Anti-Islam Minister Terry Jones Says He Feels No Responsibility for U.S. Ambassador’s Death

[Jessup]

even if he does hate Catholics and supports a movie that would mock our faith, we as a Catholic community would not be resorting to violence, death threats and attacks on him or any Baptist church in protest. The people who are doing this would be using any excuse to justify the killings and burning. How about if we bombed them to the moon because they are burning our flag? This already has been proven that there is not coincidence between these attacks and 9/11. This little movie is just a lame excuse.

 Thats not what I ment. What I mean is, I would support him 100% but i'm not because of his multi hateful views i'm assuming that he has. 
 . Thus I do believe that he should not feel guilty about any attacks. I'm saying that the reason I don't support him 100% is because he probalaly hates Catholics as much as he hates muslims. I'm pretty sure if you went to one of his sermons, you'd probalaly see us both lumped into one burning pile.

 

[robwar]

Thats not what I ment. What I mean is, I would support him 100% but i’m not because of his multi hateful views i’m assuming that he has.
. Thus I do believe that he should not feel guilty about any attacks. I’m saying that the reason I don’t support him 100% is because he probalaly hates Catholics as much as he hates muslims. I’m pretty sure if you went to one of his sermons, you’d probalaly see us both lumped into one burning pile.

Hi Jesup,
I can understand how you came up with the connection and you may be correct. This pastor has tried to come to Dearborn Mi, the city with the largest Arab population in the country to burn Korans. Trust me, it was quite the stir. i do not believe in Islam at all but I also do not think that burning anyone’s holy book does anything but cause problems. Now lets say that he if after Catholics and want to rip up rosaries. While this would obviously get condemn, Catholics would not be going out and burning Baptists churches and killing their pastors.Likewise, when there was so called art show which featured a crucifix in a cup of urine, Catholics again did not go around and destroy museums. This movie has not even been released yet but these people are going completely nuts in response and blaming our government for what a private citizen decided to make. In fact, this movie is made by a Coptic Christian and not a Jew and the whole thing is out of control. We need to pray the rosary to stop this madness.

 

[Boulder257]

Where in this thread does it say that he champions this movie? Did I miss something?

The first sentence of the article that is linked in the OP’s opening thread states the fact that the pastor is supporting this movie. It even goes on to discuss how he met with the producers of the movie weeks ago and agreed to help them promote the movie! The OP’s title makes no statement or suggestion referring to the Koran burning. The entire topic of the thread stems from the article in the first post which is specifically about the pastor’s support of the movie and how it antagonized some of the overseas reaction. I have to admit I am completely confused by your comments as it doesn’t appear you actually read the article in which the OP linked and then you made incorrect assumptions regarding the topic of the posts. I think this may be leading to our misunderstandings regarding the topic of this thread.

Secondly, you ask me about the pastor’s pattern of actions. I can think of three things he has done off the top of my head. First, you have him burning the Koran, then you have him putting Islam on trial (he created a fake “trial” in while he was the judge and Islam was put on trial). Now, you have him supporting this movie which even the director admits was an attack on the faith. This is only three of the more highly publicised things he has done. Personally, I don’t have any problem defining this as a pattern of behavior. Thus, we are not talking about a person’s one statement about a faith or even a single criticism of the faith. This is a situation where the producers and this “pastor” specifically orchestrated their actions for maximum effect.

Again, I am not supporting the extreme reaction, but I can’t see how anyone can honestly defend this man’s actions as charitable Christian acts intended to convert the Muslim faith.

 

[mangy_dog]

If he made and distributed an anti-Mormon film and a bunch of Mormons killed someone becuase of it would he be responsable for their actions?

Lets face it folks.

Insulting Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses or Catholics, does not bring about violence and murder.

Only a slight and distant suggestion of insult towards Islam and BAM…violence, indignation and murder.

Terry Jones may be overly outspoken and a provocateur but no other religion except Islam will go on a rampage of violence and death dealing.

 

[manualman]

Now lets say that he if after Catholics and want to rip up rosaries. While this would obviously get condemn, Catholics would not be going out and burning Baptists churches and killing their pastors.

Yeah, catholics have the OPPOSITE problem. He could do all this and still get catholics to VOTE for him! Think I’m exaggerating? Watch the news in November…

 

[mangy_dog]

Yeah, catholics have the OPPOSITE problem. He could do all this and still get catholics to VOTE for him! Think I’m exaggerating? Watch the news in November…

You’re right.

Sad but true. We are not violent or fly into murderous rages over insults but instead we are wishy washy about our life of prayer and our life of the spirit.

We compromise for the “lesser of two evils” even if the “lesser” is still evil.

You are correct sir. We need to support and defend the Holy Father’s plan of faith for this year.

 

[sedonaman]

The first sentence of the article that is linked in the OP’s opening thread states the fact that the pastor is supporting this movie. It even goes on to discuss how he met with the producers of the movie weeks ago and agreed to help them promote the movie! The OP’s title makes no statement or suggestion referring to the Koran burning. The entire topic of the thread stems from the article in the first post which is specifically about the pastor’s support of the movie and how it antagonized some of the overseas reaction. I have to admit I am completely confused by your comments as it doesn’t appear you actually read the article in which the OP linked and then you made incorrect assumptions regarding the topic of the posts. I think this may be leading to our misunderstandings regarding the topic of this thread.

Secondly, you ask me about the pastor’s pattern of actions. I can think of three things he has done off the top of my head. First, you have him burning the Koran, then you have him putting Islam on trial (he created a fake “trial” in while he was the judge and Islam was put on trial). Now, you have him supporting this movie which even the director admits was an attack on the faith. This is only three of the more highly publicised things he has done. Personally, I don’t have any problem defining this as a pattern of behavior. Thus, we are not talking about a person’s one statement about a faith or even a single criticism of the faith. This is a situation where the producers and this “pastor” specifically orchestrated their actions for maximum effect.

Again, I am not supporting the extreme reaction, but I can’t see how anyone can honestly defend this man’s actions as charitable Christian acts intended to convert the Muslim faith.

Then by the same logic, we can hold Mohammed responsible for the attack on the twin towers on 9/11.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

from the article linked by the OP:

Florida minister Terry Jones’ association with a film critical of the Prophet Muhammad put him in the firestorm of Tuesday’s uprising in Libya and Egypt that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens in Benghazi. Although he was unable to air a trailer of the film at his International Judge Muhammad Day on Tuesday night, he burned the Quran and aired it live online.

(emphasis added)

Jones wanted another 15 minutes of infamy and he’s got it. he’s a big man in middle eastern politics now, consulted by presidents and generals.

although he’s not legally responsible for the murder of the ambassador or the other two Americans, or those killed the first time he did his stunt, he knew what kind of reaction his conduct would provoke. Under the present conditions abroad, violence and death are natural consequences of making a public spectacle of burning korans. So in a moral sense he is one of several concurrent causes of those deaths - he’s got blood on his hands.

but, hey, he’s Famous.

Westerby

 

[Boulder257]

Then by the same logic, we can hold Mohammed responsible for the attack on the twin towers on 9/11.

I guess we will find out at the general judgment

 

[Boulder257]

from the article linked by the OP:

(emphasis added)

Jones wanted another 15 minutes of infamy and he’s got it. he’s a big man in middle eastern politics now, consulted by presidents and generals.

although he’s not legally responsible for the murder of the ambassador or the other two Americans, or those killed the first time he did his stunt, he knew what kind of reaction his conduct would provoke. Under the present conditions abroad, violence and death are natural consequences of making a public spectacle of burning korans. So in a moral sense he is one of several concurrent causes of those deaths - he’s got blood on his hands.

but, hey, he’s Famous.

Westerby

Exactly.

 

[sedonaman]

Exactly.

So, how about the answers to my questions,

… How are Muslims going to live in a world that has free societies if they don’t understand that occasionally they are going to hear things that are offensive to them? Not that we should go around and purposely offend them, but are we to die just so they don’t get offended? … If there is any pattern, it is increasing the false alarm rate by increasing the sensitivity. No insults to Islam → no insults to Mohammed → no insults to Muslims → Israel’s existence is an insult to Islam → the entire West is an insult to Islam. Where does it end?

 

[JHow]

All those feeling sorry for Islam in this thread should recall the Pope’s Regensburg lecture and its aftermath. If the Pope, delivering a scholarly lecture to a bunch of other academics, quoting from a historical source, and with absolutely no intention of insulting muslims or islam, can have his remarks turned into an occasion to riot and murder, then you have to admit that those seeking to riot and murder will do so no matter what. The fault lies with the murderers. We cannot live our lives in fear of what might they might perceive as “insulting”.

BTW: Do any of you know what is actually IN the movie in question? if the only criteria for insult is to display an “image” of Mohammed, then I could imagine a perfectly innocent “history channel” documentary being “offensive” to muslims.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

…Here’s a thought: How are Muslims going to live in a world that has free societies if they don’t understand that occasionally they are going to hear things that are offensive to them? Not that we should go around and purposely offend them, but are we to die just so they don’t get offended? …

The radical element of Islam isn’t going to tolerate calculated insults to its beliefs and is “going to live in a world that has free societies” by murdering whoever they feel represents the source of the insult. That’s how its been for centuries and how its going to be for the foreseeable future. How the U.S. co-exists with these with radicals shouldn’t be complicated by a guy acting like a teenager throwing gasoline on a fire so he can get on the news, which is what Jones is doing, except Jones knows that violence and death will follow.

do you honestly think that burning a koran will somehow teach radical Muslims anything?

Westerby

 

[JHow]

The radical element of Islam isn’t going to tolerate calculated insults to its beliefs and is “going to live in a world that has free societies” by murdering whoever they feel represents the source of the insult. That’s how its been for centuries and how its going to be for the foreseeable future. How the U.S. co-exists with these with radicals shouldn’t be complicated by a guy acting like a teenager throwing gasoline on a fire so he can get on the news, which is what Jones is doing, except Jones knows that violence and death will follow.

do you honestly think that burning a koran will somehow teach radical Muslims anything?

Westerby

You can’t control a guy like Jones in a free society. By focusing on Jones instead of islam you are not addressing the real problem. Jones should be ignored by polite society. Please ignore him and teach radical muslims to become a polite society by following your example. Otherwise, you aid their cause.

 

[manualman]

BTW: Do any of you know what is actually IN the movie in question? if the only criteria for insult is to display an “image” of Mohammed, then I could imagine a perfectly innocent “history channel” documentary being “offensive” to muslims.

You can watch clips on YouTube. Search “Innocence of Muslims” Be warned that there is some suggestive stuff. It’s REALLY bad film, acting and was blantantly intended to be insulting by portraying Muhammed as dumb, selfish, lecherous and probably a glutton. Mind you, I only watched about a minute an a half of clips before deciding I’d had enough.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

You can’t control a guy like Jones in a free society. By focusing on Jones instead of islam you are not addressing the real problem. Jones should be ignored by polite society. Please ignore him and teach radical muslims to become a polite society by following your example. Otherwise, you aid their cause.

You’re right, Jones is uncontrollable, protected by the first amendment. Radical muslims can’t be taught anything, they can be marginalized by not provoking them or insulting what I hope is the majority of non-radical Muslims, but there will never stop being radical muslims.

Jones is a milquetoast equivalent of the radicals, can’t be shamed or reasoned with, doesn’t care who is killed, waving the bible the way they wave the koran.

Westerby

 

[jwinch2]

Quite frankly, I don’t even know how anybody, especially a Christian can defend what this man does, even if it is under the guide of free speech.

One can defend his right to do something without being supportive of the action itself. At the end of the day, we may question the prudence of his decision to produce and release such material (and I certainly would), but not his right to do so.

The truth of this matter is very simple. If it was not this movie, it would have been something else. They would have used the pretext of drone strikes, someone in prison they wanted out, American presence in the Holy Land, etc. These attacks were planned and coordinated, as can be evidenced by the use of indirect fire and collecting intelligence on the sites before hand. What they were not, is a random act by people upset over a movie.

 

[sedonaman]

… If it was not this movie, it would have been something else. They would have used the pretext of drone strikes, someone in prison they wanted out, American presence in the Holy Land, etc.

How about the mere existence of the kafr?

These attacks were planned and coordinated, as can be evidenced by the use of indirect fire and collecting intelligence on the sites before hand. What they were not, is a random act by people upset over a movie.

 

[Boulder257]

So, how about the answers to my questions,

I appreciate your points and our discussion, but I really think its run its course at this point. You have a tendency to take a situation and then apply an extreme example and say the two are the same. The fact of the matter is that while this style of argument is effective in legal theory, it’s not applicable to real world situations. There is no need to “answer” your questions because, quite frankly, it’s not even an accurate portrayal of the real world.

Where you going to answer my questions or acknowledge the fact that you misread my posts and the entire topic of the thread to begin with, or are we ignoring that?

 

[Boulder257]

One can defend his right to do something without being supportive of the action itself. At the end of the day, we may question the prudence of his decision to produce and release such material (and I certainly would), but not his right to do so.

The truth of this matter is very simple. If it was not this movie, it would have been something else. They would have used the pretext of drone strikes, someone in prison they wanted out, American presence in the Holy Land, etc. These attacks were planned and coordinated, as can be evidenced by the use of indirect fire and collecting intelligence on the sites before hand. What they were not, is a random act by people upset over a movie.

I agree with you complete in your first paragraph. My previous post specifically stated that I believe in free speech and I believe that by constitutional definition he has the right to do what he did. I also went on to describe that I condemn his particular actions. In reality, I think you and I are making the exact same point, I just must not have communicated mine well enough.

As for the your second paragraph, I cannot speak to that as I am not privelege to the actual intelligence. I have read speculation to this point and read some of the circumstantial hearsay evidence provided by “sources who don’t want to be identified.” However, I wasn’t in the briefing rooms, so I really can’t say.