Jump to content

Home

Soldier Uses Quran for Target Practice


*Don*
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 " is a partially tamed lion? Are lions widely known for being non-violent? I, for one, think the analogy is pretty telling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 " 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...