Leave a comment below!
The tar and feathering of Newsweek is especially surreal considering that the Army chief of Staff was testifying days ago that it had nothing to do with the outbreak of violence.
Instead it simply became an opportunity to go after the 'msm' and act as if all the other abuse which has occured didn't matter.
What the Newsweek story provoked in the Arab world is the 'straw that broke the camel's back' and a delayed reaction to the Abu Grab atrocities. Moreover, as the saying goes, where there is smoke there is fire.
I think Newsweek's reversal on the story is due to direct pressure from the White House. This genie is not going back into the bottle.
According to the Afghanistan theatre commander, the newsweek story had little or nothing to do with the violence in Afghanistan.
When was the last time you heard Mz. Rice refer to the "Holy Bible," let alone express concern for its desecration? Further, if some Afghanis flushed a Bible down the toilet, America would yawn. Curious that the government of a country so inured to having its own religious symbols stripped from classrooms, town squares and public buildings would wax so solicitous for those of another, and often hostile, culture.
Curious indeed, William Luse. But it's not very relevant. America has broad shoulders and can cope with the religious 'injustices' done to it.
Oh, it's quite relevant, Mr. Airth. What concerns me here is not (1) Newsweek's mistake, or even (2) the easy blasphemy of our popular culture, but (3) our increasingly prominent prostration at the feet of Islam.
Mr. Airth tells us:
What the Newsweek story provoked in the Arab world is the 'straw that broke the camel's back' and a delayed reaction to the Abu Grab atrocities. ... This genie is not going back into the bottle.
Mr Airth, since we are at genies and camels;
The quickest way to have the Arab Genie back in the bottle would be for ms. Rice, instead of blabbering about Koran’s holiness, inform Arabs that America quits feeding the Arab Camel if the genie is not in the bottle within the next 10 minutes.
If we weren't reliant on saudi oil, I could see where that might be possible. However, as it stands now we have little leverage in the area against the wahhabi's who are streaming out of SA.
How about this leverage: "Cut off the Wahhabi lunatics or we'll take the oil fields for ourselves, you bunch of decadent little princely twits."
The subversion of our laws and society abetted and funded by the Saudis constitutes a hostile act against a sovereign state.
Moreover, as the saying goes, where there is smoke there is fire.
Perhaps this saying should be gene spliced with another in order to make it more accurately reflect this particular situation:
"Where there is smoke there are mirrors."
This is not the proverbial straw - this was simply a fabricated excuse to show their true colors.
Paul C-How about this leverage: "Cut off the Wahhabi lunatics or we'll take the oil fields for ourselves, you bunch of decadent little princely twits."
The subversion of our laws and society abetted and funded by the Saudis constitutes a hostile act against a sovereign state.-
I agree that they are perpetrating hostile actions. However, we do not currently have the capacity to wage such a campaign. While our military would obviously overmatch the SA's, they do have the exact same weapons and technology that we do, and the capacity for fanaticism is unrivaled. If we thought that the level of terrorism we face today is bad, it is nothing compared to what invading Mecca and Medina would bring.
The main problem in the SA is that the princes have insured that the only real opposition groups that have any credibility internally are those of fanatical wahhabists. Therefore, they are insulated from attempts to topple their regime, because as bad as they are their replacements would be worse.
The only way that we can possibly cut this knot would be to achieve energy independance. Until we do, we operate with a gun pointed at our head. Even if we were to try and take over the oil, there is little likelyhood that any of the oil would actually make it to the US. Just look at the situation in Iraq, where exports still haven't reached pre-war levels.
The Boston Globe had a political cartoon that showed a spokesperson explaining that what really went down the toilet in Guantanamo was the Constitution and International law. What the Newsweek article really revealed is that the Bush administration has sunk America so low in the world's esteem as to be in the toilet.
It's clear that the main rioting for which Newsweek is blamed happened for reasons unrelated to the Newsweek story. That the "rallies" were preplanned and that the leaders were simply using the Newsweek story as "another charge" against the US.
