Quran Burning

Quote :

KABUL, Afghanistan – Fearing for their lives, the U.N. workers dashed into a dark bunker hoping to escape the mob of Afghan protesters angry over the burning of a Quran by a Florida church.

Hope wasn't enough for three of them. They were hunted down and brutally slain — their bodies found later in three different parts of the compound in northern Afghanistan.

"They were killed when they were running out of the bunker," said Staffan de Mistura, the top U.N. envoy in Afghanistan, who recounted their harrowing deaths to reporters on Saturday evening. "One was pulled out alive because he pretended to be a Muslim."

De Mistura spoke in a somber tone as he described how three U.N. staff members and four Nepalese guards were killed Friday when the protesters stormed their compound in the normally peaceful city of Mazar-i-Sharif. He placed direct blame on those who burned a copy of the Muslim holy book in Gainesville, Florida, last month, stoking anti-foreign sentiment that already was on the rise after nearly a decade of war in Afghanistan.

"The demonstration was meant to protest against the insane and totally despicable gesture by one person who burned the holy Quran," he said.

He also said the U.N. building would not have been attacked if there had been an adequate cordon of Afghan police separating the demonstrators and the compound.

A formal inquiry is under way, but de Mistura said initial reports indicate that seven to 15 insurgents infiltrated a group of as many as 3,000 demonstrators who overran the U.N. compound, which was protected by Afghan policemen and six U.N.-hired Nepalese guards. The crowd overpowered the guards — who are instructed not to shoot into crowds of civilians, even if they are threatening — and the police were not able to stop them, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110402/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_un_attack

I'm sure you guys know about this story. The pastor was an idiot for burning the Quran but these Afghan protesters are absolutely despicable - inhuman even. They are out for random violence because some random backwater person in America burns their holy book.

I find it both sad and slightly amusing (in a purely intellectual "thought provoking" way) that the pastor in question had to resort to inciting hatred amongst his congregation. IMHO, if he had something of value to offer folks, he wouldn't need to do what he did. Again IMHO, this act only shows me how little he values "what he preaches" - and how close-minded he really is.

As for those in other countries that are using this as an excuse for violence - may their God judge them. I don't care what is written on the pages ... It Is Just A Book! Like all religious texts, they are written by men, editted and revised by other men, all for the sole purpose to control yet other men.

It is tragic that these people died. The brutality of their deaths is secondary to me ... that they were killed for this reason is far more disturbing. Worse though, is that I am sure that this Pastor will not accept the idea that he had a role in their deaths. He will use this as "ammunition" for his own rhetoric. While I could never sanction what these people did, or why they did it, if the Pastor had simply denounced the Quran, this entire event would not have happened. Their deaths may not be directly caused by him, but he certainly initiated this string of events - and for that, I believe he should examine both his methods and motives.

I know what I am about to say is commonly used among young adults for humour, but I think it applies to this in all seriousness:

Haters gonna hate.

And there's nothing we can do about it.

IMagius wrote:

Worse though, is that I am sure that this Pastor will not accept the idea that he had a role in their deaths. He will use this as "ammunition" for his own rhetoric. While I could never sanction what these people did, or why they did it, if the Pastor had simply denounced the Quran, this entire event would not have happened.

I have a hard time believing that people willing to murder over a burnt book would not find reason to murder over something else. This didn't happen because a guy in Florida destroyed copies of the Quran--it happened because when you get enough insane zealots together blood is going to spill sooner or later.

Quote :

The demonstration was meant to protest against the insane and totally despicable gesture by one person who burned the holy Quran.

I think someone needs to rethink the terms "insane" and "despicable" and place them in proper context.

The insane and totally despicable demonstration was meant to protest (in my opinion, terrorize) a group of innocent bystanders when thousands of miles across the globe a religious zealot burned a fucking book. I mean, a fucking book!

Ain't religion grand? It gives us all an excuse if we wish to use it.

BrassButtons wrote:

I have a hard time believing that people willing to murder over a burnt book would not find reason to murder over something else. This didn't happen because a guy in Florida destroyed copies of the Quran--it happened because when you get enough insane zealots together blood is going to spill sooner or later.

I agree with the bolded parts. Zealots like them do not need a "good" reason to do the things they do. And by no means do I think we should "pander" to them by walking on tiptoes and trying not to offend them ...

But ... a rational person should realize that certain actions will be more likely to generate response than others. Maybe this Pastor was hoping a local group of these nutbars would kill him, making him a martyr to his cause ... I just don't know. Whatever the logic was though, he had to know that his actions would cause a response, and that the response would not be something as "civil" as his burning of the Quran ... I can't imagine he thought they would simply burn a copy of the Bible in response.

Evil exists, and while we must never stand aside and allow it to live unhindered, we must also be aware of our actions and at least attempt to prevent antagonizing it further.

Quote :

And by no means do I think we should "pander" to them by walking on tiptoes and trying not to offend them ...

Quote :

Evil exists, and while we must never stand aside and allow it to live unhindered, we must also be aware of our actions and at least attempt to prevent antagonizing it further.

I don't see how we can both refuse to pander to them and avoid antagonizing them. If you refuse to pander to them then they will be antagonized, and if you refuse to antagonize them you will be pandering to them.

I of course think the pastor was an idiot.

But the Afghans take it to a whole other level. The "rational" response would be to retaliate by burning the Bible or the US flag. I wouldn't care - they can burn as many as they like. Killing innocents that have not a scintilla of relation to the Quran burning incident is complete madness. It really is eroding my faith in mankind.

The only reason we are still in Afghanistan is to catch Bin Laden but we seem to be coming no closer to that goal. In my opinion, US should pull out of Afghanistan but we can continue to go after him. How? Invest in nerds i.e. engineers and scientists. A few billion dollars should is surely enough for engineers and scientists to create a flying assassination robot the size of a bee!

BrassButtons wrote:

I don't see how we can both refuse to pander to them and avoid antagonizing them. If you refuse to pander to them then they will be antagonized, and if you refuse to antagonize them you will be pandering to them.

I know, just by following the word of a different text is enough to antagonize some extremists ... and by no means do I expect not to antagonize the most extreme of the extremists ... my very existance is probably an affront to them - and there is no way to have a rational discussion if they are going to be the specific focus.

But, there is a difference between ~indirectly~ antagonizing the "moderately crazy" extremists through my everyday actions (which I will not modify to suit thier demands) and ~directly~ antagonizing them through purposeful acts (like the Pastor burning their Holy text).

IMagius wrote:

I know, just by following the word of a different text is enough to antagonize some extremists ... and by no means do I expect not to antagonize the most extreme of the extremists ... my very existance is probably an affront to them - and there is no way to have a rational discussion if they are going to be the specific focus.

But, there is a difference between ~indirectly~ antagonizing the "moderately crazy" extremists through my everyday actions (which I will not modify to suit thier demands) and ~directly~ antagonizing them through purposeful acts (like the Pastor burning their Holy text).

It seems to me that deciding not to directly antagonize them is still pandering. It's still choosing to treat them differently than we treat everyone else.

You can either pander to them or turn their country into a parking lot. There is no middle ground that won't result in innocents being killed.

No, it's not.

If I chose to believe in God, it would not be done with the sole purpose of annoying someone else. If someone is offended by my choice, I'll deal with them if they confront me about it. ie: I will not pander to them and hide/change my choice of religion.

If I decide to burn another religion's holy text, as this pastor did, then my only purpose for doing that would be to incite a reaction from those of the "opposing" religion. ie: I will not antagonize them by doing something designed to provoke a reaction.

This is not semantics - but it is something that far too many see as a semantic discussion. The simplest way I can explain it is as follows: I will not pander to the masses and live my life by their "code of conduct", but at the same time, I will not go out of my way do something (antagonize them) that will only (and surely) result in a reaction from the masses.

I hunt & fish. I know there are those among my community that are against such actions. I will not stop hunting, nor will I lie and say I don't. At the same time though, I'm also not about to cover my vehicle in the skins and heads of my kills and dirve through town --- I won't pander to them and stop hunting, but I also won't antagonize them by flaunting the trophies of kills in thier faces.

A person who never antagonizes anyone is not pandering if he never antagonizes the bully either. However a person who regularly antagonizes everyone is pandering if he refuses to antagonize the bully.

You, personally, fall into the first category. You don't deliberately offend people, so the choice not to offend Muslims fits with your general way of life. The people who have antagonized Muslims however, generally fall into the second category. These are people who regularly do and say offensive (though non-violent) things. If this group of people deliberately avoids offending Muslims and only Muslims, then they are pandering.

This pastor has offended people in the past. I wager he'll offend people in the future. For him to avoid offending any one group on the grounds that such a group could turn violent would be pandering to that group.

Certainly, the pastor would be pandering to the extremists ... I can see that logic ... but at the same time, he is an extremist himself ... and as far as I am concerned, all extremists should be pandering to the masses and acting like civilized people.

IMagius wrote:

Certainly, the pastor would be pandering to the extremists ... I can see that logic ... but at the same time, he is an extremist himself ... and as far as I am concerned, all extremists should be pandering to the masses and acting like civilized people.

I see nothing uncivilized about expressing one's views in a manner that violates neither the rights of innocents nor the laws of the land.

(What I do find uncivilized is that my internet is refusing to load half the sites I visit because it's running slower than a tortoise on tranquilizers )