The American Spectator

Ret. Marine| 9.8.10 @ 6:26AM

Agreed. The good General is rithlt concerned about his troopers, and should be, but nothing, nothing is more dangerous as to cater to one's enemies. Like it or not General, freedom of experssion is the one thing you should be shoveling into those pea brains, known as the muslims. Its afterall, its the 21 century you know.
Another way of looking at it General, those who would actively go after the troops for actions, precieved or not, you should be seeking them out for irradication, period. They are not your, our troopers, or our friends

vtwin| 9.8.10 @ 8:27AM

On the one hand we have group “religious” people whom are willing to risk the lives of their fellow man to offend another group of “religious” people. And on the other hand you have another group of “religious” people whom are willing to kill their fellow man because they are offended by the actions of the first group of “religious” people.

“Pea brains” indeed!

NavyBrat| 9.8.10 @ 9:11AM

Tell that to the folks who burn US flags & bibles every week at the neighborhood block party in AnyCity, Muslim Land.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Do I think this pastor should burn these books? HELL NO. I don't like it when ANYONE burns books. Does he have a right to do so, HELL YES. You & the General would do well to remember that we have rights here, unlike in those places where your only right is to burn our flag & kill Christians & Jews.

Jonathan M.| 9.8.10 @ 7:10PM

Exactly. The sand n*ggers burn Bibles and flags EVERY WEEK. Time these camel humpers got a taste of their own medicine, and learned that the United States is NOT a place where Muslims are welcome.

(Please don't give me some BS about there being "peaceful Muslims" who we need to show any courtesy toward; this isn't MSNBC).

Chicago Ray| 9.9.10 @ 1:12AM

funny because the animals are already burning effigies and flags which they do all year round to protest a so called Koran Burning which hasn't even and may never take place.

he already proved his point.

They're mostly animals just waiting for any excuse to kill and maim infidels and that's what the men live for.

Chicago ray| 9.9.10 @ 1:15AM

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/im.....47183g.jpg

Bradley Ferm| 9.9.10 @ 3:36AM

Wow, "sand niggers, camel humpers, animals, muslims are not welcome." This is plain bigotry. wouldn't Jesus turn the other cheek. And burning the Koran isn't a freedom of religion issue it's a freedom of speech issue. I'm ashamed that you call yourselves Americans. I agree they have the right to burn anything they want to including the American flag but what happened to tolerance? I thought that was a founding tenant of our nation.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:12PM

Tolerance? Not when they kill us in the name of their "god." In case you haven't noticed, this is WAR!

Fredrick Ward| 9.10.10 @ 5:35PM

Funny that you mention tolerance. Why should we be concerned about showing tolerance to a people that wish harm on us? Do you show tolerance to criminals who break into your home? "Gee, you shouldn't be doing this, but, well, I guess I do need to show tolerance. So take anything you wish. Let me hold the door for you. Oh, you want to rape and kill my daughter while you're here? She's upstairs and to the left. Help yourself.... " That is what you are telling us when you say we should be tolerant to animals like these people.

Yosemeti Sam| 9.9.10 @ 2:26AM

In the final analysis - it is the First Commandment versus the First Amendment.

Sometimes though there is yet - a serendipitous congruency.

This little religious outpost in Florida will have its'
extended hours of fame - courtesy of the sweat-drenching coverage by the LBSM PEN1!

There is a religious 'witnessing' to be performed.

Apocalypse now?

Hardly.

Read first two sentences again.

Islamofascists do not need any specific reason to slaughter. Just get Judeo-Christian Whitey! Sound familiar?

A putative Koran in a toilet - was sufficient for TIME ragazine back when to 'arouse' them intolerants to KILL.

Cartoons were sufficient to - 'arouse' them intolerants to KILL.

Etc - etc.

Yo - Hollowwood should be their raison d'etre in targeting such purveyors of Western decadence as found objectionable by the Disney character type Islamofascist Mullahs.

Alan Brooks| 9.8.10 @ 8:22PM

This is something out of the Onion. Childish and needlessly provocative-- shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Burning holy books is almost infantile; more and more I am ashamed of America and its asinine hicks down South.

GW| 9.8.10 @ 9:32PM

Then move to Canada.

Alan Brooks| 9.8.10 @ 10:03PM

Move to Louisiana-- it's yore kinda place.

Jonathan M.| 9.9.10 @ 1:43AM

Or you can just move to Saudi Arabia and enjoy living among filthy half-human sand n*gger camel humping scum.

Real human beings will continue to populate America.

Tyler S.| 9.9.10 @ 4:13PM

Wow, I know the kind of reactions this word draws, but I gotta say ... that's pretty racist.

Fredrick Ward| 9.10.10 @ 5:44PM

You know I never thought about that term too much until I heard my boss, a Muslim from Bangladesh, call an Iraqi Christian a sand n*gger. At first I was shocked at the term coming out of his mouth. Then I thought about the connotations of it. It's quite alright for him to do so because he is Muslim and is in the midst of disparaging a Christian of middle eastern descent. At least, that is how the Koran would view it.

Now, with that in mind I have to consider your claim that Jonathan M. is being racist. Maybe he is, but then why should I care when it is directed at people who behave like these animals do? I say carry on calling them whatever you wish, and don't forget the Tango - 51 to remind them to bow during prayer.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 9:13PM

The Koran isn't a "holy" book. It was written by a murderous child molester and promoter of same and who says we, "the infidels" ought to be killed. It sounds like you're sleeping, Alan! Wake up!

And also it is OK to shout fire in a crowded theatre~ if it's on fire! And we are on fire~ and at war with this despicable false Religion. Why should you be ashamed of Americans who take it seriously?

Alan Brooks| 9.9.10 @ 11:20PM

"The Koran isn't a "holy" book. It was written by a murderous child molester and promoter of same and who says we, "the infidels" ought to be killed."

You might want to tone down the rhetoric.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 11:40PM

"Rhetoric" as in Mohammed actually married a nine year old child? "Rhetoric" as in actually beheading several hundred Jews in one day? "Rhetoric" as in he wrote in the Koran to "kill the infidels wherever you find them?"

Ah well, I'd say this phony "god" is dead and buried and he ain't never coming back. And his book of lies and murder deserves to be burned in perpetuity.

Fredrick Ward| 9.10.10 @ 5:49PM

Here, here!

loulou| 9.8.10 @ 12:01PM

The good General should be relieved of his command. It's disturbing that he so readily accepts dhimmi status.

He'd do better changing the rules of engagement than cowering like a sissy about what might or might not get the Muslims angry.

Thanks for making a mountain out of a molehill, General Iwannabeamuslim Petraeus.

Bradley Ferm| 9.9.10 @ 3:41AM

I understood his statements as his opinion and as far as being a coward... I don't know if you keep up on casualty reports but the fiercest fighting in the war is occurring right now. Petraeus is doing anything but cowering.

riverChief| 9.8.10 @ 3:16PM

you are right about General P
that is "above his paygrade"
ret Navy

KORNERS| 9.9.10 @ 4:12PM

I really think this is doing the General wrong. He stated a reality clearly, this is really gonna piss off some armed muslims in a part of the world where our troops are fighting and dying. Its up to us to decide what can and can't be allowed in our country (and I hope we allow it, distasteful though it may be). He's just pointing out the military reality that comes with these actions. That the reality really sucks isn't his fault. Gen. Petraeus is an American hero, we shouldn't turn on him just because the crazies in this country are gonna motivate the crazies in that country to shoot at our troops and he's worried about it.

Yaeger| 9.9.10 @ 9:55PM

The General has every right to consider the safety of his troops. That is not above his pay grade. I wonder how many of these people who are sounding off about our "rights" to burn the Koran have ever put their life on the line like our brave men and women who are fighting these monsters and that also includes the General who is where the action is. He has every right to try to protect his men and women and has the right to express his opinion as to what will happen if the koran is burned. It all sounds so brave, but those who are going to do the burning have very little to fear from what they will be doing.

Stephanie| 9.8.10 @ 6:43AM

But isn't kowtowing to muslims what we are doing in America? Christianity is slammed daily, no manger scenes, no Christmas trees, no Christmas music, no Merry Christmas. But the muslims can beat their wives, threatent to kill or kill their children for becoming "too westerized" and just plain supress women..And now we have a soldier telling us not to use our first amendment rights? WTF? It will put our troops in harms way? this stupid president puts our troops in harms way with his kowtowing to the muslim world. Bowing to the saudi prince. Sickening. Go do your job general and leave us to our koran burning.
Actually, I think it's a stupid idea, but if it makes that small group of folks feel more empowered, I say go for it.

Vern Crisler| 9.8.10 @ 10:41AM

I, too, would like to burn the Koran (among other things), but to do so would make me as bad as any radical Muslim. Also, what's legal is not always what's appropriate. Isn't that the whole point about why many oppose the Ground Zero mosque?

All the General needs to do is assure the Afghanistan people that we have our idiots over here, too, and that 99.9 percent of Americans oppose book burning.

loulou| 9.8.10 @ 12:03PM

With all due respect, Vern Crisler, that is utter nonsense. Do you really mean to say that burning a Koran would make you as bad as any radical Muslim??

Your moral equivalency meter is broken and you are dhimmified.

Cabermon| 9.8.10 @ 12:04PM

Burning copies of the Quran is legal. It is also offensive to many and is in poor taste.
Building a mosque at Ground Zero is legal. It is also offensive to many and is in poor taste.

Comments critical of either are not based in law, but in wisdom.

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 1:31PM

How is burning a (hateful, violence-inciting) book "as bad as" sawing people's heads off or pouring acid on girls' faces? Suggesting they are morally equivalent actions is really sick.

It's also very naive to believe that "the Afghanistan people [sic]" would be reassured by any such statement by Petraeus. Afghanis don't really comprehend people acting freely without the ruler's direction. And being Muslims, they're tribal, which means they think it's appropriate to attack ANY "Christian" in retaliation for any "insult" by any other "Christian."

Tyler S.| 9.9.10 @ 4:16PM

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here, Radegunda, and guess that never in your life have you so much as opened a Koran.

Unger| 9.8.10 @ 6:53AM

I sincerely hope that this church puts away these plans and finds another less offensive way of making their feelings about Islam known. That said, I agree in whole with what Mr. Stein has written, it is a matter of religious freedom, and I would hope Americans would not need a special reminder that religious practice is protected under the constitution. I think there is so much love and respect in this country for our armed men, and such a desire to add what small measure we may add to their safety and comfort, that we sometimes forget the military is an arm of the government. I truly hope the Koran is not burnt on the 11th, but I also hope our freedoms never suffer for the cheap excuse of making the governments objectives (however noble) easier to obtain.

Darin| 9.8.10 @ 7:00AM

It's a cheap, tasteless publicity stunt by the church. Before this, they were virtually unknown. Now they have their 15 minutes of fame. If they go ahead with the burning, it's almost certain there will be a direct adverse impact on our troops. How many people died when false stories of a Quran flushing in Gitmo were spread? Are members of the church so uncaring about the families of those troops that they will risk having troops killed to make a political statement?

I'm not refuting the church's right to do this. They have the right. Just like Muslims have the right to build a mosque at ground zero. But in both cases, they have the RESPONSIBILITY not to do so.

Tom| 9.8.10 @ 7:44AM

Darin,
Those who which to kill our troops have no need for this story. As you rightly said "How many people died when false stories of a Quran flushing in Gitmo were spread? " they are perfectly able to gin up stories without any help.

Anthony| 9.8.10 @ 10:16AM

Yes, thanks to Lefty "journalists" like Mike Issikoff over at Newsweek, who ran this story.
Had I know Newseek was up for sale for $1.00, I'd have raised the stakes and offered a 25% bump in the purchase price, as I found an extra quarter in my car.
It would have been an all cash deal too, without Goldman Sachs.
Problem is, the entire Lefty media isn't worth a $1.00. That includes you to Mike.

loulou| 9.8.10 @ 12:07PM

Anyone can burn whatever they want to in this country whether it is trash, a Koran, a dictionary, wood, newspapers, etc.

I am appalled at the cowardice shown by pantywaists like Darin. Why on earth should the burning of a Koran have an adverse impact on our troops? Are our troops so castrated over there that they can't deal with the enemy?

Get ahold of yourselves, dhimmis.

Stephanie| 9.8.10 @ 3:20PM

GO LOULOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! My husband wants to put a koran in the bathroom next to the toilet for when the roll goes empty :-)

Alan Brooks| 9.8.10 @ 10:06PM

"Anyone can burn whatever they want to in this country whether it is trash, a Koran, a dictionary, wood, newspapers, etc."

But if someone burns a flag you retaliate in some way... and don't deny it.

Charles Martel| 9.9.10 @ 12:36PM

Wrong: in many jurisdictions, it is illegal to burn trash.

Kenny| 9.8.10 @ 7:02AM

Exactly right, Ben.

