# Is committing murder over burned Korans a common Middle-Eastern disposition? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784 "2012-02-24T01:07:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/21 "2012-02-29T00:40:59Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Well, [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sports_riots) is a list of Wikipedia articles on sports-related riots, including the rioting that went on in Vancouver after the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup. If riots over a religious offense seem extreme, how about a riot over a game loss? > [@colonial](#): > > Thanks for the list, Dewey, but how about the murder part? > > It’s five and counting over this latest outporing of crazy Muslims. > Go back to the 2005&ff cartoon controversy and we got 100 or more > dead world wide, plus a few embassies burned. Five? How about 1,000 killed in the 1969 [Football War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War)in Central America? ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/22 "2012-02-29T01:31:11Z")
I was just a kid during the Watts riots in 1965, where 35 people died, and the whole town seemed to be burning down from our viewing point- atop an old hotel behind Wilshire Blvd. The cause was described by locals to be a man and a woman getting upset with a cop over the “unfair” arrest of their family member. It was later said to be caused by racial tension, and defined in more sociological terms. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/23 "2012-02-29T06:08:24Z")
my two cents: i don’t think it’s at all a common disposition to want to kill, at least not on a per capita statistical level. i think you could say the same thing about school shootings if you wanted to build a similar case. but you have to understand the circumstances there: it’s a war-torn nation, one impoverished and extremely uneducated, with years of ongoing wars not even counting the current conflict. violence becomes a language under those conditions, so it’s more common to become bloodthirsty. i still don’t think that on average the typical Afghan wants to kill anyone. i don’t think on average the typical Muslim wants to kill anyone, either– but you also have to keep in mind: how many reports do they do on the peaceful people? the violence gets the headlines. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/24 "2012-02-29T17:22:09Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Thanks for the list, Dewey, but how about the murder part? > > It’s five and counting over this latest outporing of crazy Muslims. > Go back to the 2005&ff cartoon controversy and we got 100 or more > dead world wide, plus a few embassies burned. > [@Askance](#): > > Five? How about 1,000 killed in the 1969 [Football War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War)in Central America? Off-topic and evasive. If certain Central Americans were uhinged in 1969 that does nothing to atone for the guilt of 2012 Muslims. The same applies to the 1965 Watts rioters, who at least had real material grievances in the form of generations of real and intended discrimination. As stupid as it was to burn the Korans it did no physical harm to anyone, and did not take money out of anyone’s pocket. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/25 "2012-02-29T18:08:26Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I was referring to Afghanistan, was the evidence was clear-cut, and not to Iraq, > where our intelligence was clearly faulty. In no way, shape, or form did you indicate that this little assertion of yours was Afghanistan specific, and dropping it into the middle of a conversation specifically about the Iraq war action sans explanation wasn’t too helpful if that was your rhetorical intent. > [@](#): > > You and the rest of the world have forgotten, or perhaps never knew that > bipartisan consensus percieved Saddam Hussein was a threat over 10 years > before BushII was elected. A Democratic President, say Al Gore, would have > gotten the same intelligence that Bush did 2001&ff. It is impossible to say > whether Gore would have embarked on a war against Iraq. However, it is > absolutely certain that the logic of his convictions would have justified his doing so. Again .. this is delusional. A good chunk of the intelligence re Iraq that Bush received re Iraq was so directed, washed and cherry picked by Cheney et al that it was pratically manufactured to justify a unitlateral invasion. The raw intelligence Gore’s adminstration would have received might have been similar, but what would have reached the President (if Gore was POTUS) would have been completely different sans the gatekeepers Bush’s information had to go through. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/26 "2012-02-29T19:52:00Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > No, but an Israeli Jew would care a \*lot \*if people started burning Torahs. I don’t condone murder, obviously, but I understand the impulse completely. > > You Christian-country people don’t understand the importance of holy writings in Islam and Judaism - it simply doesn’t exist to that degree in Christianity.\*\*\* In terms of religious disrespect and sacrilege, burning a Quran or burning a Torah is the equivalent to burning down a church. No less\*\*\*. (bolding mine) I can understand that Muslims find it highly disrespectful, and if as you say, it “is the equivalent to burning down a church. No less.”, it is _ **NOT** _ a church with a human being inside of it. Consequently, I find that killing people over it is grossly out of proportion to the “crime”. **ETA** And since we’re on the subject, does anyone here know what exactly, if anything, the Quoran (Kuran, Koran?😕) has to say on the subject, concerning mistreatment of said book? ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/27 "2012-02-29T20:46:16Z")
