Gen. David Petraeus says the burning of Koran would ...

[OCGuy]

keep it up you shill. zionist ≠ jew. pathetic attempt at using the tired antisemite card.

Everyone sees through your racism. You randomly call people Jew pigs.

People like you are the problem. Maybe after seeing a few books burned you will stop being so uptight about your sky-man.

 

[Fern]

gotta agree with what you said.

its a small church in florida. it doesnt represent the ideas of the entire country.

secondly, idgaf about people on the other side of the planet complaining about this.

We're aware that it is indeed the fault of people from that area. However, if you poke a hornets nest and your friend gets stung, your friend tells you that you're a jackass for doing that.
-snip-

Who is more at fault here?

This small group of people know one would otherwise care about, or the MSM for publicizing this?

By publicizing this, what impression does the MSM give to Muslims outside of, and unfamiliar with, the USA?

Who exactly is "poking the hornet's nest"?

Ferm

 

[woolfe9999]

I hear the generals remarks and think to myself, whether this group goes through with burning a copy of the Koran or not, we have already conceded defeat to radical Islam.

Is this situation any different than the situation over the South Park episode about showing a depiction of Muhammad?

I think there is a distinction, yes. The South Park thing was a parody, intended as comedy. My reaction to that was that the Muslims should grow up and learn to recognize humor. The church Koran burning thing isn't meant as a joke. It's pure malice.

None of that is any excuse for Muslims generalizing the behavior of that one church to the entire U.S., or the west. But that is bound to happen. Many people here tend to generalize the bad acts of certain Muslims to Islam as a whole, where any time a Muslim does something the act is perceived as being committed by the entire religion. It isn't fair in either case, but unfortunately this is the simplistic world view of many people.

Patreus has a point here. These kinds of acts make his job harder to do. I don't think he expects to affect the behavior of a crazy church in Florida, but rather he is aiming his remark at mainstream Americans who may have negative feelings about Islam. People have criticized Obama for what they characterize as something like "ass kissing" of Islam, better described as an attempt to allay the perception that the west is engaged in a cultural and/or religious war with Islam. And now it's Petraues essentially saying the same thing. The perception of a culture war is exactly how Al Queada sees this, and exactly how they want their fellow Muslims to see it. Yet mainstream Muslims need to know that we DON'T see it that way. We instead see it as a war against a crazy fringe. Any other approach just plays into the hands of the extremists.

- wolf

 

[Phokus]

Everyone sees through your racism. You randomly call people Jew pigs.

People like you are the problem. Maybe after seeing a few books burned you will stop being so uptight about your sky-man.

He's right, you're retarded.

Or do you think these jews are anti-semites?

http://www.nkusa.org/

Some of the most anti-zionist people are orthodox Jews because zionism isn't permitted by their holy book.

 

[woolfe9999]

Who is more at fault here?

This small group of people know one would otherwise care about, or the MSM for publicizing this?

By publicizing this, what impression does the MSM give to Muslims outside of, and unfamiliar with, the USA?

Who exactly is "poking the hornet's nest"?

Ferm

I think it's problematic to blame the press here. The press is a business. As such, anything "newsworthy" - meaning tending to attract attention and sell copy/ad space, is going to be publicized. This sort of story is "sexy" because it is controversial, and confrontational. In any event, it isn't the press who wants to burn a Koran. If someone commits a murder and the press reports it, would you blame the press or the murderer?

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

I think there is a distinction, yes. The South Park thing was a parody, intended as comedy. My reaction to that was that the Muslims should grow up and learn to recognize humor. The church Koran burning thing isn't meant as a choke. It's pure malice.

None of that is any excuse for Muslims generalizing the behavior of that one church to the entire U.S., or the west. But that is bound to happen.
- wolf

Everyone generalizes, even liberals when they criticize others for generalizing. That is not the issue. The issue is, are you going to kill over it? Americans may generalize, but they don't kill when a group of people in another country burns our flag.

And you're oversimplifying South Park as comedy. It's also satire. Do you think when they go after Scientologists they don't intend to insult? Of course they do. It is extreme criticism. The difference is that Scientologists tend to use the legal system to abuse their enemies, as opposed to Muslims who tend to kill. Even Scientologists look good compared to Muslims.

 

[Chaotic42]

It is an unwise and inflammatory thing of the church to do to be sure, but what do you all propose? I'm having trouble reconciling the notion that our soldiers are overseas fighting for our way of life and freedom (whether you believe that or not, it is an oft-cited reason) but that some people might think that this church should be banned from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression -- the very thing our military claims to be fighting for overseas.

