home

Gen. Petraeus Compares Extreme Right To Taliban

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:11:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Oliver Willis:

No doubt the accomodationist left will clutch their pearls and the righties will reach for their fainting couches, but Petraeus is spot on.

Gen. David H. Petraeus on Tuesday denounced plans by a Florida church to burn copies of the Koran this weekend, saying the demonstration could ‘endanger troops’ and damage the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. ‘It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems,’ Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, said in a statement.

(Emphasis mine.) Now what, weenie liberals? FTR, I do not think Petraeus should be commenting on this in any way. I am not offended by his comparison, but I think the military should not be making comments on these types of events. Stick to discussing military policy issues (I realize that he see this as a military policy issue, but it is too close to discussing what is acceptable speech for me.)

Speaking for me only

< "Demand Is The Bottom Line" | The Extreme Right's Theocratic Agenda >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gen. Petraeus Compares Extreme Right To Taliban | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    i think the gen. should stick (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    to his job, and not be making public statements at all, except where they specifically relate to the safety of his people on the ground. this event, while stupid, isn't going to put them in any more harm's way then they already are.

    it won't make the bullets fly any straighter, or the IED's any deadlier. those who hate us now aren't going to hate us any more. he should address his concerns to his superiors, not the public. that isn't, and never has been, his job.

    the "quoran burning" was nothing more than a publicity stunt, by some until now unknown preacher. he got what he wanted, from the stupid publicity in the media.

    I don't think Petraeus ... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:27:40 PM EST
    ... is comparing the extreme right to the Taliban.

    Gen. David H. Petraeus on Tuesday denounced plans by a Florida church to burn copies of the Koran this weekend, saying the demonstration could `endanger troops' and damage the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. `It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems.

    I read this as merely stating the obvious - the book burning is the kind of thing the Taliban will use to foment hatred and violence against the US.  

    Whether he should be publicly commenting about this is a whole, other issue, but I don't think he's comparing the wingers with the Taliban.

    Is that a positive review (none / 0) (#1)
    by robotalk on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    of Markos' book?

    asdf Petraeus obviously has political ambitions.  But he needs to change his name to something easier to spell.  Way too many vowels there (4/9 letters).

    This is not about political ambitions (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:34:03 AM EST
    This is about our soldiers being in constant up close contact with Afghans every single day 24/7 and our having a 50/50 shot at actually getting any place in Afghanistan at this time.  We have been at this 50/50 chance for months now....we were there when McChrystal got the boot. I continue to believe that if we can hold our spot and continue to build trust we will have the odds in favor of Talibanless Afghanistan soon.  I respect freedom of speech though as well and these people have the right to burn the Quran, but others also have the right to tell them what the Taliban will do with their publicized actions at this time.

    Parent
    The Taliban (none / 0) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    is going to shoot and kill our soldiers regardless of whether these nutballs burn the Quran. They've been doing it long before the book burning was announced(ever since we toppled them from power in Afghanistan).

    While I respect that Petraeus may be hoping that we can appeal to the more moderate factions of Islam, I think he needs to respect the 1st amendment rights he is sworn to uphold and defend.

    Parent

    1st amendment (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    requires you to legally allow freedom of speech.  It doesn't require you to sit down and shut up when people are doing/saying something you disagree with.

    The Taliban is waging a pr war as well.  They are not the only people who matter in Afghanistan.

    Parent

    Than say I disagree (none / 0) (#10)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    and don't use a war zone as justification for that disagreement. Our troops are going to be in danger regardless of whether or not some nutball with 30 followers burns a Quran. The idea that if this guy doesn't burn the Quran the Muslims in Afghanistan aren't hearing about the uproar over the Muslim community center or the mosque burnings and thinking that we are intolerant of their religious beliefs is absurd.

    Parent
    It isn't specifically about the (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    Taliban shooting us, but about Afghans outside of the Taliban deciding that the Taliban protects them and their right better than any other form of self governance that they may have to fight the Taliban for.  In fact, if we are going to burn Qurans......taking any aid or assistance from us is tainted.....we are evil and secretly desire to remove their faith from them.

    Come on, this isn't hard to understand.  This about what squeaky terms "bedwetters" but every human being risks and is prone to being a "bedwetter" over certain topics and issues and specific possibilities that they fear.  We are not a Muslim nation or really a Muslim military, but we are working hard to build knowledge of the Muslim faith and respect that within the ranks because that is way build trust that we need and knowledge that we need.

    Parent

    Soldiers fight to (none / 0) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    protect people's first amendment rights in THIS country. The idea we should impede those rights to make their jobs a bit easier over there seems to be the same slope we headed down on National Security and people's fourth amendment rights. Frankly, I'm not willing to cede my rights so that another country can feel all warm and fuzzy about us.

