PDA

View Full Version : Soldier Uses Quran for Target Practice


*Don*
05-19-2008, 06:34 PM
CNN LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.quran/index.html)

The soldier was a sniper and used the Islamic sacred book as target practice.
The man was relieved of his duties, reassigned, and was forced to write a formal letter of apology.
Today, the Iraq Islamic Party called the millitary's actions unacceptable and asked for harsher punishment.

What are your thoughts on how this matter should be dealt? Clearly, it is a sensitive subject since the Quran was involved. With that in mind, how should the punishment be carried out?

mur'phon
05-19-2008, 06:49 PM
Alright, while I believe in a perfect world this should be alright, in this imperfect one it's plain stupid. So yes, upp the punishment, while it might not do much good for the individual, in this case the deterrent for other soldiers is more important. Winning the hearts and minds is hard enough without needless provocation.

Totenkopf
05-19-2008, 06:54 PM
Maybe I skimmed too quickly, but what punishment do they think he really deserves (they might not be happy with what the "severest punishment" is under UCMJ). Frankly, I think they've got a right to bitch, but hope the military doesn't allow itself to be pushed around just to soothe ruffled feathers.

Corinthian
05-19-2008, 07:25 PM
Nothing. He should not be punished. Pulled out of the Middle-East, yes, but this kind of activity is protected by Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. It was stupid, but it was well within his rights as an American citizen.

Q
05-19-2008, 07:36 PM
Agreed.

No one would've have cared if it had been a bible, so this shouldn't be a career-wrecker. Given the context it was a pretty stupid thing to do, though.

Rev7
05-19-2008, 07:43 PM
That was a pretty stupid thing to do. Although this soldier is protected by the Constitution, that was the wrong thing to do. Especially in the Middle East.

jonathan7
05-19-2008, 07:47 PM
CNN LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.quran/index.html)

The soldier was a sniper and used the Islamic sacred book as target practice.
The man was relieved of his duties, reassigned, and was forced to write a formal letter of apology.
Today, the Iraq Islamic Party called the millitary's actions unacceptable and asked for harsher punishment.

What are your thoughts on how this matter should be dealt? Clearly, it is a sensitive subject since the Quran was involved. With that in mind, how should the punishment be carried out?

It was a very stupid thing to do, but am I the only one who thinks; he's a sniper and shoots people for a living, surely the shooting of a person should create a bigger stir than shooting a book?

Achilles
05-19-2008, 08:36 PM
No one would've have cared if it had been any other book Fixed.

Let's face it; the military needs to capitulate as quickly as possible before muslims start demonstrating how "peaceful" islam is by issuing fatwas and/or rioting in the streets.

Totenkopf
05-19-2008, 09:27 PM
Depends on what you mean by capitulate.

Wonders if Achilles is remotely related to the late Neville Chamberlain.

jonathan7
05-19-2008, 09:31 PM
Fixed.

Let's face it; the military needs to capitulate as quickly as possible before muslims start demonstrating how "peaceful" islam is by issuing fatwas and/or rioting in the streets.

Having gone in, I think there is responsility on our part (UK and US) to leave the country in a better state than it was and to leave responsibly. However given all the massive errors, it may be beyond saving in that regard.

Depends on what you mean by capitulate.

Wonders if Achilles is remotely related to the late Neville Chamberlain.

I fail to see the connection, between accuraltly assessing a battlefront, and trying to 'appease' a tyrant. I do not think the future road in Iraq is anything but blood stained for the forseeable future.

*Don*
05-19-2008, 10:09 PM
Although I agree that the soldier is very much within his rights to shoot a Quran, given his location, I get the sinking feeling that this will result in riots/bombings.

In the long run, the sniper's actions have definitely created a small roadblock for the United States.
For that reason, I feel that there should be harsher consequences.

As Achilles said before, its really in America's best interests to appease the Iraqis so that they don't start "demonstrating".

Achilles
05-19-2008, 10:26 PM
Having gone in, I think there is responsility on our part (UK and US) to leave the country in a better state than it was and to leave responsibly. However given all the massive errors, it may be beyond saving in that regard. I was referring to the incident. I can only assume that you inferred that I was referring to our occupation of Iraq in general.

...and it sarcasm anyway :)

In the long run, the sniper's actions have definitely created a small roadblock for the United States. Perhaps. I say that we opened that door when we started throwing copies on the ground in Gitmo, but I suppose that each new incident might be a new barrier. *shrugs*

For that reason, I feel that there should be harsher consequences. Because he shot a book? Really? I think the punishment that he received was too much.

mimartin
05-19-2008, 10:42 PM
I wonder if the soldiers are under orders not to disrespect the Koran or the Islamic religion. I know during the first Gulf war an Army Division went to great lengths not to do either by ordering the soldiers not to do either.

If the soldiers are not under such orders then our military leaders are complete morons and their stupidly is jeopardizing all our troops over there.

Totenkopf
05-19-2008, 10:51 PM
I fail to see the connection, between accuraltly assessing a battlefront, and trying to 'appease' a tyrant. I do not think the future road in Iraq is anything but blood stained for the forseeable future.

Frankly, the military shouldn't allow itself to be manipulated by public opinion in the ME to exact a "severe punishment" just b/c someone(s) feels offended. If the Sgt is to be punished it should only be within the noraml confines of the UCMJ. Caving in to muslim extremists out of fear is no better than merely allowing them to make all your decisions for you. Pull him out and rap him on the knuckles for stupidity.

Arcesious
05-20-2008, 12:11 AM
It may have been intolerant to Muslim beleifs for him to do so, but it's just a book... I bet they've got plenty of extra Qurans... Although he should apologize, but shooting some book shouldn't be punishable by maximum military punishment (Isn't that court martial?)

Rev7
05-20-2008, 12:56 AM
It may have been intolerant to Muslim beleifs for him to do so, but it's just a book... I bet they've got plenty of extra Qurans... Although he should apologize, but shooting some book shouldn't be punishable by maximum military punishment (Isn't that court martial?)
No, a court martial is actually to determine the punishments soldiers get. ;)
Because he shot a book? Really?
Well, the thing is it was the act of shooting it. It most likely will have some repercussions. You have to be able to see from a different point of view. The people that we are battling in the Middle East are Muslims. How do you think that they would react to this?

Achilles
05-20-2008, 01:14 AM
Well, the thing is it was the act of shooting it. It most likely will have some repercussions. You have to be able to see from a different point of view. The people that we are battling in the Middle East are Muslims. How do you think that they would react to this?As per my first post, I imagine that they would react exactly the same way they did when that Danish newspaper published the cartoon about muhammed. Or when that British teacher named the class teddy bear muhammed. Or when the way that guy did when he stabbed that Scandinavian film maker on the street in broad daylight for making a film about islam. Et cetera, et cetera.

I understand what the argument is, I just don't get how it is that we live in a world where grown-ups participate in this kind of thinking. It's completely ridiculous that someone is being punished over a book. And the fact that we're rolling over and playing along with this silliness just helps to legitimize the whole thing.

Rev7
05-20-2008, 01:31 AM
^
That is true Achilles. I guess that we will just have to wait and see what is goiong to happen. It is silly; however, I think that this soldier should have used better judgement. Potentially, this soldier just signed the death warrant for fellow armed servicemen in the Middle East. Unfortuanalely.

Achilles
05-20-2008, 01:50 AM
Potentially, this soldier just signed the death warrant for fellow armed servicemen in the Middle East.How is this different than the reported violations of the quran that go back to 2005 (the aforementioned throwing and kicking that took place at Gitmo)? It's not as though this is the first time something like this happened.

Rev7
05-20-2008, 02:09 AM
How is this different than the reported violations of the quran that go back to 2005 (the aforementioned throwing and kicking that took place at Gitmo)? It's not as though this is the first time something like this happened.
I am sure that incidents like this have happened before. It wouldn't surprise me at all. What I am trying to say is that the soldier should have thought before he acted.

Achilles
05-20-2008, 02:39 AM
What I am trying to say is that the soldier should have thought before he acted.Thought about what? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he knew what he was doing (which means that, by definition, he had thought about it before he acted).

Corinthian
05-20-2008, 02:55 AM
Given that he went to the effort to acquire a Qur'an, load his rifle, and shoot it repeatedly, I'd say he had some considerable period of time to contemplate what he was about to do.

mur'phon
05-20-2008, 06:30 AM
Achilles, the act serves as a reminder. It's not that there aren't "better" examples for raicals to use, but it helps focus the attention of many on the "great satan".

EnderWiggin
05-20-2008, 07:50 AM
Nothing. He should not be punished. Pulled out of the Middle-East, yes, but this kind of activity is protected by Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. It was stupid, but it was well within his rights as an American citizen.

Absolutely. He was a fool for doing something like this, since it's such a delicate topic and all, but I don't think his livelihood should have been taken from him.

_EW_

jonathan7
05-20-2008, 08:01 AM
I'm about to be higly controversial... But I think its time many Muslims grew up, and realised that a book is not as important as the lives of people, I think it time they realised that if Allah is so powerful he can quite easily smite me himself, and doesn't need any help in that endevour. I think that while the Danish Cartoons were distasteful and disrespectful, the reaction from many proved them to be correct.

I think however this soldier should be coutmarshalled for putting the lives of his fellow soldiers at risk, however I think we need to recognize most soldiers are not the sharpest knife in the draw; and that is certainly the case with our friend who caused this thread.

KinchyB
05-20-2008, 01:41 PM
Actually, just to show that there are no hard feelings I think he should also snipe the Avesta, the bible, the torah, the vedas, and any other holy book (what is it for Scientology, can't forget that one)...ohhh...and lets not forget the origin of the species for good measure either. Now, who can honestly be upset if everyone is treated equally? :xp:

What it comes down to is that some people (extremists if you will) take things way too seriously. He sniped the Qu'ran, big whoop. The only unfortunate aspect of this is that due to his actions extremists will take out their perceived disrespect of their god on our troops.

I would go into a whole religion shpeel here but it's not really for this thread. Enjoy! :)

Achilles
05-20-2008, 01:51 PM
(what is it for Scientology, can't forget that one) Dianetics (fascinating read :rolleyes: ).

...ohhh...and lets not forget the origin of the species for good measure either.Well, if he's going to shoot a scientific publication about biology, I think he would have to do the same for the other branches of science also. :(

jonathan7
05-20-2008, 01:56 PM
Well, if he's going to shoot a scientific publication about biology, I think he would have to do the same for the other branches of science also. :(

Don't get me wrong I abhor the destruction of any book, I cannot stumach the burning of books, and I think anyone that would shoot one is an idiot.

However I somewhat get the impression if you shot a copy of Einsteins theory of relativity no phyisicists would want to kill you for doing so. ;)

mimartin
05-20-2008, 02:13 PM
Yea, it is just a book. A book that holds a great deal of meaning to the majority of the people in that region of the world, what about good manners? Even if you disagree with the importance or the meaning of a religious book, what does it say about someone that would go out of their way to show another such disrespect? Would any of you go into another person home and shoot their Religious Book, their Diploma or their family photo album?

I always understood that a sniper had to have great discipline and self control. I guess that does not include manners.

The Islamic world freaked over some political cartoons and a fictional book, to think that this would not cause problems if it was discovered shows a complete lack of intelligence. For his complete lack of judgment and for endangering his fellow soldersí by pulling such a juvenile stunt he should be sent home and possible removed from service.

nine.roses
05-20-2008, 02:21 PM
May 10th 1933 on the Opernplatz in Berlin. Similar story, more books.

If it can be proven that the soldier in question went to the extent of finding a Qu'ran and intentially destroying it for reasons of religious hatred, knowing full well the impact it would have on the very touchy community in question, then he deserves whatever's coming to him.

Idiots shouldn't be allowed to hold a gun; and this is only one step away from the type of idiot who signs up "because I want to shoot somebody".

mur'phon
05-20-2008, 02:28 PM
^^there is a reason "because I want to shoot somebody" is the single most used reason by people wishing to escape the draft :D

KinchyB
05-20-2008, 02:48 PM
Even if you disagree with the importance or the meaning of a religious book, what does it say about someone that would go out of their way to show another such disrespect? Would any of you go into another person home and shoot their Religious Book, their Diploma or their family photo album?

Well, if they went into my home I wouldn't be too happy, however, ...if we were at "war" with each other and they bought a picture of me, taped it to a tree, and shot it...don't think I would be too upset. Would kind of figure they would be doing that anyway actually, with the whole war thing and all.

Unfortunately with the way the media has been it seems that people hear Quran or Islam and immediately think terrorist. I would assume (big assumption) that in the soldiers mind he was making a statement to the terrorists/insurgents he was sent there to fight. Unfortunately, people (in this case the soldier) seem to forget that the terrorists are a small minority and that the everyday people they are there to "help" are also part of that same religion.

This also brings up an interesting point. How much value does any religious book actually have? First you need to look at the religion...then the version...then how someone is translating it. Technically speaking if they are all right we are all going to "hell" (or whatever it is the other religions call it)...if they are all wrong what does it matter...or maybe everyone (without exception) goes to their version of heaven? The truth is somewhere in between, but that also means that everyone (without exception) is wrong in how they interpret their religious text (Assuming the translation of the text is somewhere close to being right to begin with). So does it have value...I guess it only has the value that you give it. Unfortunately in this case, some people (Again extremists for the most part) take this way too seriously.

Jae Onasi
05-20-2008, 02:53 PM
muhammed

I'm aware of your utter contempt for anything religious, but at least use proper grammar with people's names, if for nothing else to enhance readability and prevent confusion for those who are reading your posts. The intentional misuse of grammar is distracting.


Proper nouns

* Specific persons and things: George W. Bush, the White House, General Motors Corporation.
* Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way. Do not, howver, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun.
* Historical events: World War I, the Renaissance, the Crusades.
* Races, nationalities, languages: Swedes, Swedish, African American, Jewish, French, Native American. (Most writers do not capitalize whites, blacks.)
* Names of religions and religious terms: God, Christ, Allah, Buddha, Christianity, Christians, Judaism, Jews, Islam, Muslims.
* Names of courses: Economics, Biology 101. (However, we would write: "I'm taking courses in biology and earth science this summer.")
* Brand names: Tide, Maytag, Chevrolet.

The Chicago Manual of Style also has the complete rules on capitalization should you need them.

