Petraeus: Burning Koran Puts American Lives 'in Jeopardy'

[Skaloop]

One action is constructive and the other is destructive - in pretty much as literal a sense as you can get.

One serves a purpose beyond any potential upset caused and the other's only purpose is to cause upset.

The community centre will only offend you if you hold all Muslim's responsible for 911 and therefore see the community centre as a symbol of victory. The Koran is holy to every single Muslim and so is offensive to all of them.

Whilst the two situations are certainly comparable you can easily contrast them too.

Good point. Interesting that TheUnwanted seems to support destruction over construction.

 

[Mr Dave]

This is the report that will be in the morning's The Times

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article2717360.ece

US Koran burning will endanger my troops, Petraeus warns​

The commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan warned plans to burn a Koran at an extremist Christian church in Florida will directly endanger his forces on the frontline.

A senior Afghan scholar warned it would be a declaration of Holy War.

“Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence,” General David Petraeus said in a statement.

“I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible Koran burning...It is precisely the kind of action the Taleban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”

More than 200 protestors took to the streets in Kabul yesterday, chanting “death to America” in anger at the plans. Similar demonstrations are planned across Afghanistan on Friday and Saturday to coincide with a radical pastor’s plan to publicly torch the Islamic holy book.

Worshippers at Florida’s Dove World Outreach Centre - a vehemently anti-Islamic church - plan to burn copies of the sacred book to mark the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, which led to the US invasion of Afghanistan.

The anniversary coincides with the Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha, which marks the end of Ramadan. It is one of the holiest times in the Islamic calendar. Enayatullah Balegh, senior member of Afghanistan’s influential Ulemma Council of Islamic Scholars, said an organised burning would amount to a declaration of war.

“If they burn our Holy Koran, it means war between Muslims and non-Muslims,” he said from his classroom at Kabul University, where he also works as a professor.

“Afghanistan will not be the only country to react, but all Islamic countries all over the world will stand and fight against non-Islamic countries.

“The lives of all Christians would be in danger in Afghanistan. Even the embassies will be in danger.”

Diplomats and aid workers are on high alert. Violent protests have seen foreigners murdered and their houses burnt and looted in the past.
Afghan officials and tribal elders were unanimous in their condemnation of Pastor Terry Jones’s plans.

“If it happens, security will deteriorate and the Taleban will get stronger,” said General Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defence. “It would help the Taleban spread violence.”

A spokesman for the governor of Helmand province, where most of Britain’s troops are based, said US officials had insisted the burning would not go ahead.

“Senior officials told us these are just rumours and it won’t happen,” said Daoud Ahmadi. “We really don’t want this to happen. We have to defend our religion. If it goes ahead there will a big disaster in Afghanistan, and in Helmand province. It definitely put the lives of foreign troops in more danger.”

A tribal elder in Nad-e Ali, where British troops claim they have made some of the best progress in Helmand, said he was praying for Allah to forbid it.

“If it happens, it will be a disaster,” said Abdul Ahad Helmandwal. “I don’t want to believe it will happen.

“Helmand people are very sensitive on Islamic issues. If it goes ahead our people will attack the British soldiers in Helmand province, and all the soldiers everywhere.”
(emphases mine)

 

[JustMeSee]

There is an 'interest' conversion of this over on the End Times area of the forum.

Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7497016/

I just don't understand the point of doing this.

 

[TheUnwanted]

It appears that you are posting on an unrelated thread. Christians are not being told to adapt to what muslims want. This church is being encouraged not to carry out an unnecessary act that will anger people.

So, in response to your question, no it does not strike me as a problem.

And yet a muslume group in New York want to build a mosque on the site of the worst terrorist assault in history, which is certainly unnecessary and will certainly anger people, yet all the same people saying the church shouldn't have a Koran burning seem to be the same people saying that no one should dare suggest the mosque be built some place else.

Offending Christians is OK, but offending mulins is a big no no. What's with that?

 

[TheUnwanted]

The community centre will only offend you if you hold all Muslim's responsible for 911 and therefore see the community centre as a symbol of victory. The Koran is holy to every single Muslim and so is offensive to all of them.

So its wrong to get offended about the mosque/community centre, because that is to equate all Muslims with terrorists, but its perfectly reasonable for muslimes will equate all Americans/Christians with Koran burners over the acts of one little church.

 

[Markus6]

So its wrong to get offended about the mosque/community centre, because that is to equate all Muslims with terrorists, but its perfectly reasonable for muslimes will equate all Americans/Christians with Koran burners over the acts of one little church.

No it's not alright at all. I did not say that. What I'm saying is that if a particular person burns a Koran then that particular person intentionally offends every single Muslim.

 

[goldenviolet]

Holder: Quran burning idiotic and dangerous - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder is calling the planned burning of the Quran at a Florida church idiotic and dangerous.
That's the word from religious leaders who met with Holder for nearly an hour Tuesday to discuss recent attacks on Muslims and mosques around the United States.
The meeting was closed to reporters, but a Justice Department official who was present confirmed that Holder said that the plan by the Rev. Terry Jones to burn copies of the Quran at his church in Gainesville, Fla., Saturday was idiotic.
The official, who requested anonymity because the meeting was private, also said Holder was quoting Gen. David Petraeus when he used the word dangerous.
Petraeus said the book burning could endanger U.S. troops.

 

[TheUnwanted]

No it's not alright at all. I did not say that. What I'm saying is that if a particular person burns a Koran then that particular person intentionally offends every single Muslim.

Indeed. So?

You don't think the 9/11 hijackers set out with the intention of offending every single person in the Western World?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Indeed. So?

You don't think the 9/11 hijackers set out with the intention of offending every single person in the Western World?

Ah, so you think that acting like the terrorists will make everything better? I see.

If you friend punches me and all of my friends, does that mean I can punch you and ll the friends of your friend? I mean, your friend set out to punch all of my friends, so that means I can punch you, right? Even though you never hurt me, I'm justified, because your friend hurt me.

Logic is good. Go get some.

 

[CyberPaladin]

Now maybe it's just me but these kinds of protest seem kind of stupid you know the ones where you go out and buy something just to destroy it. Whether you want to admit or not your finacialy supporting the thing that you hate.

 

[SithDoughnut]

On a related note, there have been a number of churches who have said they will counter this protest by reading from the Qu'ran during their sermons. Someone linked a story on a different thread, I'll go and look for it.

EDIT: Found it:

http://creativeseminole.com/2010/08...-ucc-ministers-response-to-burning-the-quran/

 

[Nathan45]

Typical liberals. Building a mosque on the ruins of the World Trade Centre is fine, but

It's not on the ruins of the world trade center, it's two blocks away with a 16 story building between the two locations-- not even visible from ground zero.

And you act like the muslims who live in lower manhatten had anything to do with the destruction of the world trade center. They didn't.

P.S. legally speaking the book-burning nuts have the right to burn as many qurans as they can afford to buy, and there's nothing that General Petraeus can do about it. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

[seashale76]

They know that what they're doing is going to cause a huge controversy and I place it firmly in the bad idea, please think twice and then pray for the Moslems instead category. However, I find it ridiculous to blame them for the actions we all know others will be taking in response. Book-burning, no matter the intent, is not comparable to murder and mayhem. Of course, that's a rather unpopular criticism these days, isn't it? How dare anyone point that out! Tsk!

Yet, I'll play the bliss-ninny card as it seems to work so well for others: Islam is a peaceful religion. They simply won't react violently. It would be so unlike the followers of Muhammad to do such things.

 

[daniel777]

One action is constructive and the other is destructive - in pretty much as literal a sense as you can get.

One serves a purpose beyond any potential upset caused and the other's only purpose is to cause upset.

The community centre will only offend you if you hold all Muslim's responsible for 911 and therefore see the community centre as a symbol of victory. The Koran is holy to every single Muslim and so is offensive to all of them.

Whilst the two situations are certainly comparable you can easily contrast them too.

constructive and destructive are very elusive terms politically.

you can't construct something without destroying something else, even if it's only the possibility of something else, and you can't destroy something without constructing something else, even if it's only the possibility of something else.

what determines whether an act is one of construction or destruction is a comparative value judgement, a value judgement placed on either the thing (or the possibility of the thing) destroyed or the thing (or the possibility of the thing) constructed.

if i destroy a building in order to make a new one, is ultimately an act of destruction or construction?

i'm not saying i disagree with your assessment necessarily, but it's definitely not ever that black and white, and it won't ever be until we can accurately read the intentions of other people and agree on objective value judgements for whatever it is we're talking about.

-----

as for what this thread's actually about. burning copies of the koran is a stupid idea, but i fully support their right to do it.

 

[JustMeSee]

Should we, who consider ourselves members of a more civilized nation, lead by example?

Or should we stoop to the levels of our adversaries?

American Muslims in the United States do not typically do (or even want to do) the horrible things that are done in many Islamic countries. I believe it is unfair to group all (or even most) Muslims into one category.

 

[JustMeSee]

constructive and destructive are very elusive terms politically.

you can't construct something without destroying something else, even if it's only the possibility of something else, and you can't destroy something without constructing something else, even if it's only the possibility of something else.

what determines whether an act is one of construction or destruction is a comparative value judgement, a value judgement placed on either the thing (or the possibility of the thing) destroyed or the thing (or the possibility of the thing) constructed.

if i destroy a building in order to make a new one, is ultimately an act of destruction or construction?

i'm not saying i disagree with your assessment necessarily, but it's definitely not ever that black and white, and it won't ever be until we can accurately read the intentions of other people and agree on objective value judgements for whatever it is we're talking about.

-----

as for what this thread's actually about. burning copies of the koran is a stupid idea, but i fully support their right to do it.

I constructed a house from playing card. I guess I preformed a destruction of the order of cards in order to complete my construction. Works with a bow of new Lego's too.
------------
Construction of building - destruction of old building = Islamic mosque

Purchase of Korans + bonfire = ashes

One makes Muslims angry and the other makes some Americans angry. Is that the only difference?

 

[daniel777]

in approaching the problem of the book burnings, i don't see it as so much a question of being right so much as having a right to be wrong. more specifically, to what extent should we have that right?

is burning copies of the koran the equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded room? or is it too detached from that, even depending on the deliberate actions of other people?


----
i was going to add this to the last one, but you already quoted it.
----

One makes Muslims angry and the other makes some Americans angry. Is that the only difference?

not at all. you can play around hypothetically destroying and constructing ideas in place of old ones too, and you can do it from any political philosophy you choose. you can also play guessing games with intentions. . . . that's where the contrast between liberal and conservative becomes really apparent, when they try to guess the other group's (or some independent group's) intentions. the point i was making was that the distinction between constructing and destroying just isn't always clear as the last poster was making it out to be. people have different ideas for what's most valuable.

 

[rambot]

P.S. legally speaking the book-burning nuts have the right to burn as many qurans as they can afford to buy, and there's nothing that General Petraeus can do about it. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Indeed. Sometimes it seems the "Freedom of Speech" axiom can be substituted with "Freedom of Stupid".

 

[JustMeSee]

in approaching the problem of the book burnings, i don't see it as so much a question of being right so much as having a right to be wrong. more specifically, to what extent should we have that right?

is burning copies of the koran the equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded room? or is it too detached from that, even depending on the actions of other people. should we taylor or freedoms just to make the religious fanatics happy?
...

I am opposed to limiting (most) freedoms of expression, even when I believe that freedom is being exercised in wrong ways. Who would draw the line of what is wrong in individual cases?

The question of if burning the Koran is equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded room is an interesting one. The act of yelling fire has an immediate reaction from the crowd. It is obvious what caused the panic. Burning to Koran will likely cause numerous longer term reactions. Some of which will be obvious, others will be far more difficult to associate to the event.

With the proper permits, they should be permitted to do it, even though I believe it is a very wrong thing to do.

 

[pgp_protector]

Some Rules For Christians that would be Good to Follow.​

[sign]Luke 10:27 (Love God Above All, And Your Neighbor as yourself)
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.[/sign]


[sign]Matthew 7:12 (Do unto others)
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.[/sign]

[sign]Matthew 5:43-48 (Pray for those that persecute you)
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.[/sign]

[sign]Luke 6:27-29 (Love your enemies.)
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.[/sign]


Note: These are Rules Christians are supposed to follow, not Rules that they are supposed to force others to follow.