    Parent
    Nobody is impeding them (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    First amendment rights in THIS country means that I can tell them to their faces what they place at risk by their actions.  And I will do so and I never asked you to cede any right.

    Parent
    People never understand this (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:27:30 PM EST


    Parent
    I understand it just fine (none / 0) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:32:40 PM EST
    I also understand the UCMJ is very specific about speaking about political matters while in uniform. I did wear the uniform for over a decade.

    Parent
    I think he should not have said it (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:41:12 PM EST
    I think it is a big stretch to say this violates the prohibition on speaking of political matters.

    Parent
    Not if (none / 0) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    you are specifically targetting the right side of the aisle as suggested. That's specifically POLITICAL.

    It's one thing for Petraeus to say it's his personal opinion and another to put on uniform and suggest you are speaking for the troops in the field.

    Parent

    He's concerned about the safety (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:59:11 PM EST
    of his men and the lessening of hostilities vis a vis what seems to help and what doesn't -- which Im going to assume he's had a little more intimate experience with than the posters here..

     

    Parent

    Assume away (none / 0) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    You do realize that this is the same guy accused by the left side of the aisle as "cooking the books" on Iraq right?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org_ad_controversy

    I'm sure though that he couldn't or wouldn't possibly do anything like that on Afghanistan though. No-sirree. He's a patriot.

    The cognitive dissonance that emanates from BOTH sides of the aisle when it comes to uniform related manners is positively painful.

    Parent

    first (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    its sadly pathetic that either "side of the aisle" would be targeted with such a statement.  second, isnt it his job to speak up when he thinks the troops are being put at greater danger?


    Parent
    Greater danger? (none / 0) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    You people are killing me. They are in a freakin' war zone. I know why don't we carpet bomb. After all, dead people aren't a danger to our troops. i mean if the logic is a kinder and gentler war for OUR soldiers then dead people pose even less of a risk to them. Let's relax the rules of engagement let men in copters treat Afghanis like they're part of a video game. Do you see the problem yet?

    The rights definition of danger might stifling a discussion on Iraq. Sadly, the left doesn't appear any better when it comes to wishing to stifle a discussion on religious tolerance.

    Parent

    once more (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    Already, the planned Quran burning has incited large protests in Afghanistan. "Several hundred Afghans rallied outside a Kabul mosque, burning American flags  and an effigy of Dove World's pastor and chanting `death to America.' Members of the crowd briefly pelted a passing U.S. military convoy with stones, but were ordered to stop by rally organizers."

    On Saturday, 3,000 Muslims marched through Indonesia's capital and five other cities to protest in front of the U.S. embassy, carrying signs saying, "Jihad to protect Koran" and "You burn Qu'ran you burn in hell."

    what part of this do you not understand?


    Parent

    They don't understand (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    that the real world doesn't always cooperate in conforming their either/or, perfect/god awful world..

    There's either a war and occupation, in which everything goes, or all the troops have to start coming home tomorrow..we won't vote, unless we can have a candidate who stands uncompromisingly firm on every progressive issue..

    Parent

    uh (none / 0) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    the statement I made was in reference to at least 2 videos I have seen referenced on the web where soldiers cavalierly shot up civilians.

    Perhaps it's YOU living in a fairytale world.

    Parent

    I'm not the one who (1.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    gets their knickers all in a twist anytime those ideal fairy tale princesses/candidates Hillary and Sarah are being picked on..

    Look it's a war zone - which we all wish didn't exist, but it does..Horrendous things occur daily. Petraeus finally rebukes some knuckle-dragging Muslim-baiters and all you can do is piss and moan about it. Im guessing, because Petraeus, like Obama, can never do anything good, once he's made that avenging angel hit list..

    Parent

    violence is an everyday (none / 0) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    occurance over there.Has been for awhile.  It's cited as a reason why we're actually there to begin with. The bozo burning a Quran has little to do with it.

    Parent
    I'm afraid I'm going (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:30:18 PM EST
    to have to go with Petreaus's assessment of what works and what doesn't over yours, in this one particular area. With all due respect.

    Parent
    you're welcome to (none / 0) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    Of course, when the Presidency changes hands and you hear him speak I hope you continue to hold him to that same regard.

    I'm sure he'll be thrilled to know that whole Betray-us thing is behind him and now no one from either side of the aisle thinks he's doing anything other than protecting troops(even if it does mean things like a surge)

    Parent

    actually (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    it seems to me you are completely missing the point with the "kinder gentler" stuff.
    we have a very bad image problem in that part of the world.  this will make it worse.  we can not win this war with arms or bombs.  we have to convince these people that we, as a country, do not hate them for their religion.  this will not do that.


