Quantcast

Who is to blame, Violent Murderers or a Book Burner?

Foxhound BN0 2012/09/12 13:51:21
The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a book and we don't kowtow or negotiate with terrorists.
The book burner is at fault. When people threaten us, we should do as they demand or it's our own fault.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Let's say I say, "I am going to burn this book.", and then a violent group of morons says, "We really like tha book and we will kill people if you burn it.", and I say, I have freedom and I burned the stupid book.", and then the idiots go and kill someone..

Who is to blame?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • keeper 2012/09/12 18:25:13
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    keeper
    +3
    Whether it was a book or a movie, this is not a response from sane people. The radicals need to be exterminated.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jackal 2012/09/17 23:11:00
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    Jackal
    +1
    Idiots I tell you!

    Idiots!
  • NarcolepticGoat 2012/09/17 21:15:43
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    NarcolepticGoat
    Where is the 'all three' option? The group that planned the attack and planned to use that film to set fire to the tinder in other cities are at fault. The mobs that willingly spread the fire are at fault. The guys providing the tinder and the fuel that soaked it are also partly responsible.

    If you deliberately set out to piss someone off KNOWING what the inevitable reaction will be then you can't beg off with "free speech" or "I'm not touching him"
  • Narcole... Narcole... 2012/09/17 21:17:31
  • kevracer 2012/09/13 19:07:31
    The book burner is at fault. When people threaten us, we should do as they de...
    kevracer
    +2
    how about a choice for BOTH?
  • Foxhoun... kevracer 2012/09/13 19:39:31
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    no. they are opposites. you either stand for OUR freedoms or you you stand for their "right" to harass and kill us because we exercise our freedoms.
  • kevracer Foxhoun... 2012/09/13 19:56:47
    kevracer
    +4
    the "filmmaker" was wrong and the violent mob were wrong

    quit posting biased questions
  • Foxhoun... kevracer 2012/09/13 22:35:44
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    why was the film maker wrong?
  • kevracer Foxhoun... 2012/09/13 22:38:51
    kevracer
    +2
    the film appears to deliberatly set out to enflame Muslim emotions- why would you make a film with the single purpose of angering others?
  • Foxhoun... kevracer 2012/09/13 22:46:22 (edited)
    Foxhound BN0
    +2
    why not? it's a free country. you can make fun of nerds, jocks, cops, robbers, and even muslims.
  • kevracer Foxhoun... 2012/09/13 22:47:16 (edited)
    kevracer
    +2
    karma is a bitch- now the blood of those Americans is on Nakoula's hands
  • Foxhoun... kevracer 2012/09/13 22:50:18
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    the blood is solely on the hands of the murderers and no one else.
  • kevracer Foxhoun... 2012/09/13 22:53:08
    kevracer
    +2
    not the person who incited them?
  • Foxhoun... kevracer 2012/09/13 23:49:36
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    incited them? so if you argue with me and tell me I'm wrong, and I shoot you, then YOU incited ME to shoot you. is that how you see it?
  • kevracer Foxhoun... 2012/09/14 01:16:12 (edited)
    kevracer
    +2
    you live next door to a neighbor whom you know is fanatical (doesn't matter what- could be the NFL). You goad and prod and enflame him regarding the subject on which he is fanatical until he snaps and kills your other next door neighbor. You wouldn't have any moral responsbility in that scenario?
  • Foxhoun... kevracer 2012/09/14 01:44:46
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    nope. he's not only an idiot, he's a criminal and should be locked up. FREE SPEECH comprende amigo?
  • Foxhoun... Foxhoun... 2012/09/14 01:46:28
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    Man says, "I shot my neighbor because he said football was stupid!". Now facing death row.
  • kevracer Foxhoun... 2012/09/14 01:48:31
    kevracer
    +2
    your answer reveals that you are morally bankrupt
  • Foxhoun... kevracer 2012/09/14 01:51:48
    Foxhound BN0
    +2
    your answer reveals that you are not only lacking intelligence but that you do not respect the rights of others, especially free speech. your argument is fing stupid.
  • Lorenz0... Foxhoun... 2012/09/14 03:40:20
    Lorenz0 W. ElMenzo
    OBama & Hillary knew about it 48 hr. in advance! & neither did anything! Wy not?
  • Lorenz0... Foxhoun... 2012/09/14 03:35:45
    Lorenz0 W. ElMenzo
    Let thes idiot moronic tribes fight it out amongest themselves, certainly, the U.. S. need not be funelling billions of $ in to their treasuries! All they need is a few more goats, or camels, so, they can satisfy, their sexual desires & fantasies!
  • ruralntex 2012/09/13 12:05:31
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    ruralntex
    +1
    We need to make sure they respect us and not care if they like us or not.
  • cowboy 2012/09/13 11:51:38
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    cowboy
    +1
    And then we take 10 copies of that book and shove it up the backside of 10 of those violent terrorist before lighting it this time. Pretty soon they should get the hint.
  • EdWhiteSpace 2012/09/12 22:16:11
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    EdWhiteSpace
    Poorly worded though... While the terrorists are ultimately responsible, the idiot book burner pushed their buttons and gave them something to rally around. There is enough blame to go around.