I love how everyone is ignoring this post, the best one in the thread. As for my thoughts, even if this burning takes place, if an insurgent (or whatever you want to call them) kills a soldier because of it, that killing is still 100% the insurgent's fault.

 

[woolfe9999]

Everyone generalizes, even liberals when they criticize others for generalizing. That is not the issue. The issue is, are you going to kill over it? Americans may generalize, but they don't kill when a group of people in another country burns our flag.

And you're oversimplifying South Park as comedy. It's also satire. Do you think when they go after Scientologists they don't intend to insult? Of course they do. It is extreme criticism. The difference is that Scientologists tend to use the legal system to abuse their enemies, as opposed to Muslims who tend to kill. Even Scientologists look good compared to Muslims.

South Park is satire using extreme derision as comedy, yet they offend EVERYONE at one time or another. Satire by definition involves extreme portrayals which are not accurate but are based on a kernal of reality. And the style of South Park humor is to take pleasure in being politically incorrect for its own sake. You have to view it in context and not take it too seriously. If you are "offended" by anything in South Park, then you are taking a piece of it out of context and haven't ever viewed more than that one piece.

As for Muslims using violence, you are again overgeneralizing. How many Muslims do you think have done anything violent because of the Koran burning thing? And by that, I mean actually harming people, not "protesting." The fact that there are some few who may commit violent acts, whereas in your flag burning example perhaps there are not, is a point of distinction I suppose, but not a very dramatic one. Frankly, I am surprised that given the backward nature of countries like Afghanistan, where people are very poorly educated and there is no history of civil law or discourse, that it isn't a lot more widespread. Much of the relatively small amount of violence that does occur over things like this is more likely related to culture than to religion in particular.

In any event, none of this matters to the point of thread which was the validity of Patreus comments. If Patreus is facing a more difficult situation in that it is more difficult to gain the support of the populace against the Tabiban, then it doesn't really matter even if what you are saying is correct. In fact, the more correct you are, the more validity there is to Patreus' concerns.

- wolf

 

[Phokus]

Originally Posted by IndyColtsFan View Post
It is an unwise and inflammatory thing of the church to do to be sure, but what do you all propose? I'm having trouble reconciling the notion that our soldiers are overseas fighting for our way of life and freedom (whether you believe that or not, it is an oft-cited reason) but that some people might think that this church should be banned from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression -- the very thing our military claims to be fighting for overseas.

I love how everyone is ignoring this post, the best one in the thread. As for my thoughts, even if this burning takes place, if an insurgent (or whatever you want to call them) kills a soldier because of it, that killing is still 100% the insurgent's fault.

It's actually not. I always hate this argument because nobody's calling for their free speech to be banned. It's the best example of a strawman argument. Freedom of Speech != Freedom from criticism. Patraeus does have a legitimate complaint that unecessary inflamatory rhetoric is putting his troops in harms way. The military isn't just there to bomb shit but also to bridge a divide and win over the population.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

It's actually not. I always hate this argument because nobody's calling for their free speech to be banned. Freedom of Speech != Freedom from criticism.

You are free to criticize them (heck, even I criticized them), but my concern is that there will be people who want to infringe on their right to speak and express themselves and say "It should be outlawed!" That's why I asked what people think should be done exactly. Criticize them? Sure, no problem. But for the inevitable "outlaw it?!?!" or "ban it?!?!" from some of the wingnuts, uh, no.

Petraeus is likely correct, but what does he hope to accomplish? Is he trying to shame them into complying with his wishes?

The military isn't just there to bomb shit but also to bridge a divide and win over the population.

You're right, the military is there to do that. Not this wingnut church, so while their stupidity might trigger a response from the equally stupid Islamic radicals, I don't know what he can hope to accomplish.

 

[woolfe9999]

You are free to criticize them (heck, even I criticized them), but my concern is that there will be people who want to infringe on their right to speak and express themselves and say "It should be outlawed!" That's why I asked what people think should be done exactly. Criticize them? Sure, no problem. But for the inevitable "outlaw it?!?!" or "ban it?!?!", uh, NO.

Petraeus is likely correct, but what does he hope to accomplish? Is he trying to shame them into complying with his wishes?

He's trying to employ an argument which is often sympathetic to people on the right - that what you are doing is endangering our troops. Whether or not, or to what extent, this appeal is persuasive is unknown. Either way, no one is calling for banning speech.

- wolf

 

[IndyColtsFan]

He's trying to employ an argument which is often sympathetic to people on the right - that what you are doing is endangering our troops. Whether or not, or to what extent, this appeal is persuasive is unknown. Either way, no one is calling for banning speech.

