Welcome to PatsFans.com

"The Good Ones" say: burned Qurans =/= right to kill

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,109
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +327 / 6 / -8

    Islamic clerics in Afghanistan are presently calling for calm in Afghanistan.

    Afghan people are rioting over the military burning Qurans there - not "a" Quran, but Qurans, plural.

    It is the case that the military says that they were being used by our enemies to write messages to one another.

    It is also the case that, in the U.S. last year, a Christian cleric made a big fuss over his "burn a Quran" day. Don't remember whether he walked back from it or not.

    It is also, also the case that some radical Islamists cite the Quran in their support of reprehensible terrorist acts, including murders.

    These Islamic clerics say the Quran does not give you the right to kill anyone, westerners or not.

    As to alternative strategies if you actually have a problem with messages written on Qurans:

    Hows about you put them in a warehouse? You don't think burning the holy book of the dominant faith in a country you're active in degrades your mission?

    This is purely a matter of the details of how you handle such a situation, if in fact it's the reality on the ground. That's how you handle it if you're trying to both accomplish the mission (which evidently includes neutralization of message-bearing Qurans) and minimize the harm to our own military based on popular reaction.

    Once again, chain of command: if it was sanctioned, the commander needs to be looked at. If it was a guy acting alone, he's the biggest dumba$$ in his unit, and is making everybody else a target for a broader resistance, and basically writing propaganda leaflets for the enemy. Reminds me a lot of the unit that wants to fly Nazi flags for a U.S. sniper unit... then if people notice it, it's "why do you hate the military?"

    Our guys are there on our behalf, including the guy(s) burning the book(s) -- and nobody "hates the military." But the guys who wouldn't dream of burning freaking holy books are endangered by the guys who are.

    Interestingly, in the response, we have a clear example of "the good ones," the majority of Muslims who are not Islamist extremists.

    One more thing -- before I hear about how "it's a book, it's an inanimate object," I can't help but notice the vitriol with which our members insist that an inanimate object dictate women's health choices in the United States.

    Theocrats are theocrats. The rest of us need to resist the urge to fall in line and make the hate about whose God is bigger... seems the Afghan clergy, at least as of today, is making that case.

    Final coda: save the bullsh1t righty playbook. I like our side. Maybe we need to be there and maybe we don't, but the guys on the ground didn't make that choice. They're there to fight for the U.S., wherever the U.S. tells them to fight.

    But someone at some level took that and broadened it to doing things not in America's interest. Was that some individual private or did he ask someone up the chain of command -- "what do we do with these things?"

    Was that a standing order from his C.O., answering the question? Was it an actual policy from some rambo guy in the Pentagon saying "I'll tell you what you do with the damn things when this happens, burn them"?

    Find out. Whoever's bad judgment this is, it's doing the enemy's work, if we're giving them rallying calls unnecessarily. That's putting our troops -- who only want to do what's right by our country -- in additional danger, and setting back their mission.

    PFnV
  2. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,316
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +113 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    How are you quantifying the majority? Are you saying that clerics outnumber adherents?

    It would be interesting to see the comparison in the size of those two groups.

    Apparently they don't have room:

    Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan - CNN

    Ahh, so resistance to paying for abortions and birth control = murder. I think we understand where you are coming from now.


    The theocrats in your example above are Obama and Sebelius, part of the church of "The State".

    I pray that people are listening.
  3. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    Here is all I really want to say about this subject - after seeing the other thread about this topic turn into what it did.

    1. We are dealing with a group of people (military) destroying a religion's holy book. When things come to religion (see our country for examples) those who's religion is being "effected" tend to react disproportionally to the event. There is a sensitivity to all things religion, so this reaction by the locals in Afghanistan, while crappy because two of our guys died, should have probably been expected.

    2. Growing up in a Muslim country, which at the time was a more "liberal" form of Islam compared to the loud minority which has co-opted "Islam" as we are seeing it in many places today - I can't say I am surprised with the reaction. In my mind "It is just a book", but my time in Indo told me that even more progressive members of the Muslim faith were very sensitive to perceived slights against Islam. Now I am not saying that conservative Christians, Jews, Hindus etc would not be or are not as sensitive, but the culture of the Military should have educated our guys that when it comes to their religion, tread lightly.

    3. Between the three PR events that have happened in the last year the cynic in me says this must have been planned. The conspiracy theorist in me just cant believe that in three different events, our troops by chance chose poorly. Our military is one of the most disciplined, buttoned down organizations on the face of the Earth, the idea that one, let alone all three of these events happened without some intervention by superiors is mind boggling.

    In no way am I passing judgement on the two guys who got killed over this last event. That sucks to nth degree. Just further proof to me that our military, in all its ability and might, in a not a police force. They are built to fight a more modern version of WW2 - tanks, planes, air craft carrier strike groups, battlefields, "there is the enemy get em". Right now they are a police force in a sh*thole country where most of the population have no interest in "freedom" because to them freedom is a unicorn they have never seen. We are trying to give them the "freedom" we have, failing to see we have been working on "freedom" for 240 years. Afghanistan is in the stone age by comparison. Their goals are to provide for their families however they can, and sometimes that isn't the same "can" as the US interests are.

    Get em out now.
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2012
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,109
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +327 / 6 / -8

    Me too. It'll be best for everybody.
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,109
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +327 / 6 / -8

    I am saying that Islamist extremism is the exception, not the rule, among rank-and-file Muslims. But we do not display that. When others preach and advocate peace, we always say "why aren't more of them doing it, why aren't people doing it when/where it counts, blah blah blah." We exaggerate the tendency that has hurt us, and we minimize the aspect that is in agreement with our own goals.

    Or to be more precise, that is in agreement with the goals of the sane among us, which does not always agree with the goals of our national policy, regardless of the party of the president.

    The comparison is pretty evident, if you lived in an area that's at all mixed religiously, and some of your neighbors are Muslims.

    We exaggerate and mischaracterize every point of friction - see 9/11 mosque. But the fact is, there are millions of American Muslims, and I interact with them without friction all the time.

    There are a handful, world-wide, who use their interpretation of Islam to perpetrate the murder of innocents.

    Warehouse 'em or return 'em. Would work for either. However, the U.S. military is not a foreign occupying power to these churches, so while the best solution is the same in each case, the potential damage is greater in the case of the holy book of a people you are militarily occupying.

    This is too Orwellian to respond to using traditional Aristotelian logic. I'll call you when I get the next edition of the Newspeak Dictionary.

    PFnV
  6. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    You have to be kidding me !
    Today on the news the peasants were buring America flags, throwing
    rocks and rioting and there was not a peaceful muslim in site.

    The only mistake we made was letting them know we burned the Qurans.
    They were burned for a reason. Maybe we should have replace them
    with new Qurans and flown the defaced ones back to America where
    we could recycle them into new Qurans for the peaceful muslims.

    The commander and chief has already apoligized dispite the death of
    two soldiers.

    How would you feel if one of your soldiers were a family member?

    Would you be happy the commander and chief apologized?

    I am sure you would be blaming the guy who was following an order
    and burned the qurans.
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2012
  7. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,316
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +113 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Maybe you could explain what you meant by this:

    A = People killing because a book was burned
    B = People saying they don't want to pay to prevent children from being born because of what is written in a different book

    In your estimation, A == B. I say: "not even close".
  8. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,316
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +113 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    The issue is what are the characteristics of the rank-and-file in Afghanistan. How do you know which is the exception and which is the rule?


    Not for the Qurans. They were being used to pass intelligence amongst those who were already busy at work trying to kill soldiers. How can you return them?
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,109
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +327 / 6 / -8

    By the fact that the actual fighters on days we are not burning their holy books, there are a few hundred or thousand actually fighting -- even though their country is occupied by the US. How many Americans would be fighting occupying troops even from, say, Canada, never mind from Afghanistan?

    You have mob riots right now, and it may be the match that sets off a mass movement. I hope not, because as you say our guys are there. But the fact remains that even if you count guys fighting in their own country against an occupying power as "extremist" by definition, prior to this there was antipathy but no mass mobilization.

    Good point you. Type in haste, repent at leisure. Those should have been warehoused, assuming the accuracy of the explanation.

    To whoever said I'm counseling "going after" the rank and file soldier if he followed an order, I agree with you that we shouldn't. If he had an order to do it, that goes up the chain. If it's policy, it's bad policy. Any policy that starts international incidents resulting in apologies by the C-in-C, whoever put that one in place is obviously not doing the country's business.

    If it was a hasty explanation of "note passing via Quran" to explain away burning of holy books for fun -- something I wouldn't have thought likely, until I saw our snipers posing with an SS banner -- then yeah, find the guy whose bright idea this was.

    I doubt it though. Seems plausible someone in the chain thought this was the way to go. Sort of a "what the *&#$^% are you thinking?" moment.

    As you say a couple of guys got killed, and the guys that killed them are the killers -- not the guy with the heinous policy. But the deaths don't happen without the policy. So is that a policy we should have or not have?

    PFnV

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>