As to the topic--is it legal for him to shoot the Koran? Sure. Is it incredibly tacky and disrespectful? Sure. If you're trying to show respect for a country, shooting their revered holy text is not the way to do it. If the soldier was living under Sharia law he'd probably be killed for that.

Corinthian
05-20-2008, 03:32 PM
Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech protect this man. In a way, I wish it didn't - then I might have a chance to see that idiot who made '**** Christ' thrown in the clink. It's not against the Law to show a religion disrespect.

Achilles
05-20-2008, 03:45 PM
Yea, it is just a book. A book that holds a great deal of meaning to the majority of the people in that region of the world, what about good manners? Even if you disagree with the importance or the meaning of a religious book, what does it say about someone that would go out of their way to show another such disrespect? Would any of you go into another person home and shoot their Religious Book, their Diploma or their family photo album? No doubt that the gesture was childish in the extreme.

The Islamic world freaked over some political cartoons and a fictional book, to think that this would not cause problems if it was discovered shows a complete lack of intelligence.I think he may have considered this (but I'm guessing).

For his complete lack of judgment and for endangering his fellow soldersí by pulling such a juvenile stunt he should be sent home and possible removed from service.This argument has some validity. The argument that he should be punished for shooting the qu'ran in order pander to the muslim community is not. "Manners" or no.

Unfortunately in this case, some people (Again extremists for the most part) take this way too seriously.I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Take a look at the sea of people that show up for al-Sadr rallies, anti-America demonstrations, etc at then try to convince me that these views are only held by a small minority :)

mimartin
05-20-2008, 03:50 PM
Well, if they went into my home I wouldn't be too happy, however, ...if we were at "war" with each other and they bought a picture of me, taped it to a tree, and shot it...don't think I would be too upset. Would kind of figure they would be doing that anyway actually, with the whole war thing and all.
Are we at war with the Quran? Are we at war with all Muslims? By shooting the Quran the soldier may have been showing his disrespect for the people we are fighting, but he also showed United States disrespect for the Muslim world in general. After all the solder is a representative of the U.S. I agree with others here the Quran is just a book and I do not pretend to understand that culture. So my reaction to such an indecent is not indicative of the Muslim world.

I have read the Quran in college, but the meaning I took from its pages are not the same as the Islamic extremist. I do know, in the college course, we were instructed to handle the book with care and respect. We were not allowed to use a highlighter or turn down the pages for a book mark. The Quran was written in Arabic with the English translation on the opposite page. I took from the instructions and the design of the Quran itself that the people of the Muslim faith required great reverence in dealing with their holy book. I do not believe the extremist or the people we are fighting are the only ones that will see this derogation of the Quran as an insult.

This argument has some validity. The argument that he should be punished for shooting the qu'ran in order pander to the muslim community is not. "Manners" or no. No, he should not be punished for destroying a book.

Yes, he should be punished for endangering his fellow troops and lack of judgment. I would hope that a sniper in the U.S. military had over abundance of responsibility and judgment given the responsibility that job would seem to entail. However, this solder seems to be lacking in that department.

KinchyB
05-20-2008, 04:44 PM
By shooting the Quran the soldier may have been showing his disrespect for the people we are fighting, but he also showed United States disrespect for the Muslim world in general. After all the solder is a representative of the U.S.

I don't think enough people realize this unfortunately. As logical and straight forward as it is. :(

*Don*
05-20-2008, 05:02 PM
On a side note, how do you guys feel about the Military Sargeant that "kissed" and "presented" a copy of the Quran to the Iraqi Tribal Leaders to show respect?

I realize that he is trying to portray Americans as "humble", but is all this butt-kissing (for lack of a better term) good?

mimartin
05-20-2008, 05:14 PM
On a side note, how do you guys feel about the Military Sargeant that "kissed" and "presented" a copy of the Quran to the Iraqi Tribal Leaders to show respect?

I realize that he is trying to portray Americans as "humble", but is all this butt-kissing (for lack of a better term) good?
How is that different than bowing before a member of a Royal Family of another nation? Is it different from a non-Catholic showing respect and reverence towards the Pope? Throughout history we have done rituals to show honor and respect to other cultures. It is not butt-kissing it is called diplomacy. Diplomacy is a term that has been entirely foreign to the United State foreign policy over the past 8 years.

Jae Onasi
05-20-2008, 05:17 PM
I think presenting gifts to tribal leaders is a cultural thing (e.g. anyone going to visit a tribal leader brings gifts to him), and a Koran is not an inappropriate gift. If the sergeant was Muslim I think it might be appropriate for him personally to kiss the Koran, but otherwise I think it's a tad excessive.

Reagan did not bow to Queen Elizabeth when he visited her, btw. However, that was one head of state meeting another. The protocol is likely different if Joe Ordinary were meeting her.

*Don*
05-20-2008, 05:26 PM
How is that different than bowing before a member of a Royal Family of another nation? Is it different from a non-Catholic showing respect and reverence towards the Pope? Throughout history we have done rituals to show honor and respect to other cultures. It is not butt-kissing it is called diplomacy. Diplomacy is a term that has been entirely foreign to the United State foreign policy over the past 8 years.

Usually it is the diplomats who do the diplomacy.
I never really heard of military sargeants doing this.
They may respect a certain country's culture, but it is always the diplomats/politicians that handle the political areas.


"I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together. ... My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious."


I also can't understand how, in his heart, the actions were not malicious.
How can you shoot a holy book with good intentions?
Regardless, I do feel that his actions have harmed the partnership that America tried so hard to build.

mimartin
05-20-2008, 05:45 PM
Usually it is the diplomats who do the diplomacy.
I never really heard of military sargeants doing this.
They may respect a certain country's culture, but it is always the diplomats/politicians that handle the political areas.

Guess I grew up around my father, step-father and uncles talking about their experiences in Korea and Vietnam. From their experience, on a local level, the solders were the ones doing the diplomacy. My step-father was a medic in Korea and by the sound of his stories he helped deliver a number of Korean children. One of my uncles spoke of searching for Cuban cigars for the leader of a Vietnamese village so that they could sleep indoors. Btw Only my step-father was above the rank of sergeant.

Reagan did not bow to Queen Elizabeth when he visited her, btw. However, that was one head of state meeting another. The protocol is likely different if Joe Ordinary were meeting her.I canít see Reagan bowing to anyone. I recently watched John Adams, and at least in the miniseries they portrayed him as bowing to King George III after the Americanís won independence. At the time Adams was ambassador to England (off topic: I highly recommend the HBO miniseries John Adams). My guess is that one head of state would not bow to another.

Totenkopf
05-20-2008, 06:17 PM
I believe the term is obsequious (re the Gen kissing the Koran). I think diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy has not been a hallmark of GW's tenure. O'course, all of Carter's diplomacy had little to show for it in the end. The art of diplomacy is really about letting the other guy have it your way w/o unduly upsetting him. :D

igyman
05-20-2008, 07:06 PM
Human stupidity is a factor we can never completely anticipate and prepare for. What that soldier did was downright stupid, offensive and primitive. I'm not sure what would be the appropriate punishment for something like that, but I do think he should not be allowed to remain in the military anymore.
As for diplomacy, like it or not, each of us is a representative of their country. Every time we go abroad we represent our country, our people and our culture, because if we do something stupid and/or illegal the news headlines won't say "Joe Johnson did that", they'll say "*Country Name* citizen did that".

Rev7
05-21-2008, 01:02 AM
Thought about what? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he knew what he was doing (which means that, by definition, he had thought about it before he acted).
I am also pretty sure that he knew what he was doing too. What I am trying to get across is that this soldier should have thought about the effects of what potentially will happen because of his actions. Thats all. :)

Okay, I have a question (technically several). Have you ever heard the saying, "Do to others as you would want done to yourself", you know "The Golden Rule"? How do you think that you would feel if someone used something very, I will use the word sacred, of yours as target practice. How exactly would you feel. Please answer honestly.

TK-8252
05-21-2008, 02:00 AM
Wait a minute... since when do our soldiers have freedom of speech? Their right to speech is severely limited, actually. As far as I know, soldiers cannot even communicate with anyone back home without their message first being read and approved by the military. Soldiers can be punished for communicating something - such as troop movements - that compromises their security. Also, there's probably a number of things you could say to your commander that would get you dishonorably discharged.

What this soldier did was so outrageously negligent that he should be punished. Our mission in Iraq isn't just to kill the enemy, but it's to build a positive relationship with the Iraqis. Shooting the Iraqis' holy book is certainly not going to win any hearts and minds. This soldier is guilty of dereliciton of duty.

A lot of you guys have said "it's just a damn book so what's the big deal, it's not like he was shooting innocent people!" Well, if he was going around just shooting innocent people, it would actually do less harm to our reputation than shooting their holy book. Soldiers shoot innocent people all the time. It's rare when they do something so STUPID as to shoot the Qur'an for target practice. You may think it's wrong that this is more offensive to the Iraqis than killing innocent people, but too bad, it's not what YOU think, it's what the Iraqis think. We're trying to win their hearts and minds, not yours.

mimartin
05-21-2008, 02:02 AM
I think diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy has not been a hallmark of GW's tenure.
Diplomacy for the sake of allies, peace or even superficial diplomacy has not been the hallmark of Bushís tenure. Funny thing is his father was extremely good at diplomacy.

Oh, yes bring up Carter. Carter was good at bring together the Israelis and the Egyptians, but he refused to negotiate with Iran over the hostages. However, the President elect had no problem using diplomacy to trade arms for the hostages. Maybe the next President elect can go behind Bushís back after November and get something done in Iraq and Afghanistan, be it Obama or McCain.

Achilles
05-21-2008, 02:55 AM
Okay, I have a question (technically several). Have you ever heard the saying, "Do to others as you would want done to yourself", you know "The Golden Rule"? How do you think that you would feel if someone used something very, I will use the word sacred, of yours as target practice. How exactly would you feel. Please answer honestly.That's going to be very difficult for me to answer as "sacred" isn't in my vocabulary. No equivalent that I can think of either.

If someone used something that was very important to me as target practice, I would be pretty upset, but from a perspective of ownership and ethics of personal property rather than some non-defendable argument about the relative holiness of said object. Indeed, if the punishment was that said sniper-guy needed to pay restitutions to whomever he stole the qu'ran from, then that would be reasonable and equitable (as well as whatever other reasonable and equitable punishment the military courts deemed appropriate for theft). On the other hand if said sniper-guy bought the copy of the qu'ran himself with his own money, then it is his and he should be able to do whatever he'd like to with it.

But we're tacking on a bunch of other stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He endangered lives by shooting the book? Why should lives be endangered? Islam is a religion of peace right? Perhaps the people that would be incited to violence aren't "real" muslims then? Well then why would non-muslims be offended by the desecration of the qu'ran? Either islam is not a religion of peace (and we need to start asking ourselves why we're pandering to a religious culture that believes in violence) or the people that we're worried about upsetting don't have any reason to be upset in the first place. Neither one of these arguments lends itself to this guy getting punished for doing anything wrong.

I conceded earlier that mimartin's argument made sense, but I did so within the context that the premise of islam being a religion of peace is false. We can't have it both ways.

I hope that answers your questions. Thanks for reading.

Rev7
05-21-2008, 03:10 AM
That's going to be very difficult for me to answer as "sacred" isn't in my vocabulary. No equivalent that I can think of either.
But you know what desecrate (desecration) means?
Sacred=worthy of respect in this case. ;)

I would be pretty upset.
That is how these muslims feel.

Achilles
05-21-2008, 03:17 AM
But you know what desecrate (desecration) means?
Sacred=worthy of respect in this case. ;) Depends on which definition we're using. Regardless, I don't see how this has any bearing on the answer that I offered you, the main points of which you seem to have ignored.

That is how these muslims feel.I suspect that you stopped reading there.

Det. Bart Lasiter
05-21-2008, 03:24 AM
That is how these muslims feel.Then they can send an angry letter.

Totenkopf
05-21-2008, 03:41 AM
Then they can send an angry letter.

Problem is that they'll probably "post" it with a dagger in someone's chest. :xp:

Diplomacy for the sake of allies, peace or even superficial diplomacy has not been the hallmark of Bushís tenure. Funny thing is his father was extremely good at diplomacy.

Oh, yes bring up Carter. Carter was good at bring together the Israelis and the Egyptians, but he refused to negotiate with Iran over the hostages. However, the President elect had no problem using diplomacy to trade arms for the hostages. Maybe the next President elect can go behind Bushís back after November and get something done in Iraq and Afghanistan, be it Obama or McCain.

Yeah, for all the good it really ended up doing. Carter's "triumph" ended up being Sadat's funeral and we're still no closer to peace in the middle east. Diplomacy as an effective tool requires the realization by the other side that there are consequences for their failure to "play ball". Anything else is just empty words, bluffs waiting to be called or invitations to walk over the other guy. I still think it's sadly pathetic that modern presidents are chasing the chimera of ME peace to solidify or create a legacy for their term(s) of office.

jonathan7
05-21-2008, 10:13 AM
Okay, I have a question (technically several). Have you ever heard the saying, "Do to others as you would want done to yourself", you know "The Golden Rule"? How do you think that you would feel if someone used something very, I will use the word sacred, of yours as target practice. How exactly would you feel. Please answer honestly.

Well, if someone came in and shot/burned my copies of the Bible (or Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, all my philosophy books), I'd probably feel rather sorry for them, as to do that you quite frankly would have to be an idiot.

I'd want them prosecuted for having broken an entering and for criminal damage, and I would hope to be reimbursed for my books. The same could be said for my rock gaming laptop (my most valuable posession), the only 'things' of mine you could get me angry over destroying would be my pet cat Tiggy, and my pet rabbit Jack, both of who if shot would die, and they can't be replaced. However I would still want the above due process to occur.

tk102
05-21-2008, 03:20 PM
US-Russia discussion snipped to preserve topicality. Sorry folks, start a new thread if you want to continue it.

*Don*
05-21-2008, 05:24 PM
But we're tacking on a bunch of other stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He endangered lives by shooting the book? Why should lives be endangered? Islam is a religion of peace right? Perhaps the people that would be incited to violence aren't "real" muslims then?


What you're forgetting is that there are different types of muslims.
The muslims in Pakistan live/act/think differently than the muslims in Turkey, and the muslims in Saudi Arabia live/act/think differently than the muslims in Africa.

