Petraeus warns Koran burning could endanger US troops

[Jeffersons Ghost]

Petraeus warns Koran burning could endanger US troops

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL/NEWSCORE


The top US commander in Afghanistan said Monday the planned burning of Korans on Sept. 11 by a Florida church could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.

Gen. David Petraeus said the Taliban would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort," Gen. Petraeus said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community."


Hundreds of Afghans attended a demonstration in Kabul on Monday to protest the plans of Florida pastor Terry Jones, who has said he will burn the Koran on Sept. 11.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/petraeus_warns_koran_burning_could_fhm30oELbPRjn2vh443wCP#ixzz0yliu3vrA

[RagAss]

1. Good for him. If nothing else, dude has a high IQ.

[Bluebear]

2. The Talibornagains don't care. nt

[Mariana]

3. I think the General is missing the point.

These Christians WANT that to happen.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. I think it's quite possible he's perfectly aware of that, but isn't in a position to say it out loud

but hell, it'd be nice if he did.

[WinkyDink]

4. BEING THERE endangers the Troops. Sorry, I don't cotton to EITHER Party's blather on the Home Front

[metapunditedgy]

5. Good question... who has endangered the troops more: Assange/Wikileaks,

anti-war activists, or these Koran-burning crazies?

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. False dichotomy

Nobody claimed "antiwar activists" endanger the troops. You can demonstrate and speak out against the war without disclosing classified documents that include call signs, detailed accounts of tactics and troop movements, identities of informants, etc.

Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric endangers the troops. Disclosing classified, internal documents endangers the troops. Neither are necessary.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. being in Iraq and Afghanistan endangers the troops...

Our presence breeds terrorists and insurgents

[USArmyParatrooper]

10. You mean troops being at war puts them at risk? Say it aint so.

Yes, I agree.

1. Being at war endangers the troops.

2. Publishing classified information about troops movements, tactics, SOP, etc. endangers the troops.

3. Hate mongering against Islam endangers the troops.

Sometimes number 1 is absolutely necessary, and each instance can be debated. Numbers 2 and 3 are never necessary and should never be done.

[WinkyDink]

14. Killing members of Afghan wedding parties is a million times worse, for all concerned.

Burning a man-made book, making a movie, printing a cartoon? That's called "exercising freedom."

[Vickers]

29. Sometimes shit is classified because it's embarrassing or illegal.

Not because of tactics or strategy.

But, hey, you knew that.

[USArmyParatrooper]

30. No, I don't know that. But thanks for playing.

I literally know and sometimes work with everyone who works in our S2 department (all intel guys). I've also sat through countless intelligence briefs while working in our Tactical Operations Center in Iraq.

I'm not going to say that nowhere has anyone ever classified anything for that reason, but that would be an exception and not the rule. What you are suggesting is paranoid, conspiracy theory crap. And even if it wasn't "sometimes" would still mean an enormous amount of legitimate classified material from the 92,000 published documents.

[Vickers]

31. So, you think the pictures from (for example) Abu Ghraib were classified

for *mission* reasons?

Really?

Oooooooooo-kay.

"that would be an exception and not the rule"

I never said otherwise.

I'm not going to go over my whole military experience here (I'll be glad to PM-wise), but even at my level I saw stuff that had no mission-critical reason for being classified, and I'm sure you have, too.

[USArmyParatrooper]

32. Can you substantiate that those pictures were official, much less classified?

Actually, I haven't seen anything classified that didn't have a legitimate reason.

[Vickers]

33. Here ya go:

More than 1,800 images, including video clips, were screened by members of the House and Senate in separate classified briefings under Pentagon supervision

I never claimed they were "official" btw.

[Glidescube2]

35. the moral of the story

is hate begets hate.

[Vickers]

36. Or: payback's a bitch.

From either side, it's a real motherfucker, huh?

[USArmyParatrooper]

37. That didn't substantiate your claim.

[Vickers]

41. Whatever, man. n/t

[tammywammy]

40. That link says the briefings were classified, not the photos

As I'm sure you know, you can still discuss unclassified information during a classified briefing, though not vice versa.

[Vickers]

42. OK, let's take your assertion at face value, and the pictures themselves are

not classified...prithee tell, what about the briefing WAS classified?

:shrug:

It's either (a) the pictures, or (b) how we're gonna hide these motherfucking pictures.

Your choice!

[tammywammy]

43. Or about the pictures and other military matters regarding them

Not hiding them, which giving briefings to Congress on them is a piss poor way of hiding them.

BTW, I tried googling a source saying they were classified, but wasn't successful. If you find a link, please post it, since I don't remember them ever being discussed as being classified (though, I could just not remember it).

[Vickers]

44. The congressional briefings were closed, and now the photos are withheld pending

future courts martial/criminal proceedings...don't hold yer breath!

Send an email to the ACLU asking how much luck they've had getting copies of the (1200? 1500? 2000?) photos and videos that have been bandied about...this has been going on since 2004.

Good luck!

Oh, and support the troops!

:patriot:

[tammywammy]

39. wrong place n/t

[Obamanaut]

20. In the troop endangerment listing, omitted were IEDs, regular bullets,

suicide bombers, friendly fire, et al.

Bring them home and a lot of those things are no longer a danger.

[USArmyParatrooper]

21. Yes, war endangers troops in the war. This isn't exactly a shocking revelation.

Does any of that negate anything the General said?

Generals don't decide war and peace.

[metapunditedgy]

22. Where is the false dichotomy? It seems like a fair question to me...

1) I hear right-wingers saying that anti-war activists endanger US troops. (Think of the Vietnam protests for example.)

2) We seem to agree that it's fair to ask whether WikiLeaks endangers troops.

3) And then there's the Koran-burners.

Which one is most harmful to the troops (the actual human beings who are in the line of fire)?

I don't think it's a false dichotomy, but I do think it's a difficult question. Koran-burners might cause harm in the short term, while WikiLeaks may actually *help* in the *long* term (by making politicians more accountable for their war-mongering ways).

Basically, I'm interested in exploring whether left-wing protests (e.g., anti-war demonstrations) are more dangerous to troops than right-wing protests (e.g., Koran-burning) or whistleblowers like WikiLeaks.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. The poster did not imply that one implies the negation of the other.

So it's not a dichotomy. let alone a false one.

[NNN0LHI]

6. What about the safety of us civilians, who are not normally armed and wearing a flak jacket?

Think it makes things a little more dangerous for us too?

Don

[EC]

7. Could? It already is ...

Yesterday there were pictures from around the world of protests...

[Rage for Order]

11. I guess we'd better bring them home, then...get them out of harm's way

Honestly, if the troops weren't in Afghanistan to begin with there would be no danger. The solution really is simple.

[JVS]

12. I think the protests are stupid, but I really don't like generals telling civilians what speech...

they should and shouldn't engage in. Petraeus' job is to protect the first amendment, not to discourage people from exercising it.

[lonestarnot]

13. Hey Patraeus, you think the likes of religion supressors that would burn the Koran would give a

rat's ass about the troops? Nagh you knew that before you said anything.

[WinkyDink]

15. Exactly the way the likes of free-speech repressors want to kill cartoonists.

[USArmyParatrooper]

19. Not even close

Speaking your opinion about what others do =/= killing cartoonists.

[lonestarnot]

46. Freedom of religion not freedom of speech is the issue.

[AngryAmish]

16. Who cares? That is why they are fighting after all.

Remember that oath to defend the Constitution? Book burners are doing just that.

[gratuitous]

17. Whatever it takes to void our freedoms

Yeah, burning Korans might "endanger" the troops (whatever the fuck that means). But it's that church's constitutional right to act like damn fools, and it's not the general's place, or anybody's place, to tell them to act otherwise. Or aren't our military people really fighting to defend our freedoms, and that stupid cliche is just so much bullshit?

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. It's funny how some of you side with Christian bigots just because a General spoke out against them

GEN Patraeus is not "telling" people what to do. He's not infringing on anyone's freedom of speech rights. He's explaining something that is obvious, that what they're doing is being used as fodder by the Taliban and making the situation even worse - putting the troops at risk.

"Being in Afghanistan puts them at risk!"

Our Generals do not decide when/where/if we go to war.

[rucky]

23. Seriously, WTF

This book burning could touch off a major international shit storm - not just with our troops overseas, either. It'll also be a great recruiting tool for AlQaeda.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. Which poster is guilty of the hypocrisy you speak of?

[USArmyParatrooper]

28. All the ones saying GEN P is wrong for speaking out, and saying "they have a right!"

Just because they have a right doesn't make what they're doing right, nor is GEN Patraeus wrong for telling them the repercussions.

[WinkyDink]

38. Oh, let's not OFFEND the Taliban while we're trying to KILL them.

[USArmyParatrooper]

45. Pure strawman

Nobody has expressed concern this will offend the Taliban.

[Owl]

24. Maybe it's time to get out of Afghanistan?

[Morning Dew]

34. What a great idea! We should just not piss off the Taliban and all will be well.

What a bunch of cowards we've become. These guys won a long time ago.
We're on permanent Orange Alert. We're willing to give up freedoms because we might anger the "enemy".


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qdIzFpCZ91sJ:www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/AFGHAN%2520CONFLICT/TALIBAN/intro_kakar.htm+taliban+policies&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Taliban's strict social policies and their anomalous interpretation of Islam have had detrimental effects on Afghans and have alienated them from the rest of the world. The Taliban initially banned all girls' schools, although more recently they have opened a handful of schools for girls under the age of 12. (See The Christian Science Monitor, December 30, 1999, Lives still restricted, Afghan women see hope.) They have prevented women from working, except in health care centers; if they leave their houses they have to be covered from head to foot with a veil or a "chadaree". Besides being veiled, women are usually required to be accompanied by a male relative when they go out on the streets. Taxi drivers have been admonished not to give ride to women unless they are covered fully. And women caught violating these rules have been beaten. Because of these policies, they have been accused of engaging in "gender apartheid." (See also Women's Rights Section.) The Taliban argue, however, that these restrictions are solely for the "protection" of women's dignity. They further claim that the 20 years of war have depleted the country's resources to the point where a separate education system for girls is beyond their reach (Prior to Taliban, only high schools for boys and girls were separate.) In reality the restriction is an extension of rural social value system supercharged with a puritanical religious conditioning. Depending upon their background and the degree of exposure to the more extreme religious interpretations, even the unbending Taliban have moderates (in a very relative way) on the issue of women.

In addition to their restrictions on women, men are required to grow untrimmed beards (considered to be Sunnah, something practiced and thus imitated from the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)) and pray five times a day( one of the five pillars of Islam). They have also cut the hands of thieves and stoned to death those who are convicted for adultery (as outlined, they maintain, by Islamic law). They have also banned kite flying, chicken fights, keeping pigeons and gambling (since they believe that this will lead to moral corruption). Celebration of new years (since they believe it to be a pagan ritual) and playing or listening to music (yet, according to them, another avenue of moral corruption) is also not allowed. The Taliban continue to justify their policies by stressing that they continue to face a costly war and the country's infrastructure is totally destroyed to accommodate the needs of all. However, critics of the Taliban's strict policies point out that even in cities where the Taliban have brought relative peace and security for the past 4 years there has been little loosening of these harsh and strict measures, making the lives of ordinary afghans harder in what are already hard times for the population. These rules are felt more harshly in the urban centers of the country. The Taliban, however, maintain that ordinary people's conditions have improved since the Mujahideen era.

Hey, look, even the Taliban uses the excuse that there's a war on.

bolding mine.

[gophates]

47. The Thugs already endangered them with their engineered war.

A little late to be worried about our troops, General.