Shooting the Quran
The soldier is now saying he didn't know the book was a Quran, and disgustingly, at an apology ceremony, a member of Major General Jeffery Hammond's staff gave a Quran a kiss brefore he handed it to Iraqi leaders. Robert Spencer has the analysis on FrontPage, with the caveat "assuming the soldier really did know that the book he was shooting at was the Qur'an, this story illustrates many things":
1. While the President and the military brass are anxious to deny that the War On Terror has anything to do with Islam, many rank-and-file soldiers can't help but notice that the fiercest enemies they encounter are also the most devout in their Islam, and that the jihad terrorists quote the Qur'an copiously to justify their acts of violence.2. That noticing things like this may have led one soldier to use a Qur'an as target practice is unfortunate. If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies. This is not the same thing as the Dinesh D'Souza argument that we must not speak about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, because doing so will turn "moderates" into "extremists" - D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime. But that is not the same thing as avoiding unnecessary provocation that will require you to fight battles that you otherwise would not have to fight.
3. The reactions of Major General Hammond and his staff were understandable, but excessive. They don't want to alienate people they believe they have won over, or whom they hope to win over, in Baghdad. They had to disavow this soldier's action. However, kissing the Qur'an and begging for forgiveness - and holding an apology "ceremony" in the first place - are gestures that spring from a misunderstanding of how they are likely to be perceived by the "tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony."
Major General Hammond is anxious to show that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Fine. But to kiss the Qur'an and to beg for forgiveness are signs that one accepts its authority and the authority of those before whom one is begging. Coming from non-Muslims, it is likely that they will be interpreted as gestures of submission, and the submission of non-Muslims to Muslims is a significant concept in Islamic law - although I am sure Major General Hammond and his staff are unaware of this. Given that, is it wise to be giving such impressions? Are such impressions not likely to create even more tension in the future?
He finally points out how it might've gone if some soldier had shot up a bible:
Christians who knew about the incident might have regarded him as something of an idiot, but that would have been the end of the story. No apology ceremony, no military brass kissing the book, nothing.
Of course, we are not engaged in a war in a country where the majority of people revere the Bible, but that doesn't completely account for the difference. The possibility that Muslims worldwide might be incited to murderous rage because of an incident like this can never be discounted. Major General Hammond and his staff are trying to head that off. That's fine, but it also just plays into the mentality that to riot and kill because of something like this is a perfectly natural and rational reaction to it. At a certain point, someone is going to have to have the guts to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. The incident that set you off may indeed have been offensive, but your reaction is insane. If someone insults you, that is no justification to kill him or anyone else, or to destroy anything."But we are a long, long way at this point from that kind of common sense.
Hilariously, the AP called it an "act of violence" when Orthodox Jews in Israel burned copies of the New Testament passed out by missionaries in Israel. I had to look twice to make sure they weren't actually burning missionaries. Nope. Just cardboard and paper!
Or Yehuda Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon said missionaries recently entered a neighborhood in the predominantly religious town of 34,000 in central Israel, distributing hundreds of New Testaments and missionary material.After receiving complaints, Aharon said, he got into a loudspeaker car last Thursday and drove through the neighborhood, urging people to turn over the material to Jewish religious students who went door to door to collect it.
The books were dumped into a pile and set afire in a lot near a synagogue, he said.
Still waiting on the Jews to blow up German restaurants!
"Still waiting on the Jews to blow up German restaurants!" Oh come on, who do you think the A-bomb was meant for? Also if you look up the history of Israeli independence those "freedom fighters" used the same terrorist tactics to throw off colonial rule (can't remember who's).
Otherwise I'm in agreement with you. The generals action were off. However his action are the acts of conversion. It's possible to spin this to the locals as Hammond becoming a Muslim. Also there should be someone who stands up and says they are nut but I'll pass till I have the power to both make it hurt and get away with it.
vlad at May 21, 2008 6:25 AM
Vlad, I'm not sure you're on the right history book here. I don't recall Israel being a colony of anyone. "Trans Jordan" was a British holding, if memory serves.
But the idea of using a detonating person as a weapon? That's all Arafat, baby. He invented that shit, or at least he gets the credit for it.
As far as this story goes - if we really have to keep genuflecting like this to a MOTHER FUCKING BOOK then maybe we had better put the nuclear option back on the table. Because there's no way in hell that region of the world is ever going to be sane.
brian at May 21, 2008 7:34 AM
In other Quran news (News of the Weird, in fact), this little tidbit:
Representatives of about 300 Islamic madrassa schools, meeting in New Delhi in April, decided that Muslims could not buy health insurance because the Quran forbids gambling (although they said they would continue to explore ways of reconciling Sharia law with health care financing). [The India Times (New Delhi), 4-6-08]
Oh the irony. /sarcasm
Flynne at May 21, 2008 8:01 AM
The use of terrorist tactics called sabotage here
http://tiny.cc/1vKRV. The British initially held the area but were pushed to release it through economic and political pressure. They refused so kidnapping and sabotage was used to force the British to surrender the area to local rule.
Specific force designations
http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Etzel.htm
The use of a person as a weapon was way before Arafat was born. Oddly looks like Russians were the first to use the exact tactic to kill the czar Alexander II. I think that the tactic is much older but it's the first reference I could find of the specific action.
"Because there's no way in hell that region of the world is ever going to be sane." I don't think the crazy will go away from that area ever. The idea of pissing off the US and then being surprised that we pound the crap out of you means you lack any sembalence of logic.
vlad at May 21, 2008 8:16 AM
Does that mean that in order to live the most un-islamic lifestyle possible I am now required to purchase health insurance?
brian at May 21, 2008 8:43 AM
"Does that mean that in order to live the most un-islamic lifestyle possible I am now required to purchase health insurance?" Now they are going to have to make a religious exemption to requiring health insurance in Ma. Why the hell is health insurance gambling, life insurance I can understand?
vlad at May 21, 2008 8:47 AM
I consider it a gamble to not buy health insurance when I travel.
I wonder what the position is on auto insurance.
Steamer at May 21, 2008 10:47 AM
This is by no means a lock: See the Kausfiles post from 1:30am today. Hillary could easily become the next president of the United States.
I'll always vote against that woman, because I have blood pressure issues, and also because it's matter of human dignity.
Crid at May 21, 2008 11:34 AM
I think that the tactic is much older but it's the first reference I could find of the specific action.
Reference the word Assassin (I know Wiki, but...) the tactic of human fanatics killing for religion, especially Islam, has been around for centuries. It is now on the rise again as Islamic Terrorists.
Jim P. at May 21, 2008 11:54 AM
Flynne, that gives me hope that they'll die out before they out-populate us. Sigh. Probably not. Probably means the infidels they want to kill will be forced to pay to strengthen their enemies.
Donna at May 22, 2008 9:19 AM
Cultural ignorance is inexcusable, especially in a situation like this.
I think the only way this general can regain the face he lost by this stupid act is by growing a very large mustache. (don't laugh-they love mustaches & think it makes men very dominant. I could be wrong, and therefore displaying cultural ignorance myself, but who cares because I'm not a general in the US army)
Chrissy at May 24, 2008 8:44 AM
As far as things go he's the 2nd smartest person in the US military. He was sent home and doesn't have to be in a hot area (temp. or fire fight wise). The smartest person in the US military was giving out coins at a check point with a translated Bible verse. That Marine got taken out of harms way very fast. During Viet Nam people just used to shoot their toes off but these guys in Iraq figured out exactly the right way to avoid a combat zone. Pretty damn smart in my book but I'm surprised that no one thought of it earlier.
Don at June 3, 2008 9:04 AM
Yes Islam has a problem with violence
Yes the jihadists use Islam to justify their actions
And Yes, many Muslims around the world excuse such violence
Surely though you can see that we have to be careful on this score.
The fastest way to lose the war in Iraq would be for the President to come out and say something like "Islam causes terrorism"
As for MG Hammond, he did what he had to do to win the war. If you think he did the wrong thing, I guess you also disagree with the prescriptions laid out in Field Manual 3-24. That would be the book the one written by then Lt Gen David Petraeus (or rather, he led the team who wrote the book in 2006. It describes the strategy behind the "surge").
Tom the Redhunter at June 4, 2008 4:14 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/05/21/shooting_the_qu.html#comment-1554402">comment from Tom the RedhunterMuslims don't just use the Quran to justify their actions. The Quran COMMANDS them to kill the infidels. Islam does cause terrorism. You've perhaps missed all the dying remarks of the Muslims who say they're doing it for Allah? Or, perhaps, thought they said they were doing it for Mike, Bob, Frank, or Little Red Riding Hood?
Amy Alkon at June 4, 2008 5:17 PM
Leave a comment