President Obama and other U.S. officials are condemning both the burning of a Quran at a Florida church, and the violence in Afghanistan protesting it.
“The desecration of any holy text, including the Quran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry,” Obama said in a statement issued Saturday night. “However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity”
David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the Afghanistan war, issued a similar statement.
The Associated Press reports that “Afghan protests against the burning of a Quran in Florida entered a third day with demonstrations in the east Sunday, while the Taliban called on people to rise up, blaming government forces for any violence … Protests in the north and south in recent days have killed 20 people.”
That includes the demonstration at a United Nations compound that turned violent, leading to 11 deaths.
“No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act,” Obama said.
The Afghanistan protests include the burning of Obama in effigy.
U.S. officials are very concerned about the response to the Florida Quran burning, as U.S. troops try to regain maintain security in the war-torn nation.
Obama did not specifically reference the incident involving pastor Terry Jones, but Petraeus did in a statement issued out of Jabul.
“In view of the events of recent days, we feel it is important on behalf of ISAF and NATO members in Afghanistan to reiterate our condemnation of any disrespect to the Holy Quran and the Muslim faith,” said Petraeus in a statement with NATO ambassador Mark Sedwill.
(Source: USA Today)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
25 Responses
First i’d like to say i support anyone who wants to burn a koran or any other “holy” book in the u.s.a we have the freedom to do just that, and it should not be condemned by the commander in chief who is supposed to uphold the constitution. If we were dealing with normal people i would have no problem with them taking revenge on the person who burned their holy book, if an Muslim burned a sefer torah i could see some Jews beating or killing the perps involved, But to make riots and kill random people in another country no less, because someone burned your holy book just proves to us what kind of sub human garbage we are dealing with
A sefer Torah was partially burned in New York in 1776 by the British occupiers. What is left of that sefer Torah is still at Shearith Israel in Manhattan. Jews in America joined with the rebels against British rule in an armed struggle that eventually resulted in a lot of civilian casualties.
to #2 what a brilliant comment. did the jews vent for the sake of venting or were the looking to be with someone who would tolerate judaism. muslims vent for the sake of venting with no goal other than vengeance get some seichel please
To commenter no. 3: If I correctly interpret your first sentence as facetiousness, then I think you have missed the rather sensible point of comment no. 2, which is that burning holy books does not persuade the believers that they should change their beliefs; rather, they prefer to take up arms against the burners and their allies, even at the risk of harm to themselves.
As for venting for the sake of venting: I have been in a smoke-filled room, and venting for the sake of venting is a great idea, but that does not make me a Muslim.
#4 The nazis burnt countless amounts of sifrei torah, I do not recall the Jews slaughtering random people from all over the world in response. Maybe I am ignorant of history, perhaps you can enlighten me?
Theman is nuts
“No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act,” Obama said.
YOU LIE.
Obama speaks like a true Muslim.
Charliehall and nfgo3 — Even if one were to reach the somewhat dubious conclusion that the reason Jews joined the “rebels” fighting the British was the burning of a sefer Torah, there is a big difference between fighting a war that results in civilian causalities and specifically murdering innocent civilians to protest the burning. If the Jews living in Britain at the time would have broken out in riots in England in protest of what happened across the ocean, or stormed the offices of some company with financial interests in the colonies and opened fire, it would be a more fair comparison.
Bibles are routinely burned in many Muslim countries in the world, even the more moderate ones. Jews and Xians around the world have never murdered Muslims in protest.
I personally believe this pastor is a nut and probably an attention seeking ego-maniac. I certainly see no possible gain from his actions. But that doesn’t change the fact that the reaction we are seeing gives us insight into the enemy that we are facing.
It also doesn’t change the fact that it is difficult to understand the quote from Obama. How can he say that “no religion tolerates . . .” when millions of Muslims throughout the world believe that their religion not just tolerates but condones the murder of “infidels”? What gives him the authority to decide what any particular religion does or doesn’t tolerate? Even if these actions are not unanimously accepted by all Muslims, there are definitely many Muslim religious leaders who ascribe to the theology of violent jihad. And if you want to really be “dan lkaf zhus” the religion of Islam, the best you can do is say these leaders don’t represent true Islam — fine, but they represent some religion, so Obama’s quote is still nonsensical. (Not to mention that in the scope of history it’s just plain ignorant.)
Obamination.
How man people out there firmly believe CharlieHall from Daily Kookville has a few aliases he uses to post here??
Charles or should we call you nfgo3, you have been exposed!!
To No. 5: Like you, I do not recall Jews’ reacting to Nazi burning of Jewish holy books by murdering innocent people, but that was not my point. My point – which is borne out by the Jews’ reaction to Nazi Torah-burning – is that burning anyone’s holy books, Jews or otherwise, does not change their minds about their holy books. And it was not really my point, it was commenter no. 2’s point.
To No. 11: I can say with certainty that I am not an alternate screen name for “charliehall.” The number of people who “firmly believe” that I am “charliehall” is probably equal to the number of people who believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim born outside the United States (assuming they give my identity a thought). I will admit that my birth certificate does not give my name as “nfgo3” or “charliehall”.
Of course we have the freedom the burn the Koran. I don’t think Obama is suggesting that it should become illegal. But just because the is freedom to do it, doesn’t mean it can’t be condemned. Any burning of a Holy book, be it Christian, Jewish, or Muslim should be legal and condemned.
#12 okay so maybe you should not compare the two, your qote “rather, they prefer to take up arms against the burners and their allies, even at the risk of harm to themselves.”
General Patraeus requested that Obama not allow the burning of the Quran, as it puts American soldiers’ lives in danger. So regardless of whether it is legal or not, it should have been prevented, and since he didn’t, he is either a spineless coward or a traitor- or both. What do you think?
No. 9: Your inclusion of me in your first paragraph makes no sense. I simply made the point that burning someone’s holy books makes him angry.
Your equation of Jews and “Xians” in your second paragraph is a nice sentiment but ignores a thousand years of conflict – often brutal – between Christians and Moslems, instigated from time to time by both sides.
What I find “difficult to understand” is your statement, in your second paragraph, that “Jews and Xians have never murdered … in protest.” I understand why you mentioned Jews, but why are you suggesting that in the last thousand years (or all of Christian history), Christians have never murdered anyone – Jew, Muslim, fellow Christian or otherwise – in protest. What were the Crusades? What was the Inquisition? And since when does a sensible Jew consider “Xians” his best friends forever? Now that’s difficult to understand.
As for your final paragraph, perhaps you would have less difficulty understanding President Obama’s statement if I draw your attention to the difference between religions and religionists. Religions are bodies of belief, usually including a belief in various forces that create the physical world and provide a moral framework for the humans in it. Religions are generally set forth in holy books and commentaries of wise men (rarely women) who have studied the holy books. Religionists are the human beings, all fallible, some evil, who follow one religion or another.
The statement of President Obama that gave you difficulty – “No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act” – can be understood as a statesman’s charitable characterization of most religions, i.e., the content of holy books, intended to calm a situation deliberately inflamed by a “Xian” religionist’s deliberate insult to the religion of Islam, and the unholy reaction of a handful of the Muslim religionists whose religion he insulted.
#15 our basic rights should be changed based on what suits the needs of fanatics in Afghanistan. While, I agree with Obama for condemning the burning, and I would also agree with Patraeus if he stated the same. However, his statement is dangerous.
In fact, I lost all respect for his previous similar statements, and for his support for the “surge” in Afghnistan. Congratulations, we have created a state that sentences ppl to death for leaving islam, is controlled by the corrupt Karzai brothers (actually it is only the third most corrupt country according to the Transparency International). All at the cost of thousands of lives on both sides, and hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars. As Bush said in Iraq “mission accomplished.” And btw this is an attack on both Bush and Obama, but the majority of the blame goes to Bush.
Commenter no. 17: Did you leave a three-letter word which begins with “n” and rhymes with “yacht” out of your first sentence? Or are you advocating a change in the amendment provisions of the US constitution to hand over the amendment power to the people of Afghanistan? (And did you mean all Afghans, or only the fanatic ones?)
#18 I have no idea what your first question is. I do not know why you are bringing in the US constitution. Yes let all the Aghans decide I do not care, it is not worth hundreds of billions of US dollars and thousands of lives to prop up the Karzai brothers. If you support this policy than you should have supported the war in Iraq.
I said that the people who conducted the massacre at the UN were fanatics and I stand by that strongly.
Commenter No. 19: My first question in my comment no. 17 is, in its simplest form: Did you intentionally or accidentally omit the word “not” from the first sentence of comment no. 17, and if so, was it intentional or accidental? If that first sentence is written as you intended it, then you have advocated conforming the US constitution, i.e., “our basic rights,” to suit the needs of fanatical Afghans. I don’t think that is what you intended, but perhaps I am being too charitable in my understanding of your comments.
Why did I bring in the US constitution? Because you used the phrase “our basic rights”. I construed “our” to be a reference to the American people, and from that it follows that a reference to “our basic rights” is a reference to the US constitution. For American citizens qua citizens, there are no more basic rights than the rights set forth in our constitution.
The president who started the war in Afghanistan – George Bush 43 – told us the purpose of that war was to disable Al Qaeda. The purpose is admirable, but the war has, to date, failed to fulfill that purpose. Given the cost of the war to date, and its failure to date, I now favor a termination of US participation in the Afghanistan war.
I do not recall (i) your reference to a massacre at the UN, or (ii) a massacre at the US.
You can respond with decency instead of always making sneering remarks.
It was rhetorical (although I do make mistakes because I do not spend time analyzing the grammar and spelling of my Yeshiva world comments). No point in bringing in the US constitution, the point is obvious.
Really? I thought it was Eisenhower who invaded Afghanistan, thanks for correcting me.
I also favor getting out of Afghanistan and put the large majority of the blame on Bush, so there is one point we agree on.
I never recall myself either referring to a massacre at the US.
Look at my first comment I was referring to the massacre at the UN.
No. 21: I apologize for my typo in the last sentence of my comment no. 20 – when I typed “US”, I meant “UN”.
Your first comment, as far as I can tell, is comment no. 5. You say nothing in that comment about a massacre at the UN. As far as I can tell, your reference to a massacre at the UN was in the last sentence of your comment 19, and that sentence makes no sense to me.
I now understand why so many of your comments make no sense to me: you revealed it in your parenthetical statement in the second paragraph of your comment 21, i.e., “I do not spend time analyzing the grammar and spelling of my Yeshiva world comments.” When, if ever, do you pay attention to your grammar and spelling, if not when you are writing? Or is commenting on YWN not a form of writing? And why would you not want to pay attention to your grammar? Are you content to post gibberish? And just for your information, the first word – a pronoun – of your second paragraph in comment 21 lacks an antecedent. If it had an antecedent (or, alternatively, if “it” had an antecedent), perhaps I could understand the point you are trying to make.
Well then you are foolish bc I was clearly referring to the UN in comment #5
You pride yourself as being such a smart enlightened person yet you never of the Indepent LOL! It is one of the biggest papers in the UK, and the world.
I am not a loser, I have a family, and a busy work schedule. I do not sit around for half an hour making sure every comma is in place. You obviously have no life so it is not an issue for you. I comment so people do not listen to idiots like you. Although, I am beginning to think it is not worth the time, since your views are so fanatic al qaida=fox news that everyone realizes your a psycho.
Then again you are just a sicko who compared Al Qaida to Fox news. So a news organization you do not agree with is like a group that massacres people (and Jews in particular across the world). If you are frum you owe a sincere apology to Daniel Perl, and the many Jews killed on 9/11 by Al Qaida across the world. Then again anyone who really believes that foxnews is Al Qaida; has a screw missing, and incapable of understand their actions.
No. 23: Where in your comment no. 5 is there a reference to the UN? As you suggest, I think I can enlighten you. The UN was founded following the end of World War II. Nazi burning of Sifrei Torah was conducted before the end of World War II.
In your comment 23, you have called me an idiot and a sicko and you question whether I am frum. (Hashem can figure that out, and my answer to that question does not matter to Hashem.) Your question about my religious observance is more appropriately directed at you, given your disregard of loshon hora. If writing coherently and correctly is such a challenge for you, something for which you say you do not have time, perhaps you should refrain from posting your thoughts altogether.
#23 it is obvious (to all buy you) I am comparing the attitude of the Jews towards to the Afghanis, I am very aware of when the UN was formed, that is not the issue.
I am coherent, you are the incoherent one that compares Al qaida to fox news, you owe an apology to every jew who has been targeted by al qaida. Perhaps you should stop writing instead of spreading your venom.