<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>NetCogito &#187; International Relatiions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://netcogito.com/blog/category/political-science/topical-politics/international-relatiions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://netcogito.com/blog</link>
	<description>Towards a new Liberalism: rational, compassionate and progressive</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:33:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Quaran Target Practice</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2008/05/18/quaran-target-practice/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2008/05/18/quaran-target-practice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 18:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International Relatiions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights and Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topical Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2008/05/18/quaran-target-practice/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ have an opinion on the use of the Quran as a target for weapons practice by US personnel in Baghdad.

 

I was wondering what you other skeptics and/or atheists think.

 

I've found blogs that pretty much agree with the following, which is my opinion.

 

I view the Quaran as â€œjust another influential bookâ€. Why should I feel any differently about somebody shooting at it as opposed to, say, a Betty Crocker Cookbook? The difference as I see it, is that I highly doubt somebody just picked a random book - which happened to be the Quran - to shoot.

 

I suspect, that just like burning a flag is very often a political and philosophical statement, rather than a matter of practical expediency (i.e. keeping warm) or random happenstance, so is any non-random shooting or burning the Quran. I firmly support the right of free speech, even to the point where a citizen is entitled to burn a flag, fly a flag of choice, burn or shoot any book he may choose. On the other hand, I propose that when an official representative (e.g. a soldier, or other government agent) makes a political statement, it is sometimes difficult to separate the person from the role and thus may be easily misconstrued as an official statement. I cannot help but think it was intentionally inflamatory.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2008/05/18/quaran-target-practice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Problems with International Relations Theory</title>
		<link>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/11/07/problems-with-international-relations-theory/</link>
		<comments>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/11/07/problems-with-international-relations-theory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:37:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tscottt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International Relatiions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/11/07/problems-with-international-relations-theory/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s a brief summary of topics I believe need further development with regards to the way scholars and professionals think about and approach International Relations. 1) The notion of disposition and relevance in defining International Relations phenomena: Potential interactions between discreet entities (e.g. nation-states or other social collectives) is largely predicated upon relational disposition.Â  Here, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://netcogito.com/blog/2007/11/07/problems-with-international-relations-theory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