> [@astro](#): > > In no way, shape, or form did you indicate that this little assertion of yours was Afghanistan specific, and dropping it into the middle of a conversation specifically about the Iraq war action sans explanation wasn’t too helpful if that was your rhetorical intent. Afghanistan was the country addressed in OP. Furthermore, It does not get any more specific than this, short of repeating the name of the country: (from reply#7 to this thread) > [@colonial](#): > > No, but if the country being warred against was harboring several 1000 terrorists > who DID attack us (all AQ was accessory to 9/11) then you could call our disposition > both common and reasonable. > [@astro](#): > > Again .. this is delusional. A good chunk of the intelligence re Iraq that Bush received re Iraq was so directed, washed and cherry picked by Cheney et al that it was pratically manufactured to justify a unitlateral invasion. The raw intelligence Gore’s adminstration would have received might have been similar, but what would have reached the President (if Gore was POTUS) would have been completely different sans the gatekeepers Bush’s information had to go through. As a matter of fact Gore agreed that the Iraqi WMD issue was serious enough to require eventual action by the US: [Al Gore Speech on Iraq 9/23/2002](http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html) (from link, Gore speaking, emphasis added): > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, **Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.** **Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.** Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, \*\*that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. \*\* The only disagreement Gore had with Bush over Iraq was the timing; otherwise Bush followed Gore’s advice as much as Cheney’s. And this link provides quotes and leads to other similarly aggressive statements by other prominent Democrats: [Democrats vs Iraq](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C2jOMJ-v614J:www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html+al+gore+quotes+on+iraq&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/28 "2012-02-29T20:51:16Z")
> [@JBDivmstr](#): > > (bolding mine) > > I can understand that Muslims find it highly disrespectful, and if as you say, it “is the equivalent to burning down a church. No less.”, it is _ **NOT** _ a church with a human being inside of it. Consequently, I find that killing people over it is grossly out of proportion to the “crime”. > > **ETA** And since we’re on the subject, does anyone here know what exactly, if anything, the Quoran (Kuran, Koran?😕) has to say on the subject, concerning mistreatment of said book? i can’t find any specific quotes in the Qu’Ran about desecration of the book, but here are a few articles explaining the offense: from a [Muslim](http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/lifestyle-comment/ask-ali-on-why-burning-the-quran-is-so-offensive) news [article](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017588510_apquranburningsignificance.html) i would strongly like to reiterate that violence proliferates quicker in a war-torn nation than elsewhere. i can’t over emphasize the significance. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/29 "2012-02-29T21:52:29Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Afghanistan was the country addressed in OP. Furthermore, It does not get > any more specific than this, short of repeating the name of the country: You were responding specifically to my post and my remark re the unilateral declaration of war on Iraq not the OP. > [@](#): > > (from reply#7 to this thread) > > As a matter of fact Gore agreed that the Iraqi WMD issue was serious enough > to require eventual action by the US: > > [Al Gore Speech on Iraq 9/23/2002](http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html) > > (from link, Gore speaking, emphasis added): > > The only disagreement Gore had with Bush over Iraq was the timing; > otherwise Bush followed Gore’s advice as much as Cheney’s. > > And this link provides quotes and leads to other similarly aggressive statements > by other prominent Democrats: > > [Democrats vs Iraq](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C2jOMJ-v614J:www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html+al+gore+quotes+on+iraq&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) What you are quite deliberately leaving out here is that the intelligence that was being delivered to Congress and the American public (and Gore) was being filtered by Cheney and his minions at the source point. The possible presence of Iraqi WMDs was not presented as a guess needing confirmation, it became a fact. Dissenters in the CIA and elsewhere were deliberately shunted aside. Most American people were convinced that Saddam was getting ready to whip out a bunch of killer WMDs on us. Given BS facts even reasonable people will come to the conclusion Saddam must be stopped by any means necessary. You seem (somehow) to believe that this deliberate corruption of intelligence confirming mass stockpiles of WMDs as a hard fact and would have been happening even if Gore was in office. I’m not clear how you come to that conclusion. The whole intelligence filtering scenario was only possible because of the unprecedented level of power wielded by Cheney and his mastery of bureaucratic infighting. He had the CIA thoroughly cowed. Here is a well reviewed book you might find interesting - [Fiasco](http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/159420103X) ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/30 "2012-02-29T23:27:40Z")
