Flushing Religious Works. Moral Outrage, or just bad for the toilet? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

billege · 05-18-2005, 11:41 PM

In a rare foray into this fourm, I offer this:

Original Site

Quote:

Seeking sanity in the asylum
May 18, 2005
Kathleen Parker

Reaction to an inaccurate Newsweek report that led recently to rioting and death in Afghanistan suggests that hysteria is, indeed, contagious.

To briefly recap, Newsweek reported in a small blurb (May 9) that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a Quran down a toilet in attempts to get Muslim terror suspects to talk. Once the Newsweek story was broadcast abroad, the usually reticent hate-America crowd erupted in mass pique. Havoc ensued. At least 15 Afghans died and many more were injured.

All because of a story that may not have been true. The "knowledgeable U.S. government source" who told Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and John Barry about the flushing apparently wasn't so knowledgeable. At the risk of seeming insensitive, may I suggest that c'est la guerre, and urge everyone to follow Dr. Lamaze's always-useful advice: Breathe deeply and focus.

What we need here is a little perspective.

First, we all can agree that flushing a Quran down a toilet, if physically possible, would be both insensitive and rude, though Westerners generally have a higher tolerance threshold for such offenses. Put it this way: You could flush a Bible down the toilet in front of Goober in Kabul, and it's unlikely that Mayberry suddenly would be awash in blood.

Without disrespecting true believers of Islam, one also could debate the relative miseries of seeing our favorite scripture disappear into the plumbing versus, say, watching airplanes fly into buildings, killing thousands of innocents. Remember, these are terrorist suspects captured after 9-11, not kidnapped members of an Afghan boys choir.

The apparent Newsweek mistake was regrettable, but we should beware allowing ourselves to mirror the emotional reactions of people who were by no measure justified in their response -- even if the story had been proven true. The same people foaming over a reported act of blasphemy didn't flinch while executing women for stepping outside sans burqa. I'm afraid my moral outrage in favor of the morally outrageous is all tapped out.

While the world was reacting in righteous indignation to the Newsweek report, another story was circulating about Turkish women in Germany being executed by family members in "honor killings" sanctioned by certain interpretations of the Quran. Their offense? Acting like Western women. Or, in the pithy words of a 14-year-old Turkish boy who was justifying an execution: "The whore lived like a German."

Before the good Muslim world objects, let me assert what shouldn't need saying: Islam isn't the problem here. The problem is ignorance and the right-wing Islamist faction that will use the Quran for its purposes, whether to incite a riot or murder a woman who refuses to wear her headscarf. The enemy is extremism.

I have no interest either in defending Newsweek or in justifying interrogators' methods, but let's be blunt: Those rampaging in Afghanistan didn't need a reason to riot; they needed an excuse. That the media provided one is regrettable, but that regret needs to be tempered by perspective and objectivity.

Instead, much of the anger the past several days has been directed not at the Islamist extremists who went berserk, but at the reporters who apparently got the story wrong. What if they'd been right? Should Newsweek not have reported it? Would the riots have been justified if someone had flushed a Quran?

We might debate those questions, but meanwhile, we should resist the urge to overreact as some have in suggesting that the press should be restricted or stifled. Although imperfect, a free press is one of our nation's highest expressions of freedom and the thing that separates us from the same right-wing, authoritarian, extremist forces that we condemn. Yet, an alarming number of Americans, their faith in journalists damaged by recent scandals, have lost sight of the meaning and importance of a free press.

A recent University of Connecticut survey found, for example, that only 14 percent of respondents knew that freedom of the press was part of the First Amendment. Only 55 percent of those surveyed strongly agreed that newspapers should be allowed "to publish freely without government approval of a story." Now there's a finding to warm the cockles of a Taliban heart.

Once we start asking government permission to publish, we become partners in propaganda and cohorts of authoritarianism. Far better to risk mistakes -- and even riots from the lunatic fringe -- than to forfeit the right to question authority.

Mistakes will be made, but freedom means living to say, "I'm sorry."

Kathleen Parker can be reached at kparker@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5202

I thought that was well written, and made several points I heartily agree with. American's, from what I've heard around the office, place an odd sort of blame on Newsweek. It's like "newsweek printed a story that pissed of the muslims, who freaked out and ritoted, damn newsweek."

That is just twisted logic, from where I'm sitting anyway.

I like my freedoms, I like my free press. I don't get why it's cool to be okay with riots over a possibley flushed book, and pissed at a magazine for "causing" them.

People burn flags here, and I'll be damned if I don't see mass riots and hangings in teh streets. Those people on the other side of the world there? Yeah, they're nuts. Violent and nuts.

filtherton · 05-18-2005, 11:55 PM

Newsweek prints an allegedly inaccurate story and supposedly pisses muslims off. The current administration starts a war based on faulty intelligence and exaggerated threats and obviously pisses muslims off. hmm. damn newsweek.

I wonder how there are so many people who can attribute deaths to a newsweek article yet completely deny even the notion that american foreign policy might have contributed to 9/11. Newsweek, solely through the power of the american press has the power and the sway to singlehandedly control muslim american relations, while apparently america's foreign policy has nothing at all to do with muslim american relations. Brilliant.

jorgelito · 05-19-2005, 01:56 AM

I don't think anyone thinks it's cool or ok to have riots. Also, people are pissed because of the inaccurate and well, incorrect publication from a medai that should know better than that. The issue has NOTHING to do with freedom of the press, but rather, accuracy and truth in reporting. Just like people were pissed when CBS and Dan Rather made the erroneous report about Bush. It's like c'mon people, are our standards slipping? The "product" is becoming more and more shoddy and unreliable. I think that's what the problem is.

Oh, and people are nuts EVERYWHERE, not just "the other side of the world". They're violent and nuts here too. Ever been to LA? We had two riots today. Race riots at that. Two. In one day. In the same city, at two different high schools. Both schools went into lockdown.

We seem to have riots after every big court case here. No hangings though, you're right about that. We haven't had any hangings or lynchin' in about oh...3 years or so. But it's all in the south anyways where the extremeist are.

I also agree with the article. The problem is with the extremists. And we've got a lot of them.

ScottKuma · 05-19-2005, 02:36 AM

If Newsweek's allegations were even in part true, those involved crossed the line and should be punished by any applicable statute of military code of justice.

I'm curious, though....if the allegations *weren't* true, however, what recourse do the victims' families have against Newsweek? In the U.S., those families would be suing the Be-jeebus out of the publication. This provides the family with some measure of justice, and provides Newsweek with their only real incentive NOT to file stories like this. Since the Constitution provides for a free press & therefore protects Newsweek from federal prosecution, does anyone know if any legal options exist in the affected countries/areas?

flstf · 05-19-2005, 06:58 AM

Even if the Newsweek article is false, a free press is not the problem. There are a large number of radical fundamentalists using any excuse they can to violently demonstrate against the "great satin". One can only hope that moderate leaders of their religion will try and chastise them as outcasts. So far I haven't seen much evidence of this.

Lebell · 05-19-2005, 07:06 AM

I tend to agree with the article.

While she is right that the press gleefully stokes the fire, the problem is the fire.

Manx · 05-19-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I tend to agree with the article.

While she is right that the press gleefully stokes the fire, the problem is the fire.

I also agree with the article. Though I didn't get any sense that she implied the press "gleefully stokes the fire".

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Newsweek prints an allegedly inaccurate story and supposedly pisses muslims off. The current administration starts a war based on faulty intelligence and exaggerated threats and obviously pisses muslims off. hmm. damn newsweek.

I wonder how there are so many people who can attribute deaths to a newsweek article yet completely deny even the notion that american foreign policy might have contributed to 9/11. Newsweek, solely through the power of the american press has the power and the sway to singlehandedly control muslim american relations, while apparently america's foreign policy has nothing at all to do with muslim american relations. Brilliant.

Well said.

frogza · 05-19-2005, 07:56 AM

I found it interesting that as the rioters were doing their thing to protest our insensitivity to important cultural symbols, they were burning American flags.

I have to agree with the article, the people who did the killing and were out destroying things are, quite simply, murderers and hoodlums who found an opportunity to engage in the activities they love. The Quran isn't what they love, it is the things the Quran forbids that they choose to embrace.

powerclown · 05-19-2005, 07:58 AM

Moral: Don't Rile the Arabs. They are Very Excitable.

(To the West: Stop with the Quran. It's not yours, it's ours so leave it alone. You Infidels will inevitably say something blasphemous, and we'll be forced to Riot. Don't make us Riot.)

moosenose · 05-19-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Moral: Don't Rile the Arabs. They are Very Excitable.

(To the West: Stop with the Quran. It's not yours, it's ours so leave it alone. You Infidels will inevitably say something blasphemous, and we'll be forced to Riot. Don't make us Riot.)

Well, it's too late, I've already (literally) crapped on my copy of the Koran. Now I just need somebody to host the video.

BTW, don't you think it's about time that we take the people shouting "Death To America" seriously, and start returning death FROM America to them? And if somebody starts screaming about launching a Jihad against the US because somebody took a dump on a book, maybe, JUST maybe, we should consider that they don't want to be our friends, and instead just kill them?

The vast majority of muslims are, I'm sure, decent human beings who would never dream of killing people over somebody defecating on a frigging book. But the lunatic fringe of muslim society who WOULD do that need to be slapped down hard. It would be better if the mainstream muslims cracked down on them, but if they will not, we may have to.

moosenose · 05-19-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

If Newsweek's allegations were even in part true, those involved crossed the line and should be punished by any applicable statute of military code of justice.

Please feel free to quote the applicable section of the UCMJ that says it's criminal for soldiers to throw torn up books into a crapper. Thanks.

Charlatan · 05-19-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Please feel free to quote the applicable section of the UCMJ that says it's criminal for soldiers to throw torn up books into a crapper. Thanks.

I believe it is found in the new code for how to ethically get information out of prisioners... The new code says you can't mess with their religious iconography...

This isn't a joke.

moosenose · 05-19-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I believe it is found in the new code for how to ethically get information out of prisioners... The new code says you can't mess with their religious iconography...

This isn't a joke.

Fine, then look it up and quote it. Make sure you include the penalties. Thanks.

Charlatan · 05-19-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Fine, then look it up and quote it. Make sure you include the penalties. Thanks.

Geez... does my user name say Host?

BigBen · 05-19-2005, 11:21 AM

Westerners (me included) do not have the proper appreciation about the Quran and its place in the Muslim faith...

No, I will not quote sources, but it is impressed deeply onto me that the Muslim faith believes that the Quran was given to them by GOD.

Not the son of God,
Not scholars that were there and transcribed it,

But that the Prophet Mohammad wrote it, while under God's divine control.

Only the deeply religious can appreciate what that could mean to someone. I have read the thread "Was Jesus an Idiot, Idol, Fool, or Auto mechanic?" and have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly, I invite criticism on this point) that there are very few deeply religious people on the TFP.

I cannot come up with a comparison or an analogy that could bring this defamation of their religion into an American perspective... hold on:

Using the comparison with your politics (something the yanks feel strongly about, I think):
Take the Liberty Bell off of its perch and tip it upside down. Insert the Original copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Take a big shit in the Bell, and stir. Now report to the American people that Osama bin Laden did this with his own two hands.

You wouldn't have a riot on your hands, you would start a new war.

Granted, not all Americans would be whipped up into a violent frenzy. Don't report about those people. Just show the ones that take to the streets.

Thoughts? I welcome feedback on this one.

powerclown · 05-19-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Geez... does my user name say Host?

What? There's something wrong with single-handedly bumping Google's stock valuation up .5% on each and every post?

WINK

ScottKuma · 05-19-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Please feel free to quote the applicable section of the UCMJ that says it's criminal for soldiers to throw torn up books into a crapper. Thanks.

Wow, that was uncalled for. Is this a particular area that piques your ire, or are you just caffeine-deprived (and therefore grouchy) today?

I said "any applicable"....and while I'm not an expert on UCMJ, I trust that YOU are, and will no doubt enlighten me?

Thanks.

And here are some possibly relevant articles of the UCMJ:

Quote:

893. ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Or maybe...

Quote:

916. ART. 116. RIOT OR BREACH OF PEACE
Any person subject to this chapter who causes or participates in any riot or breach of the peace shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.

Or even...

Quote:

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Possibly even...

Quote:

33. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, you seem to be completely insensitive to the fact that this wasn't just ANY book, but their book of holy scriptures. While I don't condone the rioters' actions, I also don't condone the actions of the person(s) who (allegedly) tore up the Quran & flushed it.

If the allegations are even in part true, and even if legal, the flusher KNEW it would get under someone's skin. S/he just didn't know that word of it might get out and get under a whole LOT of someones' collective skins. Does this make it right for the Muslim people to riot/plunder/kill? Heck no! You wanna protest, go ahead! But keep it civil, folks!

And, under the same lines our interrogators should probably stay away from those things that get under the collective skins of others.

ScottKuma · 05-19-2005, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen931

{Big ol' SNIP...go back & read the parent post if you like...}

You wouldn't have a riot on your hands, you would start a new war.

Granted, not all Americans would be whipped up into a violent frenzy. Don't report about those people. Just show the ones that take to the streets.

Thoughts? I welcome feedback on this one.

Agreed, whole-heartedly. Or maybe if you fly a couple of airplanes into a couple of American buildings? Would the call for retribution be large enough then?

I realize that my analogy isn't quite as good - one involves a loss of life, the other involves just the desecration of a holy article...but I think the Quran is revered thusly. Cultural differences are just that...DIFFERENCES. Oftentimes large enough that those on the other side of the divide can't or won't understand.

moosenose · 05-19-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

893. ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I think you'll find that article refers to people under them within the chain of command.

Quote:

916. ART. 116. RIOT OR BREACH OF PEACE
Any person subject to this chapter who causes or participates in any riot or breach of the peace shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.

There was a riot in Gitmo by US forces? Cite, please.

Quote:

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Gotta read the fine print...."towards any other person subject to this chapter"...that would NOT include the enemy, would it? If it did, couldn't we just try them for treason and execute the lot of them?

Quote:

33. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

You have a source saying it was an officer? My experience has been that they generally don't get their hands dirty in matters like this....

Quote:

And, under the same lines our interrogators should probably stay away from those things that get under the collective skins of others.

I'm sure they'd love to, it's just that pesky Oath they took when they joined up, ya know....the one about defending the Constitution. It would be nice, I suppose, if we could figure out a way to wage war WITHOUT getting under the collective skins of the people trying to KILL us...completely, totally, INSANELY impractical, but nice...

moosenose · 05-19-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen931

No, I will not quote sources, but it is impressed deeply onto me that the Muslim faith believes that the Quran was given to them by GOD.

They're entitled to think whatever they want about it. What they are NOT entitled to do is force US to comply with THEIR religious belief structure. Remember, freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Fohur2 · 05-19-2005, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Remember, freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

Explain how thats part of the fineprint.

hannukah harry · 05-19-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fohur2

Explain how thats part of the fineprint.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

/seems pretty clear to me...

MSD · 05-19-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

What? There's something wrong with single-handedly bumping Google's stock valuation up .5% on each and every post?

WINK

At least someone actually researches and posts information to back up what they say, regardless of whether or not I agree with their views.

powerclown · 05-19-2005, 08:03 PM

Thats....debatable, MSD.

It should be obvious by now that one can find just about anything on the net to back up any opinion one may have, no matter how far left, right, center, overboard, underboard, inside or out, courtesy of google. I could introduce an argument that UFOs have invaded Mexico, and the odds are good that I'll find a link for it somewhere. After a while, one can tell who here knows what theyre talking about, without having to resort to Google to make themselves appear 'legit'. If its referencing established historical facts, then fine. If its editorial commentary, well, you know what they say about opinions. When it comes to political debate, I don't place too much stock on the ability to type stuff into a search engine. Just my 2 cents.

Cool avatar, btw.

nofnway · 05-19-2005, 09:08 PM

i also like the avatar

jorgelito · 05-19-2005, 10:42 PM

nofnway wins the "Avatar Comeback" Award!!

That's a good one!

filtherton · 05-20-2005, 11:47 AM

Could someone please explain to me how newsweek holds such power over arab-american relations? Could someone tell me how an administration that commended the man who was ultimately responsible for iraqi prison torture has the balls to complain about a newsweek article that merely confirms the existence of what any cynical person already knows- i.e. abuses at gitmo?

moosenose · 05-20-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

/seems pretty clear to me...

Thank you for that concise answer. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Mantus · 05-20-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Before the good Muslim world objects, let me assert what shouldn't need saying: Islam isn't the problem here. The problem is ignorance and the right-wing Islamist faction that will use the Quran for its purposes, whether to incite a riot or murder a woman who refuses to wear her headscarf. The enemy is extremism.

Islam asside there are plenty of political and historical reasons why Afghans have a strong dislike of America. The US milliatary is widely known for using extreme methods of interigation. Religious fundamentalism provides the feul and all it takes is a spark to set it off.

That comic is more tell more then the artist might realize.

Elphaba · 05-26-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Could someone please explain to me how newsweek holds such power over arab-american relations? Could someone tell me how an administration that commended the man who was ultimately responsible for iraqi prison torture has the balls to complain about a newsweek article that merely confirms the existence of what any cynical person already knows- i.e. abuses at gitmo?

I'm having a problem with that also. This was a very small article in Newsweek's "Periscope" section. Abuse of the Qu'ran has been reported many times previously without an uproar of this kind. I was astounded to see this little tidbit in Time magazine this week:

"May 6 - Imran Khan, a Pakistani cricket legend and government critic, cites the (Newsweek) report in denouncing the alleged desecration. His remarks spread around the Muslim world."

WTF? A damned cricket player actually started all of this?

05-19-2005, 02:36 AM	#4 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	If Newsweek's allegations were even in part true, those involved crossed the line and should be punished by any applicable statute of military code of justice. I'm curious, though....if the allegations weren't true, however, what recourse do the victims' families have against Newsweek? In the U.S., those families would be suing the Be-jeebus out of the publication. This provides the family with some measure of justice, and provides Newsweek with their only real incentive NOT to file stories like this. Since the Constitution provides for a free press & therefore protects Newsweek from federal prosecution, does anyone know if any legal options exist in the affected countries/areas? __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me

05-19-2005, 07:06 AM	#6 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I tend to agree with the article. While she is right that the press gleefully stokes the fire, the problem is the fire. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-19-2005, 11:21 AM	#15 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Westerners (me included) do not have the proper appreciation about the Quran and its place in the Muslim faith... No, I will not quote sources, but it is impressed deeply onto me that the Muslim faith believes that the Quran was given to them by GOD. Not the son of God, Not scholars that were there and transcribed it, But that the Prophet Mohammad wrote it, while under God's divine control. Only the deeply religious can appreciate what that could mean to someone. I have read the thread "Was Jesus an Idiot, Idol, Fool, or Auto mechanic?" and have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly, I invite criticism on this point) that there are very few deeply religious people on the TFP. I cannot come up with a comparison or an analogy that could bring this defamation of their religion into an American perspective... hold on: Using the comparison with your politics (something the yanks feel strongly about, I think): Take the Liberty Bell off of its perch and tip it upside down. Insert the Original copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Take a big shit in the Bell, and stir. Now report to the American people that Osama bin Laden did this with his own two hands. You wouldn't have a riot on your hands, you would start a new war. Granted, not all Americans would be whipped up into a violent frenzy. Don't report about those people. Just show the ones that take to the streets. Thoughts? I welcome feedback on this one. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

05-19-2005, 09:08 PM	#25 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	i also like the avatar __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

05-18-2005, 11:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Newsweek prints an allegedly inaccurate story and supposedly pisses muslims off. The current administration starts a war based on faulty intelligence and exaggerated threats and obviously pisses muslims off. hmm. damn newsweek. I wonder how there are so many people who can attribute deaths to a newsweek article yet completely deny even the notion that american foreign policy might have contributed to 9/11. Newsweek, solely through the power of the american press has the power and the sway to singlehandedly control muslim american relations, while apparently america's foreign policy has nothing at all to do with muslim american relations. Brilliant.

05-19-2005, 01:56 AM	#3 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I don't think anyone thinks it's cool or ok to have riots. Also, people are pissed because of the inaccurate and well, incorrect publication from a medai that should know better than that. The issue has NOTHING to do with freedom of the press, but rather, accuracy and truth in reporting. Just like people were pissed when CBS and Dan Rather made the erroneous report about Bush. It's like c'mon people, are our standards slipping? The "product" is becoming more and more shoddy and unreliable. I think that's what the problem is. Oh, and people are nuts EVERYWHERE, not just "the other side of the world". They're violent and nuts here too. Ever been to LA? We had two riots today. Race riots at that. Two. In one day. In the same city, at two different high schools. Both schools went into lockdown. We seem to have riots after every big court case here. No hangings though, you're right about that. We haven't had any hangings or lynchin' in about oh...3 years or so. But it's all in the south anyways where the extremeist are. I also agree with the article. The problem is with the extremists. And we've got a lot of them.

05-19-2005, 06:58 AM	#5 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Even if the Newsweek article is false, a free press is not the problem. There are a large number of radical fundamentalists using any excuse they can to violently demonstrate against the "great satin". One can only hope that moderate leaders of their religion will try and chastise them as outcasts. So far I haven't seen much evidence of this.

05-19-2005, 07:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	I found it interesting that as the rioters were doing their thing to protest our insensitivity to important cultural symbols, they were burning American flags. I have to agree with the article, the people who did the killing and were out destroying things are, quite simply, murderers and hoodlums who found an opportunity to engage in the activities they love. The Quran isn't what they love, it is the things the Quran forbids that they choose to embrace.

05-19-2005, 07:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Moral: Don't Rile the Arabs. They are Very Excitable. (To the West: Stop with the Quran. It's not yours, it's ours so leave it alone. You Infidels will inevitably say something blasphemous, and we'll be forced to Riot. Don't make us Riot.)

05-19-2005, 08:03 PM	#24 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Thats....debatable, MSD. It should be obvious by now that one can find just about anything on the net to back up any opinion one may have, no matter how far left, right, center, overboard, underboard, inside or out, courtesy of google. I could introduce an argument that UFOs have invaded Mexico, and the odds are good that I'll find a link for it somewhere. After a while, one can tell who here knows what theyre talking about, without having to resort to Google to make themselves appear 'legit'. If its referencing established historical facts, then fine. If its editorial commentary, well, you know what they say about opinions. When it comes to political debate, I don't place too much stock on the ability to type stuff into a search engine. Just my 2 cents. Cool avatar, btw.

05-19-2005, 10:42 PM	#26 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	nofnway wins the "Avatar Comeback" Award!! That's a good one!

05-20-2005, 11:47 AM	#27 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Could someone please explain to me how newsweek holds such power over arab-american relations? Could someone tell me how an administration that commended the man who was ultimately responsible for iraqi prison torture has the balls to complain about a newsweek article that merely confirms the existence of what any cynical person already knows- i.e. abuses at gitmo?