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 ...
Not to be taken as a threat!
I saw this today. “Nothing is so good for the morale of the troops as to occasionally see a dead general” - Field Marshall Slim
Also: Who ever said the pen is mightier than the sword never encountered automatic weapons” - General Douglas MacArthur
Whether true or not sounds good!
Ahem, it would appear it only posed a problem for UN employees.
Much worse for our soldiers was the gay man’s release of 250,000 diplomatic cables, done to spite the military—his employer.
If this legal act by a minister caused the UN to be targeted, please tell me again why anyone should care? I can’t stand the UN anyway, can you?
Maybe it will serve some good anyway, if the UN realizes that dialogue and writing angry letters will never solve anything. Mowing down the savages will, however.
His job is to win the war as directed by the CinC. If that means openly disagreeing with the actions of a private citizen, then so be it.
I don’t see GEN Petraeus having the media-whore-in-question arrested, do you?
I couldn't have said it better myself, Carl. Great Point.
Gen. Benedict Arnold Petraeus is a disgrace to the uniform of a United States soldier.
I agree. Also, thanks for the excellent link from Ben Stein from last year about this issue - I will have to share it with those who don't agree with us on this issue and feel Petraeus has the right/authority to stop private American citizens from exercising their first amendment rights.
Petraeus needs to focus on his own troops and stopping them from committing atrocities on civilians, he’s got some nerve.
Captain, I have some serious concerns about your command now. He has higher orders than the transients in the chain of command above him, as do you. And you should know this long before you’ve reached the rank you have. Why an oath then, and to what, if all it takes is obedience to your superiors until you’re retired or otherwise no longer employed?
CHEERS TO YOU, said very well indeed.
Look familiar to you?
I wouldn't put it past the 'good general' to have a surrogate (FBI or other domestic, civilian law enforcement agency) attempt to stiffle the First Amendment rights of the private American civilian in question.
You should read a good article written by Ben Stein titled The General and the Constitution. Link below:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/08/the-general-and-the-constituti
I am just wondering if there exists in the military today a disdain or hatred for private American citizens and the free exercise of their rights?
How can you believe that troops were killing civilians and making “trophies” of them. All that is happening is charges are made, people are put in solitary then pressure is brought to bear on every soldier to “fess up” One guy cries, WE DID IT, he gets off with light sentencing. The press and the Pressident gets a chit to play later on, and quite possibly innocent men are sent to prison for life. It has happened before, and quite recently too.
Agreed. The general has really overstepped his authority on this issue.
But you don’t think compared with the actions of the stupid pastor, whether or not the allegations against the soldiers were true, that would set them off much more than just a Koran burning?
You know damn well if Bush was still in office, the MSM would be howling 24/7 about it. But they want to protect their golden boy, so you don’t hear about it.
Again, I’m not saying the soldiers are guilty, but if Bush was in office, that wouldn’t matter to the media.
Those transients are the duly elected representatives of the government that runs the country which we serve. Like it or not, that’s the pecking order, unless you want the military to run the country. I may be VERY unhappy about DADT being repealed, but it’s not like ANYONE will give a damn if I throw a temper tantrum at BDE HQ. The CDR will tell me, “You have your orders, now move out.” Period.
If you are looking for a four-star general to get before the cameras and shrug his shoulders and tell the Muslim savages to get a grip, then you have no idea how we’ve been attempting to gain control over Afghanistan.
Besides which, you people are attacking the wrong guy. Petraeus doesn’t make policy. You all should be far, FAR more concerned with the likes of Obama, Reid, and Graham who are making noises about hearings and limiting free speech. Petraeus couldn’t do that, even if he wanted to.
I honestly don’t know what you people expect from the military. EVERYONE answers to someone. It’s time you all realize that.
Only the illiterate conspiracy nuts.
Re Post 218, you are so right it hurts. The simple truth is, we are engaged in wars similar to Vietnam. The similarity is, we are not “IN IT TO WIN IT”, but to hold the line just long enough for “sanity to prevail” among our enemies, or people to get a whiff of “Freedom”, and want it. The biggest problem is, they have seen our version of life, and the DESPISE IT. They don’t want fags openly parading around, they don’t want little girls dressing up like street corner whores, they don’t want their women working, driving, voting, or talking behind their backs, and they DO NOT WANT FREEDOM. They want to be led around by a force greater than themselves. The only way we can beat them is to destroy what they believe in. If this were something like WW 2, we would firebomb Mecca, Medina, storm the Dome of the rock, and turn it over to our allies. We would have allowed Indonesia to rot on the vine, not giving them help or money. We WOULD BURY THEM, and when they cried uncle from under the rubble, we would show them the path to the future, and allow the free exercise of religion to come forth, with missionaries of the Lord Jesus Christ, all for free.
And how did that whole “Winning Hearts and Minds thing” work out in Vietnam?
Petraeus could have said a short "no comment" and that would be the end of it. How hard is that? My question is whether the media sought a comment from him or if he sought out the media to lodge his complaint about an American citizen exercising his God-given rights.
I honestly don’t know what you people expect from the military. EVERYONE answers to someone. It’s time you all realize that.
I expect the military to do their job with honor and respect the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold. If that's too much to ask from a General, then maybe he should step down. FWIW, I think most of the military does take their oath quite seriously, but it's obvious that one does not get to the upper command ranks without having the "correct" temperament.
Well said and Amen.
Maybe you’re not able to answer my question, why an oath then?
I wasn’t just referring to the commander in chief, but all officers or NCO’s as transient, in the sense that throughout time in the military personalities in the chain of command are going to vary.
“If you are looking for a four-star general to get before the cameras and shrug his shoulders and tell the Muslim savages to get a grip, then you have no idea how we’ve been attempting to gain control over Afghanistan.”
That’s not what I expect. Please read my first post on this thread. He has to balance several things in his media comments and he perhaps took a calculated risk in doing so, but it seems like it will fail in the long run, for the reasons I’ve stated there, and that in doing so he’s not only not assuaged violent Mohammadans, but alienated the segment of Americans that are normally his strongest supporters.
“Besides which, you people are attacking the wrong guy. Petraeus doesn’t make policy. You all should be far, FAR more concerned with the likes of Obama, Reid, and Graham who are making noises about hearings and limiting free speech. Petraeus couldn’t do that, even if he wanted to.”
Those people are the greater concern, and I’ve commented on them in other threads. This one’s about Petraeus though.
“I honestly don’t know what you people expect from the military. EVERYONE answers to someone. It’s time you all realize that.”
I can’t speak for everyone else, but I do know that. And the military ultimately answers to the American people, through the political system, and discussion here is part of that political process.
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.