With that being said, the muslims in Iraq are also different in the sense that (at this time) there are large amounts of "radicals".
The radical's reaction to the insult of the Quran would definitely result in violence and therefore endanger innocent lives.


Well then why would non-muslims be offended by the desecration of the qu'ran? Either islam is not a religion of peace (and we need to start asking ourselves why we're pandering to a religious culture that believes in violence) or the people that we're worried about upsetting don't have any reason to be upset in the first place.


Whether or not Islam is a religion of peace is regardless to the situation at hand. The fact is that America is trying to look out for its own soldiers and its own interests by "pandering" to that religious culture.


...or the people that we're worried about upsetting don't have any reason to be upset in the first place.


Liken it to this scenario: if an American soldier in Israel shot the Torah, there would be massive retaliation from the Israelis. Its pretty safe to assume that the incident would place America in a bad light.
Similarly, the Iraqis definitely have a reason to be upset. Most of them already think America is a tyrant and are at odds with us. This incident hasn't ameliorated our condition.
As igyman said before:


each of us is a representative of their country. Every time we go abroad we represent our country, our people and our culture, because if we do something stupid and/or illegal the news headlines won't say "Joe Johnson did that", they'll say "*Country Name* citizen did that".


With that being said. I feel America needs to continue to be properly represented and share good relations with the Iraqis for the time being.

Achilles
05-21-2008, 05:57 PM
What you're forgetting is that there are different types of muslims. Do you mean, "different interpretations of islam"?

The muslims in Pakistan live/act/think differently than the muslims in Turkey, and the muslims in Saudi Arabia live/act/think differently than the muslims in Africa. No doubt, but I'm not sure what this says about the religion of islam in general.

With that being said, the muslims in Iraq are also different in the sense that (at this time) there are large amounts of "radicals". Okay, fair enough. Could you please define what "radical" means in this context?

The radical's reaction to the insult of the Quran would definitely result in violence and therefore endanger innocent lives. Where are "the radicals" getting the justification for this kind of behavior?

(hint: I know where they say they are getting it from)

Whether or not Islam is a religion of peace is regardless to the situation at hand. This isn't true for reasons that I have already outlined. Whether or not islam is a religion of peace is absolutely central to the issue at hand. In fact, I don't see how there could be any issue more essential.

You ever see the movie "A Few Good Men"? There is a scene toward the end where Cruise gets Nicholson's character caught in a bit of a pinch. Nicholson has made the claim that his orders are followed without exception because Marines are disciplined. Then he says that he had a Marine transferred from his base because he (Nicholson) feared for his (the Marine's) safety. Then Cruise asks, "Well if your orders are always obeyed and you gave the order that he was not to be touched, then why would you fear for his safety".

Same dynamic applies here. Both explanations cannot be true at the same time.

The fact is that America is trying to look out for its own soldiers and its own interests by "pandering to that religious culture. The same religious culture that brought us Daniel Pearl, September 11th, July 7th, et cetera? No one is saying that all muslims are terrorists, but it sure does seem that an awful lot of terrorists are muslims. Why are we pandering to islam if we're suppose to be engaged in a "war on terror"?

Liken it to this scenario: if an American soldier in Israel shot the Torah, there would be massive retaliation from the Israelis. What would this "massive retaliation" look like?

Its pretty safe to assume that the incident would place America in a bad light. As igyman said before:No doubt. As I've concede several times, this is not the exemplification of class acts. But again, that's completely beside the point.

Thanks for reading.

*Don*
05-21-2008, 08:25 PM
Do you mean, "different interpretations of islam"?


Not exactly. Its not so much as how they interpret Islam, but rather how local politics are executed. In other words, Turkey (which has more western thought in its government) rules differently from Pakistan (which was primarily a dictatorship). Iraq was also a dictatorship for many years. Under the previous rule, the classical Sunni line of thought dominated politics. Iraqi people are still trying to get accustomed to the new democracy but they still remember their old ways.


Could you please define what "radical" means in this context?


By "radicals", I was refering to the young men that are easily swayed under the sway of inams (sp).


What would this "massive retaliation" look like?


Its hard for me to say. It could consist of intense rioting or it could be as simple as a boycott.

Overall, I saw the roundtable discussion on CNN last night about this.
The man on TV used an illustrative analogy to describe this situation:

He said that Iraq is like a lion that was partially tamed. When this incident occurred, it was like America (the lion tamer) poking it in the eye. Regardless of whether the tamer apologizes, the lion is sure to cause some type of uproar. The only question is, will it just scream and complain, or will it strike back?

Achilles
05-22-2008, 04:24 AM
Not exactly. Its not so much as how they interpret Islam, but rather how local politics are executed. In other words, Turkey (which has more western thought in its government) rules differently from Pakistan (which was primarily a dictatorship). I would recommend studying some current events. Turkey may be "officially" secular, however it is 99% muslim and there is a great deal of social pressure to radicalize (check out news links to recent riots, etc).

Iraq was also a dictatorship for many years. Under the previous rule, the classical Sunni line of thought dominated politics. Iraqi people are still trying to get accustomed to the new democracy but they still remember their old ways. Funny, I thought all the sectarian violence was a result of blowback after decades of minority control rather than democratic adjustment.

By "radicals", I was refering to the young men that are easily swayed under the sway of inams (sp). And the young men that are persuaded by the imams that are promoting peace? Are they radicals as well? If not, then your definition doesn't work.

(hint: What does "radical peace" look like?).

Its hard for me to say. It could consist of intense rioting or it could be as simple as a boycott. You seemed to have something specific in mind when you asserted that there would be "massive retaliations". Either we know what the means or we don't. No harm in either one, but we need to decide which one is real and which one is conjecture.

Overall, I saw the roundtable discussion on CNN last night about this.
The man on TV used an illustrative analogy to describe this situation:

He said that Iraq is like a lion that was partially tamed. When this incident occurred, it was like America (the lion tamer) poking it in the eye. Regardless of whether the tamer apologizes, the lion is sure to cause some type of uproar. The only question is, will it just scream and complain, or will it strike back?So the best analogy we have for "the religion of peace (tm)" is a partially tamed lion? Are lions widely known for being non-violent? I, for one, think the analogy is pretty telling.

Corinthian
05-22-2008, 06:12 AM
I've never understood why Islam is a religion of peace, but that's another thread.

So the Muslims might put up a bit of an uproar? Well, they can bite their lip and try to keep the flood of tears down, it's not like we've stolen all their toilets. Every other religion in the world has learned to deal with people showing contempt for it, if they can't learn to do the same with theirs then, for one thing, they need to take their Religion of Peace and jam it where nobody else can see it.

*Don*
05-22-2008, 07:14 PM
Funny, I thought all the sectarian violence was a result of blowback after decades of minority control rather than democratic adjustment.


I wasn't refering to the sectarian violence.
What I meant was: even though the new government is democratic, they still are heavily influenced by Islamic ideals. There is even an Islamic political party in their parliament. Hence, an attack on their sacred book would cause an outrage amongst them.



You seemed to have something specific in mind when you asserted that there would be "massive retaliations".


Actually, I did. I have visited Israel many times and know how dearly they uphold all their customs. A blatant and ignorant attack on their sacred book would definitely result in rioting. The only reason I didn't clearly state this is because it was just my gut feeling and I didn't have any hard evidence.


So the best analogy we have for "the religion of peace (tm)" is a partially tamed lion? Are lions widely known for being non-violent? I, for one, think the analogy is pretty telling.

First off, I believe that the analogy was actually used to describe the nation of Iraq, not "the religion of peace".

Secondly, untamed lions are not known for being non-violent. Therefore, if you were the lion tamer, would you:
a) work around it until it cooperates
or
b) let it maul you

Achilles
05-22-2008, 07:53 PM
At the risk of sounding confrontational, I love how you cherry-pick which questions to respond to and which to ignore :D

I wasn't refering to the sectarian violence.
What I meant was: even though the new government is democratic, they still are heavily influenced by Islamic ideals. There is even an Islamic political party in their parliament. Hence, an attack on their sacred book would cause an outrage amongst them. I'm not sure what this is supposed to convey. The Iraqi parliment is not a secular organization. It is comprised of sectarian factions which are largely definied by their differing interpretations of islamic tradition. So noting that there are islamic political parties in parliament is like pointing out that there is water in the ocean :)

Yes, I acknowledge that an attack on their sacred book will outrage them. The questions that I've raised but have yet to be addressed are:

1) What expectation should have regarding what "outrage" will look like coming from "the religion of peace" (by way of comparison, what does "buddhist outrage" look like)?
2) How does this expectation compare to what we are actually expecting?
3) Why does this discrepancy exist and why aren't we acknowledging the elephant in the room?
4) Why should we be concerned (i.e. why should we validate their argument that some act of "sacrilege" took place by pandering to them)?

Actually, I did. I have visited Israel many times and know how dearly they uphold all their customs. A blatant and ignorant attack on their sacred book would definitely result in rioting. The only reason I didn't clearly state this is because it was just my gut feeling and I didn't have any hard evidence. Fair enough. I'm willing to take your word for it. Now that we've addressed that hopefully we can close this unrelated aside and go back to the point I was making.

First off, I believe that the analogy was actually used to describe the nation of Iraq, not "the religion of peace". Well then either you are splitting hairs or he made a completely unrelated argument. Which of these scenarios is the case?

(Why is he bringing up Iraq if this is an islam problem or why are you arguing they are separate if the source you are citing is arguing that they are related?)

Secondly, untamed lions are not known for being non-violent. Therefore, if you were the lion tamer, would you:
a) work around it until it cooperates
or
b) let it maul youFirst off, at no point would I pretend that the lion wasn't a lion. And that is precisely the point I've been trying to make.

Thanks for your response.

*Don*
05-22-2008, 08:27 PM
At the risk of sounding confrontational, I love how you cherry-pick which questions to respond to and which to ignore :D


I humbly apologize if thats what I have been doing. I assure you that it wasn't intentional.


The questions that I've raised but have yet to be addressed are:

1) What expectation should have regarding what "outrage" will look like coming from "the religion of peace" (by way of comparison, what does "buddhist outrage" look like)?
2) How does this expectation compare to what we are actually expecting?
3) Why does this discrepancy exist and why aren't we acknowledging the elephant in the room?
4) Why should we be concerned (i.e. why should we validate their argument that some act of "sacrilege" took place by pandering to them)?


Islam says that disrespect to the prophet is not to be tolerated. Unfortunately, there are alot of ways that someone could interpret this.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the "outrage" will probably come in the form of a suicide bomb. Inams like Al-Sadr will probably use this to manipulate the minds of young Iraqi men. I acknowledge that Islam isn't all the "religion of peace" as some people claim, but unfortunately there are people in this world who twist its meaning to accomodate their own plots (i.e. Osama Bin Laden). Therefore, I can only postulate that their outrage *might* materialize in the form of a bomb.
The reason why this discrepancy exists is mostly caused by the various interpretations of Islam that are floating around. I guess that the reason why the government is not acknowleging the elephant in the room is because they do not want to draw more attention to their failures in Iraq. The reason why we should be concerned is because their "outrage" would most probably target our remaining soldiers in that country. As others have stated before in this thread, the actions of that soldier (although they were legal) have caused unecessary tension in Iraq.


Well then either you are splitting hairs or he made a completely unrelated argument. Which of these scenarios is the case?

(Why is he bringing up Iraq if this is an islam problem or why are you arguing they are separate if the source you are citing is arguing that they are related?)


Actually, I was not trying to make any kind of argument with that point. I was just stating what he had said. As far as I can remember, he did not talk much about Islam, but rather how the Iraqis would react. (in other words, he never delved into whether Islam was a religion of peace).

Emperor Devon
05-22-2008, 08:42 PM
As long as it was his book (or loaned and given permission to be shot by someone else), who cares? If it was the soldier's property it's not anyone's business to tell him what to do with it. If it wasn't he's clearly at fault for destroying someone else's belongings.

Quarans don't belong to all Muslims. They are owned exclusively by the individuals who purchased them, and aren't the concern of anyone who didn't buy whatever copy is in question.

And no, while I would dislike the idea of someone burning a book debunking creationism, it's their given right to if said book is owned by them.

But you know what desecrate (desecration) means?
Sacred=worthy of respect in this case. ;)

How patronizing.

Achilles
05-22-2008, 09:02 PM
I humbly apologize if thats what I have been doing. I assure you that it wasn't intentional. No apology necessary. I thought it was more humorous than anything else, but I didn't want to come across as though I was trying to pick a fight.

Islam says that disrespect to the prophet is not to be tolerated. Unfortunately, there are alot of ways that someone could interpret this. Indeed. Yet one would hope that coming from the religion of peace, we could safely assume that such interpretations would not include violence. Strangely, this logic doesn't match reality.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the "outrage" will probably come in the form of a suicide bomb. I would say that your guess is probably a pretty good one considering the established precident of suicide bombing.

Inams like Al-Sadr will probably use this to manipulate the minds of young Iraqi men. I acknowledge that Islam isn't all the "religion of peace" as some people claim, but unfortunately there are people in this world who twist its meaning to accomodate their own plots (i.e. Osama Bin Laden). *Shrugs* If the book says do X, is the person doing what the book says or are they manipulating the book to suit their agenda? If the book didn't say "do X" then I'd feel a lot more comfortable adopting your stance on this one.

Therefore, I can only postulate that their outrage *might* materialize in the form of a bomb. I'm willing to bet that Vegas will take whatever odds you'd like to offer. :)

The reason why this discrepancy exists is mostly caused by the various interpretations of Islam that are floating around. That's a fair answer.

I guess that the reason why the government is not acknowleging the elephant in the room is because they do not want to draw more attention to their failures in Iraq. Well, I wasn't thinking in terms of the government so much as I was "everyone".

The reason why we should be concerned is because their "outrage" would most probably target our remaining soldiers in that country. As others have stated before in this thread, the actions of that soldier (although they were legal) have caused unecessary tension in Iraq. Well, if islam wasn't so violent, there wouldn't be much tension now would there? :D

Actually, I was not trying to make any kind of argument with that point. I was just stating what he had said. As far as I can remember, he did not talk much about Islam, but rather how the Iraqis would react. (in other words, he never delved into whether Islam was a religion of peace).It would certainly seem that he's associating islam with Iraq (and I bet the religious demographics of the country would support this :)).

Thanks!

