Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Why Do Our Soldiers Fight?

Update: In an attempt to be more effective in making my point, I have approached the same topic from a different angle here.

Umma Iwo Jima

Most readers have probably heard of Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, who organized International Burn a Quran Day for September 11.

Although burning Korans is not to my taste, I’m glad I live in America, where a citizen has a right to burn a lawfully purchased copy of a book on his own property if he wants to.

However, General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, doesn’t agree. He thinks the actions of Rev. Jones and his followers may cause the death of American troops in Afghanistan.

Here’s what ABC News has to say about it:

A Florida pastor’s plan to burn Qurans at his church on Sept. 11 ignited a protest today by hundreds of Afghans, who burned American flags and shouted “Death to America,” and the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said the preacher could be increasing the threat to his troops.

The crowd in downtown Kabul reached nearly 500 today, with Afghan protesters chanting “Long live Islam “ and “Long live the Quran,” and burning an effigy of Terry Jones, senior pastor from the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is planning the event.

The protesters were well aware of the pastor’s inflammatory comments, such as the “Islam is an evil religion,” since they have been spread wide on the Internet. Jones has also authored a book, “Islam Is of the Devil.”

The protesters’ anger wasn’t limited to Jones, however. Chants of “Death to America” echoed through the crowd, and U.S. flags were set ablaze alongside the effigy of Jones.

America cannot eliminate Muslims from the world,” one Afghan man told ABC News.

The angry crowd pelted a passing U.S. military convoy with rocks.

Gen. David Petraeus said he is outraged by the pastor’s decision to burn the Quran, which he said could “endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort here.”

Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Jack Keane, an adviser to Petraeus, called it “outrageous” and “insulting to Muslims.”

“It’s also insulting to our soldiers in terms of what they stand for and what their commitment is to this country and to the Muslims in this country,” Keane told ABC News.

Now, I don’t want to debate the merits of burning Korans. That’s not the point of this post.

What I want to talk about is the presence of American troops in Afghanistan, and what they are there to do.

Are they fighting and dying to avoid “insulting Muslims”?

What does our military stand for? Does it stand for protecting Islam from insult? Or does it stand for protecting the rights and the well-being of American citizens?

Here’s what David Petraeus would have said if he were a real soldier in the mold of, say, General George Patton, rather than a lickspittle dhimmi appeaser of heroin-trafficking Afghan warlords:
- - - - - - - - -
“I wouldn’t burn a Koran myself — but, then, that’s a matter of personal taste.

“Let me just say this: those people in Florida aren’t putting anyone at risk. The only people responsible for putting my troops at risk are those homicidal maniacs who froth at the mouth over what they call their ‘religion’.

“My boys are here to defend the American way of life, and they are fighting and dying to preserve the right of American citizens to burn any damn thing they feel like — except maybe the American flag.

“And as for those demonstrators on the streets of Kabul — they can go to hell.”

But we don’t have generals like that anymore.

Our generals don’t win wars. They build nations.

They are tasked to win the hearts and minds of whatever godforsaken lice-infested child-molesting goatherds their fool of a commander-in-chief sends them out to protect.

This is what our “national defense” has become.

This is what all those billions and billions of our tax dollars do for us nowadays.

God help us all.

48 comments:

EscapeVelocity said...

Self censorship in response to the threat of violence.

Ill be burning a Koran on Burn a Koran Day.

Jedilson Bonfim said...

They are tasked to win the hearts and minds of whatever godforsaken lice-infested child-molesting goatherds their fool of a commander-in-chief sends them out to protect.

And let's not forget who's footing the bill for that, huh?

I might get myself a copy of Mein Qurampf one day, but I'll probably not burn it... It'd be way more fun to find a pig farm in the land of verboten minarets and get some of the animals to step on it, push it around with their snouts and basically do whatever they want with it while I'm filming or taking photos of the whole thing. I'm sure their owner wouldn't mind.

Mad Dog Gazza said...

