Kalistean wrote...
Rbz wrote...
Chlor wrote...
Rbz wrote...
Chlor wrote...
Think about the reaction the danish drawings and the artwork of Lars Vilks did, these were drawings, humorous satires of their prophet, this lead to the death of about 30 people. Now think what the reaction on this will be.
But were those 30 deaths the fault of Lars Vilks? Was he the problem? I maintain that the problem is the extremists who show themselves to be the barbarians that they are, all because someone drew a picture.
Agreed, the problem wasn't Lars Vilks but instead the extremists, but there is no denying that it was Lars Vilks who triggered it all right?
Being part of the chain of causes shouldn't mean it was his fault. Of course, it was the "sin" he committed that led the extremists to make the choice to murder others. I don't know much about the story, but I'm assuming he didn't draw those pictures with the intention of arousing violent behavior. This is why I can't see him as the main problem. The choice the extremists made remains the main problem, and it makes the violence that occurred entirely their fault, even though your mind, in a way, instinctively wants to go deeper down the perceived causal chain and point a finger at Lars Vilks as the cause of the problem.
Something I think we'll notice is that when a soldier dies in a terrorist attack, the first thing people will do is blame those who burned a bunch of books. They won't bother to think that maybe the reason he killed that soldier was because he's a fucking terrorist. They'll forget that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.
I'm late to the after party. Oh well, I'll leave it at this.
Agreed and what I said before.
The terrorists just want to kill them. It doesn't matter what reason you give them, they'll find one and go with it.
The problem there is that only 10 of the 30 that was killed was soldiers, the rest were innocent that were killed because the extremists just raged and killed those that thought it wasn't a big deal, and one or two were not killed directly, but more or less trampled down during riots.
No, I'm not pointing the finger at Lars Vilks for being the one that in the end is responsible for the deaths, he probably did not expect that his artwork would cause this much of an uproar. I only stated that he was the trigger for the violent actions taken by the terrorists, the same way that burnings these Qurans will most likely cause an even worse case of basically the same scenario (And if you don't realize that Muslims will be pissed of because of you desecrating their holy script, then you're extremely dimwitted). Of course the best thing would be that the extremists just didn't care about things like this, but we all know they do. So what I'm saying that it's fucking retarded to do a provocative action like this, knowing that it will lead to an uproar from extremists that will eventually end in the deaths of innocents and soldiers.
And of course saying that the deaths of a soldier was specifically just because of this would just be plain stupid, when you send soldiers to war you do it knowing the risk that the soldier might die, no matter what the ultimate reason behind the killing is.