More actions from the intelligent unbiased Americans
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The top US commander in Afghanistan has warned that an American church's threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger US troops and Americans worldwide.

General David Petraeus said images of burning Korans would "undoubtedly" be used by extremists to incite violence.

In an e-mail, he said this would "put our troopers and civilians in jeopardy" and undermine the mission in Afghanistan.

The Dove World Outreach Centre church in Gainesville, Florida, said it will burn Korans on church grounds to mark the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States that provoked the Afghan war.

Afghans staged a protest in the capital Kabul on Monday to protest against the church's plans.

^^

100% agree with that statement

My badly made point was judging a majority on a minorities actions is wrong and dangerous

Yes Pakistanis burning the American are pointless and stupid....Isnt that fairly self evident?

I am trying to see your point here Chris but it seems to be...um...some people do bad things so we should be allowed to do bad things too?

A more decent comment will follow when I have more time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-IrzJqfTQA

>>I can't find any accounts of US troops raiding villages. However, the British did tell their Native American allies to raid US villages. Raiding villages/killing civilians IS a war tactic, used to decrease enemy morale or destroy supplies.<<

Equating civilians with supplies is a little bit of a stretch.

While civilian attacks have been engaged in in monumental conflicts like WW2 (starting with a mistake over London), the desperate measures of global conflicts are hardly the same tactics used by a tiny number of terrorists with absolutely no hope of gaining ANYthing through their use of what might otherwise be a "tactic" of disputable morality under monumentally different circumstances.

>>Decrease of morale is a military advantage.<<

But our morale is not decreased. It's increased by the certain knowledge that our enemies have less dignity and respect for human life than swine. It's not a tactic that's gaining them military advantage, it's the barbaric act of barbarians who gain power by vilifying foreign powers while they abuse their peoples in ways nearly unimaginable to us in the West.

You responded to me saying that any nation, including Israel, has the right to defend itself against foreign attackers by making an incoherent reference to the US's atomic attacks on Japan that ended WWII. I never suggested that Israel had the right to do anything because its enemies were uncivilized. I merely stated that I support their right to defend themselves from foreign invaders, as I support any nation's right. Democratic nations, anyway. I don't think dictators have any right to their power, so if someone wants to take it I don't see any parallel with a democratic nation of free people's right to defend itself. You continued on in quite a nonsensical rant, even saying "according to your reasoning." But you totally misunderstood my clearly stated point. I said that nations have the right to defend themselves. Words like "barbarian" that I use to describe peoples who mutilate their women do not suggest that I'm arguing that, because they're morally deplorable among themselves, that gives anyone else the right to invade them or take their land.

>>How is it radical to on purpose remain neutral and not wanting to choose a side? How can a person not supporting either side be too much on either side (aka being radical). Confusing...<<

One side believes murdering civilians is wrong. One side will pay your family if you blow up yourself and as many civilians as possible at your local mall. If you do not believe that murdering civilians is wrong, you are not on the first side, nor do you support them in any way. Not being against radicalism, aka the murder of civilians, is pretty radical.

>>When your opposition just ignores your peaceful demonstration, you won't get anywhere doing it.<<

Who cares about their opposition? It's not for the Israelis that the Palestinians should be peacefully protesting. It's for the US, the UN, and the rest of the world. If Palestinians didn't produce suicide bombers and rocket attacks nearly constantly, US, UN, and international pressure would explode compare to levels it's been at for _decades_. Just like me, millions of people across the globe aren't going to condemn steps Israel takes for the sake of its security so long as it's undisputed that Palestinians will murder as many Israeli civilians as they can import and produce explosives and rockets to kill.

I agree that, most of the time, Palestinian and Israeli leadership are obviously not interested in cooperating. I'm saying that Palestinian thug leadership is only hurting Palestinians with these attacks. They don't have a snowball's chance in hell of military victory, yet they keep provoking defensive reactions which result in more Palestinian deaths and more lost Palestinian land. While peaceful protests and appeals to the world (ie the US and UN and Britain who empowered Israel to begin with) could put international pressure, which is important for a country like Israel which was created by and protected by international support since its creation, on the side of Palestinians for the first time. I'm not suggesting Palestinians don't have vast international support, I'm saying they could gain support from the nations that hold sway over Israel, not the nations which openly advocate the deaths of every Israeli.

You're generalizing when you simply the statement that Rauf is a radical because he supports terrorism down to "if you're not with us, you're against us" reasoning. By condoning terrorism, he's not even agreeing that ending the terrorist murder of civilians is his goal. Fallacious reasoning isn't leading people to conclude he's against them. His stating that he's against them is.

>>Iran and North Korea getting nukes are today's biggest threat to world peace? No way, Israel, with a bigger amount of Nukes than China is a far bigger threat to world peace.<<

The facts that Israel is a democratic state not sinking the vessels of other nations, nor threatening its neighbors, nor led by insane dictators makes it a BIGGER threat, in your mind? Good to know.

The UN makes many more contributions to conflict in the world than just disinterested talk, Chris_Balsz. Without the UN, we wouldn't have the support our corrupt leaders need. The UN wastes even more money than our corrupt leaders could possibly get to in a few decades in power. It offers more ways to embezzle public funds.

>>Some might say that those Quranburners are but a small fraction of the people of America. That's very true, but the same goes for the Islamic terrorists<<

You're comparing Quran burners on one side with terrorists on the other? Odd. I'd think the very few Quran burners would be compared with the superior numbers of Muslims who cheered in the streets after the 9/11 attacks. There's nothing to compare with the terrorists on the side of their enemies. Their enemies don't engage in acts like theirs.

He did not say "all moderate muslims".  It is certainly true that the extreme "camp in a cave and shoot US marines" has many thousands of "sympathizers". Chickenwingz wants me to know Rauf is a "sympathizer" not a "supporter". As one who remembers the days of "fellow travelers" I recognize a dangerous pattern of hairsplitting.