Petraeus condemns Quran burning as protests rage on

cnn ^ | 4/3/2011 | cnn

[ohioWfan]

While I understand the points you are making regarding your opinion that winning hearts and minds is a bad idea, I respectfully disagree - and that I believe is where I differ from some on this board.

I don't see Muslims as monolithic (and I know I will be skewered for that statement). While there are many who are monsters, and their religion is violent if followed as many follow it, I do not believe that all Muslims are evil and not worth the bother.

At the heart of my view is my faith in God, and who He is as loving Creator, and that people in the ME were created by Him with a need for Jesus as Savior, just as we were.

Without giving details, my veteran son was part of the 'hearts and minds' campaign and his experience, even in the belly of the beast in East Baghdad does not support that Muslims are monolithic and evil (and he was being mortared and shot at by the worst of them).

What our military has done under Petraeus, while being far from universally successful has made an enormous difference in Iraq. It has worked.

There are a number of Muslims who are monstrous, and it is they whom we must destroy. There is another group who have been manipulated, wittingly or unwittingly, by evil people, and they must be stopped. But there are also a number of Muslims who need to be rescued from the oppression of evil leaders and a screwed up religion.

It is a messy, complicated situation, and people like this ninny Jones has at best done nothing worthwhile, and at worst has willingly aggravated the situation and put our troops at further risk as a result.

Petraeus was RIGHT to chastise him for his reckless, thoughtless, self-absorbed behavior.

btw, what do you think about Beck's thoughts on the subject and the Soros/Obama/Jones inflammation of the ME?

[ohioWfan]

Oh..........and I strongly agree that we should never give in to bullies.

That's not what Petraeus is doing here.

[dfwgator]

I don't see Muslims as monolithic (and I know I will be skewered for that statement). While there are many who are monsters, and their religion is violent if followed as many follow it, I do not believe that all Muslims are evil and not worth the bother.

The problem is that our approach is to try and being nice to Muslims and respecting their religion. What we SHOULD be doing is trying to create an environment where those people who only go through the motions of believing in the Moon God, can feel safe to live their lives without being in fear of their neighbors who would stone them for apostasy, should they not be a believer in the Moon God.

[ohioWfan]

No disagreement with that statement at all.

[xzins]

We can keep going down the road we've traveled, or we can try a new one. Their reaction to the Jones' "book-burning" incident is a perfect opportunity to try a new route. Instead, we are continuing to appease, and make excuses for their intolerable behavior.

Appeasement didn't work in preventing WWII, Girlene, and it won't work with the jihadists.

[Girlene]

I don't see Muslims as monolithic (and I know I will be skewered for that statement). While there are many who are monsters, and their religion is violent if followed as many follow it, I do not believe that all Muslims are evil and not worth the bother.

At the heart of my view is my faith in God, and who He is as loving Creator, and that people in the ME were created by Him with a need for Jesus as Savior, just as we were.

No disagreement from me. Maybe we shouldn't be so hesitant to offer our faith as an answer vs. running scared from offending generations who were raised to accept "Islam", which in the wrong hands, IS evil.

I am not saying the winning hearts and minds strategy has no place in our struggles in the ME, I question at what price to our military, or to the principles of freedom?

Afghanistan is a far more backwards country than Iraq (or so I've read, since I've never been in either country). Operating on that premise, they are more easiily manipulated by powerful figures. In comes Terry Jones with his little incident, what does Karzai do? Make sure everyone knows about some little yosimite sam's stunt and how outrageous it was to the WHOLE MUSLIM NATION.....nobody over there could have known about his action until Karzai issued his statements of "outrage".

.....then the imams, Talibans, crazy Muslims with a chip on their shoulder used it as an excuse for their outrage and killed "infidels".

Now, given all the tragedy, evil, whatever you want to call it has occurred to this point, Gen. Petraeus has the opportunity to react to the events that have occurred. What does he do? He calls Yosimite Sam's incident enormously intolerable, and says the inflamed "passions" were maybe understandable. I'm sorry, that is appeasment, excuse-making, and will not improve the dialogue in Afghanistan. And what about Karzai? Where was the condemnation for his little power play?

btw, what do you think about Beck's thoughts on the subject and the Soros/Obama/Jones inflammation of the ME?

I do not agree. Terry Jones did what he did for his reasons - prove a point about Muslim's reaction to burning pieces of paper? ....get attention? increase his membership? I don't know exactly what was in his mind, but he acted in his own interests. (IMO)

Thank you to your son for his service and to you for your support of his mission.

[Girlene]

Appeasement didn't work in preventing WWII, Girlene, and it won't work with the jihadists.

Agreed, xzins. Being pragmatic is one thing, like we were in making an alliance with the Russians to achieve our prime objective of defeating Fascism in WWII .....but as we all know, there were consequences.

[pillut48]

Let’s try this analogy.

YOUR posts have “made me” see red until I’m furious at you.

Tonight I go out and run over some little kids at the park because of that.

Tomorrow YOU should be arrested for what YOU caused me to do.

Now, tell me, does this type of scenario REALLY make sense to you?? Without all the emotionalism, and name calling, does this type of scenario really sound logical??

I just don’t get that you don’t get it. < shaking my head sadly >

[ohioWfan]

What in heaven's name are you talking about?

I'm trying to have a rationale discussion based on logic and not emotion, about this issue.

What are YOU trying to do? I'm serious. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. Are you OK?

[ohioWfan]

I will tell my son, Girlene. Thank you for your kind words.

You make some good points here, most of which I don't disagree with. Karzai is, at best, a conflicted, questionable ally, so I'm not in support of his riling up the Afghan people. Afghanistan is so messed up and historically bizarre that I'm not sure there is even a glimmer of hope for its future. It is definitely far more backwards than Iraq, so your points about the difference between the two countries are accurate.

My reason for coming on this thread was to draw attention to Jones' lack of character, and to perhaps make people think that, just because we don't support Islam, we shouldn't necessarily support what this guy did. IS the enemy of my enemy my friend? Do we support a jerk just because he hates Islam? Do we castigate Petraeus for calling him on the boneheadedness of his behavior? Is it his place to attack Karzai in his position? All questions that might be answered differently by each person here.

No person, no matter how noble, says every word we want nor do we agree with everything he does. That obviously is true of Petraeus. But go back and look at the hostility, anger, and idiocy aimed in his direction because of this incident. It's outrageous and extreme and has no place in rational discourse.

I personally find Beck's observation a very valid one. There is clearly a Soros/Obama effort to agitate and foment problems in the ME. I'm not saying that this Jones jerk is in cahoots with them in a serious way, but asking if perhaps, he is anti-American enough (being a Phelps follower), and anti-military enough to have done this at this time deliberately to cause further problems in Afghanistan is, IMO a valid question.

We will likely never know the answer, but it's a question worth asking.

(Sorry for rambling!)

[pillut48]

I asked for your response without all the emotionalism and name calling, *SIGH*.

Did you actually read my post, my analogy of YOUR viewpoint here. I asked if that really made sense to you. A simple YES or NO would suffice.

I need to add to my analogy:

After killing several children at the park because of YOUR actions, I am not held accountable by officials in the town.

The Mayor tells the media:
“What the person writing on that forum did was REPREHENSIBLE, even though they had every right to EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.”

The Police Chief comes out and says:
“What the person writing on that forum wrote was hateful and bigoted and I’m really sorry it forced that other person to drive into the park! It never would have happened if not for that person writing on the forum!”

The County Commisioner comes out and gives his assessment:
“We are going to hold an investigation into that forum and that forum writer, because they need to be held accountable for their actions (writing their opinions) and they need to pay for forcing that person who was minding their own business to drive into that park and run over those children!”

If you want I could further simplify the viewpoints of myself and several others on this forum for you...without calling you names or asking about your mental well-being.

[pillut48]

Oh..........and I strongly agree that we should never give in to bullies. That's not what Petraeus is doing here.

That's EXACTLY what Petraeus is doing here! And Obama, and Graham, and Reid and the rest of them who are kowtowing to the Religion of Peace! :*(

[pillut48]

To be honest, Jones is not a “Phelps follower”, his church agrees with Phelps’ condemnation of homosexual behavior, endorsement, etc. but denies everything else about Westboro beliefs and actions. To say Jones is a “Phelps follower” is incorrect.

[ohioWfan]

What name-calling? What emotionalism? I've been completely calm the entire time and haven't called anyone besides Terry Jones a 'name.' What are you talking about??

A simple YES or NO to what? Maybe I'm really dense, but I have NO clue as to what you're trying to do.

Pretend I'm a child and explain what you're doing. It makes no sense to me.

[ohioWfan]

Obama, Reid, Graham - YES. Petraeus - NO.

[pillut48]

Obama, Reid, Graham - YES. Petraeus - NO.

Interesting. Petraeus has done the same exact thing as the other 3, yet you believe he is only doing it to 'protect the troops', so it's okay?

Do you honestly not see that what he has done and is doing is actually PUTTING THE TROOPS IN FURTHER HARM'S WAY by agreeing with the former 3?? < deeply puzzled >

[wardaddy]

Oh shut up Pet

[wardaddy]

Oh shut up Pet

[ohioWfan]

Please tell me (calmly) why you feel that Petraeus’ criticizing a man who has put his troops in further danger is putting his troops in further danger.

[pillut48]

I have been calm, FRiend, and haven't resorted to emotionalism and name calling (or threats of violence from your child). Please reread my analogy a few posts before this one. For clarification, please remember these important things while reading the analogy:
1) YOU = Pastor Terry Jones
2) ME = Religion of Peace Run Amok
3) RUNNING OVER KIDS AT PARK = MUSLIMS KILLING UN FOLKS, AMONG OTHERS 4) MAYOR = Obama
5) POLICE CHIEF = Petraeus
6) COUNTY COMMISSIONER = Graham, Reid et al