Okay, to clarify.

It makes me laugh because to riot on a contingency basis is just absurd. Grim absurdities abound in this clash of civilizations, and most of the absurd seems to be on our opponents' side. They look about as goofy as Rage Boy (q.v.). He could seriously advertise some toothpaste all over Pakistan. It'd be about like Baghdad Bob emigrating to America and getting a job advertising cars -- "Would I lie to you?"

I thought the riots were a reaction to the NJ Transit employee burning pages from the Koran in NYC?

Sheesh. Are the rioters of Kabul, now resting from their labors, well enough informed to distinguish Florida from NYC? There are those on the ground who report they are not.

Et encore, c'est rire.

Most likely not. That doesn't matter. Like any good extremist, they believe what they are told.

That thinking is silly....

I do not expect you or others to agree with me. Only to respect my decisions to express them, as contrary to what you think and believe. You can't even do that. I don't need to justify my thinking, philosophy or ideas about issues to you or anyone else. Accept them or reject them, I am cool with that... But you can't do that.

It's not your thinking or philosophy, it's the hand grenades that have an antisocial effect. ;)

Eh, so be it.

I am a military guy, direct, take it or leave it, what you see is what you get. There is no hidden agenda. I accept that whatever the perspective is after that is a normal life event. My experience is that people will evaluate exchanges on the internet as a narrow view of their world understanding combined with their life experience to that point. It is not a dig, just an observation. The other observation is that if you think you know someone based upon exchanges on a public forum your are a total fucked up dick and you have a brain the size of a pea, just like Spexxvet.

See you liberal progressive cocksuckers in Nov. Then we can talk.

Hand grenades are not the posts where you say something, they're the posts where you don't. They have no purpose except to agitate, and they do. It's your choice, I'm just sayin'.

Understood. Thanks for your input.

My motivation, as assessed is often not to agitate, often is is really how I feel about issues. How does one divide that out? How do you peel off what is in your heart and what you really feel from some Bullshit touchy feely pile of crap that many try to pass off as "trying to keep the peace" bullshit conversation? Dancing around the issues? Deep throating the party line of the current powers that be? Tiptoeing around the issues of race and scumbags from the far left throw out the race card to shut down conversation and dissent? Now every single person who disagrees with the socialist agenda of Obama or the Demoncrats is now a racist or a bigot. What has happened is they have reset the race card back to the 1950's and in many peoples mind they are going to have to restart it all again with this exploitive tactic of using the race card for every aspect of fighting and disagreeing with disagreement. the idea of anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist needs to be put to bed, it is bullshit.

So be it, but don't be surprised by the bed you now have to lay in.

Because you don't expand your arguments with whatever lessons you've learned in life, I make assumptions to fill in the blanks. You have emerged from the largest socialist enterprise in our country the US Army. You've been fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated by us the taxpayers. You were taken care of and told what to do most of your adult life, but now you are confronted by the real world you defended. Now you realize you don't care much for a democracy of the real world where people have to figure out how to feed, cloth, shelter, and educate themselves. That is the person I see complaining about taxes. I'm sure you see me as a cartoon as well, but I've at least attempted to communicate where I'm coming from.

I do get a laugh out of "deep throating the party line" in the same post as "socialist agenda of Obama and the Democrats"......no partisan bullshit in the latter.

And I always get a laugh out of your many partisan editorials and when those editorials are challenged, your characterization of the differing opinion expressed here as partisan talking points....no contradiction there.

I try to back my opinions with facts. Can you say the same? Of course, you characterize any facts I post as partisan talking points or demand that I prove a negative or pull out the popcorn. Common tactics when you cant support your own opinion.

Playing the race card? You care to cite some examples of how others play the race card in discussions here and you dont (NAACP is racist, mayor of Savannah is racist, etc)?

And then of course, the cock suckers, tit suckers, nazis, whores cunts....all very helpful to any discussion.

I appreciate your effort to clarify your thoughts. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with your conclusions.

You presume you know the motivations of the rioters, which you can not (nor can I). But your theory is absurd, consistent for you, but ironic given your constant admonitions of other dwellars' poor thinking. You have made the mistake of picking your "facts" to conform to your theory. A good thinker does just the opposite, conforming their theories to the facts.

You say "It makes me laugh because to riot on a contingency basis is just absurd." I disregard the rest of your paragraph because it is only more of your whining insults, nothing like a critical assessment of what's going on outside your head. You claim the rioters' actions were motivated on a "contingency basis" and call that absurd. In fact, you use this as the foundation for your string of insults. But there is no fact to support such a theory. The only facts here are that a pastor in Florida threatened to burn some Korans and that some people rioted.

The best (simplest, most reasonable and believable, most consistent) correlation that can be made between these two facts, a pastor threatened to burn some Korans and some people rioted) is that the people were incited to riot by the threats made by pastor. This is not absurd. It may be an overreaction by the standards of some. Let me draw an analogy. If you were faced with someone who is shouting loudly and aggressively, threatening to do you harm, and you were carrying your firearm, what would you do? Would you wait until he physically harmed you before you shot him? Maybe you would shoot him before he had the chance to do so. If you did, would you say to the police that you'd shot him on a "contingency basis"? Or would you say your responded to the threat of violence?

I contend that the reason the rioters' acted violently is because they were responding to the threat of violence, not because of some absurd, "contingency basis".

It is possible that you are unable to empathize with people who feel so strongly about their religion that such a threat is tantamount to violence, and would respond accordingly. This might partly account for why you wouldn't see such an obvious correlation, and therefore had to come up with such an absurd one. However, I don't think I can help you become more empathetic.

As I understand it, the Kabul riots were in response to a fatal car crash between a car driven by American contractor, and one driven by an Afghan.

I will never be able to empathize with people that practice arson, physical violence, and murder, in response to insulting a book, or in fact insulting Deities themselves.

You want to burn a Bible, have at it... unless it's mine.
And Deities by definition are much more powerful than I, therefore they can fight their own battles.

What was the threat of violence? How was this pastor "violent" from half way around the world?

xoB, I also believe such a response to such a provocation is an overreaction, to say the least. But I do empathize with them. I know I have, and every other person has, feelings and beliefs that are held so closely that an insult or a threat to those beliefs is indistinguishable from an insult or a threat to my person. And some threats to my person will be met with violence.

Where is the line between one's beliefs and one's self? What things are worth defending? Each person answers such question for themselves, but I believe we all have them, including those absurd Afghans.