JB, I'd love to see that!

Zenster said...

However, General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, doesn’t agree. He thinks the actions of Rev. Jones and his followers may cause the death of American troops in Afghanistan.

This formulation demonstrates a complete and total lack of understanding about Islam.

Even if nobody in the entire United States of America ever burned a single Qur'an in all of this nation's history, Muslims would still hate us.

Buring a million Qur'ans would do nothing to change the basic threat level that Islam represents to the free world. General Petraeus clearly does not grasp that simple fact. America is hated by Muslims for its freedom, not what it burns or does not burn.

Any attempt at displacing Islam's existential threat to the free world onto people who are exercising one of their most fundamental freedoms of expression represents a voluntary abdication of power to America's enemies.

To grant that the Afghan people hold even one scintilla of influence over when, where, how and why we will continue to kill those Muslims that carry out jihad against us gives an unwarranted, and unearned degree of respect to those who deserve none at all.

The American military has one and only one mission; to serve and protect the American people and this nation's Constitution. Everything else is secondary, even the preservation of their own very precious lives.

Petraeus' dhimmified attitude is unworthy of the loyalty that his rank is supposed to command.

ENGLISHMAN said...

Did not the American army try "hearts and minds"thirty-five years ago in vietnam?that was a spectacular success,was it not?I see that they are still fighting the last war as armies always seem to,has any-one seen the film "unthinkable"? that is why the west is losing.

whtly said...

Muslims don't hate America because of its freedom, they hate it because it's not Muslim.

The Observer said...

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The west would be better off making a deal with the farmers in Afghanistan agreeing to buy their opium crops. These crops could then either be sold to international pharmaceutical companies or destroyed, thus taking away a very important income source from the Taliban.

Regarding the Allied military presence in the country, it’s probably very lucrative for certain private companies in the US, but probably not too lucrative for the American taxpayers. Trying to introduce western style democracy in Afghanistan, a majority Muslim country is not going to happen in a million years. That one is a no brainer.

Durotrigan said...

Military intervention should only ever be used for national defence. There was certainly a rationale for using limited military force to take out the Taliban leadership and terrorist camps following 9/11, but invading and occupying Afghanistan for the best part of the past decade has been a costly mistake. What benefit has it brought to America or any of the other coalition members contributing blood and money to this conflict? None. The pointlessness of this exercise is underscored by the fact that two of the main fountainheads of Islamism are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but owing to the former’s vast reserve of petrodollars and the latter’s possession of nuclear weaponry, no government advocates waging war against them.

It would be better to withdraw from Afghanistan and deal with any terrorist camps via limited strikes using drones, cruise missiles and any other suitable military technologies that become available in future. Hit squads to take out leading Islamist figures should be preferred over wholesale military occupation. Irrespective of how many Afghans have died, how many of our people have been killed, maimed or psychologically traumatised by this war? Such an outcome that has also drained our economies of countless billions is precisely the one desired by Bin Laden. He thinks that he can bring down the West just as he thinks he contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Our struggle is an ideological one, and we can only succeed if we can rid our societies of the cancer of multiculturalism and political correctness, for once these have been excised, we will be able to harness the popular energy necessary for our ultimate triumph.

On a related matter, Tony Blair has been lionised by many bloggers over the past few days for his comments on 'radical Islam.' However, I think that they are mistaken to eulogise Blair, for he has only semi-awakened to the Islamist threat; hence his use of the term ‘radical Islam’ instead of the factually correct ‘applied Islam’ or ‘doctrinaire Islam’.

In the UK itself, his policies helped to fuel Islamisation and to gag critics of this process. He has failed to come to grips with the ideological essence of Islam, and thus was unable to recommend the domestic policies which were required to successfully tackle Islamist terror. His successors in the coalition administration continue the same misguided multiculturalist policies which pander to Islam. To fight wars overseas whilst encouraging Islam to spread unchecked at home is a recipe for disaster: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2010/09/has-tony-blair-woken-up-to-reality-of.html

Jedilson Bonfim said...