> [@astro](#): > > You were responding specifically to my post and my remark re the unilateral declaration of war on Iraq not the OP. And you were responding to OP which was about Afghanistan. “In no way, shape, or form did you indicate that this little assertion of yours was (Iraq) specific”. If you were talking about Iraq you should have said so. > [@astro](#): > > What you are quite deliberately leaving out here is that the intelligence that was being delivered to Congress and the American public (and Gore) was being filtered by Cheney and his minions at the source point… Stop right there. The fact of the matter is that although the issue was controversial within the CIA, its director George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, came down on the side of those who viewed the situation as urgent. And even though it was not urgent in 2003 Saddam was durely never going to stop trying to obtain WMD, and despite sanctions he had 10s of billions$ to spend on the effort. Therefore, given his record as a serial agressor who had already invaded two countries it was necessary for us to depose him sooner or later. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/31 "2012-03-01T01:32:24Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > No, but an Israeli Jew would care a \*lot \*if people started burning Torahs. I don’t condone murder, obviously, but I understand the impulse completely. > > You Christian-country people don’t understand the importance of holy writings in Islam and Judaism - it simply doesn’t exist to that degree in Christianity. In terms of religious disrespect and sacrilege, burning a Quran or burning a Torah is the equivalent to burning down a church. No less. I think you then greatly overestimate how much we care about church buildings. Unless people were actually in the church, I can’t imagine an actual riot happening. I mean, the Simpsons even makes a joke about a pastor burning down his church for the insurance money. I’m pretty sure even talking about burn a Qur’an is offensive. And, to be honest, I really can’t understand the impulse to do something to protect your book that is forbidden by that book itself. It doesn’t have to do with being in a Christian country, but in not thinking disrespect is a murderous offense. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/32 "2012-03-01T08:54:05Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > And you were responding to OP which was about Afghanistan. > > “In no way, shape, or form did you indicate that this little assertion of yours was > (Iraq) specific”. If you were talking about Iraq you should have said so. > > Stop right there. > > The fact of the matter is that although the issue was controversial within the CIA, > its director George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, came down on the side of those who > viewed the situation as urgent. > > And even though it was not urgent in 2003 Saddam was durely never going to stop > trying to obtain WMD, and despite sanctions he had 10s of billions$ to spend on the > effort. Therefore, given his record as a serial agressor who had already invaded two > countries it was necessary for us to depose him sooner or later. Ispo facto “Therefore”? Son… that argument is some weak, weak shit. There are lots of local and regional bad guys on this planet bullying their neighbors, and while we might lend a hand from time to time, we typically don’t feel compelled to unilaterally mount an invasion of their country and go to war with them because of what we suspect they _might_ do. The Iraq War is regarded even by most die hard hawks at this point as a massive boondoggle resulting in an absolute squandering of US blood and treasure based on poorly vetted and manipulated intelligence, and horrifically bad decision making on multiple levels. Some believe the actions of members of the the Bush Administration in prosecuting the war were so inept and damaging to the US they bordered on treason. That you cling to the tiny little fig leaf of “Therefore his record as a serial aggressor who had already invaded two countries it was necessary for us to depose him sooner or later” is sad. It was not necessary at all. There were lots and lots of ways to deal with bad guys short of war, especially when those bad guys pose little danger to our sovereignty. I seriously urge you to read Fiasco. The author does not have an anti-Bush agenda. The facts of the situation are damning enough in and of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/33 "2012-03-01T20:07:11Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Ispo facto “Therefore”? Son… that argument is some weak, weak shit. There are lots of local and regional bad guys on this planet bullying their neighbors, and while we might lend a hand from time to time, we typically don’t feel compelled to unilaterally mount an invasion of their country and go to war with them because of what we suspect they might do. Our action was not unilateral, although our resolution to stick it out was nearly so. Saddam was uniquely the only person since the end of WW2 to have started two wars and gotten away with it. > [@astro](#): > > The Iraq War is regarded even by most die hard hawks at this point as a massive boondoggle resulting in an absolute squandering of US blood and treasure The timing may or may not have been the best. I wonder how many who now deny the eventual necessity of