- wolf

Yeah, I understand, but on these kinds of issues, I always try to think of the precedent that could be set. I guess I have been too influenced my the mosque debacle in NYC and am trying to find issues where perhaps none exist.

Carry on folks, just me being cautious and maybe paranoid.

 

[Phokus]

You are free to criticize them (heck, even I criticized them), but my concern is that there will be people who want to infringe on their right to speak and express themselves and say "It should be outlawed!" That's why I asked what people think should be done exactly. Criticize them? Sure, no problem. But for the inevitable "outlaw it?!?!" or "ban it?!?!" from some of the wingnuts, uh, no.

Petraeus is likely correct, but what does he hope to accomplish? Is he trying to shame them into complying with his wishes?

Too late now, but it does accomplish getting out the message that inflaming the Muslim world for no other reason than to act like a bitch accomplishes nothing and will hinder their efforts abroad and would hopefully prevent such idiotic actions to take place in the future. Also, 'ban it' is a red herring, literally nobody will argue for that and they'll get shouted down, i think you know that.

 

[Infohawk]

Also, 'ban it' is a red herring, literally nobody will argue for that and they'll get shouted down, i think you know that.

I recognize that one from the mosque debate.

 

[zinfamous]

I find this church and its members guilty of being a bunch of dumbass Floridians...but that's about it.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Too late now, but it does accomplish getting out the message that inflaming the Muslim world for no other reason than to act like a bitch accomplishes nothing and will hinder their efforts abroad and would hopefully prevent such idiotic actions to take place in the future. Also, 'ban it' is a red herring, literally nobody will argue for that and they'll get shouted down, i think you know that.

I hope so, but one of these days, one of these things might gain traction. That's what I am really afraid of.

 

[Phokus]

I recognize that one from the mosque debate.

It does sound familiar: "You can build a mosque here when we can build a church in Mecca!"

 

[ericlp]

So what; I burned a few thick ass bibles along with some telephone books in the fire place last winter... Kept me warm for a few hours just like any other book would.

I have no problems burning any book I don't care to read... One organized religion is no better then another one.

 

[Phokus]

So what; I burned a few thick ass bibles along with some telephone books in the fire place last winter... Kept me warm for a few hours just like any other book would.

I have no problems burning any book I don't care to read... One organized religion is no better then another one.

That's completely different than what the church is doing, it's not really the 'burning' that's the problem, but the message and purpose that goes along with it.

 

[Phokus]

Also, everyone should watch the CNN video interview with the Pastor, holy shit this guy is fucking retarded. He's saying that burning the Quran is for the remembrance of the 9/11 victims and also to protest the radical element of Islam, but for the peaceful worshipers of islam, he invites them in the country to worship and build mosques... Hahahaha, this idiot has absolutely no sense of irony or logic.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Where was General "Betray Us" (thanks Moveon.org) during draw "Muhammad day"? Were our troops not in danger then?

 

[nyker96]

The problem is that not only do the crazies do crap like burning the book, but there's a huge publicity circus around it. If they had done it and there wasn't this huge angst thing then there would be no potential repercussions. Unfortunately the news has made sure it's been exploited to the fullest, and there are whackjobs who do indeed go off the deep end. Now I can understand FOAD, but unfortunately Patreus has a legit concern.

well, I guess this isn't a bad point, but you know burning Koran/flags etc that exactly the type of sensationalism that makes it to the papers/internet/god forbid facebook!? the crazier the better ... but still I still think Patreus is exaggerating this thing. If he don't comment about it all over TV, it might just be smaller still.

 

[Chaotic42]

It's actually not. I always hate this argument because nobody's calling for their free speech to be banned. It's the best example of a strawman argument. Freedom of Speech != Freedom from criticism. Patraeus does have a legitimate complaint that unecessary inflamatory rhetoric is putting his troops in harms way. The military isn't just there to bomb shit but also to bridge a divide and win over the population.

It has been banned: Link. Whether the motives behind it are fire safety, no one will really know. I'd bet they are though.

A lot of stuff is putting his troops in harms way. Limited RoEs defintely are. As for the military being there to blow stuff up, that is the purpose of the military. Why they insist on using the wrong tool for the job, I don't know.

 

[Throckmorton]

I recognize that one from the mosque debate.

People were trying to get the mosque banned

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It has been banned: Link. Whether the motives behind it are fire safety, no one will really know. I'd bet they are though.

A lot of stuff is putting his troops in harms way. Limited RoEs defintely are. As for the military being there to blow stuff up, that is the purpose of the military. Why they insist on using the wrong tool for the job, I don't know.

Banned maybe, but they say they are going through with the burning. Now what would be hilarious is if they douse the whole congregation with fire hoses. I'd pay to see that.