I would actually like to be concerned about the flushing of a Koran upsetting and outraging Islam. What makes it difficult is that everything in my life upsets and outrages Islam. That fact that I live, breathe, think they are emotionally stunted children, eat bacon and pork chops, have Jewish sympathies, have Zionist sympathies, and believe that my Judeo/Christian-based culture has every right to exist without threat pisses them off and sends them into waves of wailing, beheading and self-flagelation.
In other words, flush away.
I've been sitting here thinking about this for a little bit. I had a knee jerk thought, and then considered it again. Would I? Damm straight. What it comes down to is that the Muslims tend to have no regard or respect for other religions. While it might be nice to take the high road, screw 'em. They have no problem what-so-ever in desecrating Bibles and icons of other religions, nor killing people simply because they do not practice their religion. Heck, they kill people of other Islamic sects. Why should I respect their religious symbols if they will never recipricate?
Yes I would. But, flushing well that my friend is another story. All Bullshit Jess Jokes aside, my answer is Yes. I would. I am not saying that I would not feel remorse or perhaps at a later date repercussions from my actions, but to save a life American or any nationality to me seeing a book hit the sewers his well worth it.
DC,
My question to you is. Would you flush a bible down the toilet to save an American's life? In reality this my friend is one of those two way streets that we can not view as a one way... Let's face it when these actions were taken they were taken in a hostile environment. Not unlike driving in Dallas. I challenge my right leaning friends to answer my wuestion. Would you flush a bible to save an American's life?
Yes I would but I would wipe my arse with it first and then hock a goober into it for good measure.
Flush away folks. It's just paper, right?
Patty-Jo makes a great point. These are replaceable symbols. Which is more important: the life or that symbol that can easily be replaced? I say the life.
It depends. Whose life would hypothetically be at stake?
As far as the Koran goes, Nickie G. said it all...as far as the Bible goes, speaking as a pastor, I can't hurt the Bible, as the Bible is God's Word and cannot be affected by anything I do to any particular copy or translation...the only affect is on ME, depending on the attitude with which I destroy a Bible...so if this was supposed to be a real toughie, Jess, sooorrry--I would flush, burn, bomb, rip, or shred a Bible if it meant saving a human life...even Bill Clinton's, although that might involve a coin flip...
At the risk of sounding as though I'm on the outside of popular opinion, which ideologically I'm probably not, I don't think I would flush it. There are other methods of gaining needed information; given the treatment that Christians receive in Muslim countries, including the destruction of the Holy Bible and violent attacks during church services, why lower ourselves to their level -- which is approximately 15 klicks lower than whale poop.
A good discussion by all ... Let me interject a couple of things here.
First, the hypothetical assumes that you know that flushing the Koran will do the trick. I understand what you're saying Mustang, and I share the bulk of your sentiments, but assume with me that this tactic will work and you don't have a back-up plan.
So ... you can save a life by destroying a Koran. What do you do?
Next ... interesting question by Jess. No surprise there. Maybe I will incorporate my thoughts on this in my answer.
I just got home. It is 1:00 am. I just read your comment at my site and just now read your post. I plan a thoughtful and respecctful response (it is a difficult question) but cannot do so right now.
I have not read the previous comments yet. I'll get to them later, too.
Nutshell, knee-jerk response? "American's life" (one, I assume) vs. "a Koran".
The way you framed this question belies a certain bias, yes?
No? How 'bout this: If flushing a Bible saved one Muslim, would anyone hear it?
BTW, Saddam pics. Um, ha.
Funny how? Really. Old irrelevant guy in underwear. What a riot.
I know where are going with this, but as far as I'm concerned . . . barring any other information . . . it is a non-issue.
Saddam. In underwear. Oo.
Probably does violate Geneva Conventions, but if it was not done "officially" (and I'm convinced it was not), then there is no case.
Slap whoever leaked the pics and move on.
It's not like it's Abu Ghraib. right?
Would you flush a Bible to save an Iraqi life?
And from a practical standpoint, have things like this saved lives? Is it not equally possible that incidences like this can cost lives by formenting resentment among others?
You seem all to ready to believe the latter when you decide the fault lies with the media; decidedly less inclined to that line of argument when the fault may lie with this admisistration or with the military.
PW--Asked an answered, move on...oh, the queston was a "hypothetical"--that means "make-believe" to you, PW...there is no "practical standpoint"...and since the proof demonstrates that the media IS at fault, it would seem sort of ridiculous to believe otherwise...
I stand with Mustang here. I think there are better ways to gain the information. And the publication of the incident, if it occurred, was an incitement.
What followed was even worse - all we hear is about "American's image abroad". Boy more of that deep thinking there! It's not about our image but about what the U.S. is trying to accomplish in the Middle East. Does flushing a Koran help us there? Certainly not because it supports those who fight against us. That act would COST AMERICAN LIVES.
I think its a bad question DC. First of all, in what situation could this possibly be?
Second, doing this might save one life, only to cost a hundred American lives in backlash for the act.
So I think its a lame question.
If you told me that doing this would stop ALL WARS. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
As far as your teaser questions goes, I don't find it funny. I see it as incitement, just as I saw the Newsweek article as incitement.
Julie,
I'm not trying to be funny. I am trying to get to some core issues that seem to divide us.
The only person that seems offended is you. No one is being incited here. Take a deep breath.
And beam back to earth when you get a chance: "What followed was worse" ... so, the Adminsistration using the wrong verbiage to describe the damage caused by Newsweek is worse than what Newsweek did ... or the Muslim rioters? Now I am doing the same thing as Newsweek? Huh? Huh?
Deep breath.
Julie,
Consider this ... Let's take it just as Newsweek presented it. An American interrogator is questioning a terror suspect, and he believes that he can get information that will save an American life, or lives. Let's assume he can save one life by the info. gleaned from the terrorist. If he flushes the Koran down the toilet, he gets the info. Assume that. This is what Newsweek said our guys were doing.
So assume that. It's not hard. I just think you don't want to ... or have a hard time answering ... the question.
And your response ... "I would do it to stop all wars" is interesting. So ... if we save a lot of lives by "stopping all wars", you will desecrate a Koran? But one life is not enough?
And ... if the saving of one life costs others, then I guess we call off all search-and-rescue missions going forward.
Is human life sacred or not?
For what it's worth, I guess I don't agree with either side here. I'm a washed-in-the-blood, born-again believer with all the spiritual accouterments (and luggage) that go along with such a claim. I believe the Bible is the Holy-Spirit-inspired Word of God. But (and I'm struggling to make myself clear in this atonal environment) I see a differece between The Bible and 'a bible' in this context: My sense is that when we start treating the Bible as something more than a book, to justify punishing people for their personal beliefs, we have stepped over the line into idolatry. We have begun to worship the book, rather than the Author of the Book. That being said, I'll excuse myself from this dog and pony show so you deep thinkers can figure out the issues of the world and get back to us mere mortals. This is a silly conversation y'all are having, but I think deep down y'all know that already.
Greg,
And if it were ... you wouldn't need to tell us, no?
To elaborate, Greg ... the question brings into focus the values that you reference ... i.e, do we worship the Bible? What do we think re: the sanctity of life vs. this value?
This is hardly trivial. And the Newsweek story brought into focus how the MSM views these issues, how the Muslim world views these issues, and frankly how we do.
What I think is silly is joining the debate (which you did with your point re: the Bible) and then pronouncing the debate silly.
"there is no 'practical standpoint'"
K. Real astute. Obverved as such.
Movin' on.
"Take a deep breath . . . Deep breath"
Please stop with the "you're hysterical!" stuff. Historically, this was a woman's condition. Consider the root . . . hyster.
Movin' on.
"the Adminsistration using the wrong verbiage to describe the damage caused by Newsweek is worse than what Newsweek did . . ?"
Anad the reporting is worse than the action reported?
PW passes again. Ah, liberals.
"An American interrogator is questioning a terror suspect, and he believes that he can get information that will save an American life, or lives. Let's assume he can save one life by the info. gleaned from the terrorist. If he flushes the Koran down the toilet, he gets the info. Assume that. This is what Newsweek said our guys were doing"
He "believes" and "assumes" that the detainee is a terrorist in your example. He assumes he can get information that will "save an American life, or lives"
DC, "assumes" counts for shit. You have just reduced the whole power of government down to an individual. Because you will not condemn . . or, better, will not advocate the further restriction of . . . this person's action, you have disrespected the Rule of Law. You advocate Rule of Law (except when it goes against what I think).
Is all OK, just so long as a soldier "believes" and "assumes"? Can we excuse anything? Is that the attitude now?
Greg has some considerable points, DC. Best to consider them, yes? Rather than dismiss them out of hand?
Or minimize them by trying to shape them into this debate.
I mean, when you said to him, "This is hardly trivial. And the Newsweek story brought into focus how the MSM views these issue", I was kind of embarrassed.
For you.
(Long buzzer sound). And that's the end for submissions folks. Searching, searching ... no PW submission. Unfortunate.
Seriously, PW, think about why you can't even answer it. Is it that hard?
Re: your "embarrassment" for me, I know you're pulling for me to kick butt here, but ... I take it all in stride. I will try not to let you down next time.
Why I can't answwer what? I'm buzzered without clear explaination, but OK. The real action is above, anyway.
Commenting by HaloScan
