That freak in Florida doesn't speak for me

[johnrocks]

Or 99.999% of Christians.

He is someone that has distorted views of what it is to be a Christian, and doesn't hold OUR viewpoints. He is the same as Fred Phelps, with an agenda of hate to spread.


And if ANY soldiers or innocent people are killed because of what he wants to do, the blood is on HIS HANDS, and anyone else that participates in this sideshow of burning the Koran.


This is my opinion. -EZ

Seems like you hit the nail on the head.


Endorsement of Westboro Baptist Church

In March 2010, Dove World posted a video which decried the possibility of an openly-gay mayor (in this case, current mayor Craig Lowe, who is the first openly gay mayor of Gainesville). It also posted a sign saying "No Homo Mayor"; after Americans United requested the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the sign as an undue participation of a non-political tax-exempt organization in the political process[15], the church then changed the sign to simply read "No Homo"[16].

On April 18, 2010, members of the church participated in a joint protest with the Westboro Baptist Church against homosexuality[17]; the protest took place in front of Trinity United Methodist Church and the University of Florida Hillel.

Later, on April 21, Dove World member Fran Ingram published a blog post proclaiming the church's endorsements of the Westboro Baptist Church's protests against homosexuality and homosexuals[18].
Dove World Outreach Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

I agree with your first comments, EZ, but not the second part. The blood is on the hands of who ever does the killing. Anyone that can use some event such as this as an excuse to kill someone is the one deserving of scorn and should take the full responsibility for his/her actions. No one forces another to kill, there are no excuses.

Extreme fanatics are insane by our standards (e.g., the 9/11 shahids). We know that many of these Islamic extremists are not only ready and willing to die and all they need is a reason -- a push. Burning the Koran will incite them just as provoking an angry dog will cause it to attack. Deliberately provoking a known fanatic to violence makes one culpable for the fanatic's actions.

Free speech does not mean it's okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Therefore free speech is limited, not absolute. So this opportunistic minister, Jones, should be enjoined from burning the Koran and he should be arrested and imprisoned if he does it. Let him explain his action to the Black Muslims there.

What I see evidence of on this Thread is...... Wait for it......

Yes..... You guessed it.... You are all Hostages..... Lets play Stockholm Syndrome and tear away at each other.




Stockholm syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Stockholm syndrome (disambiguation).

Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, StockholmIn psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]

Contents [hide]
1 Development
2 Psychoanalytic explanations
3 Notable examples
4 Lima syndrome
5 In popular culture
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

[edit] Development
While there is still disagreement as to what factors characterize incidents that contribute to the development of Stockholm syndrome, research has suggested that hostages may exhibit the condition in situations that feature captors who do not abuse the victim, a long duration before resolution, continued contact between the perpetrator and hostage, and a high level of emotion. In fact, experts have concluded that the intensity, not the length of the incident, combined with a lack of physical abuse more likely will create favorable conditions for the development of Stockholm syndrome.[1]

The following are viewed as the conditions necessary for Stockholm syndrome to occur.

Hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself.[1]
The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.[1]
The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.[1]
The captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors’ “good side” to protect themselves.[1]
In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victim’s life, as well as basic needs for survival. Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence. In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a 'mother' figure protecting the 'child' from a threatening outside world, including law enforcement’s deadly weapons. The victim then begins a struggle for survival, both relying on and identifying with the captor. Possibly, hostages’ motivation to live outweighs their impulse to hate the person who created their suffering.[1][6]

In many cases, capture may also involve the killing (or threat of killing) of the captive's relatives, thereby isolating the captive. The captive is subjected to isolation and so sees even a small act, such as providing amenities, as a great favour. Such captives may side with their captors while believing their captors have conferred on them great importance and love. Furthermore, captives who perceive themselves as the only members of their group not to have been killed may believe that they have been shown a special interest.[citation needed]

[edit] Psychoanalytic explanations
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological shift that occurs in captives when they are threatened gravely but are shown acts of kindness by their captors. Captives who exhibit the syndrome tend to sympathize with and think highly of their captors. When subjected to prolonged captivity, these captives can develop a strong bond with their captors, in some cases including a sexual interest.