    If you are shot and killed, the murderer is at fault. But if that murder was pushed to do so that person is not without some culpability.
  • Foxhoun... EdWhite... 2012/09/13 11:54:57 (edited)
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    I disagree. You can't shoot people just because they say things you don't like. The victim is not culpable.
  • EdWhite... Foxhoun... 2012/09/17 00:40:24
    EdWhiteSpace
    I'm not saying you can shoot people for saying something you dislike. I agree, you cannot. Most situations that end up violent are pushed to those extremes by others, not just the one finally exploding. Sometimes justified, most times not so.

    But the person pulling the trigger is not the only one to blame. If I tell you someone is going to hurt your kids, hand you a gun, then badger you about how you shouldn't wait too long and push you toward action, I may not be responsible but I sure as heck took part. It would be up to you to check my sources and facts, see if here are other ways to deal with it even if it is a genuine threat, etc. but no matter what you do, I am not without some blame.

    Ease up the situation... If it were a fistfight, the person throwing the first punch is to blame, right? But if there are people standing behind a kid, pushing him, taunting him, teasing him, and ridiculing him until he acts, are they not somewhat culpable?

    A terrorist who blows himself up is responsible for the deaths... but if pushed by clerics and al Queda leadership, are they scott free or somewhat responsible? Since they blew us up and attacked NYC / US, are they not somewhat responsible when our soldiers get in a shoot out in Afghanistan? Or is it only the soldier or general...






    I'm not saying you can shoot people for saying something you dislike. I agree, you cannot. Most situations that end up violent are pushed to those extremes by others, not just the one finally exploding. Sometimes justified, most times not so.

    But the person pulling the trigger is not the only one to blame. If I tell you someone is going to hurt your kids, hand you a gun, then badger you about how you shouldn't wait too long and push you toward action, I may not be responsible but I sure as heck took part. It would be up to you to check my sources and facts, see if here are other ways to deal with it even if it is a genuine threat, etc. but no matter what you do, I am not without some blame.

    Ease up the situation... If it were a fistfight, the person throwing the first punch is to blame, right? But if there are people standing behind a kid, pushing him, taunting him, teasing him, and ridiculing him until he acts, are they not somewhat culpable?

    A terrorist who blows himself up is responsible for the deaths... but if pushed by clerics and al Queda leadership, are they scott free or somewhat responsible? Since they blew us up and attacked NYC / US, are they not somewhat responsible when our soldiers get in a shoot out in Afghanistan? Or is it only the soldier or general or President's fault?
    A terrorist who blows himself up is responsible for the deaths... but if pushed by clerics and al Queda leadership, are they scott free or somewhat responsible? Since they blew us up and attacked NYC / US, are they not somewhat responsible when our soldiers get in a shoot out in Afghanistan? Or is it only the soldier or general or President's fault?

    Usually when violence erupts, unless the violence is by a true madman then others have taken part to inflame (enflame?) situations and I do not think they ay not be responsible but I sure as heck took part. It would be up to you to check my sources and facts, see if here are other ways to deal with it even if it is a genuine threat, etc. but no matter what you do, I am not without some blame.

