Gen. Petraeus: Dove World Outreach Center's 'Burn a Koran Day' endangers US troops

Christian Science Monitor ^ | 09/07/2010 | Jonathan Adams

[skeeter]

Endangering our troops just you you can have a feeling of personal satisfaction does not strike me as being an act of a responsible citizen.

Thats fine, and you can tell me so.

I'd only ask that you refrain from accusing me of not caring for our military personnel nor appreciating their sacrifice.

Because I could just as easily say the same about you and lets face it, neither of us know anything about the other.

[hoagy62]

I fully support nuking mecca and medina and every moslem city of over 50,000. I figure that would be a good start. If they want to behave like stone age barbarians then lets really put them back in the stone age.

Sadly, you'd also have to nuke Dearborn, Michigan, and probably Flint as well. Large (over 50,000) muzzie populations in both those cities, IIRC.

Of course, given the state of the area...it might be considered 'urban renewal'.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Dhimmi of the day comment!

Do you know what the meaning of the word Dhimmi is ? Or do you simply take joy in upsetting people even when it isn’t necessary ?

[Beckwith]

I know exactly what it means, and I take no joy in upsetting you.

It is telling however, that it does upset you. Hits home, huh?

[SeekAndFind]

I know exactly what it means, and I take no joy in upsetting you.

Let's look at the term Dhimmi again --- A Dhimmi is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia law.

In what sense is NOT PROVOCKING others a Dhimmi act ?

[GingisK]

I just don't how it makes any sense for apologists...

You don't read very carefully. I haven't appologized on behalf of the civilized world, advocated any sort of appeasement, or even stopping military engagement. I have only advocated excercise of our Freedom of Speech in such a manner as to decrease the danger for our troops.

You go ahead and act as you please. It won't be your blood that is spilled on behalf of your willingness to act irresponisbly. Hey, America is all about "me", right?

[xzins]

You need to read Acts 19.

It would help to read their website, too. Note: I’m not never, nor have I ever been associated with church or their denomination or anything like it.

I just think they speak whatever they like, and this statement does have some scriptural support.

[GingisK]

Are you saying if the church doesn’t burn the koran, our troops won’t be shot at and there will be no IEDs placed in their paths?

Of course not. But if burning that worthless document incites just one of our troops being shot, then the price of excercising that right is too high. Given the volatile nature of the enemy, it is prudent for us secure and confortable arm chair warriers to act as though we have folks in harm's way. Just one flash of anger over this can result in additional blood to be spilled, perhaps by one who has sat on the fence up to this point.

But, being wiser than I, you do what you know is best for our troops.

[GingisK]

Have you considered that by reacting positively to the enemie’s emotional outburst you are empowering them and, by extension, putting our troops at higher risk?

Given the volatile and reactive nature of the enemy, I think my scenario is the more likely. General Preteaus seems to think so, too. Do you presume to be more likely to understand the situation than the General? You may presume too much.

[Syncro]

Bibles in Afgan languages could only be there for prosletyzing.

There are thousands of Christians in Afghanistan and many of them don't read English.

Therefore you statement is erroneous.

Although there are no explicit laws that forbid proselytizing, many authorities and most of society view the practice as contrary to the beliefs of Islam

Also see this article:

Secret World of Afghan Christians

Imprisoned Convert One of Thousands in Afghanistan

By GRETCHEN PETERS

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 27, 2006

*snip*

ABC News got a glimpse into their secret world, where Christians meet quietly in small prayer groups. Some estimates put the number of Afghan converts at 10,000 or more.

Yet more than four years since the United States ousted the Taliban, Christians still have to meet in secret, unmarked churches. They run small publishing houses and secret cultural centers, quietly receiving funding from Christian groups abroad.

One man, who serves as a local pastor, says converts in Afghanistan know they face the gravest consequences if caught.

"We live in constant fear," he said. "Everyone is afraid."

... the organization that sent them [Bibles] should know better.

Now you know better...

: > )

[tbpiper]

I have, I did, and I still stand by what I’ve said on the matter.

[xzins]

That’s fine. It’s a free country. You can say what you like.

[GingisK]

If backing down gives the enemy a new victory to proclaim over American weakness and increase their recruiting

Acting prudently and respectfully is not "backing down". Enciting anger is just not good tactics. Have you considered that the act of burning their holy books might just drive some into battle who have been more moderate to this point? Why not persue a course of action that is more thoughtful, respectful, and less dangerous? Would you actually act in such a way as to increase the danger to our troops, even if it was a mere remote chance that it could have some affect? I choose to take the safest approach, for I want all of those men to come home safely. My personal statements of distain or my own excercise of Free Speech seems to be worth far less than even a flesh wound for one of those guys. I would choose instead to excerise my right to Free Speech to protect those men and possibly limit the agression against them, regardless of how little my affect on that might be. Burning Muslim holy books is much more likely to have a negative affect worldwide than a positive affect, so why not just abstain for the sake of those who sit in the sand for you? Unless, of course, the well being of those men really doesn't mean anything compared to this "important" act you support.

[GingisK]

Then by all means, do what you think is best, responsible, and prudent.

[paulycy]

How did it become your right to provoke anger on a battlefield on which you do not sit?

Free speech is free speech. Anything else is tyranny. I have a right to free speech.

This is my right and I will exercise it as *I* see fit without your call for censorship. I believe I *am* being prudent but for reasons that you clearly don't understand. That's where your disagreement with me starts.

Note that I haven't asked you to "shut up" in any way, shape or form as you and 0bama and Petraeus have asked me to.

As for being on the battlefield, I didn't invent the system in which VOLUNTEER armed forces fight the battles so that the rest don't have to. I also did not relinquish my right to free speech when this system was put into place via the Constitution of the United States of America. This system of having others voluntarily fight to the death to protect MY right to free speech is, thankfully, not up to you to change unless you can get a majority of voters to change the Constitution.

Accusing me of some sort of misdeed because I actually apply my Constitutional Rights while, at the same time, thoroughly appreciating the individual human beings in harms way for MY benefit, is to misunderstand our system entirely.

Now, what right do you have to throw away the very things that our troops are fighting to protect? The answer is that you can throw your own rights down the toilet but you do NOT have the right to throw others' down the same hellhole.

It is never prudent to abandon your rights. You may view the burning of the koran as a small thing that, if you just give that little right up then maybe you, or I or someone else will be safer. But all my previous posts show that to be a dangerous fallacy.

My disagreement with both 0bama and Petraeus is also, in itself, protected free speech of a most important kind - giving feedback to those responsible for life and death decisions. In this case I, a citizen, disagree with their proclamations.

I have not only the right but the responsibility to speak up when I believe they are making mistakes, as I do now.

[GingisK]

neither of us know anything about the other.

I know that you are willing to endanger people so that you can have your say. You know that I am not willing to do so.

[Mojave]

I haven't appologized on behalf of the civilized world

Look up the word "apologist" in a dictionary.

[Mojave]

Acting prudently and respectfully is not "backing down".

Quislings love euphemisms.

[GingisK]

Free speech is free speech. Anything else is tyranny. I have a right to free speech.

This is my right and I will exercise it as *I* see fit without your call for censorship.

Will you set aside personnal responsibility in order to excersise your rights? Do you use that Right in a positive or a negative manner? Do you yell "FIRE" in a theater just to watch the mayhem? Are citizens responsible for the welfare of their Nation?

Rights can exist only when you will defend what is right. Using you rights simply for personnal satisfaction in lieu of good sense is not protective of the right. If you endager those who defend your rights, are you using your rights in a sensible manner?

I have not called for censorship. I have called for intellegent use of your Rights. If selfish action makes you feel like a whole citizen, then by all means, yell FIRE.

[GingisK]

Quislings love euphemisms.

The brainless love a good war when others wage it for them. Don't you just enjoy enciting a fight and then watching it unfold? Ah, you are a cornerstone of self rule. A real man.