Guess how many Buddhists rioted and how many Buddhists died as a result...
In fact, McG, that was the Taliban in Afghanistan, and those ancient monuments they defaced were sufficiently valued in the rest of the world, that there was a public outcry around the world. Of course, 'Mericans took little notice, because the monuments had not recently appeared on television.
'Mericans did notice the propensity of the Taliban to want to kill Christians in their country for the offense of being Christians.
The point being made is that Buddists (nor Christians) didn't immediately resort to violence in protest of such actions.
Apparently you two are exceptional, then, because the only other conclusion from such a limited sample would be that McG was exceptionally inattentive--he didn't recall it well enough to have remembered that it was the Taliban--given such an opportunity to rant, i can't believe that he remembers it that well.
So, shall we assume that Cjhsa and Tico are representative of the collective American public memory, or McG?
Chicago Tribune
Red Cross told U.S. of Koran incidents
By Cam Simpson and Mark Silva
Washington Bureau
May 19, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The International Committee of the Red Cross documented what it called credible information about U.S. personnel disrespecting or mishandling Korans at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and pointed it out to the Pentagon in confidential reports during 2002 and early 2003, an ICRC spokesman said Wednesday.
Representatives of the ICRC, who have played a key role in investigating abuse allegations at the facility in Cuba and other U.S. military prisons, never witnessed such incidents firsthand during on-site visits, said Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman in Washington.
But ICRC delegates, who have been granted access to the secretive camp since January 2002, gathered and corroborated enough similar, independent reports from detainees to raise the issue multiple times with Guantanamo commanders and with Pentagon officials, Schorno said in an interview Wednesday.
Following the ICRC's reports, the Defense Department command in Guantanamo issued almost three pages of detailed, written guidelines for treatment of Korans. Schorno said ICRC representatives did not receive any other complaints or document similar incidents following the issuance of the guidelines on Jan. 19, 2003.
The issue of how Korans are handled by American personnel guarding Muslim detainees moved into the spotlight after protests in Muslim nations, including deadly riots in Afghanistan, that followed a now-retracted report in Newsweek magazine. That story said U.S. investigators had confirmed that interrogators had flushed a Koran down a toilet.
The Koran is Islam's holiest book, and mistreating it is seen as an offense against God.
Following the firestorm over the report and the riots, the ICRC declined Wednesday to discuss what kind of alleged incidents were involved, how many there were or how often it reported them to American officials prior to the release of the 2003 Koran guidelines.
"We don't want to comment specifically on specific instances of desecration, only on the general level of how the Koran was disrespected," Schorno said.
Schorno did say, however, that there were "multiple" instances involved and that the ICRC made confidential reports about such incidents "multiple" times to Guantanamo and Pentagon officials.
In addition to the retracted Newsweek story, senior Bush administration officials have repeatedly downplayed other reports regarding alleged abuses of the Koran at Guantanamo, largely dismissing them because they came from current or former detainees.
Pentagon confirms reports
Asked about the ICRC's confidential reports Wednesday night, Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, confirmed their existence but sought to downplay the seriousness of their content. He said they were forwarded "on rare occasions" and called them "detainee allegations which they [the ICRC] could not corroborate."
But that is not how Schorno, the ICRC spokesman, portrayed the reports.
"All information we received were corroborated allegations," he said, adding, "We certainly corroborated mentions of the events by detainees themselves."
`Not just one person'
Schorno also said: "Obviously, it is not just one person telling us something happened and we just fire up. We take it very seriously, and very carefully, and document everything in our confidential reports."
It was not clear whether the ICRC's corroboration went beyond statements made independently by detainees.
The organization has said that it insists on speaking "in total privacy to each and every detainee held" when its delegates and translators visit military detention facilities.
Still, Whitman said there was nothing in the ICRC reports that approximated the information published in the story retracted by Newsweek.
"The representations that were made to the United States military at Guantanamo by the ICRC are consistent with the types of things we have found in various [U.S. military] log entries about handling Korans, such as the accidental dropping of a Koran," he said.
