Chances are you’ve heard of the riots in Afghanistan, to which some have suggested or directly attributed causation by the burning of a Quran in Florida. The consequence of the riots is from CNN:
At least nine people were killed and 73 injured in Kandahar on Saturday, and 12 people died Friday — including seven U.N. employees — when angry demonstrators stormed a U.N. compound in Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan.
And chances are General David Petraeus is in favor of the First Amendment, right? After all, he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
From the WSJ (the “he” who is referenced below is Petraeus):
The Quran burning in Florida, he added, was "hateful, extremely disrespectful and enormously intolerant."
Petraeus was exercising his First Amendment right in condemning the Quran burning. However, the victims of the Afghan riots were not available to comment on the hateful, murderously disrespectful, and violently intolerant treatment they received.
The Law of Armed Conflict calls for proportionality and distinction, both of which appear to have been violated in the rioters’ response. Oh, the rioters aren’t combatants? Well, then they will fall under criminal law, right? But what happens if the law the rioters’ follow advocates for such a murderous response?
This will not end well. Or at all.