    Parent
    You indeed may (none / 0) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:30:58 PM EST
    however a person in uniform does not belong providing commentary. His remark was counterproductive. Particularly since the people in Afghanistan could not possibly have missed the community mosque extravaganza.

    Seems kinda like closing the barn door after the horse already left the barn to me.

    Heh, he'd make a great pol acting all retroactively and everything.


    Parent

    counterproductive? (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:39:19 PM EST
    the only people the Right pays more heed to than televangelists in two thousand dollar suits is a man in uniform with power..

    Patraeus' words are a fine, sane, counter weight (for once), to a decade of unhinged, fanatical scaremongering and bigotry-motivated behavior on the part of the End Timers and neocons..

     

    Parent

    So you're (none / 0) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:41 PM EST
    okay with using the uniform to get people to adhere to certain behavior? That's kinda scary. I really don't want to live in a country controlled by it's military leaders.

    Parent
    Hell yes.. (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    are you just catching onto the fact that there are (unfortunately) a lot of lost souls in this country, who seem to need to be told what to do - or, if you prefer, 'led'? Hence, a hundred thousand at a Glenn Beck rally; the never-abating tv evangelist biz..etc

    Would that we had a nation of critical-independent thinking, non-impulse-buyers here, but we don't, I regret to say.

    Also, we can always use more good adult education teachers..

    Parent

    So who gets to decide (none / 0) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:17:31 PM EST
    which of the people in this country are lost souls that need to be led and handled? When the GOP is in charge are you looking forward to propaganda when it's your turn to be 'handled"?

    Do you also ascribe this philosophy to health care debate?  Telecoms? War? If so why shouldn't representation ignore the will of the people as "lost souls needing to be led?"

    It's a slippery slope. When Bush manipulated data and people he was wrong. Obama is just as wrong if he indeed is hiding behind Petraeus and his uniform.

    Parent

    I'm talking about whats (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:42:10 PM EST
    already occurring, not what should or shouldn't be the case..

    This isn't an argument "for" people being led or propagandized to, or for a "philosophy". It's already going on all the time. Take a look at whats going on out there in the real world. You think the Roves and Rushes and Becks will just shut up if the Petreaus' do?

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    the plan is for both sides to flood us with propaganda. Great. No wonder we're going down the tubes.

    Parent
    We aren't the ones to told them (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:37:02 PM EST
    to worship military uniforms, they do that all by themselves.  I'm just laughing at the irony of it.

    Parent
    Hope you feel the same way (none / 0) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    when the next GOP leader trots out a troop member to say that discussion on a war in Iran would be putting the troops in danger.

    When George Bush used US troops to stifle discussion on Iraq it was reprehensible. It's equally reprehensible to see a military uniform being utilized to stifle debate on religious tolerance in this country.

    Parent

    Hasn't that happened yet (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    discussing what different policies pertaining to Iran do to troop safety?  Pretty sure it has.

    Parent
    Not that I'm aware (none / 0) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:36:50 PM EST
    feel free to link up a discussion directly relating to the safety of the troops on Iran though.

    I know that the idea of the troops being harmed in Iraq was such a great way to stifle discussion on Iraq. I can't wait to see it being reutilized over and over.

    It's amazing to me how a guy in uniform while under Bush is a manipulator and is Betray-us, betraying the troops. Now though, he's all of a sudden concerned with the troops well being and is a patriot.

    Parent

    Jesus.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    we've got a hundred unhinged wingnuts, end timers, Tea Baggers and neocons stirring the bigoted, warmongering pot every day in this country on talk radio, Fos and the WSJ op-ed page, and the one time a General publicly says something intelligent, he should just shut up..It's an ill advised, bad idea..lol

    I'm speechless. Really.

    Parent

    He's entitled to (none / 0) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    call them idiots. He shouldn't be wearing a uniform when he does so though and he should make it clear he's speaking on his own behalf- not on behalf of the troops in the field.

    Parent
    the difference would be (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    that one is idiotic and one is not.

    Parent
    He is a Republican in uniform (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    And you are right, if anyone can rein in the lockstep Wingers it is him :)  He has the pedigree to do it to them :)

    And if they don't rein in, they will then have made themselves even more fringe than they are because they defied a Republican General who is currently at war.  It is funny as heck in a way.

    By David Petraeus saying something about it too he has done what needed to be done in that he is the face of the United States in Afghanistan.  If President Obama can't say something about it to them it is good that he could from that perspective.

