Petraeus condemns Quran burning as protests rage on

cnn ^ | 4/3/2011 | cnn

[tobyhill]

Top U.S. officials in Afghanistan on Sunday condemned the burning of a Quran in the United States that sparked three days of protests in which more than 20 people died.

Burning the Muslim holy book "was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible," said Gen. David Petraeus, who heads the U.S.-led international forces in Afghanistan.

U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry said in a statement that Americans respect the Quran "and all religious texts and deplore any action that shows disrespect to any religious faith."

"At the same time, I want to emphasize, as have many Afghan leaders, that to attack and kill innocent people in response to the deplorable act of one individual is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity," Eikenbery's statement said.

[TomasUSMC]

So when they burn Bibles or Torahs how many of them can we kill?

exactly.

[runninglips]

I don’t think, I KNOW everyone is aware that the leaders are the ones culpable in this mess. It didn’t start with 0, or his minions. GW has a large hand in this politically correct pile of Muzz manure, and no one party has the right answer to correct our missteps.

[Chunga]

Dem apologist. Kiss off, brainless.

[runninglips]

We’ve been at this for nearly a decade

That right there should be enough to have heads rolling in several areas of the govt and military.

[runninglips]

I would insult you, but you probably have enough of that at work and home. I am not a Dem, a Dem apologist, or even slightly leftward leaning. If you can look at the wars we are engaged in, and not see that the wrong precedents and policies were instituted and followed, you are truly blind. Bush was better than Obama, but not very much. He had chances to set the policy in a manner to end these conflicts with a win. He instead chose to “build nations” even though it has never worked without first completely destroying the enemy. He will be seen in history as the architect of a greater Caliphate, not Obama. 0 will be seen as trying to bravely quell the rising tide, and with much sadness, having to withdraw. You see, Bush ran the treasury dry, and teed off the entire Muslim world.....Not my opinion, but it is close to what will be written.

[freejohn]

Him Fonda 'and' Cronkite! CRONKITE

[xzins]

Muslims worship idol gods that look like books and are made of paper. They have made a book into an idol, a graven image.

[Puzzleman]

Now Lindsey Graham is suggesting that we should further erode our freedom of speech in order to protect the Koran. Here is the link:
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/03/lindsey_graham_free_speech_is_a_great_idea_but_were_in_a_war.html

This stuff is clearly crazy. It’s one thing for General Petraeus to advise restraint from inflaming the enemy, but it’s another to suggest that we further erode our freedoms in order to have the government control what we can say and do.

[globelamp]

I am OK with the General saying whatever is necessary to calm down the situation over there, as long as he respects the constitutional rights of Americans.

However, it is also clear that the United States should be withdrawing from Afghanistan as soon as possible. There is nothing there worth saving for the US.

[globelamp]

Graham is truly a piece of work.

He also illustrates nicely why neo-isolationism is a pretty good policy for the US in the present-day world. Close the borders, stop the attempts to try various third-world hellholes into Norway and maintain a strong enough army and navy to dissuade piracy and large wars between states. That´s it.

[paulycy]

You don't destroy a village to save it.

Who said I want to save it? This is an existential war between islam and western civilization.

It is possible for there to be German citizens who are not Nazis. They are innocent civilians. It is possible for there to be Vietnamese who do not want to be communists. They can be saved.

But it is not possible for there to be muslims who do not want to be jihadists. That is impossible according to their own religion (read the koran if you don't believe me.) They cannot be "saved." We must simply force them to stop attacking us and reach an agreement in which, ultimately, they stay in their country at peace with us- whether they like it or not - because it is in their best interest.

That is the only arrangement I can imagine unless they completely abandon their religion of death to infidels.

I'm grateful for your service but sorry, the vietnam analogy doesn't fit the existential theocractic war we are in.

[globelamp]

“Bush was better than Obama, but not very much.”

No, Bush was worse than Obama, because Bush nearly killed conservatism in the United States. If McCain would have won the 2008 election, then conservatism would by now have been a dead letter.

Obama, unlike Bush, carries his Liberalism openly. It is possible to rally opposition against Obama, which means that the traditional American nation might not go quietly into the night. We might lose of course, but at least there is a chance of organizing an opposition before it is too late.

Bush, on the other hand, was whispering sweet nothings into the ear of America as he transformed “conservatism” into an ideology of open borders, nation-building in Islamic lands, multiculturalism, forced lending to the “disadvantaged” and of course deficit spending up the whazoo.

And of course, the primary reason that we even have a president named “Obama” in office is spelled “B-u-s-h”.

[Travis McGee]

It’s real.

[SF_Redux]

is he still in army, or running for democrat office ?

[StAnDeliver]

I have a theory, which will now be buried on the third page of responses, that goes like this:

The US [er, NATO] isn't too entirely upset by this wKoren burning, 'cuz (a) it's flushing out the musszies NATO is going to be targeting in a few weeks; and (b) it gives the somewhat more peaceable types a chance to blow off some steam without really getting in the way of a near-future anti-Taliban op.

[Girlene]

"Most Afghans learned about the Quran burning in Florida only when Mr. Karzai on March 24 (4 days after!) condemned the act as "a crime against the religion and the entire Muslim nation," called on the U.S. and the U.N. to bring the perpetrators to justice and demanded "a satisfactory response to the resentment and anger of over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world."

Worth repeating. This was Karzai's doing. Now why would he undermine the US and the UN? What would he get out of inciting the Afghanis' "passions" (as Gen. Petraeus referred to their murderous behavior)?

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

He doing what any good commander would do, take care of his people.

That doesn't matter. He has absolutely NO business criticizing an American citizen who is exercising free political speech on American soil.

[snidely whiplash III]

Your solution is the only one! Until the mental midgets in charge figure this out the 7th century savages will continue their insanity!

[circlecity]

"The General is only trying to protect his soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. He doing what any good commander would do, take care of his people."

And the only way he can figure out how to do that is to criticize free speech in America and imply it should be abridged somehow? He is going to blame his failings as a commander in Afghanistan on American free speech? It seems the commander is the one who needs to shut up and try to do his job without the necessity of whining about US free speech rights. Or he can be replaced with someone who can.

[Yet_Again]

The General is only trying to protect his soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. He doing what any good commander would do, take care of his people. How much time in a combat zone do you have? I’m willing to bet not nearly as much as Gen Petraeus. So it seems, you need to shut up.

There is no more effective way of protecting your own troops than by killing the enemy's troops. Trying to convert them to secular humanism while sniveling in the dirt of a foreign land is a far less effective strategy.