Deadly Protests for Koran Burning Reach Kandahar

[cali]

By TAIMOOR SHAH and ROD NORDLAND
Published: April 2, 2011


KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Violent protests over the burning of a Koran in Florida flared for a second straight day, with young men rampaging through the streets of this southern capital, flying Taliban flags and wielding sticks.


Eight people were killed and 61 injured in the disturbances, according to Zalmai Ayoubi, spokesman for the provincial governor. Kandahar has long been the heartland of the Taliban insurgency but has been relatively quiet in recent months since a surge of additional American troops arrived here.

The protests here came a day after a mob overran the headquarters of the United Nations in Mazar-i-Sharif Friday, killing 12 persons, seven of them international staff. The mob gathered after three mullahs at Friday Prayer urged action in response to the Koran burning by a pastor, Terry Jones, in Florida on March 20.

<snip>

Mr. Ayoubi said the crowd attacked the Zarghona Ana High School for Girls, burning some classrooms and a school bus. The school is supported by the United States Agency for International Development. The Taliban have opposed girls’ education.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/asia/03afghanistan.html

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Oh, goody

Yet another opportunity to flaunt superiority of culture & intellect. Thank DOG for these events that justify our superciliousness!

[cali]

2. It's news.

Not pleasant news, but news.

[Hannah Bell]

4. it's psyops, cali.

[cali]

9. It may be, but it is not only that

it's a complex and tangled story. Are the Mullahs who urged action against the burning of the Koran by Jones, part of the psyops campaign, Hannah?

[ReggieVeggie]

10. psyops?

what are you talking about? seems fairly straightforward to me

[Cirque du So-What]

7. News, I can handle

What I CAN't handle are the endless rounds of recriminations & contemptuous editorializations of the news that inevitably follow in its wake. If the past is any indication of future occurrences, this 'news' will merely provide a springboard for cultural & spiritual chauvinism. Of course I am appalled by people's deaths due to religious fundamentalism gone amok, but I point my own bony finger in blame additionally at the bull-baiting fundamentalists who started this kerfuffle in the first place.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

6. In some ways you're right

It's hardly news that eight people were killed and 61 injured by the Taliban because some knucklehead burned a book 5 thousands miles away. Seriously who are we to judge Taliban culture or intellect when this is hardly news.

Now what would be news was if eight people were killed and 61 injured in Tampa because some knucklehead in Islamabad burned a bible.

[Cirque du So-What]

12. That's not outside the realm of possibility

Just depends on how 'devoted' to their cause they are. I can't change your mind if you choose to paint over 1 billion adherents - spanning multiple cultures - with the same broad brush, but I can challenge the veracity of your claims.

[LARED]

13. The Taliban has 1 billion adherents? Can you support that?

Or maybe you are too busy broadbrushing.

[Cirque du So-What]

14. Muslims - NOT the Taliban

I abhor the broadbrushing of entire religions and/or cultures based on the actions of fanatical subgroups, and it's the condemnation of Muslims worldwide against which I rail. I've seen it done lots of times, so I expect many repeat performances. I'm not saying you engage in that practice - only that I've seen it done & consider it chauvinistic if not outright bigoted.

If you feel compelled to ratchet up the rhetoric, by all means proceed...without me.

[LARED]

15. Maybe it's just me but ratcheting up the rhetoric

against an organization like the Taliban is necessary and good.I would hope you felt the same way.

[Cirque du So-What]

16. The Taliban, YES

For a third time, YES! Taliban BAD! Sheesh! If you somehow took away from what I've posted already that I - in any way whatsoever - provided apologia for the fucking Taliban, that seems like a personal problem to me. I thought the statement, 'Of course I am appalled by people's deaths due to religious fundamentalism gone amok' would be like a giant clue billboard of sorts, but I guess not...

[LARED]

19. What I took away from your posts to me was that my comments

were viewed by you as broad brushing Muslims.

I can't change your mind if you choose to paint over 1 billion adherents - spanning multiple cultures - with the same broad brush, but I can challenge the veracity of your claims.

Then

I'm not saying you engage in that practice - only that I've seen it done & consider it chauvinistic if not outright bigoted.