And if General Petraeus is that concerned about the well-being of our troops in Afghanistan, it would behoove the general to change his politicaly correct rules of engagement which are true dangers to U.S. military personnel over there. But I guess he's too much of a multiculturalist to do that; fortunately that pastor down in Gainesville isn't.

Ryan| 9.8.10 @ 7:09AM

Actually, if you've read some news reports from around when he took over, they're letting him take a few gloves off.

loulou| 9.8.10 @ 12:08PM

AMEN, Kenny.

Claypoole| 9.8.10 @ 5:11PM

Did Petraeus make the rules of engagement, or are they a product of the commander-in-chief? The question is not argumentative; I have no military experience and do not know the answer.

K. Orengali| 9.9.10 @ 11:34AM

Although we take our orders from the CIC, the ROE is based primarily on two things: first to aggressively pursue the enemy and secondly to take away the enemy's propaganda weapon by dramatically reducing costly collateral damages in precious lives and property. I believe the current OEF ROE is available on globalsecurity.org. This ROE is written to be practical and executable. It is also organized to make maximum use of experience, technology and common sense to combat the bad guys. I'm telling you right now from a guy in the middle of it that the General's directive is sensible and effective. I'm not even going to weigh in on Gainesville. I'm a soldier, but I'm an American first. Please if you read my comment, read the Koran, if you are strapped for time, simply read chapters (surah) 8 and 9. That should be enough to scare the daylights out of you.

Will| 9.8.10 @ 7:07AM

Thanks for this piece Ben, similar thoughts have been pestering me lately. My first thoughts were: "whew, things must be slow in Afghanistan, if Petraeus has time to comment publicly on a local matter thousands of miles from his post". In other times, I would have considered the Koran-bake offensive and ugly, which it is, but we are living in ugly, offensive times. I'm patiently waiting the ACLU's comments on the whole matter. I'm old enough to remember when flag-burning was in vogue. During that time, there were still surviving members of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam who had to sit on their hands and deal with the fact that the symbol of freedom, the beacon to the oppressed, was being treated as toilet paper by a bunch of spoiled children. Fast forward a few years, the spoiled children now are in office, and are highly upset that a symbol of tyranny, a cruel and savage faith that oppresses all but a few, is now getting the bonfire treatment. As Mike "Dhimmi" Bloomberg says about the mosque that will be built on the gravesite of the 9/11 massacre; "It's a First Amendment Issue"

loulou| 9.8.10 @ 12:10PM

A good question is: how did Petraeus even hear about this event? We didn't know about it until Petraeus brought it up. Did Obama's Muslim Outreach functionaries clue him in? Is Petraeus owned by the Muslims or does he possess bad judgement all on his own?

Rebecca Christopherson| 9.10.10 @ 12:20AM

A good war would jump start our economy, just as WW II pulled us out of the Great Depression. Just saying...

Ryan| 9.8.10 @ 7:10AM

I think that Petraeus is NOT trying to infringe on anyone's rights. I don't see it in anything he said, and I would be he would agree with most of what has been posted here - I actually think that Ben is overstating and putting words in the general's mouth, as it were.

Ryan| 9.8.10 @ 7:13AM

One more because this is a separate issue for me - I do believe the church has a right to do what it is doing, but I believe that it is a sinful act.

It serves NO purpose in furthering the Gospel toward Muslims. They won't convert because Christians burn the Koran.

Keep in mind, I'm fairly conservative in my Christianity (some would say "fundamentalist," some wouldn't). Islam is an evil religion. But it doesn't mean we should go about repaying evil for evil in this instance.

David March| 9.8.10 @ 3:29PM

They wont also convert because its a crime punishable by death, by our so-called allies in Kabul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)

A Muslim who converts to Christianity is to be punished by death, so says this so called Holy Book.

Maulavi Habibullah told more than a thousand clerics and young people gathered in Kabul that "Afghanistan does not have any obligation under international laws. The prophet says, when somebody changes religion, he must be killed." [41]

GW| 9.8.10 @ 9:37PM

Untrue. There are many stories of Muslims who convert to Christianity at the risk of being killed, even today. Ryan's comment is spot on. If the Gainsville church is truly wanting to further the gospel of Christ, it should not engage in this action.

Ron| 9.8.10 @ 7:15AM

Ben: The general isn't saying what people can and cannot say or do; he is saying what people should or shouldn't say or do. It's analogous to the "Ground Zero" Mosque controversy. Nobody is seriously sayng that they can't build the mosque there, but that they shouldn't.

John Navratil| 9.8.10 @ 9:19AM

Ron,

Exactly so! We are free to do what we want because we don't do everything we can. There are a couple of other points to be made though.

When the GZ Mosque is proposed, we exercise our First amendment right to protest. Now we fear the other side will protest by killing those they disagree with.

I know this Quran burning is an unnecessarily incendiary protest (pun intended) as is the GZ Mosque to two-thirds of Americans. It should not be done for the same reason the mosque should not be built. Where are our elites with their respect for religious freedom worn so proudly on their sleeves just last week.

These two points demonstrate just how tolerant America's people are and just how intolerant its elites are.

loulou| 9.8.10 @ 12:11PM

NO, it is NOT analogous to the GZ Mosque.

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 1:49PM

Agree, the analogy is limited to the "can vs. should" dimension.

Beyond that, the Koran-burning is a small gesture of limited effect. The GZ Mosque, OTOH, is designed to function as a power center for the ongoing jihad, for a long time into the future. It's meant to plant a large Islamic presence on conquered territory, and to serve as a base for imposing "Sharia compliance" on the United States.

The GZ Mosque is a much worse assault on us than Koran-burning is on the perpetually offended Ummah.

Tyler S.| 9.9.10 @ 4:31PM

What color is the sky in your world?

Ned the Red| 9.8.10 @ 7:28AM

I wonder what would happen if we all started wearing T-shirts with a caricature of their number one boss man printed on the front of it.
Maybe billboards could be put up along highways with his mug plastered on it. Nothing offensive just the picture or whatever likeness represents what they think he looks like.
What if a private citizen (Joe Shit the Ragman) decided to burn a Koran or two in his yard? Would he be murdered and if he was should we all remain silent?
I like most people and prefer to get along with everyone, but I am getting very tired of all of this "we must be considerate of the Muslims" nonsense. It's not consideration, it’s fear of what they will do and nothing more. It's like being afraid of the mob or a gang.
I don't care to be like poor helpless victimized souls in a “Clint Eastwood Western” who just bend over and take it in the rear and hope someone with a set will ride into town and save me from the evil boss. Nor do I desire to be like the southern guy in "Shane" who has a set, but not the brains or ability to survive when he stands up to the bad guys."
I guess we could require Muslims to attend anger management classes in schools built by the latest stimulus funds bill. You know, help them learn it’s not nice to cut of folk’s heads just because they happen to do something you find offensive. They could learn to tone it down just a little, and then maybe we could all just get along.

Albert Constantine, Jr.| 9.8.10 @ 1:13PM

Great character references. Mr. Ragman does not get enough credit in cyberspace for all of his accomplishments (along with his cousins Mr. Bagadonuts and Ms. Rottencrotch). I believe the southern guy in Shane was Stonewall Torrey (played by Elisha Cook, who throughout his long career was "Icepick" in Magnum P.I. and the young hood with a gun in The Maltese Falcon).

Melvin| 9.8.10 @ 7:36AM

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. The Islamic religion is a religion that lives in the 7th Century mindset.
If this Christian Church burns the Koran, we're Infidels, and it gives the excuse to the Islamic masses to embark on an orgy of hate and destruction directed at the Infidels. If the Christian Church decides to rescind the burning of the Koran, it is taken as a sign of weakness, and we're still Infidels, who need to be killed or enslaved.
Is there a better way for Christians to voice their displeasure with Islam. I guess it all depends with whom you talk to. But either way, the Christians and the Muslims are at an impasse. The Islamic religion refuses to advance into the 21st Century and the Christians refuse to revert back to the 7th Century.

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 2:06PM

If it were an impasse, things wouldn't be so dire. In fact, a large sector of Christianity is aiding and abetting the Islamic conquest. The clergy of the major denominations seem to believe that Islam should be protected and honored, in good ecumenical fashion, as a religion akin to Christianity and Judaism, because Muslims pray a lot and their apologists talk about the common Abrahamic origins, so they couldn't be too bad, right?

Meanwhile, the Muslims curse them in their prayers.

Christian churches today are dominated by ill-educated people who mask their self-righteousness with the guise of humility. They seem more concerned to feel good about themselves than to protect their flock and their civilization.

JohnD| 9.8.10 @ 7:47AM

While on the one hand I don't like desecration of anyone's religious symbols, I think it is time to educate the Muslim world on free speech. They have to learn to not be so easily offended, and that they will have to tolerate attacks on their symbols and faith the way we Christians do.

As for General Petraeus, anything we do, like continuing to live in freedom, outrages the Muslim world. I say, screw them, lets do everything possible to piss them off to no end.

Exploit their weakness of their own hypersensitivity to everything. Cremate their dead jihadis (a Muslim taboo) so potential recruits know they will not go to paradise. Advance on their strongholds behind a herd of pigs (is this worse than hiding behind women and children?) Bomb their positions with lard. Throw "ham" grenades at them (I'm just brainstorming here).

stu| 9.8.10 @ 7:52AM

There should be no question about this church's plan to burn korans. Our constitution is clear on freedom of speech, is this exercise any less offensive than Nazis in Skokie, burning American flags, Christ in urine, etc? The clear and simple answer is no.

martin j smith| 9.8.10 @ 7:54AM

First off: Who is the Commander in Chief ? BHO. He is calling the shots.
Second: Therefore, whatever Patreous says has the blessings of the WH or was scripted by the WH.
Third: If reasoning goes like this: Oh my, do something to upset the Muslims and they will be violent . OK, then what does that mean: No allowed to express an oppinion ? Not allowed to be critical of Arab or Muslim ideas or actions or they will be violent ? Better build the Mosque at Ground Zero or they will attack us ? Is 5that what is being siad ? If so: then Muslims are not moderate, they are intolerant and even more dangerous than ever. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In my view this Koran burning is a destraction from the protest against the Mosque at Ground Zero. Yet, when you consider over many decades the freedom Muslim's take in humiliating Jews in their newspaper cartoons,buring flags of various countries they don't like and creating riots over same--I say--It is time to say NON!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least in this country if you want to stay play by our rules.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That would be our Constitution.

hardcard| 9.8.10 @ 7:55AM

the muslims will be offended? what will they do if they are offended? ie. plant road side bombs to kill our soldiers, cut off infidels heads, hijack airliners, blow up buildings, kill thousands of Americans in those buildings, torture women, infiltrate our armed forces and government in an attempt to destroy us, burn our Flag at their demonstrations, vow to kill us all and our allies.

Gary Wood| 9.8.10 @ 8:23AM

I'm with melvin on this one. Let's say we don't let the folks at the Florida have their book-burning, does that mean they're going to love us now? You all know better than that. While I think this book-burning event (and any other for that matter) is a stupid publicity stunt, its time we stop letting the troublemakers use our system against us.

jjmurphy| 9.8.10 @ 8:27AM

If Patraeus thinks the burning of a single Koran by a insignificant pastor of an insignificant congregation will put our troops in greater jeopardy then I think we have no hope whatsoever over there in changing anything. Actually, as long as Islam exists over there, nothing will change.

Sean| 9.8.10 @ 8:31AM

Well the general also has freedom of speech so he can say what he likes, but he should concentrate on killing the enemy. Unfortunately the enemy is ill defined in this war causing many US casualties.

1FreeMan| 9.8.10 @ 2:04PM

Actually, Sean, Gen Patraeus DOES NOT have freedom of speech. He is under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is forbidden from taking a political stance and making his views known. By making his views known while wearing the uniform he is speaking POLICY from the US Army. The freedoms guaranteed US citizens do not apply to members of the US military.

TomB| 9.8.10 @ 5:51PM

That's basically true, that active military do not enjoy completely free speech, but the limitation is about making "contemtuous statements" about the president, vice president, and so forth (See UCMJ Art 88). There is a more general restriction against anything that might be "prejudicial to good order and discipline" (see UCMJ Art 134). Commanders are charged with preserving the health, safety, and morale of those under their command. So if the general feels that the actions of this wingnut is Florida makes it less safe for his troops it's his job to do what he can to limit or eliminate the threat. If I've missed something, please cite the relevant UCMJ article.

Havoc| 9.8.10 @ 8:37AM

We should burn a truckload of korans, on the steps of the US Capitol, every day until the earth is cleansed of the scourge of islam.

General Petraeus should look to his priming.

BCinTN| 9.8.10 @ 10:20AM

Absolutely. Clearly these folks aren't capable of "playing well with others" - it's obviously just not in their genetic makeup. Wonder where I can send a donation for gas money?

Louis Jenkins| 9.8.10 @ 8:45AM

If the minister wants to burn the Koran, then let him. This is guaranteed by the Constitution. Unless Holder decides to sue the pants off the church too! Get over it folks. The minister is already "packing heat" because of death threats, and last I heard, he's still going full guns with the event this Saturday. Heck, if I could travel that far I'd throw a couple of volumes on the fire! Get real people, we're on the edge of a conflagration that will consume this country. Someone's going to hit the trip wire, why not a little church in Fla.?

JP| 9.8.10 @ 8:45AM

The correct response is no response -from the President on down. The MSM does the President's bidding, and if he ordered them to bury this story and ignore the Pastor they would. But, Progressives are beside themselves. This is the kind of story they love to get viral.

General Petraeous' remarks make him look foolish. His allies in Pakistan have in recent years murdered a Catholic Bishop, beheaded Pakistani Christians, and burnt down Christian Churches. Of course, one can't pick and chose one's allies. And frankly, what the Pakistanis do internally is officially none of his business. Ditto for what a church does in the US.

The Muslims burned the Pope in effigy after his Regensberg Address; they murdered countless Westerners; rioted over a cartoon; and held celebrations from Hamburg to Jakharta on 9/11.

Perhaps fear of Islam is what motivates us. That is the first step in becoming a Dhimmi.

vb| 9.8.10 @ 8:45AM

Did any of you read the story of Roy, the Afghan translator, in the WaPo last weekend? Roy volunteered as a translator after two of his friends were killed by the Taliban. Their crime was to question why they couldn't remain in school instead of joining the fighters. As a result, Roy hated the Taliban. He was killed entering a mined building with our soldiers.

The Koran burners in exercising their right to criticise Islam also have a responsibility to think about the best way of doing so. I think they have chosen the dumbest. We need to stand up to thuggery and tyranny. We need to show self respect. We need to show that we have the better arguments. The Koran burners are only showing that they can respond at the same level as the radical Islamists. Roy rejected those tactics and he died believing we had something better to offer. General Petraeus is trying to protect troops and allies and give us a chance to win the war. If he can't offer his opinion, who can?

JP| 9.8.10 @ 9:33AM

" General Petraeus is trying to protect troops and allies and give us a chance to win the war. If he can't offer his opinion, who can?"

As a private citizen he can opine all he wants. But as a senior military commander his remarks were foolish. Here is a man commanding 100,000+ troops in a foreign land 13,000 miles away, who tells a pastor of a tiny church that it isn't "in is best interests" to burn a Kroan. Where was the General when there was a well documented bible burning ceremony last year? What the General is saying is, "Don't upset the Muslims! They just might hurt us, if you do!" Self censorhsip is the first step in creating a Dhimmitude. In Europe no one is exempted. The late Oriana Falluci, a famous Marxist reporter from Italy was charged with Hate Crimes for writing a book critical of Islam. And Theo van Gough was murdered for a creating a documentary critical of Islam.

Let's face it, from the President on down to this field commanders fear is thier motivating factor. This crazy Florida pastor has more guts than a decorated combat commander.

jp| 9.8.10 @ 11:31AM

I think the General is showing "fear." I wonder how many soliers under Patton burned copies of Mein Kempf? What do you suppose happens to all those Bibles that saudi arabia confiscates? When muslims burn Bibles, they usually burn the whole church buliding with them after beating or imprisoning the members. I find muslim hypocricy unbelievable. I also find the fear of muslims and what these insane people might do equally appalling.

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 2:36PM

How is burning a book at "the same level" as beheading and blowing up people? You seem to be agreeing with the Muslim view that the slightest "insult" to their "religion" justifies the most vicious attack on any infidel they can find.

Derek Leaberry| 9.8.10 @ 8:55AM

I wish that General Petraeus and millions of "conservatives" would read George Washington's Farewell Address(written by Alexander Hamilton) the next time they want to send the military to obscure corners of the world.

Havoc| 9.8.10 @ 9:00AM

Islam is a thoroughly-contemptible ideology. What better way to express that contempt than burning its 'holy' book by the truckload? If this draws the enemy into the open - so be it.

We have followed the Bush-choirboy approach to war since 911 and it has led nowhere.

JimH| 9.8.10 @ 9:07AM

The church has the right to do it. It does not seem a particulary Christian act though. The General is not questioning the right. He is questioning the judgement. And while this will not make the hard-core Taliban hate us any more then they do now, It does make life more difficult for our troops in their attempts at winning hearts and minds of people who likely want nothing more than to be left alone. This act also makes it more dangerous for anyone to be seen supporting or cooperating with us. This church is nothing but a pack of ignorant publicity seekers and our MSM of course are only to happy to assist as it promotes their view of the South and Christianity.

Elizabeth| 9.8.10 @ 9:57AM

Exactly my thoughts!! (and I am a Southern Christian)

JP| 9.8.10 @ 10:05AM

And it is not the General's place to offer his judgement. Winning the "hearts and minds" is an abstraction. The General is inserting himself into a situation where he has no business. This entire affair is a stawman. Just yesterday, 2 GIs died due to an IED. Whether this church burns a Koran or not has no bearing for the men out in the field. The simple fact that they are American and infidels does. All General Petraeous has done is to elevate this ridiculous story to a level of absurdity.

BCinTN| 9.8.10 @ 10:26AM

Florida is "Southern" in geography only. It's not Southern in culture. This has nothing to do with the South. Just so you know ...

JimH| 9.8.10 @ 11:50AM

You know that and I know that (I live in Florida). The MSM doesn't care. I think the General is just trying to avoid provocation in order to protect his men.

Lilly| 9.8.10 @ 12:10PM

This is not the view of the south, as I am "south". it's hateful just like burning bibles or american flags, and It's Not South!!!

Rob Smith| 9.8.10 @ 9:17AM

"I wish that General Petraeus and millions of "conservatives" would read George Washington's Farewell Address(written by Alexander Hamilton) the next time they want to send the military to obscure corners of the world."

I'm of the view that General Washington's address should be viewed as a "living docuemt". One that can be constantly reinterpreted to adapt to our changing times;).

SPC Joe Snuffy| 9.8.10 @ 9:30AM

Hooah, Ben!

Anthony| 9.8.10 @ 9:41AM

It's truly amazing how tuned in the Muslim world is to the most slightest of slights from a handful of morons in Florida, yet these same Muslims can be so tone deaf when it comes to a mosque at G.Z. to be opened on 9/11/11. Not to mention the daily burning of the American flag, the Bible, and desercrations of other non Muslim symbols, in Muslim countries around the world, which get a big yawn from the Leftist media.
It makes one truly wonder about the mentality of such 7th century fanatics, when in a world of billions of people, three can set the Muslim world into riot mode.
While I also appreciate the general's concern for his troops, perhaps this should act as a reminder of the type of fanatics we are dealing with.
Since the Left is so anxious to appease these folks, no matter how outrageous their responses to the most smallest of slights, perhaps several on the Left will offer up their heads to these fanatics, in a gesture of solidarity. Hey, it's for the troops, show your support Lefties!!!!!
P.S. Where are the "moderate" Muslims telling their fellow Muslims to chill out???

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 3:33PM

I don't think the Muslims are really "tone-deaf" at all. They simply believe that their "religion" has a special right to be shielded from any insult, whereas all the infidels deserve to be insulted.

Haven't we told Rauf in very clear terms that he is doing something highly offensive to a great majority of Americans? It doesn't bother him at all. In fact, offending is us what he WANTS to do.

JP| 9.8.10 @ 9:42AM

We've seen this kind of fear before. During the 1970s, when the feminzing of our military began, there was the spectacle of 2 and 4 star generals shaking in thier boots. The focus of the fear? Feminists. Here we had men who entered the military in 1944 and 1945. They fought as platoon leaders at Bastogne and Iwo; they served as company commanders in the blood soaked hills of Korea. They lead batallions and Regiments and air squadrons at Hue and DaNang. They suffered untold horrors in places like Stalag 17 and the Hanoi Hilton. They were decorated with Navy Crosses, DSGs, and the CMHs. True heroes them all. But one complaint from NOW and they wet thier pants in terror.

The same thing is occuring now vis-a-vis Islam.

Elizabeth| 9.8.10 @ 9:55AM

This whole article aside, I think this church needs to practice a little more "love thy neighbor" and stop obsessing over Islam.

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 3:37PM

Most of the churches are working overtime to love their Muslim neighbors; and much of our political and media establishment is obsessed with making nice to Muslims and protecting them from any "offense." But it doesn't win love in return. It simply tells the Muslims that their "religion" is winning, and it emboldens them to make further demands.

Islam does not cultivate gratitude, much less tolerance.

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 4:12PM

Good points. The way things are these days, when I heard about this, I only wished that on 9/11 at least one person in every household would come out of their homes and burn at least one Koran. Of course this is to show that we despise their phony Religion of death and to show solidarity. We've gotten so horribly politically correct that it makes me ill literally. How are we supposed to win a war if our Commander in Chief doesn't want to offend the enemy?

If the troops were allowed to fight fire with fire we wouldn't be having this problem. I HATE what it is doing to our troops. They want to talk about putting the lives of the troops in danger? THAT is what the attitude and rules that come down from this President are doing, NOT a Koran book burning.

moron| 9.8.10 @ 10:04AM

Eric Holder proclaims this as idiotic!! However, building GZMosque is a Constitutional right!! Not prosecuting Black Panthers or any minority of voter intimidation is a directive of the DOJ!! Not eliminating dead of felony voters is a directive!! Suing Arizona for trying to do the jobs for the feds!! Now starting city council meetings in Hartford with a Muslim prayer even though there have never been prayers before!! No Christmas trees for the "Holiday Season!!" Are you #$@%&* kidding me?

Douglas| 9.8.10 @ 10:06AM

I hope the church continues to go through with it. We can't continue to be bullied by the muslims. We have to show that we have the resolve to treat them the same way we treat other religions. They are no more sacred than any others.

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 3:39PM

This is the basic point. Islam does not deserve special treatment. We need to be keep telling Muslims that we do not owe their "religion" any special deference.

martin j smith| 9.8.10 @ 10:13AM

Its about this: First off I aqm curious how this unknown preacher and his desire to express his own oppinion about Islam get to me so famous and such a "cause celebre " ? Is he for real or is he an actor in the political game--yes folks you heard me right--In this age of political theatre of the absurd, anything is possible. And often is. The people who Obsesss about Islam are actually those on the LEFT. They obsess about appeasing Muslim's over the rights of others of faith ( other than Islam ) and are the first to ridicule ,disparage, or other wise malign other religion in the US. I am nopt looking at Islam from a religious but a purely political point of view. It is in my view as much political as religious. When politicians on the Left such as Obama and his lap dog Bloomberg make policies that basically are meant toshow disdain such as the Ground Zero Mosque --at least for me I am more angry at our brilliant politicians than the Muslims involved. For me these "useful idiots" are putting us in greater danger by their folly.

Becki| 9.10.10 @ 12:32AM

A good war would stimulate our economy... I think your sense that he is a player in the political game, possibly even being set up by the administration itself to provoke action by the enemy that could justify a real response and change the global position on fighting islamic terrorism. I know I sound a bit conspiracist, but this is so weird, so out of nowhere, and yeah, how else did it get on everyone's agenda so fast?

Anita| 9.8.10 @ 10:21AM

The Constitution is Stein's subject.
Petraeus requests Americans to modify their behavior to appease Muslim opposition on the premise our military will be more at risk if they don't. He conflates the reason for US military presence in AFGHSTN. By publicly expressing himself 'on the record' in this way, he has actually politicized his military campaign and diminished his leadership power in and out of both nations; and perhaps weakened the resolve of some of his own command.
The m/s media has exploited this FL church, Petraeus, (and Those who have Not condemned it), for the purpose of supporting their own
obsequious "Islamaphobia" storyline evolved from the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. How quickly they and mosque supporters wrapped themselves in the Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Religion but would deny the Freedom of Speech to these few people.

To assume our m/s media is motivated with this story due to their primary concern to protect our military service personnel when they have Perpetually and Prematurely Condemned those that have faced military court-martial for war crime charges from which they were later exonerated is naive mentally deficient reasoning

It certainly can't be about the respect for religion. Compare the public and media outrage by Christians or on behalf of the Christian community when Abdulmutallab tried commemorate Christmas with a terrorist attack on 12/25/2009. What No Outrage?

edgard| 9.8.10 @ 10:29AM

I read most of the post and i can not believe the drivel most of you are composing.
Is the building of the mosque near ground zero legal? Yes IT IS . Is it a good idea? for the muslims: Great ! For US a bummer;
Burning the koran. Is it LEGAL? YES. Is it a good idea? NOT FOR ANYBODY CONCERNED.
Now let use some reverse bargaining with G-D.
Remember in the Bible, the Torah and the Koran you will find the dialog between Abraham and
G-D about the fate of SODOM and GOMORAH where ABRAHAM bargains down from finding 50 rightious folks in those Cities for G-D to spare them from destruction, all the way down to finding Five upright inhabitants; And G-D agreed , If ABRAHAM COULD FIND FIVE RIGHTIOUS PEOPLE HE WOULD SPARE THOSE TOWNS.
So, most of you know that those cities were incinerated after all.
NOW I would like that the pastor bargains with his G-D, or his concience (if he has one) If burning the Koran would result in 5 innocent Americans being slaughtered, would he rellent from burning the books? would he rellent if 10 Americans were to be saved from beheading? would he for 20? 30? 40? or even 50? pastor ! HOW MANY LIVES you like to bargain for?
ed

ddn| 9.8.10 @ 11:40AM

Urr...that would be ten righteous, not five. I do not defend the burning of books, but it seems you are willing to bargain with those intent on doing evil. The muslims have shown, the world over, that they are NEVER content until ALL of their demands (and they have lots) are met. Just how far are you willing to go for appeasement? You haven't seen nothing yet - look at Europe if you want a general sense of where things are going.

JS| 9.8.10 @ 10:41AM

The General is entitled to his views (which, in terms of the conclusion that the burning will provoke a reaction that could harm troops, are probably correct), but he should not be commenting on it in uniform. Just like Obama commenting on the mosque, it is wrong for someone who has no power to intervene to express a view because it gets them involved in disputes which are none of their official business.

If Petraeus wanted to make his point in public, he should have taken his uniform off and emphasized that he was talking as a private citizen, albeit one people listen to.

Ezekial| 9.8.10 @ 10:55AM

I think that people are viewing the General's remarks in the wrong way. We should be thanking him for pointing out the obvious. Islam, as practiced in the Middle and Near East, is not a religion of tolerance or love. He was not warning that the burning of a few books, even if they are religious tomes, by a small, obscure congregation in Northern Florida was going to spur the Taliban to perform better. We are already actively engaged in violent hostilities with them. He was warning that this action would spur Muslims, who are not affiliated with the Taliban, to engage in acts of violence against American troops who not only liberated them from a brutal totalitarian regime, but are actively laying their lives on the line to keep that regime from regaining control of that country.

Now, Christian symbols are being suppressed and destroyed worldwide, and Christians themselves are being killed simply for practicing their faith, mostly by Muslims. Yet, there is no concern over Christians placing Muslim countries, Muslim leaders and even everyday Muslim citizens at risk for violent attack. In Egypt, across Africa, through out the Middle East, in the Balkans and other places; Christians are being killed by Muslims, their churches destroyed and their property seized. Yet no one warns that this could put Muslims and Muslim countries at risk of violence. Yet, allow a book to be burned by an insignificant group of people in a small town in Florida and the world must quake in its boots.

Thank you General Petraeus for paint an accurate picture of where the treat to world peace lies.

Gretchen| 9.8.10 @ 2:34PM

Finally! The voice of common sense!

The Florida pastor clearly did not think things through; while many people may personally agree with him, they also realize that such an action is, at best, ill-advised. Remember the fatwas against the Danish cartoonists over the Mohammed cartoons? A Muslim fanatic invaded the home of one of the cartoonists intendting to kill him and anyone else in the house. (Fortunately the man had built a Muslim-fanatic-proof bolthole where he and his small grandson were able to hide until help arrived.) Burning Korans is at least as incendiary (pun intended) as drawing Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. When a Muslim says "I'll kill you!" it is NOT just a figure of speech.

General Petraeus was merely stating the (what should have been) obvious.

David March| 9.8.10 @ 3:43PM

People make fun and joke about Jesus all the time, and you dont see Christains flipping off the handle and killing the guy.

If your response to any minor insult, is to kill people for it, then your a barbarian who needs to be put down as the rabid dog you are.

And here your giving them permission.

Its not Petraeus's job to ask this. Ten to one he was ordered to make that speech, and unlike anyone with common sense or balls, he gave it. I would have told Obama or whichever flak gave that instruction to shove it. Petraeus by making that speech made this a news story that was carried on networks around the world. His statement did more to harm his troops than the pastor. Thats fairly obvious and common sense.

Gretchen| 9.9.10 @ 4:23PM

Mr. March,

I re-read my posting of 9.8.10 @ 3:43 p.m. and I must say that I am perplexed.

I could not find anything that could possibly be construed as "giving them permission" or, indeed, killing those who may be perceived as having "insulted" them.

Please elucidate.

Thank you.

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 4:28PM

So, because Muslims are violently hypersensitive about their "sacred" objects, therefore we need to follow their rules of "respect"?

martin j smith| 9.8.10 @ 11:00AM

Edgard you see if you take Patreous or Bloomberg's reasoning ( and yours too ) to its logical conclusion about dealing with the sensibilities of Islam it would amount to this: If you do not ridicule,offend,satiryze or in anyway criticize Islam or their leaders, then and only then are you "safe" except that once you give in to those demands, the there are more demands. --I mean demands !!!!!!!!! Here is another issue: why is it that Islam gets "special treatment " as a religion and others do not ? Here is an example: we hear abouyt an Anti_islam "onslaught" in the US. But where is it. Some possible nut job preacher ( or is he a play actor for the Left ? ) or a kid of 21 years old who works for the Marble Colligiate Church in NYC-a pro Mosque organization who allegedly slashed a Cabbie who ahppened to be Muslim----Sorry Edgard but I see a propaganda machine in operation. How about the fact that their are more Anti-semitic--according to the FBI ( jewish ) attacks than against Muslims ? How about Time magazine's anti-semitic cover ? How about that Edgard ? How about all the crap about removing Crosses from public places ( not that I have a brief for them ) yet-lets look honest at the LIES we are getting from our MEDIA and its adopted government. Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patrick in AZ| 9.8.10 @ 11:06AM

Ben, I could ask you the same question on this: Have you heard of the Constitution? There is a HUGE difference between a citizen, who happens to be a military man, expressing his OPINION, and a military man ENFORCING his opinion. Unless he takes action to force his opinion, General Petraeus is well within HIS rights to exercise his FREEDOM of speech. The church has a right to burn the Koran and the General has the right to publicly express what he thinks the unintended consequences will be.

David March| 9.8.10 @ 3:45PM

As someone earlier pointed out as a soldier Petraeus does not have that right anymore. If he wants to make that statement, he needs to take off the uniform. Perhaps you should read up on your UCMJ.

Thanks

ddn| 9.8.10 @ 11:15AM

Put aside the right or wrong of the act...Let us consider something much more important. This small Church in Gainsville FL., wants to burn a few korans...doesn't it seem very odd that the secretary of state, department of justice, Generals, the united nations, and the Pope (among the heads of many nations) are weighing in on the issue??? If some little muslim group in somalia or a king and few princes in saudi arabia were burning BIBLES would it generate any attention at all? Consider just what is going on in the world. Why is the world catering to the antichrists of the world (they say their god has no son)?

Purple Lips| 9.8.10 @ 11:19AM

The Muslims do it every year. Not a month goes by when some Islamic group burns Bibles, desecrates Churches, and murders infidels.

It is interesting how such a small group of people can garner such attention. I wonder how many people in search of thier 15 minutes of fame are observing this ridiculous spectacle?

JP| 9.8.10 @ 11:15AM

It's interesting how the intelligenstia treated the Sinead O'Conner's stunt of tearing the photo of Pope JPII on SNL way back in the 1990s. The Vatican never officially responded to that act. Of course, Catholics all over the US did, and O'Conner's career as a pop star was over. The intelligenstia went nuts. The rubes were too stupid to recognize her "protest", they sneered. Ditto for the "Piss Christ" display in New York City. We were too in-bred, too ignorant, and lacked the sophisticated nuanced disposition to appreciate great art. Besides, these Upper Westside elites argued, it is protected "free speech".

Now these same bedwetters have discovered religious tolerance and sensitivity. As I predicted a decade ago, our Progressives will convert to the Islamic way of life for no other reason than fear. Thier heroic 1st Amendment stances over the decades were nothing more than sophmoric poses. They knew Christians wouldn't deploy suicide bombers, rioters, and terrorists. But when they've come face to face with Muslims, it is a different story.

Let's face it, some Americans are afraid -especially Progressives. Who knows, the burka may yet become a fashion statement in the Midtown Manhatten.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.10 @ 11:23AM

After reading some very good thoughts here, folks, I had an idea.
Let's ask one of the terrific TAS authors to research and extract the meat of the Koran vis a vis we infidels, and we can all forward it to that Pastor for distribution.
People need to KNOW what is in that "scripture".

Don't burn it.....distribute it.....and light some fires in some empty minds.
Islam is finally Evil....with a capital E. Most of it's Evil is visited upon Muslims themselves.

"By their fruits shall you know them", (Uh, Jesus Christ)

Mark Shepler- Jupiter FL| 9.8.10 @ 1:23PM

Been done already. Go to Amazon and look up Robert Spencer. His The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran and Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) are precisely fit to your order. :) And, he is a true scholar, not a rabble-rouser like me.

Evelyn| 9.8.10 @ 11:43AM

The public critics of this Koran-burning stunt fail to acknowledge what really happens when the sentiments and sensibilities of barbarians are riled. We saw how these barbarians behaved when the false claim of a Koran being thrown in a Gitmo toilet hit the news wire. But pointing out that rioting followers of the religion of peace destroy property and kill people wouldn't be politically correct, would it? Instead, weaselly words like "endangering" and "outrageous" are used.

Personally, I love the thought of deliberately poking the Islamic hornets' nest. The outcome is so predictable, and it shows how immature and insecure Islam is. One of the world's "great religions?" I think not.

PaulD| 9.8.10 @ 11:43AM

It's gotten to the point that the American majority must always take a backseat to the minorities ... even when the minority is trying to kill us. Are we going to stand up and say "HELL NO" or are we going to let them walk all over us?

rebell| 9.8.10 @ 11:45AM

The same people who're denouncing the Qu'ran burning, defending the Victory mosque building.
Is it hypocracy? And to Ken: try to distribute the Bible among mohammedans, see what happens to you.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.10 @ 12:02PM

rebell,
heh, I have done so. Perhaps 200 Gideon New Testaments among Kings and Princes etc. I got to know when I was on trips to the middle east. Those guys are STILL my friends.

I used to ship them in ...You are going to love this...wrapped in our whiskey rations.

They loved to partake in our whiskey rations, and would never have them "subject to inspection". heh

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 4:24PM

Love it!
Yes you see God commands us to "preach the gospel in season, and out."
He's in control, and protects those with the "beautiful feet of those who preach!"
Ken, what beautiful feet you must have!

Ray| 9.8.10 @ 11:53AM

"But it's still protected by the Constitution as an exercise of religious freedom."

No it isn't! "Religious freedom" doesn't give you the right to destroy opposing or competing religious texts, even in a symbolic display. That's the antithesis of religious freedom.

JP| 9.8.10 @ 12:07PM

"..No it isn't!Religious freedom" doesn't give you the right to destroy opposing or competing religious texts, even in a symbolic display. "

You may want to have a talk with the Supreme Court, Ray. Besides, what the Rev in Florida proposes falls under Freedom of Speech.

Patrick in AZ| 9.8.10 @ 3:18PM

Religious Freedom or Freedom of Speech - unless you are destroying property that belongs to someone else, you are within your rights to destroy any text you wish. If this church stole that Koran then you are right; if they bought it, you are wrong.

Radegunda| 9.8.10 @ 4:36PM

Where in the Constitution is it forbidden to destroy, or symbolically destroy, another religion's text, after I have duly purchased it? Where in the Constitution does it say that "religious freedom" means that I am required to refrain from offending anybody else's religious beliefs?

What if somebody else's religion is offensive to my religious beliefs? For example, I find Islam to be highly offensive. What gives Muslims the right to offend my beliefs--but I can't offend theirs?

martin j smith| 9.8.10 @ 11:56AM

the Big Picture: An attempt to squash dissent. Thus I got suspicious of the 21 year old kid arrested for an alleged hate crime. Watch for a Stalinist type "confession" from this kid admitting to his AntiMuslim feelings. I will bet he has been told-Confess or spend many years in Jail. At least more than otherwise. However this government does not keep promises anyway.
This pastor, the more I think about him the more questions arise and a key one is " who is this guy and who are his connections.

TKP| 9.8.10 @ 11:56AM

AMEN!

These folks are still pissed off about the crusades!

The real point here is how ridiculous the reaction is in the "moslem street" to some publicity seeking yahoo in Fla burning a book, not babies, not even hanging Bid Laden in effigy.

It just reinforces the 12th century mentality, nowhere in the world do Moslems get to practice religion more freely than in the US - the Islamic states are ALL repressive, some a little less than others. Only Turkey broke that mold in theory and that nation is slipping into a theocracy.

It sucks, this free speech thing, especially when you don't agree with pop culture - ask any conservative. But welcome to the USA - if you don't like the bill of rights - vote with your feet to an Islamic paradise like Yemen, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc - Enjoy !

Love Patreaus, but he has to know that burning a book is only one of dozens of pretexts that can be manufactured. How many pictures of 6 year olds wearing mock explosives do we need to see?

Last thought - I might have some empathy if a fraction as many followers of Islam expressed outrage at a real afront to Mohamed, like some guys hijacking 4 jumbo jets and flying them into buildings, killing thousands all in the name of the religion-of-peace. Funny that "vast majority of peaceful moderate muslims" never seem to materialize when it counts....

J. B. S.| 9.8.10 @ 12:03PM

Is General Petraeus implying that if the burning does not take place then our troops will no longer be in harm's way? So, if the pastor complies with the General's request, there will be no more roadside bombs, mortar attacks, shootings, homicide bombings, be-headings, kidnappings, torture, etc? Well, if that's all it takes...

loulou| 9.8.10 @ 12:13PM

Didn't the Muslims desecrate and trash the Church of the Holy Sepulcre a few years ago? What did we do then? Nothing.

ShortNSweet| 9.8.10 @ 12:16PM

Ben is absolutely right! The church in Gainesville has the right under the constitution to burn the kor'an, or the bible, or whatever they choose. The muslims in New York have the right to build a "community center" right down there by "ground zero"........Burning the kor'an is a hateful and irresponsible thing to do, and in my opinion should never be done - especially in the name of Christianity, and neither should muslims build their community center anywhere near Ground Zero, it's a hateful, and irresponsible thing to do! Whatever happened to moral, respectful, caring for your neighbor, behavior? And we wonder whats wrong with this world? The people are whats wrong with it!!! Good grief! How sad is all of this?

Mark M| 9.8.10 @ 12:21PM

How many Bibles have been burned by Muslims, I wonder? Expect more.... That said, the burning of the Koran, or any book, is not consistent with the action of any church I have ever attended. In my church back home you would probably hear the preacher say that we should pray for Muslim souls, as well as the souls of our own congregation.

I would add that Christianity is about salvation, faith and hope; and, in today's political context it's about the rights and freedoms that we as children of God (not servants of government) are entitled to. Apparently, the obama administration thinks I owe them more of my divinely alloted time on earth, compared to the previous administration. The idea being that a man's time on earth should be his own to trade in the form of labor or to while away as he sees fit without it being stolen (read "taxed") from him by anyone or anything. What a disgusting idea it is that a man owes any of his alloted time on earth to any other man or government. This notion is especially corrupt since, in the form of money, taxes are being used to by those in power to secure their positions. Vote buying, support buying and backroom dealing all extorted from a free individual's God - given time on earth.

How corrupt this government is.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.10 @ 1:12PM

Mark M,
BRILLIANT! take on this mess!

God bless you , Sir.
I have called it "life-span taxes" but your statement went into my docs file.

Gretchen| 9.8.10 @ 2:50PM

AMEN!

james wilson| 9.8.10 @ 12:39PM

Let us burn a Koran each day, along with a New and Old Testament; we shall then see evidence for the qualities each flock represents. As if we don't know.

FeralCat| 9.8.10 @ 12:40PM

I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

Alexis de Tocqueville also said, No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.

I give you General Petraues trying to shut up a small Christian Church and hence the First Amendment.

FeralCat| 9.8.10 @ 12:44PM

Petraues blames Israel for putting the lives of American troops at greater risk one day and a Christian Church another day, even though he is the one putting the lives of American Troops at greater risk with his almost Code Pink ROE in his "Bridge on the River Kwai" in Afghanistan. He seems to have forgotten that he took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, NOT THE KORAN. I think he has gone quite mad and should be given a medical ischarge.The Founding Fathers and George Patton would slap him silly.

Petraeus said that burning Korans, “is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses“. This is a lie about and an obscene smear against his fellow Americans. It’s basically a blood libel. It is also idiotic. Petraues sounds far far worse than even Obama did when he attacked Arizonians an "Teabaggers".

Mark Shepler- Jupiter FL| 9.8.10 @ 12:45PM

What we have here is an object lesson in how a people stagger into the dark night of dhimmitude one lurch at a time. And in this case it's not an insignificant step for none are insignificant but some are larger and more obvious than others. This is a fairly large step.

Let's consider if the headlines read that some militant, standard-issue, "speaking truth to power" atheists, lefties and other youngsters of America's never ending protest crowd were to announce the burning of a Bible over the "intolerance" of their more religious countrymen. Or burst into a church during service to pelt the priest with condoms? What would be our leader's and the so-called mainstream media's take on that? If any commented on it at all, it would be with a yawn and some boilerplate that those uptight Christians just had to shut up and take it in the name of the First Amendment. And you know what? We would and do and have done for 50 years in one form or another. There would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth to be sure but everyone knows, especially our cowardly liberals, there would be no mobs jumping up and down in the streets yelling for their heads. Protest in modern America is pretty much a no-fault exercise. This difference is precisely why our liberals have no compunction about insulting their countrymen lo these 60 years or so or now favor yet another conquest by the seventh century barbarians at NYC's gate. There is no real danger in it, so they think. It's very easy to preach tolerance and reverence for "dissent" when dissenting costs you nothing, really. At least not,yet but as I love to warn liberals, “they’ll cut your throat first”.

But burning a koran, now that's another story altogether and we all know why. Based on a completely false story of korans being flushed down the toilets of Gitmo, adherents of the religion of peace the world over rioted and killed innocent people of other faiths just because of their faith. Of course, in reality the exact opposite was taking place at Gitmo as other leaders, of Gen. Petraeus' outlook, decided it made sense to confirm muslim terrorist killers worst religious bigotries by ordering the handling of korans in gloves lest they be defiled by our infidel guards. To paraphrase Mark Steyn on that subject, it's means one thing for our society if muslims believe we're dirty infidels unfit to even touch a Koran but it's quite another for us to agree with them. We see the ramifications of the former in headlines from around the world but look beneath the surface in Europe to see the ramifications of the latter.

So, apparently, tolerance now means having to accommodate the views of those who think we're sub-human. Or that it's ok if we burn our own good books anywhere, anytime and it's ok if they burn our good books (and maybe any folks possessing them) but what is not ok, never ok, is if we burn their good books anytime, anywhere including in this land of the free and home of the brave and First Amendment. Can there be a clearer admission of whose good book is inviolate?

Now, don't misunderstand, I think burning a koran is an insulting and provocative act. Worse, it's unnecessary in this land of free-flowing information. America, that is normal America, is waking up to the peril. Such an act can provoke the peaceful and tolerant muslims we hear so much about over there, wherever it is they're hiding from their brethren and however incommunicado they remain, but especially those among us over here, just as if muslims were to burn a bible it would provoke millions like me. The difference hardly need be stated that we would not rise up and lynch the offending muslim and his muslim neighbors and drive the rest into 3rd class "dhimmi" status, underground or out of our land. Indeed, so accepted is this difference that we accept their religious violence to the point it is considered rude to mention it. At this stage of things, this is sort of akin to instructing a German Jew, circa mid-1930s, it's very rude of him to take exception to the expanding Nazi ideology and its enforcement that is beginning to hedge him in on every side.

Put another way both parties understand and accept that we eschew violence in the cause of religion but for them it is part and parcel to their religion to the point they have a license to kill if offended and we’re to shut up about it. And they’re the sole judge of what constitutes an offense. This difference is the only reason this issue is an issue. It's been an issue with islam for 1,400 years, albeit in abeyance for a couple of hundred years or so before the latter part of the 20th century and they understand this difference and how to employ it, too. Better than we, I am dead certain.

I sympathize with Gen. Petraeus' dilemma. He is charged with prosecuting a war against islam's worst elements on their home turf among millions of average and ambivalent Abduls who are individually in no hurry to strike a blow for Allah but are loyal to their creed more or less, nonetheless. And certainly we don't want a propaganda coup for the weird-beards or to endanger our troops any more than they are just for being there and defiling that holy place. It's a very, very fine line. But he is there to defend the ideals of the United States, it's constitution and customs from attack. He is fighting those cretins over there so our women, children and oldsters don't have to die in our streets again. It’s nice that we toppled the Taliban and let them write a Sharia based constitution, downright tolerant of us at that, but history will record what we really accomplished was to push the front of a 30 year war that had reached our first cities back from our shores and take the fight to them.

So the question is for Gen. Petraeus, who's values is he ultimately going to defend? Will he acquiesce to their threat of violence, riot and disorder over there to dictate our behavior over here, something we wouldn't even let them do if they were here, too? Not to defend a misguided pastor’s idea of a mission to confront a rival doctrine so much but rather our nation's ideal that the pastor is free to do it any way he sees fit save by violence? Because suppressing that pastor is their expressed purpose, to subdue him, silence him, defeat his resistance and in the doing, assert islam. Victory. That is their goal. Again, if the good pastor is shut down is that not an admission of whose creed deserves more respect? It’s certainly a testament of whose got it any which way they could, no? They make no bones about it, just as they made no bones about the cartoons and Salmon Rushdie's book 20 years before that and any one of a thousand and one perceived slights. They make it clear they mean to set the boundaries of religious discussion everywhere or mete out the consequences for disobedience every time there is a cause for offense and there seems to be no end to the causes. As an exasperated George W. purportedly said, again I paraphrase, "from the crusades to the cartoons...it's always something". Today it’s Pastor Jone’s deliberate insult, tomorrow it could be the imprinted swirl on top of a Burger King milk shake or stuffed Piglets on one’s desk at the office or improperly dressed women on “their” streets or muslim nurses not washing their hands according to procedure, sharia family courts and on and on and on. It’s always something to those bent on domination because it doesn’t matter what we do or how we do it. It’s that we are and do at all that is the offense. And each time we are called to respond to the threats or imposition is a choice of standing firm for freedom, true tolerance and our very lives or knuckling under to dhimmitude, submission and death. Not today, over this one issue but sooner than we think. Sounds funny I know but just ask the Brits.

Paul Milenkovic| 9.8.10 @ 1:22PM

We are at war. And the war strategy, as communicated by President George W Bush in multiple speeches, is that we are at war with specific state and non-state radical actors (radical in the sense of pursuing their goals through "direct action" -- i.e. violence purposely directed at civilians for political purposes). An important part of that war strategy is that we are not at war with Islam, as many of our allies in this war are Muslims, and as part of that war strategy we don't go out of our way to offend our Muslim partners in this war.

Some of our Muslim fellow natural-born citizens, immigrants, naturalized-citizen or resident-alien have taken advantage of the forebearance towards Muslim sensitivities and sensibilities to advantage, yes, the swirl on the milk shake, the Piglet toy, or the service animals in the taxis. This kind of assertion of "group rights", rightly or wrongly, is part of the tapestry of American political life, and not just with Muslims in America.

But this business of the Koran burning is willful and deliberate provocation and incitement, and the Catholic Christian, Conservative, and patriotic American Citizen in me wants this "shut down", by government decree, if required, as Presidents since Lincoln have invoked War Powers.

If War Powers is an extreme response, how about a Civil Rights response -- this Koran burning is as much deliberate incitement as Cross burning, and I remember when the Supreme Court did the "how many angels dance on a head of a pin" number on a Cross burning case, Justice Clarence Thomas brought his life experience to bear and called it for it was.

Mark Shepler- Jupiter FL| 9.8.10 @ 1:44PM

"But this business of the Koran burning is willful and deliberate provocation and incitement, and the Catholic Christian, Conservative, and patriotic American Citizen in me wants this "shut down", by government decree, if required, as Presidents since Lincoln have invoked War Powers."

I would like nothing better than for the pastor to quietly conclude it wasn't a good idea, indeed, contrary to Christian ideals and give it up.

But what I won't agree to is that our leaders should be giving voice to barbarian demands we alter our ways or else....

You're right, we're not officially at war with islam though those that attack us, indeed seek nuclear weapons in Iran to destroy us, say islam is at war with us all the same. And as for our "allies" they all adhere to the same ideology just as Italy stood with Germany, though she hadn't fired a shot in anger at us when we invaded her. Indeed, our muslim "allies" are so tolerant and so reciprocal that when George Bush the Elder visited our troops at Christmas on the eve of Desert Storm he had to retreat to an aircraft carrier offshore to celebrate services lest he offend Saudi sensibilities. But fair enough, we'll stick to our own motivations to guide our acts. And in that pursuit, apparently, you'd go for something akin to dictatorial decree over your fellow Americans' non-violent demonstration over a point of religion? And it would be done under the banner of "tolerance", no doubt?

Hmmmm, welcome to dhimmitude, you're gonna fit right in.

JP| 9.8.10 @ 2:10PM

Mark, we are not officially at war. And President cannot use the War Powers in time of peace. You really need to get a hold of yourself. It seems like everyone is frightened to death of Muslims.

Mark Shepler- Jupiter, FL| 9.8.10 @ 2:54PM

Errr, JP, I didn't write or state we "were at war". Paul did. In fact, my precise words are....wait for it....."we're not officially at war" And I'm not advocating the use of the War Powers act to stifle Americans, Paul did. Yeah, once again and to the contrary, I deplored his suggestion.

And as to your pop psychologizing, I am not "frightened to death of muslims". But I am very, very, implacably, irrevocably, irredeemably opposed to islam, particularly its spread to our land. Just as I'm opposed to Nazism, Communism and any hermetically sealed totalitarianism. If there was a modern Christian equivalent to islamism I'd be opposed to that. Come to think of it, it's probably why I'm a non-denominational Protestant Christian as opposed to some alternatives. islamism is the antithesis to every thing we believe and on which this country was founded. Name one tenet of what it means to be a free American and good citizen and islam offers the polar opposite example if one would be a "good" muslim. Don't take my word for it. Do a little homework on the subject of islamic doctrine instead of merely judging by some muslim friends. They may very well be moderate and non-religious in the same sense most self-identified American Christians are, which is to say, not religious or adherent at all. But that is not the same as saying islam is a benign ideology. As Bernard Lewis says, "There are moderate muslims but there is no moderate islam". We keep awaiting the emergence of an islamic "reform" along the lines of Christian "reforms" and dismiss this hardening of the islamic heart in the last several decades as an abberration. But what if, as Steyn asks, this is the reform? What if Khomeniism, Hamas, the Taliban, Wahhabism and all the rest represent an islamic "reform"? Stands to reason actually given their texts. There is no allowance for any deviation from the word or the prophet's life so what if being a "good" muslim is precisely what the islamists represent? It is what they say tirelessly, after all, all our braniacs assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. It's what the Saudis fund throughout the world and it's effects are everywhere to be seen along "bloody borders of the islamic world".

It's easy to be sanguine when the threat appears small. In fact, it's human nature. Just a smidgeon within a larger population and at that stage all seems to mesh tranquilly. But it's numbers and a certain tipping point, a critical mass that represents the danger. Don't believe me? Go to the innermost parts of Dearborn, MI or any major European city with a Bible in hand and start giving out Christian tracts. Or, if you're gay, walk down a sidestreet of your beloved Amsterdam with partner on your arm. Or if you're a woman dress up in your finest clubbing attire, or just go with head uncovered if you like, and take a stroll just to see what happens. And then come preach about the tolerance of your own kind.

The 9/11 Victory mosque iman has now stated he intends to build "separate" worship facilities for different religions as a gesture of goodwill. Progressives will soon fall into line with the new take on "separate but equal". But the true test of tolerance is not if they build a Christian chapel for Christians or Synagogue for Jews (with separate entrances no doubt) on the premises but what happens if a Christian or Jew should enter a mosque or vice-versa. Any thoughts on that?

The challenge for our society in the coming decades is how to tolerate the intolerable. To tolerate the intolerant? How to accommodate the least accommodating? Not people necessarily, but an ideology. How does a free society do that and remain free? Is there the possibility it's not possible? We certainly thought so about nazism and communism. We will live in interesting times.

CheshireCat| 9.8.10 @ 1:00PM

If burning the Koran ist strictly Verboten, can they just stone it instead? Would that be alright with everyone? There are many passages in the Koran that very much approve of stoning, so I don't see how any Muslim who is even a teensey bit reasonable could possibly object to that. Especially if they put a little woman's Burka on the Koran first as Muslims especially like stoning women. Let those Christian Church members and General Petraues compromise and just go with that.

Dave Williams| 9.8.10 @ 1:01PM

Korans, Bibles, Torahs, Bhagavad-Ghitas....I say burn 'em all, so we can stop fretting about whose imaginary friend is better, and enjoy this world and stop fretting about the next. By the way, there IS no next, and there isn't the slightest shred of evidence to believe otherwise.

FeralCat| 9.8.10 @ 1:16PM

Dave, i am an unbeliever myself, but your implied moral equivalence between islam and other religions is absurd.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.10 @ 1:18PM

Dave Williams,
Thank you.

Question: Do you enjoy cutting your arms with a razor blade?

If you think we die to be dog-food...then we are already dog-food.
No wonder you are so stupid. See, if we are all dog-food.....then nothing you say makes any difference.

.....Go cut your arms and do something constructive, dog-food.

Paul from Sa| 9.8.10 @ 1:15PM

Offended? Insulted?

Welcome to life in America for white, male, Christian, conservative, patriotic, hard-working citizens.

Tyler S.| 9.9.10 @ 4:34PM

Beaten? Marginalized?

Welcome to life in America for anyone who isn't white, male, Christian, conservative, patriotic, hard-working citizens.

Seriously, you whiney bitches make me ashamed to be a white guy. We've had it better than anyone else for most of human history. How can we still be such whiney twerps?

FeralCat| 9.8.10 @ 1:19PM

Should we even be calling Islam a religion?

Calling Islam a religion is rather absurd if you stop and think about it for a moment. A Chrysler has a transmission component to it but you don’t call a Chrysler a transmission; you call it a car. Likewise, Islam has a religious component to it, but with Islam the religious component is only one of many components [theological, political, social, judicial, military, etc], and NOT the most important component at all as the MOST important component can be summed up as DOMINATION OR ELSE, so Islam should properly be called a Totalitarian System, not a religion. This is so simple. It’s logic 101.

Nazism, another Totalitarian System, had a religious component to it too, albeit one arguably smaller than Islam, but I have never heard anyone call it a religion. Winston Churchill even equated Islam and Nazism, when in his book "The Gathering Storm" he equated Hitler's Mein Kampf with Mohammad's Koran. Religion is just a skirt, or burka if you will, that the Totalitarianism that is Islam hides it's evil [women stonings, honor killings, gay hangings, 100 lashes, etc ad nauseam] behind. That skirt should be pulled off. Totalitarianism should not be allowed to hide behind religion.

Back in the 1800's it was Southern culture, almost religion, to have human beings as property. Did those in the North say, "Hey it's their culture, so we most be tolerant of it and any who are not tolerant of it are intolerant bigoted Southernophopes?" Of course they didn't as they were intelligent enough and moral enough not to think that or say that. Why are so many so stupid and/or morally bereft today when it comes to tolerating Islam, which keeps women as
property, just to mention one of Islam's hideous practices? Abraham Lincoln weeps. Martin Luther King weeps.

Len| 9.8.10 @ 1:57PM

Right, northern culture just enacted exclusionary laws to keep the blacks out. Forget slavery, that would have brought whites and blacks too close together, and hurt the chances of white laborers from being employed. Seriously how many black freemen could afford the 1000 dollar bond necessary to, say, reside in Illinois? Them good old non-racist northerners.

Jim O'Brien| 9.8.10 @ 4:05PM

Islam is hostile and subversive to our Constitution and rule of law. Its goal is theocracy, which does not recognize secular law or religious freedom. In many ways, Islam resembles National Socialism under Hitler, with its totalitarian disregard for life and liberty, its anti-semitism, immorality, intolerance of all "infidels", and horrific, disgusting, bloody record. Did we allow Hitler to build Nazi outposts in the United States? Did we pretend he was really a nice guy?

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 4:35PM

FeralCat,

Excellent.

gene hauber| 9.8.10 @ 1:23PM

I think that what the pastor in Gainsville, Fla is doing is courageous on two fronts. First he will have to put up with muslim "tolerance" by listening to their death threats and second, he will have to listen to the mindless babble of the American PC public about how nutty or ineffectual the act will be. Well, it seems to be getting a lot of publicity and I hope it gains traction and really pisses off our muslim "brothers"
Who cares if if they get angry?....not me!
They anger us all the time and we still make excuses for them. THEY DESERVE THE RIGHTIOUS ANGER OF THE WHOLE WORLD FOR THE ATROCITIES COMMITED THROUGH-OUT HISTORY IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. By thw way, allah is nothing but a dark stone in one corner of the ka'aba in Mecca. Google it up. Islam , itself, is as fake as a peace loving muslim.
WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!!
If general Petraeus is worried about his troops then I suggest he scrap completely the rules of engagement and let loose the dogs of war.
If Karsai doesn't like it tell him jump in a lake.
It's war general, who cares if if the enemy gets p/o'd?? Are they cuddly now?
My "quran" comes on a roll and hangs in my bathroom. I can't burn it because I use it daily.
CUT THE CRAP GENERAL, REMOVE THE ROE'S.
You COULD be home by Christmas.

loulou| 9.8.10 @ 4:37PM

I think it's safe to say that Petraeus will be abandoning any presidential ambitions he claims he doesn't have. He has shown he is not presidential material.

He is not even General material. What is his mission in Afghanistan? Grovel and appease until they like us, really like us?

Becki| 9.10.10 @ 12:48AM

I think P and the whole administration will use this as an excuse to let loose the dogs of war as a response to the Islam response to the burning. Just like we didn't go into Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and we all knew it was the oil.

Jim O'Brien| 9.8.10 @ 1:29PM

ISLAM VS. SECULAR LAW
Some say that based on the law and the noble objective of maintaining religious freedom, Muslims should be allowed to build a new mega-mosque in New York City, near the 9/11 Ground Zero site. But what is the nature of Islam? The Ayatollah Khomeini once said that "Islam is politics or it is nothing". Islam is a political movement wrapped up in a religion. And as the well-known expert Bernard Lewis has written in his book, titled The Crisis of Islam, Islam does not recognize secular law.

So the Islamic goal is theocracy, and if you live in such a state you had best be a Muslim. Even if you are one, you no longer have personal and religious freedom. You may be subject to arbitrary and vicious punishments, such as flogging or being stoned to death. Nothing could be more hostile to our constitutional principle of separation of "church" and state. We should not follow the example of England, which has allowed about 80 sharia courts to operate, nor should we continue in the naive and dangerous belief that mosques should enjoy the protection of our laws prohibiting religious discrimination.

Both mosques and sharia courts should be outlawed in the United States. Muslim charities should be more aggressively investigated to prevent more funds being sent to terrorist organizations. Muslim immigration to the United States should be stopped. Muslims should not serve in our military. Many will say these ideas are extreme, but look at the long bloody history of Islam in countries around the world. Think about all the thousands of people on airplanes, in office buildings, schools, embassies, ships, military bases, and even in mosques, who have been butchered in the name of Allah.

Len| 9.8.10 @ 1:30PM

If the General had heard of the US constitution he wouldn't be involved in undeclared wars or wars against countries that never attacked us. The former constitution made provision for protecting the states, not being involved throughout the world in an imperialistic manner.

Frankly I'm tired of hearing of the threats from outside the country when every day it is the government here that is destroying our liberty and our wealth. Really I'm supposed to be concerned that Abdul is going to come wipe me out, when every day the government steals my money to give to some faction, when every day the government in this country invades peoples homes against their will because someone said their a harm to themself. What about the government here killing people in instances like Waco and Ruby Ridge, granting itself immunity when it does wrong, of putting people to death based on forensic evidence that is later proven wrong (what ever happened to witnesses?).

Sure, look over there, nothing happening here, except the elites tightening their grip and making sure the lower classes don't step out of line.

Gerald Stephens| 9.8.10 @ 1:40PM

I think radical Muslims have adequately demonstrated their intentions reference our troops with or without a book burning.

I suggest the appropriate response is burning radical Muslims when apprehended, or stoning them to death. How's this for a great idea, behead them!

Doctor Right| 9.8.10 @ 1:40PM

Burning books is dumb.

That said, I could care less that the Muslims are upset by Pastor Jone's plans.

Don't like it? Tough crap. This is America. In America, we're allowed to do these kinds of things, even when they're really stupid. In fact, ESPECIALLY when they're really stupid. Our cherished Constitution gives us the right to be absolute, moronic asses if we so desire, provided we don't physically harm someone else of slander them.

And that's what separates us from the adherents of the "religion of peace".

The US Constitution and Islam are antithetical; they CANNOT coexist. One will have to give way to the other.

Speaking for myself, I ain't never gonna' bow to Mohammed or "Allah"...EVER.

So to repeat...Burning books is dumb, but Freedom is not. And we're not going to give that up without a fight.

Denver| 9.8.10 @ 2:35PM

Flag Rank that have said _political_ things; Patton, R.E. Lee, JCH Lee, US Grant, Mac, Bradley, Westmoreland, Abrams, Arnold, Leahey, Nimitz, Clark, LeMay.

Good company, I'd say.

disdainedconstituent| 9.8.10 @ 2:36PM

General Petraeus needs to be bitch-slapped by the risen ghost of General George S. Patton.

WE ARE ALL INFIDELS. HELLO??

jeffd| 9.8.10 @ 2:55PM

Abraham Lincoln on U.S. Grant - " I can't spare this man - he fights".

What would Lincoln say about Petraeus?

Len| 9.8.10 @ 3:15PM

He didn't murder enough southerners?

Bill Quantrill| 9.8.10 @ 3:15PM

Of course, the good General is part of the same Army brass that looked after the well-being of the troops at Fort Hood by giving a commission to Nidal Hasan, promoting him to Major, and providing him with a very expensive and prestigious education before unleashing him on disarmed soldiers. Pastor Jones should assert that the Koran-incineration is an exhibition of performance art and demand an NEA grant.

Flee| 9.8.10 @ 3:53PM

If Islam is the religion of peace, then they should have no problem with the peaceable demonstration of free speech proposed by the lone preacher off the beaten path in FL. Let me know when you hear of an Islamic leader condemning the burning of Bibles or Torahs or US Flags or murdering civilians in the name of Allah. Then the Islamicists may have a leg to stand on but until they try to put a stop to senseless killings and defacing of religious beliefs of others they have no credibility on the subject.

Joe| 9.8.10 @ 3:55PM

There is nothing wrong with Afghanistan that a few nuclear weapons would not fix. We should not be there. Let them kill each other. Same with Iraq.
We should not be helping Pakistan. Bin Laden is there and they support the Taliban.
We should be in Mexico. It is a failed state and will never change until forced to.

Thom| 9.8.10 @ 4:25PM

From the desk of George S. Patton during his occupation of Germany:

It has come to my attention that many in my command do not show due respect for our former enemies (and Nazis). Even though our former enemies (and many who became Nazis to go along to get along) committed some of the worst atrocities known to mankind and would do so again if we relented the pressure of our boot on their necks, it has been determined by intellectual superiors and future political office holders that we should pay due diligence to “winning the hearts and minds of our former enemies (and Nazis)”.

You all know where I stand on this matter. The graves from North Africa to Normandy to the center of what was the Nazis Empire is lined with American fighting men who paid their due diligence but “hey, that is just me”.

To that end it has been decided that we must “love our former enemies” and turn a blind eye to their continuing guerrilla war waged against our troops despite having signed a formal surrender of all forces. In accordance with this guiding light I command all troops under my command to “love their former enemies (and Nazis)” as much as humanly possible just before you pull that trigger several times making damn sure to clear the weapon completely before you stop your “loving” of our former enemies (and Nazis).

Signed General George S. Patton

If you can’t define your enemy you certainly won’t find them which naturally lead to you not defeating them and being victorious. That’s the difference between the last war we won and all the rest we have lost.

Everyone knows what the enemy is but no one wants to speak its name. We lose, they win.

Louis Jenkins| 9.8.10 @ 4:33PM

The Taliban can execute eye physicians because they were aledgedly prosytilitizing. Only the State Dept. meekly protested the act. Rauf can tour the mid east sopping up funds for the Ground Zero mosque on the State Dept. dime. Bibles were burned by our own military when ship to mid-eastern bases- don't want them to land in the wrong hands. Yet the minister in Fla. can burn Korans and the White House, the State Dept., the Justice Dept., the Vatican, and Gen. Petraeus all condemn the act. That's what is wrong with America. We strain on a gnat and swallow a camel. We will all look good when we're wallowing in dhimmitude, that's what we want isn't it? Not me. And I believe neither do you.

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 4:40PM

Amen, brother Jenkins.

Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 7:31PM

Sarah Palin , Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are opposed to burning The Koran , as well .

Louis Jenkins| 9.9.10 @ 10:34AM

Tim*

Those names mean very little to me. While I'm interested in Palin's candidacy and her politcal magnatude, I do not live on her every word. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are fun to listen to listen to, but the sun neither rises or sets on them. Seems everyone is lining up against the Rev. Jones doesn't it. Well, pile on boys. You're only undertaking your own undoing.

Charles Stevens| 9.8.10 @ 4:44PM

General Petreus, although a fine warrior and leader, seems oblivious to the fact that his men are already in harm's way, and nothing will change that short of the US proclaiming sharia as the law of the land.

Concerning the Koran burning, I fully support burning 1/2 of it, and I would expect every so-called moderate Muslim to concur. Every Muslim theologian for over 1400 years has consistently supported the abrogation of all the live-and-let-live Mecca portions of the Koran by the barbaric aggressive Medina suras. However, it is those latter that moderates always subjectively (without any theological basis) ignore, and therefore it is precisely those portions that should be burned, destroyed, and eradicated forever in order to bring Islam into the modern world.

Since moderate Muslims have so far been unwilling or unable to admit that at least half of their religion is an abomination, it therefore falls on the rest of us to do it for them. Burning the appropriate half of the Koran would be a logical first step in this process. Meanwhile, we must also confront the demopaths in our midst who attempt to control the debate by refusing to supply any useful distinctions between their pet moderates versus true Islam.

froglegs007| 9.8.10 @ 4:56PM

My ex-GI buddy and I reached the same conclusion Tuesday morning. Petraeus had stepped out of military bounds when he criticized a civilian pastor. Even Patton and Halsey never said something this stupid and only Douglas McArthur exceeded this. What is it about Obama that everything and everybody that he touches turns to excrement?

ParsonRob| 9.8.10 @ 5:15PM

Great, great article Mr. Stein! You have put it in words that help us understand how important our "freedom of religion" rights, are under attack. I would also go as far, and say, "Petraeus, mind your own business, and keep your nose out of ours!

ParsonRob @
www.libertybiblefellowship.com

Mike Bodnar| 9.8.10 @ 5:15PM

Ben; You got it right. As a retired soldier and Iraq Freedom Vet, I am hurt when someone burns the flag, but I was willing to die for an Americans right to do so. He should focus on killing the bad guys and training the Afghans.

Mike| 9.8.10 @ 5:15PM

I sense the stench of hypocrisy. How many posters here, were outraged when McChrystal was quoted trashing our civilian commnander in chief? As useless as Obama might be, he was still CINC and as a civilian leader he had rank over McChrystal.

Petraeus was simply stating a fact. As sure as the sun will rise in the east, burning the Koran will cause American deaths. He is not saying it is moral and proper, he is just stating that it is a fact.

You neo cons need to gain some consistency.

And by the way, just as Iraq, Afghanistan has become a pointless waste of blood and treasure.

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 5:49PM

Oh no, thar's Neo-cons in them thar hills!

Thom| 9.8.10 @ 5:55PM

“As sure as the sun will rise in the east, burning the Koran will cause American deaths”. Actually as sure as the sun will rise it does not matter a twit what is done or not done if you can’t engage the enemy you know exists but can’t find. What better way to find them then to bring them out in the day light?

As for hypocrisy, you might want to look that one up before you use it next time. McChrystal deliberately let public statements against his CNC become published far and wide which is not a career enhancing move in any one’s book. The jury is still out on the merits of what he said however. Petraeus is suggesting a course of action for an American citizen in this country not under his command in a foreign land. If burning a Koran or printing a cartoon of Mohammed brings out the crazies in a war zone I would suggest Pretraeus pay diligence to making sure each troop has plenty of ammo and trigger time.

In case you haven’t figured this out Mike, the entire state of Islam considers it a mortal insult to just be in “their” countries and needs no other excuse for all sorts of violence against what it considers to be “infidels”. That includes “moderate” Muslins or MINO. He is making a statement on an act of freedom that is surely benign compared to being given the death sentence in that same enlightened country of Afghanistan for simply converting from Islam to Christianity. As for Afghanistan being a waste of effort and all that, perhaps but when the same peace loving behavior shown the world over by followers of Islam comes to a street near you we will see if you have what it takes to make a good show of it when it involves more than just empty words.

You clearly don’t understand the nature of the beast here and its proximity to that which you care about.

Liveaboard| 9.8.10 @ 7:42PM

I'd say that the pastor's planned conflagration would go a long way towards helping draw all the sleeping radicals out of the woodwork where they can be identified as such and dealt with appropriately. It'll be messy but effective.

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 7:46PM

Rush said this:
"The State department spokesman called the Pastor's idea un-American. Do you remember any outrage when the US government destroyed Bibles in order to avoid offending the sensitivities of Muslims in Afghanistan? I don't think you remember that, do you? You're probably just hearing about this for the first time. The pastor in Gainesville has 50 congregants. That's how many people in his flock at his church in Gainesville. By the way, has the ACLU weighed in yet on the Gainesville pastor that wants to burn the Koran? Why not? I mean, if the ACLU would be consistent they'd move in there and defend this Gainesville pastor's right to burn the Koran. Maybe the ACLU's finally found a religious text that they want to protect. Who knew?"

Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 8:51PM

Glenn Beck Wrote This : "I'm on vacation and trying to unplug but the news can make that hard. I just read the story about the Florida church planning to burn copies of the Koran.

What is wrong with us? It’s just like the Ground Zero mosque plan. Does this church have the right? Yes. Should they? No. And not because of the potential backlash or violence. Simply because it is wrong. The more I reflect on what happened on 8/28 the more I realize the amazing power of GOOD.

We must be the better person. We must be bigger than our problems. Bigger than the times in which we live. Burning the Koran is like burning the flag or the Bible. You can do it, but whose heart will you change by doing it? You will only harden the hearts of those who could be moved. None of those who are thinking about killing us will be affected, but our good Muslim friends and neighbors will be saddened. It makes the battle that they face inside their own communities even harder.

Let us rise above the current levels and elevate ourselves and our country. The only thing this act would prove is that you CAN burn a Koran. I didn’t know America was in doubt on that fact. Let’s prove to each other that while there are many things we can do, there are maybe many more things that we choose not to do."

Margie| 9.8.10 @ 8:01PM

Ann Coulter said this:

"Weirdly, conservatives who opposed building the mosque at ground zero are also against the Quran burning. (Except in my case. It turns out I'm for it, but mostly because burning Qurans will contribute to global warming.)

Liberals couldn't care less about the First Amendment. To the contrary, censoring speech and religion is the left's specialty! (Any religion other than Islam.)

They promote speech codes, hate crimes, free speech zones (known as "America" off college campuses), and go around the country yanking every reference to God from the public square via endless lawsuits by the ACLU.

Whenever you see a liberal choking up over our precious constitutional rights, you can be sure we're talking about the rights of Muslims at ground zero, "God Hates Fags" funeral protesters, strippers, The New York Times publishing classified documents, pornographers, child molesters, murderers, traitors, saboteurs, terrorists, flag-burners (but not Quran-burners!) or women living on National Endowment of the Arts grants by stuffing yams into their orifices on stage."

She then went on to say that the reason NOT to do it is because it'd be unkind not to jihadists~ but toward the Muslims who mean us no harm.

Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 8:55PM

Sarah Palin wrote this : "Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don’t need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn’t that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?"

keema| 9.8.10 @ 8:37PM

Yes, the pastor has a right to burn the Korans. But to do so does, in fact, put our soldiers in harm's way. It is foolish to insult our Muslim friends in an attempt to give-the-what-for to our Muslim enemies. Just as most of those in the Arab world don't understand the Constitution and its counterintuitive nature, most Americans don't understand Muslims' sincere reverence for their holy book

Rich Rostrom| 9.8.10 @ 8:55PM

The U.S. wants to destroy al-Qaeda and its allies, such as the Taliban. To do that will require either

1) a global war of extermination against all Moslems.

or

2) the support and cooperation of Moslems.

We get a lot of that already. Moslem governments arrest terrorist leaders and hand them over to us. Afghan soldiers, informants, and community leaders risk their lives to oppose the Taliban (and many have died). The Pakistani army has had more men killed fighting the Taliban than the U.S. armed forces. Dubai provides basing for U.S. Navy ships.

This Koran-burning stunt is a gratuitous offense to all Moslems, including those on our side or might be. Incidentally, the "church" responsible is allied with "Westboro Baptist" - Fred Phelps and his crew of scumbags who harass families at military funerals.

Also: the Mein Kampf analogy is stupid. Anybody who cared about Mein Kampf was an enemy. But most Moslems are not enemies, and many are allies.

Besides which: the U.S. during WW II was at war to destroy the Nazi regime, not to wipe Germany off the face of the earth. There was still a lot of loose talk about the need to reduce Germany to a peasant economy, impose population controls, or abolish the German language. Goebbels made hay with such talk - he convinced a lot of Germans to fight to the bitter end because surrender would mean destruction.

Let's not play into the Taliban's hands, please?

mjs_pa| 9.8.10 @ 9:00PM

If our Founding Fathers were alive today, what would they think of America? Surely they would be very proud that the United States stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific and has built some of the most amazing cities that the world has ever seen.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....troye.html

mjs_pa| 9.8.10 @ 9:01PM

sorry pasted wrong item

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....troye.html

On May 5, Army spokeswoman Major Jennifer Willis told Reuters that at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan "the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed."

"the Bibles were burned because the rules on the base say that all garbage is burned at the end of the day. But just asking here; if the U.S. Military seized a stack full of Korans, would they be burned? You think that might cause a little outrage in the Muslim world?"

joli| 9.8.10 @ 9:06PM

My question is, where did they GET the Korans they're going to burn? Did they have them in their homes? Find them? Solicit donations of used Korans? Buy them? If the last, congratulations on making a futile gesture while in fact providing financial support to the very people they're trying to insult.

Brian| 9.8.10 @ 9:21PM

Dear General Petraeus, Which statement is true with respect to Citizens exercising their rights:
You doubt the ability of your troops to defend themselves.
You have tied the hands of the troops to the extent that they cannot defend themselves in a war zone.

Charles Stevens| 9.8.10 @ 10:35PM

Moderate Muslims give us little to work with other than their various subjective wish-lists of how they think Islam should be, not of how it actually is. There is no religion called "Moderate Islam". There is only Islam, that has theologically never in 1400 years renounced its aggressive barbaric components. So-called moderate Muslims want to have their cake and eat it too. They provide the rest of us with no theologically distinct lines of demarcation between themselves and the radicals. All moderate Muslims should be forced to ask themselves one essential question: Theologically, what gives them the right to pick and choose what they profess from the Koran, Hadiths, and Sharia?

Muslim theologists have been consistent over the centuries in determining that true Islam consists of abrogation by the hard-line jihadist Medina suras over those of the live-and-let-live Mecca sections. Likewise with Sharia, all of the barbaric 7th-century Arabist cultural tenets are supposed to be fulfilled by every good Muslim without exception. Whenever moderate Muslims are confronted with such issues, they inevitably fall back on what each of them personally believes Islam should be, not about what Islam truly is. It is no surprise that every Islamic crime committed in this country has been perpetrated by those who are always described as former moderates. The problem is that such moderates, when finally forced to assess their faith with respect to true Islam, inevitably realize their apostasy and revert to aggression and killing.

Liberals prattle on about some type of reformed Islam, but refuse to describe what "reformation" really means with respect to Islam. Moderate Muslims and their apologists fail to understand that in order for there to be a reformed Islam, there must instead be a new religion, one that completely deletes forever from its theology all of the dangerous, barbaric aspects that now comprise true Islam, including the reverence for some deeply flawed individual named Mohammed. In other words, the only way to reform Islam is to reject most of its bases completely. Moderate Muslims may want to reform Islam, but they don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that the religion they want instead can no longer be Islam, because Islam's fundamentals are far too hard-line and incompatible with any modern, enlightened society.

Then to make a bad situaation worse, progressives with their not-so-hidden agenda of cultural Marxism have completely prevented any useful dialogue about Islam. Western society is now in a position of being absolutely unable to make clear, rational distinctions about any differences (assuming they really exist) between radical Islam versus any other kind. This includes the continuing lack of useful, widely agreed-upon defintions, and more importantly, a complete lack of codified laws based on such definitions. At best, we simply have some type of vague acknowledgement that there are "moderate Muslims" out there somewhere, but no legally accepted means by which to prove it one way or the other.

Conservatives are now in the absurd position of hoping that arguments based on “insensitivity”, or "reciprocity", or being “uncaring” or “offensive” will carry the day. This is naive and ultimately feckless, since the only default legailty leads us directly back to the First Amendment which will trump you every time. We are thus left in the dark about the relationship of our Constitution to a real but amorphously defined enemy. This is what progressives do best... refuse to make useful distinctions, and then violently squelch any attempt by others to do so in their stead.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." However, the lack of any codified, logical, rational analysis is allowing us to blanket our enemies with Constitutional protections to which they were never originally entitled. Each of us should familiarize ourselves with the concept of the demopath. We see the rise and success of demopaths throughout our society. It is they whom we have allowed to control the debate, control the laws, and ultimately undercut the foundations of our society.

John DuBose| 9.9.10 @ 12:01AM

I have always been impressed by the notion that the answer to bad speech is not to silence it, but to refute it. Alas, burning a few Korans paid for from the local book store is political speech. ( just like rap music ) The problem with refuting it is that all kinds of nasty stuff has been done in the name of Islam in recent times. The real task is to help the Muslims find a way to honor their religious comittments without behaving like psychotic criminals. I think it can be done. But it will take a long time.

gene hauber| 9.9.10 @ 12:41AM

hey john dubose...............Let's help the muslims find a speedy way to paradise by removing ALL rules of engagement from our troops.
their religious comittment, ACCORDING TO THE QURAN IS TO ACT LIKE PSYCHOTIC CRIMINALS...IT'S WHAT THEY DO!!!!!

gary siebel| 9.9.10 @ 12:46AM

Libricide is just plain old bad, from any angle.

Petraeus is making a tactical assessment, which is legitimate. War is hell.

More attention is being paid by the ignorati to the goofball in Florgia than to the imminent stoning of the woman in Iran. If you count the all the recent anti-Islamic incidents in this nation of 300 million, it's obvious the ignorati of the liberal parts of the media are blowing everything out of proportion to reinforce their "Neville Chamberlainism' type of thinking. Their absurd hypocrisy is really over the top in this matter.

If the skinheads were to demand a shrine to Hitler in Skokie, Ill, the liberals would declare it outrageous, and relentlessly attack, but they eagerly support the proposed shrine to Atta, et al, in NYC.

ONE cab driver got attacked in NYC. Cabdrivers get attacked every day all across America. ONE gets attacked in NY, some construction equipment gets torched in Tennessee, and a nut wants to burn some books in Florgia, and we are apparently in the midst of an unrelenting wave of anti-Islamic sentiment?

The liberals are fomenting alleged religious intolerance to boost ratings the same way Cheney fomented illusions of Iraqi WMD's to drag us into war.

WAKE UP| 9.9.10 @ 1:43AM

Memo everyone (not just generals):

At some point (which is becoming increasingly clearly denoted), inaction and self-indulgent chardonnay soliloquising actually become cowardly, treasonable and collaborative with the enemy. Time to suit up, people.
----------------------------

Alan| 9.9.10 @ 3:32AM

You guys are defending a pastor that has supposedly stood with the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrations. If true, we all know why they're doing this....to cause more soldiers deaths. Despicable.

Dennis| 9.9.10 @ 3:34AM

Yes Ben! If the MSM would ignore this nutjob in Florida this would never be an issue. Matt Lauer (of Today) said in this day of the internet things like this get attention. Huh? A church of 50 freakin' people who have a looney for preacher can just stage something and get international attention? BS! Ignore it and he'll disappear into The Outer Limits where he belongs...

DDR| 9.9.10 @ 4:03AM

It will put our soldiers in harms way?? Ok, that's why they are all individually armed with machine guns. Use them. Shoot these barbarians.

Puprle Lips| 9.9.10 @ 10:37AM

The problem with General Petraeous's remarks are as follows:

1)If the Counter-insurgency he is leading can be thrown off balance by the actions of 50 wierdos from Gainsville, than why stay? If that is the case, then his efforts and the blood shed are for naught. There is no way he can say he is building a "stable" democracy if burning a book 13000 miles away creates violent riots in Kabul. Besides, his soldiers are already in grave danger - and not from rioters. But from skilled insurgents armed with IEDs, AK-47s and RPGs.

2)A few year ago, the Pope gave an address in Regensberg. It was one of those geeky theological addresses. And the Pope offered a very mild intellectual critique of Islam. What ensued in the Muslim world (including Afghanistan) were violent riots, protests, attacks on Catholic minorities, and burning the Pope in effigy. Will General Petraeous offer up words of warning to the Vatican? Will he assign a PIO permanently to the Vatican in order to censor its public pronouncements?

3)Again, a few years ago a Danish newspaper published a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed. And like the Pope's remarks, violence broke out from Memlo Sweden to Indonesia (Afghanistan included). Will the good General transmit warnings to all of the world's newspapers?

4)The 9/11 terrorists, all Muslims, had little or no pretext to do thier acts other than hatred for infidels. What does General Petraeous reccomend for further actions? Earlier this year he singled out internal Isrealis politics as endangering his men in Iraq. Should the US and Isreal begin censoring American and Isreali citizens? Should Congress pass laws forcing a kind of national Muslim sensitivity on Americans?

Is General Petraeous insane?

Grunt| 9.9.10 @ 3:00PM

Consider this....a 19 year old American infantryman overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan humping (hiking) many pounds of equipment in mountainous terrain, desert or in the city looking for bad guys. No whining, no crying...just executing their mission.

Now think back to Patraeous's appearance in Congress where he passed out on camera in front of millions because he didn't drink enough water on his airplane flight to the states.

Switch your thoughts back to infantryman who is engaging the enemy and attempting to close with and destroy them. The infantryman is suddenly wounded and instead of passing out from the shock of the hit, continues crawling forward to engage the enemy, leaving his blood in foreign soil.

Now picture Patraeous slumped in a chair in a air-conditioned room unconscious......

.....REMF.....

El Raton Miguel| 9.9.10 @ 3:03PM

JOLI,
Your question’s answer:
U.S. military says Afghan bibles have been destroyed
KABUL | Tue May 5, 2009 4:15pm IST

KABUL (Reuters) - Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytizing, a military spokeswoman said.

The U.S. military has denied its soldiers tried to convert Afghans to Christianity, after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a bible class on a base with a stack of bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages.

U.S. Central Command's General Order Number 1 forbids troops on active duty -- including all those based in Iraq and Afghanistan -- from trying to convert people to another religion.

"I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed," spokeswoman Major Jennifer Willis said at Bagram air base, north of Kabul.

Military officials have said the bibles were sent through private mail to an evangelical Christian soldier by his church back home. The soldier brought them to the bible study class where they were filmed.

Trying to convert Muslims to another faith is a crime in Afghanistan. An Afghan man who converted to Christianity was sentenced to death for apostasy in 2006 but was allowed to leave the country after an international uproar.

"It certainly is, from the United States military's perspective, not our position to ever push any specific kind of religion, period," chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told a Pentagon briefing on Monday.

El Raton Miguel| 9.9.10 @ 3:27PM

Whoops! Wrong response. Must have been reading
mjs_pa's post about the Bibles that were destroyed at Bagram last year into joli's question.

Mark| 9.9.10 @ 4:18PM

Can I just say that the burning of ANY books for ANY reason makes me increadibly uncomfortable?

Dan| 9.9.10 @ 4:57PM

What is frightening to me is our general is afraid for us to anger the enemy. Our boys are getting killed because of the general's and president's Rules of Engagement. It is the "rules" which make our troops tie their trigger finger behind their back and makes them become sitting targets. Gets the troops out, put some B52's in the air and start dropping enough bombs to wipe out the sand towns and people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Then declare victory.

A.C.Guard| 9.9.10 @ 5:07PM

Petraeus and McChrystal before him are like Obama, pretenders. Where is the political leadership and generals that will lead us to victory against what is, regardless what the liberals believe, a religious war on the part of the Muslims?
What we have are leaders and media who are bending over to please the Muslims in an effort to get them to like us, while they have every intent of taking us over. Obama, Petraeus, McChrystal, Bloomberg, ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC are one in the same. Enemies of the U.S.

WAKE UP| 9.10.10 @ 5:11AM

MEMO OBAMA: if you think burning the Koran would be a recruitment call to Jihadists, what do you think 9/11 was?

2wrong| 9.10.10 @ 6:48PM

I'm reading a lot of hate in these posts. I'm reading things that are quotation marks from people who have obviously never read what they are quoting. Now how many of you know how many muslims there are serving in the US Army, and how many there have been over the decades that have fought and bled and died to protect you and your rights. How offended will they be? How dishonored will they be?

Andrew| 9.15.10 @ 9:43PM

I don't think the Gen. is saying that they shouldn't have the right to burn the Quran. I think he's saying they shouldn't burn the Quran. There's a big difference. Just because he's a military official doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to voice his opinion. Personally, I agree with the General. But I see it from a Christian perspective. If a Christian in the US burns the Quran, then Christian we end up being persecuted as a result in other (Muslim) countries as a result. It would have been a very foolish decision for that pastor.

QuietPro| 9.22.10 @ 8:44AM

I agree with much of what Ben said. As a veteran of The Global war on Terror, I have become greatly disappointed with General Patraeus. He seems to place the welfare of Afghans above our own troops with his restrictive Rules of Engagement, that ties one hand behind our backs. I remember how to spell certain words like "Vietnam", and can't help but compare how this country has lost it's desire for victory at the cost of appeasing our enemies.

Francis Forrester| 2.25.11 @ 12:51PM

Really?
(It's February 25, 2011. I know this is an old news now). But, burning a religious book, no matter what you call it, may be allowed under the U.S. constitution but it looks like your narrow mindedness will not allow you to see the repercussions of such act, let alone the real threat to American troops and Americans everywhere in other parts of the world.

With all the superior weaponry of our troops - both NATO and the U.S., it is still a hard war to win. Winning the hearts of the people in the region, will be a psychological defeat of the radical Islamists. and to have people like you talking about the U. S. constitution in this context, is moronic.

If you're so confident about it, then I have a suggestion for you. Take your constitution and carry some extra copies and just go to Pakistan and deliver it to their parliament and come back.

Not to disrespect you, but you're uncouth.

Adult toys| 7.4.11 @ 3:37AM

To me, it's the least important thing in the world to be "politically correct".l like the space.support.
thank you.

Adult toys| 7.4.11 @ 3:38AM

To me, it's the least important thing in the world to be "politically correct".l like the space.support.
thank you.