Still I don't really fault what Rice et al have done here. Totally isolated "Disrespect for the holy Koran is something the United States will never tolerate" does sound ridiculous but you're trying to make this sound like she's reacting to NEA funding for "piss Koran". She's saying it's not US government policy to have it's agents (US soldiers) desecrate the Koran, not that no American can disrespect it.
That seems reasonable.
Besides, since when is the criticism, disrespect, and mockery of religion that is such a notable feature of American life a good thing around here? I thought it was one of your major beefs with the USA.
Mr. Airth,
I thought that by now it has been established that the report was false and Newsweek retracted and apologized for it. Now, how does it send the Constitution and the “international law” down the toilet?
Besides, is there a “plumber article”, or “plumber amendment” in your Constitution that makes flushing objects, however holy, down the toilet illegal? Well, if so, I at least couldn’t find it.
Perhaps the “International law” has such an article. If so, please let us know immediately and I shall hurry to flush the “international law” down the toilet.
And please don’t worry about the US losing “world’s esteem”. Those who do have high regard of America won’t lose it because of rumours - especially false ones. And those who hate America never had the esteem to lose. So, except you, who gives damn?
Good points Stress. My complaint is the broadening attitude of dhimmitude in our society.
I don't want to see disrespect for Islam either, but I have an analogic sympathy with Muslims who are outraged by it; but I really don't want to see supplication before the menace of Islam.
Stress said:
"Besides, since when is the criticism, disrespect, and mockery of religion that is such a notable feature of American life a good thing around here" Good Point.
And there is so much to mock in Islam. Perhaps the Monty Python Revival (Spamalot) on Broadway, or Saturday Night Live, or the Comedy Channel will take on the challenge. Don't hold your breath.
For example, "Newsweek Lutefisk Story Sparks Fury Across Volatile Midwest"
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/
iowa...eek_lutefi.html
T. Hanski,
Perhaps you misunderstood me. The Newsweek article may have been false on specifics but it wasn't false on the true nature of things. It may have been false about the trashing of the Koran but symbolically it was dealing with the real trashing, that of the Constitution and International law. The trashing of the Constitution and International law is real and was perpetrated by the gestures and disregard of the Bush administration.
Yeah, I understand what you are saying, I just don't think this is a good example of it.
In some quarters Islam is certainly pandered to out of a combination of fear (of what extremists will do) and condesension, both of which can be justified, neither of which is a happy development.
as a tangent, i've read that it's common practice in special forces POW training (where mock camps are set up to train soldiers to deal w/ being a POW) to desecrate Bibles (something that real life torturors/interrogators do as well, supposedly it's a really effective breaking technique on "softened" prisoners) , and it would follow that training a Muslim soldier would involve using the Koran. But I'm betting that in this environment that would be a problem too.
Oh I see what you mean; a lie becomes truth if it serves the right purpose. Was comrade Lenin, or doctor Goebels your godfather, per chance?
Now I understand why, except myself, nobody bothered replying to your inanities. But I am very new to this site, so how could I know? Anyway, it won't happen again.
I am sure this is superflouos, but just to be safe; my previous letter is addressed to mr. Airs
Mr. Airth
I should have looked closer. There are actually people replying to you. Sorry.
I thought that by now it has been established that the report was false and Newsweek retracted and apologized for it.
No. That US soldiers in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran has been widely reported by the victims who have been released. One of the three hunger strikes that Guantanamo Bay prisoners held to protest their treatment specifically concerned the desecration of the copies of the Koran they had been issued with. That part of the report was factual, and I am surprised that Paul Cella is jumping in against those outraged by such an affront to religion.
The part of the Newsweek report that may or may not have been true is that there was an official enquiry into the incidents of Koran desecration: a single anonymous Pentagon source apparently said there was, and then backtracked and said there wasn't. Newsweek has therefore retracted this part of their story.
That there were anti-American riots in Afghanistan is a fact: that they occurred as a result of the Newsweek report appears to be considered unlikely by the US military in Afghanistan.
MR. Jesurgilsac responds with a resounding “No” to my remark "
I thought that by now it has been established that the report was false and Newsweek retracted and apologized for it."
No?
You mean “Newsweek” did NOT retract and apologized for the story?
I encourage you to contact Newsweek with that piece of information. Newsweek’s image has been soiled to a degree where publishing one more b.s. won’t make a difference.
That US soldiers in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran has been widely reported by the victims who have been released.
By the VICTIMS?
Not only I, but also Newsweek refers to these people either as “terrorists” or “suspected terrorists”. The only people who call them victims are those who call the victims of September 11th “little Eichmans”.
As for the veracity of reports so abundantly provided by your “victims”; they adhere to the same principle which makes Mr. Airth articulate the fascisoid jingle: “It may have been false about the trashing of the Koran but symbolically it was dealing with the real trashing”.
Moslems are much more direct with that. They call it “taqyiah” - a principle saying that it is perfectly moral to lie to Infidel as long as it is done for the good of Islam.
T. Hanski: Not only I, but also Newsweek refers to these people either as “terrorists” or “suspected terrorists”.
Oh, really? These "terrorists" or "suspected terrorists" are people who were released from Guantanamo Bay. That's why they are now free to speak out about the conditions of their imprisonment there. You didn't imagine this was testimony from the prisoners still there, did you? (Whether the prisoners still there are actually terrorists is unknown, but it's fair to say that they're "suspected terrorists", I suppose.)
These are innocent people who were unlawfully taken into custody, illegally held for years, and finally released when the Bush administration had to acknowledge that it had no evidence that any of them were terrorists, or even "unlawful combatants". "Victims" is the appropriate term.
The Newsweek article many not be accurate. But it further lays bear the tarnished image America has cultivated for itself throughout the Arab world since 9/11.
David Airth,
I am much more concerned about the tarnished image Islam has cultivated for itself by the 911 jihadi attacks, the Madrid train bombings, the Belsan attacks, the Bali bombings and on and on.
Jerusag.. You say the Korans that did or didn't get flushed down the toilet were issued by the US Military to the prisoners. Suggestion to the military: stop issuing Korans to prisoners.
Felix: You say the Korans that did or didn't get flushed down the toilet were issued by the US Military to the prisoners. Suggestion to the military: stop issuing Korans to prisoners.
Actually, I think issuing Korans to prisoners was a genuine right step. Unfortunately, it was clearly not followed by what was evidently required: an absolute prohibition to all personnel on desecrating the Koran as a means of torture or abuse. A prohibition backed by actual penalties.
I repeat: one of the things that genuinely surprises me is that Paul Cella, who has been outspoken in favor of respecting people's religion, is coming down on the side of those who disrespect and abuse other people's religious beliefs. He's making himself look like someone who is just another Christian bigot, rather than a person with principles about respecting religious faith.
I had a chance to see an interview with the Danish Moslem - a “victim” according to Jerusac - recently released from Guantanamo. He not only never denied, but actually boasted about fighting the infidel in Afghanistan and promised he will go back to the armed struggle. He didn’t specify whether to Afghanistan, Iraq, or perhaps do something locally – not necessarily as spectacular as Madrid train bombing, but he couldn’t promise anything. Strangely, he did not mention anything about desecration of Koran books. I admit, it could have escaped his attention.
It seems that the US military released the man not so much because he was innocent, but because it got all the information it needed from him and so he became quite useless.
Now if he was a victim of the US then Mohammed Atta was a victim of plain crash.
I also read the testimonies of other victims this time British and French Moslem victims rounded up in Afghanistan. The victims told fascinating stories of having gone to Afghanistan for the sole purpose of studying in the local madrassa and being rudely snatched from their classrooms by the American, (or was it Israeli?) troops. Quite a few encouraged their fellow Moslems to engage in armed struggle against the US. Again, I don’t recall any of them telling of Koran being flushed down the toilet. And on the basis of the overall impression their testimony had made on most of us had they embellished their tale with an incident of Koran toilet flushing I would have my doubts.
But I also had my doubt when OJ Simpson claimed to be a victim of racism. The fact that he was acquitted did not make him one. Likewise. the fact that some prisoners are being released from Guantanamo doesn’t make them innocent victims.
And if indeed, what is unavoidable in every war, some innocent people do get hurt here then they are not victims of the US aggression, but of the Islamic jihad against America.
Jesurgislac:
How have I come down "on the side of those who disrespect and abuse other people's religious beliefs"? The side I came down on in this blog entry is that of those who oppose special privileges for Islam, which special privileges seem to be the trajectory of nations that will not speak truthfully about Islam's baser elements.
I have no desire to see Islam disrespected, but in a society such as ours, where religion is regularly the target of sneering mockery, an exception for Islam on this count seems to bespeak of a distinct privilege.
Here is a letter to a newspaper I found bang on:
"There is little reason not to believe the Newsweek report, which alleged nothing worse that what we already know to be true (we have pictures to prove it). If liberals tend to believe that the government, especially the military, is capable of such atrocious behavior, perhaps it is because we are realists".
T Hanski: I had a chance to see an interview with the Danish Moslem - a “victim” according to Jerusac
Actually, (1) I don't recall ever naming or referring to a Muslim from Denmark. (2) Since you don't name this man, I cannot look up any details about him on the Internet, and (3) since you don't provide a link, I assume that this is the good old cite from "I think I remember reading somewhere". So, you've got wrong that I claim this man as "a victim", since to the best of my knowledge I've never named or referred to him, you can't remember his name, and you can't remember where you read about him. Try better next time.
Oh, it is next time:
I also read the testimonies of other victims this time British and French Moslem victims rounded up in Afghanistan. The victims told fascinating stories of having gone to Afghanistan for the sole purpose of studying in the local madrassa and being rudely snatched from their classrooms by the American, (or was it Israeli?) troops
But again, you don't seem to be able to remember any names or any links. Yet another example of the "I think I remember because I know I read it somewhere" argument. Try better next time.
Paul: How have I come down "on the side of those who disrespect and abuse other people's religious beliefs"?
You wrote: "Since when is the Koran exempt from the criticism, disrespect, and mockery of religion that is such a notable feature of American life?"
If you object to "criticism, disrespect, and mockery of religion" in principle, then you ought to object to it whether it is Islam or Christianity. That Condi Rice spoke out specifically against disrespect to Islam is not something you should object to: she was speaking out against a specific instance of US soldiers making a mockery of religion. To the best of my knowledge and belief, Christians do not feel the same reverence towards physical copies of the Bible that Muslims (especially from East Asia) feel towards physical copies of the Koran.
Further, these desecrations were committed in order to torment helpless prisoners - an act which I would have thought a Christian (Matthew 25:36) would especially abhor.
Were you to be a prisoner, helpless, alone, far from home, your only comfort a single copy of the Bible, I would indeed speak out against anyone who kicked, tore, or otherwise attempted to abuse you by abusing your comfort in imprisonment. (I would also, naturally, speak out against physical abuse of you as a prisoner - but psychological torment is also torment.)
Finally, I think you can understand Condi Rice's comment in the context of the international situtation. Many Islamic countries believe that the US is engaging in a worldwide war against Islam. The more people who believe this, the more difficult "winning the war of ideas" becomes. No one is claiming that the US is engaging in a worldwide war against Christianity.
”Ms. Rice is a brilliant individual,” the editorial reads; “but she — and a number of other individuals in the administration — are reacting to the Newsweek imbroglio in a way that comes close to pandering to the sensibilities of our Islamist enemies.” Indeed.
Also "pandering to the sensibilities of our Islamist allies" - or were you under the impression that the US had no Islamic countries as allies? In theory at least, Afghanistan is a member of the famous "coalition of the willing": Pakistan is likewise an ally: Turkey (also an Islamic country) is a NATO member: why shouldn't the US "pander" to their sensibilities?
Politeness and respect costs nothing. Why are you arguing that it should not be paid to Islam, as much as to any other religion?
Jerusac,
I don't recall ever naming or referring to a Muslim from Denmark. (2) Since you don't name this man, I cannot look up any details about him on the Internet, and (3) since you don't provide a link, I assume that this is the good old cite from "I think I remember reading somewhere". So, you've got wrong that I claim this man as "a victim", since to the best of my knowledge I've never named or referred to him, you can't remember his name, and you can't remember where you read about him. Try better next time.
Please find below from your own pen just a few days ago:
That US soldiers in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran has been widely reported by the victims who have been released.
Pardon me, but I can’t see from the above that the condition for a Moslem inmate of the Guantanamo to apply for the status of victim is that he must NOT be a Danish citizen.
What about French, Swedish and British Moslems. Need they apply?
BTW, I can’t see you anywhere providing the links to the “widely reported” stories showing names, interviews and all these details you insist others provide before you can take them seriously. So what about trying better yourself next time?
Anyway, here are few links you can check yourself.
www.document.no/weblogg/archives/006266.html
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/baggrun...theme=Tema-
blue
www.dksamling.dk/Debatindlaeg.htm - 386k
there are about one hundred more, but I think these will keep you busy for some time.
I hope you won’t ask me for links to a danish-english translator.
If you need links to English language articles about British victims I don’t think you need my assistance – do it yourself.
And once again, when you are at google, could you please pick up some links reliable enough listing names and interviews with the victims you approve?
Or perhaps the only thing qualifying ex inmates of Guantanamo for the status of victim is recalling desecration of the Koran? So again, please do better next time and let us know in advance - just to avoid more confusion.
T. Hanski: I'm sorry, I genuinely hadn't realized that I was communicating with someone for whom English is a second language (as I would guess from the links you provide, it is) or I would have cut you some slack. 
Your English is excellent, but you appeared to be having some difficulty in understanding me, which I now understand better.
So I won't be picky over the point that I did not refer to a Danish Muslim - which I didn't. As doubtless you yourself have noticed, it's much easier to get stories in English off Google, and in fact while I can struggle with French and make guesses with German, I don't read Danish at all, and therefore hadn't looked for news stories in Danish. Thanks for the links provided: while I don't read Danish, I now have the name, Slimane Abderahmane, which enables me to do my own research.
In the mean time, should you wish to look up people held in Guantanamo Bay, here's a comprehensive list.
Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane
"The 31-year-old went on TV to say his transfer deal with the US authorities not to take part in terrorist activity could be treated as "toilet paper". The Danish Intelligence Security Service later announced that Mr Abderrahmane had retracted his statement and would stay at home." cite
Frankly, T.Hanski, I find it hard to take Hadj Abderrahmane's comments very seriously as a statement of intent. He was arrested in Pakistan late in 2001, taken to Afghanistan, transferred to Guantanamo Bay in February 2002, and released in February 2004. In over two years of imprisonment and torture, the US found no evidence that he was, in fact, connected to al-Qaeda or ever attended an al-Qaeda training camp.
You may think it likely that an al-Qaeda-trained terrorist would give public interviews on Danish TV about his past and about his future intentions to go to Chechnya.
I think it much more likely that an innocent and embittered man would do so, especially on hearing that his country's government intended to involve itself still further with the US's criminal intent to invade Iraq by becoming one of the "coalition of the willing".
Now, next name?
Your English is excellent, but you appeared to be having some difficulty in understanding me, which I now understand better.
So I won't be picky over the point that I did not refer to a Danish Muslim - which I didn't
What supercilious rubbish.
I understood you perfectly - as perfectly as some Brits here to whom I forwarded the correspondence and who commented your last entry with an unanimous “what crap!”
You created a category you designated as victims based on their sojourn in Guantanamo prison. Period.
Nowhere did you specify of what nationality they need be in order to be included in that category. Of course not. You would have made a mockery of it if you had done so.
And now when you are caught in your own mess you are trying to wriggle out of it by attributing it to an misunderstanding due to my English! How unmanly and dishonest!
Crap indeed!
I find it hard to take Hadj Abderrahmane's comments very seriously as a statement of intent.
You seem to take nothing that doesn't suit you seriously. Including honesty.
T.Hanski: You seem to take nothing that doesn't suit you seriously.
I took your assertions about Hadj Abderrahmane sufficiently seriously to ask you for a cite. You provided one. I did some research and discovered the background. As I said, I find it impossible to take seriously the concept that a trained al-Quaeda terrorist will announce his background and his future intentions in a TV interview. Whatever Hadj Abderrahmane's motivations, I'm fairly convinced by the very interview you take as proof, that whatever he is, he's not al-Qaeda.
You may not believe me - indeed, given your unnecessary slurs about my honesty, you plainly don't want to believe me - but I had no recollection of any Danish Guantanamo bay prisoner, and had to work from scratch in finding out about Hadj Abderrahmane.
Nothing I have discovered about him since suggests that he's anything other than a nutter (whether he was one before he went into Guantanamo Bay is unknown, but twenty-six months in confinement and abuse might well cause anyone to crack up).
I make a point of not communicating with anyone who insults me: this conversation, and the one we were having about gay marriage, is now terminated until you apologize for insulting my honesty.
I make a point of not communicating with anyone who insults me: this conversation, and the one we were having about gay marriage, is now terminated until you apologize for insulting my honesty.
Suits me fine. I eventually tire of communicating with people who resort to “sophistry of a very low order”, to use Paul Cella’s words, to force their point in discussion. I think it dishonest.
And the conversation was not about “gay” marriage, but about sodomite “marriage”. There is nothing gay about sodomy. At least for the vast majority of men.
Okay, I really can't resist this. Sorry.
T.Hanski: And the conversation was not about “gay” marriage, but about sodomite “marriage”. There is nothing gay about sodomy. At least for the vast majority of men.
I agree: statistics show that most acts of sodomy are carried out within heterosexual relationships. Sodomite marriage - a marriage in which acts of sodomy may be carried out - is perfectly legal in the US.
Gay marriage is not legal in the US as a whole, though union of same-sex couples is legal in several states. I am delighted to find that you feel no opposition to any same-sex union in which acts of sodomy will not take place - as this means you at least support lesbian marriage, a relationship pretty much guaranteed to be free of sodomy, unlike straight marriage, which one must suppose you oppose as it cannot be guaranteed to be non-sodomite.
Now I promise I'll leave you alone.
Oops, I seem to have missed that one.
It is obvious that you are infinitely more conversant with matters of sodomy than I. Your erudition indicates more than normal (that pesky word keeps on popping up) acquaintance and I am genuinely impressed, but certainly not surprised.
Nevertheless, having witnessed before your both slipshod and disrespectful handling of data I decided to consult the Merriam Webster Dictionary which yielded following information:
SODOMY
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom;
from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
It is in no way to disparage your undoubtedly profound knowledge of the matter, but it seems that the first definition supports my, admittedly merely theoretical, understanding of it.
Also, I have impression that virtually everyone, regardless of his sexual inclination, understands exactly what is meant by sodomite marriage. Including you.
I admit though that some would very much prefer the “gay marriage” designation, and it is not hard to guess why. If they could they would rename AIDS to CHEERS.
In the West Christianity is a part of life. It is so small a part of life that it is relegated to a private concern. Islam is life itself to muslims.
Commenting by HaloScan
