For this heinous crime, pages of the Koran, floating in the crapper?
An invoice loaded with Korans--with one-way tickets...?
Lash wrote:For this heinous crime, pages of the Koran, floating in the crapper?
I've heard others mocking the "crime" but I bet there'd be some pretty pissed off Americans if it was the Bible being defaced, no?
Likely--but they wouldn't kill anybody over it.
They likely wouldn't be moved to roam through the streets, banging themselves in the head, either.
old europe wrote:But I see you want to avoid answering the central question: Whom would you accept as an impartial witness, and how could something be actually witnessed?
Lash wrote:For this heinous crime, pages of the Koran, floating in the crapper?
No. In general. There are quite a lot of threads about whether or not desecrating the Koran is a crime.
Whom would you accept as an impartial witness, and how could something be actually witnessed?
Maybe, but no one would care.
Lash wrote:Likely--but they wouldn't kill anybody over it.
They likely wouldn't be moved to roam through the streets, banging themselves in the head, either.
Well, that's true, about the killing, good point. I'd like to see the banging themselves in the head part, though
So this is the question:
Would "FBI memos, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, in which agents described witnessing or learning of serious mistreatment of detainees" be good enough?
We're off the "Koran abuse" now?
I'd take such as you described above seriously.
<tapping fingers...wondering if McG is ever going to respond to my request for further explanation of his point>
Aah, just as I thought...nothin'.
The thread's been locked twice now Kicky. I'm done with it.
That is why I was asking for a serious explanation. I guess there isn't one.
So be it.
OE--
If they'd not fought alongside the murderer of innocent Americans, they wouldn't have to worry about Satanic Americans touching their fruity book....or doing anything else to them.
They disrespected human life. We responded.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, and due process of law? If they were all guilty by definition, why have some been released?
Are our guards innocent until proven guilty?
They seem to be on the way to the gallows with this bunch.
Setanta-- Depending on how they were taken in to custody. Weren't most of the detainees taken from the fighting fields of Afghanistan? I am under that impression.
The problem with that, Lash, is that a good deal of the fighting was urban, and, after the initial invasion, the "ex-urban" fighting was in tribal lands.
The following statement is in no way intended to cast aspersion on anyone's intellect:
The history of Afghanistan, back at least to the time of Alexander III of Macedon, almost 2300 years ago, has entailed almost constant warfare with every invader (Alexander is the only one they've ever respected--they still remember "Sikander"), and no one has ever been able to tell the players without a score card. I rather suspect the releases have entailed people swept up with the bad guys.
Bad guys or not, we do a disservice to our own principles if we do not accord to them the rights we accord to the lowliest child rapist in our own country. If we become like them, AQ has won.