Boycott Newsweek

[Fairweather]

How many people are killed in riots when copies of The Bible, The Tora, or even (gulp) Mao's red book are burned? Or when an American flag is burned/desecrated? Who issues a fatwah?

 

Answer: none/no one. This seems to be a quirk particular to Islam, its preachers, and its adherents. Doesn't look like a religion of peace to me.

 

Even if the story were true, it does not excuse the behavior of muslims regarding this issue and proportionality.

 

 

BTW, ChunK; Nice cut and paste. Your ideas were bold, refreshing, and recycled.

[chucK]

Taking one from the book of Peter Puget!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

 

BTW, ChunK; Nice cut and paste. Your ideas were bold, refreshing, and recycled.

 

 

And perfectly valid, but let's ignore that in favor of obfuscatory finger-pointing!

 

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

How many people are killed in riots when copies of The Bible, The Tora, or even (gulp) Mao's red book are burned? Or when an American flag is burned/desecrated? Who issues a fatwah?

 

Answer: none/no one. This seems to be a quirk particular to Islam, its preachers, and its adherents. Doesn't look like a religion of peace to me.

 

Since when do you give a shit about killing or violence? Please. Is this one of your funnies again?

[markinore]

Fucking Newsweek. The reporters who wrote the Guantanomo Koran-in-the-toilet story....which now appears to be a lie...should face trial and be held accountable for the lives lost.

 

Gee, you would be a hell of a lot more persuasive if you also argued that those who lied about starting the Iraq war in the first place should be held accountable for the lives lost.

[glacierdog]

What gets me about the whole torture issue is this: it's nothing new. The whole point of interrogating prisoners is to gain information that they don't want to tell us. How do you do that without torture? Buy 'em a beer, ask real nice and give up if they don't roll over? I have no sympathy what-so-ever for the abused prisoners. We didn't cut their heads off on national television, did we? They are still alive, no? Whatever. As for Newsweek, that was just retarded. The editors there were obviously so caught up in the story that they didn't bother to think about the fallout. I have personal friends in Afghanistan right now (and may be there myself in August) who are most likely dealing with a fresh round of RPG's and small weapons fire as a result of this hastily printed story. Did it happen? Who knows? Newsweek isn't sure. 16 people have been confirmed dead in 3 different countries as a DIRECT result of the article. Makes me sick to my stomach. If it did happen, and someone can show some facts, let's deal with the issue. There are plenty of ways to make people talk with out offending an entire religion. If not, fire the asshole who printed the story, along with his editor, and move on.

[Stefan]

I am amazed at how many of you trust any words coming out of the military. Or even the CIA. Deception is a way of their life.

[glacierdog]

By the way, long time no see, DFA.

[mattp]

Glacierdog -

 

Are you aware that Newsweek sent their story to the military censors BEFORE they published it, and they recieved comment on another aspect of the article but no statement of clarification or denial or any comment whatsoever on the Koran in the toilet matter?

 

And even still, I heard where some military guy last night was saying that "we have reviewed x number of documents and we find no proof that this happened." They STILL are not denying the story. Instaed, they're beating the drum about how Newsweek was irresponsible to rely on a Miltary source who confirmed a story that has been told over and over again by released prisoners, counsellors, etc. over the last few years.

 

The problem with Newsweek is that they are so spineless they are backing down.

[chucK]

This whole thing seems pretty sad. I don't think most of Newsweek's readers give much of a shit about whether or not a Koran got flushed. That probably didn't add effectively to the story. However, it sure pissed off a bunch of other people in a bad way. I'm thinking Newsweek might've thought this out a bit more. That said, trashing them for printing what they believe (and probably) is the truth; i.e., doing an important job in a democracy, is fucked up, and obviously a ploy to focus dumbass right-wingers away from the carnage that is Bush's Iraq (and weaken the voice of dissent, bonus!)

 

What really made me sick was seeing Rumsfeld on TV last night looking all stern and condescending, railing on Newsweek for their part in the death of 17 people in riots, where this guy has the deaths of more than 100,000 people on his hands. Fucking sickening.

[Ireneo_Funes]

Whether or not what was printed in the Newsweek story was factual, it seems like a lot of folks are willing to believe that the US doesn't treat POWs right.

 

I wonder why?

 

[glacierdog]

I hadn't heard that. Just the headlines, ya know? I'm not suprised that the military isn't denying it, because they are probably still investigating it. Trying to avoid anymore foot in the mouth. As for the military censor, that guy needs a boot in the ass as well. A story about the United States Military trashing a Koran. There is only one way the Muslim community could react to that. For something of that magnitude, the facts had better bloody well be on the table before the meeting starts. We have a policy in the military that problems should be handled on the lowest possible level. Whoever leaked this story to Newsweek, wether it's true or not, has just made that impossible. I agree that disrespect of a holy icon should not be tolerated. As I said before, there are other ways of breaking a man's spirit. But to broadcast it to the entire world without credible evidence it downright irresponsible, and American soldiers are going to feel the backlash. Fuck Newsweek.

[glacierdog]

Whether or not what was printed in the Newsweek story was factual, it seems like a lot of folks are willing to believe that the US doesn't treat POWs right.

 

I wonder why?

 

 

I'm sorry, but how do you think we should treat them? Maybe we should follow the golden rule? Return some favors? Cut their heads off and mail the videos to their local news stations? They were being systematically broken down for information. It wasn't just some random "let's fuck with the prisoners" game. The soldiers there were under direction from the CIA. It was a policy, not a fluke. If America thinks the policy needs to be changed, so be it. Rumsfeld really pissed me off with with this one. He pointed the finger when he should have taken responsibilty for it. Asshole.

[Jim]

Well one problem I can think of is that many of them were later released because we found out they were low level sorts, innocents caught up in our net, or had no useful information. Second, aren't those in Iraq classified as POWs and afforded rights under the Geneva Conventions? (at least Iraqis - not the foreign fighters). And third - do we want to stoop to their level of barbarisim? I thought we were the freedom leaders, etc. The statement "because they do it" is a grade school rationalization, not the decision making process of a great nation.

 

I know, I know. Cite George Orwell about good people sleeping well at night 'cause the tough guys are out there protecting us.

[Dave_Schuldt]

The FBI has been complaining for years about all the stupid shit going on at Guantoamo. There was something on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago. Look it up on the CBS website.

[tanstaafl]

I'm sorry, but how do you think we should treat them? Maybe we should follow the golden rule? Return some favors? Cut their heads off and mail the videos to their local news stations? They were being systematically broken down for information. It wasn't just some random "let's fuck with the prisoners" game. The soldiers there were under direction from the CIA. It was a policy, not a fluke. If America thinks the policy needs to be changed, so be it. Rumsfeld really pissed me off with with this one. He pointed the finger when he should have taken responsibilty for it. Asshole.

 

I think we should treat them according to the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory.

 

How do you think they should treat *our* pows?

[glacierdog]

I don't have to think how they are treating our POW's. I already know.

http://www.burmastar.org.uk/pow1.htm

http://www.neverforgetthem.homestead.com/

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2004/05/12/iraq/main616901.shtml

[Camilo]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was a distinct difference between POWs and hostages.

[Stonehead]

I suppose justification depends on where you stand.

 

Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.

Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I want the truth!

Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Kaffee: Did you order the code red?

Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

Kaffee: Did you order the code red?

Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!

 

 

Colonel Nathan Jessep on the Stand, A Few Good Men

written by Aaron Sorkin ( http://www.whysanity.net/monos/fewgood.html)

[mattp]

General Richard Meyers says the rioting in Afghanistan was not tied to the Newsweek article. In other words:

 

HERE'S MORE INDICATION THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS LYING.

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/May/13-299433.html

 

They are manipulating this situation for political gain and to try to further intimidate the media.

 

Should General Meyers be forced to retract his story, too?

[tanstaafl]

I don't have to think how they are treating our POW's. I already know.

http://www.burmastar.org.uk/pow1.htm

http://www.neverforgetthem.homestead.com/

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2004/05/12/iraq/main616901.shtml

 

Not what I asked. I asked how you think they *should* treat our POWs.

[mattp]

By the way, I've read somewhere that torture and humiliation are poor tools for extracting useful information because the "informant" tends to say whatever he thinks will make the abuse stop rather than to disclose what he would otherwise not reveal.

 

Could there be any truth to this?

[Stonehead]

By the way, I've read somewhere that torture and humiliation are poor tools for extracting useful information because the "informant" tends to say whatever he thinks will make the abuse stop rather than to disclose what he would otherwise not reveal.

 

Could there be any truth to this?

 

At the risk of sounding like a fool, here are my thoughts concerning the real issue, which I see as not about media, but about our conduct during war:

 

The question is whether these actions were part of a concerted effort to humiliate and degrade in order to compel the prisoners to break down and yield. Or, were these actions simply a cruel and unusual punishment, sadistic in nature?

 

With regard to the former, the issue arises whether the means was justified by the end goal. I personally don’t know the value of the information obtained under mental and physical duress, but it seems the larger repercussion of a negative global image is of a greater consequence to the security of our nation and to our interests around the world. I’m sure there are some who would argue this is really an issue of the control of information.

 

However, if it is the latter case, which has been provided as the official line, then it appears that the ‘dogs’ just got out of control. Lower level soldiers were the only ones convicted of unlawful conduct with the lone exception of a commissioned National Guard officer who was reprimanded for not being fully aware of the situation.

 

Certainly, there is a clash of cultures, some resulting from ignorance but other being willful and deliberate. What is the more definite pattern here?

 

The beginning of the military mission was called Operation Infinite Justice until it was pointed out by Muslims that only Allah could administer this kind of justice. So, the DoD backpedaled and changed the name in deference to followers of the Muslim faith.

 

But then again, you have those such as Lt General William Boykin who has said that terrorists hated America because we’re a nation of Christian believers and that the war on terrorism is a battle with Satan. Boykin told a Muslim fighter in Somalia, who insisted in the protection of Allah: "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3199212.stm)

 

There is evil in the world but is it appropriate to see that world existing simply as black and white, right and wrong, Christian and non-Christian? We can’t cast the other guys as the Evil Ones and claim the mantle of righteousness for ourselves without delving deep into our own nature. Evil is inherent in our human nature, too . . . in our families, in our businesses, in our society. Are we going to claim the responsibility of acknowledging the color of our actions without resorting to a forced dichotomy of Supreme Good versus Supreme Evil?

 

Finally, is it traitorous or unpatriotic to point out the evil and/or ignorance in our own ranks? Do we lose the larger ‘war’ if we institutionalize injustice as viewed through a larger lens than that alone of the cultural-historical perspective of our country? Is it simply an exercise of expanding our consciousness outward from tribal to global?

 

Is this what Sun Tzu (The Art of War) refers to when he discusses the importance of moral influence in overcoming an adversary, which I actually believe, in this case to be a war between elements of ‘Progressive Modernity’ and ‘Regressive Religious Fundamentalism’?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

I'm sorry, but how do you think we should treat them? Maybe we should follow the golden rule? Return some favors? Cut their heads off and mail the videos to their local news stations?

 

What kind of America are you defending? One where we peg our own actions to those of the enemies, whose very actions we decry? Where we go to war against a nation in the name of stopping torture and abuse of prisoners among other things, then subject our prisoners to the very same things? Is America the Hypocritical what we want to portray ourselves as?

 

And do you think that that kind of action might have any influence on attitudes toward and treatment of our troops? If you think this is anything less than just one more step in an escalating vicious circle (a vicious spiral?), think again.

 

Nice to see you, too, Gee-dawg.

[j_b]

Could there be any truth to this?

 

it's apparently what many experts say, but is info extraction the real goal? or is instilling fear the main purpose: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=klein