Gary Rumain, I've actually seen pictures of a copy of Mein Qurampf next to body parts of a dead pig, including its bowels. A Google Image Search for quran pig will produce them.

My idea wouldn't be an issue for the faint of heart of stomach because I'd like to use only live pigs for the photo shoot, haha.

imnokuffar said...

Our soldiers fight to protect a moderate Islam that does not exist, to promote the fact to the uneducated masses that it does and to protect the moderate Islamists that do not exist from being infected with extremist Islam that is the only form this benighted religion takes even when it appears benign.

gsw said...

For those of us who are squeamish about burning books:
It is sufficient to draw a picture of mohammed (maybe with a camel?) on a peace of paper and burn that.

This has nothing to do with Fahrenheit 451, The third Reich or insulting the peasants of Afganistan.

It is a symbol of Capitalism (my book) Vv. Shariah (our holy book)

Juniper in the Desert said...

Here is some islamic "science" re pork:

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/food_07.html

I could not find pig and koran!!

Manu Rodríguez said...

Les expreso desde aquí mi simpatia y mi solidaridad. Les rogar´`ia que tomasen norta de mi blo que creo que puede interesarle:

http://larespuestadeeuropa.blogspot.com/

Gracias,
Manu

Zenster said...

whtly: Muslims don't hate America because of its freedom, they hate it because it's not Muslim.

Same difference.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

I wouldn’t burn a Koran myself — but, then, that’s a matter of personal taste.

It could be argued that General David Petraeus in his very public anouncments within earshot of the Taliban proclaiming timed troop withdrawals from Afghanistan has had a negative effect on his troops.

Anonymous said...

Zenster stated: ". . .This formulation demonstrates a complete and total lack of understanding about Islam.

Even if nobody in the entire United States of America ever burned a single Qur'an in all of this nation's history, Muslims would still hate us.
"

**********

Actually, even more importantly, this demonstrates a complete and total lack of understanding American freedoms protected by our Constitution. This IS what the fight is ALL ABOUT.

Islam demands our First Amendment to the Constitution protects it's right to practice freely, all the while insisting courts consider limiting those very same First Amendment protections as applied to anyone who dares challenge Islam.

Nothing is equal in Islam as Islam rejects with impunity any interference which challenges it.

Durotrigan said...

Military intervention should only ever be used for national defence. There was certainly a rationale for using limited military force to take out the Taliban leadership and terrorist camps following 9/11, but invading and occupying Afghanistan for the best part of the past decade has been a costly mistake. What benefit has it brought to America or any of the other coalition members contributing blood and money to this conflict? None. The pointlessness of this exercise is underscored by the fact that two of the main fountainheads of Islamism are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but owing to the former’s vast reserve of petrodollars and the latter’s possession of nuclear weaponry, no government advocates waging war against them.

It would be better to withdraw from Afghanistan and deal with any terrorist camps via limited strikes using drones, cruise missiles and any other suitable military technologies that become available in future. Hit squads to take out leading Islamist figures should be preferred over wholesale military occupation. Irrespective of how many Afghans have died, how many of our people have been killed, maimed or psychologically traumatised by this war? Such an outcome that has also drained our economies of countless billions is precisely the one desired by Bin Laden. He thinks that he can bring down the West just as he thinks he contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Our struggle is an ideological one, and we can only succeed if we can rid our societies of the cancer of multiculturalism and political correctness, for once these have been excised, we will be able to harness the popular energy necessary for our ultimate triumph.

On a related matter, Tony Blair has been lionised by many bloggers over the past few days for his comments on 'radical Islam.' However, I think that they are mistaken to eulogise Blair, for he has only semi-awakened to the Islamist threat; hence his use of the term ‘radical Islam’ instead of the factually correct ‘applied Islam’ or ‘doctrinaire Islam’.

In the UK itself, his policies helped to fuel Islamisation and to gag critics of this process. He has failed to come to grips with the ideological essence of Islam, and thus was unable to recommend the domestic policies which were required to successfully tackle Islamist terror. His successors in the coalition administration continue the same misguided multiculturalist policies which pander to Islam. To fight wars overseas whilst encouraging Islam to spread unchecked at home is a recipe for disaster: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2010/09/has-tony-blair-woken-up-to-reality-of.html

Baron Bodissey said...

Manu,

It's good to have you here in the comments.

This is an English-language blog, and many of our readers don't understand Spanish. In future, please provide a translation.

I took a look at your blog, and as far as I can tell (using Google to translate it) you are a like-minded member of the Counterjihad.

Below is a Google translation of your comment, and I include a hot-link to your blog for those readers who understand Spanish.

--------

Manu Rodriguez said ...

Here I express my sympathy and solidarity. I would ask them to take north of my block that I think may be of interest:

The European response

Thanks,
Manu

filthykafir said...

Excellent post, Baron. While it is certainly true, Our generals don’t win wars. They build nations, it is valuable to remember our generals simply carry out (however enthusiastically) the will and orders of their civilian, elected, Commanders in Chief. I submit, that’s where the brain rot in America festers (starting with Bush and continuing unchecked with the current community organizer).

For me, Zenster summed up our problem with Islam in one direct and telling paragraph: Even if nobody in the entire United States of America ever burned a single Qur'an in all of this nation's history, Muslims would still hate us. And Supreme High Nation Builder and All-Around Friend of the Oppressed of the World, General Petraeus has plentiful and high-placed company in his ignorance of that fundamental truth.

Baron Bodissey said...

filthykafir --

Oh, I agree completely. The body rots from the head down.

However... Can you imagine Gen. George S. Patton taking orders like these without ripping off the insignia of his rank in disgust, and resigning his commission?

I would like to see one -- mind you, one -- high-ranking soldier who values his country and his sacred honor more than his career and his pension.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Anonymous said...

Our generals don’t win wars. They build nations.

That is the most succinct and accurate statement about what is wrong with modern America's foreign policy.

filthykafir (and Baron): There's a Russian proverb to perfectly explain what you both said in the comments directly above mine: Рыба гниет с головы (the fish rots from the head).

Rachel Ann said...

As an Orthodox Jew I find it burning the public destruction of someone else's holy book disgusting. That said, I find it more disgusting that anyone would try and limit the right to do so, especially by threatening violence, or acceding to that potential violence. However disgusting it is, sane people would respond with perhaps anger, but not violence.

Any sane Muslim would be more offended by the idea that they unable to take a slight without acting in violence than to the violence itself.

I agree with you.
Way beyond my taste, but the right is there. Thank G-d for that!

Anonymous said...

Baron stated: "I would like to see one -- mind you, one -- high-ranking soldier who values his country and his sacred honor more than his career and his pension."
*********The Baron and many here are familiar with this one, but his name must become familiar to all ..........>
Lt. Col. Allen West "If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through Hell with a gasoline can . . . There is not a person in this room I would not sacrifice my life for." -Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Allen B. West
****
In a strange twisted way, the current misguided effort to win hearts and minds instead of fighting a war to win has exposed vast numbers of our country's finest to the reality of Islam, Islamic warfare/stealth jihad /terror/ subversion inherent to Islamic culture. The scale of exposure will yield scores like Allen West, those who simply cannot resist the call to serve. Beck's Restoring Honor rally on 8/28 (was a single imam present?), the July anti-GZ mosque rally, and Saturday's 9/11 Ground Z anti-mosque rally demonstrate exponentially swelling numbers of individuals waking to this reality. ISNA, CAIR and company are in defensive mode. The tide is visibly turning.

Anonymous said...

What does our military stand for? Does it stand for protecting Islam from insult? Or does it stand for protecting the rights and the well-being of American citizens?

Obvious strawman you have constructed there. Petraeus said nothing about not allowing the book burning to go on, he just advised against it. For obvious reason, in fact. His troops are invaders to a Muslim nation, have killed their people, and raped their sovereignty.

"Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence,"

He's trying to prevent terrorist from gaining more followers by using this Quran burning as propaganda material. God knows he doesn't want his soldiers having to face more danger in an already hostile territory.

God damn the good general for looking out for his troops who don't want to be fighting in the first place!

I'm going to go to the book burning, and I'll be throwing my bible onto the pile.

Mother Effingby said...

I was originally against this, opting instead for the reading aloud of the more obnoxious passages. However, there is precedence for this act within the new testament, when converts came to Christ they burned their satanic witch craft scrolls and other pagan writings and embraced the faith fully. The people at Faith-freedom think it is a good idea to burn the koran. I think a combination of a full reading of the violent texts and a burning, and a blatant offering to Muslims to turn from this satanic cult might be the best thing. A call to repentance and acceptance of God's son and His sacrifice for sins is truly the most Christian thing to do.
If you all remember several years ago, when a Muslim lied to Time and said he'd witnessed a soldier flushing a Koran into a toilet...there were riots. Petraeus is so very wrong on this. Fortitude and certitude are what we need. This is an opportunity to shame Muslims over these vile texts and to call them to account. Don't flinch. Every little thing we do offends them, anyway. It is why we are called filthy infidels and dogs and pigs and apes. We can't redeem ourselves no matter what, and they only want us to convert, anyway.

Baron Bodissey said...

Perhaps I should have made my point in a different way.

- - - -

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said he is outraged by the pastor’s decision to burn Mein Kampf, which he said could “endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Normandy.”

General George S. Patton called it “outrageous” and “insulting to Nazis.”

“It’s also insulting to our soldiers in terms of what they stand for and what their commitment is to this country and to the Nazis in this country,” Patton told ABC News.

- - - -

He’s trying to prevent Nazism from gaining more followers by using this Mein Kampf burning as propaganda material. God knows he doesn’t want his soldiers having to face more danger in an already hostile territory.

Anonymous said...

"General George Patton, rather than a lickspittle ..."


Oh, please, Patton. He was a wealthy, military man, who looked down on the common people. In fact, he worked FOR the Elite, NOT for The PEople.

It was he, that years earlier, turned on the WWI Protesters, stting on the White House lawn. These ver Vets wnating their pensions. What did Patton do, He was ordered to rout the Protesters out, and he came at them on horseback and with a sword. JUSt like the Cossacks did in Russia.

Patton did well for himself, in WWII, but he proved to have feet of clay, also...in many ways.

Anonymous said...

The Nazis burned books and also killed six million Jews. No sane person would question that killing six million Jews was worse by an indescribably large margin, yet we also bring up how they burned books, because it makes them seem even more like deranged, brainwashed barbarians.

Islamic extremists burn the US flag and also flew planes into skyscrapers, but we still care when they burn the flag. We care a lot. For many Americans, when they see people in other countries burning the US flag, it makes them think that these are the people who fly planes into skyscrapers.

The US bombs villages (much as we try not to) and, in a recent development, burns the Koran...

parabarbarian said...

I have to admit that on a relative scale the typical muslim is a pretty pathetic creature. I'd like to feel sorry for them but it's really hard to be charitable toward people who revel in their own ignorance.

I'm not very likely burn a Quran unless it was really cold, the gas was off and I need to start a fire in the old fireplace. I guarantee that if things really get that bad, I'll burn every Quran, Bible and Book of Mormom I can lay my hands on long before I'll destroy something useful like Gray's Anatomy, Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers or the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

Anonymous said...


Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said he is outraged by the pastor’s decision to burn Mein Kampf, which he said could “endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Normandy.”


False analogy. Maybe if we were at war with the entire middle east and every other Muslim nation, you might have a point. We are at war with extremist organizations which could recruit Joe-Muslim into joining their forces when they see the invaders are spitting on their beliefs.


Here's a better analogy. I'm in your blog, arguing with you about this. You and your frequent readers share like-minded beliefs, I assume. For the most part, we're just arguing about Petraeus and politics, but then I bring up the Bible burning comment. I wonder how many people who read that will side with you on the basis of that insult. It's similar to the situation in Afghan. The US is bringing in stability and making the place better. One callous remark could spoil the whole point of an argument. This event, especially since it's one the most holy day in the year for Muslims, might just cause the resentment to continue for another few expensive years.

I'm not against censorship in the least amount. If you want to burn a Quran, fine, go ahead. All you're doing is being a vindictive prat and burning bridges. Tell me what you gain with this book burning?

Anonymous said...

Kekeke said: His troops are invaders to a Muslim nation, have killed their people, and raped their sovereignty.

Are you joking here? Raped their sovereignty? That's really rich. Afghanistan has never had proper sovereignty in the Western sense of the word. That country has always been ruled and invaded because the people are too spineless to stand up for themselves due to their wretched "religion" (I used that term loosely). I feel sorry for them, to be honest.

Anonymous said...

Are you joking here? Raped their sovereignty? That's really rich.
I'm channeling Baron here. How is my rhetoric compared to his?

That country has always been ruled and invaded because the people are too spineless to stand up for themselves due to their wretched "religion" (I used that term loosely). I feel sorry for them, to be honest.

I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if this was '89 when the Mujahideen just finished throwing the Soviet Union out of their country.

You don't gain yourself any brownie points by feigning sympathy just after mocking their religion in the previous sentence.

bill said...

my comment is in your tip jar

stay well,

-bp

EscapeVelocity said...

I would like to see one -- mind you, one -- high-ranking soldier who values his country and his sacred honor more than his career and his pension. --- Baron

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Ret.

Siegetower said...

Kekeke, don't fall into the propaganda line of the Muslim Brotherhood about 'raping the sovereignty' of a muslim country.

The fact is that in 2001/2002 the domestic Afghan opposition, called the Northern Alliance, accepted the US offer to join in toppling the Taliban theocracy. The US and others provided Special Forces and air power, the Northern Alliance did the muscle on the ground. Following on from this the interim/provisional government invited the United States/NATO/Australia etc to deploy more substantial conventional military deployments into Afghanistan.

It really gets my goat up to see people, both freedom loving and leftist totalitarian alike describe the international effort as an 'invasion'. It was not, it was an invitation.

filthykafir said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
filthykafir said...

His [General Petraeus’s] troops are invaders to a Muslim nation, have killed their people, and raped their sovereignty.

Goodness, Kekeke, you seem to have lost sight of why we Americans put troops in Afghanistan, in the first place. On September 11, 2001, you’ll remember, nineteen devout, Mohammed-believing-and-following Muslims (not members of some tiny unimportant sect, but mainstream Muslims acting in full accord with the standard Islamic doctrine of jihad), slaughtered 3,000 American civilians, for no reason other than nearly all the 3,000 were kuffar, non-Muslims, and Mohammed did really instruct his followers to kill non-believers wherever we might be found. The brains of the outfit – the devout Muslim Osama – and the funders and trainers for the jihad operation – devout Mohammedans of Al-Qaeda – were being hosted by the ever-hospitable practicing Muslims who called themselves Taliban – then-rulers of Muslim Afghanistan. George W. Bush sent in American troops with two goals in mind – only one of which was morally, intellectually, or practically defensible.

First, we wanted to militarily defeat the jihad-waging Taliban, dislodge them from power, kill as many of them as possible, and effectively rid Afghanistan and the world of their baleful influence. Sensible goal.

