Saudi ire at Koran 'desecration'

[emad]

BBC

Saudi Arabia has voiced "deep indignation" at reports that a copy of the Koran was desecrated at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Riyadh called for a quick investigation into the alleged incident and for the perpetrators to be punished.

It is the first Arab state to comment officially on the reports. Reaction in the Arab world has been muted.

On Thursday the US secretary of state promised prompt action if allegations of desecration prove true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4543373.stm

[formerrepuke]

1. Someone *may* have flushed a copy down the toilet....

Pretty soon, it'll be illegal to 'desecrate' the bible in this country... We're becoming Americarabia.

[htuttle]

2. "called for the perpetrators to be punished"

While flushing the Koran may have been stupid and wrongheaded, and should never have been done, I can't think of any US laws that protect any particular holy book from desecration. As far as I know, the only thing at all protected from 'desecration' by US law is the US flag (though that's really not enforced, judging by the amount of 'flag clothing' I see).

Again, while it was insensitive at the least, and just really stupid and counterproductive at the worst, I don't see how flushing the Koran (or the Bible or the Torah, for that matter) could actually be charged as 'illegal'.

[allemand]

3. I think you are missing the point. This is not about some individual

desecrating a holy book. The interrogators in Guantanamo Bay are working on behalf of the US government.

[htuttle]

6. Considering that we're already bombing their children...

...and their mothers, and even their goats, I'd think Muslims in the Middle East already have enough reason to be angry enough with us.

What's going on with this Saudi demand is that they need us to pretend to make somebody responsible for this outrage (the Koran/toilet thing), so that they can keep things under a boil at home. They have made a deal with the devil, so to speak, but need to make it appear that they still have some clout in the arrangement. Pakistan is actually in the same situation. If Bushco doesn't publically flog somebody for flushing the Koran, our toadies' jobs are that much harder. They may be in on the deal, but they can't appear to be TOO in on the deal, or they lose all support at home (their people are irrelevant -- I'm talking about support of their countries' elites).

However, my point was that I can't imagine what the US would 'charge' the sacrificial patsy who eventually gets the blame for this with. If they are going to turn a blind eye to the atrocities that have already occured at Guantanamo, et al., it's going to be hard to find a way to 'punish' somebody for something that is a much lesser offense (if an offense at all) under the US code (which appears to be 'more of a guideline than a code' in the first place...).

In case there is any misunderstanding, I'm not condoning any of this -- I spend good amount of my waking hours trying to figure out how to stop it. I'm talking about the interesting situation this puts our colonial lackeys in.

[Kagemusha]

9. You have an impressively good handle on this.

I didn't want such a good summation to go without thanks. Thank you. What a crazy world we live in, though.

[Tesha]

15. Next thing you know, Saudis will be hijacking our airplanes and...

Next thing you know, Saudis will be hijacking our airplanes and using
them as weapons to blow up our buildings...

No, wait, they already *DID* that!

Tesha

[PsychoDad]

18. So, you are claiming....

that representatives of the Saudi government (ie: Soldiers) were on those planes? Or perhaps the attack was sanctioned by the Saudi government?

Apples and oranges

In this case, the desecration was performed by an employee of the US government, an american soldier, who was acting on orders and supervision from above.

Of course it could be argued that the hijackers were operating on orders and supervision from the same government....

[Tesha]

62. Theocracy (and its effects) is certainly sanctioned by Saudi Government

Theocracy (and its effects) is certainly sanctioned by the Saudi
Government.

And now by ours as well.

Tesha

[K-W]

20. FYI Flag desecration is not a crime.

Making it illegal would require an ammendment to the federal constitution.

There is a flag code, but it is not legally binding.

[forgethell]

53. Or a change in the

courts. Several laws have been passed against it. All were found to be unconstitutional. But if the judges change, that opinion can, too.

[forgethell]

4. Punished for What!?

As far as I can see, Allah was the only one insulted. Let Allah take care of it.

Besides, they've been known to burn our flag, and the Bible is not even allowed in their country. What's the difference? Free speech for all.

[allemand]

10. I have to say that you don't look very far. n/t

[forgethell]

16. Why?

If Christians can stand it, then it's time the Muslims grew up and joined the real world, too. Or don't you believe in equality?? They insult us; we get to insult them. And vice-versa.

If they riot, then peace officers should control them like they do elsewhere.

And again I ask: Punished for what? What law did they break?

[PsychoDad]

19. Equality?

Because america holds nothing sacred no one else should either?

Americans can't understand the degree or depth of desecration this represents to a Muslim who considers the Quran to be the literal word of God, Dictated to Muhammad, a book so sacred that it cannot be touched except by someone in a state of ritual purification.

Equality does not mean reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

[The Magistrate]

22. The Problem With That, Sir, Is This

No more than any other religious adherents, Moslems have no right whatever to require any other person to adhere to any element of their religious belief, and certainly have no right at all to threaten a violent response when a person does not adhere to any element of it. In short, Sir, a Moslem's belief the Koran is the literal word of a diety dictated personally to some individual does not require any person who is not a Moslem to refrain from any action whatever with a copy of the work. All religious believers need to understand this simple principle: their beliefs cannot be imposed in any way and to any degree on the actions of any person who does not share them.

[jayfish]

24. Amen,...

Sir. :toast:

Jay

[allemand]

25. As long as we are talking about individuals, you are absolutely correct.

But in this case we are talking about officials acting on behalf of the US government. Somebody ordered and approved of these actions. And that is simply unacceptable.

[forgethell]

30. Proof? n/t

[allemand]

43. Sorry, I don't understand.

Could you please explain? Thanks.

[forgethell]

49. What evidence do you

have that this was US policy, as opposed to the actions of certain individuals?

[allemand]

64. Thank you for the clarification.

Of course I have no evidence for that. But I would recommend you "Chain of Command, The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib" by Seymour Hersh.

This is the first time on this board that I have to defend myself for attacking the Bush administration. Thank you for that opportunity ! :D

[forgethell]

69. I don't mind you

attacking the Bush administration. I just like evidence for those statements, just like I would for statements attacking anyone else. I can't run on emotionalism, I need facts.

[The Magistrate]

35. Why, Sir?

First, there is the basic point that there exists nothing but individuals, and that this act was carried out by an individual, who, if there was a policy in place from higher-ups, doubtless agreed with it, or else would have refrained from the act. Interrogation is a dark art, aimed at manipulating and destroying personalities, and a thing such as this would have to be regarded, at least, as less of an evil than the water-cure, or crushing a testicle: that the latter things do real damage all would have to agree; that the former does any damage could be agreed to only by those who adhere to a particular religious view, and requires a certain assent from the victim to accept it as damaging that physical durress does not.

The question of whether the action was wise or not is completely seperate, and has several elements. It might well be a useful technique in interrogating persons of a particular persuasion, and be a damaging element in larger contexts.

There are certainly elements in the Geneva regulations that stipulate respect for a captive's religious beliefs, at least to the degree of allowing worship, and forbidding the forcing a believer to actions inimicable to his or her beliefs. It would certainly be illegal to provide a Moslem with a diet of pork-chops, and present starvation as the alternative for refusal of the food, but it is certainly not illegal for an interrogator or a guard to tuck into such a meal in front of a Moslem prisoner.

[allemand]

58. So the US government is an individual?

And if it isn't an individual it doesn't exist?

And the fact that even worse acts of torture were committed does make this act of desecration more acceptable?
This looks like a classical sophistic argument to me.

I find your use of the word "assent" in this context a little bit strange. First of all, I don't like what it suggests, the hidden subtext. And if you argue that a person is free to choose how to feel about a certain act that is in violation of his beliefs, you could also argue with the same right that a person is free to choose how to feel about the torture he is subjected to. Maybe that is correct in legal terms, I don't know, but in the real world it certainly is not.

And while a legalistic debate is certainly interesting, we should not forget that what we are talking about was morally wrong, and there can be no argument about that.

[The Magistrate]

70. A Person Is Free, Sir

To hold or abjure any belief. That is a simple fact. Whether persons question any beliefs they hold, or do not, is a matter of choice. If a person holds to a particular belief that makes them vulnerable to pressures a person who does not hold to that belief is immune to, that is, put bluntly, their own look-out, and no one else's concern or fault.

Physical damage is an objective fact: even a person moved by some emotional circumstance to consent to it or even welcome it is still the recipient of physical harm. How they may process it does not alter that. The fellow who not too long ago in Germany consented to be castrated, killed, and cannibalized remains dead, whatever he may have felt about the process as it was accomplished.

You seem awfully certain about what is morally wrong and right, and under the impression all will, or even must, share your view in the matter. You have struck here upon someone who does not. The act being discussed here, flushing a book down a toilet, is, to me, morally neutral. To view it otherwise, it is necessary to adhere to a number of views not necessarily shared.

The only real question of morals here is the over-all concern of interrogation. Is interrogation, is this particular interrogation, justified? No blanket answer yes or no can be given to the broader question: interrogation may certainly be justified in particular instances, though torturous interrogation is illegal under international law. There is not enough information available in this particular instance to decide, from this distance, with any certainty, whether the interrogation of this individual is justifiable. My inclination is that it is not, for it seems clear that the great preponderance of those confined at Guantanamo have no real or directing involvement in the war of Islamic fundamentalist radicals to impose a restored Caliphite. Most all of them are Islamic fundamentalists, but the two things are not identical. A great many of these people are ordinary infantry, a great many were simply swept up for bounties on prisoners supplied several years ago. Probabilties, therefore, favor the proposition any individual subject there is from one of those two groups.

[allemand]

98. You seem to confuse the legal definition of the term "free" with its

practical significance in the real world. In practice you are as free to change your long-held beliefs at a moment's notice in order to avoid psychological pressure as you are free to ignore your aching testicles.

It's really funny that you accuse me of being "awfully certain about what is morally wrong and right" and just one paragraph later you yourself go on to define the "only real question of morals here". :D

I do indeed adhere to certain values and convictions. One is that I won't force them on others. You seem to confuse certainty and coercion, but one does not automatically imply the other.

Finally, I want to thank you for being frank. You write: "The act being discussed here, flushing a book down a toilet, is, to me, morally neutral."

Let's abandon this legalistic game. You seem to think that desecrating the Koran (or for that matter any other religious book or item) is morally right. Am I correct? Then let's discuss it.

[The Magistrate]

105. Morally Neutral, Sir

That is indeed my view. It means nothing to me, because the thing has no signifigance to me that a copy of any other book lacks. It is neither necessary, nor truely possible, for me to judge an action by any standard but my own: it is possible for me to recognize the standard another might employ, but not incumbent upon me in any way to adopt it in my own judgement of the matter. Whether they do so openly or no, this is how all persons behave in moral questions, and it makes no difference to that whether the moral standard being applied is peculiar to a particular individual's meditations on such matters, or one received from some communal authority and thus held more or less in common by many individuals.

One problem with certain belief systems is that they contain directions they be more widely imposed by the individuals that adhere to them, and prescribe the imposition as a moral duty. Fortunately, most people everywhere are quite happy to funk moral duties, and content themselves with self-interest and the pursuit of personnal happiness in the here and now, and so these injunctions most often go by the board. Just as the inefficiency inherent to human institutions is the surest safe-guard of individual liberty, the laziness of humans, and our tendency to pay mere lip service to moral claims, is the surest safe-guard we have against holy terrors. While there may be instances where the more seriously persons take a belief system, the more good they will do in accordance with its prescriptions, it is quite clear to me that the less seriously people take a belief system, the less harm they will do by following its prescriptions.