ousting Saddam were among those quoted by the Snopes link as considering it a necessity years ago (e.g. H. Clinton and others). Given the character of the nightcreatures who replaced Saddam as the enemy we could not have spent much less blood and treasure than we did, regardless of the timing or the forces commited. > [@astro](#): > > based on poorly vetted and manipulated intelligence, and horrifically bad decision making on multiple levels. Some believe the actions of members of the the Bush Administration in prosecuting the war were so inept and damaging to the US they bordered on treason. Mistakes, which are bound to occur, have no rational bearing on the justice of employing armed force. Deceit would lend taint even to just war, and I would condemn any administration for it. However, I will also give any administration benefit of the doubt. If no smoking gun has yet been uncovered now, 9 years later, then none will ever be. “Treason” means specifically to wage war against the US, or to give aid and comfort to its enemies; it is therefore “ipso facto” an ignorant and stupid accusation to make. > [@astro](#): > > That you cling to the tiny little fig leaf of “Therefore his record as a serial aggressor who had already invaded two countries it was necessary for us to depose him sooner or later” is sad. What us sad is your coarse disregard of the hundreds of thousands who died as the result of Saddam’s invasions of Iran and Kuwait. > [@astro](#): > > It was not necessary at all. There were lots and lots of ways to deal with bad guys short of war, Actually, there is often no way to deal with an entrenched enemy other than by invasion. That is an obvious, uncontroversial, recurring fact of history. As for Saddam specifically, we had since 1991 been “dealing” with him by letting him have his way domestically, the Kurds aside, and by paying him several billion$ per year in trade sanction exceptions. His ability to withstand the uprising after the end of Gulf War 1 suggests he could still be sitting pretty now. > [@astro](#): > > especially when those bad guys pose little danger to our sovereignty. Sovereignty? Even 9/11 represented no threat to dispossess us of territory or self-rule. Threat to sovereignty is only the most extreme justification for war. > [@astro](#): > > I seriously urge you to read Fiasco. The author does not have an anti-Bush agenda. The facts of the situation are damning enough in and of themselves. I do not trust your recommendation, although I may peruse the net for reviews pro and con. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/34 "2012-03-02T09:32:59Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Our action was not unilateral, although our resolution to stick it out > was nearly so. Saddam was uniquely the only person since the end > of WW2 to have started two wars and gotten away with it. In any meaningful sense of the word it was a unitlateral invasion by the US and its allies. Are you clear on what this word means? > [@](#): > > The timing may or may not have been the best. I wonder how many > who now deny the eventual necessity of ousting Saddam were among > those quoted by the Snopes link as considering it a necessity years ago > (e.g. H. Clinton and others). > > Given the character of the nightcreatures who replaced Saddam as > the enemy we could not have spent much less blood and treasure than > we did, regardless of the timing or the forces commited. Again, you speak of this as a “necessity”. It was not a necessity by any stretch of the imagination no matter have many times you tell yourself this bald fiction. > [@](#): > > Mistakes, which are bound to occur, have no rational bearing on the > justice of employing armed force. Deceit would lend taint even to just war, > and I would condemn any administration for it. However, I will also give > any administration benefit of the doubt. If no smoking gun has yet been > uncovered now, 9 years later, then none will ever be. Smoking gun? You seem to think historians are waiting anxiously for some other shoe to drop. As a helpful hint the shoes have already dropped in a huge bumper crop of footwear. The number of fuckups the Bush Adminstration made in planning and implementing the war are legion and legendary and are part of the record. No one is looking for a “smoking gun”. The facts are on the table. > [@](#): > > “Treason” means specifically to wage war against the US, or to give aid > and comfort to its enemies; it is therefore “ipso facto” an ignorant and > stupid accusation to make. This was obviously hyperbole by those disgusted with the Bush Administration’s wildly incompetent decision making in the handling of the war. However, this references a larger point. You, personally stand firm against the surging tide of historical opinion that considers the Iraq War one of the most ill advised and ineptly prosecuted wars in the history of the United States. If you are going to do this in good faith and not just as a rhetorical exercise you really need to read “Fiasco”. > [@](#): > > What us sad is your coarse disregard of the hundreds of thousands who died > as the result of Saddam’s invasions of Iran and Kuwait. Odd… I thought it was a distinctly liberal inclination to view the US as the world’s Batman. It’s a tragedy that thousands to millions die every year in wars and various clashes, but we are not the global police. Pouring our soldiers precious lives and our limited resources into a bottomless rat hole to (in part) punish Saddam’s abuse of his regional neighbors and subject populations was a stupid plan plain and simple. > [@](#): > > Actually, there is often no way to deal with an entrenched enemy other > than by invasion. That is an obvious, uncontroversial, recurring fact of history. > As for Saddam specifically, we had since 1991 been “dealing” with him by > letting him have his way domestically, the Kurds aside, and by paying him > several billion$ per year in trade sanction exceptions. His ability to withstand > the uprising after the end of Gulf War 1 suggests he could still be sitting pretty now. Your entire point here (and much of your argument in general in this discussion) swings on the hard presumption that we HAD to deal with (ie eliminate) Saddam and our only real option was invasion. There is no logical realpolitik basis whatsoever for this conclusion that we HAD to take him out. There are lots of bad actors all over this planet doing bad things to their people and neighbors, and somehow we manfully resist the urge to go to war with them and root them out. The imperative “necessity” to get rid of Saddam was largely a manufactured crisis and at some point you are going to need to acknowledge that. > [@](#): > > Sovereignty? Even 9/11 represented no threat to dispossess us of territory > or self-rule. Threat to sovereignty is only the most extreme justification for war. > > I do not trust your recommendation, although I may peruse the net for reviews > pro and con. Please do! ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/35 "2012-03-02T15:20:32Z")
It’s probably time to move this over to GD. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/36 "2012-03-02T16:59:51Z")
> [@astro](#): > > In any meaningful sense of the word it was a unitlateral invasion by the US and its allies. Are you clear on what this word means? You are not using the word in any meaningful sense, and no, I am not clear. This is the first occasion where you have interjected “and allies”. You had focused solely on the US, giving the impression thought it acted alone. > [@astro](#): > > Again, you speak of this as a “necessity”. It was not a necessity by any stretch of the imagination no matter have many times you tell yourself this bald fiction. It is certain that such necessity was perceived by bipartisan consensus of electors and electorate, even if it was wrong, and that this consensus preceded the administration of GW Bush. > [@astro](#): > > Smoking gun? You seem to think historians are waiting anxiously for some other shoe to drop. As a helpful hint the shoes have already dropped in a huge bumper crop of footwear. The number of fuckups the Bush Administration made in planning and implementing the war are legion and legendary and are part of the record. No one is looking for a “smoking gun”. The facts are on the table. By “smoking gun” I was referring to deceit, as in concocting evidence or interpreting evidence in a manner known to be specious. As for the conventional military side of the war it was run to near perfection, Iraq being conquered at the cost of only about 100 dead. Then the war turned asymmetrical where everyone in the country became targets for terrorist nightcreatures, a situation where conventional military force is much less useful than against an enemy who stands up and fights. Nevertheless, we lost less killed than during the Revolutionary War all the while ensuring normal Iraqis a chance at Democratic government, a chance for which there was no prospect as of 2/03. > [@astro](#): > > This was obviously hyperbole by those disgusted with the Bush Administration’s wildly incompetent decision making in the handling of the war. You used the phrase “Some believe”, which is not a figure of speech, and I believe your retroactive qualification is dishonest. > [@astro](#): > > However, this references a larger point. You, personally stand firm against the surging tide of historical opinion that considers the Iraq War one of the most ill advised and ineptly prosecuted wars in the history of the United States. If you are going to do this in good faith and not just as a rhetorical exercise you really need to read “Fiasco”. The main US failure consisted of inability to predict the terror that followed conclusion of conventional military operations, which went without a hitch, and any historian who does not recognize that as established fact is deluded or prevaricating, and I do not care how many favorable reviews he gets. I have repeatedly said the timing may have been wrong, but there is no doubt that a proven threat to the world was removed and replaced with a Democracy at little cost in blood to the US, although sadly much greater than expected cost to Iraq. > [@astro](#): > > Odd… I thought it was a distinctly liberal inclination to view the US as the world’s Batman. It’s a tragedy that thousands to millions die every year in wars and various clashes, but we are not the global police. Pouring our soldiers precious lives and our limited resources into a bottomless rat hole to (in part) punish Saddam’s abuse of his regional neighbors and subject populations was a stupid plan plain and simple. If Democracy succeeds in Iraq and if Iraq is never again a violent threat then our soldiers’ lives will have been well spent, Rest In Peace. > [@astro](#): > > Your entire point here (and much of your argument in general in this discussion) swings on the hard presumption that we HAD to deal with (ie eliminate) Saddam and our only real option was invasion. There is no logical realpolitik basis whatsoever for this conclusion that we HAD to take him out. Invasion was the only real option, given that 12 years of sanctions had done nothing to erode Saddam’s grip on power. Logically, the argument’s premise is that a person’s past behavior is a reliable guide to his future behavior. You do not