If you feel compelled to ratchet up the rhetoric, by all means proceed...without me.

[Cirque du So-What]

20. Well, it's time to clear up the muddy waters

I don't give a hoot in pluperfect hell what you took away; that was not my intention. As I alluded earlier, personal problems, etc. Otherwise, I'm walking away from this obvious attempt to draw me deeper into whatever fantasy world where I'm defending the fucking Taliban or indulging in j'accuse! or whatever the fuck ever. It's the first day of trout season in my corner of the world, and I got much better things to do than indulge online trolling.

[LARED]

21. Well enjoy your fishing

In the future try reading what people say instead of using their words to support your supercilious egalitarian sensibilities.

Rather comical.

[Obamanaut]

18. It does seem to be normal for the knuckleheads to kill people over

the burning of a book that was printed on paper using machines operated by people.

It would be nice to read that someone burned a bible in retaliation for a koran burning. *That* would be news.

[Bragi]

3. The score so far: 1 Burned Book = 20 dead

Seems just a tad disproportionate, no?

[FLPanhandle]

5. Stupid people

I'd like to think that humans will eventually get over their gullibility for religion.

[Hannah Bell]

8. i'd settle for them getting over their gullibility for media.

[boston bean]

17. yes, let's curb free speech of the press. that's a great idea!

Listen, a group of radical muslims beheaded UN workers because some radical christian nut job in America burned the Koran.

Jones had the constitutional right to burn the Koran, he did not kill anyone.

And if saying that causes your senses to be insulted, that is your own problem.

To be cowed by threats of violence or real violence by a bunch of religious nutjobs into giving up an ounce of free speech is not a choice I chose to make.

Or to worry about speaking the truth because you feel it shines a bad light on non radical or majority muslims is also your own problem.

Anyone here can see the difference. And all non radical and a majority of muslims know the difference too.

Time to stop tip toeing around that fact.

The savage behavior displayed by that mob needs to be highlighted and condemned by all.

The condemnation of free speech is all ass backwards.

[howard112211]

38. Both will happen at the same time:

When hell freezes over.

[joshcryer]

40. All someone has to do is show them the hundreds and hundreds of book burning videos...

...on YouTube. Either they will light themselves on fire insanely, or they will get over their archaic thought processes.

[sabrina 1]

43. + 1000

I'd like to know a lot more about these mobs running around claiming it is because of a book they are killing people. Do we know anything about who they are?

'The Taliban'?

I keep remembering Al Zarqawi, for some reason. And how Dan Rather, suspicious of the claims being made about him, went to his hometown and discovered he was a petty thief, with a fairly low IQ. The US built him up into a super leader of Al Queda with super skills to organize and conduct years of strategically planned attacks on 'the Iraqi people'. We 'killed' him several times, causing some of us to think it was OUR imagination at the time. Each time, after a short period of time, he was resurrected again, free to 'lead his Al Queda troops' one more time.

Finally it was admitted by a U.S. General that he was just a creation of the U.S. and was part of a psyops operation. That confirmed the suspicions of may of us who were slammed for being 'conspiracy theorists' by rightwingers at the time.

We still do not know if the last dead Al Zarqawi was actually the petty thief uncovered by Dan Rather in his home town. No one would say if THIS body had one leg or two. He was used by Dick Cheney as a reason for the war in Iraq. According to Dick, Al Zarqawi went to Iraq to have a leg removed. And that, according to Dick, proved that Al Queda was IN Iraq and so we had to go there too.

It's amazing the fairy tales we fall for.

I would like to know more about this 'mob' that is stirring up all this violence in Afghanistan.

[malaise]

11. That won't be happening anytime soon

It's the number one opiate - but we can hope.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arrowhead2k1]

23. Great idea genius except...

Islam isn't our enemy in Afghanistan. Most of our allies happen to be Muslim and this would serve to deeply insult and alienate them. No one more than the Taliban would appreciate that the most.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Gasp! They might start killing people!

Or they might become desensitized to blasphemy, like those from other religions. Religions go through this stage; blasphemy is the cure.