Psychiatrist Frank Ochberg, widely credited with Stockholm Syndrome's psychiatric definition, describes it as "a primitive gratitude for the gift of life," not unlike that felt by an infant.[7]

According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, this tendency might be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable—at the very least—the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.[8]

Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Save Us From Ourselves!!!!!

 

[martybegan]

Or 99.999% of Christians.

He is someone that has distorted views of what it is to be a Christian, and doesn't hold OUR viewpoints. He is the same as Fred Phelps, with an agenda of hate to spread.


And if ANY soldiers or innocent people are killed because of what he wants to do, the blood is on HIS HANDS, and anyone else that participates in this sideshow of burning the Koran.


This is my opinion. -EZ

Seems like you hit the nail on the head.


Endorsement of Westboro Baptist Church

In March 2010, Dove World posted a video which decried the possibility of an openly-gay mayor (in this case, current mayor Craig Lowe, who is the first openly gay mayor of Gainesville). It also posted a sign saying "No Homo Mayor"; after Americans United requested the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the sign as an undue participation of a non-political tax-exempt organization in the political process[15], the church then changed the sign to simply read "No Homo"[16].

On April 18, 2010, members of the church participated in a joint protest with the Westboro Baptist Church against homosexuality[17]; the protest took place in front of Trinity United Methodist Church and the University of Florida Hillel.

Later, on April 21, Dove World member Fran Ingram published a blog post proclaiming the church's endorsements of the Westboro Baptist Church's protests against homosexuality and homosexuals[18].
Dove World Outreach Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Figures they are associated with the Westboro nutters. Still doesnt change my view that they should be allowed to be nutters with the Koran BBQ.

 

[MikeK]

[...]That's why I am encouraging people to email him in the Spirit of love, kindness and reconciliation. It's the only way to defeat hate.

This guy is not receptive to any such solicitation. He is an opportunist in the same category of his namesake, Jim Jones, of the Guyana mass suicide. He already has been denounced as a cultist and kicked out of Germany.

Terry Jones, Koran-Torching Pastor, Was Run Out of Germany

 

[MikeK]

[Then in that case we let the the fanatics define what we call free speech? Since its only going to offend them anyway. Again as I stated before, "all on them, none on us."
We cannot stop speech based soley on the reaction of idiots.

And this is in no way like crying fire in a crowded theatre. That is an IMMIDIATE danger to life. This is not.

This issue occurs as a simple proposition in which people who are known to be capable of suicidal violence are about to be needlessly provoked by some publicity-seeking demagogue. Anyone who thinks it's okay to do what this troublemaker plans to do is a fool who deserves to be the recipient of any retaliation to such a stupidly thoughtless gesture as burning the Koran.

You don't torment mad dogs and you don't provoke fanatics -- unless you're a mindless idiot. Leave them alone!

 

[random3434]

I agree with your first comments, EZ, but not the second part. The blood is on the hands of who ever does the killing. Anyone that can use some event such as this as an excuse to kill someone is the one deserving of scorn and should take the full responsibility for his/her actions. No one forces another to kill, there are no excuses.

Extreme fanatics are insane by our standards (e.g., the 9/11 shahids). We know that many of these Islamic extremists are not only ready and willing to die and all they need is a reason -- a push. Burning the Koran will incite them just as provoking an angry dog will cause it to attack. Deliberately provoking a known fanatic to violence makes one culpable for the fanatic's actions.
Free speech does not mean it's okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Therefore free speech is limited, not absolute. So this opportunistic minister, Jones, should be enjoined from burning the Koran and he should be arrested and imprisoned if he does it. Let him explain his action to the Black Muslims there.

Then in that case we let the the fanatics define what we call free speech? Since its only going to offend them anyway. Again as I stated before, "all on them, none on us."
We cannot stop speech based soley on the reaction of idiots.

And this is in no way like crying fire in a crowded theatre. That is an IMMIDIATE danger to life. This is not.

We don't know that yet now, do we?

The secretary general’s comments come just hours after the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, warned that the burning of the holy book could put the lives of U.S. troops in danger and hurt the war effort in Afghanistan.

Top NATO official condemns planned Quran burning on September 11th - TheHill.com

 

[random3434]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdtFk_V6A4M]YouTube - BURN A QURAN DAY (A Tragical Church Parody Ad From DC Douglas)[/ame]

 

[Intense]

[...]That's why I am encouraging people to email him in the Spirit of love, kindness and reconciliation. It's the only way to defeat hate.

