Posted on 04/03/2011 3:20:59 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Come soon, Lord Jesus!
He would be far more effective at protecting his soldiers by changing the rules of engagement. We would probably already be done there if our troops didn't have to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. Why do people think that if we snuggle up to islam, they will stop hating us? They won't! An infidel is an infidel and they hate infidels. That said, they would be less dangerous if they feared us. They certainly aren't going to love us, no matter how much groveling Petraeus does
Two questions.
1) How in the world do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in this kind of war?
I don't think you can because I think all are either front line warriors or support line staff. So therefore, unless you can clear this up for me I don't think there actually ARE any "innocent" islamic civilians. They all support jihad and are all invested in it for their eternal soul.
2) In a hot war, if you don't approve of killing people as an appropriate kind of negative feedback for performing forbidden activities then what exactly do you propose that is going to be effective?
The reason why the general is in the combat zone is to protect our right to reject Islam. If not, we shouldn’t be there. And I’ve been in a combat zone and I’ll never shut up about how bad Islam is
Anyone burning a Koran is stupid. Period.
Give that man a box of fine cigars for speaking the truth.
I sure hope Petraus is condemning the senseless murder and decapitation of innocent people by Muslims in response to the burning.
Destroying an entire village in retribution for these murders by a few is not the way to win the support of the Afghan government or the people. It matters not whether the government serves at our approval or not.
PC has nothing to do with. The man is a self-absorbed jerk.
I’m going to post the same thing in this thread I did in the story on this that Kristinn put up:
Blue Lancer nailed this on 9/13/2001.
Scroll down on his profile page until you see the pic with a B-2 and two F-117s and start reading.
I started with his attitude, softened substantially on this largely because of Dubyas Religion of Peace mantra, and am now very much back to this camp. As you can tell from my tagline. The punative expedition phase of Afghanistan ended long ago. We should have exited the scene and quit the meals on wheels / nation building phase many years ago.
What better way to let people know of the disgust in the Koran than by burning the piece of crap. F Islam and F any American standing with that wretched faith......
If I placed a Bible and a copy of the Koran outside on my front sidewalk right now, and proceeded to burn both of them and post it on you tube, many people would not be happy with me and would probably protest and get in my face.
Only one group would behead me, though. But as Rosie says radical Christianity is the same as radical Islam!
Maybe we should just put all the troops around the oil wells and say “These are ours now just try and take them back”. Because that seems to be the only language some groups know how to speak.
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.I understand that he's trying to baffle them with BS, but he really needs to just blast the mullahs who are inciting these riots. No Moslem country guarantees freedom of speech (obviously), so the (dead) mullahs don't have any complaint coming.
I agree. I tell you, FR needs an orthopedist, there is so much knee jerking going on.
That isn’t really the issue.
But hey, what are you going to do when you can’t even say that because it might offend someone?
Condemn the murdering, rioting ***terds and religion which vomits out this insanity not the guy who should be able to burn any bloody book he wants. As well, get out of that piece of garbage hell-hole called Afghanistan because it’s not worth a single life from the West.
By your logic, the Simi Valley jury should have convicted the LAPD officers who apprehended Rodney King. That would have prevented 60 deaths and millions in property damage, right?
Nope, the muzzies are killing our guys because that's what they do. The media is offering them an excuse, and they are using it.
The killer muzzies chose to kill. The small church pastor has nothing to do with it, but you are buying into the media spin.
/johnny
“You left out, in addition to stable, not a refuge for AQ and other terrorists.”
Did I? Stability would mean, to most, that the borders aren’t porous, and that regions aren’t no-go zones at night.
“There were elections in Afghanistan so the government has some legitimacy. It does not serve at our approval. We can’t remove it.”
You’re using the passive voice here with your first sentence. Did this government just eventuate, sui generis? Under whose aegis were these elections held? What was their origin? If you don’t think it serves at our approval, think of what would happen should we no longer approve to finance it nor defend its operatives. You can say that’s not actually ‘removing’ it if you like.
“Destroying an entire village in retribution for these murders by a few is not the way to win the support of the Afghan government or the people. It matters not whether the government serves at our approval or not.”
I agree with this part - I thought I had made it clear by starting off with ‘you’re right to question’ - meaning you’re right to question whether indiscriminately killing civilians is in any way wise. Shutting down the mosque, other restrictions of suspect ‘civilians’ though should be an available option, including killing those not wearing a uniform but who are acting in a threatening way, such as mobbing a UN outpost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.