The W
Views: 101538342
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.07 0740
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Pentagon confirms Quran abuse
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(325 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
It's False
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1349/6041
EXP: 31732831
For next: 734696

Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
#1 Posted on 3.6.05 1916.33
Reposted on: 3.6.12 1917.17
The good news is, no Qurans were flushed down any toilets!

The bad news:

U.S. Confirms Gitmo Soldier Kicked Quran - Yahoo! News


    The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for "a pattern of unacceptable behavior."

    In other confirmed incidents, water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.


A couple of thoughts...

1. Props to the Pentagon for coming out and saying something, even if the truth is awfully ugly.
2. At least the guy who stepped on the Quran was later fired.
3. Water balloons? Urinating through vents? I thought this was the United States military, not Porky's.
Promote this thread!
FurryHippie
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 675/788
EXP: 1473443
For next: 12494

Since: 29.10.02
From: New York

Since last post: 3040 days
Last activity: 1727 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 3.6.05 1922.41
Reposted on: 3.6.12 1922.56
America...Fuck Yea.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1692/3428
EXP: 13813776
For next: 145914

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 132 days
#3 Posted on 3.6.05 1930.10
Reposted on: 3.6.12 1930.12
    Originally posted by It's False
    Water balloons? Urinating through vents? I thought this was the United States military, not Porky's.


Hi, allow me to introduce you to last year.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 3.6.05 2030)
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 4675/7534
EXP: 44032771
For next: 268991

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 539 days
Last activity: 539 days
#4 Posted on 3.6.05 2157.19
Reposted on: 3.6.12 2157.54
Urinating on a Quran? Shouldn't these soldiers be trying to get a grant from the NEA? If a crucifix in urine is art, then doesn't it follow that a urinated Quran should be held up as artistic expression funded by the taxpayers?

(edited by redsoxnation on 3.6.05 2257)
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 201/374
EXP: 493285
For next: 28081

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2770 days
Last activity: 2760 days
#5 Posted on 3.6.05 2227.56
Reposted on: 3.6.12 2227.56
Does it strike anybody else as a little odd that defiling religious symbols in the name of art and burning flags are perfectly acceptable in the name of free speech, but looking cross-eyed at the Quran is proof that our military is nothing more than a bunch of ignorant muscleheads that have no respect for the cultures of others? I'm just asking.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 116

Posts: 2447/3948
EXP: 16873366
For next: 450779

Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on 4.6.05 0008.19
Reposted on: 4.6.12 0008.51
    Originally posted by Crimedog
    Does it strike anybody else as a little odd that defiling religious symbols in the name of art and burning flags are perfectly acceptable in the name of free speech, but looking cross-eyed at the Quran is proof that our military is nothing more than a bunch of ignorant muscleheads that have no respect for the cultures of others? I'm just asking.


Pissing on the Qu'ran is aimed specifically at humiliation and degradation of prisoners, while Cross in Urea (no, I don't know the name of the actual piece) was probably just shock value. If that piece was accompanied by statements not just criticizing or insulting Christianity, but also utterly dehumanizing its practitioners, then you get outrage. All in the intent. Besides, it also feeds into the ugly American stereotype.
Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong
Level: 82

Posts: 489/1751
EXP: 5042988
For next: 166261

Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#7 Posted on 4.6.05 0411.21
Reposted on: 4.6.12 0414.24
    Originally posted by drjayphd
    (no, I don't know the name of the actual piece)


"Piss Christ," by Andre Serrano. It's actually really beautiful, if you can get past the materials used.

**Edit -- it occurs to me, looking at the above sentence, that I should point out that "Piss Christ" isn't a crucifix dunked in a jar and sitting on a pedestal somewhere, but a specific photograph of such, and it's that photograph to which I'm referring.

--K



(edited by Karlos the Jackal on 4.6.05 0221)
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 797/859
EXP: 1732775
For next: 40013

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2294 days
Last activity: 1161 days
#8 Posted on 4.6.05 0700.16
Reposted on: 4.6.12 0702.57
    Originally posted by Karlos the Jackal
    "Piss Christ," by Andre Serrano. It's actually really beautiful, if you can get past the materials used.

    **Edit -- it occurs to me, looking at the above sentence, that I should point out that "Piss Christ" isn't a crucifix dunked in a jar and sitting on a pedestal somewhere, but a specific photograph of such, and it's that photograph to which I'm referring.


Also--the huge difference here is that in Andre Serrano's case, you have an artist expressing himself through media (however offensive to some or most) within the realm of free speech. His right of free speech infringes upon no one in the sense that individuals can choose whether to see it and be exposed to it or not. Those who are nterested go to the exhibit; those who are not stay away.

In the Quran example--you have what amounts, as drjayphd said, to humilation and itimidation. It was an action specifically set about TO infirge upon others. And it's wrong.

redsoxnation--I'm sorry that you feel that only art you agree with should be in museums and on display. There are certainly cases where we all think our taxpayer dollars could/should be better spent (like, providing police protection for SkinHead and KKK rallies)--but that's the beauty of free speech. Everyone is protected.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2866/3273
EXP: 12858492
For next: 232861

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 258 days
Last activity: 59 days
#9 Posted on 4.6.05 1010.24
Reposted on: 4.6.12 1010.26
    Originally posted by Crimedog
    Does it strike anybody else as a little odd that defiling religious symbols in the name of art and burning flags are perfectly acceptable in the name of free speech, but looking cross-eyed at the Quran is proof that our military is nothing more than a bunch of ignorant muscleheads that have no respect for the cultures of others? I'm just asking.


If somebody burned my flag, or pissed on my Bible, I would be upset. If you wish to purchase and defile your own copy of whatever symbol - go right ahead. These guards are actively abusing what is (even if it was just loaned for a time) the prisoners property. As they are prisoners we have the authority to deny them anything we wish - even the Quran. But to allow them to have it and then defile it is simply unacceptable.

-Jag
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 313/449
EXP: 651382
For next: 8787

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 605 days
Last activity: 472 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 5.6.05 1637.32
Reposted on: 5.6.12 1639.06
So basically, Newsweek got the gist of the story right, just not the specifics. While this is still not great journalism, it is clearly not the rampant biasness they have been accused of. The Quran abuse they reported happened, just not in the specific form they reported (supposedly, though soldiers flushing Qurans could have happened without getting noticed).

So, instead of blaming Newsweek for violent riots, how about we change the culture that could have led to these abuses.

CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 6325/16402
EXP: 144935824
For next: 789596

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on 5.6.05 1752.00
Reposted on: 5.6.12 1752.02
    Originally posted by messenoir
    So basically, Newsweek got the gist of the story right, just not the specifics.
Wow... I hope you're that forgiving to everyone.

    (supposedly, though soldiers flushing Qurans could have happened without getting noticed)
It seems that soldiers treating prisoners just fine could just as easily go unnoticed by certain folks...
    Originally posted by messenoir
    So, instead of blaming Newsweek for violent riots, how about we change the culture that could have led to these abuses.
Hooray! You ARE on board for a free, democratic Middle East! Woo hoo!
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 65

Posts: 536/1091
EXP: 2222436
For next: 113204

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2901 days
Last activity: 2629 days
#12 Posted on 5.6.05 1958.43
Reposted on: 5.6.12 1959.01
    Originally posted by messenoir
    So basically, Newsweek got the gist of the story right, just not the specifics. While this is still not great journalism, it is clearly not the rampant biasness they have been accused of. The Quran abuse they reported happened, just not in the specific form they reported (supposedly, though soldiers flushing Qurans could have happened without getting noticed).

    So, instead of blaming Newsweek for violent riots, how about we change the culture that could have led to these abuses.




So, while it's not "great journalism", it is an example of acceptable journalism? I don't see how you can still be rationalizing this. They reported that the Koran was flushed down the toilet, not that the Koran was abused. That means that they were wrong, not kinda wrong, or "they had the gist." I know you might be glad that this nastiness of Quran abuse was confirmed, but it doesn't change the fact that Newsweek was w-r-o-n-g.

    Originally posted by DrOp
    Also--the huge difference here is that in Andre Serrano's case, you have an artist expressing himself through media (however offensive to some or most) within the realm of free speech. His right of free speech infringes upon no one in the sense that individuals can choose whether to see it and be exposed to it or not. Those who are nterested go to the exhibit; those who are not stay away.

    In the Quran example--you have what amounts, as drjayphd said, to humilation and itimidation. It was an action specifically set about TO infirge upon others. And it's wrong.


Isn't it their fault that they can be intimidated and humiliated by the abuse of a book? Isn't that a little bit crazy? I'm not saying that I don't understand that Muslims feel that this is a very sacred book and do not take kindly to it being mishandled, but the outcry over this is way over the line.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 116

Posts: 2448/3948
EXP: 16873366
For next: 450779

Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on 5.6.05 2153.42
Reposted on: 5.6.12 2154.21
    Originally posted by BigSteve
      Originally posted by DrOp
      Also--the huge difference here is that in Andre Serrano's case, you have an artist expressing himself through media (however offensive to some or most) within the realm of free speech. His right of free speech infringes upon no one in the sense that individuals can choose whether to see it and be exposed to it or not. Those who are nterested go to the exhibit; those who are not stay away.

      In the Quran example--you have what amounts, as drjayphd said, to humilation and itimidation. It was an action specifically set about TO infirge upon others. And it's wrong.


    Isn't it their fault that they can be intimidated and humiliated by the abuse of a book? Isn't that a little bit crazy? I'm not saying that I don't understand that Muslims feel that this is a very sacred book and do not take kindly to it being mishandled, but the outcry over this is way over the line.


Goes beyond being "a very sacred book". It's REALLY not as easy as telling them to not be offended by someone, oh, pissing on your property, never mind something so sacrosanct.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1693/3428
EXP: 13813776
For next: 145914

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 132 days
#14 Posted on 6.6.05 0105.42
Reposted on: 6.6.12 0106.46
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Isn't it their fault that they can be intimidated and humiliated by the abuse of a book? Isn't that a little bit crazy? I'm not saying that I don't understand that Muslims feel that this is a very sacred book and do not take kindly to it being mishandled, but the outcry over this is way over the line.


I'd like to see your reaction if the same muslims burned an American flag in front of American prisoners.

I agree with your sentiment completely, 100 percent. The thing is, I'm not sure you do.
Tribal Prophet
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1041/2065
EXP: 6453369
For next: 197321

Since: 9.1.02
From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#15 Posted on 6.6.05 0404.59
Reposted on: 6.6.12 0405.23
    Originally posted by DrOp
    redsoxnation--I'm sorry that you feel that only art you agree with should be in museums and on display. There are certainly cases where we all think our taxpayer dollars could/should be better spent (like, providing police protection for SkinHead and KKK rallies)--but that's the beauty of free speech. Everyone is protected.


It's urine. This isn't "I don't get it" or "Oh, I can see a wiener" where it's personal taste/preference. I don't know if the 'art you agree with' should apply here. I think given the art supplies used you have to give some people a pass for thinking of it as disgusting (hey, 'digusting' is pretty much why the urine was used in the first place).


Tribal Prophet
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 798/859
EXP: 1732775
For next: 40013

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2294 days
Last activity: 1161 days
#16 Posted on 6.6.05 0709.22
Reposted on: 6.6.12 0709.54
    Originally posted by Tribal Prophet
    It's urine. This isn't "I don't get it" or "Oh, I can see a wiener" where it's personal taste/preference. I don't know if the 'art you agree with' should apply here. I think given the art supplies used you have to give some people a pass for thinking of it as disgusting (hey, 'digusting' is pretty much why the urine was used in the first place).


    Tribal Prophet


Where did I say that people couldn't think it was disgusting? I *thought* I was talking about free speech and tax dollars. You actually make my point--yes, it's disgusting--that, in and of itself does not make it any more of less "art" just because some people don't agree with (a) the media or (b) the subject matter. You'll forgive me if I seem biased--I was (am) an artist.

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Isn't it their fault that they can be intimidated and humiliated by the abuse of a book? Isn't that a little bit crazy? I'm not saying that I don't understand that Muslims feel that this is a very sacred book and do not take kindly to it being mishandled, but the outcry over this is way over the line.


I hope that we are not all as nonchalant in disregarding other people's religious/moral/social beliefs as thi statement would imply. I would hope that a nation of people who can't agree that citizens can burn the flag as a expresson of free speech could at least repect the Holy Book of another religion (and understand outrage over it's dessecration).
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 65

Posts: 539/1091
EXP: 2222436
For next: 113204

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2901 days
Last activity: 2629 days
#17 Posted on 6.6.05 1159.00
Reposted on: 6.6.12 1159.02
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by BigSteve
      Isn't it their fault that they can be intimidated and humiliated by the abuse of a book? Isn't that a little bit crazy? I'm not saying that I don't understand that Muslims feel that this is a very sacred book and do not take kindly to it being mishandled, but the outcry over this is way over the line.


    I'd like to see your reaction if the same muslims burned an American flag in front of American prisoners.

    I agree with your sentiment completely, 100 percent. The thing is, I'm not sure you do.


Of course I wouldn't like it. I hate when people burn the flag, but I wouldn't be humiliated or intimidated because of it. I wouldn't expect our soldiers to feel that way, and I wouldn't be calling it torture.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 315/449
EXP: 651382
For next: 8787

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 605 days
Last activity: 472 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on 8.6.05 1249.44
Reposted on: 8.6.12 1249.51
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by messenoir
      So basically, Newsweek got the gist of the story right, just not the specifics.
    Wow... I hope you're that forgiving to everyone.


I sure try to be. The faith I follow does tell me to forgive people, especially when they apologize for their errors. Newsweek, to whit, apologized for screwing up and said they would fix the process that led to screwing up.

But let's repeat the main point. Here's the gist of the Newseek story:

Primary point: There have been abuses against prisoners and the Quran.

Example: a Quran got flushed down the toilet.

Now what was the error in the story? Not the primary point, but the example. What is the important part of the story? I would say the fact there have been abuses against prisoners. So, in the end, Newseek got the primary point right, which they got from multiple sources all saying there have been abuses against prisoners and the Quran, but one source talking about one example Newsweek turned out to be wrong, or at least not able to 100% back his/her statement.

And, in the end, I would say a prisoner and his Quran getting pissed on is as bad/worse as the Quran getting flushed down the toilet.

So, to wrap up, Newseek got the primary, important, supportable with factual evidence right and the example wrong. And Arabs didn't riot because of the specific example of the Quran getting flushed. They rioted because of the larger issue of Qurans and prisoners getting abused at all. The reasons for their riots are still there, if the specific example is not.

    Originally posted by CRZ

      (supposedly, though soldiers flushing Qurans could have happened without getting noticed)
    It seems that soldiers treating prisoners just fine could just as easily go unnoticed by certain folks...


Unnoticed? No. Untalked about? Sure. I, you, other people don't latch on to good news as newsworthy. We all focus on negative stories, and I don't believe any of us can state differently.

Heck, I expect the soldiers of my country not to abuse prisoners. I have the right to expect this, in my opinion. Especially as part of a country that uniformly condemns abuses in other countries.

In addition, it seems to be a pretty hard and fast rule that where a few public abuses occur,whether in the military or in business, there are going to be other uncaught abuses. Many people are afraid to come forward to report abuses, you can't always watch all people in power at all times. Most times, if someone in a company gets in trouble for, say, sexual harrasing someone, that sexual harrasment wasn't only focused on one person. It's just that one person finally decided to come forward to report it when others were afraid to.

And, to repeat my main point, I have the right to expect US soldiers not to abuse people. I shouldn't have to say "Oh, good job Frank, you didn't piss on a prisoner or blindfold him for 12 hours." The culture of our army should be such that no one with access to prisoners should ever think about committing these sorts of abuses.

    Originally posted by CRZ

      Originally posted by messenoir
      So, instead of blaming Newsweek for violent riots, how about we change the culture that could have led to these abuses.
    Hooray! You ARE on board for a free, democratic Middle East! Woo hoo!


Yes, I am. Which has nothing to do with my comment, and you know this. Sarcasm isn't a valid alternative to actual arguments.

The rioting had nothing to do with freedom or the lack of it. We've had riots here in the US, and, though I know people will tell me we're a Republic, for all practical purposes we're a Democray.

I can't get in the head of the rioters, but it seems to be reasoning to say people rioted because they are sick and tired or poverty and violence, and now the people supposedly bringing them that freedom and democracy you talk about, the country that speaks against abuses by foreign countries, is itself abusing prisoners and the holy book of these people.

I'm sorry, but if turned out France were pissing on US prisoners and Bibles, people here would be burning French flags. Nothing to do with democracy.
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 59

Posts: 631/836
EXP: 1589201
For next: 83937

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2597 days
Last activity: 2484 days
#19 Posted on 8.6.05 1415.49
Reposted on: 8.6.12 1419.00
Quran abuse....

Hmm....

Not torture, not prisoner abuse. Koran abuse.

Now yes I realize that it is sacred and all that, but come on. Does this world not have a sense of history anymore?

King Richard executed 2700 prisoners(including civilians) after he had agreed to let them go during the 3rd Crusade.

POWS were CASTRATED in the world wars.

Iraqi soldiers don't keep POWs!

No I am not defending all the actions of a few US soldiers. But they are individual actions, not US military policy. Why can't people see the difference?
It is getting ridiculous. And the US Military is bending over backward to appease all of these anti-US/western/capitalism groups.

Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 438/443
EXP: 641726
For next: 18443

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2926 days
Last activity: 2926 days
#20 Posted on 8.6.05 2146.25
Reposted on: 8.6.12 2148.40
    Originally posted by ShotGunShep
    No I am not defending all the actions of a few US soldiers. But they are individual actions, not US military policy.




I have no way of proving this or anything, but I think these abuses would be best explained by a Good Cop/Bad Cop interrogation technique. Bad Cop denegrates the inmates and their religion (and remember these inmates are pretty religious fellows), while the Good Cop comforts and gives support.

If I'm right, then while it may not be US military policy, it would very well be CIA/US military intelligence policy.

Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Soldiers Not Welcome At Georgia Middle School
Next thread: God hates AT&T, MCI and Verizon
Previous thread: US Soldier to help Iraqi boy get life-saving surgery
(325 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Pentagon confirms Quran abuseRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.214 seconds.