Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops

[stevie_d_64]

Dove World Outreach burning books and inciting world violence...now there's some irony.

And the plans to construct a mosque (outreach center) a block and a half away from a very sensitive sore spot in this country is not inciting???

Don't get me wrong, but the sales pitch for this "outreach" and islamic community center/mosque is full of more holes than a slice of swiss cheese...

I do not, for the record, condone the burning of a book(s) that is the foundation of a religious faith (that I do not adhere to) that condonces the murder of people who do not believe as they do...This is something that I believe we can be a little more clever than the semantic sensitivities of such a radical religious faith...

I find it ironic that the burning of Quran's, makes more of a headline than the lack of outrage at the construction of something that is more inciting than that activity...

Maybe there will be enough outrage in NYC when next years reading of the names of people who were murdered that day, is drowned out by the amplified islamic call to prayer a block or so away from that attack...But I seriously doubt it...

We should be tolerant...

[bdickens]

One group of people announce their intent to exercise their First Amendment right.

Another group of people announce their intent to commit First Degree Murder.

It's very educational to see which group the Obama administration is trying to stop.

Interesting.

Talk about burning one Koran and people want your head.

Burn 3000 people and .

[anygunanywhere]

I would not burn a koran if'n I had one unless I really needed something toignite the kindling after the poo hit the fan so to speak. But then I do not own one, and would consider it a silly thing to do to spend my money on the book to begin with. Therefore, if'n I need kindling igniter stuff I can always use discarded MSM papers that are readily available and that will be blowing in the wind after aformentioned poo strikes fan scenario.

What gets me is that Fox interviewed Bloomburg the NY idjit the other day about this koran hoopla and he made some comment about 1A rights. Mebbe someone needs to remind him about the ammendment that comes next in the BOR?

The silly libs really do not have a clue.

Rights are for everyone and are inalienable. The right to ones life is lost on the most vocal who profess belief in the koran. I say this as I reflect on the anniversary that is close approaching....where 3000 brothers and sisters, including many innocent muslims died at the hands of those like all of the ones currently screaming loudly over their book. Makes me sick to see the current state of things.

Anygun

[Hoi Polloi]

Dove World Outreach burning books and inciting world violence...now there's some irony.

And the plans to construct a mosque (outreach center) a block and a half away from a very sensitive sore spot in this country is not inciting???
...

We should be tolerant...

It's not that we should tolerate hate. It is that we should not tolerate hate, in others or in ourselves. "The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love." -Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Here is one part of a well-written explanation of why yet another diplomat--this time, the pope--has added his disapproval to the long list of others such as Gen. Patraeus who condemn this act. Full article here.

These deplorable acts of violence, in fact, cannot be counteracted by an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community. Each religion, with its respective sacred books, places of worship and symbols, has the right to respect and protection. We are speaking about the respect to be accorded the dignity of the person who is an adherent of that religion and his/her free choice in religious matters.

The reflection which necessarily should be fostered on the occasion of the remembrance of September 11th would be, first of all, to offer our deep sentiments of solidarity with those who were struck by these horrendous terrorist attacks. To this feeling of solidarity we join our prayers for them and their loved ones who lost their lives. -Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue

[Oldgringo]

Is it just me or is this thread getting awfully close to a discussion of religion which is contrary to Rule 11?

[Hoi Polloi]

Is it just me or is this thread getting awfully close to a discussion of religion which is contrary to Rule 11?

Why? Because I quoted a religious figure who is a world diplomat in saying that the proposed action that is the subject of this thread--namely that one religious figure is planning to act in defiance of human dignity regarding a particular group of adherents of another religion--is in opposition to our country's foundation on a freedom of religion and that our focus should be on the victims as we remember this somber day?

[Oldgringo]

Is it just me or is this thread getting awfully close to a discussion of religion which is contrary to Rule 11?

Why? Because I quoted a religious figure who is a world diplomat in saying that the proposed action that is the subject of this thread--namely that one religious figure is planning to act in defiance of human dignity regarding a particular group of adherents of another religion--is in opposition to our country's foundation on a freedom of religion and that our focus should be on the victims as we remember this somber day?

I didn't make the rules, but since you brought it up, did your "world diplomat" say this before or after WW II?

[PeteCamp]

Sigh....I wish everyone were as excited about Muslim extremists burning Christian churches in Africa and murdering people who worship in them as they are about a group of misguided folks burning the Quran. Or that they would get excited about Muslim extremists who blow up their own children in a suicide bombing which kills innocent men, women, and children in a market.

Shows where our priorities are.

I don't like book burning either, but these folks are offended to the point of mass murder by anything. Are they magically going to be our friends if someone doesn't burn the Quran?

[Hoi Polloi]

Is it just me or is this thread getting awfully close to a discussion of religion which is contrary to Rule 11?

Why? Because I quoted a religious figure who is a world diplomat in saying that the proposed action that is the subject of this thread--namely that one religious figure is planning to act in defiance of human dignity regarding a particular group of adherents of another religion--is in opposition to our country's foundation on a freedom of religion and that our focus should be on the victims as we remember this somber day?

I didn't make the rules, but since you brought it up, did your "world diplomat" say this before or after WW II?

I don't understand the implication but as the document clearly references the Sept 11 attacks, I believe the answer is self-evident.

If, after reading the full article, you have particular critiques, I would be interested in discussing them with you. I learn a lot here and in similar discussions and am happy to have venues such as this where all of the angles of a particular event can be discussed by those who bring their own areas of knowledge and experience to the discussion as I heartily acknowledge how very little I have of each.

[Oldgringo]

Is it just me or is this thread getting awfully close to a discussion of religion which is contrary to Rule 11?

Why? Because I quoted a religious figure who is a world diplomat in saying that the proposed action that is the subject of this thread--namely that one religious figure is planning to act in defiance of human dignity regarding a particular group of adherents of another religion--is in opposition to our country's foundation on a freedom of religion and that our focus should be on the victims as we remember this somber day?

I didn't make the rules, but since you brought it up, did your "world diplomat" say this before or after WW II?

I don't understand the implication but as the document clearly references the Sept 11 attacks, I believe the answer is self-evident.

If, after reading the full article, you have particular critiques, I would be interested in discussing them with you. I learn a lot here and in similar discussions and am happy to have venues such as this where all of the angles of a particular event can be discussed by those who bring their own areas of knowledge and experience to the discussion as I heartily acknowledge how very little I have of each.

You win. We really don't want to go back 70 years or so and bring up "the Church" and the Holocaust.

[longhorn_92]

You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst.

When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves.

[Hoi Polloi]

Is it just me or is this thread getting awfully close to a discussion of religion which is contrary to Rule 11?

Why? Because I quoted a religious figure who is a world diplomat in saying that the proposed action that is the subject of this thread--namely that one religious figure is planning to act in defiance of human dignity regarding a particular group of adherents of another religion--is in opposition to our country's foundation on a freedom of religion and that our focus should be on the victims as we remember this somber day?

I didn't make the rules, but since you brought it up, did your "world diplomat" say this before or after WW II?

I don't understand the implication but as the document clearly references the Sept 11 attacks, I believe the answer is self-evident.

If, after reading the full article, you have particular critiques, I would be interested in discussing them with you. I learn a lot here and in similar discussions and am happy to have venues such as this where all of the angles of a particular event can be discussed by those who bring their own areas of knowledge and experience to the discussion as I heartily acknowledge how very little I have of each.

You win. We really don't want to go back 70 years or so and bring up "the Church" and the Holocaust.

I'd be happy to! I'm not very well-read on the topic and don't have a lot of time to read the resources I know are available, but there are a wealth of them. I don't know what exactly you are referring to as I can't pinpoint anything that would directly correlate to this topic.

I know that common WWII attacks center around Pope Pius XII supposedly doing nothing (despite Jews then and now loudly proclaiming the contrary, eg Einstein: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."). Here's one resource which refutes the attack that's available online and here are two others in book form: One and Two.

Another criticism is over Pope Benedict being drafted into the German army at the age of 16 and serving for a short while in non-fighting mechanical positions before deserting. I don't know how that's relevant here. Pope Benedict has made several direct statements about Islam which have enraged Muslims around the world, which he's stood by and even reiterated, and that would be a worthy point of discussion, but it doesn't go back to WWII so that must not be what you are referring to.