have a problem with that, I hope. As a matter of realpolitik, therefore, we were confronted with a literal serial war monger who was sole heir to a constant stream of billions$ with which to plot further aggression, at a time which we could not be confident of predicting. > [@astro](#): > > There are lots of bad actors all over this planet doing bad things to their people and neighbors, and somehow we manfully resist the urge to go to war with them and root them out. The imperative “necessity” to get rid of Saddam was largely a manufactured crisis and at some point you are going to need to acknowledge that. Saddam Hussein himself was permanent crisis, personified. As a matter of realpolitik Saddam was in a position to do the most damage to the US and its allies, and so comparison with others is irrelevant, although opponents of the war were never bright enough to realize it. The crisis was not manufactured, it was chronic, and in being since the 1980s. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/37 "2012-03-02T17:22:03Z")
**colonial** , **astro** , and others: drop the hijack about the Iraq war immediately. You can start a new thread if you much debate this issue yet again, but it’s not relevant to the original topic of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/38 "2012-03-02T17:29:35Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > You Christian-country people don’t understand the importance of holy writings in Islam and Judaism - it simply doesn’t exist to that degree in Christianity. In terms of religious disrespect and sacrilege, burning a Quran or burning a Torah is the equivalent to burning down a church. No less. I have no idea what things are like for Jewish- and Muslim-country people, but I can’t help wonder if part of the difference with first-world Christian-dominate countries is the mass produced nature of Bible. I’ve got at least half a dozen bibles kicking around this house. Maybe more. And we’re not a particularly religious house either. Somehow, bibles are just everywhere. They aren’t treated differently than any other book. They’re just on the shelves and in boxes, and so on. If they all go up in smoke, I can run right out to Barnes & Nobles and buy another dozen just like them. I can probably call around to the churches near me and they’d all be happy to just _give_ me a bible. It’s hard to work up much concern about objects - even a sacred objects - when they’re so cheap and easy to come by. I suspect that a hundred years ago, bibles were rare and precious. But today? They’re everywhere. I don’t know if that situation pertains to other peoples’ holy books in other countries. I can’t help wonder if peoples attitudes about the Koran isn’t tied in part to a time when printed books were hard to come by. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/39 "2012-03-02T17:34:10Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I have followed the story of the Korans that were (apparently accidentally) burned at an air force base in Afghanistan. The result was first protests, and now people are getting killed over it. > > I know it is especially offensive to Muslims to damage or mistreat Korans, but to commit murder over it seems extreme to me. OTOH I am no expert on Islam or the Middle East. Is this a reaction you would only see from extreme fringe types? If not, how ordinary is this reaction? Since Afghanistan is not in the Middle East I think both the title of the thread and the above question are a bit wrong-headed. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784/40 "2012-03-02T17:40:19Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Well, [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sports_riots) is a list of Wikipedia articles on sports-related riots, including the rioting that went on in Vancouver after the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup. If riots over a religious offense seem extreme, how about a riot over a game loss? > > Anyhow, I doubt that this belongs in GQ. There’s a big difference between sports-related rioting and the strain of Islamic idiocy that results in killing over Koran burnings or any other perceived insult. The sports-related violence and deaths is true result of inflamed passions of the moment, which results in a mob, and mobs can do ugly things. Koran burnings and the like are perceived to be _justified_. And justifiable. Meaning that you could put a bunch of Muslims in a room, have them deliberate about it, and come to the conclusion that because people from a largely Christian country “defiled” the Koran, Muslims should, in fact, kill Americans and/or Christians. This is what is so whack about some strains of Islam. Just do a search of Sharia Law and look at the atrocities committed against people (particularly women) as a result of court deliberation. Here’s my favorite. Girl seen walking home from school with boy who was not a relative. The girl’s family is up in arms and this gross indignity. Takes to to the village court which holds court over the matter. The verdict. Yes the girl’s family suffered an unimaginable insult. The remedy? Well, the boy just happened to have a sister. So, the idiots figured, let’s even things up by allowing all the male members of the family—father, brothers and uncles—rape the innocent boy’s even more innocent sister. No, you couldn’t make this shit up. And we need to keep in mind that these are the type of people we’re talking about when they’re killing innocent people because a book was desecrated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-committing-murder-over-burned-korans-a-common-middle-eastern-disposition/613784.md?page=3)