Petraeus: Church that’s burning Korans on 9/11 is putting U.S. troops at risk; Update: Counter-protests planned

posted at 10:12 pm on September 7, 2010 by Allahpundit

I wish they wouldn’t do it either — burning books is an almost singularly offensive form of protest, needless to say — and I appreciate Petraeus’s concern for his men. But it’s hard for me to imagine him asking, say, anti-war protesters to stay home from a rally lest a public show of division among American voters give hope to the enemy. Citizens and political leaders can and should criticize or counter-protest this preacher, but if military brass are willing to start weighing rights against American blood spilled, where’s the line? I support repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but if it happens, won’t media coverage of that play rather poorly in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should we maybe not do it then so as not to jeopardize any troops? Given that Republicans are more hawkish than Dems and therefore more likely to attack Iran’s nuclear program, is it the Pentagon’s opinion that we should vote Democratic this year in order to save some Air Force lives?

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Monday criticized a Florida church’s plan to burn copies of the Quran on September 11, warning the demonstration “could cause significant problems” for American troops overseas.

“It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan,” Gen. David Petraeus said in a statement issued Monday…

And one of his deputies, Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, told CNN’s “The Situation Room” that event “has already stirred up a lot of discussion and concern” among Afghans.

“We very much feel that this can jeopardize the safety of our men and women that are serving over here in the country,” said Caldwell, the head of NATO efforts to train Afghan security forces.

This is a tougher issue, I think, than it seems at first blush. My instinct on provocations is to lay off unless it’s in defense of some important liberal principle. That’s why I supported “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” which was a reaction to the culture of intimidation practiced by some Muslims against western blasphemers. When people like Lars Vilks and Kurt Westergaard and the “South Park” guys have to fear for their lives for drawing cartoons, solidarity in the name of free speech trumps concerns over offending Muslims who don’t participate in that culture. By Petraeus’s own admission, though, the Koran-burning incident now involves the same culture of intimidation: He’s not merely worried about hurt feelings among innocent Muslims if the Koran burns, he’s worried about U.S. troops being killed for the offense. What incentive is created (or, rather, reinforced) if the event is now called off for that reason? I heard these same arguments from the “hearts and minds” crowd during the “Everybody Draw Mohammed” kerfuffle — we must censor ourselves so as not to alienate non-violent Muslims, even though in the process we end up giving the violent ones precisely what they want — and I’m as confused as ever as to where the line is, assuming there is one. If the Koran-burners change the protest from a book-burning to some sort of shoutfest about how “Islam is the devil” or whatever, would that make it better? If so, why? When, if ever, is it acceptable to offend Muslims? On behalf of “South Park” fans everywhere, just give us some guidelines.

I could do without this rhetoric too:

The State Department described as “un-American” plans by a controversial church to burn Korans in memory of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks — though the head of that church says he is not deterred.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the plan “inflammatory” at a briefing Tuesday and said it would put U.S. troops and interest around the world at risk, echoing a concern expressed by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

I don’t mind government criticism of the guy while acknowledging that he has the right to proceed — that’s how most Republican pols have handled the Ground Zero mosque, after all — but “un-American” is some rhetorical grenade to lob into a situation whose closest analog is the First Amendment centerpiece of flag-burning.

So why do I wish the church would forget about it? In writing about this, you’re forever caught between the “hearts and minds” crowd who don’t want any offense given to Muslims, ever, and the crowd who thinks that Muslims are bent on cultural hegemony and therefore no concessions to their feelings can be made, ever, lest it encourage them. I’m not in either group; I want satirists and political commentators to be able to criticize without fear, but I don’t want the Zuhdi Jassers of the world to feel unwelcome. Everyone will draw the line differently — we’re dealing with symbolism here, after all, where the message is necessarily muddled — but I thought “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” was a necessary defense of free speech aimed at a specific form of intimidation (even though it risked offending Muslims generally) whereas the Koran-burning seems unnecessary, sinister (due to the historical pedigree of book-burning), and more likely to hurt the feelings of Muslims generally than the jihadis it’s ostensibly aimed at. But your mileage may vary. Like I say, this is a tougher issue than it seems at first.

Update: A commenter below says you can’t compare anti-war protests to Koran-burning:

I think there’s a difference between boosting morale and whipping the enemy up into a frenzy by poking him with a stick.

There is a difference, but it’s a difference in degree. If whipping the enemy up means 50 more attacks on Americans and protests mean only 10 more attacks, is the latter an acceptable number while the former isn’t? Are both unacceptable? If “South Park” showing Mohammed means 10 extra attacks, does that justify self-censorship? Is there a minimum number of attacks we’re willing to tolerate? I’m not offering this as an argument against anti-war protests, mind you, just as a stark illustration of the moral calculus this sort of thinking gets you into.

Update: He wanted to get attention, and now he’s got it.

Clergy members, academics and elected officials in Gainesville have planned nearly a dozen events to counter the plan, starting on Wednesday with an interfaith prayer service. On Saturday, hundreds of local residents and visitors are expected to rally against Mr. Jones, an evangelical pastor, with signs containing messages like “Peace among religions leads to peace among nations.”

“He represents only 30 people in this town,” said Larry Reimer, a local pastor, noting the size of Mr. Jones’s church, the Dove World Outreach Center. “It needs to get out somehow to the rest of the world that this isn’t the face of Christianity.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

the subjugation of women and children is one of them.

Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Which naturally they don’t recognize as subjugation since women and children are merely PROPERTY.

As far as 9/11 recalls, its the business WITHIN the Quran that Mohamed literally endorsed the killing of infidels as righteousness that bugs the life out of all those who died or are left scarred from the bombing effects on rescuers and physically contaminated clean-up crews.

All in all, I agree with Mark Steyn, that the REAL shame is on New Yorkers for having failed to force their governing officials into rebuilding the World Trade Center this decade. Since 9/11, the hole remains empty while the gz mosque gets built. And were the World Trade Center already rebuilt, there’d be that much LESS ANGST on the parts of frustrated Americans angry to witness our own “constitutional” government babying Muslims while castrating Christians.

Concerning the FLA -50member congregation venting on 9/11, personally renounce it for the publicity stunt it is.

But until the MSM anger against what is constitutional gets spread evenly regardless of ideology, I’m actually neutral though I think that the book burning is the antithesis of American tradition, and really should be conducted in private since Petraeus stuck his neck out in deference for our troops. I support our troops. But I also think that Jihadists are bent on destroying all things American; this book burning amounts to diddlysquat as if “convincing them” that America is the Great Satan. They’re already convinced. There’s no “winning the hearts and minds of our enemies” otherwise; that’s just propaganda to make the well intended feel warm inside while blood is shed all sides.

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 3:26 PM

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM
——
You’re leaving out home soil.

What is your awesome plan for all the Muslims in America?

Round them up and shoot them?

Void their citizenship and deport them?

Amend the constitution to outlaw Islam?

I bet your plan here is as brilliant as the one to invade all these countries one by one without a shred of a clue what to do once you get across the border, or what the other Muslim nations will do as soon as you do.

Dave Rywall on September 8, 2010 at 3:33 PM

The bigotry towards Muslims that permeates this discussion disgusts me.

Narutoboy on September 8, 2010 at 3:34 PM

911 happened because we allowed the terror networks to build and expand. We allowed our fake friends like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to fund them and spread through the Saudi Mosque network.

We did nothing, or only token efforts after attacks on the WTC in 93 and elsewhere.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Worst of all, the Republican neoconservative well intended administrations funded the CIA training and weapons distribution to the Taliban whom we now fight, having ourselves replaced the USSR in Afghanistan.

In Korea, we could have won a truce immediately by executing MacArthur’s plan, depopulating the no-man-zone with radiated bombs, killing all the Chinese aggressors.

In Vietnam, we could have won immediately by bombing all the Northern dikes, flooding out the communists.

In Afghanistan, what’s the point of any warfare beyond air strikes? Are our troops targeted on the ground to provide the CIA intelligence? It’s supposed to work the other way around. The “enemy” Taliban are Afghans protecting Afghanistan for their own tribes, to force out the invaders whether Russian brutes or American nice guys. Point being, they live in the mountains where our troops can not be any more effective than our WWI trench warfare troops annihilated when ordered by command to charge the line.

There is no “plan” and I fail to respect any “reason” to persist propping up the corrupt Karzai Afghan government. I don’t trust this Afghan War, especially with muddling CinC Obama. Don’t tell me that it’s to annihilate either al Qaeda or the Taliban. That would require the annihilation of the Muslim population. And don’t tell me that America is winning over the hearts and minds of the enemy. Our bribes don’t buy Jihadist loyalty. Money wasted.

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Dave Rywall on September 8, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I bet your plan here is as brilliant as the one to invite the invasion of America from all these countries one by one without a shred of a clue what to do once they get across the border, or what the other Muslim nations will do as soon as they monopolize power.

See what I did there?

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Hi sharrukin

Don’t you feel like sometimes you’re talking to your dog or your cat, NAH they’re smarter.

I think you are preaching to the choir, people don’t want to hear the truth they would rather live in their liberal little PC world than face what is happening in our great ation.

I do believe what you are saying and that is only the tip of the iceberg, I have to say most people here at HA are very smart and do get it.I have learned a lot in the last year just reading the comments here and understand there are many patriots in these ranks and I thank God for them.

We do need a certain amount of entertainment which I also receive here at HA.:):)

concernedsenior on September 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM

OOPPS!!! great nation

concernedsenior on September 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Wow, sharrukin rocks! One thing that has bothered me about the Petraeus approach is that if you are in the military and you are on the front lines then aren’t you already in danger by definition? While I don’t doubt that winning hearts and minds is a good thing, how about going out and killing those freaks! Our soldiers are the best but our “leaders” with this constant appeasement approach is what is destroying the west.

yubley on September 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM

With money.

The ISI gives money to the Taliban, the Saudi’s have telethons for terrorists.

So those now equal Islam?

Seems like it would be easier just to target those organizations and those telethons than to target Islam itself.

Well if they want to attack us they will find what results from that very unpleasant. Do you really think these countries militaries are capable of that kind of power projection? They aren’t.

Pakistan has nukes. They don’t even have to fight us. All they have to do is “lose” their nukes and let terrorists groups take them into our country.

Iran is working on the bomb but is still otherwise powerful enough, especially considering how exhausted we are from two wars. So, yeah, I really do think that if we announce to the world that Muslims are our enemies that we’ll get significant resistance. I imagine Russia would stop the pretense even and fully embrace Iran as an ally.

They are not an ally.

You can tell because when they are trying to kill your soldiers that usually means they don’t like you.

Pakistan’s soldiers aren’t attacking us. They’re attacking the terrorists, reluctantly, sure, but they’re still attacking the right people.

Unstable and nukes. Yeah, lets just leave that alone and sit on our hands. What could go wrong?

Again, you think charging into this country will help things? Why didn’t we do the same with Russia? Was Reagan’s plan weak?

You are wrong again, BTW in that they are very capable of doing the ‘dirty work’, they just choose not to.

So they’re capable, even after being destroyed by us, but we’re not, because they’re just that much better than we are? We’ve been trying to take out Al Qaeda for years. I’m surprised that you have more faith in their abilities.

When they kill our nationals we respond. If the host country is in our opinion doing what they can to stop them, then we help them. If they are in our opinion letting it happen, then we attack.

So it’s all subjective.

911 happened because we allowed the terror networks to build and expand. We allowed our fake friends like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to fund them and spread through the Saudi Mosque network.

Bin Laden has his own money, and really, he didn’t need too much for partial pilot training and a couple plane tickets. Gas prices and plane tickets were even cheaper back then.

It happened because we ignored a ton of warning signs and had little communication between our defense organizations.

They are not as stupid as you are pretending. They will get the point very quickly.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM

No, I agree with you on this point. I just think your conclusions are the wrong ones. Radicals who kill themselves in order to kill others won’t just roll over and let us kill them. They won’t just let us go from one country to the next like idiots.

Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM

How would we as Christians like it if a Muslim group in the US decided to burn Bibles?

Red Cloud on September 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM

We wouldn’t like it, but we wouldn’t go out and kill Muslims over it either. Consider what happened with the Mohammad cartoons — people died over them, and Islamists made repeated attempts to kill cartoonists involved with same.

Extreme Muslims are apparently worshippers of powerful icons. The Koran is an icon, a picture of Mohammad is an icon — and these have an inordinate amount of worship attached to them.

If someone burns a copy of a Bible, I’ll look at mine on my nightstand and say, “Gee, that’s rather disrespectful.”. But God is certainly capable of determining the importance of a copy of the Bible. If someone stuck a Crucifix in a jar of urine, I wouldn’t kill the artist, but I would certainly criticise anyone funding same.

I’ve met many a peaceable Muslim, teachings in the Koran notwithstanding.

As for us Christians and Jews, there are a few passages in the Old Testament (used as justification for modern actions by some here at HotAir) in which an entire city is declared sinful, or the land useful, and what ensues is slaughter and enslavement of its inhabitants. We don’t do that today, but it’s in the record.

unclesmrgol on September 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Don’t you feel like sometimes you’re talking to your dog or your cat, NAH they’re smarter.

I think you are preaching to the choir, people don’t want to hear the truth they would rather live in their liberal little PC world than face what is happening in our great ation.

concernedsenior on September 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM

The condescension is strong in here. Always loved the “either agree with me or you’re a liberal idiot” approach. It wins so many converts with its pure logic.

The nation is great in part because we’re not a theocracy and don’t want to be one. Starting a holy war goes directly against that.

I’ve long thought most of us here aren’t truly against all Muslims but just the ones who want to kill us, of which I’ll admit that are quite a lot, but in thread after thread, I’m being told that all Muslims need to go, somehow. That’s not even smart strategically, which just goes to show how deeply held these beliefs are.

Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM

The most interesting thing about this to me is the disdain and aggresivness of the media against the church and pastor. Which I find completely lacking in the Ground Zero Mosque coverage. Both appear to be in bad taste but perfectly within their rights to do and yet the there is a distinct catering to Muslims in both scenarios.

Koa on September 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM

While I don’t doubt that winning hearts and minds is a good thing

yubley on September 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM

If you do, then how can you support making all Muslims the enemy? The two are mutually exclusive.

Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Rywall

even in our current weakened economy courtesy big government we could outlast the non dynamic middle east oil bearers ten to one

Sonosam on September 8, 2010 at 5:14 PM

So those now equal Islam?

Seems like it would be easier just to target those organizations and those telethons than to target Islam itself.

Genius. Lets bomb the ISI Pakistan’s security forces, but we just tell them that we aren’t at war with them as the bombs are falling in Karachi? The Saudi’s won’t have any problem with us attacking their TV stations and broadcast studios either huh?

Pakistan has nukes. They don’t even have to fight us. All they have to do is “lose” their nukes and let terrorists groups take them into our country.

That is becoming closer and closer to reality regardless of what we do. Better to take them out now and prevent them from developing an ICBM threat that we cannot easily defeat.

Iran is working on the bomb but is still otherwise powerful enough, especially considering how exhausted we are from two wars. So, yeah, I really do think that if we announce to the world that Muslims are our enemies that we’ll get significant resistance. I imagine Russia would stop the pretense even and fully embrace Iran as an ally.

I think we could get Russia on our side with not too much effort. Give them something to gain from it and bear in mind they have the murdered children from Beslan as well.

Pakistan’s soldiers aren’t attacking us. They’re attacking the terrorists, reluctantly, sure, but they’re still attacking the right people.

Those moves are just an internal power struggle that has little to do with terrorism at all. The army moves against the frontier tribes to counter-act the influence of the ISI security services.

They act against them when pressured by the west only as far as they need to and that’s it.

Again, you think charging into this country will help things? Why didn’t we do the same with Russia? Was Reagan’s plan weak?

No land invasions, so no charging needed.

We didn’t do the same with Russia because they had a massive decently trained military and a huge nuclear arsenal. The Muslims have none of those things.

So they’re capable, even after being destroyed by us, but we’re not, because they’re just that much better than we are? We’ve been trying to take out Al Qaeda for years. I’m surprised that you have more faith in their abilities.

That’s because they are willing to get up close and personal with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers. We aren’t.

How does it work? Syria had a small problem in the city of Hama with the Muslim Brotherhood. Seems they wanted to get frisky with the Syrians rather than the Israeli’s. Bad idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

The Syrians… “under the command of General ‘Ali Haydar, besieged the city for 27 days, bombarding it with heavy artillery and tank [fire], before invading it and killing 30,000 or 40,000 of the city’s citizens – in addition to the 15,000 missing who have not been found to this day, and the 100,000 expelled.

Compare that to Gaza.

So it’s all subjective.

Well, yeah. Pearl Harbor was a day of infamy to the US and a righteous act of defense to the Japanese.

It’s called life.

Bin Laden has his own money, and really, he didn’t need too much for partial pilot training and a couple plane tickets. Gas prices and plane tickets were even cheaper back then.

Bin Ladin was known to the Saudi’s as a radical as well as to his family, and could have been stopped by them, by Clinton, by Afghanistan, and by Pakistan at different times.

No, I agree with you on this point. I just think your conclusions are the wrong ones. Radicals who kill themselves in order to kill others won’t just roll over and let us kill them. They won’t just let us go from one country to the next like idiots.

Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM

There are few who do roll over and die on command and most of those are western liberals. We generally don’t ask if they want to die, and generally they make a big deal about it, running around and hiding and stuff.

As to stopping us, how exactly will they stop a carrier battle group from attacking? How exactly do they stop a bomber formation or amphibious assault group?

Very few of those countries have credible air forces and those that do are poorly trained, or use pilots who are not nationals. Turkey would be the biggest threat. The others are a joke!

The point is that when they see we mean business they will start making choices about what they want to risk and what they have to gain from such a confrontation.

Reagan bombed Libya and it worked wonders for quite a few years, so it isn’t as if there is much doubt this wouldn’t work.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM

even in our current weakened economy courtesy big government we could outlast the non dynamic middle east oil bearers ten to one

Sonosam on September 8, 2010 at 5:14 PM

They wouldn’t defund their entire government just to poke us in the eye. They need western money and OPEC isn’t as powerful as he suggests. If there was such an embargo gas prices would go up and so would the incentive for increased exploration and the incentive on the part of OPEC members to break the embargo.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM

@ sharrukin

RE: Esthier & Co.

I trust you do realize that you are wrestling with pigs who like to be in the mud…?

Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Sarah Palin Facebook post on subject:

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/09/koran-burning-is-insensitive.html

technopeasant on September 8, 2010 at 5:38 PM

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/09/koran-burning-is-insensitive.html

technopeasant on September 8, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Guess Palin’s a pig too then.

Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I trust you do realize that you are wrestling with pigs who like to be in the mud…?

Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Yeah and I am aware that when she finally sees her argument dissolve she will run away as she did before when she claimed that only about 10% of Muslims backed Sharia and I showed her the polls pegging support at 60-75% or higher.

She is naive but not I think a troll.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 5:51 PM

I don’t recall Petreaus speaking out when the U.S. Military was burning bibles in Afganistan.

tommyboy on September 8, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Genius. Lets bomb the ISI Pakistan’s security forces, but we just tell them that we aren’t at war with them as the bombs are falling in Karachi? The Saudi’s won’t have any problem with us attacking their TV stations and broadcast studios either huh?

You’re making no sense.

If we’re at war with a group, we’re at war with it. We’re not just declaring war because we don’t like their beliefs.

That is becoming closer and closer to reality regardless of what we do. Better to take them out now and prevent them from developing an ICBM threat that we cannot easily defeat.

Good luck with that.

I think we could get Russia on our side with not too much effort. Give them something to gain from it and bear in mind they have the murdered children from Beslan as well.

Like what? We can’t even convince them to stop helping Iran get nukes. I hardly consider them an ally anymore.

They act against them when pressured by the west only as far as they need to and that’s it.

So that’s an argument for upping the pressure but not necessarily invading.

We didn’t do the same with Russia because they had a massive decently trained military and a huge nuclear arsenal. The Muslims have none of those things.

The Muslims aren’t some big monolith. They’re people in almost every country, including some theocracies that are well armed. Considering we don’t even have the political will to drop another nuke, the fact that most of them don’t have one makes little difference, especially when you consider our rules of engagement.

That’s because they are willing to get up close and personal with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers. We aren’t.

That doesn’t prove they have the numbers. The Taliban wasn’t wanted in Afghanistan until security became an issue.

And if will is all that’s required, we should really do our own dirty work and leave it as an example to the rest of the world.

Bin Ladin was known to the Saudi’s as a radical as well as to his family, and could have been stopped by them, by Clinton, by Afghanistan, and by Pakistan at different times.

Clinton didn’t ask and didn’t take his own two chances. Hard to fault them when our own president didn’t make it a priority.

There are few who do roll over and die on command and most of those are western liberals. We generally don’t ask if they want to die, and generally they make a big deal about it, running around and hiding and stuff.

Doesn’t seem so helpful.

As to stopping us, how exactly will they stop a carrier battle group from attacking? How exactly do they stop a bomber formation or amphibious assault group?

They don’t have to. There’s a reason we stopped Shock and Awe and went in with ground troops.

Turkey would be the biggest threat. The others are a joke!

I wouldn’t call Iran a joke or Pakistan considering it’s nukes.

And that’s assuming that no other larger countries would come to their defense.

Reagan bombed Libya and it worked wonders for quite a few years, so it isn’t as if there is much doubt this wouldn’t work.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM

And Clinton bombed Iraq without seeing any results, so I don’t see that as a one size fits all response.

Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Yeah and I am aware that when she finally sees her argument dissolve she will run away as she did before when she claimed that only about 10% of Muslims backed Sharia and I showed her the polls pegging support at 60-75% or higher.

She is naive but not I think a troll.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 5:51 PM

I stay in these threads longer than most. Just because I finally leave one doesn’t mean that I’ve been run out of the place.

I don’t recall your poll, but I personally believe that about 10% are willing to kill for Islam and impose Sharia on the rest of the world. I’m willing to believe that an even greater number agree with Sharia or at least parts of it (possibly even the number you’re citing), but I don’t see that as the same. When I’m speaking of extremists, I’m not talking about them but the ones who would kill for Islam.

I do believe that most Muslims have very extreme views, but I do see the extreme views as gradations. Just because someone agrees with Sharia doesn’t mean that person can’t be reasoned with. The ones who want violence can’t and should be written off, but I don’t agree with writing off the rest.

Feel free to disagree obviously, but I don’t see how your solution of going to war with all Muslims is at all better. That doesn’t make me a dhimmi or a liberal. I hate Sharia with a passion but only want what’s best for this country, and fighting 1 billion people just isn’t it.

Using their own faith against them, to turn enemies into allies, seems much more effective.

Yes, the ideology has been warped for centuries, but Muslims are having difficult conversations about their faith. Maybe you don’t care, but I’d rather not write them off. I don’t see the point.

Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 6:09 PM

@ sharrukin

FWIW, I’ve rarely seen a “merely naive” person who is not a troll put so much energy into her “position/argument/propaganda” with posts filled with garbage upon garbage…relativist or otherwise.

For me, she jumped the shark when she claimed that (paraphrasing here) “for religions, centuries are like days,” implying that the evils carried out in the name of Christianity centuries ago were equivalent to or justified the atrocities of islam today and before.

But hey: enjoy the mud!

Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 6:12 PM

You’re making no sense.

If we’re at war with a group, we’re at war with it. We’re not just declaring war because we don’t like their beliefs.

Yes, I am aware of that. You were the one suggesting we take out the ISI and Saudi telethons without going to war with them.

Like what? We can’t even convince them to stop helping Iran get nukes. I hardly consider them an ally anymore.

But Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are?

The Russians deal with reality and if we started doing the same thing rather than trying to convert Muslim nations into thriving western democracies we could deal with them.

They want trade and strategic assurances and we could easily give them that by abandoning any pretensions in central Asia.

So that’s an argument for upping the pressure but not necessarily invading.

How many times do I have to say this?

No invasions. No occupations.

And if will is all that’s required, we should really do our own dirty work and leave it as an example to the rest of the world.

No, Syrians should rule Syria and Iranians should rule Iran. I don’t want to be dictating to the rest of the world how they must conduct themselves. It’s their country and their business and should only become our business when they start attacking beyond their borders.

As to stopping us, how exactly will they stop a carrier battle group from attacking? How exactly do they stop a bomber formation or amphibious assault group?

They don’t have to. There’s a reason we stopped Shock and Awe and went in with ground troops.

Yeah, we were planning a land invasion which was a bad idea.

If they cannot stop our military movements then they cannot act as a group to prevent an attack upon other Muslim nations. This isn’t a difficult concept.

I wouldn’t call Iran a joke or Pakistan considering it’s nukes.

I would call them a joke if we play to our strengths and their weaknesses. They have low quality, but numerous troops and irregulars. A land invasion allows them to make use of that advantage.

If we attack by air and sea and make no attempt to occupy we can bring tremendous pressure to bear and force them to the table. We target the transport network, the urban utilities network, and the industrial plants.

Consider Vietnam and operating ‘Rolling Thunder’. If we had no troops in Vietnam for the VC to target they have almost no ability to cause us any damage and we can inflict a great deal of damage on them with few casualties.

They are not going to sustain those kinds of casualties for the sake of a few terrorist groups.

And that’s assuming that no other larger countries would come to their defense.

The larger countries are India who would be more likely to help us than to hinder us. Muslims haven’t made many friends in the world though they have purchased a few.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 6:25 PM

I do believe that most Muslims have very extreme views, but I do see the extreme views as gradations. Just because someone agrees with Sharia doesn’t mean that person can’t be reasoned with.

So do tell? How exactly do we reconcile Sharia in which women are considered only half a man? And non-Muslims can be excluded altogether?

How do you merge that with western law?

Using their own faith against them, to turn enemies into allies, seems much more effective.

What on earth are you talking about? There is nothing in the Koran that disagrees with the Taliban, so how would using their faith do anything but make them more likely to turn to violence?

Yes, the ideology has been warped for centuries, but Muslims are having difficult conversations about their faith. Maybe you don’t care, but I’d rather not write them off. I don’t see the point.

Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 6:09 PM

I am not willing to let them murder millions while they ponder the possibilities of maybe cutting back on how many they butcher on a yearly basis. Does that make me a radical?

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 6:38 PM

But hey: enjoy the mud!

Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Esthier, like a lot of people wants to be sensitive and politically correct but that simply isn’t compatible with either morality or conservatism. She instead finds herself in a strange world of hope somewhere in between.

Besides I like to argue.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 6:41 PM

The most interesting thing about this to me is the disdain and aggresivness of the media against the church and pastor. Which I find completely lacking in the Ground Zero Mosque coverage. Both appear to be in bad taste but perfectly within their rights to do and yet the there is a distinct catering to Muslims in both scenarios.
Koa on September 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Very true.

conservative pilgrim on September 8, 2010 at 6:55 PM

conservative pilgrim on September 8, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I’m sorry – I thought that comment was directed at me. The thanks was sincere. Sorry I misinterpreted.
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 12:08 PM

My mistake. It’s hard to tell sometimes and I misinterpreted your comment as being a smart alec. Truly sorry.

conservative pilgrim on September 8, 2010 at 7:01 PM

For me, she jumped the shark when she claimed that (paraphrasing here) “for religions, centuries are like days,” implying that the evils carried out in the name of Christianity centuries ago were equivalent to or justified the atrocities of islam today and before.

But hey: enjoy the mud!

Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 6:12 PM

you ought to hear her talk about gay marriage….you know she has her own version of the bible..the book of esthier!!

she’s a serious nut case….

now watch madisonfascist come running to her defense!!

he even posted a thread from long ago trying to make me look bad, where esthier told him she’d make him see god!! oh yeah and he’d have singing in the choir!! LOL

right4life on September 8, 2010 at 7:18 PM

I am still harping about the fact that nobody seems concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood, and ground zero imam’s connection to them.

They will do ANYTHING with anyone to further their goal of world dominance(like collaborating with the NAZIS in WW2)

Egyptian ties, the NY real estate guy and his money man.

I know I am repeating myself but I think this is important.

concernedsenior on September 8, 2010 at 7:29 PM

I wonder if the pastor is going to decide at the last minute not to do this? A lesson to the Victory Mosque folks?

Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 7:36 PM

And when OPEC suspends all oil headed our way what then? Our economy collapses and that is just for starters.

Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM

The U.S. imports most of its oil from Canada and Mexico, genius.

Only 3 of the top 10 countries we import from are in the Middle East.

David2.0 on September 8, 2010 at 7:43 PM

I’m sick and tired of one-way tolerance toward these Muslim pigs who show absolutely none at all toward us. I would like to see the Koran burn, if for no other reason than to see Bloomberg, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and pathetic Naruto-boy turn purple.

MaiDee on September 8, 2010 at 7:57 PM

If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him.

– Sun Tzu, Art of War

I think general Petraeus is wrong to have so spoken. To our Muslim enemies this must look like cowering before their outrage – fear & trembling from a great American general. This is no way to fight or win hearts.

This Quran burning is not “stupid”! If an American or a church community wants to express great disdain for a book, especially a book as harmful and outrageous in its commands as the Quran, then one might find it distasteful but hardly stupid or idiotic. Are we to always cower before Muslim threatening demands for submission to their sense of Constitution trumping superiority? Are we to be in some sort of perpetual bow before them?

This burning will say no to this tremulous bowing and express to Muslims that, like it or not, we will have our freedom of expression.

Besides, a little ridicule of Islam can have a desirable effect.

Chessplayer on September 8, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Last time I looked our troops are already in harm`s way over there in that radical islamist infested region of the globe. And the islamists are in more harm`s way (I like the latter). It is a war, after all. It is dangerous. No matter koran burnings or not. Hell, if we can burn the flag we can burn some korans. I`d rather we could not burn the flag, but I don`t worry about a few korans one tiny bit.

I will tell you one thing: All this hue and cry over this alleged possible burning is what makes me ill.

A fast way to lose your head is to have the nerve to even carry a Bible in the middle-east. Much less burn a koran!

Ever notice all of those churches and shrines over there?

Me neither.

Islam should be put on religious probation until it learns how to behave civilly. Sorry, but they earned it many times over.

FBI investigates drunkard who stabbed muslim cabby? Give me a break already!

Better keep investigating islamists in the military and coming thru our airports . . . .

Backasswards!

Sherman1864 on September 8, 2010 at 8:39 PM

I cannot agree that burning the Qur’an is morally wrong. This event of burning is a symbolic burning. It is not like a book burning in Germany in 1930. Those books were immensely valuable, most of them were stolen by thugs, and the act was undertaken as an expression of a program of intimidation aimed at Jews, and the program of intimidation met with official approval. Today, because of the internet, the books are essentially worthless; that is, their content is available for free all over the internet. Today, the books are not stolen and the act does not meet with official approval. Today, the act is not part of a campaign of intimidation against Muslims. To the contrary, the act is undertaken for the sole purpose of illustrating the insensitivity of the Islamists who are building a victory mosque at ground zero. In other words, the book burning is a perfectly clear response to morally equivalent acts on part of the Islamists. It is a healthy form of blowback by people who are made to feel powerless in the face of constant propaganda from Islamists, the Obama administration, and the MSM. This is the United States of America. The right of Free Speech is found in the first article of the Bill of Rights. It is a legal right and a moral right. Its legality is beyond question, as established by many SCOTUS cases. Its morality should be equally clear. This act of booki burning is intended as a form of expression. It is an attempt to get the attention of folks who are shamelessly promoting an Islamist agenda over the vocal protests of seventy percent of Americans. All of us should rally around the book burners. This is the United States of America. If someone wants to burn the New Testament, more power to them. Are you not aware that the New Testament suffers much worse than burning in the halls of academia on a daily basis? If you are unconcerned about the academics, why are you concerned about these book burners? Finally, as regards General Petraeus, why don’t we make his job really easy by withdrawing from Afghanistan

KentAllard on September 8, 2010 at 8:53 PM

For 9 years since 9/11/01, Islamists and their enablers have been whining about an American culture of anti-Islamic hate that is perpetually ready to boil over into society-wide violent or rhetorical action against peace-loving Muslim-Americans. It never quite seems to materialize, does it? Middle-Americans do not arbitrarily attack Muslims or Islam, no matter how often they or their enablers cry that it is about to happen.

Meanwhile, the rate of so-called “hate-crimes™” against Jews dwarfs that of “hate-crimes” against Muslims, and yet, we’re supposed to swallow the narrative that paints the American people as collectively anti-Islamic, while “hate-crimes” against American Jews is apparently not newsworthy.

When I was a small boy, and I’d get in trouble for something, I remember a few occasions when I would cry, even though no punishment had yet been meted out to cause my tears. Sometimes, my mom or dad would say, “You want me to give you something to cry about?” I knew they meant it, and I got the message. I was already crying, they didn’t want to suffer my undue wailing, and so they wryly offered me some perspective as to the difference between crying honest tears and dishonest ones. In those situations, I would invariably decide that crying for no reason wasn’t so important to me after all, and I would shut up.

Muslims have been crying about nothing for a decade since 9/11, and it has placed Americans in the position of constantly defending against accusations of anti-Islamic fervor that always seems to be on the brink of boiling over, but never does. Now the people at this church are going to give the wailing Islamists and their enablers something real to cry about. The debate will shift from false accusations, to something concrete. I think that is a net gain. Let’s get it all out in the open.

And General Petraeus… He sat silently while Leftists denigrated the Commander in Chief, proclaimed the war lost, called our troops murderers and baby killers, called him a traitor, and published anti-terrorist classified information in the New York Times. …Never once did he comment publicly on how those treasonous actions would affect troop morale, or place our troops in danger.

Now, when a little church looks to burn Qurans, he speaks up and offers platitudes as to how dangerous this act of defiance will be to the troops overseas?

Give. Me. A. Break. It doesn’t pass the smell test. He was either ordered to make this statement, or he is ideologically predisposed to do so, and ill equipped to recognize the disparity between his failure to defend the troops from the Left, and his willingness to defend them from this Florida church.

This Quran burning will give American Muslims and their Imams a chance to demonstrate how tolerant they can be.

/Fatwas issued for the Pastor’s head after 9/11/10 in 3…2…1….

IronDioPriest on September 7, 2010 at 10:31 PM

This post is exceptional, sir.

KinleyArdal on September 8, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Liberals and democrats and liberal-democrats weep hardest when an American flag is burned.

Right?

Inanemergencydial on September 8, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Sure hope they don’t burn the Korans the Isalmo Terrorrists might hijack some airliners and fly them into some of our skyscrapers in retaliation!

MCGIRV on September 8, 2010 at 10:09 PM

So lets see people objecting to this Koran/Quran burning:

General David Petraeus
Sarah Palin
Mitt Romney
Ann Coulter (?!)
Glenn Beck

Am I forgetting anybody?

Oh wait…a group that is in favor of it is the Westboro Baptist Church, you know those SOBs who protest at military funerals?

Honestly I hope the people who are saying “Go on poke a bunch of people in the eye with a stick and see what happens” grow a brain-or a conscience

Either one would suit me fine.

SgtSVJones on September 9, 2010 at 1:04 AM

Honestly I hope the people who are saying “Go on poke a bunch of people in the eye with a stick and see what happens” grow a brain-or a conscience

SgtSVJones on September 9, 2010 at 1:04 AM

We know what happens.

The millions dead in Sudan, the Armenian massacres, the dead children of Beslan, 911, the terror bombings in Europe, the street killings in Mumbai, the anti-Copt riots in Egypt, the Hama Massacre in Syria, the murder of Christians in Indonesia, the church burnings in Kenya, and on it goes.

And now you tell us that if we make them mad they might do something awful?

sharrukin on September 9, 2010 at 1:16 AM

SgtSVJones on September 9, 2010 at 1:04 AM

We can object to it, argue against it, and try to persuade other not to participate, but we cannot forcefully stop it. That is the dividing line between what america is and what a 3rd world despotism is.

Fighton03 on September 9, 2010 at 1:17 AM

Proud Rino on September 8, 2010 at 6:55 AM

Can’t you see that it’s wrong of a General to say this to a private citizen? To me it comes off as a threat: Petraeus has the backing of the most powerful military on earth and he’s attacking with words a private citizen.

And I never said Petraeus couldn’t say what he said, just that it was “disgusting” what he said. Oh, hey, that MY Constitutional right to say what I just did as well! I’ll be!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 9, 2010 at 1:27 AM

sharrukin on September 9, 2010 at 1:16 AM

1000+

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 9, 2010 at 1:28 AM

the subjugation of women and children is one of them.

Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Which naturally they don’t recognize as subjugation since women and children are merely PROPERTY.

Before Islam Women and Children was property. Islam gave Women rights for the first time about 600AD. Stoning for the first time had to backed up by four witnesses and if the women swears by the Korean 4 times she is innocent then she cannot be stoned. For a woman to show skin is not the sin of the Women it is the sin of the man and Women was told to cover and not travel alone because at that time until just recent it was very dangerous for women to show any skin as men running around would rape and kill them. Until recently even Christian Women had to show nothing more than Face and Hands. Look at photos of 1800′s. Women are considered as partners not as property. Divorce has go though a arbitration with both families, a man cannot just say three times I divorce you. A woman can take her husband to court and ask for a break up of the marriage. I wish people would read the Koran before making stupid claims they get off the internet and cut and paste. So many lies about Islam that is not. The bad things that are happening to women are not Islamic based, but of local traditions, and back wards governments. Like genital mutilation. Muslims was the first to give Women rights. It was the Muslims who outlawed killing new born girls. It is a grave sin to kill your Children in Islam. While the West was in the Dark ages and Women was slaves the Muslim where the ones who kept science and medicine alive though the dark ages. In the West during the Dark Ages Women, Children and everyone was property of the kings. Religion and Government was same after Rome fell, up until just recently under when USA was formed. True many Muslim countries have fallen behind, but they led the way 1300 years before the west started to. People take out of context what is written in Koran on both sides. Its like some one quotes a story from the inquisitions and says “see how Christians kill those who do not follow their religion”
Hitler was a Christian but not all Christians are Nazis, but people say all Muslims are terrorist because some are. Not all Christians are Child molesters even though some priests are child molester. Wake up people and stop being Bigots. Hate is a terrible cancer.

Ed Laskie on September 9, 2010 at 2:29 AM

Oh, Ed Laskie! Thanks for the laugh! Islam giving women rights… oooh, my sides are aching from all the laughter! Will you be here all night? And recommend the veal? LOL!

Oh, you forgot the one that if a woman’s been raped, she needs four male witnesses to corraborate her claim. Oh, those feminist Muslims, they just loooove women, don’t they?

I just love how, according to you, because the men lack the self-control of a two-year old, the women have to bake in burkas, and that’s somehow wonderful?

Hate is not a cancer when it’s directed at evil. Hating evil is a good thing. Fighting evil is a good thing. Righteous anger and all that.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 9, 2010 at 4:24 AM

911 happened because we allowed the terror networks to build and expand. We allowed our fake friends like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to fund them and spread through the Saudi Mosque network.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I disagree with this line of thought. “WE” are not responsible. “WE” did nothing. “WE” can not control the rest of the world (despite what many think). Radical Islam is the culprit, not “WE” or our “Foreign policies” I hear quoted from people.

It’s like saying “WE” allowed Hitler to come to power. Not true.

BierManVA on September 9, 2010 at 8:25 AM

I wonder if the pastor is going to decide at the last minute not to do this? A lesson to the Victory Mosque folks?

Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Exactly what I thought. Unfortunately, Christians aren’t supposed to practice Taqiyya and kitman (‘holy hypocrisy’) – because that would be imitating the world rather than imitating Christ. For Christians, the ends won’t justify those means….

dtestard on September 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM

It’s about time this third world “religion” joined civilization and quit all their moronic ranting and raving. If Christians or Jews behaved the same way every time they were offended it would be three times the level of rhetoric. Religion of peace, my a**!

ultracon on September 9, 2010 at 9:43 AM

When I joined the military 30 odd years ago, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, NOT the Koran, the Bible, or the Torah.

Bevan on September 9, 2010 at 9:51 AM

This reminds me of the Cuckoo’s clan era. I wonder how this church minister would feel if his book was burned? I wounder how come he has not even questioned himself on the immorality of it?

Monas on September 9, 2010 at 10:13 AM

For me, she jumped the shark when she claimed that (paraphrasing here) “for religions, centuries are like days,” implying that the evils carried out in the name of Christianity centuries ago were equivalent to or justified the atrocities of islam today and before.

But hey: enjoy the mud!

Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I never said that, not even close. Trying to read between the lines when you don’t understand someone’s argument is a bit ridiculous.

Someone else pointed out in a different thread yesterday that Christianity has a 600-year head start, which would place Islam in a decent position for a reformation, considering when Christianity had its reformation.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM

I’m sick and tired of one-way tolerance toward these Muslim pigs who show absolutely none at all toward us. I would like to see the Koran burn, if for no other reason than to see Bloomberg, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and pathetic Naruto-boy turn purple.

MaiDee on September 8, 2010 at 7:57 PM

I shall second that.
Show the world how peaceful The Religion Of Peace is.

Shambhala on September 9, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Yes, I am aware of that. You were the one suggesting we take out the ISI and Saudi telethons without going to war with them.

No, I wasn’t. That’s why I said your comment made no sense. It doesn’t logically follow from our conversation.

But Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are?

They’re the same level of ally, not trustworthy but not worth getting into a war with either. I don’t trust Russia, but that doesn’t mean I think we should start bombing it.

The Russians deal with reality and if we started doing the same thing rather than trying to convert Muslim nations into thriving western democracies we could deal with them.

They want trade and strategic assurances and we could easily give them that by abandoning any pretensions in central Asia.

I completely disagree, so much so that I don’t see any common ground to continue the conversation on. Putin has shown that he wants much more than trade and assurances. It seems far more likely that he wants the USSR back. Russia will bring its own problems in a few years.

How many times do I have to say this?

No invasions. No occupations.

I was using invading in that sense to mean bombing. That too requires that we at least invade their airspace. That said, starting a war is more complicated than just dropping bombs. I reject your premise that it isn’t.

I don’t want to be dictating to the rest of the world how they must conduct themselves.

That’s precisely what going to war with Islam means.

All this time, you’re not describing war with Islam. You’re describing going hard after those who attack us, and that’s it, which will mean still having diplomatic relations with Islamic countries, including plenty that have never attacked us and likely never will.

By calling it a war on Islam, you’ll only be drawing people into it that have nothing to do with your actual plans by sabotaging any neutral or friendly relations we could have had.

All so that you can what exactly? Call Islam evil and insult a billion people, a large portion of which have never and will never harm you?

They are not going to sustain those kinds of casualties for the sake of a few terrorist groups.

Nor will we find the casualties of a suitcase nuke acceptable, even to take out terrorist groups. Nukes in the hands of people willing to use them are far more dangerous than the hundreds we have stockpiled.

You keep ignoring this, which is odd, because I assume you don’t want Iran to get the bomb. If you think it won’t be a threat with one, then it shouldn’t matter.

The larger countries are India who would be more likely to help us than to hinder us. Muslims haven’t made many friends in the world though they have purchased a few.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 6:25 PM

China and Russia are also larger countries. Sometimes you don’t need friends but rather an enemy with many more enemies. America is a large target, not just for Muslims. If we’re seen as trying to take on Islam, we will be seen as the new Hitler. That’ll be enough for some countries already interested in seeing us taken down to actually intervene.

I support some of your ideas here, but none of them at all even come close to adding up to a war on Islam, which is what started this conversation in the first place.

You completely ignore the strategic value in Islam as a weapon in this war. The terrorists use it to convince others to give their lives in battle. Your proposition would have us following their lead and giving greater credence to their best weapon.

I said that 10% is likely the number of Muslims who actively want to kill us and also said that I accept that upwards of 60% to 70%, or whatever the number was, may want to see Sharia everywhere. Are large portion of that 60-70% are those who have never engaged in violence but maybe sympathize with terrorists. If we tell them that we are targeting them specifically because of their religion, how many do you think would take us seriously and do their part to stop the War on Islam?

Seems like it would put a dent in your plan to destroy them one-by-one, especially since your plan has us leaving survivors in every country. Ending World War I didn’t stop World War II from happening.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 11:38 AM

How do you merge that with western law?

You don’t. We don’t compromise our values just because we’re trying to reason with someone who has barbaric ones. Sharia can never be allowed here, even the innocuous portions.

What on earth are you talking about? There is nothing in the Koran that disagrees with the Taliban, so how would using their faith do anything but make them more likely to turn to violence?

The same way Christians went from using the Bible to justify slavery to using it to justify ending slavery.

A portion already believe, wrongly or not, that Islam is about peace and understanding. There are Muslims who condemn the violence and call for a rejection of literal interpretations of the Koran. You can ignore them if you want, but they do exist and work towards this goal with or without your support.

I am not willing to let them murder millions while they ponder the possibilities of maybe cutting back on how many they butcher on a yearly basis. Does that make me a radical?

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 6:38 PM

They’re not murdering millions. As you’ve said frequently, they’re not that powerful.

And I’m not talking about reasoning with the murderers. Those can be shot on sight. Your policy on taking on Islam in war doesn’t include killing the others anyway. Your policy still has us in a world where there are probably still a billion Muslims.

If you’re not going to kill them all, you’re going to have to find a way to work with them.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Esthier, like a lot of people wants to be sensitive and politically correct but that simply isn’t compatible with either morality or conservatism. She instead finds herself in a strange world of hope somewhere in between.

Besides I like to argue.

sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 6:41 PM

No, but I can see why you think that. You assume I’m a liberal and work from there.

I’m against the mosque and am getting crap for that in another thread as a racist. I don’t mind it, because the Tom Shipleys of the world are idiots who enjoy feeling superior over others when it comes to “thinking the right thing” because in every other facet, they’re inferior.

Plenty of people are against this but have no problem (like me) with Everybody Draw Mohamed Day or who think that a mosque in a building that was destroyed on 9/11 is a terrible idea.

I simply draw the line at writing off one sixth of the population because of the few who are actively trying to kill us. Yes, there’s still a big problem with another 60% of them who don’t actively want to kill us but don’t mind seeing us die, but if they’re not actually trying to kill us or funding those who are, they’re harmless and should be treated as such.

The remaining 10% or so who truly believe Islam is of peace and who truly want peace and a reformation to their religion, are worth keeping in the world and working with instead of attacking.

That’s it. I’m not against either war. I’m not against being harder on Pakistan (telling them we’d bomb them to the stoneage after 9/11 seemed helpful). I’m not even against pushing a harder line in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I simply don’t believe all Muslims are the enemy. There’s nothing PC about that. No one will congratulate me for acknowledging the sensibility of our religious freedoms, and no one should.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

you ought to hear her talk about gay marriage….you know she has her own version of the bible..the book of esthier!!

she’s a serious nut case….

now watch madisonfascist come running to her defense!!

he even posted a thread from long ago trying to make me look bad, where esthier told him she’d make him see god!! oh yeah and he’d have singing in the choir!! LOL

right4life on September 8, 2010 at 7:18 PM

So last time you brought up those quotes and attacked me even though I hadn’t attacked you, you claimed it was still my fault because Madison was attacking you, and I guess I control him or something because I once joked with him with suggestive puns.

What’s the excuse this time?

Actually, scratch that. I don’t care. Call me a slut if you want. Say I invented my own Bible (by quoting from the Bible, naturally). Say whatever you want about me.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Esthier, your islamic post-intimacy goat droppings are perhaps more appropriately posted atDKossock…

Lockstein13 on September 9, 2010 at 12:06 PM

No, but I can see why you think that. You assume I’m a

liberal and work from there.

I’m against the mosque and am getting crap for that in another thread as a racist. I don’t mind it, because the Tom Shipleys of the world are idiots who enjoy feeling superior over others when it comes to “thinking the right thing” because in every other facet, they’re inferior.

Plenty of people are against this but have no problem (like me) with Everybody Draw Mohamed Day or who think that a mosque in a building that was destroyed on 9/11 is a terrible idea.

I simply draw the line at writing off one sixth of the population because of the few who are actively trying to kill us. Yes, there’s still a big problem with another 60% of them who don’t actively want to kill us but don’t mind seeing us die, but if they’re not actually trying to kill us or funding those who are, they’re harmless and should be treated as such.

The remaining 10% or so who truly believe Islam is of peace and who truly want peace and a reformation to their religion, are worth keeping in the world and working with instead of attacking.

That’s it. I’m not against either war. I’m not against being harder on Pakistan (telling them we’d bomb them to the stoneage after 9/11 seemed helpful). I’m not even against pushing a harder line in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I simply don’t believe all Muslims are the enemy. There’s nothing PC about that. No one will congratulate me for acknowledging the sensibility of our religious freedoms, and no one should.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

I have no problem with the Mosque. We’re not at war with Islam. We’re at war with some fanatics who happen to be Muslim. I don’t remember people complaining when the Japanese moved into Hawaii after World War II.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Liberals and democrats and liberal-democrats weep hardest when an American flag is burned.

Right?

Inanemergencydial on September 8, 2010 at 9:39 PM

So you think America is a religion, not a country? Otherwise, how does the comparison with burning the Koran make any sense?

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM

See link below. Don’t assume that all Muslim countries have strict Sharia-based laws.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/islam.html

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Esthier, your islamic post-intimacy goat droppings are perhaps more appropriately posted atDKossock…

Lockstein13 on September 9, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Obviously I care what you think enough to take your advice.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I have no problem with the Mosque. We’re not at war with Islam. We’re at war with some fanatics who happen to be Muslim. I don’t remember people complaining when the Japanese moved into Hawaii after World War II.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 12:14 PM

No one complained when Muslims moved into New York either, or when they built mosques everywhere else in the city.

As you can see here, I don’t believe we’re at war with Islam, and it’s the reason I’m considered a liberal, naive, etc.; however, I don’t think provocation is helpful to Western/Islamic relations.

I’ve used a story repeatedly when explaining my position that I think fits well. Nuns made a convent out of a concentration camp. The space wasn’t being used, and the nuns did nothing illegal to obtain it. The nuns weren’t even peripherally connected to the Holocaust and intended no insult by staying there. They in fact saw it as a potential outreach to Jews.

Yet many Jews were deeply offended. They wanted the place empty and did not appreciate the nuns changing the place or staying there.

After a few years of arguing over it, the Catholic Church decided they should leave if for no other reason than because staying there was harming Catholic/Jewish relations.

Do you think the nuns should have stayed?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:09 PM

So you think America is a religion, not a country? Otherwise, how does the comparison with burning the Koran make any sense?

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM

So a flag burning is less offensive than a book burning? Flags have little to no meaning? Is that your argument?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:16 PM

test

Akzed on September 9, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Am I not allowed to post the link to CNN article about the Army burning Bibles?

Akzed on September 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Maybe if Muslims weren’t attacking and murdering Christians and burning churchesI’d give a rat’s behind about flaming korans.

Akzed on September 9, 2010 at 1:21 PM

So a flag burning is less offensive than a book burning? Flags have little to no meaning? Is that your argument?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I don’t get terribly offended by flag burning.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Yet many Jews were deeply offended. They wanted the place empty and did not appreciate the nuns changing the place or staying there.

After a few years of arguing over it, the Catholic Church decided they should leave if for no other reason than because staying there was harming Catholic/Jewish relations.

Do you think the nuns should have stayed?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:09 PM

I think there can be a difference between converting a church/temple to that of another religion and building a new one.

I’d want to know, for instance, how close was the church/convent to another Catholic church convent and what was the purpose in locating there. If the purpose was to facilitate dialogue with the Jews, then it looks like the purpose failed. If it was to give nuns a place to live or worship, then its purpose didn’t fail.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 1:31 PM

I don’t get terribly offended by flag burning.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I do. And since it’s not your holy book being burnt, I’d assume your offense is on behalf of Muslims, not yourself. So why does their offense carry more meaning than mine?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Am I not allowed to post the link to CNN article about the Army burning Bibles?

Akzed on September 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM

I read the article. They burned them because shipping them back to the people who sent them (without sanction)might try to send to another independent org in Afghanistan. If it still had military shipping labels it might have been used in propaganda against the US.
When will some of you acknowledge that the lives of our troops are paramount. They are not in the US and don’t enjoy the freedoms we have because of agreements with host countries. Quit trying to make they your freakin prayer warriors and putting themselves at risk as a result.
Petraeus was right to speak up.

Bradky on September 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM

I think there can be a difference between converting a church/temple to that of another religion and building a new one.

It wasn’t a church or a temple. In both instances, a religion attempted/is attempting to turn a non religious building into a religious one.

I’d want to know, for instance, how close was the church/convent to another Catholic church convent and what was the purpose in locating there. If the purpose was to facilitate dialogue with the Jews, then it looks like the purpose failed. If it was to give nuns a place to live or worship, then its purpose didn’t fail.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 1:31 PM

So it matters how close these nuns were to another convent but not how close this mosque is to several other mosques, or the fact that the mosque is in a commercial rather than residential section of town?

From what I’ve read, I believe the purpose was two-fold, for dialogue and a place to stay. Also, hundreds of Christians had been killed at that specific camp.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I read the article. They burned them because shipping them back to the people who sent them (without sanction)might try to send to another independent org in Afghanistan. If it still had military shipping labels it might have been used in propaganda against the US.

That doesn’t justify it.

When will some of you acknowledge that the lives of our troops are paramount. They are not in the US and don’t enjoy the freedoms we have because of agreements with host countries. Quit trying to make they your freakin prayer warriors and putting themselves at risk as a result.
Petraeus was right to speak up.

Bradky on September 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM

So why just this danger? Why not the Abu pictures? Why not anti-war protesters?

Or for that matter, why not South Park’s censored Mohamed episode (pick any of the four)?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:40 PM

I do. And since it’s not your holy book being burnt, I’d assume your offense is on behalf of Muslims, not yourself. So why does their offense carry more meaning than mine?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Because I can’t figure out any positive purpose for doing it, other than getting this pastor some publicity.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 1:40 PM

The military has rules against proselytizing. The bibles shouldn’t have been sent. What should they have done with them?
Not all of the Abu pictures were released for the same reasons. The last I checked not very many anti-war protestors have gone to Afghanistan nor is Southpark piped into the tents.
Burning the Koran is almost certain to inflame the jihadists. Petraeus is concerned about the troops as he should be. Asking for people to be mindful of cause and effect is the right thing to do as a commander.

Bradky on September 9, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Esthier, some additional information about the convent at Auschwitz at the link. I think there’s a difference between converting a building that was part of the Auschwitz camp and building a Mosque where there is no official 9/11 site.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405330350430368.html

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM

The Auschwitz convent is a poor analogy because the religion of the nuns had nothing to do with the holocaust. There was no Nazi at Auschwitz justifying murder of Jews based on a religion.

slickwillie2001 on September 9, 2010 at 2:01 PM

The Auschwitz convent is a poor analogy because the religion of the nuns had nothing to do with the holocaust. There was no Nazi at Auschwitz justifying murder of Jews based on a religion.

slickwillie2001 on September 9, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Really? This statement allegedly came from Hitler. Or are you saying it’s not applicable because Hitler wasn’t at Auschwitz?

As early as 1922, he allegedly told Major Joseph Hell, at the time a journalist:

“ Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows – at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example – as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Because I can’t figure out any positive purpose for doing it, other than getting this pastor some publicity.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM

But you can see a positive purpose for burning the American flag?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM

The Auschwitz convent is a poor analogy because the religion of the nuns had nothing to do with the holocaust. There was no Nazi at Auschwitz justifying murder of Jews based on a religion.

slickwillie2001 on September 9, 2010 at 2:01 PM

That’s actually why I like it. The nuns had nothing to do with the Holocaust and neither did Christianity, and yet, they felt that it was right to leave for the sake of Jewish/Catholic relations.

My point is that the fact that this building is insensitive isn’t due to the fact that Muslims are responsible for 9/11, just as those nuns weren’t responsible for the Holocaust.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 2:21 PM

The military has rules against proselytizing. The bibles shouldn’t have been sent. What should they have done with them?

Send them back. Or even send them back through military channels to ensure that our stamps were no longer on them by the time the Bibles made it back to the church.

Or even, keep them. Offer them to Arabic Christians in the military.

Really anything but putting the government in the position of burning a holy book.

Not all of the Abu pictures were released for the same reasons.

Doesn’t matter. All of them put our troops in harms way by inflaming radicals. I remember it being much worse than this burning thing.

The last I checked not very many anti-war protestors have gone to Afghanistan nor is South Park piped into the tents.

Last I checked this church was in Florida, not Afghanistan, so you’re not really making a lot of sense with this line.

Burning the Koran is almost certain to inflame the jihadists. Petraeus is concerned about the troops as he should be. Asking for people to be mindful of cause and effect is the right thing to do as a commander.

Bradky on September 9, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Being mindful of it is important, but I don’t agree with him going to the press on this one. It’s not the government doing this, so it’s not the government’s responsibility to stop it, just as it wasn’t the government’s responsibility to stop the anti-war protesters or South Park.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Because I can’t figure out any positive purpose for doing it, other than getting this pastor some publicity.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM
But you can see a positive purpose for burning the American flag?

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM

People in many countries protest by burning their country’s flags. It’s symbolic and directed against the government. But who is the burning of Korans, Bibles or Old Testaments directed at? God? I don’t get it.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM

People in many countries protest by burning their country’s flags. It’s symbolic and directed against the government. But who is the burning of Korans, Bibles or Old Testaments directed at? God? I don’t get it.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM

People are right now burning flags to protest this church. Poor logical isn’t regulated to one side of the debate.

But I believe the protest is about Islam itself and declaring it evil.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Let me see if I got this right, Muslims have a constitutional right to build their victory mosque whereever they want,because of free speech and religion, okay got that, even though if OFFENDS Americans that lost loved ones on 9/11.

Some non descript Pastor wants to burn a book,and that is what it is a book,they burn our bibles.flags,presidents in efigy, and all of a sudden he has no constitutional rights because it OFFENDS the muslims, well sc##w them, they threaten violence, so what else is new, they murder thousands of innocent people every year all over the world, this Admin. wants to give them citizens rights to fair trial.

EXCUSE ME!!! Take no prisoners, that way they can’t be let off by some bleeding heart liberals.

This is disgusting.

concernedsenior on September 9, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Did someone burn a Quran in Russia?

Akzed on September 9, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I hear Andre Serano is contemplating a new “work of art…”

Akzed on September 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Some non descript Pastor wants to burn a book,and that is what it is a book,they burn our bibles.flags,presidents in efigy, and all of a sudden he has no constitutional rights because it OFFENDS the muslims, well sc##w them, they threaten violence, so what else is new, they murder thousands of innocent people every year all over the world, this Admin. wants to give them citizens rights to fair trial.

EXCUSE ME!!! Take no prisoners, that way they can’t be let off by some bleeding heart liberals.

This is disgusting.

concernedsenior on September 9, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Read more carefully. This has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It has to do with the wisdom in exercising them.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Read more carefully. This has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It has to do with the wisdom in exercising them.

Jimbo3 on September 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM

The mosque debate had the same problem.

Esthier on September 9, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Wow. Drudge is reporting the FBI visited the Pastor.
This is insane. The FBI? Has this thing not gone overboard a little?
Offending the Muslims is now going to be a crime or something. For the love of God, we cannot allow Muslims to be the least offended or they may riot and get really mad at us! This is like a freaking tyranny in and of itself.
Hey, I thought this Pastor was just another nut, but maybe this book burning was really just a clever idea to expose all the other nuts running around in panic, terrified we might offend a Muslim somewhere.

JellyToast on September 9, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Hey, everybody remember the worldwide outrage at this story?
“Muslims burn Bible in Pakistan.”
http://www.speroforum.com/a/17283/Muslims-burn-Bible-in-Pakistan

No. I don’ remember the outrage either. In fact, I had to search for the story.

JellyToast on September 9, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Any person who is willing to kill another person because someone else burned a copy of their holy book is already disposed to kill that person.

I can find a tiny bit of solace in the fact that, when the Muslims try to find copies of Bibles to burn, they’ll be out of luck almost everywhere in the ‘ummah

unclesmrgol on September 9, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Hmmmm.

If muslims are such that they are willing to kill American soldiers over this, who are there to save and defend them.

Then they do not deserve in the slightest degree to be either saved or defended.

memomachine on September 9, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6