This guy is not receptive to any such solicitation. He is an opportunist in the same category of his namesake, Jim Jones, of the Guyana mass suicide. He already has been denounced as a cultist and kicked out of Germany.

Terry Jones, Koran-Torching Pastor, Was Run Out of Germany

Tone it down a bit Timmy!!!!!

 

[Intense]

[Then in that case we let the the fanatics define what we call free speech? Since its only going to offend them anyway. Again as I stated before, "all on them, none on us."
We cannot stop speech based soley on the reaction of idiots.

And this is in no way like crying fire in a crowded theatre. That is an IMMIDIATE danger to life. This is not.

This issue occurs as a simple proposition in which people who are known to be capable of suicidal violence are about to be needlessly provoked by some publicity-seeking demagogue. Anyone who thinks it's okay to do what this troublemaker plans to do is a fool who deserves to be the recipient of any retaliation to such a stupidly thoughtless gesture as burning the Koran.

You don't torment mad dogs and you don't provoke fanatics -- unless you're a mindless idiot. Leave them alone!

Leaving them alone is no guarantee that they will leave you alone. Where does one draw the line????? Maybe we start with making our own choices, and learning to tolerate others. You attribute Radical Islam to being a mad or feral dog. If that was the case, reason is not part of the equation. Madrid, London, Mumbai, are all testimony against your reasoning.

 

[Intense]

Extreme fanatics are insane by our standards (e.g., the 9/11 shahids). We know that many of these Islamic extremists are not only ready and willing to die and all they need is a reason -- a push. Burning the Koran will incite them just as provoking an angry dog will cause it to attack. Deliberately provoking a known fanatic to violence makes one culpable for the fanatic's actions.
Free speech does not mean it's okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Therefore free speech is limited, not absolute. So this opportunistic minister, Jones, should be enjoined from burning the Koran and he should be arrested and imprisoned if he does it. Let him explain his action to the Black Muslims there.

Then in that case we let the the fanatics define what we call free speech? Since its only going to offend them anyway. Again as I stated before, "all on them, none on us."
We cannot stop speech based soley on the reaction of idiots.

And this is in no way like crying fire in a crowded theatre. That is an IMMIDIATE danger to life. This is not.

We don't know that yet now, do we?

The secretary general’s comments come just hours after the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, warned that the burning of the holy book could put the lives of U.S. troops in danger and hurt the war effort in Afghanistan.

Top NATO official condemns planned Quran burning on September 11th - TheHill.com

If things are so unstable, my question is are we being lied to about the peaceful intent of Islam????? How is it acceptable to burn Bibles, American Flags, call us Devil's, and dishonor and disrespect us in every way. How much Bullshit propaganda were we forced to put up with concerning this shit sandwich?????

AT THE CENTER OF THE CONTROVERSY

is The Holy Virgin Mary, a 1996 collage by Chris Ofili, an award-winning British artist, which incorporates elephant feces.

madonna

 

[martybegan]

[Then in that case we let the the fanatics define what we call free speech? Since its only going to offend them anyway. Again as I stated before, "all on them, none on us."
We cannot stop speech based soley on the reaction of idiots.

And this is in no way like crying fire in a crowded theatre. That is an IMMIDIATE danger to life. This is not.

This issue occurs as a simple proposition in which people who are known to be capable of suicidal violence are about to be needlessly provoked by some publicity-seeking demagogue. Anyone who thinks it's okay to do what this troublemaker plans to do is a fool who deserves to be the recipient of any retaliation to such a stupidly thoughtless gesture as burning the Koran.

You don't torment mad dogs and you don't provoke fanatics -- unless you're a mindless idiot. Leave them alone!

Or we can just kill anyone who thinks its ok to kill someone who burns a book. fair is fair.

 

[martybegan]

Extreme fanatics are insane by our standards (e.g., the 9/11 shahids). We know that many of these Islamic extremists are not only ready and willing to die and all they need is a reason -- a push. Burning the Koran will incite them just as provoking an angry dog will cause it to attack. Deliberately provoking a known fanatic to violence makes one culpable for the fanatic's actions.
Free speech does not mean it's okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Therefore free speech is limited, not absolute. So this opportunistic minister, Jones, should be enjoined from burning the Koran and he should be arrested and imprisoned if he does it. Let him explain his action to the Black Muslims there.

Then in that case we let the the fanatics define what we call free speech? Since its only going to offend them anyway. Again as I stated before, "all on them, none on us."
We cannot stop speech based soley on the reaction of idiots.

And this is in no way like crying fire in a crowded theatre. That is an IMMIDIATE danger to life. This is not.

We don't know that yet now, do we?

The secretary general’s comments come just hours after the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, warned that the burning of the holy book could put the lives of U.S. troops in danger and hurt the war effort in Afghanistan.

Top NATO official condemns planned Quran burning on September 11th - TheHill.com

The "yelling fire in a theatre" exception to free speech requires an onsite immidiate danger. this does not apply, no matter how much a person wants it to.

 

[Political Junky]

Sad thing is he has a lot of followers/supporters (aka fools).

Actually, he has 50 followers. There are many others who agree with him, I'm sure.

 

[Charles_Main]

Sad thing is he has a lot of followers/supporters (aka fools).

Link lol. His church is tiny less than 50 Members.

 

[del]

Koran Burner: Creepier Than You Think | The Smoking Gun

 

[MikeK]

Leaving them alone is no guarantee that they will leave you alone. Where does one draw the line????? Maybe we start with making our own choices, and learning to tolerate others. You attribute Radical Islam to being a mad or feral dog. If that was the case, reason is not part of the equation. Madrid, London, Mumbai, are all testimony against your reasoning.

Then presumably your reasoning is to provoke them by burning the Koran. If not, then what are you saying?

What else do you think we should do? Start killing Islamics until they're all dead? If so, what do you plan on doing with 1.5 billion corpses?

 

[MikeK]

The "yelling fire in a theatre" exception to free speech requires an onsite immidiate danger. this does not apply, no matter how much a person wants it to.

The shouting Fire! exception to the First Amendment is metaphorical, not literal, and considering what the nature of the 9/11 attack and the frequent suicide bombings implies the same principle applies to this situation. There is equal potential for violent retaliation for burning the Koran as there is for panic from shouting Fire! in a crowded place.

 

[Fregretu]

Or 99.999% of Christians.

He is someone that has distorted views of what it is to be a Christian, and doesn't hold OUR viewpoints. He is the same as Fred Phelps, with an agenda of hate to spread.


And if ANY soldiers or innocent people are killed because of what he wants to do, the blood is on HIS HANDS, and anyone else that participates in this sideshow of burning the Koran.


This is my opinion. -EZ

Well, I posted on the other thread before is saw this one.

I am not afraid to say that I support his right to protest.

If the Holy Bible advocated Sharia Law, how many Bibles would be burned?
And everyone would look the other way.

99.999% of modern day Christians are afraid they might be perceived as intolerant or bigots. Tolerance is the reason our moral platform is in decline in the US.

We need more activist Christians like Pastor Terry Jones. I hope he takes on the ACLU next. 99.999% of you will do absolutely nothing about those loons.

Just my opinion.

 

[Hister]

He should burn korans, hijabs, niqabs, kissing carpets and turbans all burning under a naked effigy of mohamed getting fucked in the ass by a huge pig.
Anyone who complains wins a free ticket back to Iraq.

 

[Newby]

I agree with your first comments, EZ, but not the second part. The blood is on the hands of who ever does the killing. Anyone that can use some event such as this as an excuse to kill someone is the one deserving of scorn and should take the full responsibility for his/her actions. No one forces another to kill, there are no excuses.

Extreme fanatics are insane by our standards (e.g., the 9/11 shahids). We know that many of these Islamic extremists are not only ready and willing to die and all they need is a reason -- a push. Burning the Koran will incite them just as provoking an angry dog will cause it to attack. Deliberately provoking a known fanatic to violence makes one culpable for the fanatic's actions.

Free speech does not mean it's okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Therefore free speech is limited, not absolute. So this opportunistic minister, Jones, should be enjoined from burning the Koran and he should be arrested and imprisoned if he does it. Let him explain his action to the Black Muslims there.

And what happens when simply posting Christian or Jewish or Budhist thought on a message board sets them off, or simply attending your faith's services sets them off? Do we change our lives for fear of 'setting them off'? Tell me where you would draw the line? Apparently you would restrict speech and free thought, so where would you stop?