lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Soldier Uses Quran for Target Practice
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-20-2008, 05:26 PM   #41
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnn Article
"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.


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-20-2008, 05:45 PM   #42
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,060
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
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 can’t 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 American’s 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.



Last edited by mimartin; 05-21-2008 at 01:54 AM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-20-2008, 06:17 PM   #43
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
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.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-20-2008, 07:06 PM   #44
igyman
Tension!
 
igyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: White City
Posts: 3,413
Current Game: Diablo III RoS (PC)
Forum Veteran Helpful! Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
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".

igyman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 01:02 AM   #45
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 02:00 AM   #46
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
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.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 02:02 AM   #47
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,060
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
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 Bush’s 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 Bush’s back after November and get something done in Iraq and Afghanistan, be it Obama or McCain.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 02:55 AM   #48
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 03:10 AM   #49
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I would be pretty upset.
That is how these muslims feel.

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 03:17 AM   #50
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
That is how these muslims feel.
I suspect that you stopped reading there.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 03:24 AM   #51
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
That is how these muslims feel.
Then they can send an angry letter.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 03:41 AM   #52
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac7142
Then they can send an angry letter.
Problem is that they'll probably "post" it with a dagger in someone's chest.

Quote:
Diplomacy for the sake of allies, peace or even superficial diplomacy has not been the hallmark of Bush’s 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 Bush’s 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.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 10:13 AM   #53
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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.



"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 03:20 PM   #54
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,767
Current Game: FTL
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
US-Russia discussion snipped to preserve topicality. Sorry folks, start a new thread if you want to continue it.


tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 05:24 PM   #55
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
...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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by igyman
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.


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood

Last edited by *Don*; 05-21-2008 at 06:01 PM.
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 05:57 PM   #56
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
What you're forgetting is that there are different types of muslims.
Do you mean, "different interpretations of islam"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2008, 08:25 PM   #57
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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?


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2008, 04:24 AM   #58
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2008, 06:12 AM   #59
Corinthian
Banned
 
Corinthian's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,165
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.
Corinthian is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2008, 07:14 PM   #60
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2008, 07:53 PM   #61
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
At the risk of sounding confrontational, I love how you cherry-pick which questions to respond to and which to ignore

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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
First 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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2008, 08:27 PM   #62
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
At the risk of sounding confrontational, I love how you cherry-pick which questions to respond to and which to ignore
I humbly apologize if thats what I have been doing. I assure you that it wasn't intentional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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).


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2008, 08:42 PM   #63
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
But you know what desecrate (desecration) means?
Sacred=worthy of respect in this case.
How patronizing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2008, 09:02 PM   #64
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
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!

Last edited by Achilles; 05-23-2008 at 01:36 AM. Reason: clarifying point
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2008, 11:49 PM   #65
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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).
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 12:23 AM   #66
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
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.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 01:27 AM   #67
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
That's right. After all, we're not the Roman Empire.

Meaning what, exactly?


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 02:39 AM   #68
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
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.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 03:00 AM   #69
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
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?

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 03:01 AM   #70
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,060
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
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 don’t have guns? I bet they don’t 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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 03:52 AM   #71
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 04:32 AM   #72
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 05:31 AM   #73
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
Regardless, this still angers these muslims in Iraq
Relevance? They didn't own the shot-up Quaran.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 06:36 AM   #74
Salzella
areiK
 
Salzella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,135
Current Game: Portal, Half-Life 2.
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.
Salzella is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 06:59 AM   #75
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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 haha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salzella
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?
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 01:51 PM   #76
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salzella
...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?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 02:43 PM   #77
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,060
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheikhs of Radhwaniya
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 03:09 PM   #78
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
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."
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 03:38 PM   #79
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

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


Checking out seems not to do much.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2008, 03:40 PM   #80
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,060
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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 don’t see it changing very quickly. Either I’m 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 mur’phon 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.



Last edited by mimartin; 05-23-2008 at 03:54 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Soldier Uses Quran for Target Practice

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:36 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.