This Economist blog post rightly says, of Terry Jones' Qur'an burning and the subsequent murders by Afghan mobs, that, "
It's imprudent to issue official statements that suggest otherwise—that suggest responsibility rests with those who try to incite and not with those who choose to be incited." This is its criticism of
General David Petraeus and Mark Sedwill, NATO's senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, [who] issued a joint statement condemning the Florida zealot's zealotry and offering "condolences to the families of all those injured and killed in violence which occurred in the wake of the burning of the Holy Qur'an", omitting to note the agency and responsibility of the zealots actually responsible for the deadly mob violence, almost as if zealots in Florida are expected to control themselves while zealots in Afghanistan are not.
As far as I can see, this is the entire statement. There is no false blaming of the victims here, no suggestion that the mobs are not responsible for what they have done. It strikes me as very misleading to talk about what the statement almost suggests by what it omits to note.
Nor does the Economist explain why it is "imprudent" to issue such statements. Is it because the general understanding of responsibility will be nudged closer to consequentialism as a result? That seems unlikely. I suspect the objection is not so much to any imprudence as it is to the unfairness of singling out one bigot who has insulted about 1.5 billion people when bigoted mobs have murdered 24 people in a related set of incidents. There is a kind of unfairness about this. Murder is much worse than insulting. But it is the job of diplomats to be prudent, and any intelligent person reading the statement will realize that prudence is the name of the game here.