Senior administration officials also have been pointing to the Jan. 19, 2003, guidelines this week as proof of the military's sensitivity about Muslim religious issues, but they did not note that the ICRC had confidentially reported specific concerns before the guidelines were issued.
The procedures outlined in the memorandum, which is entitled "Inspecting/Handling Detainee Korans Standard Operating Procedure," are exacting. Among other things, they mandate that chaplains or Muslim interpreters should inspect all Korans, and that military police should not touch the holy books.
The guidelines also specify that Korans should not be "placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas," according to a copy.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested Tuesday that the guidelines should be broadly reported in the wake of the retracted Newsweek story.
"The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled, or is handled, with the utmost care and respect," he said.
U.S. credited for response
The ICRC gave U.S. officials credit for taking corrective action at Guantanamo by issuing the guidelines, with Schorno saying Wednesday, "We brought it up to the attention of the authorities, and it was followed through."
He also said, "The memo doesn't mention the ICRC, but we know that our comments are taken seriously."
Still, Schorno did not say the guidelines were issued specifically in response to the ICRC's reports. Schorno's remarks Wednesday represented a departure from the ICRC's customary policy of confidentiality with the governments it deals with in an effort to maintain their trust and the organization's neutrality.
A senior State Department official, speaking only on the condition that he not be named, said Wednesday the issuance of the guidelines followed the ICRC's reports and that they were "a credit to the fact that we investigate and correct practices and problems."
Whitman, the Pentagon spokesman, said he was not aware of "any specific precipitating event that caused the command to codify those in a written policy."
Whitman also said, "The ICRC works very closely with us to help us identify concerns with respect to detainees on a variety of issues, to include religious issues. But I can't make any direct correlation there" between ICRC concerns on the Koran and the issuance of the 2003 guidelines.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Copyright 2005 Chicago Tribune
Let me rephrase: I believe that if you were asked to choose between believing the Bush Administration and the Saddam Hussein administration, you would choose to believe Saddam. Am I wrong?
You have no reason to assume "negatives" about an anonymous source who is apparently certain he read somewhere that someone flushed a Koran down a toilet, he's just not sure where? What about Newseeks' use of the plural "sources" in indicating who had revealed to them that investigators probing abuses at Gitmo had uncovered this bit about Korans being flushed? Bizarre that you would assign this unnamed person (the "sources") the mantle of "reliable" knowing what you know.
I take the step of discounting the accounts of these "suspected" terrorists; you take the even bigger leap of believing them.
The fact that Abu Ghraib occurred is not evidence that a Koran was flushed down a toilet at Gitmo.
I believe the job of Newsweek, in this instance, was to try and embarass the Bush administration, because that sells more copies to folks such as yourself who are anxious to hear more negative news about the Bush administration. And I find it worth noting that you have given Newsweek a pass on its apparent hypocrisy in previously chastising Falwell for his comments that might have inflamed radical Islamofascists, then proceeding with its own uncorroborated, unsubstantiated report that might have had the same effect, and then later claim that they couldn't have known it might have that effect.
In a post from some time ago which you responded to, either myself of setanta or another person claimed that McCarthy followers had added 'under god' to the pledge of allegiance. Can you tell me who that was and what thread it was on?
Quote:I take the step of discounting the accounts of these "suspected" terrorists; you take the even bigger leap of believing them.
Yes, you do take that step. You also take the step of discounting any such reports from the red cross or similar agency. You also ignore the ubiquitous instances of Muslim religious sensibilities being specifically targeted in interrogations (fake menstral blood etc). I do not, as you imply, 'believe' any particular individual who has made such a claim. I conclude from all the above that this alleged act may well have happened.
Quote:I believe the job of Newsweek, in this instance, was to try and embarass the Bush administration, because that sells more copies to folks such as yourself who are anxious to hear more negative news about the Bush administration. And I find it worth noting that you have given Newsweek a pass on its apparent hypocrisy in previously chastising Falwell for his comments that might have inflamed radical Islamofascists, then proceeding with its own uncorroborated, unsubstantiated report that might have had the same effect, and then later claim that they couldn't have known it might have that effect.
Your first sentence, tico, is truly silly for reasons I mentioned when we began this. Your premise leads to a conclusion that news media will write nothing but government-embarrassing stories because that will increase sales. And it would be true for any administration, or any government anywhere in the world that has a free enterprise press. It would apply to you as a news purchaser in the last administration. All of which makes little sense.
I've never bought a copy of newsweek, nor can I recall when I might have last paged through one in a doctor's office (the only place I might do that). So if you've not seen me mention newsweek's coverage of Falwell, you have a simple explanation.
Regardless, the Falwell analogy is inappropriate as analogy. A nation's press, if a free press which remains unbowed under the pressure of whatever political power reigns, has the task of policing those powers through informing the citizens of policies and acts put in place or commited by those powers. It also has the task of keeping the broad citizenry informed as to what is going on inside the nation. What Falwell said was not merely imprudent (a la "crusade") it was also typically, for him, uneducated and insensitive. He's a foolish and divisive man and as unchristian a christian as I've bumped into.
What makes these cases analogous to you is that newsweek covered them and they caused some part of the Muslim community to become inflamed. That analogy is fine, but meaningless. What you've got wrong is who you blame. Falwell's words were Falwell's words. Printing them wasn't the problem. Printing the truth wasn't the problem. Falwell's mind and mouth was the problem. You would hold, I expect, that even if Newsweek had had two sources or three or ten for their story, that they shouldn't have printed it. I expect you'd also hold that the Abu Ghraib photos shouldn't have been released. Tough luck. That's what a free press is for. The converse is totalitarian. The press ought to embarrass an administration, where that administration has been complicit in something that ought to embarrass them. It ought not to set out to embarrass a government without such valid cause.
An example of press operating irresponsibly, and out of greeed apparently, occured today with the publication in Murdoch's two papers of photos of Hussein in underwear. As information, this has no value for citizens. They do not become better informed about their government or about the world. That makes the publication inexcuseable.
And that is all I will take up with you on this issue.
Ubiquitous?
The reports of the IRC are the accounts of the terrorists I'm referring to. Who do you think reported to the Red Cross?
Ticomaya wrote:
Ubiquitous?
The reports of the IRC are the accounts of the terrorists I'm referring to. Who do you think reported to the Red Cross?
You could float an aircraft carrier thru the holes in your arguments, Tico.
Could you check and see for me how many of these Red Cross sources have been convicted of being terorists?
I believe you've stated, correct me if I'm wrong, something to the effect that people are innocent until proven guilty.
One would then assume that they also may be actually telling the truth,
... especially if they have, say, an idea that they might, down the road, sue someone for what? ... geeze, the possibilities boggle the mind.
Interestingly, the Red Cross believed that the instances of abuse of the Koran had responded to their complaints - since they stopped receiving them for a time.
JTT wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
Ubiquitous?
The reports of the IRC are the accounts of the terrorists I'm referring to. Who do you think reported to the Red Cross?
You could float an aircraft carrier thru the holes in your arguments, Tico.
Why don't you try and do so?
Quote:Could you check and see for me how many of these Red Cross sources have been convicted of being terorists?
How about you check, and get back to me?
Quote:I believe you've stated, correct me if I'm wrong, something to the effect that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Of course one is innocent until proven guilty. In any event, one must decide how much credence to give to statements of persons in their position. Given the al Queda handbook instructs to make allegations of this sort, it ought to give a thoughtful person pause as to whether the allegation is true. Of course another option is to just assume its true. Your choice.
Quote:One would then assume that they also may be actually telling the truth,
There is that possibility ....
Quote:... especially if they have, say, an idea that they might, down the road, sue someone for what? ... geeze, the possibilities boggle the mind.
Was that supposed to make sense?
