I never quite got the whole concept of burning books. It's not like more cannot be printed.

Why not take it upon yourself to fly there, burn the books in front of the people you wish to offend/make a statement to, place yourself in harm's way as opposed to creating a situation where the unnecessarily created anger is displaced and innocent people that didn't burn the books take the brunt of that aggression.

Simple terms... want to make a statement, carry yourself into the middle of that quagmire and let the people that you wish to make a statement against see your face so they can accurately tell you how they feel... or show you.

Hiding behind a camera, sending a message and no fear of consequence is a rather complacent, lazy and fearful way to make a statement. Being around like minded people, surrounded by what makes you comfortable, and having no fear of any repercussions... it gets real easy to make a statement. Even an idiot can do it.

Rally, go deep into the belly of the beast, let your faces be seen. Make your statement in front of the people that you despise... hell. I'm starting to understand why the civil rights movement was so effective and left a long-lasting feeling. They marched in the middle of "enemy territory", had dogs, angry mobs, police, extreme organizations all threaten them, in some cases kill them and they still kept going.

Book burning is the coward version of that. You can burn a book in your backyard. Nobody would know. But televise it, put it on YouTube... you've done nothing more than film your cowardice.

</soapbox>

I disagree than any book should be burned. Be it the Holy Qu'ran, Bible, or even Reader's Digest or National Enquirer... make better "statements" through better means. This will cause an uproar that makes General Petraeus' job that much harder and nothing good will come out of it... other than the self-fulfilling satisfaction that somebody got their ego-driven whim out of the way.

Meh.