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

[ichy]

Now... i'm going to log off, i'm getting up in a few hours and if i'll be back it won't be for a couple of weeks.

Please don't come back. It's disgusting and pathetic that you're going around online pretending to be a member of the SAS, especially when your walting is so half-assed that even someone with no military background like me can see through it.

 

[Lanyap]

I guess the flag burning left is against this?

How did you guess?

It's unbelievable that you and the preacher are persisting in this "religious extremists" bullshit. Do you really not get it? The Koran Burning sends the message to REGULAR MUSLIMS that we hate them and consider them to be the enemy, just like the Park 51 mosque protests. I guess now it's making more sense why you don't comprehend the concept of winning hearts and minds.

 

[Infohawk]

I was born in 1984

Well, keep in mind if you had been around back then you'd have been defending the war with the logic you're using.

 

[Infohawk]

No, I admitted I would sacrifice some principles in his shoes. There is a time and place for everything. If you would be stubborn enough sacrifice men's lives because of your personal ideals on this issue then not only would you be a terrible general, you'd be an asshole... no matter how much integrity you displayed for your precious, lofty idealism.

It's easy to be high and mighty sitting behind a computer. Context means a lot.

Oh, so you're principled SOME of the time DEPENDING on the situation.

 

[woolfe9999]

True, but that's not really the best point anyways, because the idea people are pushing that all (or most) modern terrorists are Muslim seems like a very selective interpretation of modern history.

Prior to 9/11, you didn't find many people making the suggestion, because it would have sounded silly. Separatists in Spain, the IRA in Ireland, many different communist eastern European groups, militia idiots in the US, the list of non-Muslim terrorist type activity that's been around in our lifetimes goes on and on. Look at popular culture before 9/11, and you'll see a wide range of hypothetical terrorist bad guys, because at that point hardly anybody treated terrorism as a strictly Islamic thing.

Really, terrorism = Muslim is an idea that almost entirely rests on the events of 9/11 and the events around the follow-on invasion of two almost entirely Muslim countries. The insurgents/terrorists we found there, were people expecting Quakers?

I dunno about this. I recall the mainstream Muslim community fighting against the stereotype of terrorists being portrayed in popular culture as mainly middle eastern well prior to 9/11, particularly airline hi-jacking in movies. I definitely recall that in the hours after the Oklahoma City bombing, many people speculated it was Arab terrorists, and then the Muslim community and many liberals were outraged that people made this knee jerk assumption which turned out not to be true. I think the Iranian hostage crisis , all the marines who were killed in Lebanon back in the 1980's, and the first WTC attack are what really got us started with that stereotype. To be sure, 9/11 intensified it a LOT, but honestly the perception among many Americans even pre-9/11 was that terrorist = Muslim (specifically Arab Muslim). Actually, I would say the perception has subtely shifted from "Arab" to "Muslim" for reasons not entirely clear to me.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

Actually, I would say the perception has subtely shifted from "Arab" to "Muslim" for reasons not entirely clear to me.

What isn't clear to you? Most terrorists are Muslims, but there have been Muslim terrorists from all different races. People are just reacting to what they see on the news.

 

[cwjerome]

Oh, so you're principled SOME of the time DEPENDING on the situation.

In a sense, yes. A better way to put it would be to say my principles fluctuate with each other depending on the context. I am against theft, yet if I were a poor boy on the streets I would steal a loaf of bread if it meant helping my desperate family. There are a million possible scenarios where one's cherished beliefs on right and wrong would be tested, I just picked an obvious example. I reject the absolutist little world you seem to have created, it might be a fun mental exercise in some closed off academic discussion, but it's imaginary in the real world. I do not think for a millisecond you behave if a way you seem to be arguing because nobody does... we live in a gray world where some principles override others on occasion.

 

[Infohawk]

In a sense, yes.

Got it. You're not principled, but you like to dress up your self-interest in them when convenient.

 

[cwjerome]

Got it. You're not principled, but you like to dress up your self-interest in them when convenient.

Well if that's your interpretation of what I said, suit yourself. I'm not going to argue an issue with an ignorant or a liar... or in this case, both.

 

[Infohawk]

Well if that's your interpretation of what I said, suit yourself. I'm not going to argue an issue with an ignorant or a liar... or in this case, both.

What am I lying about? I'm just taking your own words at face value. As usual you try to make your positions seem noble and complex when they're not.

 

[cwjerome]

what is a person who is accepting the enemy's world-view and perspective, and working to accommodate it, namely don't insult Islam or else?

Maybe he's just being "practical" but it's a disgusting joke.

Mr. Petraeus would do better to tell the Afghans that in America we have freedom of speech and expression and that we put up with it without trying to kill those saying things we don't like, rather than try and shut up our people. He needs to take off that uniform. Hence Mr.

He is being practical but it's no joke. He's operating within the world he is working, like it or not. Unless you can clearcut the terrain of people, which clearly we cannot, we have to be strategic about perception. Certain things, even perfectly legal things, can have effects that are seen on the battlefield. It's two separate issues, whether doing something in a situation is legal or right. I would argue it some cases doing something might be wrong although perfectly legal. This might be such a case.

I would defend that dude's right to burn the Quran, but also suggest he not do it. Kind of like flag burning.

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAVX5WLIUrs

 

[Throckmorton]

WTF are you guys talking about principles for? What exactly is unprincipled about Petraeus condemning the Koran burning?

 

[Infohawk]

WTF are you guys talking about principles for? What exactly is unprincipled about Petraeus condemning the Koran burning?

I have a feeling your taking things out of context... If you're too lazy to read all the posts just don't worry about it.

 

[Throckmorton]

I have a feeling your taking things out of context... If you're too lazy to read all the posts just don't worry about it.

I did read all the posts. You and cwjerome are arguing based on the assumption that the principled thing to do would be to say nothing.

I haven't read through this long topic but General Patraeus is doing what pragmatic leaders of troops do: Look out for their safety. People like him aren't in a position to go down on principle. I would do the same in his shoes...

 

[Infohawk]

I did read all the posts. You and cwjerome are arguing based on the assumption that the principled thing to do would be to say nothing.

No. I'm saying cwjerome is not principled based on his own comments. Do you really need to get involved in that discussion?

 

[Throckmorton]

No. I'm saying cwjerome is not principled based on his own comments. Do you really need to get involved in that discussion?

Well I'm commenting on the original ridiculous premise of Petraeus compromising his principles

 

[Infohawk]

Well I'm commenting on the original ridiculous premise of Petraeus compromising his principles

That wasn't a premise. Thank you. Come again.

 

[Throckmorton]

That wasn't a premise. Thank you. Come again.

Are you high or something? I don't know how cwjerome's post could be any more clear.

 

[Infohawk]

Are you high or something? I don't know how cwjerome's post could be any more clear.

I'm not high you just don't read that well. I'm not arguing that point with cwjerome. What don't you understand about that?

WTF are you guys talking about principles for? What exactly is unprincipled about Petraeus condemning the Koran burning?

Who are you talking to here? Nobody?

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm not high you just don't read that well. I'm not arguing that point with cwjerome. What don't you understand about that?



Who are you talking to here? Nobody?

I didn't say you were arguing that point with him. I specifically said you guys were talking about principles, which is a red herring here.

 

[Infohawk]

I didn't say you were arguing that point with him. I specifically said you guys were talking about principles, which is a red herring here.

It's not a red herring it's a side discussion. There's been a lot of them in this thread. But I'm not going to get in a pissing match over this. You obviously took the posts out of context and are backtracking to make it look like you didn't. Let's move on.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's not a red herring it's a side discussion. There's been a lot of them in this thread. But I'm not going to get in a pissing match over this. You obviously took the posts out of context and are backtracking to make it look like you didn't. Let's move on.

I didn't take posts out of context. cwjerome said that Petraeus compromised his principles by condemning the Koran burning. I completely disagree with that.

 

[werepossum]

Well I'm commenting on the original ridiculous premise of Petraeus compromising his principles

Petraeus is certainly not betraying his principles. He is laser-focused on two things, the mission and his troops, and he is commenting on the Quran burning specifically because he sees it as damaging to both concerns. I support their right to burn Qurans even though I think it's a bad thing to do, but from Petraeus' standpoint the only time to speak up on that right would be if government threatened to take away their right to burn them - which is not happening. It's hypocritical in that the US military confiscated and burn Bibles, but consistent with his principles in that burning Bibles, even though equally offensive to devout Christians, supported both his overriding concerns.

I am concerned though that the free world not adopt this PC position that offending Islam is bad, but offending other, less murderous religions is okay or even desirable.

 

[Zebo]

Muslims are still talking about Abu Graib-sic-and will for the next century. If you cant see this for what it is then you have no idea how propaganda works......


Again I say in a powder keg situation you don't go throwing matches just because you can. I am not advocating any response by extremists but giving them more ammunition to recruit ignorants to blow themselves up just gets us mired into an even bigger quagmire.

Sarah Palin came out against the book burning so it must be wrong right....

What we need as a nation is to concentrate on an exit strategy in the middle east. Making that more diffucilt in the name of free speech is a piss poor way to do it. We can take the high road or we can fight an international holy war.... I choose peace thank you very much...

And with eash passing "low road" you take you surrender a little more. In case you have not noticed everywhere you look Southern Thailand, Pakistan, Algeria, Lenbanon, somalia, Darfur, Russia and so on and so forth at least 95% of current worlds conflict invloves that crazed religion. We, and the rest of the world, and especially those "not quite Muslim enough" in Muslim countries is invloved in a Holy War like it or not. Where will you draw the line?