Tommycat
05-22-2008, 11:49 PM
How do you think that you would feel if someone used something very, I will use the word sacred, of yours as target practice. How exactly would you feel. Please answer honestly.

You mean like the American Flag that people burn. Yeah That's the most revered thing I have(obviously outside of my family) and nobody has a problem burning, stomping on, smearing with whatever they have. As much as I dislike it, I say let them do it. They do it all the time. Strangely enough, the conquered people are afforded more respect than the people with guns...

As for how he could shoot the Quran with no malice, I can actually see it. It's a thick book. Personally I would rather the phonebook, but I don't know if they have the Iraq Yellow Pages. It isn't like they have a ton of copies of War and Peace over there(which would be a rather ironic book to use as target practice).

TK-8252
05-23-2008, 12:23 AM
Strangely enough, the conquered people are afforded more respect than the people with guns...

That's right. After all, we're not the Roman Empire.

Totenkopf
05-23-2008, 01:27 AM
That's right. After all, we're not the Roman Empire.


Meaning what, exactly?

Tommycat
05-23-2008, 02:39 AM
That's right. After all, we're not the Roman Empire.
Nah, but it still seems strange that people go on and on about how disrespectful it is to the Quran, but they have been burning the flags in the streets.

Rev7
05-23-2008, 03:00 AM
How patronizing.
I was only trying to relate something that is sacred to muslims, and something sacred to yourself. That is all, and if I offended anyone, please forgive me.
You mean like the American Flag that people burn. Yeah That's the most revered thing I have(obviously outside of my family) and nobody has a problem burning, stomping on, smearing with whatever they have. As much as I dislike it, I say let them do it. They do it all the time. Strangely enough, the conquered people are afforded more respect than the people with guns...
So, are you saying that people burning an American flag wound you inside? Or are you saying that it doesn't wound you in any way, shape, or form?
Quarans don't belong to all Muslims. They are owned exclusively by the individuals who purchased them, and aren't the concern of anyone who didn't buy whatever copy is in question.
Yeah, Women's Rights don't all belong to women? Just because it is a law (I guess?) that we Americans have, doesn't necissarily mean that every country in the world has that same rule. Regardless, this still angers these muslims in Iraq and who knows where else. Proof? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=V3YlAqaNxnc)

mimartin
05-23-2008, 03:01 AM
They do it all the time. Strangely enough, the conquered people are afforded more respect than the people with guns...
Wait the people of Iraq donít have guns? I bet they donít have the makings for roadside bombs either.

The difference is while most American may get upset with someone burning our flag, most of the sane Americans are not about to kill an innocent life over it. September 11 2001 should have proven to everyone that the Muslim Extremist will kill the innocent and themselves in order to prove their point.

We are occupying their nation. We have young men and women on the ground there and the Iraqs do have weapons. There is no rational reason to upset them or disrespect them when we are trying to open their eyes to another way of life.

Besides a gun does not afford someone respect. Our actions are what should garner us respect.

Tommycat
05-23-2008, 03:52 AM
So, are you saying that people burning an American flag wound you inside? Or are you saying that it doesn't wound you in any way, shape, or form?
Yes, I'm saying it does hurt me. It brings me to a near boiling point when I see it. However, I am also not one to tell people they cannot protest in the manner they see fit. They can disrespect me, the bible, the USA, etc, but you get one guy that uses the Quran for target practice, and suddenly it's an international crisis. There's something seriously wrong with people with that view.

Achilles
05-23-2008, 04:32 AM
I was only trying to relate something that is sacred to muslims, and something sacred to yourself. That is all, and if I offended anyone, please forgive me. The point is that there are people that don't buy into religiously themed concepts such as "sacred", "desecrate", "sin", etc. So such a relation is impossible. When you leave the religious themes behind, then you're left with concepts such as "important" and the like, however you're also stuck trying to explain how a copy of a book fits into this category.

Emperor Devon
05-23-2008, 05:31 AM
I was only trying to relate something that is sacred to muslims, and something sacred to yourself.

Supposing there was anything I found sacred (historical and scientific texts come closest), I'd have no problem with anyone defacing them. So long as said texts were their own property, though I thought I'd made that clear in my previous post.

Generally I'm not one to place others' rights below my own (biased) sources of annoyance.

Yeah, Women's Rights don't all belong to women?

Said rights are an idea that civilized countries practice, not an object that can 'belong' to any one person(s).

Just because it is a law (I guess?) that we Americans have, doesn't necissarily mean that every country in the world has that same rule.

What sort of appeal to popularity/authority is that supposed to be? That's entirely unrelated to whether they're right.

Regardless, this still angers these muslims in Iraq

Relevance? They didn't own the shot-up Quaran.

Proof? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=V3YlAqaNxnc)

Haven't I made my lack of concern over their anger clear enough? My apologies if I haven't, I'll be more concise: I don't find their feelings over this issue relevant at all.

Salzella
05-23-2008, 06:36 AM
I realise this guy's within his rights and all that, but there should be a law against being bloody stupid, when you take into account where he is and the religious context of the whole conflict.... I meant, good grief. Someone take this guy away and shoot him, keep him out fo the gene pool. Everyone would be better off I think.

Tommycat
05-23-2008, 06:59 AM
The point is that there are people that don't buy into religiously themed concepts such as "sacred", "desecrate", "sin", etc. So such a relation is impossible. When you leave the religious themes behind, then you're left with concepts such as "important" and the like, however you're also stuck trying to explain how a copy of a book fits into this category.
Well a first edition Dickens might fit that bill:D haha

I realise this guy's within his rights and all that, but there should be a law against being bloody stupid, when you take into account where he is and the religious context of the whole conflict.... I meant, good grief. Someone take this guy away and shoot him, keep him out fo the gene pool. Everyone would be better off I think.
Soooo the guy's job is to kill people. Yet you are somehow more upset about him shooting a book?

Achilles
05-23-2008, 01:51 PM
...when you take into account where he is and the religious context of the whole conflict.... I meant, good grief.Why should that be a consideration?

mimartin
05-23-2008, 02:43 PM
Why should that be a consideration?
While I have never attend a Muslim service and do not know or understand how it is conducted. From what I do understand their clergy (I apologize if that is not the proper term to any that are offended) have tremendous political power. Achilles you may appreciate me conceding this point, the uneducated turn to religion and religious leaders for knowledge and guidance. Trusting both the religion and the religious leader to do what is in the best interest of the individual and God. The religious leader can use this trust to serve their own self interest. When you have a religious leaders who are political and have willing masses at his/her disposal, then the religious context should be taken into consideration.

In a perfect world he destroyed his own property and if he followed all safety protocols then nothing happened here that is unlawful or even unethical. However, this is not a perfect world and what is worst is the region of the world this happen in is not exactly the most logical. Saying that it is not offensive to you or that it is offensive to you does not matter. The only real question I see is it offensive to the people of Iraq and will it put other U.S. soldier under greater risk than they are already in?
called the shooting "aggression against the entire Islamic world."
I understand you want to look at this objectively without religion clouding our judgment. The soldier shot his own book, big deal. I agree with that, but religion is just a big a factor in this as timing and location. It would not have been as big a deal if the soldier had not been part of an occupation force. It would not have been as big a deal if it would have happened in Texas or Arizona. It would not have been as big a deal he would have shot the Bible, but he shot the Quran and it is a big deal to their religious leaders which makes it a big deal to their followers. Which should make it a big deal to our Military leaders since we have men and women on the ground there.

Achilles
05-23-2008, 03:09 PM
When you have a religious leaders who are political and have willing masses at his/her disposal, then the religious context should be taken into consideration. I am reminded of the episode of the Twilight Zone called The Good Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Good_Life_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29#Synopsi s).

However, this is not a perfect world and what is worst is the region of the world this happen in is not exactly the most logical. Saying that it is not offensive to you or that it is offensive to you does not matter.It's not about me. Why should rational people concede that it should be considered offensive by anyone?

If someone defaced a copy of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180375352&sr=8-1) and the Pastafarians rose up as one to declare our outrage, would you stop laughing long enough to care? Would you simply roll your eyes and posit that perhaps may be some people were taking things a little too seriously? What if we were discussing Harry Potter fans and an autographed first edition copy of the Sorcerer's Stone? Same reaction?

The only real question I see is it offensive to the people of Iraq and will it put other U.S. soldier under greater risk than they are already in? "No comment here, no comment at all. We only wanted to introduce you to one of our very special citizens, little Anthony Fremont, age 6, who lives in a village called Peaksville in a place that used to be Ohio. And if by some strange chance you should run across him, you had best think only good thoughts. Anything less than that is handled at your own risk, because if you do meet Anthony you can be sure of one thing: you have entered the Twilight Zone."

mur'phon
05-23-2008, 03:38 PM
It's not about me. Why should rational people concede that it should be considered offensive by anyone?

They shouldn't, though I don't see how "they"(we?) are doing it by admitting that bad things happens, and try to awoid said bad things happening. Just because I feel like burning a few bibles one day dosen't mean I'll do it infront of a bunch of pious christians. Not because I think that they have a reason to attack me, but because I know they most likely will. Hope that helps.

If someone defaced a copy of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pastafarians rose up as one to declare our outrage, would you stop laughing long enough to care?

If they seemed likely to kill someone over it, yes I would care.

Would you simply roll your eyes and posit that perhaps may be some people were taking things a little too seriously?

Yes, though I would try to prevent people from getting killed by "retaliation" and see what preventive measures could be taken, and try to get some politicans to do something with said sugestions (or better ones).

What if we were discussing Harry Potter fans and an autographed first edition copy of the Sorcerer's Stone? Same reaction?

Yes

mimartin
05-23-2008, 03:40 PM
Why should rational people concede that it should be considered offensive by anyone?I'm sure the rational people of Iraq do not consider it offensive. They may see it done in bad taste or lacking proper manners perhaps, but not a stoning offense. I have trouble understanding how a rational person could condone the sanction inequality between the genders in the Muslim world, yet I donít see it changing very quickly. Either Iím wrong with my definition of what a rational person would think or maybe that region of the world has a shortage of what I consider rational people.

Just so we are clear, I am not upset with him shooting a book. I am upset that his actions could place his fellow country men and women and our allies at risk.

Like muríphon wrote, if I felt you were going to kill them over you defaced Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then sure I would be just as upset and may even take action. Not only to protect the person that defaced your book, but to protect you from your actions. Yes, I would roll my eyes, but that does nothing to stop the person from taking things too seriously. As to the Harry Potter book I would jump in to try and save it. Not that I care about Harry Potter, but I hear there is a market for that type of thing on e-bay.

Achilles
05-23-2008, 04:10 PM
They shouldn't, though I don't see how "they"(we?) are doing it by admitting that bad things happens, and try to awoid said bad things happening.Is this analogous to a parent giving a toddler anything he or she wants to avoid a temper tantrum?

Yes, children to do throw temper tantrums, but the adult has a choice about how to respond (I was always a big fan of time-outs).

Just because I feel like burning a few bibles one day dosen't mean I'll do it infront of a bunch of pious christians. Not because I think that they have a reason to attack me, but because I know they most likely will. Hope that helps. And would their response be justified or unjustified (rationally speaking. Remember we're talking about a book here).

If they seemed likely to kill someone over it, yes I would care. So when buddhist protest about Tibet, you don't care because you know that they won't kill anyone. But when the muslims protest about a book getting shot, you do care because someone might die. Doesn't seem that buddhists have much incentive to be peaceful does it?

Yes, though I would try to prevent people from getting killed by "retaliation" and see what preventive measures could be taken, and try to get some politicans to do something with said sugestions (or better ones). Forgive me I doubt your sincerity. :)

YesFair enough.

...but not a stoning offense. That's awesome! I'm totally borrowing that line. :D

Just so we are clear, I am not upset with him shooting a book. I am upset that his actions could place his fellow country men and women and our allies at risk.And I am upset that we are validating this way of thinking by buying into the idea that he did something wrong and needs to be punished (the rationale for this is can still be found in the latter half of post #48).

Like muríphon wrote, if I felt you were going to kill them over you defaced Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then sure I would be just as upset and may even take action. Not only to protect the person that defaced your book, but to protect you from your actions. Okay. So all Pastafarians have to do to be taken seriously is threaten harm to those that don't respect their beliefs? Got it.

PS: I never said "kill" I said "declare outrage". Interesting that both you and mur'phon conflated that with murder within the analogy of islam. Hmmm...

Totenkopf
05-23-2008, 04:59 PM
Ah...irrational "rationality". Unfortunately for some people, we don't live in a robotic "Vulcan" type of world. In reality, we live in a world frought with emotions. It's all nice and fine to say "why should a rational person find such-n-such offensive", but such an attitude will serve you poorly in dealing with others who don't share your values about what is permissible and what is not and inevitably lead one to irrationally commit a series of faux paus b/c of their own insensitivity to others who don't share their "enlightened outlook". This has gone beyond merely what is "right" or "wrong" and into the realm of crisis management where most decisions are aimed at defusing a problem before it escalates. In a vacuum, I'd say "big deal, it's just paper", sadly it's not a vacuum.

Web Rider
05-23-2008, 05:35 PM
To jump on the original topic, I think his punishment has gone far enough, maybe redeploy him to some non-Muslim location or something just to get him out of there.

But has for "harsher punishment", the guy shot a book, with words in it that happen to be printed the same as the Qur'an. Yeah, the thing is scared to Muslims, but get a grip, it's just a copy of it.

Totenkopf
05-23-2008, 05:59 PM
.....maybe redeploy him to some non-Muslim location or something just to get him out of there.



I think that's been the traditional MO and agree that there's not much need to go beyond that. The radical Muslims need to understand that we won't allow ourselves to be straitjacketed by their concepts of sharia.

mur'phon
05-23-2008, 06:40 PM
Is this analogous to a parent giving a toddler anything he or she wants to avoid a temper tantrum?

I think it fits poorly, It's highly unlikely that a child would kill anyone, or even causing much damage is when throwing a tantrum.

And would their response be justified or unjustified

Unjustified

So when buddhist protest about Tibet, you don't care because you know that they won't kill anyone.

I care because they are being opressed, and respect them, and are more likely to do something to aid them because they are non-violent.

But when the muslims protest about a book getting shot, you do care because someone might die.

Yes

Doesn't seem that buddhists have much incentive to be peaceful does it?

They have, for what it's worth I am more likely to do something to help them now than if they turned violent.