    Ease up the situation... If it were a fistfight, the person throwing the first punch is to blame, right? But if there are people standing behind a kid, pushing him, taunting him, teasing him, and ridiculing him until he acts, are they not somewhat culpable?

    Usually when violence erupts, unless the violence is by a true madman then others have taken part to inflame (enflame?) situations and I do not think they are without some of the blame. Sometimes it is justified. Often the violence is not. But while some may eventually act, usually situations are built up by numerous people.
    (more)
  • Foxhoun... EdWhite... 2012/09/17 09:12:01
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    thumbs down
    Freedom of speech. Period.
  • EdWhite... Foxhoun... 2012/09/24 14:59:12
    EdWhiteSpace
    Freedom of speech is just that: the freedom to say what you want. And I'm all for it... a person should not legally be restricted from being stupid, hurtful, or inflammatory. They have that right. No where does it say that freedom of speech also carries with it a freedom from culpability, or that there will be no consequences. Just because you 'can' say whoever pops in your head, doesn't mean a person should. Too many people fall on and rely upon the phrase 'Freedom Of Speech and think there should be no consequences. Wrong. You shouldn't be legally prohibited, but societal opinions and actions will be based upon what you say or do.
  • Foxhoun... EdWhite... 2012/09/24 19:21:51
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    On my scale of things that might be worth fighting over, making fun of religion is pretty low on the list.
  • EdWhite... Foxhoun... 2012/09/26 17:20:18
    EdWhiteSpace
    +1
    That's because you are rational and confident enough to not let the opinions of others rattle you. For a group that has little and puts everything into their religion, is willing to die for it, and bases their entire identity on it? For a group that is obviously being controlled by those clerics at the top? Its cult-like and close to brainwashing... They'll kill over smaller slights than a film mocking their God. And those that made the film knew this would happen. I'm not saying they shouldn't have made it as we cannot let fear stop freedom of speech, but its too bad they made the film yet didn't have to deal with the repercussions, while innocent soldiers and embassy workers took the brunt of it when they had nothing to do with the film.
  • Foxhoun... EdWhite... 2012/09/26 18:01:03
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    Just another reason why terrorists suck.
  • All American 2012/09/12 19:47:03
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    All American
    +1
    Those who committed the murder are responsible.
  • Owen 2012/09/12 18:34:16
  • Foxhoun... Owen 2012/09/12 19:37:19
  • Owen Foxhoun... 2012/09/12 20:19:37
    Owen
    +1
    Agreed. As long as you aren't endangering anyone you should have every right to carry on. If someone assaults you then it is exactly that. Assault. All I'm saying is that you might not feel a whole lot of sympathy coming your way.
  • EdWhite... Foxhoun... 2012/09/24 15:02:47
    EdWhiteSpace
    You have the right to burn it. But others have the right to defend it, judge you harshly for it, etc. Everyone has the right to say what they wish, but its naive to think those actions won't cause other actions or judgements.
  • Foxhoun... EdWhite... 2012/09/24 19:22:42
    Foxhound BN0
    +1
    yes it would be naive to think there are no consequences to our actions.
  • ElliPonto 2012/09/12 18:31:30
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    ElliPonto
    +2
    We are the US and what we do here is live and die free. If your country does not like how we live, then don't accept our financial aid.
  • keeper ElliPonto 2012/09/14 19:50:48
    keeper
    +2
    Good answer..
  • keeper 2012/09/12 18:25:13
    The violent terrorists are at fault. They have no right to kill people over a...
    keeper
    +3
    Whether it was a book or a movie, this is not a response from sane people. The radicals need to be exterminated.
  • cowboy keeper 2012/09/13 11:54:38
    cowboy
    +2
    Exterminated violently and without worrying about their feelings! Send a message that their behaviour will NOT be tolerated. When they kill one of ours, we kill 10 of theirs. If it is a diplomat that they kill, we kill 100 of theirs on live TV.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 10:13:36

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals