Soldier Uses Quran for Target Practice

[Achilles]

...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]

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." [/Quote]

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]

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.

 

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?

 

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]

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]

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.

[Achilles]

They shouldn't' date=' 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.[/quote']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' date=' but because I know they most likely will. Hope that helps.[/quote'] 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' date=' yes I would care.[/quote'] 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' date=' 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'] Forgive me I doubt your sincerity.

 

Yes

Fair enough.

 

...but not a stoning offense.

That's awesome! I'm totally borrowing that line.

 

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 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.

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]

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]

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]

.....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]

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

 

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]

I think it fits poorly' date=' It's highly unlikely that a child would kill anyone, or even causing much damage is when throwing a tantrum.[/quote'] 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' date=' and respect them, and are more likely to do something to aid them because they are non-violent.[/quote'] 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]

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]

I'm aware of that' date=' 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.[/quote'] 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' date=' and a lot of people supports them? Actually, that fits two group of friends in the East.[/quote']

 

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]

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]

Like I wrote earlier in this thread, I don’t believe the soldier should be punished for destroying his own property. I don’t 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 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. 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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Corinthian]

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.