[Arrowhead2k1]

25. I'm sure the Taliban/extremists loves your idea.

In the mean time they'll be enjoying a recruitment boon because you want to engage in a deadly psych experiment.

Are you really so naive to think the Taliban/extremist leaders actually give a shit about the blashpemy itself? This is a political battle more than anything, and they use this stuff to rally the nutcases to KILL our allies. It's not a fucking game.

[ZombieHorde]

27. You are contradicting yourself. If Taliban minded people don't care about blasphemy,

then blasphemy won't recruit those who share the Taliban mindset.

[Arrowhead2k1]

29. You don't get it. The Taliban leadership and the chickenhawk extremist

who were rallying people in the streets to commit these murderous acts are the ones who benefit from the incitement in Florida for instance. They are the ones we are at war with, and they were able to claim lives because someone in Florida gave them a tool to use to help brutally fight foreigners (and our allies) in Afghanistan.

What did our side gain from this? Nothing. Just more bodies to burry.

[ZombieHorde]

30. That means the actual murders are religiously motivated.

If the murderers are murdering because of blasphemy, then desensitization is a cure. Members of religions more accustomed to ridicule, such as Christianity and Wicca, are significantly less likely to blow people up over an act of blasphemy.

[Arrowhead2k1]

32. An interesting theory I will admit in regards to desensitization.

I will give you that. But unfortunately this is real life and real people's lives are on the line in Afghanistan. We can't afford to sacrifice their lives for what is in essence a social experiment to desensitize extremists.

If you really want to do this, then draw up some cartoons and deliver them yourself in person.

[apocalypsehow]

33. Come with me in my magic time machine back to 1961:

"An interesting theory I will admit in regards to desegregation.

I will give you that. But unfortunately this is real life and real people's lives are on the line in Mississippi. We can't afford to sacrifice their lives for what is in essence a social experiment to desegregate the South.

If you really want to do this, then paint up some signs that say 'Segregation and Discrimination Must Go!' and deliver them yourself to a Klan meeting in person."

Same Shit, Different Decade.

[Arrowhead2k1]

34. That's not the same.

People did deliver that message to the Klan in person and made it law, and they enforced that law.

What we are talking about here are people on the otherside of the world drawing funny little cartoons while people who have no control over what you are laughing over are losing their lives in response. Different shit, new decade.

[apocalypsehow]

35. It's precisely the same. You are saying civil liberties should be curtailed because some assholes

somewhere are getting all upset about their free exercise.

It is precisely the same - all that's changed is the decade in which people are urging others not to "make trouble" by exercising their rights.

[Arrowhead2k1]

36. It's not to avoid making trouble. We are at WAR with these people.

Antagonizing the crazies over in Afghanistan and alienating our allies is costing our side LIVES. Just look at who benefits for the umpteenth time! The Taliban sent people home in body bags over this.

We didn't ridicule the Klan in to giving way to non-segregation either. We enforced the law. You need to actually think about the reality here and forget trying to draw parallels. Because your parallel is strategically flawed.

[apocalypsehow]

37. My parallel is spot-on, as your responses show. And you can quit repeating that mantra about

"alienating our allies" and "reality" - civil liberties don't take a back seat to either. And free speech is one of the most important civil liberties we have - for the umpteenth time!

[Arrowhead2k1]

39. You're one to talk about repeating mantras.

I've never talked about restricting free speech and liberty. Do not attempt to create this strawman you appear to be making.

I also have a constitutional right to denounce peoples actions and speech. This is not an American civil liberties issue. It's one citizen imploring that others realize the potential deadly consequences of their actions.

The pastor and anyone else can do as he wishes within the law. But he is a goddamn basterd for it. He is hurting this country's national security, and is culpable in the deaths of unrelated individuals.

[apocalypsehow]

42. You have spent this entire OP calling for curtailing of free speech - I welcome one & all seeing

this reply to check out "Arrowhead2k1's" posts for yourselves.

So, no go on that one - your own words prove otherwise, repeatedly.