Forgive me I doubt your sincerity.

I forgive thee my son :xp:

PS: I never said "kill" I said "declare outrage". Interesting that both you and mur'phon conflated that with murder within the analogy of islam. Hmmm...

Why?

Achilles
05-23-2008, 06:58 PM
I think it fits poorly, It's highly unlikely that a child would kill anyone, or even causing much damage is when throwing a tantrum. It's not a question of damage. It's a question of controlling the agenda. If it was a question of damage, then I would have picked a different analogy.

We aren't controlling the dynamic, we are reacting to it. Conversely, by choosing to react, we are validating the behavior and giving them control. Therefore the child learns that throwing a tantrum is an effective means to get what he or she wants. This is our foreign policy with regards to islam.

Unjustified Okay. Then I'll state that any call to violence regarding the incident with the book-shooting would be unjustified and I hope that you would continue to agree with me.

I care because they are being opressed, and respect them, and are more likely to do something to aid them because they are non-violent. Yet we don't have a thread on buddhism or Tibet (we have several on islam and Iraq). ;)

PS: Feel free to point out my hypocrisy here. I am well aware that it exists.

Why?Why is that interesting? Because it would seem that you both automatically associate "outrage" with "killing" when the point of reference islam. I doubt the same associate exists for other religions. I think that says a lot about what we all acknowledge but are hesitant to say about our peaceful friends in the East.

mur'phon
05-24-2008, 05:37 AM
We aren't controlling the dynamic, we are reacting to it. Conversely, by choosing to react, we are validating the behavior and giving them control. Therefore the child learns that throwing a tantrum is an effective means to get what he or she wants. This is our foreign policy with regards to islam.

I'm aware of that, and it's an unfortunate consequence. However, if our goal is to "export" our culture (you, know the whole "freeing" thing Bush was talking about), I think it's going to be a lot easier (and far less bloddy) if we don't provoke them needlessly. It's far easier for islamic leaders to resist democratising when they can label the whole thing as a creation of the evil west.

Then I'll state that any call to violence regarding the incident with the book-shooting would be unjustified and I hope that you would continue to agree with me.

I do.

I think that says a lot about what we all acknowledge but are hesitant to say about our peaceful friends in the East.

That a few tend to do violent things in the name of their religion, and a lot of people supports them? Actually, that fits two group of friends in the East.

Achilles
05-24-2008, 06:09 AM
I'm aware of that, and it's an unfortunate consequence. However, if our goal is to "export" our culture (you, know the whole "freeing" thing Bush was talking about), I think it's going to be a lot easier (and far less bloddy) if we don't provoke them needlessly. It's far easier for islamic leaders to resist democratising when they can label the whole thing as a creation of the evil west. My opinion on this is outside the scope of this thread. Suffice it to say that I don't think "exporting our culture" should be a concern either.

That a few tend to do violent things in the name of their religion, and a lot of people supports them? Actually, that fits two group of friends in the East. :D

I'm glad we've come to some semblance of common ground, however I still maintain that he should not have been punished. Transferred maybe. If his friends wanted to give him a proper beat-down for being a dumb***, then that's another story.

Tommycat
05-24-2008, 10:07 AM
Ok, so what I'm seeing is that the rest of the world should just do whatever the US wants because we have the ability to blow big chunks out of the countries that offend us. I mean that appears to be the mindset of people who want more punishment for this man. Better not tick off the US and capitulate to their rage every time. hehe I'm good with that. Don't think the rest of the world would be happy witht hat though.

No offense intended, I'm just pointing out that even though it may offend a group, that isn't a reason to have greater punishment heaped upon this guy. He appologized. They said it wasn't good enough. Some on here want to turn this book into some higher level than it really is. It is an object. In fact it is a rather common object. besides no matter what he shoots at, someone will get mad(except apparently the targets his job entails).

mimartin
05-24-2008, 11:22 AM
Like I wrote earlier in this thread, I donít believe the soldier should be punished for destroying his own property. I donít believe the soldier should be punished for destroying or disrespecting another cultures holy book.

The person in question is a United States soldier, who has the job assignment of a sniper, I would hope someone in his position had a little more brains, responsibility and judgment then to do something so irresponsible and juvenile. I donít really want him punished, I want his job assignment changed because he does not have the skills necessary to be a sniper in the United States military. His lack of judgment put his fellow soldiers in greater jeopardy and that deserves his reassignment or dismissal. Not to appease some radicals, but to preserve American Military lives.

If you want to make untrue blanket statements then you could say that anyone that does want this soldier dismissed, punished or reassign does not care about the lives of the soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not true, but it is just as silly as saying that American can do anything they want because we have the bigger guns. That is that attitude the leader of this country has had for the last 7 years and it is the reason we are in this mess today.

Totenkopf
05-24-2008, 03:56 PM
I have only seen that the "natives" want him to be more severly punished, but in what manner? Should we alter the UCMJ everytime a foreign country's citizens don't like what's laid out w/in the system? I almost wonder if this guy didn't secretly want to be ejected from that theatre and used a quran for that reason (not that he'd ever admit that publically). And Bush's problem isn't that he's been unafraid to use American muscle, but rather that he's been somewhat incompetent in the way it's been done.

Rev7
05-24-2008, 04:41 PM
I have only seen that the "natives" want him to be more severly punished, but in what manner?
That is true. They can't really do anything about it though.
The person in question is a United States soldier, who has the job assignment of a sniper, I would hope someone in his position had a little more brains, responsibility and judgment then to do something so irresponsible and juvenile. I don’t really want him punished, I want his job assignment changed because he does not have the skills necessary to be a sniper in the United States military.
As far as I know, that is all that is really going to happen. That is probably all that they can do to this soldier too. I know that it is just a book, but we are trying to build up a nation, and try to get it on it's feet, and to ME, this act doesn't really help that cause.

Web Rider
05-24-2008, 05:13 PM
The person in question is a United States soldier, who has the job assignment of a sniper, I would hope someone in his position had a little more brains, responsibility and judgment then to do something so irresponsible and juvenile. I donít really want him punished, I want his job assignment changed because he does not have the skills necessary to be a sniper in the United States military. His lack of judgment put his fellow soldiers in greater jeopardy and that deserves his reassignment or dismissal. Not to appease some radicals, but to preserve American Military lives.

I agree with this sentiment. The crime is relatively minor, but as a demonstration of his competence it shows rather poor.

Totenkopf
05-24-2008, 06:46 PM
His poor decision to use such a book in theatre as a target does NOT prove he's lacking skill in his MOS, rather that he's used questionable judgement in this one particular instance. More likely, he's not cut out to be a diplomat at foggybottom. ;)

Web Rider
05-24-2008, 07:07 PM
His poor decision to use such a book in theatre as a target does NOT prove he's lacking skill in his MOS, rather that he's used questionable judgement in this one particular instance. More likely, he's not cut out to be a diplomat at foggybottom. ;)

I didn't say he has poor skills, but to use a high power rifle, and essentially waste taxpayer money(bullets), to entertain himself by blowing up a Qur'an in the middle of a primarily Muslim location(the Middle East), brings into question what other things he might shoot at when he's bored.

Hey, people get bored, this is true, you wanna waste the money we pay you to work? Find a better hobby, go play soccer with some Iraqi kids.

mimartin
05-24-2008, 07:17 PM
There is so much more to being a sniper than just knowing how to shoot straight. A sniper has to use good judgment 100% of the time. His Military Occupational Specialty is in question, because his judgment has proven to be questionable.

Tommycat
05-24-2008, 10:31 PM
Meh, I'd rather him sit there shooting at books than sit there shooting at people. Even the enemy. Because if he's so bored he needs to shoot books for entertainment, that means there's not enough justification for him to sit there shooting people. That means our troops can come home sooner.

Web Rider
05-24-2008, 11:47 PM
Meh, I'd rather him sit there shooting at books than sit there shooting at people. Even the enemy. Because if he's so bored he needs to shoot books for entertainment, that means there's not enough justification for him to sit there shooting people. That means our troops can come home sooner.

I don't really care if he shoots books, Sue Grafton fans aren't whose hearts and minds we're trying win. Though I'd warn against pissing off the Oprah book-club.

Totenkopf
05-25-2008, 02:28 PM
No, his competence is not in question as a sniper. Since there is no other recorded incidence of this guy going off and popping off civilians or shooting out store windows, etc.., then it's overblown to say he's incompetent in his MOS. Since the book was shot on a range and not "in the field", the only thing in question is why he would let it be somehow known that he shot a quran in Iraq. Maybe he misses his mommy. :xp:

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 02:57 PM
Maybe he just has contempt for the Muslims? I wouldn't blame him - they seem like a whole horde of hypocrites. They call themselves a religion of peace while members are blowing up the sides of streets doing their best to kill American soldiers. Let's not mention such gems of lines as "Kill the enemy where you find him" where, regardless of context, is obviously not exactly advocating turning the other cheek.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 03:04 PM
Right, because all Muslims are fanatical psychopaths with zero regard for human life!

Way to stereotype. :rolleyes:

mimartin
05-25-2008, 03:14 PM
So you are saying that a soldier that knowing put other soldiers at risk is not violating his MOS? Are you also saying you cannot use personal data for someone to determine if they have the ability to make sound decisions? So what someone do in their personal life has no barring on their job or their ability to do that job?

I’ll just say with the decision making ability he displayed in shooting the Quran and like you said then letting it get out that he shot the Quran, I do not want him looking through a scope at me. I might be answering a call on my cell phone and he decides I’m pulling out a gun. Really wouldn’t feel safe if I was hold a Quran.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 03:20 PM
Rogue Nine, their nature doesn't matter. Their book says "Kill the enemy." They call themselves a religion of peace. They are mutually exclusive. Killing the enemy is not peaceful.

Why does it matter that he's shooting the Qur'an, Mimartin? I mean, aside from the fact that the overly sensitive Muslims might get a sniffle? I find it highly unlikely this is actually going to make a difference. Do you REALLY think the highly violent ones really care what we do to their Holy Book? They're doing their best to kill us anyway. What're they going to do, kill us harder?

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 03:23 PM
The Bible also advocates killing.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 03:25 PM
I don't think anyone's ever made a mantra out of us being a religion of peace. Given that Jesus Christ will return not to bring peace, but a sword.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 03:29 PM
Your statement is akin to someone saying that all Christians are like those wackos at Westboro. I don't think one particular fundamentalist sect should be representative of the religion as a whole.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 03:32 PM
How so? All I'm saying is that what the Muslims are saying is contradicted by their own Holy Book.

Web Rider
05-25-2008, 03:43 PM
How so? All I'm saying is that what the Muslims are saying is contradicted by their own Holy Book.

Many christians and christian sects claim that Christianity is a religion of peace, or a peaceful religion. Honestly I think half the things written about Jesus in the Bible are a load that somebody 300 years later thought would be cool of him to be.

Replace "Muslims" with "Christians" and all your statements still apply.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 03:51 PM
The keyword in there is 'You think'.

Also, find me a quote where someone says that Christianity is a 'Religion of Peace'.

Darth InSidious
05-25-2008, 04:23 PM
I'm pretty sure I can find a dozen statements by the last five Popes, at least, claiming the peaceful nature of Christ's message.

Corinthian, I find your generalisations about Christianity insulting, and your attitude hardly fits with the letters you appear to have taken for your name. I.13 springs to mind as an excerpt you would do well to revise.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 04:33 PM
I'm Protestant. What Popes say doesn't matter to me.

Darth, I really frankly don't care what you find insulting about what I say. I'm just speaking the truth - I take it you've never read the Book of Revelation?

And in any case, what Christianity does or does not state doesn't matter. The fact remains that the Muslim standby of it being a 'Religion of Peace' is not backed up by the Qur'an.

Totenkopf
05-25-2008, 04:38 PM
So you are saying that a soldier that knowing put other soldiers at risk is not violating his MOS? Are you also saying you cannot use personal data for someone to determine if they have the ability to make sound decisions? So what someone do in their personal life has no barring on their job or their ability to do that job?

Iíll just say with the decision making ability he displayed in shooting the Quran and like you said then letting it get out that he shot the Quran, I do not want him looking through a scope at me. I might be answering a call on my cell phone and he decides Iím pulling out a gun. Really wouldnít feel safe if I was hold a Quran.

You're making a good argument for him not being perfect, but little else. How would you like it if people looked at you and took one incident in your life and dismissed you as utterrly unreliable and incompetent. You appear to be doing just that.

Darth InSidious
05-25-2008, 04:57 PM
I'm Protestant. What Popes say doesn't matter to me.
I'm not - it matters to me. Don't act as though your opinion is universal law.

Darth, I really frankly don't care what you find insulting about what I say. I'm just speaking the truth - I take it you've never read the Book of Revelation?
From beginning to end.

I take it you've never read the Gospel of Matthew?

And in any case, what Christianity does or does not state doesn't matter. The fact remains that the Muslim standby of it being a 'Religion of Peace' is not backed up by the Qur'an.
Have you read it? In Arabic? And the Hadith? And the commmentaries of the luminaries of each of the six major branches?

I thought not.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 04:59 PM
What the hell does that have to do with anything? They have a line that says "KILL THE ENEMY WHERE YOU FIND THEM." THEY CLAIM TO BE A RELIGION OF PEACE. THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

Darth InSidious
05-25-2008, 05:05 PM
:lol:

Better luck next time.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 05:05 PM
I'm just speaking the truth-

Now, that's just insulting in of itself. To blatantly insult another religion, and then go and proclaim your words as the truth? That's just ignorant, whether you want to admit it or not. Everyone has their own interpretation of the truth. Who are you to say what people should believe?

As for Muslims standing by the fact that Islam is a religion of peace, that's their belief, not yours. Perhaps they've found some solace in their religion, or maybe it has been the 'rock' of their life. You wouldn't know unless you have lived their lives.

I also have friends, devout Christians, no less, that believe that Christianity can do no wrong. I'll try to show them the facts, what has actually happened, but the final decision is theirs. How is that any different than the Muslims claiming their religion is one of piece?

I feel a bit better getting that off of my chest.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 05:10 PM
I'm getting tired of this.

"Religion of Peace" or "Kill the Enemy". Which one is true? They are mutually exclusive.

Also, Insidious, what the hell are you talking about?

mimartin
05-25-2008, 05:14 PM
You're making a good argument for him not being perfect, but little else. How would you like it if people looked at you and took one incident in your life and dismissed you as utterrly unreliable and incompetent. You appear to be doing just that.

I am not making the argument for perfection at all. You are the one saying I am making that argument. I am saying that a sniper MOS is to support his/her fellow troops on the ground. The sniper can be the difference between life and death for our service men and women. The sniper job is to protect our service peopleís lives through killing the enemy. The sniper MOS is not to put our troops in more unnecessary danger by doing something juvenilely stupid. If the sniper is so immature to do something that would cause a reaction in the Muslim community putting not only himself but also other Americans at risk, then he has no business being a sniper in the U.S. Army. Iím not saying throw him out of the service, Iím saying give him a job assignment where his decision making process can not put other soldiers in harms way.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 05:16 PM
I'm getting tired of this.

"Religion of Peace" or "Kill the Enemy". Which one is true? They are mutually exclusive.

Also, Insidious, what the hell are you talking about?

This sounds like Doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink). Perhaps you should try examining it from their point of view, instead of accusing Islam. Perhaps sustaining the Peace requires the killing of others? I ask you to look at this argument from the opposite point of view, consider their thoughts, and then respond.

Pertaining to the original topic, the Soldier should have not done that, but I have a feeling that it will be forgotten fairly soon.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 05:21 PM
You think the Muslims are engaging in Doublethink? That...that makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks, Litofsky, I never thought of it that way.

Totenkopf
05-25-2008, 05:32 PM
I am not making the argument for perfection at all. You are the one saying I am making that argument. I am saying that a sniper MOS is to support his/her fellow troops on the ground. The sniper can be the difference between life and death for our service men and women. The sniper job is to protect our service peopleís lives through killing the enemy. The sniper MOS is not to put our troops in more unnecessary danger by doing something juvenilely stupid. If the sniper is so immature to do something that would cause a reaction in the Muslim community putting not only himself but also other Americans at risk, then he has no business being a sniper in the U.S. Army. Iím not saying throw him out of the service, Iím saying give him a job assignment where his decision making process can not put other soldiers in harms way.

First, never said you were intentionally trying to "make the argument", only observed that that's what you were doing. So, if a sniper got busted for being intoxicated off duty in Iraq or got in a tussle with a local, then he's now incompetent in his MOS? Both things, if made public, would sully the image of American troops and demonstrate a sort of contempt for the locals, thus "putting his comrades in danger". Maybe you really mean being in Iraq at this time, as the same could be said of any trooper that does something stuipid in theatre. And really, saying that shooting a Quran means he's secretly a homicidal derelict that would shoot you b/c you've a copy of that book in your hand, is fairly ludicrous. Now, had he shot the Quran out of a local's hands during prayer....

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 05:34 PM
Then he'd be just the man we'd be looking for. That'd be an incredible shot.

mimartin
05-25-2008, 05:51 PM
So, if a sniper got busted for being intoxicated off duty in Iraq or got in a tussle with a local, then he's now incompetent in his MOS? Not the same thing, at all. While use of alcohol may upset some of the Muslim faith, it is not the same a disrespecting their holy book. Besides if Iraq were safe enough for an American soldier to go into a local establishment and get drunk this entire thread would be moot.

Web Rider
05-25-2008, 05:52 PM
Now, had he shot the Quran out of a local's hands during prayer....

We'd probably have every Iraqi citizen killing every soldier on the spot.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 05:58 PM
Good to know that we've all got such a high opinion of the Iraqi citizenry.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 06:10 PM
Good to know that we've all got such a high opinion of the Iraqi citizenry.

Well, we did invade their country, disrupt their equilibrium, and cut off their oil-selling abilities for a long period of time. Of course, one might argue that we removed a 'dictator,' but that completely obliterated the order.

So, you were saying?

Web Rider
05-25-2008, 06:17 PM
Good to know that we've all got such a high opinion of the Iraqi citizenry.

I'm sure you'd be happy and cheery when a sniper in a foreign army blows the Bible out of the hands of the guy leading your Sunday ceremonies.

Totenkopf
05-25-2008, 06:20 PM
Not the same thing, at all. While use of alcohol may upset some of the Muslim faith, it is not the same a disrespecting their holy book. Besides if Iraq were safe enough for an American soldier to go into a local establishment and get drunk this entire thread would be moot.

If Sharia, which they hold dear, prohibits the use of alcohol, then it would be suitably offensive enough to "endanger the lives" of other soldiers. Of course the danger of Vietnam didn't make it impossible for soldiers to go to bars or utilize brothels in that war zone, so don't see your point. Fact is, though, we both pretty much agree that the soldier should be reassigned. :)

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 06:24 PM
I'm sure you'd be happy and cheery when a sniper in a foreign army blows the Bible out of the hands of the guy leading your Sunday ceremonies.

I think you mean occupying army. A country that's being controlled (more or less) by another is bound to erupt at any tiny action, no matter what it is. If I was living in an occupied country, with soldiers that completely destroyed my life patrolling on the sidewalk, I'd be willing to do anything to get them out.

So, when we look at the response from the sniper shooting a Holy Book, you should probably keep that in mind.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 06:38 PM
Anyway, I believe my work here is done given that no one has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for how Islam is a religion of peace despite declaring to Kill the Enemy without the use of Orwellian Psychology.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 06:45 PM
Anyway, I believe my work here is done given that no one has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for how Islam is a religion of peace despite declaring to Kill the Enemy without the use of Orwellian Psychology.

How do you prove that Muslims are worshiping a contradictory ideal? That would be your opinion, as I've stated, and that makes it open to debate. Claiming that you have won only makes it seem that you want 'out' of this argument.

As for Doublethink, haven't you seen it in real life? I don't want to give real examples, just yet, but I will if pressed.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 06:57 PM
Hey, I don't doubt you (Although I'd love to see some examples.)

As for proving that they're worshiping a contradictory ideal, well, killing is war, and war is the opposite of peace. It's not really all that complicated.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 07:02 PM
Hey, I don't doubt you (Although I'd love to see some examples.)

As for proving that they're worshiping a contradictory ideal, well, killing is war, and war is the opposite of peace. It's not really all that complicated.

Or is it? "War is Peace." I'll leave that open to interpretation, but I've come to my own conclusion about Blair's writings.

Anyways, for an example of Doublethink in the real world... Why not use one from 1984? The Generals of a war know that a situation is impossible (possibly winning a war), but firmly insistent that they will overcome said situation.

Jae Onasi
05-25-2008, 07:02 PM
It's forbidden to have alcohol on US military posts that are in Muslim countries. Now does that mean soldiers don't get access to it? No. Muslims manage to find alcohol, too....

Still, despite Muslim laws about alcohol, having a drink is still viewed as far less of an offense as shooting their holy book.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 07:05 PM
It's forbidden to have alcohol on US military posts that are in Muslim countries. Now does that mean soldiers don't get access to it? No. Muslims manage to find alcohol, too....

Still, despite Muslim laws about alcohol, having a drink is still viewed as far less of an offense as shooting their holy book.

If someone shot the Bible, or Torah, or any other Holy Book for that matter, how do you think that we would react? Our cultures seem to hate each other, for a reason long forgotten.

As for finding alcohol, Prohibition showed everyone that rules are meant to be broken. If someone wants something enough, and has the capability to accomplish, you better bet that they'll try, at the very least.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 07:08 PM
Anyway, I believe my work here is done given that no one has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for how Islam is a religion of peace despite declaring to Kill the Enemy without the use of Orwellian Psychology.

You like quoting that particular part of the Qur'an because it serves your purposes. Why not put it in the context it was meant to be read in?

Quoting from the Shakir translation on this online text of the Qur'an (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html):
002.190 And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
002.191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
002.192 But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
002.193 And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Again, you like quoting verse 191, but you don't quote the verses that bookend it, verses that advocate temperance and moderation with their actions. In light of this, I don't think it's a far stretch at all for Muslims to promote their religion as one of peace. They only spur their followers into deadly action when threatened, so it's not as if they preach that Muslims should just go randomly killing unbelievers they see on the streets.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 07:11 PM
If someone shot a Bible? There'd be a couple people angry and then it would fade away. You'll notice the idiot who made the Crucifix suspended in Urine didn't get carbombed.

1984 is not the real world.

War is not Peace. It's a generally understood fact that either War is a period between Peaces or Peace is a period between Wars.

AH! Rogue! You're finally back. Took you long enough.

So what? They still advocate killing the enemy, definitely not a pacifistic doctrine. Besides, if Islam were really a religion of peace, why are they so violent? The Middle-East is a hellhole jam-packed with petty dictators and fighting. Why is it that there are only a handful of stable nations controlled by Islam? Why is it that the phrase 'Stable as the Middle-East' is a statement on bad architecture, among other things?

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 07:17 PM
Again, you like quoting verse 191, but you don't quote the verses that bookend it, verses that advocate temperance and moderation with their actions. In light of this, I don't think it's a far stretch at all for Muslims to promote their religion as one of peace. They only spur their followers into deadly action when threatened, so it's not as if they preach that Muslims should just go randomly killing unbelievers they see on the streets.

Thanks for finding actual evidence, Niner.

1984 is not the real world.

War is not Peace. It's a generally understood fact that either War is a period between Peaces or Peace is a period between Wars.

I prefer to think of 1984 as more of a warning and a symbol. I like to look at when Blair wrote it, why he did, and see how it compares to today. I assure you, if you look hard enough, it's pretty scary. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 07:19 PM
Blair? Who's Blair? 1984 was written by George Orwell.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 07:23 PM
Blair? Who's Blair? 1984 was written by George Orwell.

George Orwell was a pseudonym. Or was Eric Blair the pseudonym? :p I've heard people go both way, but he used both, so I'd assume that both are acceptable.

Web Rider
05-25-2008, 07:41 PM
If someone shot a Bible? There'd be a couple people angry and then it would fade away. You'll notice the idiot who made the Crucifix suspended in Urine didn't get carbombed.
Nobody has carbombed anyone over this.

1984 is not the real world.
In some places and at some times it would be a quite accurate picture of a nation.

War is not Peace. It's a generally understood fact that either War is a period between Peaces or Peace is a period between Wars.
and you're completely missing the point. Part of the statement is tied into the belief that war is the only means to achieve peace. That through force of arms we can eliminate the "bad people" and then there'll be peace.

So what? They still advocate killing the enemy, definitely not a pacifistic doctrine.
And the US is a republic, that doesn't stop us from calling ourselves a democracy.

Besides, if Islam were really a religion of peace, why are they so violent? The Middle-East is a hellhole jam-packed with petty dictators and fighting. Why is it that there are only a handful of stable nations controlled by Islam? Why is it that the phrase 'Stable as the Middle-East' is a statement on bad architecture, among other things?
Maybe it's because you're confusing the practicioners of a religion with the religion itsself. People are violent. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, ect. Very few people in this world are true pacifists. What the people do does not necessarily mean their holy books told them too.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 07:44 PM
So what? They still advocate killing the enemy, definitely not a pacifistic doctrine.
Read the parts of the Qur'an I quoted, please. They only advocate killing WHEN THREATENED OR ATTACKED FIRST. You can hardly fault them for self-preservation.

Besides, if Islam were really a religion of peace, why are they so violent?
Right, all Muslims everywhere are violent. :rolleyes:

The Middle-East is a hellhole jam-packed with petty dictators and fighting. Why is it that there are only a handful of stable nations controlled by Islam? Why is it that the phrase 'Stable as the Middle-East' is a statement on bad architecture, among other things?
The Middle East has always been a hotbed of activity, and it's unfair to put it all on the Muslims when the Christians and the Jews have equal culpability throughout history.

And in modern times, the fighting in the Middle East has as much to do with socioeconomic and cultural factors as it does religion, so again, placing the blame solely on Islam is not only improper, but unfounded.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 07:51 PM
Read the parts of the Qur'an I quoted, please. They only advocate killing WHEN THREATENED OR ATTACKED FIRST. You can hardly fault them for self-preservation.

Self-preservation is one of our basic instincts, and we, as human beings, will react violently if one's life is threatened.


And in modern times, the fighting in the Middle East has as much to do with socioeconomic and cultural factors as it does religion, so again, placing the blame solely on Islam is not only improper, but unfounded.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the 'instability' in the Middle East originated from quite a few things. The first would be Israel's formation using Arab land (although, it was a British colony), and quite a few more would be the sponsored coups (I won't name names for this one) that occasionally rock the region.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 07:57 PM
Yes, I probably should have mentioned political factors as well. Apologies.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 08:10 PM
Yes, I probably should have mentioned political factors as well. Apologies.

No need to apologize. It was an honest mistake, if you even call it that. I say that it was a momentary lapse in mental faculties.

Anyways, the Middle East seems to be an incredibly difficult place to tread. One false move there, in particular, would be catastrophic for everyone involved.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 08:15 PM
They sure do hate the Israelis too...

Killing for self-preservation is still killing. It's not pacifistic. In other words, it proves that the too-often made statement that Islam is a religion of peace is a lie. But I don't think we really needed any convincing of THAT after the Six-Day War.

War cannot be the only means to achieve peace - There is either Peace or there is War. Besides, there's always the option of kowtowing to the enemy. A nation cannot be both at war and at peace. As soon as it goes to war it has broken it's own peace. Now, I agree with self-defense in war. Hell, I think that offense can, and often is, the proper course of action, but going to War for Peace is as ridiculous as blowing your legs off to gain height.

What's your point? That's us playing semantic games, not using contradictory terms. Republics and Democracies are close enough to being the same thing that it makes no real difference.

What's your point, Rogue? Killing for self-preservation is still killing. Not a peaceful act. Take a good look at pacifism. It's not that I disagree with what the Qur'an says in this regard - It's the sheep-like acceptance that Islam is a religion that can best be described as a huggy-muggy jolly bunch of people who like to gather in circles in sing Kum-Bay-Yah.

Interesting statement, there, Litofsky. One false move...truly, a peaceful people, from a religion of peace.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 08:22 PM
I'd like to raise the point that being in a constant state of fear, or even in a constant state of warning, does wonders to crime rates. Here (http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/IL/crime.html) is a link showing crime rates in Israel. The Murder Rate is particularly astounding, if I do say so. Compared to America (http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/US/crime.html), that's pretty interesting. Not to mention the use of the Death Penalty and total prisoners. ;)

Anyways, killing in the name of self-preservation should be, and is, justified (that is, where I live). If someone is attempting to end your life, you have every right to stop that by any means necessary.

However, that's a point of debate, and would take us away from the topic. I'm not sure we have enough to discuss about the original topic, sadly.

Web Rider
05-25-2008, 08:24 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the 'instability' in the Middle East originated from quite a few things. The first would be Israel's formation using Arab land (although, it was a British colony), and quite a few more would be the sponsored coups (I won't name names for this one) that occasionally rock the region.

the CURRENT instability perhaps. The overthrow of Iran, WWII, the Crusades, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the separation of Pakistan and India, there's a laundry list throughout history of why the Middle East has been plagued with instability.


War cannot be the only means to achieve peace - There is either Peace or there is War. Besides, there's always the option of kowtowing to the enemy. A nation cannot be both at war and at peace. As soon as it goes to war it has broken it's own peace. Now, I agree with self-defense in war. Hell, I think that offense can, and often is, the proper course of action, but going to War for Peace is as ridiculous as blowing your legs off to gain height.
Your black and white perspective of war and peace is nice, but that's not the point. Try considering the idea that war is used the achieve peace in the REAL WORLD and RIGHT NOW.

What's your point? That's us playing semantic games, not using contradictory terms. Republics and Democracies are close enough to being the same thing that it makes no real difference.
Do you elect the president?
Do you vote on new laws?
the answer is no. You don't. That's the important difference between a republic and a democracy.

We are constiutional democractic republic. IE: we use voting to pick most of our leaders/representatives and have a constitution that nobody can violate.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 08:33 PM
Do you elect the president?
Do you vote on new laws?
the answer is no. You don't. That's the important difference between a republic and a democracy.

We are constiutional democractic republic. IE: we use voting to pick most of our leaders/representatives and have a constitution that nobody can violate.

That's an interesting point. The Middle East has, historically, been a strategic location, what with it being the crossing points of three continents.

Of course, I'd like to raise a point about the voting, and perhaps some of the faults that have been documented, presented, and ignored, but that'd be getting way too off-topic. I'll make a separate thread if I really want to discuss voting. ;)

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 08:33 PM
Democracies are an impossibility on a national level, or, hell, even a state level. There's too many people, who, besides which, have no real knowledge to be making these decisions and don't have all the information anyway. Yes, there is a difference, but it's mostly because setting up a true Democracy over a nation of 300,000,000 people would be like trying to have a Town Council in New York City with 1/10th of the city coming.

You cannot have War to gain Peace. Now, you can have War to gain Safety or to not fight a war later in your own territory, but fighting a war for peace is like setting your computer on fire because you've got a bad RAM stick. Once you go to War, the Peace is broken until the War stops.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 08:38 PM
Killing for self-preservation is still killing. It's not pacifistic. In other words, it proves that the too-often made statement that Islam is a religion of peace is a lie. But I don't think we really needed any convincing of THAT after the Six-Day War.
I can play semantic games too. Muslim leaders say their religion is one of peace, not pacifism. Total pacifism is a ridiculous concept to aspire to and I doubt that Muslim leaders are advocating such a stance. One can promote and encourage peace without promoting complete pacifism.

What's your point, Rogue? Killing for self-preservation is still killing. Not a peaceful act. Take a good look at pacifism.
Again, religion of peace # pacifism.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 08:43 PM
Democracies are an impossibility on a national level, or, hell, even a state level. There's too many people, who, besides which, have no real knowledge to be making these decisions and don't have all the information anyway. Yes, there is a difference, but it's mostly because setting up a true Democracy over a nation of 300,000,000 people would be like trying to have a Town Council in New York City with 1/10th of the city coming.

America, in particular, has an incredibly disgusting voter turn-outs. The news stations praise the 'highest voter turn-outs in history.' It's about 40%, if I'm not mistaken. That is sickening. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout) is a list that shows turn-out compared to the total population. Note that America is almost at the bottom of the list, with 54%. To that, I say "Despicable."

Voting, even if you believe that your vote does not count, is not something to forget, but to honor. Again, I'd continue it, but it's for a separate thread.

You cannot have War to gain Peace. Now, you can have War to gain Safety or to not fight a war later in your own territory, but fighting a war for peace is like setting your computer on fire because you've got a bad RAM stick. Once you go to War, the Peace is broken until the War stops.

To continue this discussion, you will need to define "War" and "Peace," Corinthian. Would you mind doing so?

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 09:16 PM
What's the difference between being Peaceful and being Pacifistic, Rogue? Do tell.

Alright, Litofsky.

War is an armed conflict between two independent national governments. There's also Civil War, which is an armed conflict between two independent political factions within the same nation. Dictionary.com describes it as so: 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Peace is a period in which the nation in question is not in any form of War. Dictionary.com describes it as 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 09:32 PM
War is an armed conflict between two independent national governments. There's also Civil War, which is an armed conflict between two independent political factions within the same nation. Dictionary.com describes it as so: 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Peace is a period in which the nation in question is not in any form of War. Dictionary.com describes it as 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

That's fine, being Dictionary.com's definition. Is it your definition, however? If we're going to have a little debate about if War is Peace, then I'll need your definition.

Mine are:

Peace- A time period in which there is no war, and 'consumer goods' usually reach a high-point in their production. People generally think that this time is better, but when we examine the benefits from war, we might have to reconsider that.

War- A time in which two or more countries are engaged in battle against each other, whether it be a Cold War or an Actual War. It is interesting to note that some wars have brought out the better side of countries.

Of course, with more facts, my personal definitions are subject to change.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 09:44 PM
What's the difference between being Peaceful and being Pacifistic, Rogue? Do tell.
Pacifism is opposing violence or war of any kind, something Islam clearly does not believe in. Peace on, the other hand, is encouraged in the Qur'an. Again, I quote (emphasis mine):

002.193 And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
Peace and self-preservation can co-exist. Pacifism and self-preservation cannot. Pacifism is a pipe dream, and I don't think the leaders of Islam would allow themselves to believe in such an impossibility.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 10:32 PM
Well, we can at least agree on something, Rogue - Pacifism is stupid.

Litofsky, the first on each of these is my definition, the second being Dictionary's definition.

Litofsky
05-25-2008, 10:43 PM
Well, we can at least agree on something, Rogue - Pacifism is stupid.

No, I don't think that Pacifism is stupid. I know that I wasn't included in that, but I have to get in. Pacifism, as an idea, isn't stupid. The foolish part is believing that the world will actually accept Pacifism. Attempting to spread it is not foolish in the least bit.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 10:47 PM
Attempting to spread Pacifism is akin to propaganda campaigns for nations to disarm. Any nation that accepts Pacifism effectively gets a giant "Kick Me!" sign stapled onto them.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 10:48 PM
Yes, which is why Islamic leaders do not promote pacifism, but peace instead.

Totenkopf
05-25-2008, 11:10 PM
No, I don't think that Pacifism is stupid. I know that I wasn't included in that, but I have to get in. Pacifism, as an idea, isn't stupid. The foolish part is believing that the world will actually accept Pacifism. Attempting to spread it is not foolish in the least bit.


Raises a question: If it's not stupid to attempt to spread something that everyone is not going to accept, isn't it stupid to accept it.....knowing that doing so puts you at a disadvantage vis-a-vis those that won't?

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 11:13 PM
Rogue, when was the last time an Islamic leader really promoted peace? There's so much war in that region you could drop a rock out of a plane at 30000 feet and you'd still hit a spot that had been a battlefield in the last 50 years.

Web Rider
05-25-2008, 11:14 PM
Raises a question: If it's not stupid to attempt to spread something that everyone is not going to accept, isn't it stupid to accept it.....knowing that doing so puts you at a disadvantage vis-a-vis those that won't?

I think the qualifier in his statement should be "that the whole world is not going to accept." There will always be a few people who won't accept certain ideas(willingly).

Totenkopf
05-25-2008, 11:17 PM
Actually, Web, doesn't even have to be the whole world. If only 75% of world accepts pacifism, they are at a potential disadvantage re the 25% who reject it.

Web Rider
05-25-2008, 11:30 PM
Actually, Web, doesn't even have to be the whole world. If only 75% of world accepts pacifism, they are at a potential disadvantage re the 25% who reject it.

that depends on the remaining 25%. Are they pro-aggressive war? Are they just the kind of "I wanna keep my guns just in case."? Yeah, the 75% of the world that has accepted pacifism might be at a disadvantage to the rest, but that depends on how coordinated the 25% are.

If the "25%" are very scattered, then it's not going to be a group of warmongers who are working with each other to destroy the other 75%.

After a while, you have to wonder how many of that 75% the 25% is willing to kill before it just gives up.

Rogue Nine
05-25-2008, 11:43 PM
Rogue, when was the last time an Islamic leader really promoted peace? There's so much war in that region you could drop a rock out of a plane at 30000 feet and you'd still hit a spot that had been a battlefield in the last 50 years.

I don't know, you tell me. You brought it up.

Corinthian
05-25-2008, 11:59 PM
Exactly! The odds of you hitting a spot that hasn't drunk deeply of human blood are about as good as the odds of me nailing the dartboard while facing in the wrong direction while drunk.

Rogue Nine
05-26-2008, 12:04 AM
I'm talking about this quote of yours in particular.

they seem like a whole horde of hypocrites. They call themselves a religion of peace while members are blowing up the sides of streets doing their best to kill American soldiers.
Emphasis mine. Please provide where you see Muslims calling Islam a religion of peace.

Corinthian
05-26-2008, 12:11 AM
Very well.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=43552&d=21&m=4&y=2004

http://www.al-islami.com/islam/religion_of_peace.php

http://www.mediamonitors.net/muhammadali1.html

http://www.al-islam.org/begin/intro/rizvi.html

http://www.religionofpeace.com/

I confess I didn't find nearly as much as I would have expected, though, although I didn't look very hard.

Rogue Nine
05-26-2008, 12:19 AM
Find what?

And that article seems consistent with the Qur'an's teachings. Nowhere does he advocate pacifism.

Totenkopf
05-26-2008, 12:21 AM
Emphasis mine. Please provide where you see Muslims calling Islam a religion of peace

Check these links (google more if you like)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm
http://www.mediamonitors.net/muhammadali1.html
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm
http://www.al-islami.com/islam/religion_of_peace.php
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/01/sam-shamoun-vs-nadir-ahmed-is-islam.html
http://www.pakistanlink.com/religion/2001/1102.html

@WR--considered that tack, but decided if the other 75% rejected violence, how long would it take the 25% (mind you, that's not 25% of the world's population, merely 25% of the world's nations) to conquer the world (or destroy it) if they so chose?

Corinthian
05-26-2008, 12:27 AM
Yeah, I found one link and decided that wasn't enough so I dug up four more. Edited in, by the way.

Web Rider
05-26-2008, 01:13 AM
@WR--considered that tack, but decided if the other 75% rejected violence, how long would it take the 25% (mind you, that's not 25% of the world's population, merely 25% of the world's nations) to conquer the world (or destroy it) if they so chose?

Again, that depends on who they are. Assuming they are all the guys who LOVE violence and rampant killing, know how to do it, have the equipment to do it, I'd say it would be fairly easy.

of course considering that they'd just killed some 4.5+ billion people who were all pacifists, and likly some people who were just in the line of fire, so if we consider that only 1 billion of the world's population is left, and all of them like killing, then it depends on if they're allied together or not.

It stands to reason they wouldn't be, and given the kinds of arsenals they have access too, assuming we think they're people with this kind of access, I doubt many of them would be around for much longer.

of course, if we're only talking nations, it depends on which nations we're talking about. China is 25% of the population and only one nation. 25 African nations could wage war on a whole lot of nothing, and if they did, it would likly be on themselves.

Corinthian
05-26-2008, 01:17 AM
If we all converted to Pacifism, it wouldn't matter if we got invaded by a half-dozen Spear-Wielding Tribals - we're pacifists. So no fighting back. We just get stabbed.

Web Rider
05-26-2008, 01:20 AM
If we all converted to Pacifism, it wouldn't matter if we got invaded by a half-dozen Spear-Wielding Tribals - we're pacifists. So no fighting back. We just get stabbed.

Oh quite true. Though, technically because we're pacifists, and we don't believe in fighting back, and "passive resistance" is a form of fighting back, we'd probably just become good little worker drones.

Totenkopf
05-26-2008, 01:22 AM
But if the other 75% truly embraced pacifism (as if), they'd be vulnerable to anyone that didn't......whether it took 10 years or 10000. Of course, we're basically talking absolute pacifism here anyway. I suspect that the 75% of nations spouting pacifism probably still would have a survival instinct that overrode their stated ideals.

Corinthian
05-26-2008, 01:58 AM
I reject Pacifism in any case, because I feel it's better to actively fight evil instead of sitting on your bums just to hold your perspective of the moral high ground.

Totenkopf
05-26-2008, 03:11 AM
Yeash, kinda hard to prattle on about your virtues when you're rotting under ground (or above it for that matter). ;)

Salzella
05-26-2008, 08:46 AM
Soooo the guy's job is to kill people. Yet you are somehow more upset about him shooting a book?
Don't put words in my mouth please...

I meant in fact, that taking into account the religious extremism involved with this war, then shooting up a religious icon is incredibly stupid, when it is obvious and inevitable that the aforementioned extremists will seize upon it and use it as a symbol.

Is that OK?

*Don*
05-26-2008, 01:17 PM
They call themselves a religion of peace while members are blowing up the sides of streets doing their best to kill American soldiers. Let's not mention such gems of lines as "Kill the enemy where you find him" where, regardless of context, is obviously not exactly advocating turning the other cheek.

Ok, be real for a second.
The Quran is just a convenient excuse for radicals to carry out their missions.
They take its words out of context and use it to justify their actions.
The reason why they blow up the sides of the streets is because their country is being occupied. Hell, if America was taken over by a foreign country, I guarantee you that its citizens would act similarly.
I hate it when people ignorantly claim that the Islam isn't peaceful. The deluded radicals that you see on TV aren't real muslims. If you want to see real muslims who abide by the Quran's laws, take a look at Sufis. They're the one group that basically follow the Quran down to the letter.


I meant in fact, that taking into account the religious extremism involved with this war, then shooting up a religious icon is incredibly stupid, when it is obvious and inevitable that the aforementioned extremists will seize upon it and use it as a symbol.



I wholeheartedly agree.

Achilles
05-26-2008, 02:23 PM
The Quran is just a convenient excuse for radicals to carry out their missions. In your opinion.
They take its words out of context and use it to justify their actions. What context should they be taking the words in? One of your choosing?
The reason why they blow up the sides of the streets is because their country is being occupied. Hell, if America was taken over by a foreign country, I guarantee you that its citizens would act similarly. Indeed, but you cannot blame the occupation alone. The causal relationship is with the culture (as evidenced by the fact that we do not have buddhist suicide bombers in Tibet blowing up Chinese occupiers in marketplaces, etc).
I hate it when people ignorantly claim that the Islam isn't peaceful. How about when people ignorantly claim that it is?
The deluded radicals that you see on TV aren't real muslims. Says you.
If you want to see real muslims who abide by the Quran's laws, take a look at Sufis.I'm sure the other interpretations of islam would not appreciate you arbitrarily dismissing their traditions.
They're the one group that basically follow the Quran down to the letter. Including the parts about killing?

Corinthian
05-26-2008, 02:38 PM
Aren't deluded radicals usually in the minority anyway?

*Don*
05-26-2008, 02:42 PM
What context should they be taking the words in? One of your choosing?


Not necessarily. Many of the passages that talk about violence talk about it in metaphorical senses. At the same time, there are some passages that promote outright violence (self defense, etc).


Indeed, but you cannot blame the occupation alone. The causal relationship is with the culture (as evidenced by the fact that we do not have buddhist suicide bombers in Tibet blowing up Chinese occupiers in marketplaces, etc).


I agree with you to a certain degree. Islam it self started out as a peaceful religion that had to resort to violence to survive (as seen when the Muhammed and his followers were kicked out of Mecca by the Idolators). Hence, when you say that the culture is partly responsible, I would have to agree. The part about buddhists suicide bombers is different because Buddhism never had to resort to violence when the Buddha was alive so there was no precedent for them to follow.


How about when people ignorantly claim that it is?


That annoys me too. Don't get me wrong, I never said that Islam is 100% the religion of peace that it claims to be, but at the same time, it isn't 100% violence as it is made out to be. You probably think that I'm being hypocritical, but in reality, I'm just in the middle.


Says you.


Well, when you look at it from a technical viewpoint, the radicals who kill innocent women and children and neglect to follwo the basics of Islam can't really be called real muslims. Just because they chant "Allah Akbar" doesn't make them real muslims.


I'm sure the other interpretations of islam would not appreciate you arbitrarily dismissing their traditions.


They probably wouldn't. The only reason why I mentioned Sufis was because they're the only group that doesn't have a track record of suicide bombers to their name.


Including the parts about killing?

From my recollection, Sufis have never been threatened to the point where they would resort to killing. There is a great concentration of Sufis in Pakistan where I know that they are considered a peaceful community.

PS - Did I cherry pick any question this time? :xp: :D

Corinthian
05-26-2008, 02:49 PM
So what's the dividing line between being a Real Muslim and a Wannabe Muslim?

*Don*
05-26-2008, 03:11 PM
So what's the dividing line between being a Real Muslim and a Wannabe Muslim?

Well put it this way.
Suicide bombers are "wannabe muslims"

The topic of Suicide itself is considered a taboo in Islam (an act that will not get you into heaven). Osama and other radicals try to justify their actions by saying that when you commit suicide for the sake of Allah, you will be taken into heaven and given your 72 virgins.

Other than that, I really can't draw a line between real muslims and fake radicals. Historical events and politics have muddled that line so much that its barely recognizable these days.

Achilles
05-26-2008, 07:00 PM
Not necessarily. Many of the passages that talk about violence talk about it in metaphorical senses. At the same time, there are some passages that promote outright violence (self defense, etc). This doesn't answer the question. What context should they be using? What objective arguments can you present that show that the context they are using is incorrect?

The downside to having something that is open to interpretation is that you can have lots of very different interpretations and it's very difficult to argue that some are more correct than others.

I agree with you to a certain degree. Islam it self started out as a peaceful religion that had to resort to violence to survive (as seen when the Muhammed and his followers were kicked out of Mecca by the Idolators). Hence, when you say that the culture is partly responsible, I would have to agree. The part about buddhists suicide bombers is different because Buddhism never had to resort to violence when the Buddha was alive so there was no precedent for them to follow. Technically, buddha is always alive, right? I mean the dalai lama is the reincarnation of buddha, therefore buddha is always among us. :)

But let's put that aside and simply look at the history. When the Chinese moved into Tibet causing the eventual exodus, the buddhists didn't resort to violence. (The original) buddha did not need to be alive in order for them to make this decision; their culture was one of non-violence, therefore no violence took place.

Now if you're arguing that muhammed started out wanting things to be non-violent, but then was forced by circumstance to change his story, I think you could look to what happened in Tibet and see that if he was truly committed to non-violence, he could have made better choices.

That annoys me too. Don't get me wrong, I never said that Islam is 100% the religion of peace that it claims to be, but at the same time, it isn't 100% violence as it is made out to be. You probably think that I'm being hypocritical, but in reality, I'm just in the middle.No, I don't think you're being hypocritical :)

I think the problem is that we have a system of belief that says many things. The difficulty comes when someone or some group wants to argue that it only says one thing or favors one view over another. In my mind the best course of action is to call it for what it is (i.e. "a mess") and look for a better way. Otherwise you might find yourself defending a position that is undefendable.

Well, when you look at it from a technical viewpoint, the radicals who kill innocent women and children and neglect to follwo the basics of Islam can't really be called real muslims. Just because they chant "Allah Akbar" doesn't make them real muslims.Again this what happens when you have "rules" that contradict or can be interpreted to contradict each other.

The other thing to remember is that it's not your interpretation of islam that will provide context for their actions, but theirs.

They probably wouldn't. The only reason why I mentioned Sufis was because they're the only group that doesn't have a track record of suicide bombers to their name.:D

From my recollection, Sufis have never been threatened to the point where they would resort to killing. There is a great concentration of Sufis in Pakistan where I know that they are considered a peaceful community.That's good, but some might argue that by not heeding the call to jihad, they aren't fulfilling their duty to allah and therefore not "real muslims". :)

PS - Did I cherry pick any question this time? :xp: :D:lol: Nope, not at all! Thanks for your reply.

Corinthian
05-26-2008, 07:03 PM
Don, why is your interpretation of the Qur'an more valid than, say, Bin Laden's interpretation of the Qur'an?

nine.roses
05-26-2008, 07:40 PM
Whether Islam is or is not a wholesome religion of love and tolerance is not the point.

Imposing our supposedly rational views from the safety of our offices and laptops on an alien culture and saying "like it or lump it" because Americans have a constitutional right to blow elements of culture to pieces really does not solve any problems. What kind of image would America broadcast to the world if they openly allowed such activities in the country of their Muslim hosts because American ideals of freedom are apparently logically superior?

Quite frankly America has a lot to do to improve their global reputation before they can feel able to dictate Muslims their values. Whether or not Islam is a "religion of peace", America first has to demonstrate that it is a "nation of peace". Promoting good over evil is not smacking a nation around the head with a big stick and yelling "Democracy!! Secularisation!!" until it stops being evil.

Corinthian, true pacifism isn't sitting on your arse twiddling your thumbs and going "oh go on, hit me if you fancy because I've got the moral high ground" to the aggressive bunch. Peace can only truly be promoted if you're able to sympathise with the aggressors rather than condemn, sincerely praise their good qualities and every positive advance they make, and listen attentively until your former opponent realises that you're not trying to knock him down. Actively fighting for peace will only create resentment amongst people, who will only come back and show you their own brand of "peace".

Achilles
05-26-2008, 07:55 PM
Whether Islam is or is not a wholesome religion of love and tolerance is not the point. Sure it is. If islam is a religion of peace, then there would be no reason to fear repercussions for the sniper's actions, therefore he would not have endangered his fellow american's lives, and therefore would not have needed to have been punished (assuming that was the rational for his punishment).

Imposing our supposedly rational views from the safety of our offices and laptops on an alien culture... Assumption 1: there is no objective basis for rational behavior.

...and saying "like it or lump it" because Americans have a constitutional right to blow elements of culture to pieces really does not solve any problems. Assumption 2: the arguments presented here are predicated entirely upon an American set of laws and ideals (nevermind that the concept of personal property was introduced by Adam Smith, a Scottish economist).

Quite frankly America has a lot to do to improve their global reputation before they can feel able to dictate Muslims their values. I don't agree that we should be dictating values to anyone regardless of the state of our reputation (not the same as calling people on their BS though).

Whether or not Islam is a "religion of peace", America first has to demonstrate that it is a "nation of peace". Why?

Promoting good over evil is not smacking a nation around the head with a big stick and yelling "Democracy!! Secularisation!!" until it stops being evil. Assumption 3: we are actually there to fight against "evil" and promote democracy.

Also, if islam was already good, why would we need to go there to promote it? :)

*Don*
05-26-2008, 08:08 PM
Don, why is your interpretation of the Qur'an more valid than, say, Bin Laden's interpretation of the Qur'an?

Ok, after reading this whole thread twice, here's the conclusion that I came up with in my mind.

There are different interpretations of the Quran. In the beginning, the interpretation that was most generally accepted was deemed as the "valid interpretation". Thats why, for many years, Islam was considered as the religion of peace because the "peaceful interpretation" was generally accepted.

Now what has happened is that radicals and peaceful Islamist are pretty much equally numbered. The "violent interpretation" has nearly enough followers as the "peaceful interpretation". This stalemate is why Islam's peacefullness has come into question.

Therefore, when you ask why my interpretation is more valid than Bin Laden's interpretation, I can't really give a concrete reason since both interpretations have nearly equal followers.

Hence, to sum it up I can only use what Achilles said:


In my mind the best course of action is to call it for what it is (i.e. "a mess") and look for a better way.

nine.roses
05-26-2008, 08:25 PM
Sure it is. If islam is a religion of peace, then there would be no reason to fear repercussions for the sniper's actions, therefore he would not have endangered his fellow american's lives, and therefore would not have needed to have been punished (assuming that was the rational for his punishment).

And I suppose judging them and condemning them will help us at all?

Assumption 1: there is no objective basis for rational behavior.

I have no quarrel with your point. Nevertheless, however true our claims may be, from the Muslim point of view "apparently" and "says you" will always feature.

Assumption 2: the arguments presented here are predicated entirely upon an American set of laws and ideals (nevermind that the concept of personal property was introduced by Adam Smith, a Scottish economist).

I don't understand - the soldier did it because he thought he had a right to (never mind whether it was an American right) and people are saying "if they don't like it they can go hang". Where's my assumption and error, or am I lacking lucidity in my tone (I assume this is so, and that you are as confused as I am!)? Personal property or not, he's destroying an element of local culture.

I don't agree that we should be dictating values to anyone regardless of the state of our reputation (not the same as calling people on their BS though).

Well, it's good we agree, and it's good that the US military took steps to apologise.

Why?

Because right now Iraqis are becoming ever more disillusioned with the occupying forces. It's time to set an example.

Assumption 3: we are actually there to fight against "evil" and promote democracy. Also, if islam was already good, why would we need to go there to promote it? :)

Wasn't that the mission statement? Anyway, that was in semi-response to Corinthian and should really be connected to my pacifism statement. In any case, my post should've been better phrased and put into the context of this argument. I suppose it's not really clear what I'm arguing about, is it?

Heh. I'll try again tomorrow when I'm awake.

Achilles
05-26-2008, 11:27 PM
And I suppose judging them and condemning them will help us at all?Not sure where "judging" and "condemning" come in.

I have no quarrel with your point. Nevertheless, however true our claims may be, from the Muslim point of view "apparently" and "says you" will always feature. And they would be entitled to those views. It wouldn't make them "correct" or rational though. Hence the whole sticking point of validating these ideas by playing into their drama.

I don't understand - the soldier did it because he thought he had a right to (never mind whether it was an American right) and people are saying "if they don't like it they can go hang". Where's my assumption and error, or am I lacking lucidity in my tone (I assume this is so, and that you are as confused as I am!)? Personal property or not, he's destroying an element of local culture. Your earlier comments seemed to suggest that you thought this was a matter of American ideology vs. islamic ideology. My point was that the concept of private property is not uniquely American.

As far as the destruction of local culture, I am literally outraged by the looting of museums, destruction of historic sites, etc that has taken place there. I will not however care one iota that a copy of a common book was shot with a bullet. There is a supportable argument for the value of the former that does not exist for the latter.

(Caveat: if we found out that the qu'ran that he shot was a historic artifact, I would actually change my position and call for harsher punishment).

Well, it's good we agree, and it's good that the US military took steps to apologise. We may agree that the U.S. should not be dictating values, however I do not agree that we should have apologized. With my typical lack of reverence, I think our response should have been something along the lines of "And?".

Because right now Iraqis are becoming ever more disillusioned with the occupying forces. It's time to set an example. Yeah, the "hearts and minds" thing didn't work so well, huh? "Shock and awe" did okay.

The fact is that we aren't a nation of peace (we've been involved in how many conflicts in our 232 year history?). Even if we were to make a claim to that effect (a claim that I don't imagine anyone would take seriously), our hypocrisy is completely separate from theirs. Therefore, I don't agree that we need to become an example of a peaceful nation in order to acknowledge/call out their violent ideology.

Wasn't that the mission statement? I'm sure it may have been one of them. Between the WMD's, the links to al-Qaeda, punishing Saddam for using chemical weapons on his own people more than a decade earlier, etc, I kinda gave up on keeping track of "our reason for being there du jour".

Heh. I'll try again tomorrow when I'm awake.Rest well. Thank for your response.

mimartin
05-26-2008, 11:51 PM
I'm sure it may have been one of them. Between the WMD's, the links to al-Qaeda, punishing Saddam for using chemical weapons on his own people more than a decade earlier, etc, I kinda gave up on keeping track of "our reason for being there du jour".Wait, I thought the mission was to make Halliburton loads of money. Mission successful, we can bring all the troops home.

Achilles
05-26-2008, 11:56 PM
Not so fast. They don't have all of it yet.

Totenkopf
05-27-2008, 01:51 AM
Not to worry, that's what Iran is for, right? :xp:

Darth InSidious
05-27-2008, 11:41 AM
"We'll meet again..."