To my view there is only one real moral question: when is it, or is it ever, permissible to disregard the interests of another in favor of your own? In attempting to formulate any answer to this query, the first distinction that must be made is between real and imagined interests. Imagined interests have no place in the calculation. A person who believes, say, that fornication is an offense to a diety, and if widely enaged in, may lead that diety to punish the whole of a society, and who therefore claims that he or she is done some injury by a fornicator, and claims it right to put his or her interests above the desires of the fornicator for pleasure on that basis, has no standing whatever, because that is an imaginary interest. A person who believes he is harmed by someone treating a book in a particular way is similarly asserting an imaginary interest, for there is no real, physical or measureable harm done by the act. If the person in question's views and imagination were differently inclined, so would the person's perception of the act be different.

The very act of having deeply held religious views, or deeply held views of any sort, remains a wholly voluntary one. The world provides us all with myriad occassions and causes to question and doubt any belief any of us hold, and each of us chooses, and chooses continually, our responses to those occassions. They are purely voluntary. No society has ever existed that did not produce some measure of doubters and un-believers, as well as a tremendous crop of hypocrites and false-fronters, fully able to act in a manner contrary to their expressed beliefs while upholding themselves as exemplars of those beliefs in all they do.

[allemand]

122. Some observations.

"It means nothing to me". - And a lot to many others. Why not take that into account?

"It is neither necessary, nor truely possible, for me to judge an action by any standard but my own". - You need to differentiate here. In a strict philosophical sense it is not possible, because your judgments are the direct result of the standards you apply. That's a logical fact. But that doesn't mean that you can't understand the judgments others make on the basis of different values. Finally, the question if it is necessary to include in your own standards the provision that you should also take the values of others into account, that is not a logical but an ethical question.

"the laziness of humans... is the surest safe-guard we have against holy terrors". - That is correct for countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia. But I think that in Western societies secularism, secular institutions, the Enlightenment, Western values etc. are much more important.

"While there may be instances where the more seriously persons take a belief system, the more good they will do in accordance with its prescriptions, it is quite clear to me that the less seriously people take a belief system, the less harm they will do by following its prescriptions." - You don't want to say that hypocrisy is always better than true piety, do you? And that disbelief is (almost) always better than belief? That is a sweeping judgment, I think that you have to look at each case and that such judgments should only be made on an individual basis.

Your distinction between "real and imagined interests" is based on certain premises about the nature of our world that are not universally shared.
One thing is for sure, you won't convince anyone by telling him that his interests are only "imaginary"... I don't think we should impose our will on others and decide for them what their "real" interests are. But of course we should try to convince them to share our values.

"there is no real, physical or measureable harm done by the act" -

Well, people obviously do feel hurt and harmed, and that is as "real" and "measurable" as any physical harm.

"The very act of having deeply held religious views...remains a wholly voluntary one." -

It's "free" or "voluntary" only in a philosophical (or legal) sense, not in practice.

"and each of us chooses, and chooses continually, our responses to those occassions" -

I'm glad to see that Sartre still has some followers here at DU. I like him a lot, particularly his concept of "mauvaise foi" which, in my opinion, can be immensely useful for the understanding of American politics and of societies in general. But I agree with Pierre Bourdieu's criticism of Sartre's philosophical approach, notably with his analysis of the "scholastic bias" and the "logic of practice".

[The Magistrate]

123. An Interesting Effort, Sir

You recur to several basic themes, from which it seems clear we do not employ similar modes of understanding.

It does not matter one whit to me whether my views are shared by all, or none. They are mine, and the result of close observation and cogitation, conditioned by a peculiar emotional nature and widely varied experience. They have proved sufficiently useful to me that it seems best to me to regard them as true, and act and comment accordingly. What others think concerns me only to the degree that it might seek to impose on me in any restrictive manner, or to the degree that it interests me as a thing to understand. Understanding things has, indeed, a charm all its own, whether the thing being understood be sublime or repugnant. But understanding is wholly seperate from agreement or approval, and conveys no element whatever of deference.

The key to the matter, Sir, is to cultivate a low opinion of the species: it is far and away the safest course. There will be many fewer unpleasant shocks, and even an occassional pleasant surprise. Where the beast is to be trusted least is in professions of piety and intent to do good. All people mean well, to hear them tell it. Were it so, we should be surrounded by goodness and light, as manifestly we are not. Therefore that simple rule of thumb: when people are engaged in failing to live up to their pretensions, they are doubtless doing less harm than they would be otherwise.

An essential element to maintain in clear focus is the ditinction between concrete physicality and the imagined and imaginary. Telling a policeman you knocked down a man after he punched you, and telling a policeman you knocked down a man after he hurt your feelings, will have very different results. That different result is the measure of the difference between the real and the imaginary; the thing is not, actually, a matter of much debate outside cerebral circles.

It is certainly true that a great deal of human action is contingent on surrounding factors outside an individual's control, but this does not alter the voluntary nature of the responses a person makes within that matrix. It simply alters the odds that any particular individual out of a mass of individuals will adopt and press towards certain outcomes: it does not make any outcome impossible or inevitable. All things are in reach of any mind, or at least of any mind not deformed past function by constitution or abuse.

"It is odd that the doctrine of Original Sin should find so little favor in the modern age, as it is perhaps the one item of Christian dogma susceptible of empirical proof."

[Decay]

80. Most excellent attempt at obfuscation and circumvention.

Most excellent attempt at obfuscation and circumvention.

Also, "Moslem" went out with "Mohammedian" at the start of the 20th century, which was really an offensive term Westerners, Europeans that is, used whenever referring to adherents of Islam.

[The Magistrate]

82. Do You Really Think So, Sir?

All compliments are much appreciated....

[Decay]

86. Oh, yes, this is a fact.

I am glad to be of assistance. Only the educated and the elite in both the Old and New worlds used the term in insulting or degrading manner.

[The Magistrate]

88. The Vocabulary Point, Sir, Was Not Engaged

There was nothing but appreciation for your complimentary characterization of earlier comments.

You may forgive me for declining your instruction on vocabulary and usage: my own lights, poor as they may be, must serve me in such matters....

[Decay]

90. I understand.

A relatively educated man said once:

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[The Magistrate]

93. For The Record, Sir

Are you calling me a bigot? Consider well your answer; this has been a friendly exchange so far....

"I like people better than principles, and I like people without principles better than anything in this world."

[PsychoDad]

27. I agree,

Muslims have no right to force their views upon others, and are expressly forbidden to do so in the Quran itself, (There is no obligation in religion - Sura 2:256), and yes, here in america we are guaranteed the right to free exercise of speech.

In this case it is not just an individuals actions or his right to exercise free speech that we are talking about. If you wish as a citizen to burn a Bible, Bagavhad Gita, Quran, display a crucifix in a jar of urine, or crap on a baby Jesus in a nativity scene as an exercise of your right that is one thing, I may not agree with you, or even find it acceptable, but I would defend your right to it.

In this case the act has not been perpetrated by a citizen exercising his rights, but by an employee of the US government working in that capacity. Should the US government be sanctioning the desecration of religious works or symbols?

And if it does, then where is that any better than the Taliban's destruction of ancient Buddhist statues?

[forgethell]

31. A copy of the Koran

can be replaced. Not so with the Buddhist statues.

[PsychoDad]

33. Sure they can be...

Just carve another rock and restore the site.

Statues can be copied, just like books. Or do they have value beyond just being statues?

Of course that do, and that's the point.

[forgethell]

38. The statues were

original works of art. A copy, especially a printed copy of the Koran is not. Is this hard to understand?

[PsychoDad]

40. And what is so hard for you to understand,

That there are some who would view the desecration of the quran as horrendous, particularly when performed by a national government that is supposedly respectful of all religions?

[The Magistrate]

46. But If Pushed On A Little Farther, Sir

That line will open the question of whether a government is respectful of all religions, and if it should be repectful of all religions.

The Saudi government is most certainly not repectful of religions other than Islam, and in this, seems to have the support of the great preponderance of its people.

Are people who do not show respect and tolerance entitled to expect it of others? In my view, they really are not. It seems to me that the "Golden Rule" of do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a thing people cannot avoid adhering to, for the way a person treats others is a declaration of how they think people ought to be treated, and therefore serves as an instruction in how others ought to treat them. A person who demonstrates by action that another faith is not to be tolerated is, by doing so, showing that his or her faith is not to be tolerated by those of another confession....

[forgethell]

51. I guess the thing is

that if you are willing to insult someone, then you really don't give a damn if they are offended.

[The Magistrate]

36. Well Said, Sir

And let me say it has always been a pleasure to cross words with you in the past: you are an effective advocate for your cause.

You may see above, in No. 35, some comments on your point of governmental action, that will not be repeated here.

On the point of the statues, to my view, their signifigance, and the thing that made their destruction atrocious, lies not in their religious signifigance but in their antiquity. They were priceless elements of the total human heritigage bequeathed us all by the ancestors, and their destruction by a passing whim of fanaticism a tragedy, and an assault against us all.

[tobeornottobe]

50. the question is

did 'Saudi Arabia'voice "deep indignation" over the destruction of the ancient Buddhist statues?

[forgethell]

52. Or the intolerance of

Christians and Jews in their own country.

[forgethell]

28. Unfortunately, Your

Honor, this eminently reasonable view of yours, and mine I might add, is contrary to the words of the Koran itself.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=unbeliever&size=First+100

[forgethell]

26. Once more

I repeat the question: What law was broken.

As for the rest of your comments, Americans hold plenty of things sacred. It's just that not all Americans hold the same things sacred.

In any event, the Koran is not a sacred book to this American. Let them show some respect to my icons and I will show some to theirs.

[PsychoDad]

32. Indeed, no US Law was probably broken

But it would seem that your position would support the Taliban's moral right to the destruction of ancient Buddhist religious icons.

You said "Let them show some respect to my icons and I will show some to theirs".

What icons are sacred to you, and how have the people protesting the Quran desecration disgraced them? Your position seems to be one of tit for tat, and I would like to know what 1.5 billion Muslims have done to deserve this.

Respect has to start somewhere, I can't urinate on a bible and wonder why Christians don't respect me.

[forgethell]

41. And there you have it.

You can't burn the American flag and expect Americans to respect you. You can't hang the President if effigy and expect Americans to respect you. Regardless of differences of opinion with said President, and regardless of whether he should be. Although I deny no one's right to do so as a free speech issue. But I'm not talking about George Bush; I'm talking about the disrespect that has been shown by many individuals in the Muslim world for several decades.

After a while, it all begins to wear a little.

But no, I don't support the Taliban in any of their undertakings. Destroying a priceless ancient work of art is despicable. If they just wanted to show their disrespect for Buddhists and Buddhism by destroying a copy of their holy writings, well, that's not so good, either, but within their free speech rights.

[PsychoDad]

44. As you say, there we have it.

I just don't feel that we (the american people) should engage in a tit for tat battle of disrespect, for what ever reason. Respect is earned, as is integrety and these actions do nothing for either in the eyes of the world..

Just another example of ugly Americanism.

I thank you for a spirited discussion :) I must head out to the store now.

Peace.

[forgethell]

45. Peace n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

5. Let's make a deal with the Saudi's.

We'll stop desecrating the Koran if they stop sending hijackers to crash airplanes into skyscrapers.

[Toots]

7. Maybe we could send our best diplomat ..Bolton.. to "fix" things

:shrug: The thing about this Administration (in fact the entire GOP) that is painfully obvious to the entire world is their complete lack of respect. Lack of respect for all things and all people. No respect for science, the earth, or any nation, or any people. Just plain No Respect.

[Frances]

8. It is ironic

that Condi assumes that the U.S. has friends around the world.

<<"I am asking that all our friends around the world reject incitement to violence by those who would mischaracterise our intentions," she said.>>

The Bush administration has made enemies, not friends. This administration prefers to bully than to engage in rational discussion. Just yesterday Republican senators had as their talking point that the Senate should confirm the bully Bolton because the U.S. doesn't need a "pansy" as an ambassador.

[jayfish]

11. I'm Usually One To Jump On The US When We Do...

stupid shit like this, but not this time. I tired of the religious BS I say FU to all the fanatics who would kill and destroy because one of a billion copies of their tome was destroyed. Especially Saudi Arabia. Punish someone for damaging or destroying a book? Get a fucking grip!

Jay

[allemand]

13. I see that Juan Cole was correct.

Muslims are not to touch a copy of the Koran when they have not performed their purifying ritual ablutions (washing in a special way with water), called wudu`.

In secular American society, I suppose the shock value here could only be hinted at if we imagined someone flushing a small American flag down the toilet. But probably we can't imagine it at all.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/american-blasphemy-against-koran.html

[LiberallyInclined]

47. who gives a fuck about an american flag down the toilet...?

this administration is taking our country down the toilet. It really boggles me when fanatical human beings apply so much reverence to a piece of cloth or a book, that they're willing to kill other human beings over it's perceived desecration.

[allemand]

72. You do feel that way because of your values.

And they feel that way because of their values.

Of course values do change and should change. But you will achieve that only with respect. Otherwise you would have to force them to accept your values, which would make you no less fanatical.

[LiberallyInclined]

76. so now it's fanatical NOT to hold reverence in a pile of paper-

or a piece of cloth???

:crazy:

(and btw- most would say that i feel that way because of my lack of values)

until people decide to treat other people with more respect than they reserve for a pile of paper or a piece of tattered cloth, not much is going to change.

[allemand]

101. It's fanatical to force your disbelief on others, yes. n/t

[LiberallyInclined]

107. ummm...you can't "force disbelief" on anyone-

anymore than you could force 'beliefs'.

it cannot be forced on someone- either they believe, or they don't.

[allemand]

120. Please, don't play with words. You know exactly what I mean.

If the "religious wrong" has its way, abortion will be made illegal. This is what I would call "forcing your belief on others".

You are always "free" to die as a martyr, of course.
Undoubtedly, in a philosophical sense, that freedom exists. In practice, it doesn't, because most of us would choose to live. (That's also the difference between Sartre and Bourdieu, by the way.)

You say: "who gives a fuck about an american flag down the toilet". Well, many Americans would be deeply offended by that image. If you want to convince them of your values, a good first step would be to acknowledge that they exist.

[stepnw1f]

113. Well Said...

"...until people decide to treat other people with more respect than they reserve for a pile of paper or a piece of tattered cloth, not much is going to change."

[PsychoDad]

108. As I understood the story

The ones who have died in these demonstrations have been demonstrators killed by government forces.

So, in a way, it's a case of people who are willing to die for their beliefs and a government willing to kill to appease the united states.

[Massachusetts]

12. Must be one heck of a toilet!

[LiberallyInclined]

91. or a very small koran

ya know- when i was a kid i used to flush crayons down the toilet...maybe this is all just a big misunderstanding?

would tossing a book through the hoop in a porta-potty be considered "flushing" it? that's kinda what i was picturing as having happened...i mean- you could wash the shit off, but you're never gonna get that blue color out of the paper.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Reaction in the Arab world has been muted?

Yeah, if you don't count riots in 10 cities in Afghanistan!

Do the reporters even read their own wires?

[cliss]

42. Exactly.

As I was driving in to work this morning, there was a report on the radio about riots and demonstrations in Afghanistan. There were reports of officers shooting into the crowd. The announcer said, "amid reports of Americans desecrating the Koran at Gitmo".

[DulceDecorum]

17. The posts on this thread

for the most part
demonstrate why the Bush Administration remains in power
(but only in America.)

Condi will turn around in a few days
and claim the allegations are untrue.
Meanwhile Rumsfeld is congratulating himself and his crew
upon having stumbled upon a very "effective" interrogation technique.

[daleo]

21. I suppose they will need a fall guy and a charge.

I am sure there is a sufficiently vague charge that can apply, but finding a fall guy who won't say someone higher up suggested this as an interrogation technique may be difficult. After all, this is not something that is likely to occur to some low level 'bad apple' guard. They just wouldn't understand the level of taboo involved, that takes someone quite well educated in Muslim culture.

I would imagine that Muslims find this equivalent to (at least):
- Nazi swastikas on Jewish gravestones (for Jews).
- "Piss Christ" type artwork (for Christians).
- using the U.S. flag for toilet paper (for U.S. patriots).

If interrogators from a third nation did any of these things to a person from the relevant groups, I am sure it would be universally condemned.

[yellowcanine]

23. As penance we should allow a Saudi to desecrate on Tom Delay.

Win Win all around!

On edit: This should be our initial offer. If the Saudis stand firm, we can always up the ante by giving up Condi, then Bush, and finally, the ultimate prize, Dick Chaney. Let the desecrations begin!

[maxsolomon]

29. did it actually happen?

and how? was is a paperback? were the pages torn out? sounds like some friday prayers imam bullshit rumormongering to me.

i think the issue is this: sure, its not ILLEGAL to do that to the Koran, and it was used to somehow "break" prisoners (how that does it i dunno), but why not show respect to their religion & its practices, to demonstrate to them that their assumptions about america are WRONG, or at least, they USED TO BE?

show mercy, show respect if you expect the same. isn't there some rule of some sort like that that christians are supposed to adhere to? do unto others...?

[devilgrrl]

34. Saudi's are a desecration of the Koran in general

Terrorists

[On the Road]

37. During the Roman Occupation of Judea

in the 1st century AD, there were also strong religious and political tensions.

According to Josephus, on one occasion a Roman guard on duty in Jerusalem taunted a crowd by lifting his clothing and farting loudly in their general direction. A riot ensued in which 30,000 people were killed.

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.

[forgethell]

54. Without knowing

that particular incident, I'd bet there were more dead Judeans at the end of the riot than there were dead Romans. Tough bastards, those Romans, and they never heard of the Geneva Convention.

[On the Road]

57. Oh, Yes, The Occupiers Always Have Fewer Casualities

On the other hand, when the Jews did revolt in 66AD, they kicked the Romans asses and killed thousands of them. It took almost eight years for the Romans to regroup, muster an army, and completely put down the resistance.

[forgethell]

60. and completely

put down the resistance. As you say, those that don't know history are condemned to repeat it.

[On the Road]

89. Somehow, I Don't Think That Last Part Will Get Repeated

if the isurgency does grow. The US usually does not return to the scene of the crime.

What kills me is that sixty years later in the 130s, the Jews mounted an even bigger rebellion, which was suppressed even more brutally and led to massive exterminations. That was the Roman method.

[The_Casual_Observer]

39. Something like this could be the cause of a terrorist attack

10 or 20 years from now. These people have long memories and are very persistent.

[shmishmina]

48. Yes

The fools over in Gitmo never think of this in their secret torture holes.

[forgethell]

55. You mean one

that wasn't caused by one of the other numerous grievances they seem to think they have against us??

[LiberallyInclined]

59. ...grievences they seem to think they have against us...??

are there any of their grievences in particular that you feel are un-justified?

[forgethell]

61. It doesn't really matter.

In their minds they have grievances. The reality may, or may not be different. Still, I feel they have been wickedly wrong over the last 30 or so years to indulge in acts of terrorism against us just because we would not force a certain small country, whose forum this is not, to make itself extinct just to please them.

Does that answer your question?

[LiberallyInclined]

66. "wickedly wrong" ???

oh that's right- david ben gurion, and sharon, and their ilk were "freedom fighters", not terrorists...:eyes:

[forgethell]

68. Wrong

forum to discuss this. Sorry.

[Decay]

71. Who is "they"?

...

[forgethell]

78. "They"?

Those would be the idiots who get offended over this type of thing.

[The Magistrate]

84. Let Us Keep This Off Israel v. Palestine, Gentlemen

It has so far been a pleasant exchange of views on the topic at hand....

[Tinoire]

56. Great.

The entire world does not see things the way we do. And as if I recall correctly, Muslims from all over the world did not come on bended knee asking us to force free speech or secularism down their throats.

They have a holy book. A book so holy to them that they would die rather than see it desecrated just as religious Catholics would die rather than see the Host desecrated and Jews would over seeing the Talmud descrated.

You simply do NOT, no matter how atheist or agnostic you are, desecrate items of religious significance to other individuals.

We in America get upset when our cars our scratched because of a political sticker on them and rightfully so but it's just a damn car, of NO moral or spiritual value. Desecrating a holy book of another religion is a hateful, unforgivable act designed to inflame.

This evil administration is playing with fire for its crusade because yes this is a crusade. We scornfully ridiculed the uninformed who sat around after 9-11 wailing "why do they hate us?" but I fear we're about to join their ranks for lack of empathy and a sense of superiority that we know - the same thing that got us 9-11 to begin with.

Millions of Muslims will not care about the same US laws that allowed the sadists of Abu-Ghraib to get off scott free nor should they. All they will care about is that these hateful acts are carried out, supported, condoned, and excused by Millions of flag-waving Americans.

This evil, hateful act will come back to bite us. The worse is that this wasn't only done once in Gitmo and the Muslim world knows that.

[LiberallyInclined]

63. "Catholics would die rather than see the Host desecrated..."

I don't know what Catholics you've been hanging out with- but I don't know of any whose fanaticsim runs that high.

"Desecrating a holy book of another religion is a hateful, unforgivable act..."

a religion that contains "unforgivable" acts- especially ones that pertain to a pile of paper, doesn't sound like much of a religion, IMHO.

[Tinoire]

67. Lol. You apparently don't understand what the Host is to religious

Catholics but I'm not going to waste my time.

Right. I hang out with a bunch of kookballs :eyes:

[LiberallyInclined]

92. I don't see anyone taking a bullet for a stack of wafers...

not in this country, anyway.

btw- if you believe in transubstantiation, maybe you could answer a question i've wondered about-

after taking communion, is all of the saviour absorbed in the intestinal tract, or does some of him come out as shit?

i was raised lutheran, and to us, ultimately they're just wafers.

[Tinoire]

100. My such a deep piercing questions

I'm sure it's been keeping your tormented soul up all night.

Tell you what, I'll buy you a port-a-potty that you can set up in front of Catholic Churches so that you can start examining people's shit to find out. That task should be well within your capabilities.

What other soul shattering questions is your keen mind interested in?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

111. Yep. Sure does. Cannibals all those Catholics! I

Those fucking papists! Cannibals and idol worshippers!

Don't waste your beautiful Lutheran evangelical mind trying to understand such complex concepts. I'd suggest you stick to simpler things. That experiment to examine Catholic shit, for instance, should keep you busy for years. Let me know when you've solved that mystery and then we can move on to something as complicated as greek verbs and transubstantiation. Maybe the Evangelicals would be able to sponsor the study ?

And no unfortunately I don't think John Paul II would be a good patron Saint for NAMBLA. You however. You'd be a perfect choice! Why don't you try for the honor? Your fixation alone should qualify you.

Have a pleasant day. I'm sadly not "inclined" to waste my time with such silly questions on a political discussion board.


:hi:

Cannibals all those Catholics. Idiots all those Muslims. If only the entire world could see things through your little prism, we'd all be so much better off.

[LiberallyInclined]

114. oooohhhhhh i guess you told me...

especially the stuff about the lutherans...ouch.

oh...wait a minute- i don't buy into the lutheran brand of bullshite either...just because it was forced on me as a youth, doesn't mean that i'd be one of those poor mind-numbed souls so lacking in intellect that they still accept ridiculous notions as papal infalibility and virgin birth, and such infantile concepts as heaven and hell.
apparently the REAL WORLD is a little much for them to comprehend or deal with on their own terms- they need the crutch of a supreme being, or life(or is it death?) is just too scary for them.

[Tinoire]

116. Ah but the trauma it apparently inflicted on you!

Because it's either extensive trauma or a lamentable lack of tolerance for anything your mind can't wrap itself around.

You have my deepest sympathies for having to grow up with a bunch of evangelicals. Urgh. Hope they didn't make you read too many Jack Schick comics.

Wonder what old Jack has to say about Muslims. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's not good. He probably thinks the Koran should be flushed down the toilet or something equally as freeperishly intolerant.

On edit. Good day. And I mean that for good. There are much more interesting and elevated conversations to have at DU and sadly your shit-fixated question doesn't rank up there.

[LiberallyInclined]

117. jack shick? you're a little too arcane for me there...

never heard of it....and i didn't grow up with actual evangelicals- it was in the name, but there wasn't a whole lot of evangalizing going on- we even had dancing. Our church was in the missouri synod- that's the show-me-synod- and religion sure didn't show me much...
and the only thing about organized religion that i can't wrap my mind around is how many supposedly intelligent adult people are so glaringly gullible so as to actually believe the bible stories, and let the superstitions and mythology rule and ruin their lives to the point that they feel they must inflict their guilt and misery-ridden exsistences on the rest of us.
and all because they're too pea-brained to wrap their minds around the concept of death- for some unknown reason, it scares the common sense right out of all of 'em. present company obviously NOT excepted :hi: don't hurt your knees too much come sunday mornin'

(christians always leave me laughing, and with a smile on my face- and cathoholics and baptists are the best :hi: thanks for the amusement.

and good luck in the thereafter thing, too :hi:

[forgethell]

65. Here's where you're wrong.

We in America get upset when our cars our scratched because of a political sticker on them and rightfully so but it's just a damn car, of NO moral or spiritual value. Desecrating a holy book of another religion is a hateful, unforgivable act designed to inflame.

Sure, it's the car, too. But such an act is also a hateful, unforgivable act designed to inflame and to express contempt for the ideas and the one who holds them. I do not approve of such tactics, and do not indulge in them myself. But neither am I particularly upset when those who have expressed their contempt for America and/or Christianity, get some payback from others.

If they riot, it is the responsibility of the authorities in their countries to put it down. If they engage in terrorism against Americans, it is the responsibility of the government to capture or kill them, and bring them to justice. Not necessarily as it is being done now.

Those that want free speech and freedom of religion for themselves must be willing to extend it to others. Americans, while not absolutely perfect at this are still pretty good. Most Muslim countries are not.

[Decay]

73. "Muslim countries"?

I was not aware there were "Muslim countries". Interesting. I know of several nations whose governments have instituted prefix "Islamic", but "Muslim countries", I do not know of any.

[forgethell]

75. Any more

nits for you to pick? Or are you just trying to avoid the issue?

"Islamic", then, if it makes you feel better. By the way, do you know the definition of a synonym??

[Decay]

83. "Islamic"?

I was not aware there were any "Islamic" countries either. All I said is I knew of several nations whose governments have instituted prefix "Islamic". Interesting response.

[forgethell]

85. So are yours,

very interesting, in fact. But ultimately futile. I can see that you don't wish to debate, my guess is that on this issue you can't. Goodbye.

[Decay]

87. I see.

I apologize, but you really have not specified a particular topic you wish to debate. You are leaving now?

[Tinoire]

77. Too much of a disconnect to tackle

You can understand that scratching someone's car is "such an act is also a hateful, unforgivable act designed to inflame and to express contempt for the ideas and the one who holds them."

but you don't accept that this is exactly what desecrating their Koran does?


If they engage in terrorism against Americans, it is the responsibility of the government to capture or kill them, and bring them to justice. Not necessarily as it is being done now.

WOW! Onward Christian soldiers!

Those that want free speech and freedom of religion for themselves must be willing to extend it to others.

Remind me again when they came and asked us to please give them some of that free speech and freedom of religion American-style.


Americans, while not absolutely perfect at this are still pretty good. Most Muslim countries are not.

Lol. Go have another slice of apple pie Forgethell.

[forgethell]

81. Of course I understand

that that's what desecrating their Koran does.

What is the government for if not to protect us from those trying to harm us? What other point is there is having a government? What does Christianity have to do with the government's responsibility to us?

I prefer custard pie to apple. Thanks, though. But do you actually disagree that America is better at freedom than any Arab or Islamic country in the Mid-east? Do you prefer cherry or grape Kool-Aid?

[Brentos]

97. Wow! Great debate!

To weigh in a little, I understand both sides of this issue, and my take is that I believe our country should be the light to the world for freedom and democracy, and thus, attract people to us based on our integrity, honesty, and respectful way in which we treat others. If another country hold a holy item as sacred, we should respect that. I believe to attract others to us, we need to try to reach an ideal. Sure, we'll fail sometimes, but people understand mistakes if we apologize and try to amend. If our enemies don't act the same way, it will only underscore the differences, and I would rather those differences were highlited, not muted. I don't want to drop down to their level, I would rather hold a high ideal, and others want to reach our ideal. One of the main reasons various groups in middle eastern countries hate us is that we ARE disrespectful. We have military bases in their holiest of lands. This is what got Bin Laden riled up (or at least allowed him to attract followers). The further down the path of a crusade, or trying to force them to be like us, the less the chance it will work. Thoughts?

-Brent

[CJCRANE]

96. Quote:

"But neither am I particularly upset when those who have expressed their contempt for America and/or Christianity, get some payback from others".

Who are "those"? This sounds like collective punishment.

Sure, there have always been muslim fundamentalists who were anti-American.

But before the War on Terror crusade/Invasion of Iraq/Abu Ghraib atrocities etc I bet most young arab guys dreamt of coming to live in America and most of them emulated American culture.

[Roland99]

74. God Bless America...and NO ONE ELSE!

[Rainscents]

79. I saw Riots on BBC news live last night before going to bed. Pakistan

is also on the street rioting!!! There's huge movement going on in middle East over Koran.

[LiberallyInclined]

94. This could make for some GREAT future history classes-

World War III started by a dickhead interrogator tossing a book in the shitter.

[cliss]

95. OK, now back to the topic.

Note the Ominous words: "Saudi Arabia has voiced "deep indignation".

"The US Secretary of State promised prompt action".

HERE's where they get sweaty in Washington, with sweat stains under their armpits. When Saudi Arabia voices its 'indignation', Washington LISTENS.

Whatever we may think of the Koran, it's important to the Saudis, and we should pay heed to this.

Watch CondaLoser drag out a "stooge". This time, I promise you one will be found (unlike Italy and Abu Ghraib) and held up to the camera. Next, he'll be thrown in the slammer, and Condiment will wipe her hands and wink at the Saudis. Just watch.

[Miss Chybil]

99. Reaction in the Arab world muted? Are Afghanis Arabs?

Considering they've been protesting for days, and a few have been killed in those protests, over this very incident makes me question the "muted" statement. Maybe, they're not Arabs. What's an Arab, anyway?

[jayfish]

103. Actually, I Believe Afghanistan Is Considered...

as Asian country, although I'm sure they have a large Arab population. You shouldn't count on the media to be able to make such a distinction though. They tend to confuse:eyes:Arabs with those who practice Islam and lump them all together.

Jay

[allemand]

104. Almost no Arabs in Afghanistan

The population of Afghanistan is divided into a large number of ethnic groups. Because a systematic census has not been held in the country recently, exact figures about the size and composition of the various ethnic groups are not available. Therefore the following figures are approximations only. Persian-speakers form the largest group estimated to account for more than 50% of the population, comprising of Tajik (25%) and Hazara (20%) and tribes such as the Aimak and others. Second largest group are Pashtuns with 30% followed by Uzbeks (9%) and Turkmen, and Baloch make up 8%. The remaining 4% is made up of over 30 minor languages, primarily Balochi and Pashai. Bilingualism is common in Afghanistan. Also a small number of ethnic minorities, primarily Sikhs and Hindus, speak Punjabi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Demographics

[jayfish]

109. Thank You For The Clarification -NT-

Jay

[Miss Chybil]

115. Thank you and Allemand! I'm very ignorant about the Far East, Middle

East and Near East. I appreciate the enlightenment.

[DeaconBlues]

102. unfortunately, it looks like the religious right-wing over there has their

priorities as mixed up as the ones over here. Word comes out that people are tortured in Gitmo and Iraq, and they sit on their hands. Then word comes out that a book has been misused, and the Saudis are up in arms and Afghanistan is in flames. Can the rapture come please and take all these idiots away?

Edit: yes, I know, Moslems don't believe in the rapture. I'm just making fun of the fairy-tale infantilism of most religions

[Disturbed]

112. Another fuck up by the

Bush Junta. btw 80% of Muslims are not Arabs.

Whether one believes that any of these books, Koran, Bible, Mormon Bible, or any others are sacred, transmitted by some god or angel to humans is not relevant because millions do hold these books to be sacred. Deaths have already occured due to this fuck up and more will prolly follow. It is outright stupidity that is the hallmark of the Bush Junta. It is arrogance of percieved power of the Bush Junta that will be their downfall.

[CJCRANE]

119. Funnily enough -

they don't believe in the rapture but some do believe in the Second Coming of Jesus:

"Muslims...believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world".

From: http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/jesus.html

[slackmaster]

110. I'M GOING TO DELETE KORAN.DOC UNLESS THE SAUDIS PAY UP!

I WANT ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN CASH DELIVERED TO MY CUBICLE. IF IT'S NOT HERE IN 10 MINUTES I'LL DELETE MY MICROSOFT WORD COPY OF THE KORAN.

I REALLY MEAN IT!

THIS IS NO BLUFF!

STOP ME IF YOU CAN!

:nuke:

[0rganism]

118. 0rganism ire at Saudi human 'desecration'

* beheading people for disrespecting a book goes against everything I consider holy and just.

* treating women as sub-human property goes against everything I consider holy and just.

* holding televised fundraisers for terrorists goes against everything I consider holy and just.

LET THE PERPETRATORS BE PUNISHED ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AND EDICTS OF ALMIGHTY 0RGANISM!

[magellan]

121. Still looking for an island

...where we can stick all the victimized Christians and indignant Muslims and let them have at it while the rest of us clear up the huge mess they're leaving....