U.S. soldier uses Quran for target practice; military apologizes

[Reason]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A soldier used the Quran -- Islam's holy book -- for target practice, forcing the chief U.S. commander in Baghdad to issue a formal apology on Saturday.

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, flanked by leaders from Radhwaniya in the western outskirts of Baghdad, apologized for the staff sergeant who was a sniper section leader assigned to the headquarters of the 64th Armored Regiment. He also read a letter of apology by the shooter.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.quran/index.html

[dalehileman]

Reason, perhaps you're attempting to demonstrate some sort of irony

[Reason]

Reason, perhaps you're attempting to demonstrate some sort of irony

Actually, no, I am presenting an absurdity: An entire country so steeped in superstition that damaging an object made of paper and leather creates an international incident.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

[Reason]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

It would be just as absurd if done with a bible in the U.S. and all the fundies got their panties in a wad. Here's a link to something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

[general_koffi]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

Such an insult against Islam.

Hamas bombs mosque (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ar%7Cen&u=http://fpnp.net/arabic/%3Faction%3Ddetail%26id%3D10808&tbb=1) :rolleyes:

My newsreader gets this from some obscure Arabic site. There's no uproar in the mainstream media.

But dear lord... An American soldier shoots a Quran. Shock Horror.

I wonder how many Qurans Hamas destroyed...

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

It would be just as absurd if done with a bible in the U.S. and all the fundies got their panties in a wad. Here's a link to something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

And you find it outrageous for people to get bothered because something they hold precious is insulted. For your good I hope you never get your hands on my mom's photo...

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

Such an insult against Islam.

Hamas bombs mosque (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ar%7Cen&u=http://fpnp.net/arabic/%3Faction%3Ddetail%26id%3D10808&tbb=1) :rolleyes:

My newsreader gets this from some obscure Arabic site. There's no uproar in the mainstream media.

But dear lord... An American soldier shoots a Quran. Shock Horror.

I wonder how many Qurans Hamas destroyed...

Ok, an extremist with which an immense majority of muslims disagree with bombs a mosque, and so you feel all muslims should be insulted. You somehow believe this makes sense. You got my attention −Fascinating!

[general_koffi]

Such an insult against Islam.

Hamas bombs mosque (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ar%7Cen&u=http://fpnp.net/arabic/%3Faction%3Ddetail%26id%3D10808&tbb=1) :rolleyes:

My newsreader gets this from some obscure Arabic site. There's no uproar in the mainstream media.

But dear lord... An American soldier shoots a Quran. Shock Horror.

I wonder how many Qurans Hamas destroyed...

Ok, an extremist with which an immense majority of muslims disagree with bombs a mosque, and so you feel all muslims should be insulted. You somehow believe this makes sense. You got my attention −Fascinating!

So one soldier shoots a Quran he probably bought himself, and all Muslims should feel insulted. :rolleyes:

Maybe I could understand if they bought the things in bulk and had all recruits shoot at them in their marksmanship tests.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Therefore the idea is: "I can insult the people I don't agree with, given that I buy the object of insult". O... k....

[Gamer4Fire]

Qurans as targets... I've never considered using a book, any book, for target practice. The entire idea of destroying a source of knowledge is anathema to me, so it never occurred to me that the bible or quran could be used in such a fashion. It looks like I have more experimenting to do.

Oh yeah, and screw the thin skinned losers who threaten war over a book. We burn our own flag here and we don't kill our citizens over it.

[premjan]

If the French were to burn the US flag, it might be an international incident I imagine.

[general_koffi]

Therefore the idea is: "I can insult the people I don't agree with, given that I buy the object of insult". O... k....

Yep. You don't believe in free speech?

I know he was a soldier, doing a job, and maybe what he did was unprofessional considering the military's PR campaign, but I don't think it was at all morally wrong it itself.

If the French were to burn the US flag, it might be an international incident I imagine.

"The French". What, you mean at the opening of their legislature, or something?

If a Frenchman did it, no one would give a shit. I'm sure it's happened already multiple times in anti-Iraq War marches in Paris, or "youth" riots.

Qurans as targets... I've never considered using a book, any book, for target practice. The entire idea of destroying a source of knowledge is anathema to me

The notion of "knowledge" is somewhat anathema to the Quran...

[Lógos Sokratikós]

If the French were to burn the US flag, it might be an international incident I imagine.

Vraiment.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

If a Frenchman did it, no one would give a shit.

You live in what world?

[premjan]

The Muslims are touchy about the Koran and about Muhammad. This is not really news to anyone. Either you put up with their outrage or try to stop stirring the pot even if inadvertently.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The muslim fanatics are primitive-minded people who still live in the bronze age, and therefore, in contrast to most muslims (who profess a religion I personally don't agree with BTW), kill others for what anyone else would consider trivial. Therefore it is the hallmark of superior intelligence to turn one's back on intelligent and constructive dialogue, insult them and provoke their ire for no reason other than "take that!" ? Gee whiz.

[ksen]

Such an insult against Islam.

Hamas bombs mosque (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ar%7Cen&u=http://fpnp.net/arabic/%3Faction%3Ddetail%26id%3D10808&tbb=1) :rolleyes:

My newsreader gets this from some obscure Arabic site. There's no uproar in the mainstream media.

But dear lord... An American soldier shoots a Quran. Shock Horror.

I wonder how many Qurans Hamas destroyed...

Ok, an extremist with which an immense majority of muslims disagree with bombs a mosque, and so you feel all muslims should be insulted. You somehow believe this makes sense. You got my attention −Fascinating!

How do you know an immense majority of muslims disagree with him? :huh:

[ksen]

The Muslims are touchy about the Koran and about Muhammad. This is not really news to anyone. Either you put up with their outrage or try to stop stirring the pot even if inadvertently.

I think that's a false dilemma.

What about bringing them forward into the 21st century?

[premjan]

Stirring the pot is not going to cause them to progress. Growth in economic status and political freedoms will do it over time.

[Gamer4Fire]

Qurans as targets... I've never considered using a book, any book, for target practice. The entire idea of destroying a source of knowledge is anathema to me

The notion of "knowledge" is somewhat anathema to the Quran...

So now I can experiment. I'm going to have to find out if I can get some detcord and c4 from the ordies.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Ok, an extremist with which an immense majority of muslims disagree with bombs a mosque, and so you feel all muslims should be insulted. You somehow believe this makes sense. You got my attention −Fascinating!

How do you know an immense majority of muslims disagree with him? :huh:

Muslims would want their mosques bombed? Seriously?

[ksen]

How do you know an immense majority of muslims disagree with him? :huh:

Muslims would want their mosques bombed? Seriously?

You've changed what you said. I'm sure no muslim wants their own mosque bombed. But I'm not convinced they have any such feeling about other muslims' mosques, i.e. sunnis caring that a shia mosque was blown up, etc.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Stirring the pot is not going to cause them to progress. Growth in economic status and political freedoms will do it over time.

And freedom of expression too. Freedom of expression will not survive if the fundamentalist sort are provoked with inane pissing contest style stunts such as the quran shooting. Carrying a big stick against the terrorists does not include peeing on the holy book. A major power (or any self-respecting country anyway) must make it's statements heard backed with "guts", not with insults. Regard the US occupation of Japan: it was done with respect and civility and still remains a fine example of world stewardship. The results were simply AMAZING and we can see them today.

[Adonael]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

QFT

It's also not very smart for the overall goal to win approval or at least lessen the hostility from the Muslim world.

[premjan]

Given that the US doesn't practice European-style secularism, it has to pay some lip service to preserving the sentiments of religions.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Muslims would want their mosques bombed? Seriously?

You've changed what you said. I'm sure no muslim wants their own mosque bombed. But I'm not convinced they have any such feeling about other muslims' mosques, i.e. sunnis caring that a shia mosque was blown up, etc.

No I did not. I said:

Ok, an extremist with which an immense majority of muslims disagree with bombs a mosque, and so you feel all muslims should be insulted. You somehow believe this makes sense. You got my attention −Fascinating!

"You've changed what you said" -that sure is some low quality discussion.

But I'm not convinced they have any such feeling about other muslims' mosques, i.e. sunnis caring that a shia mosque was blown up, etc.

Of course you're not convinced. You must think the worst of those you disagree with. Hardly an argument.

[Adonael]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

Such an insult against Islam.

Hamas bombs mosque (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ar%7Cen&u=http://fpnp.net/arabic/%3Faction%3Ddetail%26id%3D10808&tbb=1) :rolleyes:

My newsreader gets this from some obscure Arabic site. There's no uproar in the mainstream media.

But dear lord... An American soldier shoots a Quran. Shock Horror.

I wonder how many Qurans Hamas destroyed...

We should remember the context, folks. The Americans are an invading force of what is largely a Christian nation into a Muslim land. The Americans are trying to repair their relations with the Muslims and they have one of their own defacing the most sacred book of the Muslims. It's not the best course of action, wouldn't you say? Logos gave a good analogy that even the secularists should understand: the American constitution being defaced, by say, an invading Russian force.

[Underseer]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

It would be just as absurd if done with a bible in the U.S. and all the fundies got their panties in a wad. Here's a link to something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Piss Christ did get Christian panties in a collective wad. They used that as an argument for cutting funding of the arts for a very large number of artists because they were angry about Piss Christ. It was not enough to shut down that one artist, they wanted to shut down a very large number of artists in response to that one work of art.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

It would be just as absurd if done with a bible in the U.S. and all the fundies got their panties in a wad. Here's a link to something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Piss Christ did get Christian panties in a collective wad. They used that as an argument for cutting funding of the arts for a very large number of artists because they were angry about Piss Christ. It was not enough to shut down that one artist, they wanted to shut down a very large number of artists in response to that one work of art.