Second, stupidly, George hoped to civilize the retarded Islamic Afghani tribes and make good democrats (or Democrats) of them. As they are first and foremost Muslims, followers of the totalitarian teachings of the warlord Mohammed, that was never a reasonable or, even, an attainable goal. That’s why we’re still stuck there and party to the disgusting spectacle of American soldiers fighting and dying to establish and maintain the odious fascist Sharia. (The current Afghan constitution forbids passage of any law that conflicts with said Sharia.)

The unfortunate, squandered troops of General Petraeus did not “invade a Muslim country;” they retaliated against an unprovoked jihad attack and could have, under appropriate civilian and military leadership, insured a measure of continued security for Americans against jihad emanating from north of the Khyber. Those troops have killed very few non-combatant Afghanis. Nearly all the civilian casualties in Afghanistan have been victims of the Taliban jihadis we long ago should have destroyed. The erstwhile Taliban rulers of Afghanistan surrendered their own nation’s sovereignty by fostering the attacks upon ours. Three strikes Kekeke; you’re out.

Zenster said...

Kekeke: His [Petraeus'] troops are invaders to a Muslim nation, have killed their people, and raped their sovereignty.

TYRANNIES HAVE NO SOVEREIGN RIGHTS.

Jewish Odysseus said...

It is EXTREMELY SHOCKING that a US General (who takes an oath "to defend the Constitution") AND the US State Department both feel compelled to denounce an act by patriotic Americans TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. WTF does the State Dept have to do WITH AMERICANS IN AMERICA? Aren't they tasked with dealings with "foreign countries"? Of course, to the Obamunists, real Americans ARE foreigners, so I guess that fits.

This is a very worrying sign of a pre-dhimmified attitude by the General. He is much too smart to confuse cause and effect like this, but I will help him out like a 3d grader: "General Petraeus, Muslims are not attacking your troops in Afghanistan because some Americans in Florida are burning a koran. No, some Americans in Florida are burning a koran because Muslims have been butchering Americans for ~40 years. Got it?"

Gee, do you think that medical team slaughtered in Afghanistan a few weeks ago had also provoked their own murders? I'm sure the Florida koran-burning was foremost in the killers' minds...

gsw said...

The hundreds of Afghans, who burned American flags and shouted “Death to America,” ignited a protest today by a Florida pastor who retaliated by burning a copy of the Quoran outside his church.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said it was 'a good thing' the preacher did this, as this Anti-American feeling could otherwise be increasing the threat from his troops.

There - that's much better.

Kaffir_Kanuck said...

When Muslims burn bibles, albeit they're usually in Churches, and sometimes there are Christians in the Church burning as well, they don't get a fraction of the press this event is getting.

Stupid dhimmi press.

As for making things more difficult for us here in KAF, if it aint' this event, it'll just be some other reason for these backassward heathens to chant Death to Canadians/Americans/Great Satan/etc...

Zenster said...

As a dedicated bibliophile, I feel obliged to go on the record yet one more time about how reluctant I am to encourage book burning.

But let there be no dispute that it is a person's most basic right to burn whatever book they own whenever they want to.

That said, there remains one unequivocal fact:

THERE ARE FEW MORE EXPLICIT AND NON-LETHAL WAYS OF INFORMING ISLAM JUST HOW CLEARLY IT SKIRTS TOTAL ANNIHILATION THAN BY BURNING THE QUR'AN.

Burning this piece of ideological filth is a direct message and straight-forward object lesson regarding what all Muslims should anticipate if they refuse to abandon jihad.

BURNING QUR'ANS BURNING MUSLIM CITIES

Either Muslims begin to make this connection or understand that they will have no reason to complain when Damascus, Islamabad, Ankara, Kabul, Tripoli, Riyadh, Baghdad, Tehran, Cairo and other Muslim cities go up in flames.

In my own mind, it is not a question of "if" but when this will happen. The only real question is whether conventional or unconventional weapons will be involved.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Some years back some Hamas, Hezbollah, or Fatah thugs took over a Christian church. I don't recall where now. Lebanon, Temple Mount? "Time" reported that the Muslims were using the church as a latrine and using pages from the Bible as toilet paper.

The flow of outrageous acts is monumentally, overwhelmingly, spectacularly from Muslim areas to Western areas. 9/11, embassy takeover, Rushdie fatwa, heroin traffic from Afghanistan, Iranian IEDs, Pakistani collusion with Taliban, Saudi financing of wahabbis/terrorists around the world, Muslim lawfare in the U.S., constant chivvying about expanding realm of shariah, urban riots, high rates of crime against native populations, etc. We're supposed to lap that up with a spoon I presume, and positively recoil in horror at the prospect of doing something to disturb the delicate Muslim sensibilities?

I think it's a great idea to burn the Koran. Loathsome book. Loathsome cult.

Zenster said...

Col. B. Bunny: Some years back some Hamas, Hezbollah, or Fatah thugs took over a Christian church.

That was just the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Merely one of Christianity's most holy shrines. Some excerpts from the linked article:

On April 2, 2002, as Israel implemented its Defensive Shield operation to combat the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, in Bethlehem "a number of terrorists took over St. Mary's Church grounds and...held the priest and a number of nuns there against their will. The terrorists used the Church as a firing position, from which they shot at IDF soldiers in the area.

… Three Armenian monks, who had been held hostage by the Palestinian gunmen inside Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, managed to flee the church area via a side gate yesterday morning.

… They told army officers the gunmen had stolen gold and other property, including crucifixes and prayer books, and had caused damage....

… One of the monks, Narkiss Korasian, later told reporters: "They stole everything, they opened the doors one by one and stole everything....They stole our prayer books and four crosses...they didn't leave anything.

… Israeli officials said the monks said the gunmen had also begun beating and attacking clergymen

… The Palestinian gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity seized church stockpiles of food and "ate like greedy monsters" until the food ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They also guzzled beer, wine, and Johnnie Walker scotch that they found in priests' quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol.

… Catholic priests said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed. "Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold," said a Franciscan, the Rev. Nicholas Marquez from Mexico.

A problem that arose during the siege again shows Christian fear of Muslim domination. Two Palestinian gunmen in the church were killed, and the PA wanted to bury them in the basilica.


As a simple thought experiment, try to imagine the upshot of Christians doing the same thing in Mecca or Medina, or even just al Aqsa mosque.

Muslim screeching would be audible on the moon's surface.

When someone markets Qur'an toilet paper, I WILL BUY IT EXCLUSIVELY.


S said...

""mainstream Muslims acting in full accord with the standard Islamic doctrine of jihad), slaughtered 3,000 American civilians, for no reason other than nearly all the 3,000 were kuffar""


If the second plane had not been delayed the death count would have been much, much higher. If the attack timing was different also. And if the first pilot had aimed much lower down the death toll would have been much higher. And if the structer of those buildings had been different it also would have been higher.

Those building held up long enough to evacuate how many? And long enough for the people on the street to run. If they had collapsed sideways instead of down into their own footprint, and both had been hit within minutes, at a lower angle what would we be saying now?

Those building held 25,000 people each. That was the potential death count.

That was plan.

Zenster said...

S: Those buildings held 25,000 people each. That was the potential death count.

That was the plan.


Thank you for making sure this important point did not elude notice. Yet another grim anniversary approaches without adequate resolution of this atrocity.

NEVER FORGET. NEVER FORGIVE.

Protestant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Protestant said...

Kekeke wrote:
"The Nazis...killed six million Jews"

Nope.

This topic is still too hyperpoliticized for fair hearing. But honest scholarship has long put the number of Jewish dead of all causes in all of Europe 1940-1945 at 1.5 million, probably not over 1-million in the German zone of occupation. Number killed in gas-chambers: Zero. (Also long established).

http://www.codoh.com/revision.html [reading material]
http://www.codoh.com/video/treblinka.mpg [short video]