Free Speech?

[Skeptical Greg]

And I assert
I have repeatedly said that I don't think that either Coulter's or al-Timimi's actions are criminal.


Thanks.

You realize I'm sure, that what you think, is meaningless in a skeptical forum, when not based on evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'll take that.

Al-Timimi's guilty because he made a speicfic request to a specific group of people; he told a group of his followers to go and fight US troops. Coulter made a general statement that we should go convert all Muslims in Muslims nations. These slight differences make the two extremely different situations as far as the law of USA is concerned.

Sorry, but Coulter did exactly the same thing.

She made a specific request - killing Muslims and converting those that weren't killed - to a specific group of people - Muslims.

al-Timimi chose Americans as his target. That's not OK with you.

Coulter chose Muslims. That's OK with you.

Is that correct?

 

[Kodiak]

And I assert that you haven't been paying any attention to anything I have posted in this thread.

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that either Coulter's or al-Timimi's actions are criminal.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the quotes you believe show otherwise and any evidence that illustrates this.

Thanks.

Your own words Claus:

"Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

I still don't see why Ann Coulter isn't prosecuted."

"She has advocated action against American troops (the Muslim ones), precisely what al-Timimi was convicted of (but we don't know what he actually said)."

"You don't think that forcing a group of Americans to convert to a specific religion undermining American authority? A basic freedom, namely the right to believe in what god you want?"

"No? Why not? She wants to get at her enemies, and some of those are US troops."






Now I know you later opined that you thought neither of them should be charged with a crime, but regardless, you've clearly failed to do two things.

1.) You have yet to provide any evidence that al-Timimi was wrongly prosecuted and that his actions did not violate any of the laws for which he was prosecuted.

2.) You have yet to show how Coulter and al-Timimi are analogous in either their person or in their action.

 

[CFLarsen]

You realize I'm sure, that what you think, is meaningless in a skeptical forum, when not based on evidence.

Then I fail to understand how you can make this statement:

Show where Ann Coulter committed treason against the United States.

You are the one making the claim that she did.

Where is the evidence for that?

 

[CFLarsen]

1.) You have yet to provide any evidence that al-Timimi was wrongly prosecuted and that his actions did not violate any of the laws for which he was prosecuted.

Eh? Are you intoxicated or otherwise impaired in any way? I am saying that I don't think that either Coulter or al-Timimi are guilty of a crime. I am not a defense attorney, I am not making a legal statement.

What I am asking is this: If al-Timimi is guilty, then why isn't Coulter as well?

2.) You have yet to show how Coulter and al-Timimi are analogous in either their person or in their action.

I have shown this, to the best of my ability. Why do you think, specifically, that I haven't?

 

[Grammatron]

Sorry, but Coulter did exactly the same thing.

She made a specific request - killing Muslims and converting those that weren't killed - to a specific group of people - Muslims.

Not specific enough as far as US Law is concerned.

al-Timimi chose Americans as his target. That's not OK with you.

Not just Americans, US soldiers in a battlefield.

Coulter chose Muslims. That's OK with you.

Is that correct?

I have not yet formed my own opinion on the matter, however based on the facts and the way the US Law is stractured it makes sense for al-Timimi to be charged and not Coultier. It would also make sense for Coultier to be sued by a Muslim group of some sort in a civil court.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not specific enough as far as US Law is concerned.

Prove it.

Not just Americans, US soldiers in a battlefield.

So? Are US soldiers ÃœberAmericans?

I have not yet formed my own opinion on the matter, however based on the facts and the way the US Law is stractured it makes sense for al-Timimi to be charged and not Coultier. It would also make sense for Coultier to be sued by a Muslim group of some sort in a civil court.

I am not asking what you think of US Law. I am asking if it is OK with you that Coulter advocates killing Muslims simply because they are Muslims.

Yes or no?

 

[Thanz]

Sorry, but Coulter did exactly the same thing.

Only if by "exactly the same thing" you mean "something categorically different".

She made a specific request - killing Muslims and converting those that weren't killed - to a specific group of people - Muslims.

Muslims in other countries.

al-Timimi chose Americans as his target. That's not OK with you.

Coulter chose Muslims. That's OK with you.

It is not whether it is okay with Grammatron or anyone else. We are trying to explain to you the difference and why one can be considered treason and the other just the stupid meanderings of a bigoted loudmouth.

When your goal is to help those in a foreign nation kick the ass of the United States (by, say, inducing them to go train in Pakistan to fight alongside the Taliban against the US) that can be considered treasonous. In case you are not following along, this is the Al-Timimi case.

When your goal is to get the American military to go and kick the ass of foreign nations and build an empire, whatever the idiotic bigoted basis for that goal (like, for instance, the fact that they are of a different religion) that is not considered treasonous. In case you are not following along, this is the Coulter case.

And that is why someone can be prosectued for the first instance while not prosecuted in the second.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Then I fail to understand how you can make this statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
Show where Ann Coulter committed treason against the United States.

You are the one making the claim that she did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where is the evidence for that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
What would she be charged with?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarse
The same as al-Timimi. Although personally, judging from what we know was said, I can't see why any of them should be prosecuted.

-----------------------------------------------------

My mistake. You said she should be charged with treason, not that she committed it.

Silly me for thinking the two ideas were somehow related.

 

[CFLarsen]

Only if by "exactly the same thing" you mean "something categorically different".

In your opinion, yes.

Muslims in other countries.

Ah, I see! So, American Muslims are OK, because they are - after all - American?

It is not whether it is okay with Grammatron or anyone else. We are trying to explain to you the difference and why one can be considered treason and the other just the stupid meanderings of a bigoted loudmouth.

Who's the bigot here?

When your goal is to help those in a foreign nation kick the ass of the United States (by, say, inducing them to go train in Pakistan to fight alongside the Taliban against the US) that can be considered treasonous. In case you are not following along, this is the Al-Timimi case.

When your goal is to get the American military to go and kick the ass of foreign nations and build an empire, whatever the idiotic bigoted basis for that goal (like, for instance, the fact that they are of a different religion) that is not considered treasonous. In case you are not following along, this is the Coulter case.

I'm sorry, but there is no question that Coulter is after the part of US military that is Muslim. Can you address that, please?

 

[Grammatron]

Prove it.

Simple enough, read the law under which Al-Timimi was convicted under and all should be clear.

So? Are US soldiers ÃœberAmericans?

No.

I am not asking what you think of US Law. I am asking if it is OK with you that Coulter advocates killing Muslims simply because they are Muslims.

Yes or no?

Two part answer: I don't see what my view has to do with at all, seems like a strawman to me; I already told you that I have not yet formed an opinion this matter.

 

[CFLarsen]

My mistake. You said she should be charged with treason, not that she committed it.

Silly me for thinking the two ideas were somehow related.

I said that if al-Timimi was charged with treason, Coulter should, too.

Good to see that you can admit your mistakes, though.

 

[Grammatron]

I said that if al-Timimi was charged with treason, Coulter should, too.

Good to see that you can admit your mistakes, though.

Treason against whom?

 

[CFLarsen]

Treason against whom?

The US.

 

[Grammatron]

The US.

How is Ann Coulter commiting Treason against the US?

 

[CFLarsen]

How is Ann Coulter commiting Treason against the US?

Am I dealing with imbeciles here? How many times do I have to re-state what my position is?

The same way al-Timimi is.

Again, I should emphasize that I don't think she or al-Timimi are committing treason. But if he is prosecuted, she should be, too.

 

[Thanz]

Ah, I see! So, American Muslims are OK, because they are - after all - American?

Ok to who? Coulter? I have no idea. To me? I have no problems with Muslims no matter where they live.

Who's the bigot here?

Coulter.

I'm sorry, but there is no question that Coulter is after the part of US military that is Muslim. Can you address that, please?

There certainly is a "question" about that, to say the least. There is nothing from her remarks at all that indicates she is after Muslims in the military. She is quite specific about going over and kicking foreign ass. If you have anything that shows otherwise, let's see it.

And no, I do not consider a general statement that no one should be muslim, divorced from all context, to indicate that she is after muslims in the US military.

 

[CFLarsen]

There certainly is a "question" about that, to say the least. There is nothing from her remarks at all that indicates she is after Muslims in the military. She is quite specific about going over and kicking foreign ass. If you have anything that shows otherwise, let's see it.

You can deny that I haven't shown it, of course. But that doesn't make it so.

And no, I do not consider a general statement that no one should be muslim, divorced from all context, to indicate that she is after muslims in the US military.

Huh?? How can she not be after the Muslims in the US military, if she says that "no one" should be a Muslim?

You lost me there.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I said that if al-Timimi was charged with treason, Coulter should, too.

Good to see that you can admit your mistakes, though.

Well, I actually looked up some of the things Al-Timimi was charged with.. I wish I could get a complete list. I'm sure it's out there somewhere..


from:

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15100853%5E1702,00.html

Charges against Al-Timimi included soliciting others to wage war against the United States, counselling others to engage in conspiracy to levy war against the United States, attempting to aid the Taliban, counselling others to attempt to aid the Taliban, counselling others to violate the Neutrality Act and counselling others to use firearms and explosives in furtherance of crimes of violence.

I would say Coulter is guilty of the last one, and maybe the next to last, but I don't know exactly what the ' Neutrality Act ' is, and what constitutes a violation of same....

I will be the first to say that in light of this, CFL's suggestion that Ms Coulter should be charged with ( some of ) the same charges as Al-Timimi, is not without merit.


I appoligize for suggesting otherwise.. I got hung up on the ' Treason ' thing, which doesn't seem to be included in the charges.

 

[Grammatron]

Am I dealing with imbeciles here? How many times do I have to re-state what my position is?

The same way al-Timimi is.

Again, I should emphasize that I don't think she or al-Timimi are committing treason. But if he is prosecuted, she should be, too.

CFL, I don't know how much you know about linguistics and communication, but in order for you to make a statement such as "Person A did B" you must have basis of it or a further explanation of why you think B was done by A.

What you are doing is one step below circular logic and is baiting at its most transparent and worst.

Now that was a bit general, so I'll break it down the way you are conversing on this thread -- person X is a simily of you:

Person X: Boby is a thief
Person Y: Why?
Person X: Because Boby is a thief in the same way Jon is.
Person Y: What way is that?
Person X: You tell me, you are the one who thinks Jon is a thief.

Now you see how the conversation quickly degrades into an attempt by Person X to bait and confuse Person Y in an attempt on Person X's part to avoid making any claim or statement and put all the burden on Person Y.

A good way to avoid this would be to provide reasoning for statements one posts on this forum. So to avoid further semi-sidetracking I'll restate the question in the hopes you will answer it so we may return to this debate productively.

In what way has Ann Coulter commited treason against USA?