Let's put things in the right perspective.
1) One thing is Christians getting pissed because of the piss. Well, sure, you'd get pissed if someone -say- photoshopped your mom's photo (something insulting and very suggestive -use your imagination) and pasted it on the web;
2) and another is folks deluded enough to think the US Gov is a Christian thing (which I'm supposing).
Two different things.
Still, I don't think US Gov should finance stuff insulting any religion. A crucifix in piss is no way close to a sane, calm and rational interaction of ideas. What truth needs is dialogue, not piss.

[Bullmoose Too]

Reason, perhaps you're attempting to demonstrate some sort of irony

Actually, no, I am presenting an absurdity: An entire country so steeped in superstition that damaging an object made of paper and leather creates an international incident.

It is such as strange world we live in, isn't it?

Religion makes people crazy.

Adonael: Hoenstly I wouldn't care if the constitution was defaced by an invading army. I would be more concerned with removing the invading army from my homeland.

It would be unfortunate that a 200+ year historical document was destroyed.

[Reason]

It would be just as absurd if done with a bible in the U.S. and all the fundies got their panties in a wad. Here's a link to something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

And you find it outrageous for people to get bothered because something they hold precious is insulted. For your good I hope you never get your hands on my mom's photo...

Your mom is a real person, is she not? I know you are quite intelligent so I do not have to spell out the rest.

[Reason]

If the French were to burn the US flag, it might be an international incident I imagine.

Uh, you are kidding, right?

[Reason]

It would be just as absurd if done with a bible in the U.S. and all the fundies got their panties in a wad. Here's a link to something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Piss Christ did get Christian panties in a collective wad. They used that as an argument for cutting funding of the arts for a very large number of artists because they were angry about Piss Christ. It was not enough to shut down that one artist, they wanted to shut down a very large number of artists in response to that one work of art.

Uh, right, which is why I posted the link.

Ergo, let's hear some support for the poor fundies whose Holy Icons were insulted and denigrated by the piss-christ artist!

[sy2502]

We should remember the context, folks. The Americans are an invading force of what is largely a Christian nation into a Muslim land. The Americans are trying to repair their relations with the Muslims and they have one of their own defacing the most sacred book of the Muslims. It's not the best course of action, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, let's remember the context. Like the fact that countless Americans have died to preserve the freedom of speech and expression of every American. Like the fact that the soldier in question is willing to risk his life for his country and the freedom he represents. I would say he has earned the right to do what the hell he wants with the stupid book, any time he feels like it.

Logos gave a good analogy that even the secularists should understand: the American constitution being defaced, by say, an invading Russian force.
If the Russians invaded America, a Russian soldier shooting a copy of the Constitution would be the least of our problems. Get real!
Oh yeah, and I am sick to my stomach of these muslims who get all pissy about idiotic things like cartoons and what happens to a book, and don't bat an eyelash when thousands of people die in the name of their god. Where are their priorities?

[Sapho]

Therefore the idea is: "I can insult the people I don't agree with, given that I buy the object of insult". O... k....

Yes actually you can insult people, its not a crime, especially if you buy the object yourself. They really need to grow up, and so do the christians who complain about things like the piss christ and life of brian, they are all just such monumental wankers.

[Thor Q. Mada]

What is the problem?? I throw the bible in the garbage can in every hotelroom I find one.
I don't accept any books as "holy" because all man made. Buddhas teachings, the bible, everything I can get my hands on goes.
Please don't forget that these so called holy books have been used to justify countless murders and killings. I say to hell with them. Zero respect.

[Apostate1970]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

If a muslim came here, bought a copy of the constitution or the Bible and engaged in target practice with it, then that would be protected speech. Why is this speech not protected when it is the Quran? Is it because it's in a country whose people are predominantly Islamic? Is that a good enough reason? Our country is predominantly Christian but we allow Bible shooting. Is it because we were in a country that does not share our tradition of free speech? Is that a good enough reason? Do Americans, or anyone, give up their fundamental rights when they cross a border? Are Americans dying every day overseas to put in power governments that ignore speech rights? What if a muslim or, for that matter, anyone else not an American soldier had shot at a Quran? What would our policy be regarding how, say, the Iraqi government ought to treat that muslim if he were one of their own citizens? I don't know what our policy would be but I know what it ought to be. I also know that we have no business defending a government that would persecute such a person. So why do we persecute our own? Just because they are soldiers? Is that a good enough reason? Do we give up our free speech rights when we put on military uniform? When we put on the uniform we're fighting for those rights, so why should we have to give up the rights that we wish to fight for? And even if we do check the rights somehow, then to what extent? Presumably he was in military uniform using military ammunition, on military time, etc. to do this. That is arguably inexcusable, but let's say that he was not? What then?

Don't be a hypocrite or coward. Come on out and say that you think we should forbid Bible shooting, flag-burning, and any number of other speech acts too. That's the only logical conclusion of someone that would condemn this. My own recommendation is that Costa Rica is better off without you and that you need to go somewhere that they think more like you... I'll leave you to figure out which of the numerous Islamic countries you'd prefer to reside in.

I suspect that the soldier shooting at the Quran had read reports such as those that we can read here every day about the British teacher sentenced to death for allowing students to name a teddy bear Mohammed, about an Afghan journalist sentenced to death by the government we put in power for accessing materials on the internet that someone thought defamed Mohammed (Allah forbid he had accessed infidels.org!), about pink bunny puppets on children's shows rewriting history and teaching palestinian children to hate, about burning of embassies for a national making comic strips, and about killing of nuns for the making of factual historical comments by the pope... on and on and on... the litany is nearly inexhaustible. In light of all this I can hardly help but sympathize with the soldier. I think that "I hate you and all of you bitches and I don't care what you think!" is pretty accurate and justifiable. In fact it's just about what my reaction is too.

I can tell you this much. If this soldier is subjected to any further discipline or if America exhibits any more hypocrisy in this regards then I am probably going to head out, get myself a Quran, go to the local shooting range, and blow it the fruck away. Anyone here at infidels that is unwilling to do the same is a double-tongued, double-minded fool.

Fact: 20% of American muslims agree that "Suicide bombing is sometimes justified.".

You know what? I agree, only I think that we have different targets and motives in mind. :devil1:

[Adonael]

Yeah, let's remember the context. Like the fact that countless Americans have died to preserve the freedom of speech and expression of every American. Like the fact that the soldier in question is willing to risk his life for his country and the freedom he represents. I would say he has earned the right to do what the hell he wants with the stupid book, any time he feels like it. I'm not too sure how this responds to my point.

If the Russians invaded America, a Russian soldier shooting a copy of the Constitution would be the least of our problems. Get real!
What difference would that make? My argument does not depend on the ranking of problems.

[Salam]

Reason,
It's an insult. They could have used any other book. They could have used the US constitution, the Bible or Bush's photo. But they didn't. They used a Quran in an Islamic country. I think the guy who did it is a jerk, even if all you care for is the US, it obviously damages the US. Isn't it obvious?? It's practically an "I hate you and I don't care what you think, bitches" note.

If a muslim came here, bought a copy of the constitution or the Bible and engaged in target practice with it, then that would be protected speech. Why is this speech not protected when it is the Quran? Is it because it's in a country whose people are predominantly Islamic? Is that a good enough reason? Our country is predominantly Christian but we allow Bible shooting. Is it because we were in a country that does not share our tradition of free speech? Is that a good enough reason? Do Americans, or anyone, give up their fundamental rights when they cross a border? Are Americans dying every day overseas to put in power governments that ignore speech rights? What if a muslim or, for that matter, anyone else not an American soldier had shot at a Quran? What would our policy be regarding how, say, the Iraqi government ought to treat that muslim if he were one of their own citizens? I don't know what our policy would be but I know what it ought to be. I also know that we have no business defending a government that would persecute such a person. So why do we persecute our own? Just because they are soldiers? Is that a good enough reason? Do we give up our free speech rights when we put on military uniform? When we put on the uniform we're fighting for those rights, so why should we have to give up the rights that we wish to fight for? And even if we do check the rights somehow, then to what extent? Presumably he was in military uniform using military ammunition, on military time, etc. to do this. That is arguably inexcusable, but let's say that he was not? What then?

I suspect that the soldier shooting at the Quran had read reports such as those that we can read here every day about the British teacher sentenced to death for allowing students to name a teddy bear Mohammed, about an Afghan journalist sentenced to death by the government we put in power for accessing materials on the internet that someone thought defamed Mohammed (Allah forbid he had accessed infidels.org!), about pink bunny puppets on children's shows rewriting history and teaching palestinian children to hate, about burning of embassies for a national making comic strips, and about killing of nuns for the making of factual historical comments by the pope... on and on and on... the litany is nearly inexhaustible. In light of all this I can hardly help but sympathize with the soldier. I think that "I hate you and all of you bitches and I don't care what you think!" is pretty accurate and justifiable. In fact it's just about what my reaction is too.

I can tell you this much. If this soldier is subjected to any further discipline or if America exhibits any more hypocrisy in this regards then I am probably going to head out, get myself a Quran, go to the local shooting range, and blow it the fruck away.

Anyone here at infidels that is unwilling to do the same is a double-tongued, double-minded fool.

Fact: 20% of American muslims agree that "Suicide bombing is sometimes justified.".

You know what? I agree, only I think that we have different targets and motives in mind. :devil1:

When you go to a country, you must respect its law and culture while you are there.

[Apostate1970]

When you go to a country, you must respect its law and culture while you are there.

No.

It's one thing to obey the laws and culture, and another to respect it. You don't actually need to do either, though it's often advisable, especially in the Islamic world, to do the former (obey), though not the latter (respect). Not all laws or cultures are equal. A law or a culture that threatens with death, whipping, mutilation, imprisonment or any other punishment those who merely speak against false or unverifiable beliefs that they think are foolish or hurtful... that law and that culture is not worthy of respect and, by its actions, undermines the respect that any decent human being should have for it.

Are you a decent human being? You can't rightly say "Yes." if you disagree with this. But then you're perhaps just not decent at all and you approve, say, of the killing of those who speak against Mohammed? Perhaps you think that that's not ok in Britain but that it is ok elsewhere? But maybe you think things would be best if it were allowed in Britain? Personally I think its monstrous anywhere. Are you a monster?

The fact is that most of the muslim world is living somewhere between 300 and 700 years behind the euro-american world in terms of their political sensibilities, their per-capita scientific and artistic achievement, books published, literacy, etc., etc. We have to demand that they come into the contemporary world or else they'll drag us back to their world. I'm afraid that, as ugly as they may find that, it's Allah's own truth.

[Headache]

It was a stupid thing to do considering what he is and where he is.

In general, I don't understand why religion should get preferential treatment in any way shape or form. With all the bullshit coming from religious mouths, they want special treatment? It's amazing that we are willing to give it to them. The real answer to the complaints by any muslim should have been: "It's your problem deal with it. I'll make sure he'll use both the Quran, the bible and the Torah next time! Have a nice day!"

[Lógos Sokratikós]

And you find it outrageous for people to get bothered because something they hold precious is insulted. For your good I hope you never get your hands on my mom's photo...

Your mom is a real person, is she not? I know you are quite intelligent so I do not have to spell out the rest.

You're right, you don't. It makes no difference. Respect and tolerance were still virtues the last time I checked, and insulting people is the antithesis of peaceful social coexistence.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Therefore the idea is: "I can insult the people I don't agree with, given that I buy the object of insult". O... k....

Yes actually you can insult people, its not a crime, especially if you buy the object yourself. They really need to grow up, and so do the christians who complain about things like the piss christ and life of brian, they are all just such monumental wankers.

In my view, people who don't care about others, people for whom basic respect and tolerance for others' lifestyles are the wankers. And yes, monumental!

What difference would it have made if Lewis and Clark would have gone to the indians, accepted the pipe of peace and then courteously dipped it in fresh warm urine. Talk about emotional intelligence... But of course, our soldiers can shoot the Quran, after all, we have the bigger guns! Aren't we the apex of civilization!

[joemailman]

These people are children insulting children. They live in their own world of fantasy and make-believe where the "king of the hill" is in control. The only problem is that they will eventually kill each other with their sticks and stones.:eek:

[Underseer]

Piss Christ did get Christian panties in a collective wad. They used that as an argument for cutting funding of the arts for a very large number of artists because they were angry about Piss Christ. It was not enough to shut down that one artist, they wanted to shut down a very large number of artists in response to that one work of art.

Let's put things in the right perspective.
1) One thing is Christians getting pissed because of the piss. Well, sure, you'd get pissed if someone -say- photoshopped your mom's photo (something insulting and very suggestive -use your imagination) and pasted it on the web;
2) and another is folks deluded enough to think the US Gov is a Christian thing (which I'm supposing).
Two different things.
Still, I don't think US Gov should finance stuff insulting any religion. A crucifix in piss is no way close to a sane, calm and rational interaction of ideas. What truth needs is dialogue, not piss.

If someone did that to a picture of my mother, I might get angry at the artist (or amused to be honest), but I would not start working to pull funding for the arts in general in retaliation. The reaction was all out of proportion with what happened, which was my point.

[Apostate1970]

Respect and tolerance were still virtues the last time I checked, and insulting people is the antithesis of peaceful social coexistence.

Condemning people to physical punishments or even forced apologies merely for speaking disrespectfully against beliefs (especially if they are preposterously foolish and superstitious ones that their proponents want to impose on the rest of us) is no way to encourage respect or tolerance... quite the contrary, nothing could undermine it more. And this is doubly true when the speech acts that are being physically punished are responses to prior physical provocations.

What part of "free speech" don't you understand?

Why don't you wake up and get your head around what's really going on in this world? As I already said, I think you need to leave Costa Rica and go live in the Islamic world... maybe try Egypt or Algeria to warm up... then you can proceed on to Iran or Pakistan or any number of other places. I'm dead serious. Go! Get out! We don't want you in the western world! You don't speak for us when you don't let us speak! Leave! Now!

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Respect and tolerance were still virtues the last time I checked, and insulting people is the antithesis of peaceful social coexistence.

Condemning people to physical punishments or even forced apologies merely for speaking disrespectfully against beliefs (especially if they are preposterously foolish and superstitious ones that their proponents want to impose on the rest of us) is no way to encourage respect or tolerance... quite the contrary, nothing could undermine it more. And this is doubly true when the speech acts that are being physically punished are responses to prior physical provocations.

What part of "free speech" don't you understand?


What part do I not understand? I understand it completely, sir. You, I or anybody else can state whatever we want. But as a G.I. you represent your country, not yourself.


Why don't you wake up and get your head around what's really going on in this world? As I already said, I think you need to leave Costa Rica and go live in the Islamic world... maybe try Egypt or Algeria to warm up... then you can proceed on to Iran or Pakistan or any number of other places.

Oh, you mean I have to get as irate as you to be able to understand your position. Well isn't that a balanced and rational view.


I'm dead serious. Go! Get out! We don't want you in the western world! You don't speak for us when you don't let us speak! Leave! Now!

You're dead irate, is what you are. And as virulent as any Jerry Falwell. It's a bit funny how you're now kicking me out of the Western World. "A bit" because mostly it's a sad, sad sight.

[sy2502]

Yes actually you can insult people, its not a crime, especially if you buy the object yourself. They really need to grow up, and so do the christians who complain about things like the piss christ and life of brian, they are all just such monumental wankers.

In my view, people who don't care about others, people for whom basic respect and tolerance for others' lifestyles are the wankers. And yes, monumental!

In case you are not up to speed with current events, Muslim countries do NOT respect diversity, do NOT allow freedom of religion, do NOT tolerate people with different values or beliefs. They keep demanding respect from others, but are unwilling to give the same respect. If a western woman goes to Saudi Arabia, are they going to let her walk around by herself or, god forbid, drive a car because she subscribes to different culture and values? Hell no! Did the Talibans respect the different beliefs of the Hazaras when they bombed their Buddah statues to the ground? Those people have no right to expect anything they aren't willing to give.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Ok, I give up... Piss the crosses, target the qurans. I'm just happy I can vote.

[Avatar]

What the soldier did was thoughtless and probably pretty stupid. He was out of line, and pretty much deserved what he got.

Demanding a harsh punishment for him is also out of line and out or porportion to the offense. At best he comitted vandalism. If the book was originally his, then he was just stupid. Iraq getting hysterical over this is at least as stupid, and does not do Islam any favors.

[Manwe]

As much as you may dislike it free speech is free speech. If he was off duty he had every right to do what he did. If you want to ban free speech just say so.

[premjan]

It was free speech but effectively endangered the US mission so it is no wonder he was shipped home. Maybe he wanted to go home at that. Islam is not tolerant of minorities, but that has to be addressed in a separate forum, not like this.

[sy2502]

At best he comitted vandalism.
Since when does destroying your personal property amount to vandalism?

[Zindiiq]

Yeah, it is freedom of expression, but what was the intent behind it? (I don't know enough of the details to know.) If someone destroys a Quran, Bible, or whatever other symbol in the privacy of their own home or on their own time away from those who might be offended, no big deal. Hell, I've done things like that before. But if the destruction of some symbol held sacred by a group of people is done publicly as a deliberate act of provocation with the intent to elicit a negative response, then that is another matter. I have no need to insult someone's sensibilities for no reason so I will not go to the Salt Lake City and publicly destroy a copy of the Book of Mormon, or to Jerusalem and publicly destroy a copy of the Torah, or Iraq and publicly destroy a copy of the Quran, or to the Vatican and rip up a copy of the Bible, or on Saturday Night Live and rip up a picture of the pope. These are deliberate acts of provocation meant only to elicit a negative reaction. They serve no purpose other than to offend for no reason. Out of respect for fellow human beings, because they are fellow human beings and we are all living in this world together, I do not believe there is a need to desecrate what they hold dear for absolutely no reason other than to offend them.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

What the soldier did was thoughtless and probably pretty stupid. He was out of line, and pretty much deserved what he got.

Demanding a harsh punishment for him is also out of line and out or porportion to the offense. At best he comitted vandalism. If the book was originally his, then he was just stupid. Iraq getting hysterical over this is at least as stupid, and does not do Islam any favors.

Excellent post.
It's much more balanced than what the "what you believe is false, here, let me smear your symbols with poo" crowd is saying.

[ksen]

At best he comitted vandalism.
Since when does destroying your personal property amount to vandalism?

Avatar didn't claim that destroying your own property amounted to vandalism.

[arricchio]

It's not just the military, Bush (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24724080/) apologized to the Iraqi government this morning.

Regardless of what you think about the appropriateness of the punishment, you have know that if you're the enlisted man that your commander in chief has to apologize to a foreign government for, your ass as pretty much grass.

[sy2502]

Yeah, it is freedom of expression, but what was the intent behind it? (I don't know enough of the details to know.) If someone destroys a Quran, Bible, or whatever other symbol in the privacy of their own home or on their own time away from those who might be offended, no big deal. Hell, I've done things like that before. But if the destruction of some symbol held sacred by a group of people is done publicly as a deliberate act of provocation with the intent to elicit a negative response, then that is another matter. I have no need to insult someone's sensibilities for no reason so I will not go to the Salt Lake City and publicly destroy a copy of the Book of Mormon or to Jerusalem and publicly destroy a copy of the Torah, or Iraq and publicly destroy a copy of the Quran, or to the Vatican and rip of a copy of the Bible, or on Saturday Night Live and rip of a picture of the pope. These are deliberate acts of provocation are meant only to elicit a negative reaction. They serve no purpose other than to offend for no reason. Out of respect for fellow human beings, because they are fellow human beings and we are all living in this world together, I do not believe there is a need to desecrate what they hold dear for absolutely no reason other than to offend them.
This soldier was shooting a book for himself, he was not doing an official action requested by the government of the US. Whatever his intentions by shooting that book, he was perfectly in his rights to do so and no apology is needed. If I give the finger to some idiot driver on the freeway, my country doesn't have to apologize to the idiot's country in my behalf. The muslims are simply trying to pick a fight, and they have learned that leveraging the political correctness of other countries, they can get somewhere. The fact they don't subscribe to any political correctness, nor tolerance, nor respect apparently is lost somewhere.

[Zindiiq]

Giving the finger to someone in traffic is not a proper analogy as you are not desecrating anything. Further, I made no mention of apology. I actually have no opinion on that. If the the US military or government didn't apologize, it wouldn't matter to me. What I am talking about is brazenly desecrating something that someone else holds dear for no good reason. I may disagree with or have no respect for something that someone else holds dear, but I am not going to destroy it (even if I am within my rights to do so), because I have respect for the other person as a human being.

As far as being "perfectly within his rights" to use the Quran for target practice, I will have to check up on that and get back to you. I will read up on military code of conduct and if I find that a soldier, on company time (so to speak), is well within his rights to use sacred symbols for target practice I will concede your point.

[premjan]

The US is the one that invaded Iraq - now I think they have to take it easy if they want to save themselves money, get good PR, and get out quickly. No point in pouring oil on the flames.

[Gamer4Fire]

Giving the finger to someone in traffic is not a proper analogy as you are not desecrating anything.

It is physically impossible to desecrate anything because there is no such thing as "teh holy".

[arricchio]

Yeah, it is freedom of expression, but what was the intent behind it? (I don't know enough of the details to know.) If someone destroys a Quran, Bible, or whatever other symbol in the privacy of their own home or on their own time away from those who might be offended, no big deal. Hell, I've done things like that before. But if the destruction of some symbol held sacred by a group of people is done publicly as a deliberate act of provocation with the intent to elicit a negative response, then that is another matter. I have no need to insult someone's sensibilities for no reason so I will not go to the Salt Lake City and publicly destroy a copy of the Book of Mormon or to Jerusalem and publicly destroy a copy of the Torah, or Iraq and publicly destroy a copy of the Quran, or to the Vatican and rip of a copy of the Bible, or on Saturday Night Live and rip of a picture of the pope. These are deliberate acts of provocation are meant only to elicit a negative reaction. They serve no purpose other than to offend for no reason. Out of respect for fellow human beings, because they are fellow human beings and we are all living in this world together, I do not believe there is a need to desecrate what they hold dear for absolutely no reason other than to offend them.
This soldier was shooting a book for himself, he was not doing an official action requested by the government of the US. Whatever his intentions by shooting that book, he was perfectly in his rights to do so and no apology is needed. If I give the finger to some idiot driver on the freeway, my country doesn't have to apologize to the idiot's country in my behalf. The muslims are simply trying to pick a fight, and they have learned that leveraging the political correctness of other countries, they can get somewhere. The fact they don't subscribe to any political correctness, nor tolerance, nor respect apparently is lost somewhere.

It's not the same thing. You're actions as an individual on a freeway in your own country are not held to the same expectations as a soldier representing your country in a foreign land. A Muslim land at that.

Like I said, if you are a grunt on active duty and you do something so bad that the Commander in Chief of all U.S Forces feels he needs to apologize to a foreign head of state for - I don't care what it is - you are toast.

Unless of course you happen to be a member of the Bush administration (looking at you Rumsfield) or a high ranking Army officer (yeah you, General Sanchez) then you get to skate.

[Zindiiq]

Giving the finger to someone in traffic is not a proper analogy as you are not desecrating anything.

It is physically impossible to desecrate anything because there is no such thing as "teh holy".Replace the word 'desecrate' with 'destroy', 'ruin', or whatever other appropriate descriptor, then. By the way, as an atheist, I agree with you that there is nothing holy. But there are other people who believe in things holy and symbolize objects as holy.

At any rate, my argument is meant generally and extends to anything that holds some sort of special meaning to someone, be it considered holy or otherwise. Could be (as some random examples) a bitter spouse ripping up his/her the wedding picture to spite the other, a group of kids from one school defacing the mascot of another school, the breaking of a lawn ornament, the knocking over a grave stone, etc.

[Gamer4Fire]

It is physically impossible to desecrate anything because there is no such thing as "teh holy".Replace the word 'desecrate' with 'destroy', 'ruin', or whatever other appropriate descriptor, then. By the way, as an atheist, I agree with you that there is nothing holy. But there are other people who believe in things holy and symbolize objects as holy.

At any rate, my argument is meant generally and extends to anything that holds some sort of special meaning to someone, be it considered holy or otherwise. Could be (as some random examples) a bitter spouse ripping up his/her the wedding picture to spite the other, a group of kids from one school defacing the mascot of another school, the breaking of a lawn ornament, the knocking over a grave stone, etc.

But in all of those cases the object didn't belong to them. His quran, he can destroy it if he wants. If I went out and bought wholy underwear from the Mormons and decided to torch them, who is anyone to tell me that I'm wrong?

[Apostate1970]

Ok, I give up... Piss the crosses, target the qurans. I'm just happy I can vote.

Hallelujah!!! Hallelujah!!!

:notworthy:

Welcome!!!

>:D<

:p

No, but seriously, I think there comes a time when something like that is just about the only attitude you can have.

Note please, however the recent election history of Algeria, whose people democratically elected to majority parliament power a party whose chief platform plank was the scrapping of the constitution and the establishing of religious rule. Guess what the leaders in place already did. They nullified the election. They did not do so because they had any legal or constitutional mandate to do so... they did not. They did so to protect the constitution against itself and the basic rights of many people which would otherwise be trampled on. Of course there may also have been an element of personal interest and a desire to protect their power, but attributing this as a sufficient motive would seem to be inconsistent with the leaderships' previous actions. Time will tell whether or not it was the right thing to do. But personally I think it sets a horrible precedent and lends credence to the words of Ahmadinejahd that "Democracy has failed.". At least in Algeria he seems to be right. I think it would have been at least as justifiable for the election results to be upheld and for vast numbers or Algerians then to have fled and possibly to have sought political asylum in other countries. In other words, line up on opposite sides of the Mediterranean.

My point? No, even voting is not always enough. Sometimes it seems that you actually have to piss the crosses or whatever. Please do it before it gets to the point that "democracy fails" in your own country.

random fact: Egypt, one of the more progressive and modernized muslim countries, requires its citizens to carry cards identifying their religion... only certain religions are allowed and others are not, and I don't believe that "atheist" is allowed. Someone who knows more or is willing to research this can help me here. Anyone asking me to carry a card like that here is going to.... well... I don't know what I'd do... maybe I'd just tattoo my own forehead "Unbeliever" or something. :Cheeky:

I really loathe calling a whole country (as opposed to a person) "Islamic", just like I detest calling the U.S. "Christian". But the fact is that, while the latter appellation doesn't hold for the U.S., the former does for many countries in the world.

[Apostate1970]

It's not just the military, Bush (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24724080/) apologized to the Iraqi government this morning.

Regardless of what you think about the appropriateness of the punishment, you have know that if you're the enlisted man that your commander in chief has to apologize to a foreign government for, your ass as pretty much grass.

That's the thing: Bush didn't have to apologize.

[Apostate1970]

Yeah, it is freedom of expression, but what was the intent behind it? (I don't know enough of the details to know.) If someone destroys a Quran, Bible, or whatever other symbol in the privacy of their own home or on their own time away from those who might be offended, no big deal. Hell, I've done things like that before. But if the destruction of some symbol held sacred by a group of people is done publicly as a deliberate act of provocation with the intent to elicit a negative response, then that is another matter. I have no need to insult someone's sensibilities for no reason so I will not go to the Salt Lake City and publicly destroy a copy of the Book of Mormon, or to Jerusalem and publicly destroy a copy of the Torah, or Iraq and publicly destroy a copy of the Quran, or to the Vatican and rip up a copy of the Bible, or on Saturday Night Live and rip up a picture of the pope. These are deliberate acts of provocation meant only to elicit a negative reaction. They serve no purpose other than to offend for no reason. Out of respect for fellow human beings, because they are fellow human beings and we are all living in this world together, I do not believe there is a need to desecrate what they hold dear for absolutely no reason other than to offend them.

No, that's wrong. Every single one of them is densely loaded with meaning, serves to communicate that meaning to any reasonable person, and promote positive social change... it's just the the intended recipients are opposed to the thought that that change is positive... but that's the whole point and is why they are the recipients. Doing these kinds of things is, therefore, not an act of disrespect, but an act of respect in the sense that it credits the intended audience with enough reasonableness to understand the communicative purpose. Maybe that's just too much respect?

[Sapho]

If a muslim came here, bought a copy of the constitution or the Bible and engaged in target practice with it, then that would be protected speech. Why is this speech not protected when it is the Quran? Is it because it's in a country whose people are predominantly Islamic? Is that a good enough reason? Our country is predominantly Christian but we allow Bible shooting. Is it because we were in a country that does not share our tradition of free speech? Is that a good enough reason? Do Americans, or anyone, give up their fundamental rights when they cross a border? Are Americans dying every day overseas to put in power governments that ignore speech rights? What if a muslim or, for that matter, anyone else not an American soldier had shot at a Quran? What would our policy be regarding how, say, the Iraqi government ought to treat that muslim if he were one of their own citizens? I don't know what our policy would be but I know what it ought to be. I also know that we have no business defending a government that would persecute such a person. So why do we persecute our own? Just because they are soldiers? Is that a good enough reason? Do we give up our free speech rights when we put on military uniform? When we put on the uniform we're fighting for those rights, so why should we have to give up the rights that we wish to fight for? And even if we do check the rights somehow, then to what extent? Presumably he was in military uniform using military ammunition, on military time, etc. to do this. That is arguably inexcusable, but let's say that he was not? What then?

I suspect that the soldier shooting at the Quran had read reports such as those that we can read here every day about the British teacher sentenced to death for allowing students to name a teddy bear Mohammed, about an Afghan journalist sentenced to death by the government we put in power for accessing materials on the internet that someone thought defamed Mohammed (Allah forbid he had accessed infidels.org!), about pink bunny puppets on children's shows rewriting history and teaching palestinian children to hate, about burning of embassies for a national making comic strips, and about killing of nuns for the making of factual historical comments by the pope... on and on and on... the litany is nearly inexhaustible. In light of all this I can hardly help but sympathize with the soldier. I think that "I hate you and all of you bitches and I don't care what you think!" is pretty accurate and justifiable. In fact it's just about what my reaction is too.

I can tell you this much. If this soldier is subjected to any further discipline or if America exhibits any more hypocrisy in this regards then I am probably going to head out, get myself a Quran, go to the local shooting range, and blow it the fruck away.

Anyone here at infidels that is unwilling to do the same is a double-tongued, double-minded fool.

Fact: 20% of American muslims agree that "Suicide bombing is sometimes justified.".

You know what? I agree, only I think that we have different targets and motives in mind. :devil1:

When you go to a country, you must respect its law and culture while you are there.

The traditional exception to this is an invading army.

[Sapho]

Yes actually you can insult people, its not a crime, especially if you buy the object yourself. They really need to grow up, and so do the christians who complain about things like the piss christ and life of brian, they are all just such monumental wankers.

In my view, people who don't care about others, people for whom basic respect and tolerance for others' lifestyles are the wankers. And yes, monumental!


We are talking about the Quran here, are we not. A book renouned for its tolerance of others beliefs and lifestyles! Any culture that allows the sort of things that go on on islamic countrys (female oppression, execution and torture of gay people, etc) deserve no respect at all.

Quite frankly, I see your views as nothing more than the most repulsive hypocrisy. Your respect for their so called rights only supports the massive human rights violations that they commit.

[Apostate1970]

These young people were perhaps the greatest heroes of the twentieth century. If you do not know about them, please learn, please read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

http://www.shoaheducation.com/whiterose.html

This will all probably be seen as off-topic so I want to briefly tie in how I see it as on-topic. I see it as on-topic because this is the struggle we should each see ourselves as in every day... the struggle to avoid the need for such heroism ever again. This is a struggle that is especially relevant in and to the muslim world.

"He that holds his peace is wise, but he that speaks, speaks not for his own time." ~ Rainer Maria Rilke

[Apostate1970]

a couple more links for anyone interested... doing some of the fingerwork for you.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/rose.html

probably can't go wrong with any of these but i recommend #3 and #5 on the list

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-5550667-1138455?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the+white+rose

[Lógos Sokratikós]

In my view, people who don't care about others, people for whom basic respect and tolerance for others' lifestyles are the wankers. And yes, monumental!


We are talking about the Quran here, are we not. A book renouned for its tolerance of others beliefs and lifestyles! Any culture that allows the sort of things that go on on islamic countrys (female oppression, execution and torture of gay people, etc) deserve no respect at all.

Quite frankly, I see your views as nothing more than the most repulsive hypocrisy. Your respect for their so called rights only supports the massive human rights violations that they commit.

My stance towards muslims is basically "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to [practice] it" (to paraphrase Voltaire). There are many rational muslims who love knowledge and science, respect women and who are acceptably liberal. It is those I basically defend. I cordially abhor the attitudes/discourse/deeds of fundamentalists who would be delighted to take away other people's rights (among them the right to be respected), including: muslim fundamentalists, über-Catholics and fundy atheists. I do so because I respect those who respect others, such as liberal muslims, liberal Catholics and liberal atheists −people who understand what the word LOVE means.

[sy2502]

There are many rational muslims who love knowledge and science, respect women and who are acceptably liberal. It is those I basically defend.
And those kinds of muslims are also likely to understand the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which happens to include things that others may find offensive.

[Zindiiq]

Replace the word 'desecrate' with 'destroy', 'ruin', or whatever other appropriate descriptor, then. By the way, as an atheist, I agree with you that there is nothing holy. But there are other people who believe in things holy and symbolize objects as holy.

At any rate, my argument is meant generally and extends to anything that holds some sort of special meaning to someone, be it considered holy or otherwise. Could be (as some random examples) a bitter spouse ripping up his/her the wedding picture to spite the other, a group of kids from one school defacing the mascot of another school, the breaking of a lawn ornament, the knocking over a grave stone, etc.

But in all of those cases the object didn't belong to them. His quran, he can destroy it if he wants. If I went out and bought wholy underwear from the Mormons and decided to torch them, who is anyone to tell me that I'm wrong?I was just throwing out some examples, not trying to make perfect apologies. But actually, in my first example, the picture did belong to the individual.

Anyway, yes, someone is free to destroy their private property, but if the private property is a copy of an object which holds special meaning to a group of people, what's the purpose of doing it in public for no reason other than to have those who would be offended witness the event. Furthermore, I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the destruction of objects with special meaning, but rather for respect for other human beings, whichs extends to objects they hold dear.

You can burn your magic Mormon underwear, but would you do it in front of an LDS Temple as the congregation?

[Zindiiq]

Yeah, it is freedom of expression, but what was the intent behind it? (I don't know enough of the details to know.) If someone destroys a Quran, Bible, or whatever other symbol in the privacy of their own home or on their own time away from those who might be offended, no big deal. Hell, I've done things like that before. But if the destruction of some symbol held sacred by a group of people is done publicly as a deliberate act of provocation with the intent to elicit a negative response, then that is another matter. I have no need to insult someone's sensibilities for no reason so I will not go to the Salt Lake City and publicly destroy a copy of the Book of Mormon, or to Jerusalem and publicly destroy a copy of the Torah, or Iraq and publicly destroy a copy of the Quran, or to the Vatican and rip up a copy of the Bible, or on Saturday Night Live and rip up a picture of the pope. These are deliberate acts of provocation meant only to elicit a negative reaction. They serve no purpose other than to offend for no reason. Out of respect for fellow human beings, because they are fellow human beings and we are all living in this world together, I do not believe there is a need to desecrate what they hold dear for absolutely no reason other than to offend them.

No, that's wrong. Every single one of them is densely loaded with meaning, serves to communicate that meaning to any reasonable person, and promote positive social change... it's just the the intended recipients are opposed to the thought that that change is positive... but that's the whole point and is why they are the recipients. Doing these kinds of things is, therefore, not an act of disrespect, but an act of respect in the sense that it credits the intended audience with enough reasonableness to understand the communicative purpose. Maybe that's just too much respect?Huh?

[Zindiiq]

My stance towards muslims is basically "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to [practice] it" (to paraphrase Voltaire). There are many rational muslims who love knowledge and science, respect women and who are acceptably liberal. It is those I basically defend. I cordially abhor the attitudes/discourse/deeds of fundamentalists who would be delighted to take away other people's rights (among them the right to be respected), including: muslim fundamentalists, über-Catholics and fundy atheists. I do so because I respect those who respect others, such as liberal muslims, liberal Catholics and liberal atheists −people who understand what the word LOVE means.Nice response.:thumbs: I feel the same way.

[arricchio]

It's not just the military, Bush (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24724080/) apologized to the Iraqi government this morning.

Regardless of what you think about the appropriateness of the punishment, you have know that if you're the enlisted man that your commander in chief has to apologize to a foreign government for, your ass as pretty much grass.

That's the thing: Bush didn't have to apologize.

The CIC's opinion was that he did. After all he's the Decider.

Anyway, the point was you never want to be the grunt your commander has to make apologies for. It's not condusive to your career longevity.

[ksen]

That's the thing: Bush didn't have to apologize.

The CIC's opinion was that he did. After all he's the Decider.

Anyway, the point was you never want to be the grunt your commander has to make apologies for. It's not condusive to your career longevity.

No, it's not.

I'm betting this guy never sees E-7.