There's also the issue of Pope John Paul II, himself possibly the son of a Jewish mother, telling a group of Carmelite nuns to relocate their convent away from Auschwitz not because they were in the wrong but because they were causing people to be hurt which is getting a lot of publicity right now due to the New York Islamic center. The last is the only other possible on-topic point I can think of but it is not, from my perspective, something which would be brought up in opposition so I'm at a loss for what it is you're implying yet again. But if you want to state how what I posted above regarding the burning of Korans on Sept 11 is off-topic or has flaws, I again welcome your discussion.

[Purplehood]

Sigh....I wish everyone were as excited about Muslim extremists burning Christian churches in Africa and murdering people who worship in them as they are about a group of misguided folks burning the Quran. Or that they would get excited about Muslim extremists who blow up their own children in a suicide bombing which kills innocent men, women, and children in a market.

Shows where our priorities are.

I don't like book burning either, but these folks are offended to the point of mass murder by anything. Are they magically going to be our friends if someone doesn't burn the Quran?

No, it only shows where our priorities are if we were discussing this issue in a broader context.

However, we are not. The issue is that of burning a Holy Book. Nothing more.

The General is right, we are only making things more difficult. My point in regards to this specific issue is that we are lowering our own standards in a knee-jerk response to other issues.

I went over to Afghanistan and did my part in response to the separate issue of 9/11. That doesn't change my outlook on how an American should behave.

[PeteCamp]

I understand your point about honor and code being the foundation of what it means to be an American soldier. All of us who served share that feeling. We fight by our standards - not theirs. I guess I didn't read all the previous posts about 9/11, the Catholic Church in WWII, the NYC Mosque, etc. It does seem to me we are discussing the issue in a broader context. I simply pointed out that our national priorities seem to be dead-set on not offending the Muslims at any price. Placate them at all costs. Security at any price.

I'm not sure how anyone who has served in the armed forces can arrive at the conclusion that Muslims are any less offended by dropping a bomb on a house full of non-combatant Muslims in a war zone (I know we didn't intend to, but that is war), or by the presence of an army of infidels in their homeland, than they are offended by a bunch of nuts burning the Quran on a church lawn in Florida. Again, clearly, I do not support burning the Quran - as you say it is not right. But the crux of the issue is broader by it's very nature.

I have to add this to my reply because this is what puzzles me about this issue. I am firmly convinced that adding this "hearts and minds" approach to the business of war, that is so politically correct nowadays, is a national disaster. I want to consider how we won the "hearts and minds" of Germans and Japanese that brought about such a "peaceful" end to WWII. Our military fought with honor. That did not stop us from fighting to win a military conflict. You understand what I am saying? We tried the "hearts and minds" approach in Vietnam, and it failed miserably. 58,000 of us made the ultimate sacrifice to disprove that hideous idea. Winning hearts and minds makes the fatal assumption that one is engaging the forces of one's enemies by making friends with those who are not engaged in war against you. We learned in Vietnam that our friends were as powerless to stop those who hated us (and them) as we ultimately were. I thought our military leaders had learned the lesson after that debacle. IMHO we've still got things backwards. I guess it is because Generals and Admirals hardly ever pay the last full measure of war.

May I respectfully suggest that if we want to win the "hearts and minds" of our enemies, we should leave the issues on the table for the politicians and diplomats to discuss. If our enemies attack us, our military should win "hearts and minds" as Gen. Patton suggested. You will not make friends at the point of a spear until long after the last soldier dies. I have the deepest respect for Gen. Petraus. I just happen to be of the opinion that if he wants to win the hearts and minds of people who are deeply offended by the mere presence of our forces (and him) on their soil, then he should resign his commission, lay aside his weapon, and do so under the guise of a diplomat. Not a soldier. And I say shame on politicians, diplomats, and bureaucrats who try to mold a great soldier into a tool of diplomacy. Let the soldiers fight the wars honorably, but with full support and clear direction. Force the politicians and diplomats to fight the battle of peace and take their lumps at the polls.

To be concerned about the safety of those under his command is the General's duty. However, do we really believe that our enemies will be one iota less mad at us, and desire to kill us any less, if we all stop some idiots from burning Qurans? To think that is naive and fatal. So, I put the question to all - but especially to those who are paying the cost of freedom. Will NOT burning a pile of Qurans make the Muslim extremists your friends? Will it make your job any safer tomorrow? Will those who have sworn to their god to spill your blood (and ours) at any price love you for your tolerance and respect tomorrow? Not unless you plan on converting to Islam.

Sorry. this is way too rambling for this early in the morning. It is frustrating to see the mistakes of the past repeated by the present generation.

[Oldgringo]

I understand your point about honor and code being the foundation of what it means to be an American soldier. All of us who served share that feeling. We fight by our standards - not theirs. I guess I didn't read all the previous posts about 9/11, the Catholic Church in WWII, the NYC Mosque, etc. It does seem to me we are discussing the issue in a broader context. I simply pointed out that our national priorities seem to be dead-set on not offending the Muslims at any price. Placate them at all costs. Security at any price.

I'm not sure how anyone who has served in the armed forces can arrive at the conclusion that Muslims are any less offended by dropping a bomb on a house full of non-combatant Muslims in a war zone (I know we didn't intend to, but that is war), or by the presence of an army of infidels in their homeland, than they are offended by a bunch of nuts burning the Quran on a church lawn in Florida. Again, clearly, I do not support burning the Quran - as you say it is not right. But the crux of the issue is broader by it's very nature.

I have to add this to my reply because this is what puzzles me about this issue. I am firmly convinced that adding this "hearts and minds" approach to the business of war, that is so politically correct nowadays, is a national disaster. I want to consider how we won the "hearts and minds" of Germans and Japanese that brought about such a "peaceful" end to WWII. Our military fought with honor. That did not stop us from fighting to win a military conflict. You understand what I am saying? We tried the "hearts and minds" approach in Vietnam, and it failed miserably. 58,000 of us made the ultimate sacrifice to disprove that hideous idea. Winning hearts and minds makes the fatal assumption that one is engaging the forces of one's enemies by making friends with those who are not engaged in war against you. We learned in Vietnam that our friends were as powerless to stop those who hated us (and them) as we ultimately were. I thought our military leaders had learned the lesson after that debacle. IMHO we've still got things backwards. I guess it is because Generals and Admirals hardly ever pay the last full measure of war.

May I respectfully suggest that if we want to win the "hearts and minds" of our enemies, we should leave the issues on the table for the politicians and diplomats to discuss. If our enemies attack us, our military should win "hearts and minds" as Gen. Patton suggested. You will not make friends at the point of a spear until long after the last soldier dies. I have the deepest respect for Gen. Petraus. I just happen to be of the opinion that if he wants to win the hearts and minds of people who are deeply offended by the mere presence of our forces (and him) on their soil, then he should resign his commission, lay aside his weapon, and do so under the guise of a diplomat. Not a soldier. And I say shame on politicians, diplomats, and bureaucrats who try to mold a great soldier into a tool of diplomacy. Let the soldiers fight the wars honorably, but with full support and clear direction. Force the politicians and diplomats to fight the battle of peace and take their lumps at the polls.

To be concerned about the safety of those under his command is the General's duty. However, do we really believe that our enemies will be one iota less mad at us, and desire to kill us any less, if we all stop some idiots from burning Qurans? To think that is naive and fatal. So, I put the question to all - but especially to those who are paying the cost of freedom. Will NOT burning a pile of Qurans make the Muslim extremists your friends? Will it make your job any safer tomorrow? Will those who have sworn to their god to spill your blood (and ours) at any price love you for your tolerance and respect tomorrow? Not unless you plan on converting to Islam.

Sorry. this is way too rambling for this early in the morning. It is frustrating to see the mistakes of the past repeated by the present generation.

I absolutely agree, well thought out and well said!

(I know I said that I was bowing out of this subject but that was before I saw the girl with her nose cut off on the cover of the 9 August issue of "TIME" magazine in the Doctors' office yesterday. How can anyone defend, or defer to, barbarism such as that? If a religion promotes that kind of barbarism among its own, were the 9/11 atrocities really the result of a minor faction of fanatics?)