    Parent

    I think given the current Islamophobe (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    climate, the upcoming midterms, and the precariousness of Afghanistan right now....this was probably a command decision.  You may have your opinion on whether or not he should provide such commentary, but he has only broken rules if his CIC says his comments were inappropriate.  And something tells me his CIC was in on whether or not David Petraeus would make such comments.

    Parent
    I really thought Greenwald would (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    be all over this today.  But he isn't-yet.

    Parent
    "warm and fuzzy.." (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    I can only imagine what this already-degenerating-as-it-is country would be like if we had had to endure what the Afghans have in the last thirty years..

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#18)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    and I'm sure that what really persuade them that we're on their side after decimating their poppy fields for decades and ignoring their plight for years is stopping some guy from burning a Quran.

    Parent
    No one said anything (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    about stopping anyone. This is about helping to reverse, to some extent, the momentum of the fear and hatred that goes along with war, by making the Afghans aware that we're not all a nation of Terry Joneses and George Bushes.

    I hope the General speaks out intelligently more often.

    Parent

    Well he is a General (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    There are mental limits to their intelligent speaking out :)  I think he has hit a quota for awhile :)

    Parent
    You aren't reversing fear and hatred (none / 0) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    by attempting to intimidate a group into submission by  proxy. You do realize this right?

    You're just bottling it up. Not the route I'd go with.

    Parent

    They don't fear uniforms (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:01:24 PM EST
    They worship them and preach it and teach it.  They can stop doing that anytime they want to, nobody is forcing them.

    Parent
    Change his name to something easier to spell? (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    How about Blagojevich?

    Parent
    Our position in Afghanistan (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    is 50/50 and precarious at this time.  And you know that the military strategy being used is COIN, it isn't bang bang shoot em up....it is about mutual respect and building trust.  When these crazies burn Qurans they jeopardize the trust Afghans have in our troops.  They have been a theocracy for too long to understand a freedom of speech democracy, and the Taliban engages us constantly in media and perception wars.  What he is saying may not be appropriate for his current position but it is also true.  It would be better if we had a nonmilitary voice pointing it out to them, but everyone else who would dare say anything to them will only incite a riot similar to what has happened with the ground zero mosque.

    Remember how the wingnuts went (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:41:40 AM EST
    well, nuts when Newsweek reported on US troops desecrating Korans issued to captives at Gitmo.  Newsweek was excoriated for reporting which would inflame the so-called "Arab street" and put US troops in danger.  You remember that, don't you?

    And, you'll also recall that there were large, widespread riots explicitly aimed at US interests in countries with large Muslim populations in he wake of that Newsweek article.

    So, why would the wingnuts be doing something which would almost certainly be guaranteed to be worse - a public display of burning the Koran - than mere print reports of that happening in a place far from cameras?

    How long do you think it will be until video of these wingnuts burning the Koran hits YouTube?

    What better way to guarantee perpetual war than to continually jab a pointed stick in the eyes of the people you want perpetual war with?

    The point is, this is the evangelical Right doing that which benefits the interests of the Republican Party, the party of perpetual war.

    Me?  I'd love to see some guy (preferably a, say, Catholic or Episcopalian) show up across the street from this wingnut church, wearing a beard and Arab-style robes, and set alight a book titled "Holy Bible" (doesn't even have to be a real one) and let the video cameras roll to see these American Talibans in action.

    He Is On Markos' Payroll (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:47:46 AM EST


    General Petraeus is right, of course. (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    But, he is not the one to say so.  How about President Obama saying so, if, indeed, the troops are placed in jeopardy?  Not that Bush/Cheney should be anyone's political model,  but we know that if a lone anti-war protestor held a placard on  the steps of a courthouse in Cincinnati they would express outrage at the risks to national security.

    wait (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    you dont seriously think Obama is going to go after this guy for his little bonfire do you?

    not only does he have his own image problems in this area I am not sure its his job either.

    I actually think its our job.  as citizens.
    not sure who elses job it is.


    Parent

    Wasn't there something about Moveon.org... (none / 0) (#56)
    by pcpablo on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 04:33:56 PM EST
    a few years ago?
    Oh yeah.....

    even a stopped (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    clock is right twice a day.  no reason to deny that.


    Parent
    Right.. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    this isn't the Sean Hannity program: where absolutely EVERYTHING the designated demonized opposition says is always false and everything Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove say is always true, and everyone on our side MUST be on the same page at all times..

    The thread above should be ample proof of that.

    Parent

    The Commander in Chief (none / 0) (#59)
    by weltec2 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    should be saying that, not Gen. Petraeus. But then perhaps they thought that if Gen. Petraeus spoke out, it would give it a greater sense of urgency.

    Gen. Petraeus Compares Extreme Right To Taliban | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment