No, my point really was that there's no perfect formula or rule for determining blame or responsibility. I believe Jones chose to incite murder to prove that evil Muslims exists, so I blame him for banging on the hornets nest that he knew would cause it. I don't care how many other people are more to blame than him. Fine, say he's a small percent to blame; it still counts as a hateful, careless act that led to murder. His act was more morally evil than good. This isn't science or law, but just my moral judgement.
Once you let people off the hook for their actions, they can try anything and not be blamed.
Yes. People letting Jones off the hook also proves this point.
hate-filled idiots abound. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I see no reason to absolve any hate-filled idiots who remorselessly trigger murder and destruction.
The harm caused by the killers was much more destructive than the burning of a single book. They didn't even take their anger out on the book burner - instead, they killed the first westerners they could find.
So Jones' act was less evil. How does that make it OK?
If the pastor had only spit on the Koran and they killed people in retaliation, would the pastor be to blame?
Yeah, if he knew it would trigger the murder of innocents. Again, I'm not saying equal blame. I'm saying more than 0% blame, and when it comes to murder as a result, that's very significant to me, morally.
What if he had only thrown the Koran in the trash, or laid the Koran on the floor? If people are killed for this, is there still a gray area?
That starts to unrealistically stretch the hypothetical, unless it's realistic to expect it would lead to needless murder. If you're looking for some kind of fine line between black and white everywhere, I can't help you.
“We’ve had about 400 death threats,” he said, adding that Hezbolla, the Shia Muslim militant group, had put out a “reward out on my head for $2.4 million.”