[Dirge]

If this soldier had stated he didn't believe a word in the Koran, we wouldn't have anything to discuss. That's his opinion. By shooting at the Koran, it showed his symbolic lack of respect for a people's culture, not just religion. Was it even his Koran to destroy? Christians should be outraged if a believer shot up a Richard Dawkins anti religion book. This is not the way to do things.

[ksen]

If this soldier had stated he didn't believe a word in the Koran, we wouldn't have anything to discuss. That's his opinion. By shooting at the Koran, it showed his symbolic lack of respect for a people's culture, not just religion. Was it even his Koran to destroy? Christians should be outraged if a believer shot up a Richard Dawkins anti religion book. This is not the way to do things.

Why?

Atheists routinely destroy or deface bibles in hotel rooms. Just check out the Secular Lifestyle forum for threads talking about it. A couple people chime in that it's inappropriate but more give hints and tips on how to better get rid of the offending book.

[premjan]

Well, he did it in an Islamic country for one, and he was involved in a government operation which was somewhat jeopardized by his action due to the bad PR.

[seanc]

...he was involved in a government operation which was somewhat jeaopardized by his action due to the bad PR.

This is the heart of the issue.

Going along with the analogy involving Russia & the Constitution, I think it would be a little different... like if a group of extremist Ron Paul supporters attacked the Kremlin (bear with me), and while cooperating with the US to hunt down these extremist constitutionalists, a Russian soldier pisses on a copy of the Constitution. A little different though, in that the Constitution actually deserves some respect.

[Gamer4Fire]

But in all of those cases the object didn't belong to them. His quran, he can destroy it if he wants. If I went out and bought wholy underwear from the Mormons and decided to torch them, who is anyone to tell me that I'm wrong?I was just throwing out some examples, not trying to make perfect apologies. But actually, in my first example, the picture did belong to the individual.

Anyway, yes, someone is free to destroy their private property, but if the private property is a copy of an object which holds special meaning to a group of people, what's the purpose of doing it in public for no reason other than to have those who would be offended witness the event. Furthermore, I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the destruction of objects with special meaning, but rather for respect for other human beings, whichs extends to objects they hold dear.

You can burn your magic Mormon underwear, but would you do it in front of an LDS Temple as the congregation?

I'll give you the picture example. And if I found a reason to protest against the LDS church for some reason, I might use my first amendment right to burn wholy underwear in front of a Mormon temple. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy wholy underroos, much less burn them, unless I had a good reason to.

[Gamer4Fire]

...he was involved in a government operation which was somewhat jeaopardized by his action due to the bad PR.

This is the heart of the issue.

Going along with the analogy involving Russia & the Constitution, I think it would be a little different... like if a group of extremist Ron Paul supporters attacked the Kremlin (bear with me), and while cooperating with the US to hunt down these extremist constitutionalists, a Russian soldier pisses on a copy of the Constitution. A little different though, in that the Constitution actually deserves some respect.

I don't think we'd declare war against them for doing that, like the islamists have.

[Sapho]

We are talking about the Quran here, are we not. A book renouned for its tolerance of others beliefs and lifestyles! Any culture that allows the sort of things that go on on islamic countrys (female oppression, execution and torture of gay people, etc) deserve no respect at all.

Quite frankly, I see your views as nothing more than the most repulsive hypocrisy. Your respect for their so called rights only supports the massive human rights violations that they commit.

My stance towards muslims is basically "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to [practice] it" (to paraphrase Voltaire). There are many rational muslims who love knowledge and science, respect women and who are acceptably liberal. It is those I basically defend. I cordially abhor the attitudes/discourse/deeds of fundamentalists who would be delighted to take away other people's rights (among them the right to be respected), including: muslim fundamentalists, über-Catholics and fundy atheists. I do so because I respect those who respect others, such as liberal muslims, liberal Catholics and liberal atheists −people who understand what the word LOVE means.

"liberal" muslims are unlikly to be very worried by such trivial actions as shooting a book. It is the intolerant, illiberal muslims who get their knickers in a knot about these things, just as it is the more fundy christians who do the same.
Their are certain fundamental freedoms that make life in western countries preferable to any other, these need to be defended at all costs, and freedom of speech is perhaps one of the most important. I will always defend those values above any others.

[Dirge]

If this soldier had stated he didn't believe a word in the Koran, we wouldn't have anything to discuss. That's his opinion. By shooting at the Koran, it showed his symbolic lack of respect for a people's culture, not just religion. Was it even his Koran to destroy? Christians should be outraged if a believer shot up a Richard Dawkins anti religion book. This is not the way to do things.

Why?

Atheists routinely destroy or deface bibles in hotel rooms. Just check out the Secular Lifestyle forum for threads talking about it. A couple people chime in that it's inappropriate but more give hints and tips on how to better get rid of the offending book.

Any Atheist who does that is not only destroying the Bible, but his own cause.

[Apostate1970]

The CIC's opinion was that he did. After all he's the Decider.

Anyway, the point was you never want to be the grunt your commander has to make apologies for. It's not condusive to your career longevity.

No, it's not.

I'm betting this guy never sees E-7.

Bush stooping to apologize defiled the magisterium of the U.S. It was a disgrace. He could have simply kept his mouth shut. If he had been asked anything by a reporter he simply could have said "The appropriate authorities are addressing this.". Instead he decided to ass-kiss.

Read the article in the newswire on this if you haven't already.

Look at the photo. You've got five Iraqis literally surrounding a U.S. military commander as he gives the apology. The last time I saw something like that it was five terrorists gathered around their victim to record a beheading. This is just an out and out disgrace. You know that Iraqi politicians were positively begging to get in that photo for populist reasons. They were crowdign in, tripping over one another to be in that photo! In my opinion this is inconsistent with the dignity, authority, and autonomy of the U.S. military.

Do you think that history and the world won't see this photo as exactly what it is? Not some bridge-building effort but a statement of abject failure.

The fact is that it just doesn't matter at all whether or not this will or should reflect negatively on the soldier's career. I think that it clearly will and should (it will because we are cowards... it should because it was probably done on military time, in uniform, with military ammunition and on military grounds, etc., which is inconsistent with the first amendment) But that's utterly beside my point. My point is that our response was not so much a diplomatic one as it was a cowardly one inconsistent with the concept of free expression which we are fighting and dying for. We are not fighting and dying so that people can be merely polite to one another... we're dying so that they can be free. There are really just no excuses for this disgraceful action on the part of our military or our commander in chief. It is this kind of action, and not the shooting of a Koran by one insignificant soldier, that makes me ashamed to be American.

I read his apology which is as follows:

"My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious."

But, from the same article:

Copies of the pictures of the Quran obtained by CNN show multiple bullet holes and an expletive scrawled on one of its pages.

How on earth is this not malicious? How? That's just ridiculous! Of course it was malicious! But the point is that, considering his action only as a speech act, maliciousness is ok and, furthermore, it's totally understandable.

[Apostate1970]

...he was involved in a government operation which was somewhat jeaopardized by his action due to the bad PR.

This is the heart of the issue.

Going along with the analogy involving Russia & the Constitution, I think it would be a little different... like if a group of extremist Ron Paul supporters attacked the Kremlin (bear with me), and while cooperating with the US to hunt down these extremist constitutionalists, a Russian soldier pisses on a copy of the Constitution. A little different though, in that the Constitution actually deserves some respect.

are you just insane? what on earth are military non-interventionists who have expressly stated time and again that no sustained military action is legitimate without a legislative declaration of war doing engaging in rogue warfare on foreign soil without such a declaration? I think you should definitely insert another group here because your insertion of this one displays nothing but your own ignorance.

i am glad to see at least that you recognize some difference in the constitution and the koran. I would like however to clarify this difference. and that is that the koran dictates death for this russian soldier, while the constitution dictates complete freedom on his part to do this.

[Apostate1970]

Huh?

What is it that is difficult to understand?

The fact is, to take Gamer's example, the best place to communicate by burning your mormon underwear is by burning them on the steps of a mormon temple (or in some similar setting). Going into your own house and doing this serves no expressive purpose.

Who cares if this will upset a lot of people?! That's the whole point! The message is that these beliefs of theirs are foolish and stupid and socially and psychologically destructive in myriad ways.

We show disrepect for their beliefs but respect for them by this action in the sense that, in taking it, we credit them with the capacity to understand the message.

Is this really hard to understand?

Maybe it is. Maybe they are just TOO STUPID to understand the message and therefore we should just disallow it. Are you really TOO STUPID to understand this?

[lumax]

Bush stooping to apologize defiled the magisterium of the U.S. It was a disgrace. He could have simply kept his mouth shut. If he had been asked anything by a reporter he simply could have said "The appropriate authorities are addressing this.". Instead he decided to ass-kiss.

Read the article in the newswire on this if you haven't already.

Look at the photo. You've got five Iraqis literally surrounding a U.S. military commander as he gives the apology. The last time I saw something like that it was five terrorists gathered around their victim to record a beheading. This is just an out and out disgrace. You know that Iraqi politicians were positively begging to get in that photo for populist reasons. They were crowdign in, tripping over one another to be in that photo! In my opinion this is inconsistent with the dignity, authority, and autonomy of the U.S. military.

Do you think that history and the world won't see this photo as exactly what it is? Not some bridge-building effort but a statement of abject failure.

The fact is that it just doesn't matter at all whether or not this will or should reflect negatively on the soldier's career. I think that it clearly will and should (it will because we are cowards... it should because it was probably done on military time, in uniform, with military ammunition and on military grounds, etc., which is inconsistent with the first amendment) But that's utterly beside my point. My point is that our response was not so much a diplomatic one as it was a cowardly one inconsistent with the concept of free expression which we are fighting and dying for. We are not fighting and dying so that people can be merely polite to one another... we're dying so that they can be free. There are really just no excuses for this disgraceful action on the part of our military or our commander in chief. It is this kind of action, and not the shooting of a Koran by one insignificant soldier, that makes me ashamed to be American.

I read his apology which is as follows:

"My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious."

But, from the same article:

Copies of the pictures of the Quran obtained by CNN show multiple bullet holes and an expletive scrawled on one of its pages.

How on earth is this not malicious? How? That's just ridiculous! Of course it was malicious! But the point is that, considering his action only as a speech act, maliciousness is ok and, furthermore, it's totally understandable.
So let me get this straight ... if you perpetuate a malicious act but it's done as an act of free speech it's ok? So I can terrorize blacks, Jews, gays, and anyone else I don't agree with as long as I invoke my 2nd amendment rights.
He is a US serviceman. He may not like where he was stationed or the people there but he is a representative of the US government and should act accordingly. What he did was incitement and if I'm not mistaken it is punishable here in the USA. And as much as I think Bush is an idiot he did do the right thing by apologizing. Petty retaliation, in the form of more US military deaths, is still on the table in the minds of the real radicals(and not so). Why do you think he was really shipped out? If he was a civilian there he would probably not be as lucky. It is our gov'ts policy not to interfere with US citizens entangled in foreign countries legal systems:"CRIMINAL PENALTIES: While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country's laws and regulations, which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. Penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses. Persons violating Iraqi laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned."US Department of State website (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1144.html#criminal_penalties)
Just because they do not respect us does not mean we should lower ourselves to their level.
Dirge said it best: "Any Atheistperson who does that is not only destroying the Bible, but his own cause."

[Apostate1970]

So let me get this straight ... if you perpetuate a malicious act but it's done as an act of free speech it's ok? So I can terrorize blacks, Jews, gays, and anyone else I don't agree with as long as I invoke my 2nd amendment rights.
He is a US serviceman. He may not like where he was stationed or the people there but he is a representative of the US government and should act accordingly. What he did was incitement and if I'm not mistaken it is punishable here in the USA. Petty retaliation, in the form of more US military deaths, is still on the table in the minds of the real radicals(and not so). If he was a civilian there he would probably not be as lucky. It is our gov'ts policy not to interfere with US citizens entangled in foreign countries legal system. "CRIMINAL PENALTIES: While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country's laws and regulations, which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. Penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses. Persons violating Iraqi laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned."US Department of State website (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1144.html#criminal_penalties)
Just because they do not respect us does not mean we should lower ourselves to their level.
Dirge said it best: "Any Atheistperson who does that is not only destroying the Bible, but his own cause."

In what respect is destroying a book, even if done out of malice, comparable to terrorizing blacks, jews, gays, or anyone else? How does destroying a book terrorize anyone? When did I ever say anything to that effect? I understand the difference. Do you? Are you just too stupid or too evil to make this distinction and thus accurately characterize my own position?

And it's not 2nd amendment rights, it's 1st amendment rights that are at issue. Your mistake here is really telling and leads me to think that it is stupidity and not evil behind your words.

I understand perfectly well how his status as a serviceman bears on the issue and I have repeatedly acknowledged the special obligation that that puts him under. Did you simply ignore that part of what I said?

As for what the radicals have in mind for us... you're absolutely right. They haven't changed their minds at all. They still want to kill us. And our apologetic actions neither changed that nor are an appropriate response to it. In fact, by legitmizing the worldview according to which speech acts against the Koran are not acceptable, they very arguably worsened the situation.

As for your citing the policy you did. It's one thing to hold this policy for governments that we did not create and do not support. It is another thing to hold this policy regarding governments that we put in power and that we are actively engaged in defending the very existence of with our lives. To hold it for those governments is thereby to endorse the laws of those governments. This is not acceptable.

You say "Just because they do not respect us does not mean we should lower ourselves to their level.", but this is exactly what we do when we validate their stance on speech ... we lower ourselves to their level. It is only by refusing to validate that stance that we can keep the high ground.

Look, I have to say that I really just have to categorically dismiss everyone here who is remotely inclined to defend these cowardly actions which are wholly inconsistent with the liberal tradition. It's sheer personal disgust that I have for every last one of you. I can't put it more simply than that. You really need... for the sake of our own future... you really need to think about what the real consequences of this sort of weak-minded hypocrisy are. You imagine yourselves, I take it, as high-minded, dignified, equanimitous, thoroughly modern, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's see how dignified you are when your mouths are all shut by force and when the law requires you to bow and pray five times daily. Let's see how modern you all are when the women among you are not allowed to drive and when your children are taught in state religious schools that Mecca is the center of the earth. Is this hyperbole? Of course it is, but it is to the point.

"He that holds his peace is wise, but he that speaks, speaks not for his own time." ~ Rainer Maria Rilke

[Apostate1970]

I want to anticipate one objection:

I fashion myself an advocate of free speech. Someone might object that it's thereby curious if not inconsistent that I would sympathize with the destruction of a book. But the fact is that my sympathy for those who would destroy copies of the book is no expression of sympathy for those would seek to destroy all copies of the book and ban it or otherwise keep it from people. Quite the contrary, I see no problem with burning 10,000 copies as a speech act and then passing around 10,000 more copies for people to read and make up their own minds. In fact I think that would be the ideal option. Bu suggesting that the book should be passed around, I am not thereby suggesting that intimate familiarity with the book is somehow important. It is not at all important anymore than familiarity with any other collection of superstitions, prejudices, skewed history, ethnic poetry, ideology, etc. is important. I'm merely saying that it is worth protecting as precisely what it is.

[ksen]

No, it's not.

I'm betting this guy never sees E-7.

Bush stooping to apologize defiled the magisterium of the U.S. It was a disgrace. He could have simply kept his mouth shut. If he had been asked anything by a reporter he simply could have said "The appropriate authorities are addressing this.". Instead he decided to ass-kiss.

Read the article in the newswire on this if you haven't already.

Look at the photo. You've got five Iraqis literally surrounding a U.S. military commander as he gives the apology. The last time I saw something like that it was five terrorists gathered around their victim to record a beheading. This is just an out and out disgrace. You know that Iraqi politicians were positively begging to get in that photo for populist reasons. They were crowdign in, tripping over one another to be in that photo! In my opinion this is inconsistent with the dignity, authority, and autonomy of the U.S. military.

Do you think that history and the world won't see this photo as exactly what it is? Not some bridge-building effort but a statement of abject failure.

The fact is that it just doesn't matter at all whether or not this will or should reflect negatively on the soldier's career. I think that it clearly will and should (it will because we are cowards... it should because it was probably done on military time, in uniform, with military ammunition and on military grounds, etc., which is inconsistent with the first amendment) But that's utterly beside my point. My point is that our response was not so much a diplomatic one as it was a cowardly one inconsistent with the concept of free expression which we are fighting and dying for. We are not fighting and dying so that people can be merely polite to one another... we're dying so that they can be free. There are really just no excuses for this disgraceful action on the part of our military or our commander in chief. It is this kind of action, and not the shooting of a Koran by one insignificant soldier, that makes me ashamed to be American.

I read his apology which is as follows:

"My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious."

But, from the same article:

Copies of the pictures of the Quran obtained by CNN show multiple bullet holes and an expletive scrawled on one of its pages.

How on earth is this not malicious? How? That's just ridiculous! Of course it was malicious! But the point is that, considering his action only as a speech act, maliciousness is ok and, furthermore, it's totally understandable.

I agree with all your points above.

This president talks tough but he bows and scrapes at the foot of the Muslim every chance he gets. It's disgusting.

[Blui]

Geezuz.
Someone shot a book, and the whole fucken army has to apologize for it.

Am i living in some kind of bizarro world here?

Obviously this is where a countries self-interest trumps doing what is right.

I really feel sad for america, because of the Governments dumbass actions, they have to help and seek the support of people living with very retarded views that are simply incompatible to the modern age.

This is where you get the type of situations where for instance, if a woman was stoned to fucken death by religious decree of that community, no godam soldier would step in, and if they did, the army would 'apologize' to the Muslims.

[seanc]

are you just insane? what on earth are military non-interventionists who have expressly stated time and again that no sustained military action is legitimate without a legislative declaration of war doing engaging in rogue warfare on foreign soil without such a declaration? I think you should definitely insert another group here because your insertion of this one displays nothing but your own ignorance.

Woah there... I was just using a group that viewed the constitution in the highest regard as possible. I'm well aware of Paul's non-interventionist policies and was in no way serious that they would do that - I just used that group because it was the first that came to mind and I thought it was kinda funny. Apparently you didn't. :rolleyes:

[funinspace]

My stance towards muslims is basically "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to [practice] it" (to paraphrase Voltaire). There are many rational muslims who love knowledge and science, respect women and who are acceptably liberal. It is those I basically defend. I cordially abhor the attitudes/discourse/deeds of fundamentalists who would be delighted to take away other people's rights (among them the right to be respected), including: muslim fundamentalists, über-Catholics and fundy atheists. I do so because I respect those who respect others, such as liberal muslims, liberal Catholics and liberal atheists −people who understand what the word LOVE means.
I would also generally agree with what you said above. You are not alone.

This is an stupid occupation, trying to perform nation building in an alien culture; and in a country with a host of problems. Lots of stupid things will continue to happen. Pissing contests rarely ever help either party. This soldier was either butt stupid, or even cynically did this hoping for either discharge or being kicked out of the ME, just as has happened.

The US and other countries have reached a point where they generally find it better to tolerate behavior/actions that other find insulting. Forcing this notion upon other countries will not endear them to us, nor will it likely become the norm in such places in sooner because of such actions. Nor will rubbing such crap in their face, while being an occupier make the country more likely to embrace such notions any sooner when we are gone. Europe tried dragging Germany thru the mud after WWI, and we got Hitler. Cause/affect? Who knows, but it certainly didn't do Europe much good.

A couple thoughts on the repeated ideas swirling about in this thread:
(1) this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, in the legalistic/constitutional sense. He is in the military, and representing the US as an occupier in a difficult situation. Off duty has nothing to do with it either, one is military 7x24; it is not a job. Sure many Iraqi's are using this for personal/political advantage, that's how politics works.
(2) What if a solder had taken a photo/figurine of the Japanese Emporer king during our occupation there, and did the now ever present pissing event? How would the Japanese people react?
(3) Christians in the US were understandably pissed off at having public money paying for cough..."art" that insults their faith. Sure it went beyond frustration at just this one artist and associated funding, but that is often how people react. This also had nothing to do with freedom of speech. It had to do with how tax dollars are spent.

[sy2502]

Why?

Atheists routinely destroy or deface bibles in hotel rooms. Just check out the Secular Lifestyle forum for threads talking about it. A couple people chime in that it's inappropriate but more give hints and tips on how to better get rid of the offending book.

Any Atheist who does that is not only destroying the Bible, but his own cause.
Really? I was caused by a book? I thought I was caused by my parents having sex...:Cheeky:

[lumax]

So let me get this straight ... if you perpetuate a malicious act but it's done as an act of free speech it's ok? So I can terrorize blacks, Jews, gays, and anyone else I don't agree with as long as I invoke my 2nd amendment rights.
He is a US serviceman. He may not like where he was stationed or the people there but he is a representative of the US government and should act accordingly. What he did was incitement and if I'm not mistaken it is punishable here in the USA. Petty retaliation, in the form of more US military deaths, is still on the table in the minds of the real radicals(and not so). If he was a civilian there he would probably not be as lucky. It is our gov'ts policy not to interfere with US citizens entangled in foreign countries legal system. "CRIMINAL PENALTIES: While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country's laws and regulations, which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. Penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses. Persons violating Iraqi laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned."US Department of State website (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1144.html#criminal_penalties)
Just because they do not respect us does not mean we should lower ourselves to their level.
Dirge said it best: "Any Atheistperson who does that is not only destroying the Bible, but his own cause."

In what respect is destroying a book, even if done out of malice, comparable to terrorizing blacks, jews, gays, or anyone else? How does destroying a book terrorize anyone? When did I ever say anything to that effect? I understand the difference. Do you? Are you just too stupid or too evil to make this distinction and thus accurately characterize my own position?

And it's not 2nd amendment rights, it's 1st amendment rights that are at issue. Your mistake here is really telling and leads me to think that it is stupidity and not evil behind your words.

I understand perfectly well how his status as a serviceman bears on the issue and I have repeatedly acknowledged the special obligation that that puts him under. Did you simply ignore that part of what I said?

As for what the radicals have in mind for us... you're absolutely right. They haven't changed their minds at all. They still want to kill us. And our apologetic actions neither changed that nor are an appropriate response to it. In fact, by legitmizing the worldview according to which speech acts against the Koran are not acceptable, they very arguably worsened the situation.

As for your citing the policy you did. It's one thing to hold this policy for governments that we did not create and do not support. It is another thing to hold this policy regarding governments that we put in power and that we are actively engaged in defending the very existence of with our lives. To hold it for those governments is thereby to endorse the laws of those governments. This is not acceptable.

You say "Just because they do not respect us does not mean we should lower ourselves to their level.", but this is exactly what we do when we validate their stance on speech ... we lower ourselves to their level. It is only by refusing to validate that stance that we can keep the high ground.

Look, I have to say that I really just have to categorically dismiss everyone here who is remotely inclined to defend these cowardly actions which are wholly inconsistent with the liberal tradition. It's sheer personal disgust that I have for every last one of you. I can't put it more simply than that. You really need... for the sake of our own future... you really need to think about what the real consequences of this sort of weak-minded hypocrisy are. You imagine yourselves, I take it, as high-minded, dignified, equanimitous, thoroughly modern, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's see how dignified you are when your mouths are all shut by force and when the law requires you to bow and pray five times daily. Let's see how modern you all are when the women among you are not allowed to drive and when your children are taught in state religious schools that Mecca is the center of the earth. Is this hyperbole? Of course it is, but it is to the point.

"He that holds his peace is wise, but he that speaks, speaks not for his own time." ~ Rainer Maria Rilke
As to the 1st of your suppositions - It was 1am and I mistyped please call me stupid or evil again it shows where you are at developmentally.
Destroying a book = burning a cross on a persons front lawn, book burnings that take place even today in the USA - This does not make me stupid or evil - the person that perpetuates these acts is, again, inciting. Trying in an inflammatory way to provoke reactions that can then excuse their violence.

"As for your citing the policy you did. It's one thing to hold this policy for governments that we did not create and do not support. It is another thing to hold this policy regarding governments that we put in power and that we are actively engaged in defending the very existence of with our lives. To hold it for those governments is thereby to endorse the laws of those governments. This is not acceptable."
That policy protects our foreign relations - for better or worse. And if we really are trying to make Iraq autonomous wouldn't endorsing their laws make sense? Also if we can't respect other countries laws/customs, then how can we expect to enforce our laws on visiting foreigners? So puppet regimes of the US should allow our military to run amok because they don't count?

A side note- why the personal attacks on me ? They don't make for intelligent discussion or argument.

"You say "Just because they do not respect us does not mean we should lower ourselves to their level.", but this is exactly what we do when we validate their stance on speech ... we lower ourselves to their level. It is only by refusing to validate that stance that we can keep the high ground."
There is a fine line to what you say. Actions speak louder than words. That soldier took away our credibility the moment he made his "error in judgement" Although you deem me stupid and evil please try to really read what I wrote because when you "categorically dismiss everyone here who is remotely inclined to defend these cowardly actions which are wholly inconsistent with the liberal tradition. It's sheer personal disgust that I have for every last one of you. I can't put it more simply than that. You really need... for the sake of our own future... you really need to think about what the real consequences of this sort of weak-minded hypocrisy are. You imagine yourselves, I take it, as high-minded, dignified, equanimitous, thoroughly modern, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's see how dignified you are when your mouths are all shut by force and when the law requires you to bow and pray five times daily. Let's see how modern you all are when the women among you are not allowed to drive and when your children are taught in state religious schools that Mecca is the center of the earth. Is this hyperbole? Of course it is, but it is to the point."
You have a lot of hate in you, huh? You reduce discussions to name calling and inflammatory statements that have no logical basis and draw conclusions that only make sense to you.
By the way you never addressed my original question. If you perpetuate a malicious act but it's done as an act of free speech it's ok?

[Zindiiq]

Huh?

What is it that is difficult to understand?

The fact is, to take Gamer's example, the best place to communicate by burning your mormon underwear is by burning them on the steps of a mormon temple (or in some similar setting). Going into your own house and doing this serves no expressive purpose.

Who cares if this will upset a lot of people?! That's the whole point! The message is that these beliefs of theirs are foolish and stupid and socially and psychologically destructive in myriad ways.

We show disrepect for their beliefs but respect for them by this action in the sense that, in taking it, we credit them with the capacity to understand the message.

Is this really hard to understand?

Maybe it is. Maybe they are just TOO STUPID to understand the message and therefore we should just disallow it. Are you really TOO STUPID to understand this?

So I guess the old adage "if you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with your bullshit" applies here? That is some warped logic. We are showing them respect by disrespecting something they hold dear on the basis that this will help them understand the error of their ways. Did I get that right?

[Alludium Fozdex]

Reason,
It's an insult.The way to deal with insults is to grow a thicker skin.

[Apostate1970]

are you just insane? what on earth are military non-interventionists who have expressly stated time and again that no sustained military action is legitimate without a legislative declaration of war doing engaging in rogue warfare on foreign soil without such a declaration? I think you should definitely insert another group here because your insertion of this one displays nothing but your own ignorance.

Woah there... I was just using a group that viewed the constitution in the highest regard as possible. I'm well aware of Paul's non-interventionist policies and was in no way serious that they would do that - I just used that group because it was the first that came to mind and I thought it was kinda funny. Apparently you didn't. :rolleyes:

ok, yes, i did actually initially see this as humorous, but then i began thinking and i wasn't even sure that was the intent. even if it was i thought it was a dangerous misrepresentation because I'm sure that many people aren't aware of his stances as you seem to be, and therefore might not have recognized the humorous intent.

[Apostate1970]

By the way you never addressed my original question. If you perpetuate a malicious act but it's done as an act of free speech it's ok?

I did answer it. I have answered it multiple times and I'll do so one last time then I'm done with you.

All book destructions are NOT equal. Just as I said in two previous posts (one here and one elsewhere).

Now here is your answer >>

If someone commits a legitimate act of free speech then it is, by that very fact, not malicious.

It can be done in anger. It can involve destructive acts. It can involve any number of other accompanying factors. But this does not make it malicious.

Malice:
\ˈma-ləs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
Date: 14th century
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

Those are the only two definitions. That's it... nothing else.