionized government employees, the workers on the planes were all union members, and the firefighters and police who died in WTC were also all union members.

    But keep going.

  • Alan K. Henderson||

    The WTC (pre-9/11) and the Pentagon are symbols of Big Capitalism and the military, respectively - neither of which are icons of the Left. They don't conjure thoughts about unions unless someone has already brought up the subject.

  • ||

    ""neither of which are icons of the Left.""

    NYC?

  • Alan K. Henderson||

    Y'all are totally missing my point. By "icons of the left" I mean icons that are **exclusively** tied to leftist causes. NYC as a whole wasn't attacked. Except to anti-capitalists, the WTC was an apolitical target. It was perceived (rightly) as an attack against America in general.

    The three hypothetical attacks I listed could **only** be interpreted as attacks against specific Leftist ideology - and a lot of Leftists would perceive that as more insidious than an attack against a generic target.

    Maybe that's why the Giffords shooting upset lefties more than the Fort Hood shooting did. They tend to be more emotionally invested in lefty politics than in the military. From their perspective, the former attack had only one possible motive, something more greatly evil than any of Major Hasan's possible motives.

  • DLM||

    But keep going.

    And the Unions were devastated at the loss of income. However, the workers were quickly replaced, so no harm no foul.

  • ||

    ""The Left would be treating violent Muslims a lot differently if al-Qaeda had flown planes into abortion clinics, gay bars, and AFL/CIO headquarters.""

    Not.

  • ||

    Radical Islamists are winning everywhere. 9/11 happens and we institute stringent invasive security measures on our selves. Some yoyo pastor in Florida burns a Koran and our leadership scramble over each other to blame him for what happens afterwards in Afghanistan.

    I think we should get out of there ASAP, but if we're not going to leave we should make it clear that rude, offensive, and even sacriligious words and actions are protected under our laws. In Hitch's(?) brilliant phrase, there are promising signs of polarization here.

  • DLM||

    Radical Islamists are winning everywhere. 9/11 happens and we institute stringent invasive security measures on our selves.

    The whole point was to force us to change our way of life and what do we do? Change our way of life. Bin Laden probably died laughing.

  • ||

    They kill people for burning the Koran, and we spend our money building them schools, roads, and hospitals. That's just the relationship we have.

  • ||

    Graham is far too insistent and out-front, and his positions much too indefinable & confused, as well as inconsistent with each other (other than they are almost always unconstitutional) for his public statements to be the result of any coherent principle or ideology.

    I hear money talking. It's the best explanation for Graham's major-loon statements. I mean real-life, under-the-table Muslim money. Maybe Saudi or UAE money; maybe even CAIR or Muslim Brotherhood money (the real stuff, not James O'Keefe's hidden-camera sting money). But there is money from some Muslim source going surreptitiously to a locus from which Graham can, at some point, get to it.

    Graham's positions make sense only if he has been paid to take them. Either that or he is incapable of a coherent, consistent political philosophy, because he is, quite literally... insane.

    Money or lunacy - nothing else makes sense.

  • ||

    How about Koran toilet paper? If we provoke them enough, their heads explode or they go on a killing orgy.

  • ||

    Senator Graham's (my senator) reference to WW2 censorship is disingenuous at best. He has it exactly backwards. During WW2 there was censorship of citizens SYMPATHETIC to Japan or Germany. Perhaps he would prefer the women of this country to wear burkas and hijabs in order to keep peace in the Muslim world.
    During WW2, "Jap Hunter" cards were issued in this country. Japanese soldiers were portrayed as sub-human. Hitler's army was mocked at every level. Anti-Hitler and anti-Japanese propaganda was not only encouraged, it was designed and produced by our government!
    The senator has just added the title of "Islamist Dupe" to is already unimpressive resume.

  • Words_of_Art||

    He's an IDIOT! He took an oath to UPHOLD and DEFEND OUR RIGHTS AS AMERICANS! And he says a pathetic statement like that! HE FIRED!!! We have NO NEED for TRAITORS who do not value the Constitution.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement