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.”
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: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
What scripture in the Bible did you get that love your neighbor nugget from?? /sarc
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 9:55 AM
No, the difference is those who oppose the GZ mosque acknowledge their right to build it. I’m not hearing much about the First Amendment rights of these people in FL from their opponents.
Both are insensitive and provocative, yet both have the right to do what these things.
conservative pilgrim on September 8, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Btw — excellent post.
conservative pilgrim on September 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM
I guess I suffer from “islamphobia” these people are creepy, they come here for what??
They hate our decadent way of life,we are supposed to accomadate all their wishes, foot batha at airports, cabbies won’t pick up anyone who has been drinking or has a seeing eye dog, mosques on every corner so they can pray 20 times a day for our destruction.
Our president bows to them and disses our friends(This includes the Clintons) I wouldn’t be suprised if they are closet muslims.
All immigrants to this great nation have assimilated to our way of life, not Muslims, they want to force their way of life on us,AIN’T HAPPENING,they destroy every country they move into.
Enough said:):)
concernedsenior on September 8, 2010 at 9:58 AM
So does Lackland. In fact, most of the Airmen in basic training go to services at all the chapels, not because they necessarily believe the tenets of the faith, but to get out of work.
ladyingray on September 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Laws are laws, there is already too much rewriting of current laws as it is. I will give you TARP and the desire of “comprehensive” immigration as examples here in the U.S.. I am sure that the great number of Muslims are like a great number of Christians and ignore the parts of their Holy Book that doesn’t suit the desired lifestyle but the fact remains that are a lot of things in the Koran that cannot be tolerated let a lone endorse, the subjugation of women and children is one of them.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM
thanks!
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Again, you are ignoring the news. What about all the first generation American Somalis from Minnesota?
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 10:05 AM
The Chinese are a poor example. They weren’t exactly encouraged to assimilate into 19th century American society.
DarkCurrent on September 8, 2010 at 10:06 AM
We are in violent agreement about that. But the applicable laws of England or the US cannot be applied if the victims don’t come forward. Not sure how you change that overnight.
If you loan money to a friend, relative or church associate and don’t get a legal contract you do so with a reasonable expectation/faith you will be repaid. That is based on your trust in that person. A lot of the civil matters between Muslims fall in this category.
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 10:08 AM
About one-quarter of young American Muslims believe to some extent that suicide bombings can be justified to defend Islam, while nearly 80 percent of all U.S. Muslims reject such attacks, a survey showed on Tuesday.
What would make one believe that American Muslims are that different from European Muslims? Willing suspension of disbelief only gets you so far…
Fallon on September 8, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Good point. But David Cain’s grandfather… never mind just kidding.
Cindy I keep up with a lot of news but obviously cannot read everything. What about the first generation Somalis?
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 10:10 AM
“About..” supposed to be in quotes from Reuters.
Fallon on September 8, 2010 at 10:11 AM
Michael Medved on his radio show yesterday compared the radical Islamist to rabid dogs. And that poking them with a stick was a bad idea; it will only agitate the dog more into vicious acts.
I say that if they are a rabid dog, you don’t poke it with a stick. You shoot it in the head before it attacks and spreads its rabies to those around it.
IMHO
mechkiller_k on September 8, 2010 at 10:11 AM
Bradky, name one country in which muslims overwhelmingly assimilated…rather than, as commanded by the quran, overtaking a people/culture/country. Your cheap sharia apologia is not accepted.
Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM
But you just pointed out that it is being used in civil cases in England, which means there has to be two parties. If they stuck with current British law it would probably mandate that both sides are treated equitably regardless of what information one side is reluctant to put forward and prove. I am pretty sure that Sharia mostly discounts anything for wives and children as they are basically property of the man.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 10:16 AM
I want to believe in the desire to assimilate into the greatest country on God’s green Earth is overpowering but sometimes I can’t. This is just a blimp but it worth remembering and considering.
http://www.startribune.com/investigators/44366947.html
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Not to me. My biggest problem with it is that they’re specifically trying to make Islam the problem and connect it to 9/11. That, to me, is provocation, which unlike Everybody Draw Mohamed Day, serves no purpose.
It would be one thing if this church were filled with former Muslims burning their former holy books. But burning these books, preemptively, seems to try and make a religion an enemy instead of trying to work through it and with it to enact the kind of change I’d assume they want.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Muslims don’t believe in charging interest on loans, another reason not to let Sharia get involved in civil matters.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 10:23 AM
While I think I understand what you mean, I think the nineteen on the planes made this about Islam. The little church in Gainesville just needs some publicity and picketing the funerals of fallen heroes is already being done.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM
kingsjester on September 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Maybe we’re reading different things, but I haven’t seen anyone arguing that the church doesn’t have the right to burn the books.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM
I guess you were sorta kinda otherwise preoccupied on 9/11/01?
Change. Uh huh. Gotcha. Let me know when they’re finished stoning you. /s
Do you really think islam has any interest in “changing” the word of Allah through Mohammed?
Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM
The point CP is making is the double standard whereby the kneejerk reaction of Leftists is to defend terrorists applying American Rights as defined in our Constitution…
…while conveniently falling silent on these same Rights in the context of individuals as in this case.
Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 10:32 AM
So it was the Joooos was it?
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Thank you. A voce of reason in a pack of hyenas.
katy the mean old lady on September 8, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Thank you. A voice of reason in a pack of hyenas. Shame on the bunch of you to thnk that this is a good idea.
katy the mean old lady on September 8, 2010 at 10:39 AM
A couple of points after reading the newest comments:
1. A private citizen burning a handful of books in a symbolic act of protest is not “fascism.” Rounding up all the copies of a book you can find and burning them is fascism.
2. Petraeus is not exercising his free speech rights, as a private citizen, in this instance. He is speaking from authority as a government representative, and that is vastly different from acting as a private citizen.
3. This misguided, and arguably foolish pastor, has a right to burn these korans, in protest, on his own private property, without being harassed by our government. Allahpundit is exactly right in his OP. If the government is allowed to condemn certain acts of protest, as “inflaming our enemies and endangering our military,” then it opens the door for all kinds of suppression of freedom of speech.
JannyMae on September 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM
They made it about Islam, but if we agree with them, where does that leave us exactly? I agree with this sentiment when it comes to the mosque/cultural center. They specifically chose the building because of its connections to Ground Zero and because it was as close as they could get to the World Trade ruins. They chose 9/11 as their grand opening date or construction date (that fact seems to change). They’re the ones making this about terrorism and Islam, and I think it’s appropriate that people react to that.
But there are plenty of Muslims trying to have real dialogue and bring about real change, and that’s the hope I see that Islam can be more than what it is right now. My feeling is that if we decide Islam = terrorism, we’re closing a door that could prove beneficial later.
Many of these radicals are fueled by the idea that what they are doing is not only correct but commanded by God. If Islam has its reformation, which is still an uphill battle, it can do much to turn that tide. Islam will be used against the jihadists.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Funny, isn’t it.
All the arguments made, by Liberal cockroaches, to defend Muslims building a mosque at the site of the 9/11 attack, now get all the same arguments shoved right up their asses.
From the American’s point of view, the argument was, and always has been, “right is right, and wrong is wrong.”
It never had anything to do with Constitutional rights, Freedom of Speech, or Separation of Church and State.
DID IT.
Funny too,
it only took one little, unheard of preacher, from one little, unheard of church, to expose the utter hypocrisy, and to make Muslims, and their Liberal cohorts heads explode,
isn’t it.
Funny too,
how this exposes the Religion of Peace, for the Ticking Time Bomb they are,
isn’t it.
That’s according to General Patraeus.. If you read between the lines.
franksalterego on September 8, 2010 at 10:46 AM
They did it for Islam. Are you on their side?
Such compassion. Of course if you really care about the women assaulted by Islam, you wouldn’t be insulting them.
I wasn’t talking about Islam. I was talking about this church. Presumably it wants to change the world for the better. That’s my assumption of Christian churches. Maybe I’m wrong.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Not sure if you were aware but there are Asian cultures that do the same thing about loans or pools for loans. If the parties agree what is the harm (example of you or I loaning money to friends or family).
The Somalian example is one we should pay attention to but a fair question is how many Somalian immigrants are there in the country? I have no idea but it is a question that is relevant.
You and I are in agreement about treatment of women and children but the question for that is “How do you encourage people of a particular faith to exercise their rights in the country in which they live?” To me that is a matter of courage on the part of the women and children. Someday someone will take the step to assert that right. But before then you and I can’t really force them to do so.
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Does anyone know if the good general ever remarked on IRAN’s paying a $1000.00 for each American Soldier placing our troops in danger. Has Obama expressed any concern about his muslim pals in
Iran paying a $1000 for dead US soldiers or what he intends to ddo about it other than nothing. I say burn baby burn, we have the power but no will, we could end all this BS with IRAN and Saudia Arabia in an instant. THere is no such thing as a peace loving Muslim. Time to end the political army leadership and put soldiers in charge again.
SANTA on September 8, 2010 at 10:52 AM
That’s liberals. Hypocrisy is the name of the game. But I still haven’t read anyone who’s actually said that the church doesn’t have a right to do this. They may not be including that pronouncement in their condemnations, but not all did the same when they spoke of the mosque.
No, it was 19 Muslim men who did so in the name of Islam. They did connect Islam to 9/11, and I could have chosen my words better, but just because they connected it doesn’t mean Christians should follow their lead. My point is that once we’ve decided that Islam = terrorism, we’ve closed off communication and have decided to take on all Muslims.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 10:53 AM
What people do between friends and family is one thing, but there’s no reason for the government to get involved or have anything to do with Sharia, even tangentially. Our laws are our laws. If they want something different amongst each other that contradicts our laws, they need to deal with that without our government.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 10:59 AM
I think we are saying essentially the same thing. If two people make an agreement outside of the normal civil law to borrow, perform a service, whatever and that goes sour they don’t have any real recourse since they ignored the laws of the host country.
It seems that the British are just acknowledging that it does go on and have no plans to try to stop those agreements.
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Typical liberal “it’s our fault” handwringing.
We haven’t closed off anything.
Read the quran, read about taqiyya and kitman, read about their Allah-commanded objective of domination…worldwide.
Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Outrage Over US Military Bible Burnings In Afghanistan
Friday, May 22, 2009 (4:44 am)
By Worthy News Chief International Correspondent Stefan J. Bos with reports from the United States and Afghanistan
WASHINGTON/KABUL (Worthy News)– The president of a US-based group helping Christians persecuted for their faith has expressed outrage that United States military personnel have burned confiscated Bibles in Afghanistan.
“It really should shake the core of every Christian to realize that Bibles are being burned,” said Carl Moeller President of Open Doors USA in an interview with Mission Network News monitored Friday, May 22, by Worthy News.
The Bibles, printed in the two most common Afghan languages, were burned amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, the Cable News Network (CNN) quoted a a Defense Department spokesman as saying.
The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of “any religion” from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.
Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation, Wright added.
“FORCE PROTECTION”
“The decision was made that it was a ‘force protection’ measure to throw them away, because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims,” Wright said.
The military said a soldier at Bagram received the Bibles and didn’t realize he wasn’t allowed to hand them out. The Al Jazeera network has shown footage of the Bibles at a prayer service where an unnamed soldier says members of his church raised money for them.
The chaplain later “corrected” the soldier and confiscated the Bibles, Wright said.
However military analyst and Pentagon adviser, Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, criticized the move. “There is no need to burn the Bibles. They could have been shipped back,” he said. “Just imagine if we, the same the United States military, were to take a bunch of Korans and burn them. I can imagine the ramifications across the world.”
MILITARY OFFICERS
In a statement, the Pentagon said military officers considered sending the Bibles back to the church, but they worried the church would turn around and send them to another organization in Afghanistan — giving the impression that they had been distributed by the U.S. government.
There is reportedly a tiny Christian minority in Afghanistan, however especially former converts can face death because of their faith, several rights investigators have confirmed.
The row over the Bible burning comes shortly after the Pentagon announced this week that it no longer includes a Bible quote on the cover page of daily intelligence briefings it sends to the White House as was practice during the George W. Bush administration.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he did not know how long the Worldwide Intelligence Update cover sheets quoted from the Bible. Air Force Maj. Gen. Glen Shaffer, who was responsible for including them, retired in August 2003, according to his biography.
PSALMS QUOTED
On Thursday, April 10, 2003, for example, the report quoted the book of Psalms — “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him. … To deliver their soul from death.” — and featured pictures of the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down and celebrating crowds in Baghdad, reported the Associated Press news agency.
“Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand,” read the cover quote two weeks earlier, on March 31, above a picture of a U.S. tank driving through the desert, according to the magazine, which obtained copies of the documents.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has said U.S. soldiers “are not Christian crusaders, and they ought not be depicted as such.”
“Depicting the Iraq conflict as some sort of holy war is completely outrageous,” Lynn said in a statement. “It’s contrary to the constitutional separation of religion and government, and it’s tremendously damaging to America’s reputation in the world.”
Miss_Anthrope on September 8, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Tolerance!
Get ‘cher hot pipin’ ONE-SIDED Tolerance right here, folks!
http://www.emailgoodies.faketrix.com/pics-best-priceless-Mastercard-picture-9-American-flag-burner-terrorist-catches-fire.htm
Get ‘em while they’re HOT!
Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM
I wasn’t sure if we were agreeing considering Cindy’s comment that you responded to.
Yes, I’m a liberal because I disagree with you. Keep this in mind next time you see a comment of mine you agree with.
I agree that we haven’t, but that’s in large part because the US does not see Muslims as our enemies.
The Bible has similar commands and pronouncements. I understand they’re different, but I don’t believe they have to be. Muslims can change their own destiny.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 11:11 AM
I’d be a lot happier if the man on the street Muslims would come out against the “extremists”. Have you ever seen people go into action against Fred and his Westboro Baptists nuts? Islam needs some Patriot Guards if they want to me to give them more credit.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 11:13 AM
Are you suggesting the US military shouldn’t be under civilian control, or did you mean something else?
DarkCurrent on September 8, 2010 at 11:13 AM
This is fatally naive or uninformed.
Christianity has reformed itself – centuries ago.
islam has not – and based on current actions of its proponents, there is no reason to believe it will.
Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM
No Esthier, it is up to them to dictate the terms of the conflict just as it was up to Japan to decide to attack Pearl Harbor. The US didn’t have a choice.
Did the US decide that Japanese militarism = Japan? Yes, they did. Did that close off communication and instigate the decision to take on Japan? Yes it did.
That isn’t up to us to decide. Islam gets to choose and they have spent decades doing so. Their governments fund the terrorists and promote their propaganda and their religion demands that they do exactly what they are doing.
You want to sit here and pretend that Islam has nothing to do with it, and those bad men are just misunderstanders of Islam. Which is a religion of peace dontcha know?
Islam is a violent bloodthirsty religion and the violence that we see perpetrated is no accident, but a religious tenet found throughout the Koran.
You are blaming the victim for the actions of murderers and you want to dress that up as the moral choice.
It isn’t.
It’s cowardice.
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Wasn’t there just several murders of a medical missionary group in Afghanistan because they supposedly had Bibles?
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Where was all this scorn when P Z Meyer desecrated the Quran on his blog Pharyngula? Why is it that he can do it without being criticized yet this church is held as an evil entity?
News Busters had covered this pastor being interviewed by the MSM. The pastor made some very good points in the interview and even had a good response to the myth that Christians have to turn the other cheek.
rsbarc011 on September 8, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Her “vantage point” certainly seems much better for seeing the U.S. Constitution than does that of Petraeus, who does not even seem to recall his own oath of office which was to the U.S. Constitution.
Luka on September 8, 2010 at 11:19 AM
I agree, but it’s not quite analogous. The Patriot Guards aren’t necessarily Christian or Baptist. They have no connection to Westboro aside from nationality. And right now, the people in Islam with might on their side are the terrorists.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Yes, that is right, Petraeus has violated his sworn oath and should be considered illegitimate.
Luka on September 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM
It is a holy war for them. For us it’s not and can’t be, because the US is not a theocracy.
DarkCurrent on September 8, 2010 at 11:22 AM
They have armies and security forces that are some of the largest and most ruthless in the world, but we are to believe they are helpless?
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Centuries don’t seem that important when you consider both religions have been around for thousands of years.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Relativistic hogwash.
Keep up the good ol’ sharia cheerleading, girl!
Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Not the moderates, not the ones who are speaking out against these atrocities. They are still in the minority.
And now you’ve jumped the shark.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Yes, and they have been in the minority for 1,400 years.
How many centuries do you think we should wait before we get upset with them?
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 11:27 AM
So we’re at war with Islam then all because 19 Muslims decided that Islam should be at war with us, and that’s the same as Japan sending its soldiers to Pearl Harbor?
OK, then. We’re at war with Islam, and its 1 billion Muslims. How do you plan on winning this one? What’s victory look like? All Muslims dead or converted to Christianity? They’re not all in one country, so a treaty wouldn’t work.
So now we’re personifying Islam, with what, Al Qaeda?
That’s not what I’m saying, but I really love how blog commenters respond with certain formulaic responses. If X disagrees with me on Y, then I must go to my liberal bashing formula, because clearly this person also thinks Islam and Sharia are teh awesome!
I’ve said repeatedly here that Islam needs a reformation. I accept that it has problems. The only difference is that I believe it can change, and while that may seem wacky, it seems far more logical than taking on an enemy that’s three times our size, especially when nuking them is out of the question.
You are only showing that you have no idea what I’m saying.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Lockstein13 at 10:32
Thanks!
conservative pilgrim on September 8, 2010 at 11:32 AM
What does “upset with them” mean?
And no, they haven’t always been in the minority. There was a link here not too long ago, showing the devolution of one Muslim college in a Muslim country. Just even 30 years ago, women were dressed like any other Westerner. These days, a ton of scarves.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM
On Sept. 12, we will see how this is handled in the U.S.. I would be willing to bet that the people against this action by the church will far out way anything they could have dreamed of. Everyone practicing their freedom of speech but with idiots again looking like what they are. These people aren’t even extremist Christians since I double seriously they can find Scripture supporting their actions.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Good point. Most of us here knew that already, of course. I don’t think Petreaus can read between his own lines though. Maybe Obama is having ACORN or SEIC hold his family hostage and this is his way of signaling to America, but I doubt it.
Luka on September 8, 2010 at 11:39 AM
out way = out weigh.
GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM
These people, are you talking about the church planning on burning the Korans? Supposedly they are trying to back this up with scripture.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 11:46 AM
They have armies and security forces that are some of the largest and most ruthless in the world, but we are to believe they are helpless?
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Not the moderates, not the ones who are speaking out against these atrocities. They are still in the minority.
So which is it Esthier? When it’s convenient to your argument you claim the minority have no power or influence, but then you turn around and claim it is just 19 sad misguided youths.
OK, then. We’re at war with Islam, and its 1 billion Muslims. How do you plan on winning this one? What’s victory look like? All Muslims dead or converted to Christianity? They’re not all in one country, so a treaty wouldn’t work.
Tell me the difference between the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and what is found in the Koran?
Nothing?
Islam is in the middle of a reformation and has been for decades. The reformers are the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Why is it more logical?
Why are nukes out of the question?
They weren’t with the Soviet Union, and are not with modern China.
It may be more scary, but that doesn’t alter the logic.
You are using magical thinking to insist on the possibility a Care Bear reformation in Islam without a shred of evidence to suggest that is even likely.
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM
When they are at war with all other religions, then I dare say it’s still a Holy War.
Miss_Anthrope on September 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM
They were European colonies up until the 50′s and early 60′s. They are now the ones in charge and we are seeing what that means.
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Actually the Taliban and Al Qaeda are more moderate than what is found in the Koran.
Luka on September 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM
So true.
And yes, the post at
“franksalterego on September 8, 2010 at 10:46 AM”
was a delight.
Esthier and Bradky seem to have strayed from their HuffPo sites, where such contradictory, relativist ramblings are taken as “thought.”
Lockstein13 on September 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Thanks for link. I guess I am not really surprised. It would be interesting to see what old Fred comes up with to justify picketing funerals but I don’t want to know bad enough to go to any website he might have.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Yes, it is from their perspective. For us it is simply a defensive war.
DarkCurrent on September 8, 2010 at 12:01 PM
I made no such claim. I’ve said that Islam needs reform. I’ve also said that 19 men are not what I would consider a declaration of war by Islam. If 19 Americans went into Europe and started shooting people, even while yelling, “America is awesome and owns Europe,” I highly doubt that Europe would consider it an act of war by the US, even if the US had previously discussed how sucky Europe is and how much America really does own it.
How about you answer my question first. I’m not a Muslim and would never become one. I’m not here to defend it. I’ve said repeatedly, in this comment now, that Islam needs reform.
So why not just answer my question. Can you?
What are you going to nuke? Every Muslim country? You’ll still miss millions of Muslims that way, or you might even end up kill thousands of Jews and Christians.
Even if America had the political will to use a nuke again, we’d never had the political will to do so indiscriminately. The cities we bombed in Japan were carefully selected.
It’s not scary. It’s just illogical with a false show of bravery. Muslims are everywhere, not just in small portions of the Middle East.
And your magical thinking is that 300 million Americans can take on 1 billion Muslims scattered about throughout the world. Just by describing your scenario, I feel like I’m unintentionally getting into Godwin territory.
But seriously. Answer my question if you can. What does war with Islam actually mean? What’s your plan for taking out Islam?
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Your sarcasm has been duly noted.
conservative pilgrim on September 8, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Yes, again, the “you’re a liberal because you don’t agree with me,” tripe. If that’s what passes for enlightened with you, then I’ve no problem with your characterization of me.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 12:04 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
I’ve been to the website… and yes, it’s disgusting, but yes, he tries to use scripture to justify that as well. Mostly the scripture is about sin and our punishment for sin.
I don’t recommend going there, though I’ve meant to check it out a few times, just to know when they’d be in my area. I already missed them when they showed up at some Dallas type comic con. The counter protesters were hilarious and kinda awesome.
I recommend checking out the pictures.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 12:09 PM
If those 19 men were following the dictates of a new American spiritual movement, were funded and trained with American dollars and thousands of terror bombings every year for decades? If the US supported that same terror network with TV shows, Sharia finance, and direct cash contributions?
Yeah, actually I think that would be an act of war.
Easily once the truth is faced. We are far more capable than you imagine if the shackles are removed.
Yeah, because it just like Nazi’s to fight back!
War with Islam means making them understand that if they attack us we will respond with overwhelming firepower. Occupation of their countries isn’t needed and would be counter-productive in my opinion.
We do not let them fund cross border raids and sit on on our hands while they make a pretense of looking for those wascally wabbits who did the deed.
We attack the originating nation with airstrikes, naval blockades, mine the harbors, blow the rail and road bridges, thermal generating plants, water systems, industrial infrastructure, hydroelectric dams, etc.
Then we ask them if they want peace and we tell them that we will be back if they violate the terms of that peace.
That’s the nice way of doing it.
No nukes involved, which is why it would be better to do it that way than to wait and have something far worse happen.
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I had seen the stuff from San Diego. One guy dressed as Jesus said “Fred has issues”. This is the first I have seen from Dallas. Good for them. Although I doubt the burning of the Koran can be made funny, I hope it will get just as much if not more negative attention from a lot of Americans.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Well, there are some obvious comparisons that come to mind with any book burning. Spoofs, like admissions that the burners can’t really read anyway or something. It would be nice if Muslims specifically took that route in protesting. It’s a much more effective tool than anger, or at least it would be if we weren’t so afraid of Muslims anger that our corporations won’t even risk saying Mohamed’s name on a satirical cartoon. I’m still in disbelief that they censored South Park like that.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM
How many Muslims in Afghanistan, let alone ordinary non-Muslim citizens of America would have even KNOWN about this event if Petraeus hadn’t elevated it to the national conversation? That was the first I’d heard of it. Isn’t he creating his own self-fulfilling prophecy? Honestly, I question his judgement on this, even more than his love of Enya.
Besides which… does anybody here think that the ones who would attack our troops because some Floridians burned a Quran wouldn’t already be attacking our troops anyway just because they are “invaders on sacred Muslim soil?” Really?
Beo on September 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM
It seems to me there are mor radical Muslims in the USA than moderates( I really doubt there is such a thing) it’s just the press covers it up.
Are honor killings okay with moderate muslims, I don’t know because I never hear any MODERATE muslims talking about it.
I don’t know if they ever caught that coward muslim that murdered his two beautiful teenage daughters because one was seeing a Mexican boy, boy that’s tolerance I can believe in. The only honor I would give this coward is the same thing he gave his daughters, a shot in the head.
The only Muslim I ever heard condemming the ground zero mosque was Canadian.
I could go on and on but the PC crowd is sticking their fingers in the their ears and going LALALALALALA,pathetic.
concernedsenior on September 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Very well said.
Lourdes on September 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Burning Qur’ans is idiotic and will do more harm than good. It will even empower the American Left and politicians like Bloomberg to be even more of a bleeding heart and accommodating to belligerent local Muslims.
Instead, what needs to happen is the mass printing of those Danish cartoons, and for South Park not to censor themselves and draw Muhammad.
And “Draw Mohammad Day” should proceed.
But this needs to be done en masse. When a fringe moron does it nobody pays attention, or it just looks like a crazy thing to do.
As for Patreus’s comments, he shouldn’t have responded to this since it really is a fringe pastor with a small group of followers, but I guess the media has blown it out of all proportion (Drudge had several links about this story on several different days!) and had forced his hand about it, so he had to respond.
Re Allahpundit’s “where do we draw the line” argument, I really don’t like this type of arguments because it muddles and confuses everything. There’s never an answer to such rhetoric, so what does that mean then, that we shouldn’t draw any personal line at all, that’s what. And I disagree with that.
AlexB on September 8, 2010 at 12:44 PM
You are right, the mainstream, with their silence, don’t do much to persuade anyone that they wish to viewed differently.
Cindy Munford on September 8, 2010 at 12:45 PM
So Islam is funding all of these things?
No particulars, figures. Just, it’ll be easy, just cause.
No, it’s like Nazis to try and rid the world of a religion. I’m not calling you a Nazi though, not intentionally.
Respond where with what firepower? And who is “they”? All Muslims? How will you respond to all Muslims with overwhelming firepower?
So we attack our allies? Seems like that would take an occupation. Or did you have another plan? Obviously we’re trying to make Pakistan roll over without invading and haven’t had much success.
So, we go to war with Afghanistan, as we already did. Do you think we didn’t bomb Afghanistan enough? How exactly is this so different from what we’ve done?
And what would those terms be? If one of their citizens joins Al Qaeda, we blow them up again?
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Islam has fooled many a person — certainly in the U.S. in the Leftwing and Leftwing politicians — by them coming to accept the false front that there are such people as “moderate Muslims” AND that terrorism is something “out there” or “over there” by “those” who they refuse to associate with or in many cases, even admit exist.
It’s the ongoing method by Islam of blame-shifting and misleading people — all that ‘s bad is done TO them (to Islam) by a few of their Bad Guys (“the Joooos” and “the U.S.A.” and “infidels” and the predictable other generalizations) while, thus, enabling Islam/Muslims to claim that THEY are the “moderates” or not a problem to others and all that “terrorism” is done by this nebulous unidentifiable boogey-bunch called “extremists”.
The IDEOLOGY of Islam IS extreme. You cannot read the Koran without being exposed to extremism, it’s all throughout the “religion” and despite some populations who are Muslim behaving modestly with others, in what they actually believe, there is extremism.
It’s a lie for purposes of refusing to modulate Islam that there are “moderates” and “extremists” because the ideology itself IS extreme. All association as Muslim, with Islam, represents extremism, despite those persons who remain amidst others and don’t draw attention to themselves, what they’re associated with in ideals and beliefs IS extreme.
Lourdes on September 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM
I read earlier today that Bloomberg says it’s a case of Freedom of Speech despite the act (the speech of burning Korans) being offensive, still protected speech.
Which is a surprise from him but it’s likely the one and only time I’ve agreed with him. It’s a foolish act, a destructive act, but it’s still protected speech, particularly since the whole escapade involves private property.
Lourdes on September 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Yes, thread winner there, IronDioPriest.
Lourdes on September 8, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Yes.
Nothing is ever easy, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Cheap and easy is what we have now and it isn’t working.
You do understand that there are military forces in the west and they are some of the most capable in the world? It would be rather simple to begin a construction program for light carriers of the sort needed. All Muslims who allow their country to act as host to raiders yes. Non-Muslim nations as well.
You don’t respond to all Muslim nations with overwhelming force. You take them one at a time and you might be very surprised at how willing they are to compromise when you get to number two or three.
The ‘allies’ who are backing the Taliban and supplying money to terrorists worldwide? Yeah!
Yeah, well words without meaning having a way of being ignored. Funny how that works.
A wave of airstrikes taking out their nuclear infrastructure and mining of the harbors would make it very clear to them we mean business.
We don’t occupy the nation as there is no point to doing so. We find someone who wants to rule and is willing to play dice. If they don’t suppress the locals who are attacking us we do it for them with airpower and precision guided missiles. If they are the problem we replace them.
They can do whatever they want but it had better not involve attacking us, because that means war. They will quickly decide on their own who is likely to be a problem, and they will know far better than we would, exactly who that is in most cases.
We don’t have to worry what they do inside their country, because we don’t care. If they attack us then it becomes our problem, and we make it their problem.
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM
And when OPEC suspends all oil headed our way what then? Our economy collapses and that is just for starters.
Your outlook is overly simplistic and fails to acknowledge that countries go to war against nation states – not religions.
Bradky on September 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM
I don’t understand the negativity to gen petreaus
when bogus stories of a flushed Koran was trumpeted by the left the reaction from numerous subhuman apes surely reenforces his concern
we are dealing with the most ignorant which relishes maximum barbarity
boy the lefty commies love populations like that do much that they don’t mind one bit when the autonomous and civil are sacrificed to make way for despotism
Sonosam on September 8, 2010 at 2:07 PM
just heard a quote from SHILLARY where she talked about the HOLY QURAN…..
I hear demoKKKrats talking about the HOLY BIBLE all the time….right.
right4life on September 8, 2010 at 2:13 PM
what are they going to do, drink their oil??
talk about overly simplistic….laughable.
if you haven’t noticed we’re not at war with a nation state in afghanistan now are we??? hmmmmm???
let me guess you’re a demoKKKrat to be so dumb.
right4life on September 8, 2010 at 2:15 PM
very true…we should emulate Charles Martel and the europeans of his era…they knew what a threat islam was and still is.
islam is incompatible with freedom.
right4life on September 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM
His first and it seems his only reaction is to blame the victim for Muslim ‘outrage’.
Israeli should stop being so ‘there‘ all the time, and the soldiers should stop being so Christian, and warlike. The Muslims don’t like that and don’t wear eyeglasses, or shoot back, and don’t make them mad.
It gets old real fast.
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 2:24 PM
His first thought is that he has lots of men and woman in harms way and a , though defendable act, is unwise at this point
Sonosam on September 8, 2010 at 2:33 PM
OPEC doesn’t have the power you suggest it does. The world has moved on since the early 1970′s.
Try telling the Russians that in Afghanistan.
Try reading a history book.
Muslim history is replete with Ghazi raiders, barbary corsairs, Razzia and the modern Jihadi as well as the Janjaweed in sudan. Irregular warfare is a common and long standing tactic of Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazi_warriors
The only way of avoiding the onslaughts of the ghāzīs was to become subjects of the Islamic state. Non-Muslims acquired the status of dhimmīs, living under its protection. Most Christian sources confuse these two stages in the Ottoman conquests. The Ottomans, however, were careful to abide by these rules… Faced with the terrifying onslaught of the ghāzīs, the population living outside the confines of the empire, in the ‘abode of war’, often renounced the ineffective protection of Christian states, and sought refuge in subjection to the Ottoman empire. Peasants in open country in particular lost nothing by this change.
Cambridge History of Islam, p. 285
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak%C4%B1nc%C4%B1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedayeen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
sharrukin on September 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM
It was just a matter of time before they came to America, after thousands of years fighting everyone else they ran out of enemies.
That’s all these people want to do is hate and murder people, if they don’t have an excuse they make one up, but then any excuse will do.
Why don’t they make their own counties better places to live? Leave everyone just the hell alone.
concernedsenior on September 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM
How?
You’re the one claiming it’s easy, but it’s certainly not true that we’ve been going down the cheap and easy path. We’ve spent billions on war and have lost thousands of men and women.
So you’re expecting them to just wait in line then? Not sure where you get the logic for that. Iran isn’t even waiting in line now, even though we’ve said that we’re not attacking all Muslims.
Good luck with that. There’s a reason even Bush didn’t try it. Of course, we’re suddenly all armchair quarterbacks here.
So you want to damage an ally that’s a bit unstable and has its own nukes? Seems like an all or nothing thing to me. We never invaded or bombed Russia during the Cold War.
Having a puppet in leadership isn’t really any different from occupying the country except that we’re asking a country we just decimated to do all the dirty work they weren’t able to do before we bombed them.
You say “they” again, but who’s they? One Afghan? 19? At what point have they broken the “treaty” here?
Except we do, because what they do in their country directly relates to what they do in ours. 9/11 didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 2:59 PM
I think that’s a good point though a bit hyperbolic. We do have some of our own oil, and the pressure would be on our government to use it. Prices would skyrocket, but unless it went on indefinitely, I don’t see that it would destroy us, not that it would take too much in an economy like this.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 3:03 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
I think that’s a good point though a bit hyperbolic. We do have some of our own oil, and the pressure would be on our government to use it. Prices would skyrocket, but unless it went on indefinitely, I don’t see that it would destroy us, not that it would take too much in an economy like this.
Esthier on September 8, 2010 at 3:03 PM
——-
Nobody has the bal*s to truly sacrifice anything in this laughable war against Islam being trumpeted by armchair jackasses with zero grip on reality.
So let’s say America jumps on sharrukin ‘s moronic plan to invade all the Muslim countries one by one (I guess to murder every man, woman and child? To occupy and force them to…what?) Then OPEC shuts off the oil. America collapses. The west collapses. Great plan.
Dave Rywall on September 8, 2010 at 3:19 PM
With money.
The ISI gives money to the Taliban, the Saudi’s have telethons for terrorists.
And gotten very little for it. I don’t want to convert them or give them a better government. They can have any government they want, just don’t attack us.
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.
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.
Unstable and nukes. Yeah, lets just leave that alone and sit on our hands. What could go wrong?
Yeah, that’s the best part!
You are wrong again, BTW in that they are very capable of doing the ‘dirty work’, they just choose not to.
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.
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.
If they back terror networks that attack us we respond.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »