PDA

View Full Version : Bush to Newsweek: stuff the 1st amendmnt


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
05-18-2005, 11:58 PM
Amazing, isn't it? The audacity of the current Administration never fails to amaze. The Pentagon cries about the Newsweek story about the desecration of Koran's in interrogations, and the White House piles the pressure on, for Newsweek to kill the story.

Bush to Newsweek: You see what all of your factual reporting has done? Why, RIOTS are being caused! :blush: Ppl are getting HURT, because you have the audacity to report the facts! :rolleyes:

Note: no one has actually claimed that the actual desecrations are false. Only, that Newsweek was irresponsible for publishing the story.

I so love it in instances such as this, where US mainstream media caves into the tantrum's d'jour of the White House. Where are the proclaimers of the "Liberal Media Bias" myth, now?

No, BushCo wanted to make an example of Newsweek. It seemed that the media haven't gotten the "message," when they showed Dan Rather the torture-instruments, and he recanted. :uch:

Ah, First Amendment...we hardly knew ye. Give us a fond farewell, as you enter into that faraway land of civil liberties lost, will ye? :dead:

DustinAcuff
05-19-2005, 12:44 AM
mmmm....Neil....bud.....I have no idea what you are talking about. Please put up a link or nutshell it. I can under you are upset about something Bush did, but what was it?

Yann Golanski
05-19-2005, 03:37 AM
Okay,,, Maybe it's just me but this has __NOTHING__ to do with Aikido.

If I want to get political blogs and commentary, I'll go to some political blogs (Of which I do read plenty thank you very much). However, this is not the place for this. At least that's what I think. However, Jun is the boss here so it's his decision.

Jun, to you.

Hogan
05-19-2005, 07:48 AM
Okay,,, Maybe it's just me but this has __NOTHING__ to do with Aikido.

If I want to get political blogs and commentary, I'll go to some political blogs (Of which I do read plenty thank you very much). However, this is not the place for this. At least that's what I think. However, Jun is the boss here so it's his decision.

Jun, to you.

This is the only thing that Neil does..... the "court jester" so to speak, on politics here.

Anat Amitay
05-19-2005, 08:16 AM
John and Yann,
It might not be related to Aikido, but Neil posted under "open discussion" which does mean what it says. Even if it isn't correlated to Aikido, we are all human beings and still have other interests and want to share them with our fellow aikidoka worldwide (or cross country). You don't have to answer or read forums that don't interest you, but as long as Jun gave the option for other topics other than Aikido, you can't get mad at those who write in them. It's like someone will get angry at me since I had a chat in the chat room about dogs and not how I can better blend with my partner.
All of us are different and have different interests, don't be angry about it, find those links/ forums that interest you.
And most of all,
Enjoy training! :)
Anat

Michael Neal
05-19-2005, 09:54 AM
Newsweek retracted the story because they could not back it up with facts, get over it. it was newsweek that was at fault not George Bush.

Hogan
05-19-2005, 09:54 AM
John and Yann,
It might not be related to Aikido, but Neil posted under "open discussion" which does mean what it says. Even if it isn't correlated to Aikido, we are all human beings and still have other interests and want to share them with our fellow aikidoka worldwide (or cross country). You don't have to answer or read forums that don't interest you, but as long as Jun gave the option for other topics other than Aikido, you can't get mad at those who write in them. It's like someone will get angry at me since I had a chat in the chat room about dogs and not how I can better blend with my partner.
All of us are different and have different interests, don't be angry about it, find those links/ forums that interest you.
And most of all,
Enjoy training! :)
Anat


Who said I was angry ? Mearly filling in for Yann what Neil's role in life is here....

GLWeeks
05-19-2005, 11:20 AM
Newsweek retracted the story because they could not back it up with facts, get over it. it was newsweek that was at fault not George Bush.


I agree...

deepsoup
05-19-2005, 01:20 PM
I'm afraid I agree too - the story doesn't seem to have been well enough supported to broadcast it, especially considering the consequences of the broadcast. Heads rolled at the BBC over less.

As for the first amendment, I guess its increasingly irrelevent anyway, as more and more of the media are owned by a few individuals and organisations with, shall we say, their own agenda. There's no need for the government to curtail the freedom of the press when the press itself will do it. (In return for a disturbingly undemocratic degree of influence over government policy, of course.)

Yann,
I'm with Anat. This is the 'open' discussion forum, and some of us are interested in this stuff, if you don't like it don't read it, but as long as posters treat each other with respect (unlike John, above), there is no such thing as "off topic" here.

Sean
x

Hogan
05-19-2005, 02:23 PM
... but as long as posters treat each other with respect (unlike John, above),...
Sean
x


At least I don't throw around baseless comments and accusations, like you, apparantly, and Neil.

But you two go ahead and enjoy each other....

Neil Mick
05-19-2005, 09:27 PM
mmmm....Neil....bud.....I have no idea what you are talking about. Please put up a link or nutshell it. I can under you are upset about something Bush did, but what was it?

My point is that reports of Koran-desecration are hardly new. Previous Koran desecrations in front of US-held prisoners has already been documented. However, the Bush Admin's attempt to squelch this story is another attempt at stomping on our First Amendment rights.

Desecration of Koran Had Been Reported Before (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701315.html)

James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain at the prison who was investigated and cleared of charges of mishandling classified material, has asserted that guards' mishandling and mistreatment of detainees' Korans led the prisoners to launch a hunger strike in March 2002. Detainee lawyers, attributing their information to an interrogator, have said the strike ended only when military leaders issued an apology to the detainees over the camp loudspeaker. But they said mishandling of the Koran persisted.

Erik Saar, a former Army translator at Guantanamo Bay who has written a book about mistreatment of detainees at the military prison, said in interviews and in his book that he never saw a Koran flushed in a toilet but that guards routinely ignored prisoners' sensitivities by tossing it on the ground while searching their cells.

And numerous detainees, whose stories are uncorroborated, have said to various media outlets that at detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan, the Koran was stepped on, tossed on the floor and placed in latrines.

"They tore the Koran to pieces in front of us, threw it into the toilet," former detainee Aryat Vahitov told Russian television in June 2004.

The gov't does not like the story, and so they lean on Newsweek, decrying how could they report on what is already known, and cause riots, (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050511/2005-05-11T110003Z_01_N11163647_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RELIGION-AFGHAN-DC.html) no less! :blush:

But, I idly wondered how many of the Bush-faithful choir would jump up here and proclaim that this reporting of old news is just kicking up dust, where none occurs, such as...

This is the only thing that Neil does..... the "court jester" so to speak, on politics here.

Yep, leave it to John to come lead in with an insult. Sans rational debate, it's his only weapon in his rhetorical toolbox.

Nice to see you too, John.

Or,

Okay,,, Maybe it's just me but this has __NOTHING__ to do with Aikido.

Yeah, Yann: I'm with Sean: it IS "just you." This is the "open discussions" section (subheading--"Open Forum on ANY Topic"). Unless, you wish us to cease discussion on Gun Control, favorite movies, or how to make shuriken, as well.

Until then: NEXT! (But, before you go...happy birthday :D )



All of us are different and have different interests, don't be angry about it, find those links/ forums that interest you.
And most of all,
Enjoy training! :)
Anat

Well said, Anat. ;)

Newsweek retracted the story because they could not back it up with facts, get over it. it was newsweek that was at fault not George Bush.

Ahh, what happy, sleepytime myths you live in, Michael. Riiight: Newsweek backed down from an already documented story because they couldn't find any credible references. Sure: it had NOTHING to do with political pressure. One of the more Conservative and reputable mainstream periodicals in the nation cannot find other sources on an action reported in several other international outlets...uh huh.

And the war on terror is going well, and Luis Posada didn't really sneak in under the noses of Homeland Security, and there really were wmd's found in Iraq.

Just as Bush the Lesser said, there were. Ahhhh: it's so EASY being tranquilized by the steady drone of the Fox/mainstream news, isn't it? You see a clear trampling of the First Amendment, and you look no further than the surface, for answers.

Back to sleepytime, Michael. In the meantime: I STILL await my answers to my previous questions:

I await Michael Neal's response to my questions, with baited breath (unless, as I suspect: he cannot answer these questions, and he's lurking in the virtual background, unable to answer).

1. If the mainstream media is so biased, then why were anti-war sources not given any time, during the invasion?

2. If the mainstream media (CNN, et al) is biased, how can "Project Censored" exist? If there WERE a real bias, such a list would be irrelevant.

I'm afraid I agree too - the story doesn't seem to have been well enough supported to broadcast it, especially considering the consequences of the broadcast. Heads rolled at the BBC over less.

See my points, above. The case of Koran's being desecrated has been documented elsewhere.

As for the first amendment, I guess its increasingly irrelevent anyway, as more and more of the media are owned by a few individuals and organisations with, shall we say, their own agenda.

The First Amendment will ALWAYS be relevant, in regards to the news.

There's no need for the government to curtail the freedom of the press when the press itself will do it. (In return for a disturbingly undemocratic degree of influence over government policy, of course.)

Good point. But, even a self-censoring, co-opted press will sometimes run afoul of the Powers That Be.



At least I don't throw around baseless comments and accusations, like you, apparantly, and Neil.

Nah, you just come along and initiate thread-lock by lobbing the first insults.

But, ask for references, and ye shall receive. Unlike some, I stand by every word (even my mistakes).

makuchg
05-20-2005, 06:03 AM
While not often agreeing with Neil, I do here. The reporting of information by the media should be free of governmental (read White House in this case) interferrence. While the government has every right to pursue their agenda and even push to have it reported, the unbiased approach to reporting information has been replaced with shock headlines and placating stories.

Here is an excellent article on the Koran desecretions: http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/246117.shtml

Just by reading this article I find it hard to believe that Newsweek could not find adaquate sources to confirm their story. Either way, who cares if they could substantiate it after the fact? The purpose of journalism is to report information for public scrutiny, not perform the scrutiny for us. If all they had was an anonymous source, how much credibility would it gather? If you read it and believe it, keep reading. If you read it and doubt Newsweeks credibility, read something else. You don't have to accept it as fact just because it is "reported." Are they worried that mainstream America isn't smart enough to form opinions and will believe everything that is printed? I hope we haven't sunk to that point (as a country). Here's an idea, why don't we force (through governmental legislation) all news stories must have two named sources, must be investigated by a neutral third party, and receive an OK from the applicable governmental agency prior to release!

Better yet, put blinders on me, take away my ability to reason, and just tell me what I should think!

Hogan
05-20-2005, 07:52 AM
Yep, leave it to John to come lead in with an insult. Sans rational debate, it's his only weapon in his rhetorical toolbox.

Nice to see you too, John.


Nah, you just come along and initiate thread-lock by lobbing the first insults.


Hey, who said it was an insult ?? Court jesters are invaluable providers of entertainment !

Michael Neal
05-20-2005, 08:13 AM
It is pointless to argue with lunatics

dan guthrie
05-20-2005, 08:30 AM
While not often agreeing with Neil, I do here. The reporting of information by the media should be free of governmental (read White House in this case) interference. While the government has every right to pursue their agenda and even push to have it reported, the unbiased approach to reporting information has been replaced with shock headlines and placating stories.

Here is an excellent article on the Koran desecretions: http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/246117.shtml

Just by reading this article I find it hard to believe that Newsweek could not find adequate sources to confirm their story. Either way, who cares if they could substantiate it after the fact? The purpose of journalism is to report information for public scrutiny, not perform the scrutiny for us. If all they had was an anonymous source, how much credibility would it gather? If you read it and believe it, keep reading. If you read it and doubt Newsweek's credibility, read something else. You don't have to accept it as fact just because it is "reported." Are they worried that mainstream America isn't smart enough to form opinions and will believe everything that is printed? I hope we haven't sunk to that point (as a country). Here's an idea, why don't we force (through governmental legislation) all news stories must have two named sources, must be investigated by a neutral third party, and receive an OK from the applicable governmental agency prior to release!

Better yet, put blinders on me, take away my ability to reason, and just tell me what I should think!



Without touching on the veracity of the Newsweek story, journalists do not publish rumors or hearsay. There is a code of ethics. They are the gatekeepers of information. It is precisely their job to do all of the necessary scrutiny for us.

For example: the names of rape victims and minors accused of crimes are withheld.
The National Enquirer has looser standards than Newsweek. If you want rumors then read that rag.

There's an old cliche, supposedly from a Chicago newspaper: You say your mother loves you? Check it out.



Newsweek has lost credibility. It will take a long time for that trust to be regained. I would hope that their efforts would be to nail this story down once and for all.
I, personally, don't think the military would systematically abuse the Koran. It doesn't make sense. The Koran has a unique place in Moslem theology: it is the revealed word of God, period. If you want to read it you must learn to read Arabic.
I'm not that strong a Christian but flushing Genesis down the loo would give me a two week morale boost.
.

Michael Neal
05-20-2005, 08:31 AM
But I will anyway just for fun

Ahh, what happy, sleepytime myths you live in, Michael. Riiight: Newsweek backed down from an already documented story because they couldn't find any credible references. Sure: it had NOTHING to do with political pressure. One of the more Conservative and reputable mainstream periodicals in the nation cannot find other sources on an action reported in several other international outlets...uh huh.

And the war on terror is going well, and Luis Posada didn't really sneak in under the noses of Homeland Security, and there really were wmd's found in Iraq.

Just as Bush the Lesser said, there were. Ahhhh: it's so EASY being tranquilized by the steady drone of the Fox/mainstream news, isn't it? You see a clear trampling of the First Amendment, and you look no further than the surface, for answers.

Back to sleepytime, Michael. In the meantime: I STILL await my answers to my previous questions:

BS, what documentation please provide it Neil. the story linked to by Gregory is very amusing http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/246117.shtml, their "evidence" is from three terrorist suspects that were detained for questioning, as if they would have no motivation to make up anything. You will jhave to come up with something more credible than that.

My favorite quote form that so called news article (actually a left wing propaganda website)

Among the most ominous comments came from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who warned, “you must be careful what you say, as well as what you do,” clearly suggesting that speech opposed to the government may be criminal.

How does that cleary suggest that at all, LOL.

Bush has the right to say whatever he wants as well, he has freedom of speech like everyone else, he has a right to respond and complain to stories based on no evidence. Please show us all how the White House used its powers to stop the media from reporting. The government has done nothing to supress the First Amendment here, get a grip and stop the whining.

And again with the WMDs, stop changing the subject Neil. if you want to talk about WMDs start another thread and I wil be happy to discuss it with you.


I await Michael Neal's response to my questions, with baited breath (unless, as I suspect: he cannot answer these questions, and he's lurking in the virtual background, unable to answer).

1. If the mainstream media is so biased, then why were anti-war sources not given any time, during the invasion?

2. If the mainstream media (CNN, et al) is biased, how can "Project Censored" exist? If there WERE a real bias, such a list would be irrelevant.


Again, not the subject of this thread, but in short the reason there was no anti-war stories aired as the invasion was happening was sinply because they wanted to remain in business, 90% of Americans would not have tolerated that in the moments we were going to war. And i have no idea what this stupid "Project Censored" is and don't care. if you want to talk about these things start another thread on this because i am tired of you changing the subject in order to avoid having to defend your original argument.

Michael Neal
05-20-2005, 08:36 AM
and the Washingpost story, former detainees are not credible sources.

makuchg
05-20-2005, 11:12 AM
Without touching on the veracity of the Newsweek story, journalists do not publish rumors or hearsay. There is a code of ethics. They are the gatekeepers of information. It is precisely their job to do all of the necessary scrutiny for us.

For example: the names of rape victims and minors accused of crimes are withheld.
The National Enquirer has looser standards than Newsweek. If you want rumors then read that rag.

There's an old cliche, supposedly from a Chicago newspaper: You say your mother loves you? Check it out.


Sorry Dan, I'm going to disagree with you. It's one thing to report the news, it's another to form judgments and pass opinions as fact. If a car bomb explodes in Tel Aviv, the report should provide FACTS, not speculation. I don't need political spin or innuendos. News reporters are no long giving just facts. Don't tell me why the news organization believes it happened or what the political reasoning is (unless you have someone claiming responsibility and providing that info). Listen to the news and listen to how much superfluous information is presented to spur public sentiment in a given direction. Even criminal trials are so grossly misreported the people formulate ideas of innocence or guilt without the whole story. You can tell what the news organization thinks by the coverage. Then when the outcome is different, everyone is shocked or surprised. Well of course you are when all you listen to is one sided.

makuchg
05-20-2005, 11:36 AM
the story linked to by Gregory is very amusing http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/246117.shtml, their "evidence" is from three terrorist suspects that were detained for questioning, as if they would have no motivation to make up anything. You will jhave to come up with something more credible than that.

Michael, did we read the same article? Here are some quotes from the article you must have missed:

"On March 26, 2003, the Washington Post reported that a group of 18 Afghans released from Guantánamo the day before “complained that American soldiers insulted Islam by sitting on the Koran or dumping their sacred text into a toilet to taunt them.”

"Further confirmation of these psychological torture methods targeting the detainees’ religious beliefs came a year later with the March 2004 release of three Britons who had been held by the US for more than two years in Afghanistan and Guantánamo. " (the article goes on to give more description from each)

"Last January, lawyers for Kuwaiti detainees at Guantánamo said their clients had made similar complaints. “Several of our clients did tell us that the guards had desecrated the Koran,” Kristine Huskey, of the lawyers told AFP. “At least two stated that the Koran had been thrown in a toilet, another said it had been stepped on and I believe another said it had been thrown by a guard and/or spat on.”

"A New York-based attorney representing 13 Yemeni prisoners at Guantánamo also recounted “systematic” religious abuse against his clients. The attorney, Marc Falkoff, told BBC News, “The government is trying to use religion to humiliate them.” He too quoted his clients as saying that American interrogators threw copies of the Koran on the ground and stepped on them. "

"Then there is Brahim Benchecrún, a 26-year-old Moroccan...“They grabbed the holy Koran, threw it on the floor, ripped it up, urinated on it and then threw it into the latrines,” he said. “They stopped us from praying,” he added. “When there was a call to prayer, the Americans would laugh, sing and dance.”

