Afghan Qur'an burning at Bagram sparks fresh protests

Bit of a poor example. The Americans did not burn the original and only Quran. They burnt a number of them that had been used by insurgents to communicate. Yes it was a fairly offensive gesture though not a deliberate one but that hardly warrants the response its gotten from parts of the Afghan population.

Hmm, okay. Well can you first quote the part where I suggested that the burning of the Quran warranted the response that it has gotten? I don't think I did, I instead wrote the opposite, making your comment somewhat pointless.

It is a fine example. In a material sense, they are both merely documents and both's destruction has and would elicit a deadly response from the populations that it is relevant to. Now I hold some sceptism that fundamentalist Muslims would draw all over a book that they hold to be really holy. At the same time I realise that if soldiers were going to desecrate the Quran, they could probably think of more disrespectful ways than merely burning it. Whatever happened, I dont know. What I was trying to do was to go some way to offering an explanation for the riots, not a justification.

Also you are quite right. Burning the Quran and burning the Consitution are not exactly the same. But it wouldn't be a comparison if I was comparing two things that were exactly the same thing. They are however similar. Both are revered by their populations. True that there is only one Constitution and many Qurans, but I fail to see how this makes it an invalid comparison in the context of the point I was making? Is it also invalid because one was originally written in Arabic and one in English despite this not bearing any relevance on my point also?

I thought you had owned me at first, then I considered it a little.

First of all, what I have put to you is merely a theoretical idea. You do not have to consider the emotional effect of the adverse conditions that come with such "help". Im sure that there were a fair few who supported the west when they marched into Iraq and Afghanistan. But perhaps that was before they heard stories of taxi drivers and other innocents being carted away and never seen again. Perhaps it was before a rocket targeted one possible insurgent in a highly populated area killed several nieces or nephews. Perhaps it was before you had your doors kicked down, dog shot and having been humiliated in front of your whole family by soldiers conducting a random search for IEDs based either on the hearsay of a disgruntled neighbour, or worse, just a hunch. This sort of stuff would pretty quickly put me off the "liberators". Its easy to say that you could grin and bear this stuff for the time being in the name of liberation, but thats before the relative lawlessness kicks in.

Second, how do we know all the inhabitants of a country disliked the past system. Just because we have been born into a society that has drummed into us our rights to a relative level of free speech and freedom to act hedonistically doesnt mean others share our values. Im sure someone born into what we view as a repressive society will conform strongly to those ideals to the point that he, like us, view anything different as wrong.

Third. My first post was made in a bit of a rush so lets instead imagine a third party's reaction. Lets imagine the reaction of the populace of America to the news that the occupying Afghani forces burnt historical documents such as the constitution and bill of rights in order to stop them inspiring any sort of discontent against occupying forces. These objects are nothing more than old bits of paper and the words on them are easily replicated, but even so, how do you suspect America would react?