Guardian asks if Florida pastor is responsible for Afghanistan murders over Qur'an-burning, 60% say yes

Who can trust the pathetic Islam-bowing hard-core Marxist Guardian?!Bravo to Pastor Jones - a brave Pastor indeed! If Pastor Jones thinks that the koran is evil and he wants to burn it, let him do so since he's not forcing others to do it. Besides, is he harming anyone like how the Muslim fanatics are free to commit rape, robbery and murder of innocent human beings, of Muslims and non-Muslims, like in Pakistan here? These Muslim savages have been threatening, raping, robbing and killing humanity since the Arabic Pedophile rapist, robber, slave-owner (including sexual slaves such as young Jewish captive girls), and mass murderer of the Jews, Mohammed, created Islam!

Allah's lust for infidel blood is limitless and unappeaseable, and the reasons no know bounds.

Allah's lust for infidel blood is limitless and unappeasable, and the reasons know no bounds.

Hey.. remember when Christians rioted and murdered a bunch of people in response to all of those Bibles that were burned by the U.S. military in Afghanistan?

Oh. Yeah. That's right. There were no riots or murders. Just some words of disappointment and disagreement over the policy.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bibles-destroye.html

One of the posters responding to The Guardian's fixed poll said;

'Johnkimble1 1 April 2011 7:24PM

Using this logic where critics of Islam are held responsible for the actions of extremists then does this mean Theo van Gogh was actually responsible for his own murder?'

Nice one! But 'The Guardian' (UK) is the dhimmiest voice of Islam in Britain. These guys would lick the sh*t out of Mohammed's ass and swear it was chocolate fudge.

To quote my grandmother,"He who angers you, Conquers you."

Guardian asks if Florida pastor is responsible for Afghanistan murders over Qur'an-burning, 60% say yes

And those 60% are the vanguard of the death of the free West.
.............................

They are indeed. Don't these idiots understand anything about human morality and free will?

Just yesterday, Marisol Seibold noted that many Infidels act as though "inciting" Muslims is like poking "a beehive with a stick".

Actually, accepting such reflexive violence from Muslims as normal is to actually regard Muslims as less than rational human actors, from which reasonable actions can be expected.

Why isn't *this* considered "Islamophobic"?

More:

I don't believe in burning the Qur'an. I believe in reading and understanding the Qur'an. But Terry Jones is not responsible by any rational measure for the murders in Afghanistan.
.............................

Of course not. Also—does no one understand the irony here? Pastor Jones did not merely burn the Qu'ran—he held a trial for its contents and condemned it as a violent book.

I am not a fan of book burning, either—but doesn't this insanity prove Pastor Jones *right*?

More:

Provocations are provocations, but we are in control of our reactions to those provocations. If someone called a freedom fighter an Islamophobic racist, the freedom fighter could try to reason with him -- or he could kill him, or kill someone else -- would then the person making the charge be responsible for the murders that the freedom fighter committed? Of course not.
.............................

And it's a damned good thing that freedom fighters are such rational and measured people, considering the "provocations" they suffer from Muslims, dhimmi apologists, and the well-meaning but terminally clueless on a regular basis.

More:

Western governments, meanwhile, should in the face of this irrational violence be defending the freedom of expression and explaining its importance.
.............................

**Yes**. But as noted, they probably won't.

So, 60 percent of poll respondents believe that Muslims are easily provoked savages who can't be held responsible for their own actions? If that premise is true, then this would justify speech restrictions on Muslims, outlawing the exhortation of violence.

Earlier today, I speculated:

"What is most likely to get lost in this discussion is that Muslims have the free will to restrain themselves when offended, if they so choose. Had they done that, Jones and Sapp would already be a forgotten sideshow.

"The willingness to riot and to murder was already in place here; two Florida pastors did not create that. And the utter and obvious lack of connection between the UN office and one Florida congregation ultimately shows the Qur'an desecration was a pretext, as it so often is, even in fabricated local cases that lead to rampaging mobs' abusing non-Muslims. That, too, will likely get lost in the discussion, which has tended to take the automatic, violent reaction of Muslims for granted, thereby tacitly excusing them from responsibility after being 'provoked'."

Looks like that's indeed the case for 60% at the Guardian.

I don't believe in burning the Qur'an. I believe in reading and understanding the Qur'an.

Burning a copy or even a thousand copies of the Quran does not preclude reading the Quran.

The burning is a form of demonstartion against the Quran and the violent messages contained therein, and a demonstration for free speech. It it not a demonstration to stop people understanding the Quran. I therefore support, without reservations, the burning of copies of this book or copies of any other book, for that matter.

Here's how the poll is worded (I've added the results at the time I saw it):

"Is the Florida pastor who burnt the Qur'an morally responsible for the deaths of UN staff in protests in Afghanistan?
59.2% Yes, it is a provocative blasphemy against others' beliefs
40.8% No, it should be considered a legitimate free speech act"

-----------

1. The Guardian is left-leaning; its audience is more likely than the general population of the U.K. to support stifling free expression on matters related to Islam. This is certainly not a random or otherwise representative sample of the British population in general.

2. The question seems to be worded in such a way as to make a "Yes" response fairly easy to justify. Note that it does not ask whether the pastor should be held legally responsible, i.e., the real test of whether a person thinks he is in some significant sense culpable in causing the killings in Afghanistan.

3. The "Yes" option is in some sense true; certainly what the pastor did can be described as "blasphemy", even if one does not accept the concept of blasphemy per se, and such statements can be taken as "provocative." But the "Yes" option departs from the terms of the question. It doesn't say "Yes, the Florida pastor is guilty or to blame for the killings in Afghanistan." What exactly does it mean then when someone answers "Yes" here?

4. The "No" option is not as badly worded, but the use of the somewhat ambiguous "legitimate" is misleading. Many people could say in a casual sense that the pastor's Qur'an burning should not be deemed a "legitimate" (in terms of rules of reasoning, politeness, etc.) way to make a point, yet at the same time maintain that it is "legitimate" (legally okay) free expression. And again, there is a major discrepancy between the terms of the question and those of the response. So what exactly does a "No" response mean here?

In addition to the above, the brief caption and title describe the pastor unflatteringly as a "fundamentalist."

The above factors would tend to bias people more toward Yes than toward No responses.

That said, for those of us who favor free expression and who don't think the pastor is to blame for the killings, and who are familiar with the sorts of biases at play here in this (already biased) poll, it should be possible to barrel through this nonsense and select "No".

Western governments, meanwhile, should in the face of this irrational violence...."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Amen. When I was young, if I did or said something people around me thought was not rational, people (family members) would shame me. That is how a civilized society deals with irrational behavior. What is wrong with our leaders?

Just when I thought I couldn't loathe the Guardian anymore... it asks a question to which all decent people ought to know the answer.

I just checked the results again which are updated every 60 seconds.

It is now 53% Yes vs 47% No.

Perhaps a shift due to an influx of JihadWatch readers following the link?...this also suggests the sample size right now isn't very big.

And another respondent to The Guardian's article wrote:

'For all you people blaming Pastor Jones.

Remember when that Muslim burnt that poppy on Armistice Day. All he got was a 50 quid fine. Now if imagine if a mob from the British Legion had attacked a mosque and cut off the heads of muslims, who's fault would it be?

Or in the Islamic world, it is common to burn the American Flag. Now, if a mob of American Patriots attacked a mosque and cut off the heads of muslims, whose fault would it be?

Several churches were burned down and two Christians murdered in Pakistan because of this yesterday and yet the press remained silent. The press remains silent about the persecution of the Copts, Chaldeans and the Christians in Indonesia. The press remained silent when a Filipino woman was beheaded for owning a Bible in Saudi.'

Couldn't agree more!

I used to read the Guardian. I gave up when I discovered the truth of Islam! I can't stand it now. I've been right-wingerised.

Some of the comments from the readers on the article disgust me.

Only crazy rampaging muslims are responsible for the murders. If I had a koran, I'd burn the damned thing too. What makes that crazy book so special--they burn my Bible, I should be able to burn their korans.

Now at 52.4% Yes 47.6% No

Muslims are Allah's automatons. They cannot control their reactions because they lack free will.

You don't poke a hornet's nest. Hornets are instinctively agressive little buggars. Hornet's nest, a descriptive applied selectively to a "small segment" of Muhammadans? In the Guardian comments section, those who layed whole or partial blame on Pastor Jones, none used the analogy selectively as to the make-up of Muslim outrage, but rather a concensus that was collective about the slaves of Allah. They got part of the message, even if they don't recognize it on a concious level. JW, keep plugging away.

Disregarding the question if this was a Guardian's April Fools' spoof or not, the Left does indeed have this racist tendency to see the Muslims as subhumans who can't practice free choice or self control. In fact, these are not disturbed individuals who can't practice self control because we've seen that when even Muslim terrorists leave Islam they become as non-terrorist as the next guy and can perfectly control their reactions even when they are enraged. So Muslims around the world killing innocent people in response to burning a Quran by someone else in another country isn't a result of losing control, but of choosing to kill people out of the belief that it's a justified reaction.

It reminds me of an incident in an Israeli forum I used to participate in when one day a young Muslim in great distress came to ask for an advice. He said his sister and cousin were caught having some kind of an affair, and that according to their tradition he now had an obligation to kill them, which he really really didn't want to do. It wasn't that he lost the breaks and uncontrollably acted on his rage like an insane person, but he was raised to believe he had a moral obligation to kill them, and was pressured to do so by other family/clan members. But he experienced a tormenting dilemma because he didn't want to kill them. In the end he didn't kill them, but he could have just as well decided he ought to kill them and follow through. In either case it wouldn't have been a result of an inability to control his rage and behavior, but a matter of decision.

The question of free will, though, is not completely clear in this case because he was educated to believe it's his moral obligation to his family to kill them to cleanse the family honor. So whatever blame we asign to the individual in such cases, it should be recognized that ideology and values have the greatest role, which for some stupid reason so many people refuse to recognize when it comes to Islam. I felt pain for this guy, and as much as this mere dilemma might make you angry from afar, you would have felt nothing but pain and compassion if you had read his tormented messages. He was obvioulsy a good guy and a loving brother, who also felt responsibility for his entire family, and killing his sister and cousin would be the "right thing to do" for his family according to their tradition. That was the way he was taught and brought up. He was trapped in it and was in a terrible emotional distress.

To prevent such terrible tragedies - and these are tragedies for everyone involved, including the victim, the murderer and the entire family - it must be recognized that the source cause is that tradition, these values, this belief, this ideology. If we'll continue to excuse this tradition and belief system, and focus only on catching the individual murderers and putting them behind bars, it won't solve the problem and won't prevent the next acts of violence.

mattseaton, an editor at commentisfree at the Guardian, was waded into the comment section and is interacting with other commenters, again potentially biasing the outcome in the comment section and biasing the results of the poll for those who scroll down to read the comments before voting.

Here's mattseaton at
1 April 2011 6:22PM responding to another commenter @ helenethygesen [quoted]:

"No, it falls under free speech. Assuming it was his own copy of the book he can do with it what he wants. It is fine to burn the bible, too. Or the communist manifesto for that matter.

My response to mattseaton: Not precisely analogous, not even coarsely analogous, in the sense you mean it.

1. A fire alarm going off signals the existence of real danger, though it may be a false alarm (if there is no fire). But there is no reason for the Afghan Muslim murderers in this case to believe they were in any real danger. Burning a Quran does not signal danger. Nor does eating pork signal danger, nor does refusing to adhere to Islamic dress codes signal danger, etc. Hence the danger signal analogy here fails.

2. In another sense, there is a "fire" or danger to which pastor Jones was trying to draw attention, and that is the violence and intolerance of jihad and sharia. If one wants to apply the fire alarm analogy in this sense, then one should in fact sound the alarm. To fail to do so would be negligent, at least.
(Full acknowledgments to Canadian lawyer Julian Porter for making the original analogy upon which mine here derives)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/06/shut-up-dhimmi-macleans-counsel-not-allowed-to-question-conduct-of-islamic-congress.html#comment-476344

Let's remember we are dealing with people who say "Behead those who say Islam is violent", and "If you say Islam is violent, we will kill you". We can't reason with such people, but we can send a message to our fellow citizens about the dangers of jihad and sharia. That's all Jones was doing, just trying to raise awareness of the threat.

It's now at 53.1% to 46.9% ...

The political party of the Guardianistas, Labour, whom we had in power in the UK until last year, have this neat website under their wing:

http://www.lfpme.org/articles-p109

the usual bleating. how so many people can have so much to say about a country and people who have never existed is amazing.

Again, our wonderful One-Big-Alinskyite-Mistake,-America Administration can't tell the world that every American official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution--including the First Amendment.

Uncle Cephas has a comment out

unclecephas.blogspot.com

Question~ Are the readers of this "newspaper" as ignorant as pigs in Ireland about islam, or not? hmm.....

Thats just horrible and I dont know what else to say about this action of collective suecide of one of the greatest nations in human history....

I just can say that if I was a Muslim I would be more insulted that the left concideres me and my "brothers" as animals who cant act rationaly and can just emotionaly react to things humans do to them. Actualy THATS REAL RACISM!

More from mattseaton:
1 April 2011 8:36PM
"[...] I don't think it's an invalid question, unless you're willing argue that there's no chain of causality at all -- which, on the empirical data, would be a tough act. Yes, I agree murders were committed, which is horrible and utterly reprehensible, and there is criminal responsibility involved. But the question asks about whether there's any moral responsibility on the part of the pastor(s), which is not the same issue as criminal responsibility."

It is if you are suggesting Jones is responsible (to blame) for the murders that others committed.

"[...] The real answer may, of course, be that moral responsibility is shared both by the inciters and the murderers;"

mattseaton's logic would lead to blaming women who dress "provocatively" for being raped.

"...but there's no option for a both/an answer, rather than an either/or one. Which is why we have a discussion thread to develop the nuance that a yes/no answer doesn't allow for."

This is a lame excuse for a very poor and misleading poll question-and-answer set up. Whatever people may say in the comment section, the poll set up itself has to be properly stated to give a clearly understandable outcome, otherwise there's no point in having a poll (except perhaps to confuse or mislead people!).

"Completely agree that criticising belief should be a protected right, without being limited by some people choosing to take offence just because their cherished belief system is being criticised. But since when is burning a book a rational discourse of critique."

1. It doesn't have to be rational to be protected and justified as free expression.
2. Burning the Qur'an in this case took part in the context of a kind of demonstration or performance art. No one was hurt, nor was that the intent.

"It looks more to me simply like a hostile act, deliberately insulting and provocative."

The Guardian poll and mattseaton's comments may seem insulting, hostile, and provocative. This does not mean mattseaton and the Guardian should be responsible if some nut decides to kill people in a country half-way across the globe as a way of making a response to what he wrote.

They can, however, can be taken to task through discussion and debate.

"What useful critique of Christianity would be accomplished by burning a bible?"

Note how the complaint is shifting. Is killing people justified if someone says something that others deem to be not "useful"?

"Burning books, generally -- think about it: the historical precedents are not good. I don't think it's legitimate free speech to burn books: books are, after all, text, a form of speech."

Have you ever deleted comments? Have you ever tossed a newspaper or magazine in the recycling bin? Plenty of places now allow recycling of books. People dispose of books quite a lot. Qur'ans are mass-produced pulp fiction; burn one and it can be replaced with millions more. (Jones isn't trying to erase all Qur'ans in existence from history!) The outrage is entirely in the heads of those looking for pretexts for "outrage" which can be used to manipulate the mattseatons of this world into trying to shut down Westerners' freedom of expression regarding Islam and Muhammad.

"Now flags... flags may be different. But I'll have to think about that."

Good grief. This guy mattseaton does seem to be new to the whole issue of free expression.

Next mattseaton expresses his agreement with another poster:

mattseaton
1 April 2011 8:44PM
"@ mrbiscuithead:
As an after thought I think incidents like this show their is a serious tide of anti-muslim sentiment in the west. It shows some of these comments. These barbaric actions have nothing to do with the majority of Muslims. Though a lot of people want to paint a different picture."
[mattseaton]: "That's well said."

Nonsense upon nonsense. "Mrbiscuithead" thinks a couple of people in Florida burning a Qur'an somehow indicates a "serious tide of anti-Muslim sentiment". (Would he say that a few people burning a Bible indicated a serious anti-Christian sentiment?) The barbaric actions we are seeing in Afghanistan do have something to do with the majority of Muslims in one sense at least, and that is that, as polls and surveys show, the majority of Muslims want a strict application of sharia law and want blasphemers to be criminally prosecuted and punished. That is, the majority of Muslims do think that Islam critics generally, not just provocative ones like Jones, should be harshly punished. In countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, the overwhelming majority is of that belief, and such beliefs are actionable and have consequences. And it is not the case that any of this is new; there are numerous examples in recent years of large numbers of Muslims, internationally, reacting with murder and mayhem in response to very mild criticism and lampoon, and even responding where there is in fact no criticism or slight whatsoever but merely a rumor of a criticism or slight.

Over at MsnBC alot more people are saying but the blame on the thugs that killed, and are sticking it to the pastor is guilty crowd using much the same argument.

One may have been, foolish,but broke no laws.
the latter committed wholesale murder of innocent parties, which is a crime.

So tired of idiots bringing up the crusades to defend Islam.
One that was largely to combat islamic jihadist from advancing all over Europe. Two Christ never said to kill and torture in his name Mohammed did. So one group was acting out of harmony with it's founders teachings, and the others prophet was cheering from the side lines.

But these people probably wouldn't know that. They probably have never read a bible or a koran in thier lives, and probably never will taking it on faith alone they are correct. They sicken me with thier self righteous self inflicted ignorance.

The only people responsible for muslim crimes are the muslims who commit them. Their continued violence and finger-pointing only serve to reveal them for what they are; liars, cowards, bloodthirsty cretins. So, in that sense, Terry Jones et al have performed a service. It's a shame there have to be victims. But that's what you get with islam--victims. Victims and scapegoats, that's their only contribution to humanity--and they're PROUD of it. I hate to hate, but they make it so easy...

"If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him."-Sun Tzu (Art of War)

Too many cowards in the West with battered-wife syndrome and not enough warriors and patriots.

We should be holding "Burn-a-Quran Day event" like the "Draw Mohammad Day" (which was an incredible success) and laughing in these maniacs ugly faces, while dropping daisy cutters on their terrorist rat nests known as mosques. Fuck these 7th century murderous savages.

Burning the Koran is protected free speech,and I have to agree with Robert, it's better to read it and know the enemy than to burn it. But at the same time I think it's possible to predict the future as well. So here's my prediction:

All of us have to stand behind Terry Jones because what we're seeing in Afghanistan is what our own country will look like if we keep appeasing Muslims every time they get pissed off. We'll be scratching our heads saying "Gee remember the good ole days when you could get away with burning the Koran?". "Boy times have sure changed, haven't they?".

Muslims are gifted when it comes to re-working the conversation to meet their needs. They've been mastering it for a long time. Anyone who buys these lies is a fool.

Marisol is correct, it's about their choice of how to react to the koran burning. They always choose violence & intimidation and then blame it on someone else. The deaths of these victims lie squarely with the muslims who killed them, NOT Terry Jones or all the people who burn korans on their barbeques. It's a s simple as that.

Couldn't agree more. Pastor Jones might be a busybody and his action of burning the unholy koran might not be very sensible, but he's in no way accountable for any murders committed by Mohammedans. He didn't tell them "Kill the infidels wherever you find them". That's in the book he burnt. He was perfectly right to condemn that unholy book, but burning might not have been the appropriate idea. Anyway the Mahoundians started whining and killing followed. Lest they quit their cruel and stupid religion they'll never be able to tell right from wrong.

The question "Should Rev. Jones be held accountable for the murders in Afghanistan" (or words to that effect) was asked on a blog site I belong to called SodaHead.
I don't know what the percentage of members was that answered "Yes", but, from what I saw, it must have been very near to or in excess of 60%.
This was very disturbing to say the least as it reveals a total disconnect from reality and a dismal lack of ability to use the power of reason. What is equally disturbing is that these people vote.

"And those 60% are the vanguard of the death of the free West."

Yes, those 60 % (and this % seems to have diminished) are wrong, stupid in this respect and suicidal for their society as they know it.

But perhaps, with the excellent Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Ali Sina and many others as leaders of the Democratic watchdogs, who have many convinced followers everywhere Islam now no longer can win globally. And really, it can now no longer hope to consolidate even it's market share of followers in mankind. Perhaps the current level of democratic watchdogs in democratic nations already is astonishing high and high enough!

It is important not to become over-confident, but Muslims are now monitored globally 24/7. And they can get away with almost nothing wrong anymore without the watchdogs barking.

Technology in all fields, especially communications, artificial intelligence, and in horsepower too, is developing extremely fast. And it can and will help the Islam-watchdogs tremendously.

Islam is growing but the anti-Islamic watchdogs-reactions are growing faster said Daniel Pipes a short while ago. Very probably time is running out for Muslims, with the watchdogs in place and their technology getting ever better.

Let the Muslims feel this time-pressure, let them despair about their supremacy-goal, let them helplessly watch their power and influence being eroded now. Even with the abovementioned 60 % of wrong-thinking people in this respect from our perspective.

It's 50%/50% now http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/poll/2011/apr/01/christianity-islam

Does the burning of a book, even if that book was written by the hand of HaShem himself, justify the taking of eight lives?

It's now 47.1% Yes, and 52.9% No. But as someone previously said, the lefty libtards who read the grauniad aren't representative of the British people, thank God.

Alright I just checked the Guardian poll again, and here's where it's at:

47.1% Yes
52.9% No

So now support free expression is slightly ahead. (The poll of course is not scientific, and should only be taken with several caveats in mind). I also noted based on looking at the first couple of pages of comments that those who supported the pastor's right to free expression were generally given higher ratings than those who blamed him.

A problem with the SodaHead poll (see above) is that you can go back in and vote more than once. With the Guardian poll you can do that too, but you have to remove the Guardian site's "cookies" from your browser. So someone who was really determined to skew the results could in theory just keep voting over and over again.

No guardianista (people who read the Guardian)understands free will in cases like this.

This newspaper is an out-and-out leftist rag. In fact it is viewed with contempt by everybody BUT the Lefties. They treat it as their Bible or should I say their Qu'ran. and it appears they will avoid blaming the killers if the killers are moslems. This is their way.

Pastor Jones did not plan, conduct, nor lead the murderous Muslims in their protests..in fact, he wasn't even in the country..The murders of innocent people rests securely in the hands of the Muslims...

Those 60% are British, the British are a little, how can I put it politely... Slow.

Maddened pigs.

I thought this was a prank. Then I clicked the link and found the Guardian was serious. I should have known. After all, this is the left-wing British press we're talking about. Americans, Israelis, Jews, obscure fundamentalist Christian preachers, and evil American capitalists are at fault for all the troubles in the world. These people can't be parodied; even on AFD they caricature themselves better than any professional comedian or satirist could.

Of course Muslims denounce culpability for their crimes against Christians, Islam promises them privilege and impunity for crimes against non-Muslims and power and plunder and sexual dominance, etc., etc., etc. Muslim abusers blame their victims for the abuse, and the world's focus is redirected toward the victim. (Typical of the domestic violence dynamic.)

What? 60 percent doesn't say he is responsible. 60 percent says he is NOT responsible. LOL

I still fail to understand why Qu'ran burning is such a big deal. From the Pastor's point of view who read, consulted with imams, found the teaching contained therein worthy of condemnation. So it was a symbolic act which is reasonable and he is certainly entitled to its expression.

This book burning cannot be equated to prior ones in history the books were prohibited and people risked their lives if they were caught in possession of them.

I have just voted NO on Sunday at 9 p.m Greenwich meantime. At this time the result is 43.9% Yes it is provocative blasphemy and 56.1% No it is legitimate free speech.

I suppose when my guardian angels report to Allah how I voted, it will be Hell for me having my skin repeatedly burned off and drinking the molten brass. Perhaps I should declare Shahada

Robert
I don't know about who's going to heaven or hell, but Mr.
Jones better hope he's wrong about that gay thing, he's got
c--k s----r written all over him.
michael

Robert
There is no reason whatsoever, in the whole wide world, to destroy a Qkuran. The book burning has started. It's appropriate that it's started in Egypt. Yeah, it's a long way off, but humans are slow, real slow.
michael

What's interesting is that two years ago, the US military burned a whole shipment of Bibles sent to Afghanistan so as not to offend Muslims. Where was all the condemnation about burning those sacred texts? And wasn't it Muslims who blew up those ancient statues of Buddha?

But hey, it doesn't take burning a Qur'an to get radical Muslims into a killing frenzy. Just draw a cartoon about Mohammed, or have a child in your class call a teddy bear by that name, or make ice cream that swirls in the shape of "allah" in Arabic. Heck just owning a dog or eating pork is sure to offend some Muslim somewhere and make him feel he has the right to behead his next door neighbour. Where does it stop?