Now, by my math it is 18 Afghans + 3 Britons + Several Kuwaitis (we'll use 3 as this is a common definition of several) + 13 Yemenis + 1 Morroccan = 38 sources from 5 seperate complaints.

Seem like many more than 3!

Michael Neal
05-20-2005, 03:26 PM
Gregory, seems like those terror suspects and their attorneys have a great propaganda campaign going on.

Anat Amitay
05-20-2005, 03:49 PM
Dan wrote:
Without touching on the veracity of the Newsweek story, journalists do not publish rumors or hearsay. There is a code of ethics. They are the gatekeepers of information. It is precisely their job to do all of the necessary scrutiny for us.

Dan, I'm sorry to say (and agree with Gregory) that the media has long since lost it's objective- fact- giving point of view, and became very subjective, depending on what the public likes to hear and what news can make the front page and sell. There are very few (maybe a bit more) journalists who still do their true job and stick to their code of ethics.
You might say I'm writing this becuase I'm "Israeli", but it has nothing to do with it, because it's true for every place in the world.
I'm sorry that I'm not writing anything about the original topic, but I'm not to involved with news in the USA and won't comment on what I don't know.
Anat

makuchg
05-20-2005, 03:53 PM
If I'm not correct, the three British you are referring to who are complaining have been RELEASED. Last time I checked once a person is cleared they are no longer suspects. How come you still refer to them as terror suspects? The U.S. government arrested them, interrogated them, and subsequently released them. What will it take to convince you that they are no longer suspects?

On what basis are you impugning their credibility? Oh yes the media told you to; good thing we have the media to formulate your opinions.

makuchg
05-20-2005, 03:56 PM
Oh, and the 18 Afghans were released also. Are they still suspects too? Boy it's hard to get acquitted in the court of Michael Neal!

makuchg
05-20-2005, 04:00 PM
and the Washingpost story, former detainees are not credible sources.

The source of that quote in the Washington Post is the Pentagon. Now there is an impartial body to judge a source's credibility when the source are accusing them of wrongdoing! Does anyone else see a conflict of interest here? :confused:

James Davis
05-20-2005, 05:12 PM
"If it bleeds, it leads. If it burns, it earns." Newspapers are constantly showing us the most awful things they can find in an attempt to pique our interest. There are wonderful people and things in our communities that we will never hear about because scumbags are just too interesting. Regardless of whether this story from newsweek is true, they only used one undocumented source. That's just not professional. The smallest effort should have resulted in at least TWO anonymous sources to confirm the story. It's also strange that the guy who wrote the story has disappeared, when so many people are interested in speaking with him... :confused:
Research and confirm the things you're told. We're all sitting around typing to each other on these things, right? :) Let's put them to use! SOMEBODY's got to know someone who's a guard at Guantanamo Bay. Let's ask someone who's there.
The sad truth is that many of us have already made up our minds, and no amount of proof or debate will ever change them. Let's open ourselves to the truth. We may have to work pretty hard to find it, though. Everybody take care (and calm down?).

Steven
05-20-2005, 05:35 PM
Jun... make it stop...... AHHHHHHHHH!

makuchg
05-20-2005, 06:07 PM
Let's put them to use! SOMEBODY's got to know someone who's a guard at Guantanamo Bay. Let's ask someone who's there.
The sad truth is that many of us have already made up our minds, and no amount of proof or debate will ever change them. Let's open ourselves to the truth. We may have to work pretty hard to find it, though. Everybody take care (and calm down?).

James, I am a counterintelligence agent for the Army. My job is to find people who provide information that is not supposed to be released and help them into a jail cell. What you are asking is for someone in this group to entice a guard to break the law. Not only military law, but United States Code, particularly title 18 which covers espionage. By providing information with the intent to harm the U.S. government they are committing a grave crime.

Please don't solicit criminal activity, even with the best of intentions. :mad:

Neil Mick
05-20-2005, 09:53 PM
But I will anyway just

because you hate to "lose..."

BS, what documentation please provide it Neil. the story linked to by Gregory is very amusing http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/246117.shtml, their "evidence" is from three terrorist suspects that were detained for questioning, as if they would have no motivation to make up anything. You will jhave to come up with something more credible than that.

Ahh,,,,the sleepy-one raises his head and mutters the usual mantra's. "Uncredible resources!" He barks.

So predictable.

But I understand: waking up CAN be painful. But, it pains me not at all, I admit: to smack you a literal dose of reality.

Ask, and ye shall receive:

Red Cross raised Koran disrespect concerns (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=8548212)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The International Red Cross told the Pentagon as early as 2002 detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison had reported U.S. officials mishandled the Koran, Red Cross and Pentagon officials said on Thursday.

The acknowledgment of the documentation of alleged abuse of the Koran came as Washington sought to defuse anger in the Muslim world after a U.S. news magazine reported the Muslim holy book was flushed down the toilet at the Guantanamo prison. The magazine later retracted the article.

The International Committee for the Red Cross told the Pentagon "multiple" times in 2002 and early 2003 that prisoners at Guantanamo said U.S. officials showed "disrespect" for the Muslim holy book, said Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman.

Gosh, I bet that hurt. :)

Now, sorry: but official statements by Reuters, the ICRC and the Pentagon are as "primary source" as it gets.

Bush has the right to say whatever he wants as well, he has freedom of speech like everyone else, he has a right to respond and complain to stories based on no evidence. Please show us all how the White House used its powers to stop the media from reporting. The government has done nothing to supress the First Amendment here, get a grip and stop the whining.

I shake my head in sadness, at the paltry relativism when ppl attempt to claim that Bush is no different than the "average joe."

Please. Let's be clear: the White House, the State Dept, and the Pentagon (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16479546.htm?_lite_=1) all claimed that the Newsweek story damaged the US's "credibility:"

The retraction came as the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department all heavily criticized the report and said it had damaged the U.S. image abroad. White House spokesman Scott McClellan had said it was "puzzling" that Newsweek had not retracted the story a day after apologizing for it.

"A retraction is a good first step," McClellan said after Newsweek issued its statement. "This allegation was unsubstantiated and it was contrary to everything that we value and all that our military works to uphold. We encourage Newsweek to now work diligently to help undo what damage can be undone."

Please, don't sit there and insult my intelligence by trying to claim that all of branches of gov't coming down on a periodical isn't using political pressure. I don't even believe that YOU believe it.

And again with the WMDs, stop changing the subject Neil. if you want to talk about WMDs start another thread and I wil be happy to discuss it with you.

It's all related. You claim I'm a lunatic: I prove that you like to believe whatever Fox/BushCo/et al tells you.

You claim it's not related: I smile and sardonically nod. Sure it isn't related.

You believe that if it makes you feel better. :P

Again, not the subject of this thread, but in short the reason there was no anti-war stories aired as the invasion was happening was sinply because they wanted to remain in business, 90% of Americans would not have tolerated that in the moments we were going to war.

Nooo...it was 75%. Those nasty "details" interfering with Michael's mass-produced sleepy-dreams, again. Why, I bet you barely understand that we're in the middle of a war! :blush:

But, there was an active dissent with record numbers turning out to protest the war. Sorry, Michael: you can again deny or relativize reality, but the truth is that anti-war activists were vocal and representative of all aspects of society, within and without government. The whole process of going to war was based on a lie, from the word go.

And much of this huge lie was uninvestigated and underreported, by the media. If the media were such an outlet of "Leftist bias" then there should be ample evidence of their vocal support against the war.

Contemporaneously, Condi Rice has the absolute GALL to proclaim that "we were forced into war." :grr: Even as the world discovers that Bush was ready to go to war as early as July, 2002. Hussein could have opened up his borders to the UN, and it wouldn't have mattered.

It matters because these ppl are lying, even as the news comes out, revealing their perfidy. FoxNews, CNN, et al don't dig or critique, and you seem to swallow it all, whole. Where's the mainstream bias, here? Are the media challenging their lies, questioning how can BushCo be so BLATANT in their perfidy? No: they meekly sit back and shrug, gently.

If pushed, they retract whatever the gov't tells them, to retract.

And i have no idea what this stupid "Project Censored" is

That's right, you don't (altho you WOULD, if you had looked in on the link I provided (or maybe if it were called the "Fox List of Censored Stories"). Sad, Michael. I guess I'll have to change my name to "Fox" for you to notice :hypno: Sllleeeep, Michaelll.... :) )

You DON'T know whom they are because on the one hand you claim that there is a Left-biased media dominating the airwaves, on the other you claim (above) that the media is controlled by business-concerns (so, which is it? Ideology, or market-driven? I await your relativistic reply, with relish).

But, if you had bothered to take 1 min to look at my link, you'd have seen that Project Censored (http://www.projectcensored.org/) is a list of the top ten censored stories each year. Reality-test the media: does it report Leftist issues? The environment, significant anti-war voices or debates? Does it heed the concerns about the media, if it is so Left-biased?

The Project Censored list belies the idea that the media is Left-biased. If the media were biased, then this list wouldn't exist.

i am tired of you changing the subject in order to avoid having to defend your original argument.

Funny, I thought you were doing this "for fun..." And as I mention, I am NOT "Changing the subject:" I'm just not letting sleeping Michael's lie. :P :D

Neil Mick
05-20-2005, 09:56 PM
Jun... make it stop...... AHHHHHHHHH!

Amazing, isn't it? How some ppl claim to "make it stop," in the midst of an "open forum."

Why, you'd think that they were attempting to squelch free-speech, if they could!

Oh lawd, say it isn't so! :eek:

dan guthrie
05-20-2005, 10:00 PM
There's a lot of info. coming out about real, verified abuse. Although this article http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000929313 details events from 2002, I'm going to bow out of this discussion until the fog clears. I still support our military and will say nothing negative about anyone.

American soldiers are being court martialed for abuse of prisoners. Even if they never desecrated the Koran or if Newsweek was always correct I don't feel like arguing about this anymore.

Also, in my previous post, I should have said that journalists "should" have ethics or words to that effect. Editorials "should" give opinions. News should contain verifiable facts and nothing more. I hope that clears it up, nothing radical.

Neil Mick
05-20-2005, 10:05 PM
I'm going to bow out of this discussion until the fog clears. I still support our military and will say nothing negative about anyone.

American soldiers are being court martialed for abuse of prisoners. Even if they never desecrated the Koran or if Newsweek was always correct I don't feel like arguing about this anymore.

Fair enough, Dan: I've always found your comments to be moderate, and thoughtful...even if I did not always agree with them.

Bon Chance! And, happy birthday! :D

dan guthrie
05-20-2005, 10:18 PM
Fair enough, Dan: I've always found your comments to be moderate, and thoughtful...even if I did not always agree with them.

Bon Chance! And, happy birthday! :D




Happy BIRTHDAY??? That tears it, you've had it now, fill out your will - buddy boy- wish me a happy . . . ooooooh put 'em up, put 'em up, oh pull and axe on me, eh? Ah, how long can you stay fresh in that can?


"Courage! What makes a king out of a slave? Courage! What makes the flag on the mast to wave? Courage! What makes the elephant charge his tusk in the misty mist, or the dusky dusk? What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage! What makes the sphinx the seventh wonder? Courage! What makes the dawn come up like thunder? Courage! What makes the Hottentot so hot? What puts the "ape" in apricot? What have they got that I ain't got?"

Neil Mick
05-21-2005, 10:29 PM
Happy BIRTHDAY??? That tears it, you've had it now, fill out your will - buddy boy- wish me a happy . . . ooooooh put 'em up, put 'em up, oh pull and axe on me, eh? Ah, how long can you stay fresh in that can?


Come on, be nice: just step up and take your allotted ukemi... ;)

Michael Neal
05-23-2005, 08:18 AM
Neil, unless you are able to stay on the subject of the thread then you can stay here and argue with yourself.

makuchg
05-23-2005, 10:44 AM
See my alarm was going off and I didn't know why-fun time was over and I didn't even know it!

James Davis
05-23-2005, 11:28 AM
James, I am a counterintelligence agent for the Army. My job is to find people who provide information that is not supposed to be released and help them into a jail cell. What you are asking is for someone in this group to entice a guard to break the law. Not only military law, but United States Code, particularly title 18 which covers espionage. By providing information with the intent to harm the U.S. government they are committing a grave crime.

Please don't solicit criminal activity, even with the best of intentions. :mad:

Sorry, Greg. I wasn't trying to encourage people to be bad. I was just suggesting that people can look to other (legal) sources for their news instead of the two-second soundbites that we see and hear on TV. :mad: No more mean faces! :D :D :D

makuchg
05-23-2005, 02:05 PM
Most people don't even realize they are asking something that can get a service member in trouble. You asking may not be a crime, but him/her telling you even innocently can be. Just trying to keep everyone honest and out of trouble.

Lots of smiles :)

Neil Mick
05-23-2005, 03:57 PM
Neil, unless you are able to stay on the subject of the thread then you can stay here and argue with yourself.

Oh, NO! Michael! Don't go! :eek:

Who will sing in the Bush-faithful choir?? Jeez, WHAT WILL POOR JOHN HOGAN DO??? Learn to sing solo?? :D :D :D

Oh, LAWHD!!! :crazy:

Face it, Michael: you got your head handed back to you, that last round. You wanna whine "off-topic" and threaten to leave...there's the virtual door.

At least, show some humility and admit when you're wrong. I'd certainly respect you a lot more, than your usual "I'm always right" dance.

Neil Mick
05-23-2005, 04:19 PM
But all arguments aside, let's look at the facts, since the issue is getting a little weighty in side-issues.

1. Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/) runs a story about some abuses occurring at Gitmo. The actual content of the story is hardly new, as stories about Quran desecrations and prisoner abuse has been around in the media for several years, now.

Notice, I said "abuses:" not just a Quran desecration. In fact, they said:

interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners, including one woman who took off her top, rubbed her finger through a detainee's hair and sat on the detainee's lap. (New details of sexual abuse—including an instance in which a female interrogator allegedly wiped her red-stained hand on a detainee's face, telling him it was her menstrual blood—are also in a new book to be published this week by a former Gitmo translator.)

2. The backlash to the Bush Admin regarding abuse is starting to mount. Protests in Afghanistan occur, and the puppet Hamid Karzi squeals to his master.

3. BushCo attempts to deal with this politically, by slapping down Newsweek and criticizing only a portion of the story.

4. The Pentagon claims that the story of Koran desecrations damages their credibility, lying about the charge. The White House and State Dept follow suit.

5. BushCo, in high (if unknowing) irony, criticizes the anonymity of the sources Newsweek used, with Rumsfeld decrying the deaths in the demonstrations. He was shocked: SHOCKED! to hear of unnecessary deaths (the lives snuffed out, represented in my sig below, of course: are beneath concern. Nor, of course: are the lives of 1600 US soldiers, all told to invade, based upon a premeditated pack of lies) caused by the story.

They criticize the anonymity of the sources, decrying the deaths resulting in the forthcoming demonstrations. Of course, using anonymous sources to decide to go to war (cf, "Curveball," et al)...well, that's just hunky dory. Sending in US soldiers into harm's way, based upon "shaky intelligence" that was cherry-picked to achieve the desired results...well, no problem, there.

7. Newsweek retracts the story. Scott McClellan calls this a "good first step." Point of fact: it seems about right for Newsweek to retract this rather technichal point, about this particular detail. Some have suggested that this is because Newsweek is on the trail of another story, down a similar vein.

Perhaps. this is why BushCo is in attack-mode..maybe they suspect it, too. But, this is just my speculation.

8. "A good first step." I agree. A good next step might be to start obeying international law, either release or charge the prisoners held at Gitmo, et al; and initiate an independent investigation, separate from the Pentagon, to investigate the charges of abuse, and let the subpoena's fly.

Hogan
05-23-2005, 04:34 PM
....
Who will sing in the Bush-faithful choir?? Jeez, WHAT WILL POOR JOHN HOGAN DO??? Learn to sing solo?? :D :D :D .

You just can't get me out of your mind, can't you ?


At least, show some humility and admit when you're wrong. I'd certainly respect you a lot more, than your usual "I'm always right" dance.

THIS coming from YOU !?!?! aahah..ahahah..hhh..ahaah.bahha..BUWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAH ! OHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhh MERCY !

Neil Mick
05-23-2005, 05:59 PM
You just can't get me out of your mind, can't you ?

You're here, and you seem to be in the minority of Conservative's-who-generally-take-the-pro-gov't-view, so there you are.

But, no offence meant: everyone's got to have a role... :p

aahah..ahahah..hhh..ahaah.bahha..BUWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAH ! OHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhh MERCY !

Ahh...so glad to entertain. :rolleyes:

Thomas Ambrose
05-24-2005, 12:20 AM
Something that I find curious when discussing the politics of recent US military action, there is a common "Bush Lied, people died," mentality addressing the Iraq War, etc. Though I disagree with calling Bush a liar, I will concede that he took a course of action based on incorrect information, and that he does need to accept responsability for those consequences. In other words, he must be held accountable for the actions/choices of his administration.

Now, for the Newsweek situation. They had incorrect information, and for whatever motivations, they took a course of action on it, and consequences included riots and death. I believe they also must be held accountable for their actions. I do believe in the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press, but with freedom comes responsability.

If a "trusted" leader leads the people into a situation on a premise that turns out to be incorrect, then that leader must be held accountable and at LEAST admit responsability. If a trusted news-source reports false information, especially if that false information leads to death or other negative consequences, that news-source needs to be held accountable.

Honestly, the whole situation just demonstrates the sorry state that mass-journalism has become in our present time.

Michael Neal
05-24-2005, 08:38 AM
Oh, NO! Michael! Don't go! :eek:

Who will sing in the Bush-faithful choir?? Jeez, WHAT WILL POOR JOHN HOGAN DO??? Learn to sing solo?? :D :D :D

Oh, LAWHD!!! :crazy:

Face it, Michael: you got your head handed back to you, that last round. You wanna whine "off-topic" and threaten to leave...there's the virtual door.

At least, show some humility and admit when you're wrong. I'd certainly respect you a lot more, than your usual "I'm always right" dance.

Neil the simple fact is that each one of your arguments is weak, and when anyone begins to dismantle your paronoid ramblings you start arguing about something else.

You have already lost the argument on the Newsweek story, just about everyone in the world thought they were wrong and they have retracted the story. Regardless if you find some other "evidence" of prisoner mistreatment, they are not directly related to the story reported by newsweek. The source for that story was not credible. You have failed to provide evidence that the white house used their governmental powers to silence the free speech of the media. You make accusations without anything of substance behind it. When you are losing an argument you simply move on to talk about the Iraq War and WMD's.

If you want to talk about WMDs or the Iraq way start another thread so i can show you how wrong you are about that as well.

makuchg
05-24-2005, 09:12 AM
If a trusted news-source reports false information, especially if that false information leads to death or other negative consequences, that news-source needs to be held accountable.

Honestly, the whole situation just demonstrates the sorry state that mass-journalism has become in our present time.

The truth is Newsweek never said their story was false, just that the source may have provided false information. Here is where I think the debate lies. If Newsweek believed the story true, the Pentagon did not dispute the claims prior to story release (which is what happened, see below), and the outcry from the Government didn't happen until after international uproar, something is amiss. Why didn't the Pentagon speak up prior to release? Why is Newsweek apologizing for publishing a story which they believed true? News agencies make mistakes, which they correct, but nothing in the story was wrong. The story simply said a source said this happened. Newsweek didn't make any claims to the veracity of the source, just position and statement. The story outlined who the source was and the context of the statement. I think it was responsible journalism to report the story. News agencies shouldn't just report the news the government thinks is important, but the news the people may think is important. The problem is people around the world BELIEVED the source!

Here is the actual Newsweek apology:

"There had been previous reports about the Koran being defiled, but they always seemed to be rumors or allegations made by sources without evidence," Whitaker said, referring to reporting by British and Russian news agencies and by the Qatar-based satellite network al-Jazeera. The Washington Post, whose parent company owns Newsweek, reported a similar account in March 2003, attributing it to a group of former detainees. "The fact that a knowledgeable source within the U.S. government was telling us the government itself had knowledge of this was newsworthy," Whitaker said in an interview.

He said that a senior Pentagon official, for reasons that "are still a little mysterious to us," had declined to comment after Newsweek correspondent John Barry showed him a draft before the item was published and asked, "Is this accurate or not?" Whitaker added that the magazine would have held off had military spokesmen made such a request. That official "lacked detailed knowledge" of the investigative report, Newsweek now says. Whitaker said Pentagon officials raised no objection to the story for 11 days after it was published, until it was translated by some Arab media outlets and led to the rioting."

The item was principally reported by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek's veteran investigative reporter. "Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it's important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here," he said. "We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the Pentagon ample opportunity to comment. . . . We're going to continue to investigate what remains a very murky situation."

It seems to me the White House had a knee-jerk reaction to a story after it proved damaging. Why did it take 11 days and rioting to spark a government demand for an apology? Why wasn't it irresponsible journalism when Arabs weren't rioting? This is governmental boot-strapping; sad part is it worked :uch:

Neil Mick
05-24-2005, 03:25 PM
Neil the simple fact is that each one of your arguments is weak, and when anyone begins to dismantle your paronoid ramblings you start arguing about something else.

The simple fact is that each one of my arguments has been buttressed by other sources, and your attempts to dissemble by name-calling is truly sad, yes, sad indeed.

First, you whine about sources. Then, when you're slam-dunked with primary sources, you whine about "changing the topic" (which, as you well know, is not changing the topic at all--it is calling you into account for your previous wonderful declarations), and NOW...as we see below...you attempt to slip in other meanings, to key points of the argument.

But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt...let's just assume you were mistaken. OK, here goes:

You have already lost the argument on the Newsweek story, just about everyone in the world thought they were wrong and they have retracted the story.

"Everyone?" Define "everyone." yes, if "everyone" is the Pentagon, The White House and the State Dept, I guess you're right.

But, from where I sit: the (non-Fox-viewing) ppl that DO comment on this, are beginning to call this a real debacle, for the Pentagon.

Regardless if you find some other "evidence" of prisoner mistreatment, they are not directly related to the story reported by newsweek. The source for that story was not credible.

Wrong, and right. The source for the story isn't credible. BUT, revious evidence certainly is, as the Pentagon said that they never desecrated Quran's.

The Pentagon is caught in a lie.

You have failed to provide evidence that the white house used their governmental powers to silence the free speech of the media.

You're attempting to put words in my mouth, again. No thank you. I never said that thet were trying to "silence" the media. I said that they were putting pressure on Newsweek.

You, OTOH: first attempted to frame this as Bush's rights to free speech.

You make accusations without anything of substance behind it.

Not at all: I have documented...several times...every point I have made, and for every request. YOU, OTOH: have mainly come on here to tell me how I'm paranoid, off-topic, etc, ad nauseum....sans any references, I might add.

You have bushels of scorn for other sources, it seems...but not much in the way of credible references to offer, yourself. :dead:

When you are losing an argument you simply move on to talk about the Iraq War and WMD's.

As a counterpoint to my devastating argument that you fail to acknowledge, I remind you of your previous, unforgettable faux's-pas.

If you want to talk about WMDs or the Iraq way start another thread so i can show you how wrong you are about that as well.

I shudder, with anticipation. :rolleyes:

DustinAcuff
05-24-2005, 04:49 PM
I really hate to do this, but I'm going to have to step in.

Neil, you are normally pretty good about presenting your arguements, but you have legitimately lost your objectivity. You have started rambling incoherently. You might be right but you are so passionate about what you belive that you are making about as much sense as a three year old screaming to mommy in a crowded walmart.

Frankly, I agree, abuse probably did/have/will happen. There is a reason it is called "war" not "peace". All political agendas aside, if I am in Iraq, you are my prisoner, and you killed someone from my hometown or where part of an attack that did then heck yeah, i'm going to abuse you, insult you, etc. If i am an interrogator then even more so. My goal would be to make fear of retaliation so extreme that you would have nightmares if you thought of attacking me. And I'll be willing to put money that that is how alot of people feel. Regaurdless of right and wrong, that is human nature and no amount of logic or complaining is going to change it.

Neil Mick
05-24-2005, 05:12 PM
I really hate to do this, but I'm going to have to step in.

Neil, you are normally pretty good about presenting your arguements, but you have legitimately lost your objectivity. You have started rambling incoherently. You might be right but you are so passionate about what you belive that you are making about as much sense as a three year old screaming to mommy in a crowded walmart.

Sorry, but I never claimed to objectivity. And, sometimes reading in on a discussion after several quotes and counter-quotes sounds a little archaic, if you do not follow the discussion.

But please: I have kept my comments brief, to avoid rambling. Sorry you don't think so, but others here might disagree...or, they might not. (*shrug*)

Neil Mick
05-24-2005, 05:17 PM
Now, for the Newsweek situation. They had incorrect information, and for whatever motivations, they took a course of action on it, and consequences included riots and death. I believe they also must be held accountable for their actions. I do believe in the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press, but with freedom comes responsability.

If a "trusted" leader leads the people into a situation on a premise that turns out to be incorrect, then that leader must be held accountable and at LEAST admit responsability. If a trusted news-source reports false information, especially if that false information leads to death or other negative consequences, that news-source needs to be held accountable.

Honestly, the whole situation just demonstrates the sorry state that mass-journalism has become in our present time.

But, as Gregory says, the question is not whether the information is false: the question is whether or not the source was credible, and verifiable.

And, if this is so: then Newsweek did nothing wrong. They reported based upon anonymous sources, and then retracted the story, due to a source problem.

I hope that Newsweek does not cave into political pressure, and they do a more detailed follow-up story, on prisoner abuse. IMO, Newsweek behaved responsibly in this whole oversensationalized debacle.

In the end, it will be the Pentagon with egg on its collective face.

Anat Amitay
05-25-2005, 12:36 AM
Qoute:
All political agendas aside, if I am in Iraq, you are my prisoner, and you killed someone from my hometown or where part of an attack that did then heck yeah, i'm going to abuse you, insult you, etc. If i am an interrogator then even more so. My goal would be to make fear of retaliation so extreme that you would have nightmares if you thought of attacking me. And I'll be willing to put money that that is how alot of people feel.

Wow, and then everything is all right, since you are the USA, the most powerful country in the world, right?
It's sad to see that people see "right" in abusing, insulting etc.
Even if that is after murder.
As long as I know, there is a trail and until proven guilty, every man is innocent, and when they are proven guilty, they are sentenced to death or imprisonment.
Have you thought for one moment what will happen if you abuse an innocent guy, because in your anger and grief for the loss of your "hometown pal", you weren't rational to see who you're abuseing? nah... it doesn't matter, does it? Just like in any other war your country took part in.
And Neil, then it's always easy to point your finger at others, especially when education for good civilionship and justice is of the higher qualities of your country...
I know and understood by now that your thoughts are different (I was reading the forums), but here it is, layed straight out on the table, people believe it is right to do harm to others- this is where the WHOLE world has gone wrong. It's not just Israel, It's not just the USA or any other country. The "adults" in all the world have done something terribly wrong about the "younger generations" education. Our basic thoughts should not be to harm, but to do right. And right is not hurt that which has hurt you (wow, this is an Aikido site, I don't believe I'm hearing this).

Sorry for changing the topic totally, but this is the kind of talk I fear when I hear it. We're not on opposite sides here, I just wanted to point this very important qoute.
Anat

Thomas Ambrose
05-25-2005, 03:28 AM
But, as Gregory says, the question is not whether the information is false: the question is whether or not the source was credible, and verifiable.

And, if this is so: then Newsweek did nothing wrong. They reported based upon anonymous sources, and then retracted the story, due to a source problem.

I hope that Newsweek does not cave into political pressure, and they do a more detailed follow-up story, on prisoner abuse. IMO, Newsweek behaved responsibly in this whole oversensationalized debacle.


Yeah, in rethinking things, it does look an awful lot like the government is attempting to do "damage control" after the riots, etc.

Newsweek probably did cave in to the politics, but I will say the crux of the issue lies in the sources of that information, and the professional ethics of the media. Though I understand the need to protect the identity of informanants, etc for safety/privacy issues in some cases, I have a hard time with anonymous sources. If a source is anonymous, there is no way to verify it as being credible. It is taken on the trust of the reporter's judgement.

What concerns me about the state of American corporate media is the power it has, from the trust people give to it. Personally, I believe that the media, in the USA at least, being a for-profit industry is motivated by getting more people to consume their product. In other words, ratings. Thus they will be more likely to quickly publish sensational information that will gather a larger audience than they would to take their time and check all the facts against other sources and presenting in such a way that demonstrates credibility. To do otherwise would seem slow, irrelevant, and downright boring to their target audience and their profits would suffer.

Perhaps I am a little bit too "untrusting" of the media in general, but I seriously think that it has devolved into something quite unprofessional, that this example, among others, illustrates. I am sure there are many honest journalists who want to deliver the true stories professionally, but I worry that the industry is currently dominated by the dishonest ones.

Ok, that is my take on the issue, back to lurking for me :)

makuchg
05-25-2005, 06:00 AM
My thoughts on anonymous sources are this: use common sense. If your friend (whom you trust) came up and said I have this anonymous source who said if we each put $10,000 in a bag in the ground it will be $100,000 by next week, would you do it? Of course not. Even though the friend who told you is trustworthy, the original source is not. The problem is people don't reason when they read or hear information from the media.

Anat, excellent points. You are absolutely on the mark with where the problem lies. Throughout the world more and more atrocities are coming to light. You seem to convey you believe this is a recent change in morality, I contend we are just more aware these things are going on due to technology (internet, satellites, etc). Thoughts?

Anat Amitay
05-25-2005, 09:57 AM
I'm sorry this is still not on the topic...
Dear Gregory,
I guess you are right, humans for centuries (or maybe the beginning of time) were prone to violence. I refer more to these "recent times" because the world had gone through quite a few things that I think should have shaken it up and opened it's eyes. We had 2!!! world wars in this century (ok, in the last), with millions of dead in almost every country (that is why it's called a "world" war). I'm leaving out the holucast now- did you know there were over 22 million Russian soliders killed in WW2? I don't know how many Americans, British, French.... But probably many as well, and yet, all the nations strive for more. How come the leaders of countries are so blood thirsty? where have we gone wrong, why aren't we learning from history?
Leaders stay at home, in their comfortable surroundings while people die somewhere- but for what reason? is it for peace? is it?
In most cases it seems more for control, money, oil, world trade... Why do we go for war on these topics, are we that stupid to believe their coverup as necessary actions? Maybe we are.
Humans may truely be blood and violence driven from their core, but different from other creatures, we have the ability to decide to crush and swallow our "animal behavior", it just seems to me that most humans don't want to. It's their opportunity to take out their frustrations of life, or whatever. And what better than to cover it with the story of war? (Neil, I'm talking ALL countries here, so don't put this up in my face). Humans want to hate, want to kill, want to control... maybe- but humans also have the ability to act against their wishes.
I guess that as technology progresed, both more people knew more of what was going on around the world, but also our means of hurting each other became more demonic.
What shocked me most, personally, is that I thought that those who do Aikido thought alittle different. I truelly didn't know if to laugh or cry when I read my earlier qoute... How can one do Aikido and believe in that, when the whole concept of Aikido is different.
And more than that, I think that I live in a reality which is more harsh than most Americans (in this case) and still I don't let myself get down to such levels, so where does this place us? How will we ever make this world a better place for our children to grow up in? Maybe we shouldn't have any children, why put them in this crazy place? (maybe so that if they become the majority, things might change?). We might be more aware than in the past, but because of this awareness we should have also the means to not let it reach the lowest levels that it does.
Sorry for the passimistic view... I do wish for a better future, everywhere around the world. And it hurts when you hear things that you hear, because it makes me wonder how much I can do to change if a tool I believed in as a good tool (like world wide Aikido) doesn't truely pass on it's legacy. It's true everyone has the right for their own thoughts and beliefs, but "good" doesn't have anything to do with them, it's supposed to be universal.
My Heavy two cents!
Anat

DustinAcuff
05-25-2005, 01:10 PM
Anat you have me figured wrong. I do not support ANY of the things the troops are doing. My point is that where humans are concerned these things were expected. Just for a second I want you to put yourself in a situation where you are constantly exhausted, slightly paranoid, confused and where you lose a close friend every day. Now put yourself in complete control over someone who killed the person who is closest to you in the whole world, maybe a son or daughter, maybe a wife (assuming you are a guy), maybe an uncle, brother or father. Think about what you would do to that person you have complete contol over when all the people you are around have lost their human empathy and sympathy and a large degree of their reason and now passionately belive that if they can make this prisoner crumble that they might be able to keep another friend from dying. To say that what I said I would do in that situation is wrong and unforgivable is nothing but truth. But to say that it was unexpected, or classifying yourself as incapable of doing it because your morals are so strong and you can withstand anything and still be a humanitarian is an outright lie.

My point is that these things are wrong on every level humanly possible, but they were not unexpected. For some reason people beleve that they have progressed far enough to be above doing wrong when wrong is really a matter of perception shaped by your surroundings. 200 years ago slavery was ok in the US. 250 years ago "cruel and unusual punishment" was unacceptable but horse whipping a man who stole was normal. 300 years ago it was okay to beat your wife as long as you did not use a stick thicker than your thumb, before that beating your wife was just fine. Everything I mentioned was okay for the time but would be abuse today.

And just so ya know, Stalin was responsible for 42 million Russian citizens being killed. He had these people who were "trouble makers" who did not completely support him or might not have sent into "relocation" camps in Siberia without supplies. They all starved, froze or died of disease.

Humans are at the top of the food chain but the lowest form of life. Humans are the only animals who will attack without provocation, kill for something other than food or enslave one another.

DustinAcuff
05-25-2005, 11:10 PM
Just to clarify I do not support anyone abusing someone else, but I accept the fact that it can, has, and will happen(ed) and I also accept the fact that given the right provocation myself and most people could and would do horrible things. Those people are classified as murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths, sadistic, insane, rapists, theives, and any number of other names. Wrong is wrong. No ammount of justification will make it right.

I truely resent you attacking the USA and much less claiming that I keyword being I feel that anything I do is justified because I am an American. That is far from the truth and as far as I am concerned was completely uncalled for. I COULD make a comment about your country being too savage/bloodthirsty/fill in the blank to ever survive if the US was not keeping you alive. But we both know that is inaccurate, out of line, and not true. I also do not believe that. So lets keep any bad blood you have towards me for my comments that you found offensive targeted at me instead of people I have never met, including children still too young to walk. And please, if you are going to judge a country as a whole under one generalization, then come to the country, travel the nation, everything from New York, New York to Cut and Shoot, Texas (not making that one up, been there) to Ringgold, Georgia to San Francisco, California. Then if you find that one generalization fits everyone by all means let me know.

Now, what was the origional topic before we got on prison abuses and the nature of mankind? Did Newsweek falsify a source or is the Pentagon lying?

makuchg
05-26-2005, 08:07 AM
Dustin,

First, I worked around interrogators my entire time in Iraq and I the skilled interrogators know that abuse does not attain the most trustworthy intelligence. Fact is almost any interrogator will tell you that it is better to convince someone they want to tell you something than that they have to tell you something. You have to remember that the Abu Ghuraib scandal wasn't about intelligence collection it was about sick amusement. Our interrogators (we replaced the A.G. suspects) gained volumes more usable intelligence with approved, time tested methods than any of the prior group. As for the Koran desecration, if this was an interrogation technique, it was a poor one. Not only would it strengthen the resolve of a true believer that they were fighting against "infidels," but it would make it more difficult for the interrogators to get reputable information. If you look a the allegations, again the detainees are contending the guards are doing the desecration. I would say that outcome will be similar to the A.G. violations with the guilty party eventually brought to light and punished. As for all the "so and so told us to do it," don't buy it. There were no secret orders, the facility was open for inspection and soldiers who do wrong should be punished.

As for soldiers actions, most did not ask to go, but did willingly when their nation asked. Most act with the utmost respect for human life and make every effort to preserve life. I have some pictures you will never see on the news: soldiers and school children playing soccer (football if you will), children in neighborhoods running to see the soldiers, soldiers acting as human shields in front of women and children during street gunfights, etc. Please don't associate political views with soldiers actions. We are dedicated professionals who have chosen to serve something larger than ourselves and when called to fight, we will. There will always be those who serve themselves, but don't let the few bad examples (because that is what the news will show you) overshadow the acts of compassion and kindness soldiers show everyday for people most don't give a second thought about.

Dustin, to generalize about all soldiers when you've criticized someone else for generalizations about the American people is contradictory, don't you think?

Anat Amitay
05-26-2005, 08:17 AM
Dear Dustin,
I am sorry you were offended by what I wrote, maybe I read it in the wrong tone and so saw it more offensive than you meant.
I don't call the whole of the USA "bad" since it's just not true. Just as not all of Israel, or any other country "all bad". It has to be inspected in every meaning to say so.
Qoute: Just for a second I want you to put yourself in a situation where you are constantly exhausted, slightly paranoid, confused and where you lose a close friend every day.
:) Dustin, I live in Israel, I lost classmates in the army when at that age in other countries "children" aren't even allowed to drink alcohol yet. I have been too many times in the cemetery for my age.
Qoute: Now put yourself in complete control over someone...
With all the things I've been through (and just believe me that I have, I really don't want to write it all down)- I chose a profession of health, to help people. As part of my work in different hospitals, I have treated a palestinian woman for over a month. She was in an israeli hospital after humanitary orgnizations asked for this treatment since she couldn't recieve it anywhere else. She was a burn victim from a cooking gas that blew up in her home. We worked each day, she would tell of her nightmares and fears and family. We got real close and I hope that when peace will one day come, I will be able to get in touch with her again.
I know some people would refuse to treat her, and yet I think she got all the care one could ask for in all ranges of health and social care.
Qoute: classifying yourself as incapable of doing it because your morals are so strong and you can withstand anything and still be a humanitarian is an outright lie.
You can't say that. You don't know me, don't know what I dealt with, don't know how strong or weak I am. From the things I passed, I have the full capability to say I can withstand and stay humane. I might be young, but I passed more in my life than some pass in 80 years, for good and for bad.
You are right that "wrong" is a matter of perseption, but there are some things you can't put as "right" no matter how far in history you go. I know it is "human nature", and your words are correct, but as I wrote, our mental abilities are also allowing us to be able to over come all this. Some don't choose to do so, it still doesn't mean the capability isn't there.
qoute: I truely resent you attacking the USA and much less claiming that I keyword being I feel that anything I do is justified because I am an American. That is far from the truth and as far as I am concerned was completely uncalled for.
I'm sorry. truely.
qoute: And please, if you are going to judge a country as a whole under one generalization, then come to the country, travel the nation
True. This is more for Neil, but one should judge each country when he or she knows how it is to live there and deal with the every day life.
I have been to the USA, not all the places you mentioned, but as I earlier said, I didn't mean to generelize everyone and everything, and I'll say I'm sorry again. I just wish more people from other places will say the same before they come with their accusations on Israel.

ho well, wow... this forum has changed it's topic, eh?
So, if anyone is still interested, the topic was concerning Newsweeks story....
Anat

Michael Neal
05-26-2005, 09:18 AM
The simple fact is that each one of my arguments has been buttressed by other sources, and your attempts to dissemble by name-calling is truly sad, yes, sad indeed.

First, you whine about sources. Then, when you're slam-dunked with primary sources, you whine about "changing the topic" (which, as you well know, is not changing the topic at all--it is calling you into account for your previous wonderful declarations), and NOW...as we see below...you attempt to slip in other meanings, to key points of the argument.

haha, how have I been "slammed" with sources/ the sources provided all say that these are alleged incidents reported by former and current detainees, so far there is nothing else to back up those claims.

However, even if all of the other claims are factual (which I seriously doubt) it still would not prove the newsweek story was true.

But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt...let's just assume you were mistaken. OK, here goes:

"Everyone?" Define "everyone." yes, if "everyone" is the Pentagon, The White House and the State Dept, I guess you're right.

But, from where I sit: the (non-Fox-viewing) ppl that DO comment on this, are beginning to call this a real debacle, for the Pentagon.

Wrong, and right. The source for the story isn't credible. BUT, revious evidence certainly is, as the Pentagon said that they never desecrated Quran's.

The Pentagon is caught in a lie.



What debacle, what lie? The Pentagon has revealed that there werre allegations made but has not substantiated it, neither has anyone else. The Pentagon has had a policy about the Quran for years, here is a quote from your favorite news source, FOX

"In January 2003, the military issued a three-page written guideline for handling a detainee's Koran, including a stipulation that it should be handled "as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art," and that it not be placed in "offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet or dirty/wet areas.""

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157705,00.html


You're attempting to put words in my mouth, again. No thank you. I never said that thet were trying to "silence" the media. I said that they were putting pressure on Newsweek.

You, OTOH: first attempted to frame this as Bush's rights to free speech.


here is a quote from your original post: "No, BushCo wanted to make an example of Newsweek ... Ah, First Amendment...we hardly knew ye. Give us a fond farewell, as you enter into that faraway land of civil liberties lost, will ye?"

You are clearly suggesting that somehow Bush was trampling on the 1st Amendment rights of the media, and you have failed completely to back up this insinuation. And this was your main argument from your original post.


Not at all: I have documented...several times...every point I have made, and for every request. YOU, OTOH: have mainly come on here to tell me how I'm paranoid, off-topic, etc, ad nauseum....sans any references, I might add.

You have bushels of scorn for other sources, it seems...but not much in the way of credible references to offer, yourself. :dead:

As a counterpoint to my devastating argument that you fail to acknowledge, I remind you of your previous, unforgettable faux's-pas.


The fact is you do keep going off topic, this is not a discussion about WMDs or the war in Iraq, again I would be happy to beat you in that argument as well in another thread but I like to stay on topic.

When you start discussing other things it shows your original argument is weak. It also makes it a huge chore to weed through all of the garbage and respond, it detracts from the original topic. My contention is that you do this deliberately to muddy the waters and to steer the discussion into another direction when you can not sufficiently back up your previous claims.

The fact is your main argument is generally complete innuendo with links to news stories that do not prove your argument at all.

Neil Mick
05-26-2005, 04:45 PM
haha, how have I been "slammed" with sources/ the sources provided all say that these are alleged incidents reported by former and current detainees, so far there is nothing else to back up those claims.

However, even if all of the other claims are factual (which I seriously doubt) it still would not prove the newsweek story was true.

The Newsweek story claimed that the Pentagon desecrates the Koran as part of their interrogations. The Pentagon denied it.

Gregory, awhile back, cited other sources. You come back (in your own, inimical yet highly predictable way) and scream "uncredible sources."

I give you Reuters, and the ICRC, to show that yes: the Pentagon DOES engage in this actrivity.

Utterly failing to cede the point, you weasely attempt to claim that "the Newsweek story isn't true (as a side-point, Michael: Newsweek did NOT retract the story, due to its untruth: Newsweek retracted because the source within the Pentagon backtracked and did not put the desecration within a report, which s/he said s/he would. Completely different, than a total untruth).

The point is (and the point you attempt to sidestep) that yes: the Pentagon likely DOES engage in these kinds of acts. You attempt to sidetrack by stating that Newsweek cannot prove this one incidence.

The issue is that the Pentagon, et al: claimed that the story "damaged US credibility." Sorry, but ONE incident of ONE Koran desecrated doth not a damaged credibility make.

Sorry, but your dissemblance is showing. If the Pentagon claims damaged credibility, you can bet your pretzels that they are referring to a general practice (which, they alternately deny, and acknowledged, in the past), rather than one sole incident.

Would that you apply such attention to detail when W used anonymous sources to claim wmd's in Iraq (and YES: it DOES relate to the topic. If the President can claim damaged credibility from anonymous sources, then why shouldn't he be held accountable when 100,000 people die, based on info from anonymous, and uncredible sources? Your partisonship is showing).

What debacle, what lie? The Pentagon has revealed that there werre allegations made but has not substantiated it, neither has anyone else.

Wrong again. Now, FOIA requests from the FBI (http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/) have unearthed Quran desecrations by the Pentagon.

your favorite news source, FOX

You see? You CAN be funny, when you wanna be! ;)

Halleliuh! He finally quotes a news source! If, you can call Fox "news." :crazy:

here is a quote from your original post: "No, BushCo wanted to make an example of Newsweek ... Ah, First Amendment...we hardly knew ye. Give us a fond farewell, as you enter into that faraway land of civil liberties lost, will ye?"

You are clearly suggesting that somehow Bush was trampling on the 1st Amendment rights of the media, and you have failed completely to back up this insinuation. And this was your main argument from your original post.

It's called "inferring." You are clearly reading meanings into my words. OTOH, yet again: you keep moving the target. FIRST, it's poor ole' Georgie getting his free speech rights truncated. NOW, you quaveringly attempt to toss it back to my original statement.

So, let's be clear, OK? Your weaselling is getting tiresome.

BUSHCO is using political pressure in an attempt to chill the media from running stories critical of the Administration. If you want to try to play fast and loose with definitions, be my guest: but you win no debating points here for doing so.

It's a matter of degree. Bush is pulling a "McCarthy." Yes, in a sense: W IS trampling on 1st Amendment rights, but he's obviously not going out and arresting reporters or shutting down newspapers. It's more insidious than that.

At his worst, McCarthy never had to order newspapers to fire their employees. All he had to do was ask one simple question "Are you now, or have you ever..."), and the next day the questioned journalist was out of a job.

Is this a trampling of the First Amendment? In my book, it is. Will you try and claim that this is irrelevant, that BushCo was doing nothing related to the 1st Amendment, when they criticize Newsweek, and demand ever more from the magazine?

On that, I have no doubt.

The fact is you do keep going off topic, this is not a discussion about WMDs or the war in Iraq, again I would be happy to beat you in that argument as well in another thread but I like to stay on topic.

Oh, brother. You couldn't "beat" your way through a forest of moistened pretzels.

I point out these issues because they all have one common theme. You come on and do your routine M.O.'s (altho I must say that you've improved, since your one-liner hit-parade days when you toss out a provocative statement, then run for the hills). It usually runs something like this:

1. Blast the sources
2. Attempt to narrowly redefine one portion of the argument
3. Cut and run, when backed to the wall
4. Cry "change of topic," when confronted about #3, elsewhere
5. Lather, rinse, repeat

The fact is your main argument is generally complete innuendo with links to news stories that do not prove your argument at all.

See above. With the FBI sources, I rest my case. You used the same line in the election-thread (weak sources! innuendo!), and it gets tiring.

Get a new record: this one is wearing thin. :dead:

Neil Mick
05-26-2005, 05:01 PM
I contend we are just more aware these things are going on due to technology (internet, satellites, etc). Thoughts?

Good point. I will ruminate on this later: but I have to admit I too tired to respond...I just got out of surgery, and I need to rest.

Hogan
05-27-2005, 08:07 AM
I am just shocked... filled with outrage and the behavior of our men & women in the armed forces. Forget the civilians these terrorists have killed and still want to kill, this mishandling of the koran is beyond repair. Neil, I am with you on this one, bud....

Just think:

"..Eight of the 13 alleged incidents of Koran mishandling that he looked into were not substantiated. Six of those eight involved guards who either accidentally touched a Koran, "touched it within the scope of his duties" or did not touch it at all. "We consider each of these incidents resolved," Hood said.

OH MY GOD !!!! He TOUCHED it !!! If every other muslim can read or move the koran without touching it, then we should be able to do that as well. How can our men and women fight this evil that is known as terrorism if they do not master the movement of the koran without touching it, as our enemy appears to be able to do ?? How are we to win without knowing thine enemey !?!

The other two cases in which the allegation was not substantiated involved interrogators who either touched or "stood over" a Koran during an interrogation, Hood said. In one case not deemed to be mishandling, an interrogator placed two Korans on a television. In the other case, which Hood did not describe fully, a Koran was not touched and Hood said the interrogator's unspecified "action" was accidental.

That TEARS it !!!!! How many time do we have to be told.... a book that can easily be replaced at the local library CANNOT be "stood over" OR placed on a TV for chrissake !!!!!

Onec again, people, all together -

1) Cutting of the heads of innocents by terrorists - OK, and nothing to get worked up about.

2) Standing over the book, placing it on a TV, or ...OR touching it WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. This kind of behavior makes us worse than all the dictators and terrorists all over the world ! If it continues, GITMO will become like.... oh, I don't know, worse than the GULAG !!!

Michael Neal
05-27-2005, 08:08 AM
The Newsweek story claimed that the Pentagon desecrates the Koran as part of their interrogations. The Pentagon denied it.

Gregory, awhile back, cited other sources. You come back (in your own, inimical yet highly predictable way) and scream "uncredible sources."

I give you Reuters, and the ICRC, to show that yes: the Pentagon DOES engage in this actrivity.

The news sources are fine Neil, but they don't say what you think they say, they are only allegations. You keep trying to argue that an allegation is proof.

Here is a recent New York Times article, seems the investigation has revealed these allegations to be false. Better go get some new evidence now, seems I was right not to accept the claims of terrorist detainees to be the gospel truth.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 26, 2005
No Intentional Abuse of Koran at Guantánamo, General Says
By NEIL A. LEWIS
and DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, May 26 - The American military commander at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, said today that investigators had found "no credible evidence" that a Koran had ever been flushed down a toilet there to unsettle detainees, and no serious incidents of intentional mishandling of the Muslim holy book by Americans.

The commander, Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood of the Army, said 13 possible incidents had been investigated in which the book might have been mishandled: 10 by guards and 3 by interrogators. Of the 13, only 5 embody "what could be broadly defined as mishandling of a Koran," the general said, but declined to provide details.

In several other incidents, he said, guards had accidentally touched the book or touched it "within the scope of their duties." And in two other incidents, both involving interrogations, there was possible inadvertent mishandling, General Hood said.

"We've also identified 15 incidents where detainees mishandled or inappropriately treated the Koran, one of which was the specific example of a detainee who ripped pages out of their own Koran," the general said.

The general's Pentagon briefing was part of an attempt to quell bitter feelings in the Muslim world sparked by reports of mistreatment of the holy book. General Hood said he was confident that the guard force's procedures for handling the book were adequate, but he also said that they were continually reviewed.

As for the detainees, he said, "this is not a benign group of people." He said the prisoners constituted "a clear and present danger" to the United States, and that interrogations continued to provide valuable intelligence.

On Wednesday, newly released documents showed that detainees at Guantánamo had complained repeatedly to F.B.I. agents about disrespectful handling of the Koran by military personnel and, in one case in 2002, said they had flushed a Koran down a toilet.

The prisoners' accounts were described by the agents in detailed summaries of interrogations at Guantánamo in 2002 and 2003. The documents were among more than 300 pages turned over by the F.B.I. to the American Civil Liberties Union in recent days and publicly disclosed on Wednesday.

Unlike F.B.I. documents previously disclosed in a lawsuit brought by the civil liberties union, in which agents reported that they had witnessed harsh and possibly illegal interrogation techniques, the new documents do not say the F.B.I. agents witnessed the episodes themselves. Rather, they are accounts of unsubstantiated accusations made by the prisoners during interrogation.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon dismissed the reports as containing no new evidence that abuses of the Koran had actually occurred and said that on May 14 military investigators had interviewed the prisoner who mentioned the toilet episode to the F.B.I. and that he was not able to substantiate the charge.

The accusation that soldiers had put a Koran in a toilet, which has been made by former and current inmates over the past two years, stirred violence this month that killed at least 17 people in Muslim countries after Newsweek magazine reported that a military investigation was expected to confirm that the incident had in fact occurred.

Newsweek retracted the report last week, saying it had relied on an American government official who had incomplete knowledge of the situation.

None of the documents released on Wednesday indicated any such confirmation that the incident took place.

One document is an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from an agent whose name is deleted that recounts a pair of interviews the previous month with a prisoner whose name is also deleted.

The prisoner said that "the guards in the detention facility do not treat him well," the agent wrote. "Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet. The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things." The document does not indicate whether the agent believed the account.

The documents include several other accounts of detainees' complaints about disrespectful handling of the Koran, but none describe its being flushed in a toilet.

The deputy Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said on Wednesday that the newly released document, a summary of an interrogation, "does not include any new allegations, nor does it include any new sources for previous allegations." Mr. Whitman said the source of the accusation "is an enemy combatant."

Since the Newsweek article was published, the Pentagon has been reviewing records, but "we still have found no credible allegations that a Koran was flushed down a toilet at Guantánamo," Mr. Whitman said on Wednesday, an assertion echoed today by General Hood.

Until the new batch of documents was released, no previously released F.B.I. documents were known to have mentioned abuse of the Koran of the type Newsweek reported.

Earlier complaints came in statements of inmates after they were released from custody or, more recently, in statements of current inmates to their lawyers.

Another memo released on Wednesday, dated March 18, 2003, is an account by an agent whose name is deleted who writes that another detainee told him of purposely disrespectful handling of the Koran. The detainee acknowledged, according to the memo, that he did not witness any of the incidents he had discussed.

The agent reports that the detainee said the use of the Koran as a tool in interrogation had been a mistake. "Interrogators who had taken the Koran from individual detainees as a reprisal or incentive to cooperate had failed," the detainee said, adding that the only result would be "the damage caused to the reputation of the United States once what had occurred was released to the world."

Jameel Jaffer, a senior lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, who is coordinating the review of documents obtained in the group's civil suit against the military, said the documents were part of more than 300 new pages received last Thursday from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He said staff members spent days reviewing the documents.

Ken Weine, a spokesman for Newsweek, said the magazine would have no comment on the disclosures.

The disclosures on Wednesday did not support the specific assertions in the original Newsweek item that military investigators concluded that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet. They do, however, reinforce the contentions of human rights advocates and lawyers for detainees that accusations of purposeful mishandling of the Koran were common.

A former interrogator told The New York Times in a recent interview that friction over handling of the Koran began with guards' regular searches of the cells. "Some of it was just ignorance," the former interrogator said, insisting on anonymity because soldiers are barred from discussing camp operations. "They didn't realize you shouldn't handle the book roughly."

Though complaints about the handling of the Koran were routine, the former interrogator said, the situation eventually escalated. "It was two things that brought the desecration issue to a higher level," the former interrogator said. "The rumor spread among detainees that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet and that some interrogators brought Korans to the interrogation sessions and stood on them, kicked them around." The former interrogator had not witnessed those occurrences.

Erik Saar, co-author of "Inside the Wire" (Penguin Press, 2005) and an Arabic language translator in 2003 in Guantánamo said in a recent interview that "the detainees actually liked to complain about how the Koran was handled because they viewed it as a cause to rally around" and one that would get the attention of the camp's authorities.

Mr. Jaffer of the A.C.L.U. said the errors in the Newsweek report had been improperly used to discredit other information about abusive practices at Guantánamo "that were not based on anonymous sources, but government documents, reports written by F.B.I. agents."

The new documents and 30,000 pages previously released were disclosed as part of a suit brought by the A.C.L.U. and other groups trying to learn whether and what kinds of coercive tactics were used at Guantánamo.

The earlier release of reports in which bureau agents recounted witnessing harsh interrogations resulted in an investigation by an Air Force general of interrogation practices. That report, which was completed at the end of March, has not yet been released by the Pentagon.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Contact Us Back to Top



Neil the simple fact is that just because Bush asked newsweek to be more responsible, that does not make him the reincarnation of McCarthy. The people at fault here are at Newsweek not the White House, no 1st Amendment rights have been trampled, you claimed they were trampled, you are wrong and have no evidence to back up such a wild claim.

Michael Neal
05-27-2005, 08:12 AM
another articles from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/26/quran/index.html

Pentagon: 'No credible evidence' Quran was flushed

Steven
05-27-2005, 09:26 AM
Amazing, isn't it? How some ppl claim to "make it stop," in the midst of an "open forum."

Why, you'd think that they were attempting to squelch free-speech, if they could!

Oh lawd, say it isn't so! :eek:


Thanks Neil .. I needed a good laugh. You crack me up :D

Hogan
05-27-2005, 09:40 AM
Yes, please, lets keep an open forum for people to spread rumors and lies and then claim infringement of their rights when proven wrong... nay, when they KNOW they are wrong !! That IS what free speech is all about, isn't it ?

James Davis
05-27-2005, 11:57 AM
While I personally don't LIKE what Newsweek did with this story, lets point out a couple of things:

Newsweek put this story into their "periscope section". This means it is a story with questionable sources. I didn't know what a "periscope section" was until this particular story made national news. Is it ethical to print a story you're not sure about, even in a "periscope section"?

This story made national news because of what? The riots. People died! This isn't about a news source saying bad things about the Bush administration; that's nothing new. Whether Newsweek chose to take any kind of responsibility or not, these events show them that their actions have consequences.

I'm not saying that Newsweek is to blame. The morons who incite riots and kill people are responsible.

If you pass through customs in Saudi Arabia and a Bible is found in your luggage, it is immediately confiscated and destroyed. If more than one Bible is found in your luggage, you are arrested for suspicion of being a missionary- and your Bibles are destroyed.

We live in a country where this type of stuff is not common knowledge, but abuse of a terrorist's Koran is. The (factual) story of two U.S. elementary school girls bringing their Bibles to school and seeing them thrown in the trashcan by their teacher is not widely reported, but everybody knows what scumbags our media makes our troops out to be. An "artist" who displays a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine receives funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, but you'll never hear about the good things that the Catholics do all over the world.

All religions are persecuted at one time or another, and I'm not asking for equal airtime for Judaism or Chritianity or anything. Just look around for your news sources some place besides the TV. There's a heck of a lot more going on out there than what they're CHOOSING to show us. ;)

Michael Neal
05-27-2005, 12:35 PM
I agree, even if the stories were true, which it is becoming evident they are not, what is the big friggin deal anyway? Some of our soldiers put underwear on people's head and put leashes on them and someone may have thrown a koran on the floor. These are not acceptable obviously but people like Neil want to use it as evidence of the corruption of George Bush and the evil USA when these are only actions by individuals using poor judgement.

Lets get some perspective.

On the other side, they cut people's heads off as a matter of policy and propaganda, fly planes into buildings, torture and murder constantly, convince poor destitute arabs to blow themselves up for the cause, and the extremists also destroy versions of the Koran they dislike. These are the people Neil wants to defend, he has a right to his own free will but gosh, I certainly do not have any sympathy for his cause.

Neil Mick
05-27-2005, 05:15 PM
It's interesting, being a student of media criticism. You observe the media ratchett up its echo-chamber level, and watch how the Bush-faithful puppets dance to their little tune!

The louder the media-noise, the less clearly they think--their assumptions disingenuous, their comparisons inconsistent.

Surgery has left me tired: I shall return to detonate some of the sillier nonsense posted here, as my energy allows.

But in the meantime: take a look at these numbers, below...just keep telling yourself, that this was all worth it...all the lies, the money, the lives lost, the livelihoods (American, AND Iraqi), the wounded, the permanent damage to the world's art treasures and history; the lost credibility that we uphold principles of defenders of freedom, even as we give aid to countries like Nepal, and Uzbekistan.

Sure, you do that: anything that helps you sleep, right?

Hogan
05-28-2005, 09:46 AM
...But in the meantime: take a look at these numbers, below...just keep telling yourself, that this was all worth it...all the lies, the money, the lives lost, the livelihoods (American, AND Iraqi), the wounded, the permanent damage to the world's art treasures and history; the lost credibility that we uphold principles of defenders of freedom, even as we give aid to countries like Nepal, and Uzbekistan.

Sure, you do that: anything that helps you sleep, right?

You obviously believe freedom isn't worth fighting or dying for.... how sad.

Nathan Gusdorf
05-28-2005, 12:45 PM
Yes- by invading Iraq to eliminate a threat that did not exist and to track down terrorists that were not there, and by making the world angry at us, we have most certainly protected our freedom.

Neil Mick
05-28-2005, 08:10 PM
The news sources are fine Neil, but they don't say what you think they say, they are only allegations. You keep trying to argue that an allegation is proof.

You are trying to reframe the argument.

Here is a recent New York Times article, seems the investigation has revealed these allegations to be false.

Oh yes! The Pentagon says it's so, and so it must be (BTW, as a side-note: it is a copyright infringement to fully cut n paste a whole article. Not sure you'd care, but if you do, you might consider just pasting portions of an article, in future).

It astounds me, Michael: how you'll let an organization caught lying (cf, the facts of Pat Tillman's (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000930844) death) off so easily, and yet you'll so readily believe an anonymous group of individuals are ALL lying, merely because this same org states that they're terrorist suspects. Raise the "terrorist" flag, and as far as your concerned: no more inquiry is in order--they're obviously lying. :dead:

The Pentagon has already relesed a number of these suspects, with no charges. After years' of imprisonment, so sorry! Off you go! No hard feelings, right? :dead: But the point is: there are BOUND to be innocents in Gitmo right now, some of whom are honestly reporting Quran desecrations.

No, I wouldn't believe whatever a Gitmo detainee says, but I wouldn't dismiss a number of reports, merely because they all come from detainee's.

Better go get some new evidence now, seems I was right not to accept the claims of terrorist detainees to be the gospel truth.

There you go, getting into this "right-wrong" thing again. Garbage.

Your rigidity of thought is showing. "Gospel truth?" Please: this story is more about the weaselling political dance-steps that WCo takes to pressure the media, and the sometimes boggy regions the Pentagon lands, when it plays spin-games. I've seen arguments on the internet where both parties were later proven worng, because some new fact arises that neither side knew.

Neil the simple fact is that just because Bush asked newsweek to be more responsible, that does not make him the reincarnation of McCarthy.

The simple fact is that Bush, the Pentagon, and the State Dept accused Newsweek of damaging US credibility, not Bush asked Newsweek to be more responsible.

AFAIC, this is the crux of the argument, right here. And, this is why you "lose," since you're so hell-bent on putting it in these terms.

I certainly do not: altho I admit to feeling this way, some times.

I made this point, earlier:

BUSHCO is using political pressure in an attempt to chill the media from running stories critical of the Administration. If you want to try to play fast and loose with definitions, be my guest: but you win no debating points here for doing so.

It's a matter of degree. Bush is pulling a "McCarthy." Yes, in a sense: W IS trampling on 1st Amendment rights, but he's obviously not going out and arresting reporters or shutting down newspapers. It's more insidious than that.

At his worst, McCarthy never had to order newspapers to fire their employees. All he had to do was ask one simple question "Are you now, or have you ever..."), and the next day the questioned journalist was out of a job.

Is this a trampling of the First Amendment? In my book, it is. Will you try and claim that this is irrelevant, that BushCo was doing nothing related to the 1st Amendment, when they criticize Newsweek, and demand ever more from the magazine?

On that, I have no doubt.

And look, you've proven my prediction true! Yes, my power of fortelling is an AWESOME thing to behold, is it not? :crazy:

The people at fault here are at Newsweek not the White House, no 1st Amendment rights have been trampled, you claimed they were trampled, you are wrong and have no evidence to back up such a wild claim.

The ppl at fault here are the Pentagon, the White House, and the State Dept. Newsweek wimped out, true.

But, yet again: you've tunnelled your whole argument into one mode of thinking--they're terror-suspects, ergo they're lying. No more discussion is necessary.

It's a good thing that most journalists do not view their profession, the same as you. But, I suppose that that day is fast approaching. :disgust:

Neil Mick
05-28-2005, 08:38 PM
OK, briefly:

humans for centuries (or maybe the beginning of time) were prone to violence. My Heavy two cents!
Anat

Anat, yes: I agree with Gregory..good points. I take an opposing view, tho. I believe that humans are more prone to peace, but that their memory is prone to record violence and trauma, over other aspects of behavior.


Onec again, people, all together -

1) Cutting of the heads of innocents by terrorists - OK, and nothing to get worked up about.

lets keep an open forum for people to spread rumors and lies and then claim infringement of their rights when proven wrong... nay, when they KNOW they are wrong !!

Not interested in swallowing your poison-pill threadlock attempts, troll: go fish somewhere else.

Thanks Neil .. I needed a good laugh. You crack me up :D

Thank you, Steven: glad to assist. ;)

While I personally don't LIKE what Newsweek did with this story, lets point out a couple of things:

Newsweek put this story into their "periscope section". This means it is a story with questionable sources.

Anonymous sources, IMO: are fine...consider whistleblowers. If they could not remain anonymous: then many would not come forward, and corruption would continue.

If you pass through customs in Saudi Arabia and a Bible is found in your luggage, it is immediately confiscated and destroyed. If more than one Bible is found in your luggage, you are arrested for suspicion of being a missionary- and your Bibles are destroyed.

Yeah, so? And, apparently: if you carry an almanac or a Koran, your name is bumped up on the "no-fly" suspect list in the US.

This is not the same issue, as the treatment of Gitmo detainee's.

but everybody knows what scumbags our media makes our troops out to be

Nope. Sorry, I completely disagree. Links, pls. Reports of Gitmo abuses and Abu Ghraib scandals are not the media "making scumbags of the troops."

YOU might disagree, but I feel that the media isn't doing enough.
It's a clear fact, that abuses were, and are, occurring. You can hide your head in the sand and pretend it's not so: but yes, Virginia: it is.

Worse, the media seem to take a peculiarly compliant stance on these abuses. Where are the demands for an independent report, outside the Pentagon? How can you expect an organization caught LYING to put out an objective and independent investigation, of itself?

These concerns are not "making scumbags of the troops," no matter how you attempt to reframe this.

An "artist" who displays a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine receives funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, but you'll never hear about the good things that the Catholics do all over the world.

OK, now you did it. Rant to follow.

The piece you are referring to is called "Piss Christ." the artist (and yes, he more than qualifies) was Andres Serrano. The NEA budget, at the time: comprised barely 2% of the total US budget, if that (I believe it's far less): a much, much lower figure than even a portion of the Pentagon budget. I am quite sure that, say: if the Pentagon-boys had laid off half their useless "Star Wars" researchers at the time, the NEA budget would have fit into that empty hole left behind, with room to spare.

Instead, Repub's and Dem's alike all decided that the Congress needed to become censors, because some Catholic's were offended. The NEA budget was slashed, and the whole jury process of selecting artists became politicized, its guidelines altered so as not to offend. NEA grants have become a pale joke, of what they once were. Hooray, huh?

Newsflash: all good art offends someone. Back when the Kaiser ruled Germany, a master artist by ther name of Kathe Kollwitz was denied Germany's highest civilian medal and cash award because the Kaiser determined that the winning print was too "proletariat," and the gov't "does not fund proletariat art."

OK, rant over.

Some of our soldiers put underwear on people's head and put leashes on them and someone may have thrown a koran on the floor. These are not acceptable obviously but people like Neil want to use it as evidence of the corruption of George Bush and the evil USA when these are only actions by individuals using poor judgement.

Laughable, simply laughable.

You accept as gospel the words of a lying organization, even as they issue report after report, exhonerating soldiers indicted?

These abuse-practices magically jump from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib, and it's all due to a few "individuals using poor judgement?"

Really, Michael: only a smiley can properly convey my response:
:hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

Lets get some perspective.

Yes, let's.

On the other side, they cut people's heads off as a matter of policy and propaganda, fly planes into buildings, torture and murder constantly, convince poor destitute arabs to blow themselves up for the cause, and the extremists also destroy versions of the Koran they dislike.

On the other side, we genocidally starve ppl, murdering a million+ children in an action Madeleine Albright calls "worth the price," (yet, the price did not yield the desired result), we drop cluster bombs on their cities, torture and murder constantly, detain thousands with no charges and tell no one whom we're even holding; convince poor destitute inner-city youth to enlist, terrorize and shoot others for the cause, while our extremist generals such as Gnl. Boynkin, et al: liken this to a religious "crusade."

Oh yeah: "we" also, it seems: enjoy blowing up "our" own health and abortion clinics, grow "our" own self-desctuctive suicide bombers young and old (cf, Columbine, and McVeigh), and reward and open relations with known terrorist and dictatorial regimes that have a much relevance to "freedom," and "democracy," as an M-16 has, to a garden-hoe.

You see what happens, when you oversimplify? No, probably do not.

These are the people Neil wants to defend,.

Ah, the vaunted, Bush-faithful ability to read minds, surfaces yet again.

Please, Michael: tell me what movies I like too, while yer' at it...maybe you and John could start an act in Vegas... :rolleyes:

Neil Mick
05-28-2005, 08:45 PM
You obviously believe freedom isn't worth fighting or dying for.... how sad.

You obviously confuse freedom, with US world domination...how sad.

Hogan
05-31-2005, 08:17 AM
Yes- by invading Iraq to eliminate a threat that did not exist ...

Your opinion.

..and to track down terrorists that were not there, ...

Your opinion.

...and by making the world angry at us, ...

Ahahahah.... WHO CARE'S !?

...we have most certainly protected our freedom.

We most certainly have.

Hogan
05-31-2005, 08:19 AM
...Not interested in swallowing your poison-pill threadlock attempts, troll: go fish somewhere else.


You know I am true. I like it how when confronted with the truth, you take your marble and go home.....

My, how aikido like. And you teach ?

Hogan
05-31-2005, 08:21 AM
You obviously confuse freedom, with US world domination...how sad.


Freedom exists BECAUSE of US domination. How sad you don't see this simple truth.

Anat Amitay
05-31-2005, 08:37 AM
qoute:
Freedom exists BECAUSE of US domination. How sad you don't see this simple truth.

there is a problem in the sentence above that I would like to get an answer too- how can domination mean freedom? It's just the opposite, or maybe I got my terms all wrong....
Anyway, I wonder what freedom Qwait got out of the gulf war, since women there are still not allowed to vote (oh, sorry, that's democracy, not freedom).
Please define freedom, since I don't understand what it means and how this is achieved with the current situation in Iraq or any other place.

Hogan
05-31-2005, 11:31 AM
qoute:
Freedom exists BECAUSE of US domination. How sad you don't see this simple truth.

there is a problem in the sentence above that I would like to get an answer too- how can domination mean freedom? It's just the opposite, or maybe I got my terms all wrong....
Anyway, I wonder what freedom Qwait got out of the gulf war, since women there are still not allowed to vote (oh, sorry, that's democracy, not freedom).
Please define freedom, since I don't understand what it means and how this is achieved with the current situation in Iraq or any other place.

OK, let me put it more simply:

What freedom does exist in the world exists because of the existance of the US and her dominance int he world. Do you actually think that if there were no US, there would be freedom in the world, or would there be more dictators and tyrants ? And if women aren't allowed to vote in Kuwait, then don't you think they should be ? Would there even BE a Kuwait now if it wasn't for the existance of the US ? Would Kuwaitees have preferred to be under the thumb of Uncle Saddam instead ?

James Davis
05-31-2005, 11:38 AM
Some people are just way too hung up on winning and losing. Who cares who "wins" a stupid argument? Who cares which person is smarter than everyone else? Don't let some guy bait you into an argument so he can nod off to sleep congratulating himself on how much better his vocabulary is than everybody else's. If this story can teach us aikidoka anything of value, it's this: Don't set out to desecrate what other people hold dear, be it a Koran, a Bible, or someone they love.
You can fight if you want to, but you're not going to change each others' minds.

Adam Alexander
05-31-2005, 01:50 PM
What do you folks consider to be "freedom?"

As for,"Who cares who "wins" a stupid argument?"

If a person posts the manifestations of a certain philosophy, people may adopt that philosophy--not because it's right, but because they know no better.

Arguing preserves what's right by showing both sides. With no confrontation, everyone loses.

Neil Mick
05-31-2005, 02:25 PM
Freedom exists BECAUSE of US domination. How sad you don't see this simple truth.

And, war is peace; black is white, freedom is slavery; we're saving the world by destroying it: and Big Brother is watching you.

Neil Mick
05-31-2005, 02:29 PM
You know I am true. I like it how when confronted with the truth, you take your marble and go home.....

My, how aikido like. And you teach ?

My previous statement is unchanged:

...Not interested in swallowing your poison-pill threadlock attempts, troll: go fish somewhere else.

What I know is that you profess the ability to read minds.

As usual, you're couldn't be more wrong.

Neil Mick
05-31-2005, 03:03 PM
What do you folks consider to be "freedom?"

As for,"Who cares who "wins" a stupid argument?"

If a person posts the manifestations of a certain philosophy, people may adopt that philosophy--not because it's right, but because they know no better.

Arguing preserves what's right by showing both sides. With no confrontation, everyone loses.

Well, I tend to take a more moderate view, of argument. Argument challenges certain views one might hold as obvious. It also challenges you to find a source to buttress your points.

As for what is "freedom:" (good question, BTW) let's look at the dictionary, (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom) first.

freedom:
n.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3. Political independence.
4. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
5. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
6. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
7. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
8. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
9. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
10. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
11. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: "the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form" (John W. Aldridge).

Notice? Most of the above-definitions talk about the exclusion of external authority. "Freedom" is impossible, in the midst of a military occupation. #11 is closest do my definitions of freedom (at least, in this context); but I hope you see my point.

Take John's notions of freedom, for example: and they fit very well within other backward notions of rationalizing oppression, such as slavery, or invasion. Apologists for 19th C slavery, for instance: often argued that they were "civilizing" the ____________ (fill in your favorite dehumanizing epithet, here). According to them, these ____________ were too savage, too uncivilized, to properly rule themselves, or even to run their own lives. Slaves, these ppl argued: are too stupid and uncultured to fend for themselves.

See, in this backward theory: we are the civilizers, authorized by some Higher Power to bring freedom to the world. Why, we had a "manifest destiny" to conquer the American continent: and the Indians were practically decreed by divine fiat to be cheated, to be brutally murdered by the US Army, to suffer indignities such as the Trail of Tears, to be forced onto inhospitable reservations.

Thus, we "destroy the world, in order to save it," as war tends to bring only destruction, and misery. To me, this is a disturbing and backward worldview.

Hogan
05-31-2005, 03:48 PM
....
Take John's notions of freedom, for example: and they fit very well within other backward notions of rationalizing oppression, such as slavery, or invasion. Apologists for 19th C slavery, for instance: often argued that they were "civilizing" the ____________ (fill in your favorite dehumanizing epithet, here). According to them, these ____________ were too savage, too uncivilized, to properly rule themselves, or even to run their own lives. Slaves, these ppl argued: are too stupid and uncultured to fend for themselves.

See, in this backward theory: we are the civilizers, authorized by some Higher Power to bring freedom to the world. Why, we had a "manifest destiny" to conquer the American continent: and the Indians were practically decreed by divine fiat to be cheated, to be brutally murdered by the US Army, to suffer indignities such as the Trail of Tears, to be forced onto inhospitable reservations.

Thus, we "destroy the world, in order to save it," as war tends to bring only destruction, and misery. To me, this is a disturbing and backward worldview.

*sigh*

Oh, Neil. Now who os professing to read minds ?

I never said such a thing, and for you to try to equate what I have said as those beliefs above is the height of stupidity. And quite like a typical democrat....

Neil Mick
05-31-2005, 05:31 PM
*sigh*

Oh, Neil. Now who os professing to read minds ?

I never said such a thing, and for you to try to equate what I have said as those beliefs above is the height of stupidity.

Not me, certainly. I only go on what you write, here. For all I know, this is one big game to you, and you don't believe anything you profess, at all.

But please: if I get your world-view wrong: I fully invite you to correct me.

If, as you say: that US world domination IS freedom: then how could this world domination be anything other than what I have outlined? I am honestly curious, about this; because to me, US domination = freedom is the same thing as saying freedom = slavery.

Ball's in your court, now.

And quite like a typical democrat....

Wrong again, as usual. I have about as much relationship with Dem's as you do, with Anarchists.

You would love to be a fly on the wall at my T-giving dinners, I imagine. All those Dem's bewailing for the good ole' days of Clinton; and me in the middle, rolling my eyes and slamming Bill, as is his due...

Hogan
05-31-2005, 05:42 PM
Not me, certainly. I only go on what you write, here. For all I know, this is one big game to you, and you don't believe anything you profess, at all.

But please: if I get your world-view wrong: I fully invite you to correct me.

If, as you say: that US world domination IS freedom: then how could this world domination be anything other than what I have outlined? I am honestly curious, about this; because to me, US domination = freedom is the same thing as saying freedom = slavery.

Ball's in your court, now.


There is the difference. You feel US domination equates to slavery; I don't. And no, I won't attempt to give you a world view or attempt to explain. Why ? 'Cuz you and I will never agree and it will accomplish nothing, other than encouraging you to continue to do what you do best - write a lot of words.



You would love to be a fly on the wall at my T-giving dinners, I imagine.
What are t-giving dinners ?

....and me in the middle, rolling my eyes and slamming Bill, as is his due...
Well, I guess you ain't all bad.....

Nathan Gusdorf
05-31-2005, 05:42 PM
Yes- by invading Iraq to eliminate a threat that did not exist ...



Your opinion.

Actually, by "threat" I meant the WMDs that we were going there for. If you still think that there are WMDs we just havent found them yet, then that is your opinion. In this case what you are calling my opinion is really more of a fact.

..and to track down terrorists that were not there, ...



Your opinion.

Are you saying that its my opinion that we went there to find terrorists or that they weren't there?

...and by making the world angry at us, ...



Ahahahah.... WHO CARE'S !?

Im not sure if you are familiar with the term diplomacy, but its somethign that exists in civilized cultures. As aikidoka it seems as though diplomacy would be important, seeing as our objective is to stop the fight before it starts.


...we have most certainly protected our freedom.



We most certainly have.

Are you suggesting that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Iraq would have invaded us? Or that somehow by showing that we arent scared to piss off the international community and bomb the crap out of whoever we want, now everyone is scared to mess with us and we have thus protected our freedom. Taking over countries and occupying them is not typical behavior of protectors of freedom.

Freedom exists BECAUSE of US domination. How sad you don't see this simple truth.

Just for reference we dont actually rule the world; we just think we do. What if the US stopped dominating whatever it was dominating? Would freedom disappear? Was there freedom before the US? What is the US doing that causes freedom to exist?

Also, saying "thats your opinion" does not refute a statement. Its like saying "you're not always right" -it doesnt mean you're wrong.

Neil Mick
05-31-2005, 06:00 PM
There is the difference. You feel US domination equates to slavery; I don't. And no, I won't attempt to give you a world view or attempt to explain. Why ? 'Cuz you and I will never agree and it will accomplish nothing, other than encouraging you to continue to do what you do best - write a lot of words.

Look, as far as I can see (at least within this thread): all you want to do here is come online, insult ppl and shut down conversation.

You seem shy of explaining your beliefs. You only reinforce my claim that you're only here as a troll, to insult and end conversation, when you withhold your views, like this.

Why so shy, unless your perspectives cannot hold water (or, unless all you wanna do is act like a troll).

I am not interested in "converting" anyone. But I really AM interested in how you view US domination =freedom as anything OTHER than freedom = slavery.

Again, ball's in your court. Otherwise, troll: sit down.

What are t-giving dinners ?

Thanksgiving dinners

Well, I guess you ain't all bad.....

No one is.

Hogan
06-01-2005, 07:43 AM
Look, as far as I can see (at least within this thread): all you want to do here is come online, insult ppl and shut down conversation.

You seem shy of explaining your beliefs. You only reinforce my claim that you're only here as a troll, to insult and end conversation, when you withhold your views, like this.

Why so shy, unless your perspectives cannot hold water (or, unless all you wanna do is act like a troll).

I am not interested in "converting" anyone. But I really AM interested in how you view US domination =freedom as anything OTHER than freedom = slavery.

Again, ball's in your court. Otherwise, troll: sit down.


"Look", I will try to explain this in very simple terms for you. Two people just talking for no reason serves no purposes. You are the one that insults people when they don't agree with you, you are the one that shuts down conversation with your insults (i.e., "troll sit down" as the latest example. I find this fascinating you do not see this in yourself. And I like it how you say, well if you don't do this you MUST be this. As I said before, your role in life is to only provide entertainment in the classic court jester role, so please don't stop....

Hogan
06-01-2005, 07:59 AM
Actually, by "threat" I meant the WMDs that we were going there for. If you still think that there are WMDs we just havent found them yet, then that is your opinion. In this case what you are calling my opinion is really more of a fact.

If you read the record of the past 12 yrs prior to invasion, you will see the threat. If you read the record, you will see that the 'WMD' argument was one of many used to justify the invasion. If you believe that because only one fo the arguments did not pan out yet (yes, I say yet, because where did the 'WMD's' go ? They had to go somewhere. You think Saddam would have put his people through all those yrs of sanctions if he got rid of them ? Wouldn't he wan to show thw world and the US he did ? Oh, maybe he was too busy skimming of the Oil For Food program, that's right...), then you are indeed ill informed.

Are you saying that its my opinion that we went there to find terrorists or that they weren't there?
If you read the record, BUSH said in his speech to the nation and the world that the US will look at states that sponsor terrorism and to terrorists as one of the same. Why do people always seem to forget this conveniently ? This invasion of Iraq should have not come as a surprise. And if you beleive that Iraq had no role in terrorism (and remember there are other terrorist organizations other than the one 'lead' by Uncle Binny), that you are indeed ill informed.

Im not sure if you are familiar with the term diplomacy, but its somethign that exists in civilized cultures. As aikidoka it seems as though diplomacy would be important, seeing as our objective is to stop the fight before it starts.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the term "American interests". A president is elected to look out for those interests, not whether some other country likes us or not.

Are you suggesting that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Iraq would have invaded us?
Are you suggesting that the only way to be a threat to the US is to invade ? Come now, that last happened in what, the War of 1812 (not counting little WWII scrimishes or Pearl Harbor) ?

Or that somehow by showing that we arent scared to piss off the international community and bomb the crap out of whoever we want, now everyone is scared to mess with us and we have thus protected our freedom.
Hmmm, it seems to have worked in Libya. He is a little scared now isn;t he, since he immediately disarmed after we invaded Iraq. And get this point - terrorists and enemies in the middle east only respect strength. Bin Laden is ON RECORD as saying that his violence toward the US was encouraged by us showing weakness in Lebanon when we retreated after the barracks bombing. Get that ? We showed weakness and that encouraged his mistaken belief that the great superpower can be taken down.

Taking over countries and occupying them is not typical behavior of protectors of freedom.
You know, you're right in the general case. In fact, lots of other countries have done this, more so than the US. Remember Iraq's invasion of Kuwait ? Oh, I am sorry, do you mean only countries that are not 'protectors of freedom' can invade other countries ? Get this point, the world had changed - no more rules other than kill the terrorists and those countries that support it.

Just for reference we dont actually rule the world; we just think we do. What if the US stopped dominating whatever it was dominating? Would freedom disappear? Was there freedom before the US? What is the US doing that causes freedom to exist?
Didn't say we 'ruled'; I said we 'dominated'. Would freedom disappear ? Now ? Maybe not, because so many people have been bitten by the freedom bug (nurtured and protected by the US; if it wasn't it would have died out yrs ago), and because of the interdependence of the world through technology (brought on, by the way, by freedom existing - protected by the US.... See ?). But get this, if there was no US, freedom would certainly be set back if not extinguished in large parts of the world.

Michael Neal
06-01-2005, 08:59 AM
Neil is probably being watched by the FBI, and I actually hope he is. He has completely lost his marbles and sounds like a member of the Taliban.

GLWeeks
06-01-2005, 09:21 AM
And, war is peace; black is white, freedom is slavery; we're saving the world by destroying it: and Big Brother is watching you.

yawn...

makuchg
06-01-2005, 10:11 AM
Well time to comment again, trying to bring this back to a civilized level and exchange ideas. First I don't think these forums will change anyone's mind; I don't think that's their purpose. I think they are to make people think. If these forums make you reaffirm your convictions or contemplate other's opinions they are serving their purpose.

As for the ongoing discussion, which has again turned to the U.S. invasion and foreign policy, two key issues arise: there was no WMDs in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/) and terrorist activity INCREASED in Iraq following the U.S. invasion. Also there has been no credible information showing a link to Iraq and terrorists pre-invasion. Now, did one exist? We can argue that point, but reality is the U.S. has turned over no credible evidence. How can you justify a war where the premise has been acknowledged by the government as untrue?

The problem I see in most of the pro-invasion arguments is a belief in American imperialism. Somehow we (as Americans) have come to believe we have the right to force our belief system on others. I will use the abaya as a prime example. As Americans we consider this an oppressive garment meant to keep women subservient. The Arab culture considers this a necessity to comply with cultural and religious ideals. When in Saudi Arabia I had this discussion with an Arab friend and he explained it like this:

If an African tribal women showed up in New York at JFK in a loin cloth and exposed breasts, which is culturally acceptable for her, she would be arrested or forced to cover up to comply with the American accepted ideals. To the African this would be oppressive. So why is it any different when Arab countries require their women to cover up? It's different because the Arabs require the women to cover up more than the American standard. Our beliefs are not necessarily the beliefs of others and we shouldn't force them to accept our standards.

We as Americans have come to believe our standards should be accepted universally and the reality is most countries don't want to be us. Travel the world and you will find a lot of animosity toward American attitudes of superiority.

For a long time the U.S. did not allow women to vote. Our laws did not change because some other country forced us to, they changed because our people wanted the laws changed. Why is it okay for countries to not allow women to vote and then when we decide they can vote in our country we want the rest of the world to think like us? The world is not the U.S. and it is a dangerous practice to force ideals on others.

The U.S. foreign policy has become one of zero-tolerance for those who do not think like us.

Neil Mick
06-01-2005, 02:50 PM
"Look", I will try to explain this in very simple terms for you. Two people just talking for no reason serves no purposes.

And, I will try to explain this in very simple terms, to you. Rather than go on a tireseome retelling of your complete record on aikiweb: I shall try to limit it to this thread, alone. From your very first post, you completely ignore the topic of the thread, instead opting for an early bout of name-calling:

As I said before, your role in life is to only provide entertainment in the classic court jester role, so please don't stop....

You've said far worse, but this is a good start.

Failing to get a rise out of simple name-calling: you then go for misrepresentation:

Onec again, people, all together -

1) Cutting of the heads of innocents by terrorists - OK, and nothing to get worked up about.

lets keep an open forum for people to spread rumors and lies and then claim infringement of their rights when proven wrong... nay, when they KNOW they are wrong !!

Sorry, but I know no such thing.

And I like it how you say, well if you don't do this you MUST be this.

OK, John: then please enlighten me, if I am wrong. Why ARE you here? If it's not not share opinion's and belief's (which you claim is a waste of time); and if it's not to simply insult ppl with whom you disagree, then what is it?

I am honestly interested in your answer, and I'm sorry that you think that sharing opinion's is a waste of time. But, from where I sit: all you seem to want to do is end up calling ppl (with whom you take issue, and it's not just me) terrorist-supporters, and push toward an end of discussion, by lowering the debate to a level that forces Jun to lock the thread.

So, no barbed retorts from me: let's hear it...why are you here?

Or even: how does US world domination equate to freedom? Because, this idea makes no sense at all, to me (and to several other poster's here, it seems).

BTW, FYI:

troll

An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other
(electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect,
but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the
act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an
emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply
key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their
minds.

Neil Mick
06-01-2005, 02:51 PM
yawn...

Gosh, guy, so sorry...perhaps it's time to change the channel, huh? :p

Neil Mick
06-01-2005, 03:16 PM
Well time to comment again, trying to bring this back to a civilized level and exchange ideas. First I don't think these forums will change anyone's mind; I don't think that's their purpose. I think they are to make people think.

Exactly.

How can you justify a war where the premise has been acknowledged by the government as untrue?

IMO, you can't: but you can rationalize, squirm, and dissemble (note to W: it's "dissemble," not "disassemble," per his recent response to the Gitmo debacle).

Travel the world and you will find a lot of animosity toward American attitudes of superiority.

Yes, and you notice this animosity most in countries with a US military-base stationed nearby, IMO.

The U.S. foreign policy has become one of zero-tolerance for those who do not think like us.

What disturbs me is this idea that overt militarism is a substitute for diplomacy. Also, whenever the militarist's trumpet that
security = military nonsense, they ignore the economic implications that go hand in hand with US military aims. And, IMO: here is where we fall flat, when we talk about exporting democracy.

Through the World Bank and the IMF, the US offers loans for privatization projects to dictators, and then expects the ppl to pay back these oppressive loans when the dictator is overthrown. The accession of Paul Wolfewitz (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0531-33.htm) is a clear signal of the marriage of US global military and economic concerns:

From the legislatures to the streets, citizens in many of the countries that borrow from the World Bank have vigorously opposed the policies it demands --privatization of basic services like water provision, health care, and education; massive public-sector lay-offs; drastic trade and investment deregulation; dismantling established protections for workers. Now a man already notorious around the world for his leading role in the Iraq war has been appointed by President Bush to lead the World Bank. It makes the link between U.S. military and economic policy clear: they are two sides of the same coin.

For the billions of people living in the countries marginalized by contemporary economic and political structures, the actions and motivations of the United States look pretty simple. It will do what is necessary to control whatever resources it considers essential, and it will use the available political, military, and economic tools to ensure that its dominance is never threatened, and in fact extended however possible. People in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have long seen that the culmination of any intervention by the United States and its allies in their countries, whether economic or military, is the re-structuring of their economies to serve foreign and corporate interests. Sometimes that means preserving unsavory regimes; occasionally it means overthrowing them. Most often it requires less violent means -- the enforcement of economic contracts by international institutions like the World Bank.

The World Bank has long been a vital part of building and maintaining a global economy that uses poorly-paid workers and farmers in poor countries to maintain the comfort of consumers in rich ones. The World Bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have long exploited poor countries' debt burdens to impose the policies that maintain this system. The most vulnerable people in the world are in essence paying off debts for failed policies and projects and the whims of old dictatorial regimes which they never wanted nor benefited from.

Ironically perhaps, Wolfowitz -- when he was focused solely on Iraq, asserted the doctrine of “odious debt.” He argued that Iraq's creditors should cancel the debts owed them by Iraq because they were contracted by a dictator and used against the people's best interests. It is an argument that debt campaigners have made in the case of debts incurred by dictators in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Nigeria, Indonesia, Haiti, the Philippines, and elsewhere, as well as in the case of apartheid South Africa and regarding the many failed projects and outright “white elephants.” He was right in the case of Iraq and for the sake of justice and consistency the logic must be extended to cover other countries in the same situation. If he were to maintain this principle as president of the World Bank Group, he could be part of transforming the global economy in a positive way. Because that transformation would come at the expense of the World Bank's prerogatives, Wolfowitz will have to decide whether to maintain his principles or preserve his power. There is little in his track record to indicate that he might choose justice over power, but we would be glad to be surprised.

An old saying maintains that "diplomacy is war by other means." Paul Wolfowitz has been both diplomat and war-maker. Now at the World Bank, unless he is willing to change its course dramatically, he will vividly demonstrate that today economic development, along with international trade, is war carried out by other means.

Hogan
06-01-2005, 04:24 PM
...OK, John: then please enlighten me, if I am wrong. Why ARE you here? If it's not not share opinion's and belief's (which you claim is a waste of time); and if it's not to simply insult ppl with whom you disagree, then what is it?
Neil - this insulting people with whom you disagree, is what YOU DO ! Don't you get it ? And it takes more than one person for Jun to close a thread. But it seems you can't understand that you have a part in it, or that you're part of the problem. Take a look at aikido journal - there was a thread where it got hot, and Stan asked you to stop posting political statements. You even sent harrassing private msgs to folks on that board, according to the posters there. But you stopped and left (taking your marbles home) when Stan asked you to, and the board there has since been quiet. Hmmmm, makes you wonder who was the cause of all the hot tempered, personal discussions, doesn't it.




BTW, FYI:troll

An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other
(electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect,
but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the
act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an
emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply
key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their
minds.
Or as more commonly known, "Neil Mick".

Neil Mick
06-01-2005, 04:32 PM
Neil - this insulting people with whom you disagree, is what YOU DO ! Don't you get it ? And it takes more than one person for Jun to close a thread. But it seems you can't understand that you have a part in it, or that you're part of the problem.

Great. I accept that I am part of the problem.

Now, answer the question, or accept the mantle of "troll."

Why are you here, if not to share opinions or to insult?

or,

How can US world domination = freedom?

Bet you can't answer...that's where my money is.

Nathan Gusdorf
06-01-2005, 06:55 PM
If you read the record, you will see that the 'WMD' argument was one of many used to justify the invasion. If you believe that because only one fo the arguments did not pan out yet (yes, I say yet, because where did the 'WMD's' go ? They had to go somewhere. You think Saddam would have put his people through all those yrs of sanctions if he got rid of them ?



Do you think we would have invaded without the WMD argument?

Of course now that I think about it he probably does have them- I bet they are in his Bat Cave.


I'd respond to all of your other statements but I'm tired and I must study.

Hogan
06-02-2005, 07:56 AM
Great. I accept that I am part of the problem.

Now, answer the question, or accept the mantle of "troll."

Why are you here, if not to share opinions or to insult?


Well, that's the question we all ask ourselves, isn't it ? Those two reasons are in fact the only reasons to post here, isn't it ? Which one are you here for ? I am not the one that calls others trolls when they don't agree with me....

or,

How can US world domination = freedom?

Bet you can't answer...that's where my money is.

Oh, yes.... hold on while I create a dissertation to post on a web msg bd. Do you honestly think anyone would bother, or CAN in a msg bd ? Come now.... I have my opinion on the role of the US, you have yours. Others have theirs. You won't convince me, I won't convince you, so why bother ? Why bother talking to a wall of Neil ? What purpose would it serve, indeed, why 'share' an opinion with you when all you will do is insult, yell 'troll' or whatnot ?

Hogan
06-02-2005, 07:57 AM
Do you think we would have invaded without the WMD argument?

Yes.

Of course now that I think about it he probably does have them- I bet they are in his Bat Cave.
Well, you probably should worry, as they had to have gone somewhere... We do not have any proof they were destroyed, but we and the UN and world had proof they were there at some point.

Neil Mick
06-02-2005, 01:26 PM
Well, that's the question we all ask ourselves, isn't it ? Those two reasons are in fact the only reasons to post here, isn't it ? Which one are you here for ? I am not the one that calls others trolls when they don't agree with me....

Nope, me neither. Anyone perusing the past few threads can see that there are several ppl here with whom I disagree.

Gosh, wonder why they're not called "trolls?" Perhaps they are online to discuss, instead of defame.

(But, to answer your question: I am on here to exchange ideas, and to provide inspiration for sources, to buttress my own ideas.

And, as far as insult: I prefer to insult the idea, rather than the person making the ideas. Sure, nobody's perfect: but at least I am not here solely to insult...)

Oh, yes.... hold on while I create a dissertation to post on a web msg bd. Do you honestly think anyone would bother, or CAN in a msg bd ? Come now.... I have my opinion on the role of the US, you have yours. Others have theirs. You won't convince me, I won't convince you, so why bother ? Why bother talking to a wall of Neil ?

Anyone who posts on a fora to "convert" is, I agree: wasting his time. But, an exchange of opinions is a (mostly) positive method to enhance understanding of a topic. They present their ideas: we present ours; and both parties come away with a little more perspective. Also, the ppl that bother to research can sometimes get ppl with differing views to give the issue a "new look." This happened with a post'er with whom I debated (on another site) over Lynne Stewart, the civil rights lawyer found guilty on terror-related charges. While he still felt Lynne Stewart was guilty, the guy admitted understanding Stewart's motivations a little better, and he congratulated me on a good debate.

What purpose would it serve, indeed, why 'share' an opinion with you when all you will do is insult, yell 'troll' or whatnot ?

I call you a troll, if you act as one.

Act like the rest of us (even, mostly: Michael Neal), and I won't. It's that simple.

I do not call Michael Neal a troll, because he comes here with a (mostly) honest motivation to debate. Going out on a limb: I'm willing to bet that he loves to debate. He presents ideas, backs them up (at times) with sources, and while we don't convince each other of much in the way of politics--we at least understand how each person arrives at their conclusions.

Simple insult and sarcasm gets nowhere.

Now, all respectfully and everything: I really am interested in your answer, as it honestly makes no sense to me. I am not interested in your answer to insult you for it, nor am I interested in being "converted:" rather, I am interested, in order to understand the reasoning, better. Simple as that.

To re-cap: How does US world domination = freedom? And, freedom for whom?

Anat Amitay
06-04-2005, 02:23 AM
It has just been published in one of our newspapers that the Pentagon admitted Qoran desicration. Did anything of this sort of publication come out in the USA too?

Neil Mick
06-04-2005, 02:41 AM
It has just been published in one of our newspapers that the Pentagon admitted Qoran desicration. Did anything of this sort of publication come out in the USA too?

Yes, I've heard about it: but so far only in the alternative media.

DustinAcuff
06-04-2005, 02:16 PM
I saw something about it on the AOL news blip thingy

Neil Mick
06-05-2005, 04:15 PM
And now, it's time for the "Humble Pie" moment. Yes, that time when we pay tribute to those post'er's who put foot "A" into mouth "B" and need a moment to fill their faces with a good, old-fashioned slice of humility....

OH MY GOD !!!! He TOUCHED it !!! If every other muslim can read or move the koran without touching it, then we should be able to do that as well. How can our men and women fight this evil that is known as terrorism if they do not master the movement of the koran without touching it, as our enemy appears to be able to do ?? How are we to win without knowing thine enemey !?!

The news sources are fine Neil, but they don't say what you think they say, they are only allegations. You keep trying to argue that an allegation is proof.

Here is a recent New York Times article, seems the investigation has revealed these allegations to be false. Better go get some new evidence now, seems I was right not to accept the claims of terrorist detainees to be the gospel truth.

Chow down, guys, this pie's for you...

When is Someone Going to Toss Rumsfeld into a Cage? (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0605-26.htm)

Fast forward to the real truth. Friday, June 03, 4:40 p.m. The Pentagon identified more than a half-dozen cases where guards at Guantanamo Bay defaced the Quran, including scribbling obscenities inside one detainee’s holy book, urinating on another, kicking one and tossing water balloons in the direction of others to cite just a few examples.

To understand why defacing the Quran is such a serious matter it’s important to know that for Muslims the Quran is considered to be the literal word of God.
"Muslims believe the entire Quran is the word of God verbatim as dictated by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad," said Jamal Badawi, Islamic scholar at St. Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, in a June 2 interview with Knight Ridder News Service. "Muslims believe the Quran has been preserved exactly as it was given to the prophet, so that gives it special status."

Not one senior official in the Bush administration has ever lost his or her job or been held responsible for the widespread mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as well as the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq where detainees were beaten, stripped and led around on leashes. Instead, what the public is being fed is a line of BS that the ill-treatment of prisoners is an isolated case involving just a handful of soldiers. Sadly, a majority of Americans are eating that up.

(*nudges Michael, particularly on that last line*)

Perhaps a little "milk of human kindness" might help that pie wash down? Certainly, it's a lot better than a heaping helping of "crow,,," ;)

makuchg
06-05-2005, 06:05 PM
To keep the integrity of the Qu'ran, it is only acceptable in Arabic. This is significant because most biblical scholars will not the inconsistencies in the Bible as a result of multiple translations. The Bible, originally written in Aramaic and translated into Latin and on and on and on. This has resulted in different interpretations of the original meaning of the text. On the contrary the Qu'ran was originally written in Arabic and are only considered authentic if written in the original language.

The Qu'ran is considered a sacred text and the fact anyone could look at another's culture with such a flippant attitude is further proof of why American's are looked at so poorly overseas.

Michael Neal
06-05-2005, 08:17 PM
Well it does turn out that many of these allegations were true, and I think there should be some heads rolling for it. There is no excuse for some members of our military to act this way.

However, I think Neil does take this stuff too far and tries to make more out of it than it is. For example, Bush was not trying to silence the media, the Pentagon obviously was not invloved in a campaign of lies since it revealed these latest details, these were acts by individual soldiers not by a government or Pentagon policy, etc. And remember that most of the cases of desecration of the Quran were by the detainees themselves.

While it is an unfortunate that these things happened, it really is not anything that you can use to hang the Bush Administration or the United States with.

What needs to happen is the U.S needs to make it perfectly clear to U.S soldiers that these things are unacceptable and to make sure it does not happen again.

Neil Mick
06-05-2005, 08:27 PM
The Qu'ran is considered a sacred text and the fact anyone could look at another's culture with such a flippant attitude is further proof of why American's are looked at so poorly overseas.

Exactly! Thank you!

And now...

What needs to happen is the U.S needs to make it perfectly clear to U.S soldiers that these things are unacceptable and to make sure it does not happen again.

At least we agree on something: even tho most of your post was the same old "Apologetic Shuffle." :rolleyes:

makuchg
06-06-2005, 05:20 AM
There used to be a saying, "when in Rome, act like the Romans."

A friend overseas told me the new version is, "when in Rome, act like an American (and expect all the Romans to act that way to)" or

"when in France, act like an American (and expect all the French to act that way to)" or

"when in Spain, act like an American (and expect all the Spaniard to act that way to)" or

Well you get the point!

As for holding soldiers accountable for their wrongdoings, absolutely. With that said, there is a certain responsibility the goes with command. When a command assumes responsibility for a military command (and President Bush assumed command of ALL military) you accept responsibility for all that command accomplishes and FAILS to accomplish. Today we have gotten a pervasive attitude of accepting accolades, but diverting blame. The days of "the buck stops here" are long gone. Today we live in an era of scapegoating and blame passing.

Are the individuals responsible? Yes. However did the military properly prepare them for their mission? Were they given the tools and cultural awareness to succeed? I work in a unit that specializes in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility (Middle East primarily) and we train constantly on cultural awareness. If someone isn't taught the fundamental principles behind Islam, such as the pillars of Islam, they aren't going to understand or respect that way of life. This is a new age of warfare. Technology brings images to our living rooms like never before. To believe any member of a command did not have knowledge of events occurring under their command suggests that commander failed.

Herein lies the question: does a one-time failure indicate a failed command? I would hope as human beings we accept failure as part of learning and encourage disclosure of past failures to encourage others to not make the same mistakes. I would rather a commander (at any level, even the highest level) stand up and say, "I made a mistake, here's how we can fix this..." than continually deny any mistakes. My support and respect would increase 10 fold, and I would imagine I would not be alone.

Hogan
06-06-2005, 12:15 PM
Remove foot form mouth ? Newsweek right ?

I don't think so. The only flushing down the toilet of the book occurred from the mishandling of the detainees themselves, not soldiers. So, should the detainees be prosecuted to turned over to the muslim countries for desecrating their own book ?

"There were three times as many confirmed incidents of (Quran) abuse by detainees, a number which were far worse than the few isolated incidents of mishandling by a few individuals that violated military policies and practices," McClellan added.

Re the "mishandling" of the book by our soldiers:
"...five cases in which the Quran was kicked, stepped on, soaked in water, and in one instance, splashed with a guard’s urine falling through an air vent."

"...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.”

Kicked it and stepped on it.... 'Oooooooo... bad soldier, lets kill people by rioting..... Our detainees can do it, but not those damn americans.'

"In other confirmed incidents, water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet"

Oh darn, they must have not been in those cells that deflect water that accidently comes in and hits various surfaces.

"...a guard’s urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran" and "...the guard had left his observation post and went outside to urinate. He urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the cell block".

Oh boy.... something SPLASHED on the book. May god have mercy on his soul for his ACCIDENTAL evil doings. Those damn american soldiers that can't control the wind or their bladders!

"...and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran."

Hmmm, was it the soldier that did it or the english speaking detainee ? I have to know before they kill more in rioting.


You people have to get more perspective. Psychos rioted and died because of this crap, when they themselves treated their "holy" book with more contempt. So the koran is considered the word of god by the muslims. So is the bible by christians. The bible is burned all the time by people, you see christains rioting and killing because of it ?

makuchg
06-06-2005, 01:02 PM
You people have to get more perspective. Psychos rioted and died because of this crap, when they themselves treated their "holy" book with more contempt. So the koran is considered the word of god by the muslims. So is the bible by christians. The bible is burned all the time by people, you see christains rioting and killing because of it ?

John, I'm just curious, how much more perspective can I get? I have served over 14 years in the military. I have served in Desert Storm, Somalia, Bosnia, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom I, and most recently a year in Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom II. I have lost friends in Iraq and I have sacrificed time with my wife and children so you can sit home and judge a culture you know nothing about. It's impressive the level of ignorance you display with your post. I try to be objective, level headed, and non-judgmental when I read these posts, but yours is truly impressive.

First, I would like to think we hold ourselves to a higher standard than prisoners. Because prisoners desecrated the Qu'ran it is okay for the guards? What a ludicrous rationale. The guards are representing law and order and the United States. We are not vigilantes. Prisoners murder each other so that should be okay for guards to do also, right?

John the fact you place "holy" in quotations further indicates your level of intolerance. It amazes me that in today's day and age you can remain so closed off to an entire religion, especially one practiced by 1.3 billion people.

Christians may not be rioting over religion, but have you heard of Ireland? Christians have been killing each other over the bible for tens of years. What about abortion clinic bombings by Christian groups? Seems Christians are finding their own ways and reasons for killing-wait that's okay because they're not rioting.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." Matthew 7:1

Hogan
06-06-2005, 02:59 PM
John, I'm just curious, how much more perspective can I get? I have served over 14 years in the military. I have served in Desert Storm, Somalia, Bosnia, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom I, and most recently a year in Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom II. I have lost friends in Iraq and I have sacrificed time with my wife and children so you can sit home and judge a culture you know nothing about. It's impressive the level of ignorance you display with your post. I try to be objective, level headed, and non-judgmental when I read these posts, but yours is truly impressive.


Wow - me saying people shouldn't die and get worked up about whether US troops hardly damaged a BOOK, when in fact the detainees themselves damaged it MORE makes me ignorant ?

Wow - is it OK for people to die because people accidently touched a book without gloves ? It's OK for people to die because people stepped on a book ?

Wow - I would have hated to be around here in the book burning days. Can you imagine all the people that would have died if it was ok to kill if you "mishandled" a BOOK ??!?

Yes we DID hold ourselves to a higher std than the prisoners, and in fact people have been punsihed for it. Have you read the requirements for handling the koran at GITMO ? It astounds the mind what we do in order to show "respect" for a book when in fact the detainees show no such respect.

This is a BOOK. Yes, get some perspective.

John the fact you place "holy" in quotations further indicates your level of intolerance. It amazes me that in today's day and age you can remain so closed off to an entire religion, especially one practiced by 1.3 billion people.
I show more respect for the book than those nuts that use it's contents to kill innocents. And just enclosing a word in quotation marks does not make one intolerant or closed minded. Remember, "Judge not, lest ye ...", etc...

Christians may not be rioting over religion, but have you heard of Ireland? Christians have been killing each other over the bible for tens of years. What about abortion clinic bombings by Christian groups? Seems Christians are finding their own ways and reasons for killing-wait that's okay because they're not rioting.
Yeah, I have heard of it. It's called stupidity. So, if one religion does it, it's ok for another to kill in the name of religion ?

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." Matthew 7:1
Practice what you preach, brother.

And I don't by the argument you can desecrate a book. Sorry, but get another copy. If someone destroys a book you like, turn the other cheek - don't go off on a murderous rampage. And don't have one set of rules for your people to be able to use it and another set for the "outsiders". If that makes me ignorant, than I will gladly claim title.

makuchg
06-06-2005, 03:23 PM
Wow - me saying people shouldn't die and get worked up about whether US troops hardly damaged a BOOK, when in fact the detainees themselves damaged it MORE makes me ignorant ?

John, your failure to understand the significance of the Qu'ran and continually referring to it as just a BOOK is what makes you ignorant.

Yes we DID hold ourselves to a higher std than the prisoners, and in fact people have been punsihed for it. Have you read the requirements for handling the koran at GITMO ? It astounds the mind what we do in order to show "respect" for a book when in fact the detainees show no such respect.

We held ourselves to a higher standard once the world found out, otherwise we would have never held anyone accountable. Afterall, some of these offenses were known years ago and no actions were taken. International attention caused the U.S. to take action.

I show more respect for the book than those nuts that use it's contents to kill innocents. And just enclosing a word in quotation marks does not make one intolerant or closed minded. Remember, "Judge not, lest ye ...", etc...

Terrorists or extremists do not use the contents to kill, they use the contents to justify killing the same way other religions do. I am not justifying either action, but realizing this is not the teachings of the Qu'ran is critical to improving Arab/American relations.

Michael Neal
06-06-2005, 03:26 PM
the difference is that we are better than them and should act accordingly, but I agree this really is not a big deal when compared to what they do. It is still not acceptable but not something to get worked up about.

Hogan
06-06-2005, 03:38 PM
John, your failure to understand the significance of the Qu'ran and continually referring to it as just a BOOK is what makes you ignorant.

Sorry - books are as significant to someone as we make them to be. That doesn't excuse people killing others because one person touched theirs without gloves on. And I am sorry, touching a book without gloves isn't desecrating it. How, then, do the muslims read it ? As I said - you can't desecrate a book.. just replace it.

We held ourselves to a higher standard once the world found out, otherwise we would have never held anyone accountable. Afterall, some of these offenses were known years ago and no actions were taken. International attention caused the U.S. to take action.

Sorry - the rules of handling the koran at GITMO have been there since day one. They didn't appear after "the world found out". Also, if you read the record, soldiers have been disciplined prior to "the world finding out".


Terrorists or extremists do not use the contents to kill, they use the contents to justify killing the same way other religions do. I am not justifying either action, but realizing this is not the teachings of the Qu'ran is critical to improving Arab/American relations.
Using the contents to kill and using the contents to justify killing is the same thing. The people that need to realise that the koran does not preach killing are the very ones that use it to "justify" their killing. And I am sure that the koran doesn't have any rules of hanlding in its contents page. These rules are man made, created by ego. If the koran preaches tolerance and peace, then why be bothered if someone touches it without a glove ?

Hogan
06-06-2005, 03:41 PM
the difference is that we are better than them and should act accordingly, but I agree this really is not a big deal when compared to what they do. It is still not acceptable but not something to get worked up about.

I agree, and we do. We did, in fact, act better than them in this so called 'desecration' of a book. And it is not something that they and others need to get worked up about. Only when we allow them to get worked up about it does the world lose. Next time, a war will start over who looked at a picture of someones leaders in his/hers eyes when they weren't supposed to. Idiocy.

Neil Mick
06-07-2005, 12:01 AM
(BTW, how was the humble pie, John? I didn't see you eating yours...tsk tsk. You can lead a man to humility: but you can't make him think :p ).

Sorry - books are as significant to someone as we make them to be.

And thereby you demonstrate your ignorance of a culture, by using your own Western prejudices to judge Islam.

If the koran preaches tolerance and peace, then why be bothered if someone touches it without a glove ?

If the US is all about peace and freedom: then why be bothered when someone wants to burn a flag? It's just a piece of cloth, after all... :p

Neil Mick
06-07-2005, 12:09 AM
the difference is that we are better than them and should act accordingly, but I agree this really is not a big deal when compared to what they do. It is still not acceptable but not something to get worked up about.

Of course you don't. If it's one thing an Apologist avoids, it's getting worked up about issues.

The Quran desecrations are only the tip of the iceberg. The core issue is that BushCo is less than open about detainee treatment. No one can really say, truthfully, whether or not the detainee's are being humanely treated because the Pentagon won't allow it. Independent investigations, who needs 'em? The Pentagon does whatever it likes, religious concerns bedamned, and ppl such as you and John will swallow anything the Pentagon deems worthy to print. But you go on and keep apologizing, Michael: at the very least, it's your usual M.O.

makuchg
06-07-2005, 05:25 AM
Let's take a step back and try to discuss this from a rationale point of view. John/Michael, physically the Qu'ran is a book, but it's spiritual significance to Islam is far more than a cover and pages. It is believed that the words in the Qu'ran are the verbatim words of God as spoken to the Prophet Mohammed. Is this worth dying for? Depends on your perspective. Is anything really worth killing and dying for? Some think land is, others believe freedom is, others believe race is, others believe money is, and others believe religion is. Of the things I just mentioned, more wars have been faught, and at greater cost, over religion than anything else.

Now should the disecretion of the Qu'ran result in riots and violence? American's rioted over the aquittal of four police officers in LA and people have been killed in soccer (futball if you will) riots in Europe. Americans have faught and died for the idea of freedom and democracy. Was it worth it? You have to ask them when the time comes. Reality is what is worth fighting for and dying for is a matter of perspective; becuase you don't agree doesn't mean they are wrong or right, it means you have a difference of opinion.

Now the problem lies when someone tries to force their morality onto another. Tolerance should be the key word here. We don't want people burning our flag (at least I don't), so I would hope people will respect that. Muslims don't want non-Muslims touching the Qu'ran, why is it so hard to respect that? If it is just a book (in your opinion), why worry about it-just leave it alone.

Hogan
06-07-2005, 07:48 AM
(BTW, how was the humble pie, John? I didn't see you eating yours...tsk tsk. You can lead a man to humility: but you can't make him think :p ).

Humble pie for what ?



And thereby you demonstrate your ignorance of a culture, by using your own Western prejudices to judge Islam.
Assigning the level of importance to a book, or anything else for that matter, is not a western thought. It is a human thought. EVERYONE thinks different things are more important to them than others. You think your car is more important to you than I do, don't you ? Or your house ? You think they are very important in your life, don't you ? I, on the other hand, could not give two shits about your car or house. See how that works ? Now, if I touch your car, are you going to cut my head off and then say, well, my car is important to my people so I can do it ?



If the US is all about peace and freedom: then why be bothered when someone wants to burn a flag? It's just a piece of cloth, after all... :p
ABSOLUTELY !!!! NOW you are getting the hang of it ! Burn away ! And more power to you....

Hogan
06-07-2005, 07:50 AM
.... and ppl such as you and John will swallow anything the Pentagon deems worthy to print. But you go on and keep apologizing, Michael: at the very least, it's your usual M.O.


Yeah, but you to swallow anything the liberals say. So you keep on apologzing, too, as it is your usual M.O.

So there !

Hogan
06-07-2005, 07:56 AM
...
Now the problem lies when someone tries to force their morality onto another. Tolerance should be the key word here. We don't want people burning our flag (at least I don't), so I would hope people will respect that. Muslims don't want non-Muslims touching the Qu'ran, why is it so hard to respect that? If it is just a book (in your opinion), why worry about it-just leave it alone.

Yes, tolerance is the key work here. They should be tolerant of people touching their book, as should americans be tolerant when someone burns the flag. Tolerance is letting people do it and living in peace. Why worry about it ? Because people use this religion bull as excuses for killing and wars and that is not moral in any religion.

And this intolerant political correct crap that people preach (the we can't touch their book because it offends them, among others) is going to take us to a place one day where we won't be able to step back from.

Taliesin
06-07-2005, 08:25 AM
Interesting Debate

However what the issue is is simple. - When you have someone under your controlland power and then desicrate what they may very well regard as the holiest object in their entire lives - then any deliberate interference is going to take on a signifigance far in excess of the damage. Continually doing so to vulnerable people is going to lead to anger and resentment and rioting. Unless you can appreciate that you are just creating enemies istead of peace.

makuchg
06-07-2005, 09:20 AM
Interesting Debate

However what the issue is is simple. - When you have someone under your controlland power and then desicrate what they may very well regard as the holiest object in their entire lives - then any deliberate interference is going to take on a signifigance far in excess of the damage. Continually doing so to vulnerable people is going to lead to anger and resentment and rioting. Unless you can appreciate that you are just creating enemies istead of peace.

Well said!

Hogan
06-07-2005, 10:06 AM
Interesting Debate

However what the issue is is simple. - When you have someone under your controlland power and then desicrate what they may very well regard as the holiest object in their entire lives - then any deliberate interference is going to take on a signifigance far in excess of the damage. Continually doing so to vulnerable people is going to lead to anger and resentment and rioting. Unless you can appreciate that you are just creating enemies istead of peace.

Well, I can understand that; however, only if they themselves had not desecrated what they hold dear much worse than we supposedly did. But, since they did much more worse and it appears to be OK for them to do it, this double std on their part just smells like anti-americanism and something to use to work up a population that had no free press or any other outlet to get non-biased info. They are playing to their own nut jobs who still think Saddams sons are alive.

Sorry, but if you say I can't touch your book and if I do you will kill me, but then you rip your own book to shreads holds no water.

And lets be clear, it is the words contained in the koran that people hold dear, not what holds them. If what holds them is destroyed, then get a new one and PRESTO! the words are back.

Again, the koran holds no instructions on how to 'handle' the book - it preaches love and violence. Anyone who uses it to destroy or hate is not really a muslim.

Neil Mick
06-07-2005, 05:27 PM
You think your car is more important to you than I do, don't you ? Or your house ? You think they are very important in your life, don't you ? I, on the other hand, could not give two shits about your car or house. See how that works ? Now, if I touch your car, are you going to cut my head off and then say, well, my car is important to my people so I can do it ?

Put DOWN the coffee-cup: step AWAAY from the barista, sir...

I am not Muslim; and you are not the US Occupying Army. The fact that you fail to note the difference in your comparison is quite telling, indeed...

Yeah, but you to swallow anything the liberals say. So you keep on apologzing, too, as it is your usual M.O.

No, not everything. And, you are misusing the term "apology." For me to be an apologist: I have to be excusing some reprehensible action.

You see, John: not every query or critique can be answered with "yeah, so are you!" It's so grade-school, in any case.

So there !

Exactly. What next, "I'm rubber: you're glue?"

Well said!

Yes. +1

Well, I can understand that; however, only if they themselves had not desecrated what they hold dear much worse than we supposedly did. But, since they did much more worse and it appears to be OK for them to do it, this double std on their part just smells like anti-americanism and something to use to work up a population that had no free press or any other outlet to get non-biased info.

I can almost see the corollary, with you as a prison warden indicted on murder charges:

Judge: Warden Hogan, you stand accused of brutally murdering ten of your charges. How do you plead?

Prison Warden Hogan: Your Honor, all I gotta say is "Big Deal!" I mean, it's no worse than what "they" do to "themselves," right? So, what's the problem?

Here's the problem, John, all laid out in numerical order:

1. As I have mentioned several times: the Pentagon is a source not to be trusted. They have been shown to lie, repeatedly, regarding the occupation and torture (Please, oh please: ask for sources... :p )

2. If the Pentagon is not to be trusted: then any internal investigations are to be suspect, as well. Especially, any testimonies from detainee's wherein the Pentagon refuses independent investigatory access. But most certainly, damage-control media reports are not to be trusted. The Pentagon PR is top notch, I gotta say that for them.

3. We also know that it is statistically likely that many of the detainee's are innocent. Even the one's who aren't cannot all be lying. We take away their due process, we make them one of the illegally "disappeared," and now we dismiss, out of hand, their testimony. :disgust:

4. If the Pentagon states that detainee's bespoil their own Quran's: that this could well be spin.

5. The Pentagon, as "jailkeeper," has a particular obligation to uphold standards of legal detention, esp in reference to its own guidelines. Their recent string of denial and damage-control does not instill me with confidence that this is the case.

How you feel about it, I have no doubt. "My Pentagon, right or wrong:" right, John?

Sorry, but if you say I can't touch your book and if I do you will kill me, but then you rip your own book to shreads holds no water.

It's that simplistic "us" and "them," notion. Don't be sad, John: you're not the only American afflicted with this disease.

I proscribe a good six months world trip, with a concentration in the Middle East. I'm betting that you haven't left the States, overmuch. A trip will do you some good.

Hogan
06-09-2005, 01:03 PM
Put DOWN the coffee-cup: step AWAAY from the barista, sir...

I am not Muslim; and you are not the US Occupying Army. The fact that you fail to note the difference in your comparison is quite telling, indeed...

*sigh*.... OK, once again. A BOOK, much like a HOUSE or a CAR is an INANIMANT OBJECT. The personal VALUE we place on it is one we creat or ASSIGN TO IT OURSELVES. I maintained that for anyone to kill anyone over misstreating an inanimant object like a book is no different than killing anyone over misstreating a house or a car. It is called STUPIDITY. Got it, now ?

You see, John: not every query or critique can be answered with "yeah, so are you!" It's so grade-school, in any case.


Quote:
So there !

Exactly. What next, "I'm rubber: you're glue?"
*sigh* part two.... OK, one more time. I responded with the same verbaige you did to someone else in an attempt to get you to see the ridiculousness of your statement. But I guess you failed to see that. So.... while criticising what I said, you must be really criticising what you said. Interesting.

I can almost see the corollary, with you as a prison warden indicted on murder charges:

Judge: Warden Hogan, you stand accused of brutally murdering ten of your charges. How do you plead?

Prison Warden Hogan: Your Honor, all I gotta say is "Big Deal!" I mean, it's no worse than what "they" do to "themselves," right? So, what's the problem?
ahahah... nice try. But murder is different than touching a book without gloves and flushing down the toilet. Let's rearrange your criticism: Let's say flushing the book equates with murder, and touching it without gloves equates with hitting someone. You see the level of difference / behavior ? Probably not, but I had to ask, anyway.


Here's the problem, John, all laid out in numerical order:

1. As I have mentioned several times: the Pentagon is a source not to be trusted. They have been shown to lie, repeatedly, regarding the occupation and torture (Please, oh please: ask for sources... :p )
No, go ahead, you post your sources... from the INTERNET. And we all know how relaible information from the net is, especially from left wing sources.

2. If the Pentagon is not to be trusted: then any internal investigations are to be suspect, as well. Especially, any testimonies from detainee's wherein the Pentagon refuses independent investigatory access. But most certainly, damage-control media reports are not to be trusted. The Pentagon PR is top notch, I gotta say that for them.
Internal investigations require security clearance. Independent people would not be able to get it or be trusted with. You may want to give it all away to anyone, but I don't.

3. We also know that it is statistically likely that many of the detainee's are innocent. Even the one's who aren't cannot all be lying. We take away their due process, we make them one of the illegally "disappeared," and now we dismiss, out of hand, their testimony. :disgust:
Yes, many aren't And we have let go hundreds as a result. We still have ones remaining, and once they are ready, they will leave. But, I think even you would want to know or make sure that all avenues are exhausted before soeone is let go. One person that was let go was later arrested again in a foreign country for terrorism activity, AGAIN. Hmmm... I wonder if he professed his innocence at GITMO.

4. If the Pentagon states that detainee's bespoil their own Quran's: that this could well be spin.
How about that detainees claims of US soldiers bespoiling the koran is also spin ?

5. The Pentagon, as "jailkeeper," has a particular obligation to uphold standards of legal detention, esp in reference to its own guidelines. Their recent string of denial and damage-control does not instill me with confidence that this is the case.
No, we have an obligation to uphold the stds WE SET at a particular time.

It's that simplistic "us" and "them," notion. Don't be sad, John: you're not the only American afflicted with this disease.

Sorry, it's not us vs. them, it's simple logic and the old double std argument. And really, your responde to my quote isn't really related....

I proscribe a good six months world trip, with a concentration in the Middle East. I'm betting that you haven't left the States, overmuch. A trip will do you some good.
You're one of those people that believe if only I saw the world I would come to your view, huh ? Or only if I saw your information would I think the same as you. Typical liberal opinion. BUT, Neil boy, let me burst your bubble:
I have traveled to over 50 countries. I have lived in Peru, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Isreal, & Moscow over a period of 12 yrs. You ?

Neil Mick
06-11-2005, 07:02 PM
*sigh*.... OK, once again. A BOOK, much like a HOUSE or a CAR is an INANIMANT OBJECT. The personal VALUE we place on it is one we creat or ASSIGN TO IT OURSELVES. I maintained that for anyone to kill anyone over misstreating an inanimant object like a book is no different than killing anyone over misstreating a house or a car. It is called STUPIDITY. Got it, now ?

Oh, I got it all along.

But, I will discontinue with this line of discourse, as arguing with someone whose avowed interest here is to insult usually results in nothing positive.

My point is that there's a difference btw "personal" values (actually, inculcated from our culture), as opposed to religious, or cultural, values. When you compare your, and my, disputes over a car, with US versus Islamic values, you take the argument out of its critical cultural context.

But, never mind: you go on comparing apples and oranges.

No, go ahead, you post your sources... from the INTERNET. And we all know how relaible information from the net is, especially from left wing sources.

Ah, the usual rightwing cry: "the internet is filled with lies! We cannot trust the internet!" (all in the face of a lack of creditable investigation: cf, the 2004 election debacle).

Funny, how the few (very few) sources (internet or no) you post are all OK, right John? :rolleyes:

Internal investigations require security clearance. Independent people would not be able to get it or be trusted with. You may want to give it all away to anyone, but I don't.

Sorry, but this is wrong, or misplaced. The Pentagon has withheld several detainee's rights to be inspected by the Red Cross, et al: actually "hiding" the prisoners when the Red Cross, et al, came to call.

How about that detainees claims of US soldiers bespoiling the koran is also spin ?

Since the Pentagon will not allow independent investigations: we won't know until they do, now will we?

No, we have an obligation to uphold the stds WE SET at a particular time.

Now this is completely untrue. We have an obligation to uphold the Geneva Conventions and the tenets of the UN Charter: signatory obligations to foreign treaties is written in our Constitution.

Sorry, it's not us vs. them, it's simple logic and the old double std argument.

Since you never seem willing to explain your views: what would you expect? Failing to provide a more "accurate" description of your views: you leave me (and most other poster's here) with whatever summations we conjure, to fill the void of your silence.

You're one of those people that believe if only I saw the world I would come to your view, huh ? Or only if I saw your information would I think the same as you. Typical liberal opinion.

You see? You prove my point: lacking explanation, the reader comes up with all kinds of ideas (such as your mistaken notion that I am a Dem-supporter, earlier).

Here, lemme set (some of) your mistaken idea(s) straight: I seriously doubt that you will ever see the world as I do (until it's too late).

But your opinions, lacking explanation, sound a lot like the narrow, provincial "We (the US) has our's: so screw the rest of the world," you often hear on Rush Limbaugh-type talk-shows.

Sad, that you're willing to let your unexplained opinions rest on its wilting laurels. What else could you expect from the reader, except to make sometimes erroneous assumptions, based upon the few explanations you deign to provide?