Now you've reversed course, and apparently have decided you DO support free speech, after all. Great! Now quit roaming around DU urging other folks to consider "reality" and encourage the suppression of this asshat's civil liberties, as loathsome as that message is. Then you'll be set! :thumbsup:

[Arrowhead2k1]

47. Where did I call to curtail free speech as it is written in the constitution?!

I most certainly have not. You are creating a fallacy.

Free speech as per the constitution does NOT grant one the right to do or say whatever they want and be free from condemnation by his/her peers. Free speech does not mean I have to sit here and applaud you for it when you choose to excersise it. That's not what this is about at all.

[apocalypsehow]

49. You have spent this ENTIRE thread doing it - every single reply is essentially a call for censorship

because what the pastor has done is "alienate our allies" and so on. You've got to be kidding me - you do know your posts above are still visible, right? Right? :shrug:

[Arrowhead2k1]

51. Patently false. I have not called for censorship.

The fallacy continues...

[apocalypsehow]

54. Absolutely true - and repeatedly at that.

"The fallacy continues..."

If you mean "logical fallacy," you are mistaken. Wikipeida has an entire section on what constitutes "logical fallacies": I suggest you start there.

[Arrowhead2k1]

59. The fallacy is that I am calling for censorship.

I have made NO statement.

I'm glad that you are reading about fallacies though.

[apocalypsehow]

62. You are, and that has nothing to do with a logical fallacy. It has to do with your typed posts. n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

65. You are wrong. I am telling you I have made no call for censorship.

If I wanted to censor free speech as per the constition. I would have stated so.

[apocalypsehow]

79. You have already admitted to having done so, so this reply is non-responsive. n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

83. Where did I make such an admission?

I have not.

[apocalypsehow]

60. Another gem: "Good fucking job! Free speech lol..." n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

63. It's a fallacy if you come to the conclusion that I was calling for the

restriction of free speech from my statements. Again, YOU made that conclusion in your own mind. I did not, nor was it implied.

[apocalypsehow]

66. You just admitted below that you WERE calling for censorship in a post, albeit you said it was

just "rhetoric." Which is it? :shrug:

All too easy... :rofl:

[Arrowhead2k1]

68. Don't jump the gun.

We have two sub threads going on. Read post 67.

[apocalypsehow]

52. "We can't afford to sacrifice their lives for what is in essence a social experiment to desensitize

extremists"

[Arrowhead2k1]

56. Yes, that is a statement. An accurate one at that.

Still waiting for the specific call to curtail free speech as per the constitition which I never made.

[apocalypsehow]

58. It is a call for censorship. "We can't afford..." n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

61. I'm afraid that's not a call for censorship.

It's just rhetoric to stress that being irresponsible with speech is hurting us in turn. I made NO statement about how we should actually deal with such speech. You came to such a conclusion all on your own apparently.

[apocalypsehow]

64. "It's just rhetoric to stress" - Then you should clarify your "rhetoric." It READS like a call for

censorship, as even yourself admit!

So, now that you have admitted to calling for censorship, albeit only as "rhetoric," I assume you are going to modify your "rhetoric" in the future?

[Arrowhead2k1]

67. Again, you've misunderstood.

Saying we can't afford is rhetoric to say we that consequences are dire. There is NO call for censorship. I implore you to stop putting words in my mouth. I have already settled any doubt you may have. I have never, nor will I ever call for censorship to free speech.

[apocalypsehow]

73. Nope, I've understood you perfectly well. I implore you to stop urging curtailing of our civil

liberties because some extremist, murderous religious assholes somewhere get all upset about the free exercise of them.

[Arrowhead2k1]

76. I don't think you did understand me well at all.

I can't stop urging to curtail civil rights because I never did so in the first place.

[apocalypsehow]

82. Then stop doing it - calling for the censorship of free speech. As you have already admitted to

having done. Then we'll be in good shape! :thumbsup:

[Arrowhead2k1]

84. I have made no such admission.

You must prove otherwise.

[apocalypsehow]

99. It's been proven:

"We can't afford to sacrifice their lives for what is in essence a social experiment to desensitize

extremists"

A statement you tried to explain away by saying it was "rhetoric." Next?

[Arrowhead2k1]

100. Yes and the rhetoric had nothing to do with curtailing civil liberties.

You came to another incorrect conclusion regarding my statement.

[sabrina 1]

72. Are you aware that some speech is not protected speech and

that while someone may choose to engage in it, there are consequences? Do you consider that to be censorship?

Can you eg, call your neighbor on the phone and threaten to kill him? Of course you can, but there are consequences. Do you think there should not be when lives are threatened like that?

[apocalypsehow]

57. "If you really want to do this, then draw up some cartoons and deliver them yourself in person."

[apocalypsehow]

69. "In the mean time they'll be enjoying a recruitment boon because you want to engage in a deadly

psych experiment."

[Arrowhead2k1]

74. Another statement, with no call for censorship.

[apocalypsehow]

75. Another statement that lends a pattern to the whole: people should shut their mouths and curtail

their civil liberties because some religious extremists somewhere might get upset.

[Arrowhead2k1]

78. Afraid not. That is merely the unfortunate conclusion you came to all on your own.

[apocalypsehow]

85. Afraid so, and it's the "conclusion" that 99% of those conversant in English will agree with. n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

86. That is merely your assertion.

[apocalypsehow]

88. It's a factual one, that stands unrefuted. n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

91. The only fact is that I have never called for the curtailing of civil liberties.

And I have refuted your assertion numerous times within the past hour.

[apocalypsehow]

93. The fact is you have, as has been proven repeatedly. n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

95. Where did I call to curtail free speech as it is written in the constitution?!

I am telling you, I have not.

[apocalypsehow]

94. And by your OWN admission - that's what astonishes when I see this claim made. n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

96. I have made no such admission.

[apocalypsehow]

101. Yes, you have. Asked & answered. n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

103. Despite your repeated assertions,

I categorically have not asked to curtail civil liberties. Let the record be your judge.

[apocalypsehow]

107. *Yawn* Asked & Answered. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

104. Several, actually: "It was my way of saying go get yourself killed" n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

106. That is a false quote if you are attributing it to me.

[apocalypsehow]

109. No, it isn't:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=794903&mesg_id=798288

[apocalypsehow]

110. Man, busted again!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=794903&mesg_id=798288

[Arrowhead2k1]

111. I apoligize on that one, but it would appear that I mistyped.

As the rest of my argument suggests, I meant to say NOT.

[apocalypsehow]

112. Apology accepted. I was curious as to why you affirmed my position, then stated later you hadn't.

Typo explains it.

[Arrowhead2k1]

114. So you're not crazy?

Looks at thread. Maybe we both are. :rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

115. You're right: it's a beautiful day, I'm going to go enjoy it. Have a nice one. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

41. While we're on the topic, let me straighten you out about something else you need help with:

Up-thread, you stated:

"If you really want to do this, then draw up some cartoons and deliver them yourself in person"

This is a thinly-veiled way of saying "go over there and get yourself killed." It's just within the boundary of the rules, which is why you phrased it that way.

In my reply I simply showed how this language would have worked in 1961:

"If you really want to do this, then paint up some signs that say 'Segregation and Discrimination Must Go!' and deliver them yourself to a Klan meeting in person."

You have spent a series of replies attempting to conflate your own language, paraphrased by me, into some kind of history lesson on the KKK. That is not the point of the exercise, and you well know it: the point was to show how similar language to yours about "delivering" cartoons "in person" to the hands of a mob that would undoubtedly lynch the bearer of such cartoons parallels to 1961, when visiting a private Klan rally and attempting to hand out cards calling for an end to segregation and discrimination would probably have led to something similar.

But, then, you knew that - it's just more distraction away and obfuscation of my very cogent point and spot-on analogy.

[Arrowhead2k1]

44. It was my way of saying go get yourself killed. You have misunderstood the point.

I hope that anyone with half a brain would know that drawing up cartoons and delivering them to extremists is a VERY foolish thing to do. The point of my statement was merely for the reader to realize that and see how foolish it was to put OTHER people's lives at risk just to antagonize people from a DISTANCE.

Stop projecting. I can assure you that I'm not trying to create a distraction here.

[apocalypsehow]

46. I understood the point precisely, and your own reply here CONFIRMS it. "Projection," indeed...

:eyes:

[Arrowhead2k1]

48. Right back at ya...

:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

50. What a scintillating reply! Where'd you learn that one?

:rofl:

[Arrowhead2k1]

53. Because the reply I was replying to basically said nothing.

You say something with substance, I will gladly reply.

You make empty claims and rollie eyes, then right back at you.

[apocalypsehow]

55. Not a bit of it: you simply have run out of arguments to make since I've refuted them all, and are

now simply trying to get the "last word." Quite textbook.

[Arrowhead2k1]

71. You haven't refuted anything as I am merely defending what I said.

Again, you are clearly projecting.

[apocalypsehow]

77. Oh yes I have - that's why you continue to reply. Talk about "projection"....n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

81. I'm merely responding to the arguments you are raising against me personally.

[apocalypsehow]

87. They are not "personally," they are factually - calling for censorship and calling for the

curtailment of civil liberties is not something most DU'ers have much use for. As you're learning.

[Arrowhead2k1]

89. Again, I have never made such a call.

You have failed to prove your assertion repeatedly. Simply repeated the same assertion over and over again does not make it true.

[apocalypsehow]

90. Again, you have. If you expect to do so without it being pointed out, that's just too bad. n/t.

[Arrowhead2k1]

92. I have refuted your assertion.

It's simply too bad you seemingly refuse to accept it. However, I don't believe you are being geniune anymore.

[apocalypsehow]

97. You have not - to the contrary by your own admission you used "rhetoric" to call for the same.

"However, I don't believe you are being geniune anymore."

And, yet, here you are.....:eyes:

[Arrowhead2k1]

98. I have already explained how the use of rhetoric

did NOT mean that I was calling to curtail civil liberties. Simply that the consequences were dire.

And yes, here I am. :)

[apocalypsehow]

102. Which means you admitted to the very thing you now deny - and in the same thread.

[Arrowhead2k1]

105. I have made no such admission.

[apocalypsehow]

113. On edit: enough of this. I'm going to go have a nice day and wish you the same. n/t.

[seabeyond]

26. is there anything on the dude that did this? media going after him, to ask him if he feels shame?

what a fucker that man is.

not to mention the assholes killing over it.

[jberryhill]

45. Shame? He likely feels pride!

[seabeyond]

70. i dont really give a shit what he feels, but as a society, he should bear nothing but scorn. nt

[icnorth]

28. Pastor Terry Jones: 'I may put Mohammed on trial'

snip:
...The pastor had first threatened to burn a pile of Korans on last year's ninth anniversary of the Sept 11 terror atrocities.

But he backed down under intense pressure, including interventions from President Barack Obama, defence secretary Robert Gates and Gen David Petraeus, the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan who warned that such a stunt would endanger American lives...

...But he claimed that last month's Koran-burning was different as the Islamic holy book had first been put on trial and was then set alight as punishment after it was found guilty of "crimes against humanity".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8423603/Pastor-Terry-Jones-I-may-put-Mohammed-on-trial.html

[Fire Walk With Me]

31. I'll pay for his plane ticket myself if he'll do this in Afghanistan.

[FLPanhandle]

80. The protesters are showing themselves to be complete idiots

Attacking and killing over a fantasy.

[SoCalDem]

116. but they don't care what "other people" think about them..

True zealots don't care about their own safety, and will do whatever their leaders tell them to do.. They are on a mission-from-Allah (or whatever deity they worship), to do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal. The goals are different from group to group, but in any case, they do not care if they piss others off...they aim for that result..

Pastor Jones is the yin to their yang.. they are opposite sides of the same wretched coin.

He did what he did to instigate violence from them, and they responded with violence to innocent westerners to instigate retribution, so they can hold onto their mantle of self-righteous indignation.

The answer is simple:

Westerners need to GET OUT of Afghanistan ASAP


"We" will never "change" them. Only THEY can change themselves, and it's obvious that a majority of "them" do not want to change.

Ask any woman who married a guy who beat her up/gambled/was a drunk/ during courtship, if she was able to "change" him into her dream husband after they married..