NationStates Jolt Archive

Well.

On June 3, 2005, confirming reports of US soldiers abusing the Qur'an were released by the U.S. military: a soldier deliberately kicked a Qur'an; an interrogator stepped on a Qur'an; a guard's urine came through an air vent, splashing a detainee and his Qur'an; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused a number of Qur'ans to get wet; and a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Qur'an. The report stresses that guards were usually "respectful" of the Qur'an, and that these were abnormal events.

Doesn't that just beat it all?

I cannot believe an administration that would do stuff like this, discredit publications that try to prove it did happen, and then admit it during the period of outrage, apparently hoping no one would notice.

And, keep in mind, it's the U.S. military who's saying this, not some "liberal" publication.

It's not Newsweek's fault about the dead people in the riots: that would appear to be our own goverments fault.

Sources please?

Sources please?
Here you go. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301654.html)

The title of the article is "Pentagon Details Abuse of Koran." Good enough?

Any number.

I first heard it on Wikipedia, but it has been confirmed lots of other places.

Here are a few:


http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010982.html


http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/pentagon_spokesman_dirita_lied_koran_527

I was really hoping that more conservatives would be able to come forward and defend their "Newsweek lied People died" bullshit. Especially since People (http://people.aol.com/people/) is a completly unrelated genre of magazine.

But since that particular line of bullshit was obviously bullshit when they started complaining about it it isn't really all that important that they come out and try to defend it now that it's slightly more obvious.

I've always noticed in cases such as this that virtually no conservatives will offer comment of any sort on this or any issue that doesn't fit in nicely with Mr. Bush big picture.

Don't be surprised to see tumbleweeds rolling by this thread. Of course, I could be completely wrong. I hope I am, in fact...

Well.

On June 3, 2005, confirming reports of US soldiers abusing the Qur'an were released by the U.S. military: a soldier deliberately kicked a Qur'an; an interrogator stepped on a Qur'an; a guard's urine came through an air vent, splashing a detainee and his Qur'an; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused a number of Qur'ans to get wet; and a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Qur'an. The report stresses that guards were usually "respectful" of the Qur'an, and that these were abnormal events.

Doesn't that just beat it all?

I cannot believe an administration that would do stuff like this, discredit publications that try to prove it did happen, and then admit it during the period of outrage, apparently hoping no one would notice.

And, keep in mind, it's the U.S. military who's saying this, not some "liberal" publication.

It's not Newsweek's fault about the dead people in the riots: that would appear to be our own goverments fault.

As horrible as I think the whole thing is amazingly I don't find being correct to be any excuse for their irresponsibility in not confirming a story with that potential before release

The real shame of all of this isn't so much the actual treatment of the Koran by the soldiers, which by all accounts was limited--it was the fact that so many in the US and around the world had the reaction of "big surprise--they've tortured people already. What's a little Koran disrespect compared to that?" That's the most disturbing thing to me--the lack of utter astonishment that US soldiers would be capable of this sort of conduct.

Oh, and by the way, Newsweek's got another doozy. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek/) This is a story by the Baghdad bureau chief--he's leaving after two years in Iraq.
June 13 issue - Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced "actionable intelligence."

snip

Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18 percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S. contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most, it's only 4 percent.

The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost—which only deepens Iraqis' resentment.

The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers—to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours—and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family.

That's most of it, but the other two paragraphs are worth a read as well.

Constitutionals
actually newsweek DID get it wrong!
what they said was that a US guard FLUSHED A QURAN DOWN A TOILET.
this NEVER happened. infact the only recorded event even close to this is when a prisoner used pages of the quran to stop up his toilet as a manner of protest.

all those other items although embarrasing and regrettable were not what the newsweek article said.



the nazz
That's most of it, but the other two paragraphs are worth a read as well.
except i see glaring lies right from the get go.
power has been restored to prewar levels(i have seen several breakdowns about this from several sources), but then again with insurgents striking at infrastructure targets this does fluctuate across the board.


are there problems? most certainly.
can they be solved over time? most certainly
it took 10 years in germany to get it right, i don't see this going any faster.

Am I the only one with the reaction "so?" to this?

It matters very little that the article was right or wrong. The violent reaction was completely uncalled for.

Newsweek was wrong on the facts, even if something remotely similar happened.

But right and wrong isn't the issue here. Newsweek went ahead with an uncorroborated story, which (surprise, surprise) was wrong on the facts. They failed to confirm their source. It wouldn't matter if they were 100% right, you don't publish rumor as fact. Sorry.

Newsweek was wrong on the facts, even if something remotely similar happened.

But right and wrong isn't the issue here. Newsweek went ahead with an uncorroborated story, which (surprise, surprise) was wrong on the facts. They failed to confirm their source. It wouldn't matter if they were 100% right, you don't publish rumor as fact. Sorry.
Same feelings here
if it was a person or a corporation Newsweek could have been sued for slander me thinks

the nazz

except i see glaring lies right from the get go.
power has been restored to prewar levels(i have seen several breakdowns about this from several sources), but then again with insurgents striking at infrastructure targets this does fluctuate across the board.


are there problems? most certainly.
can they be solved over time? most certainly
it took 10 years in germany to get it right, i don't see this going any faster.
Try again--the US military is not saying that power has been restored to pre-war levels anymore. It may have been at one time, but it is certainly not the case now. And what does that say about the job our military is doing over there? It says that we don't have the manpower to handle the security issues involved in rebuilding infrastructure.

As to your Germany analogy, well, it's crap, but I'm not surprised by it. It took ten years with a nation that wanted to be rebuilt, not a nation that was staring civil war in the face. Postwar Germany was practically docile compared to what we're facing in Iraq right now, and Iraq is getting worse.

And UT--Newsweek is a corporation, and could be sued for slander, if there were a case. There isn't one. What Newsweek reported--for the record--was that reports of Koran abuse, including one being flushed, had been corroborated in a government report. It hadn't been, and so they retracted that part--and only that part--of the story. Why? Because Koran abuse stories have been reported for the last two years, from Baghram to Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib. That part of the story was nothing new. And so when the military acknowledged this week that Korans were indeed misused, albeit not flushed, Newsweek was vindicated to a limited extent. And to be quite honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up being fully vindicated in the months to come.

Try again--the US military is not saying that power has been restored to pre-war levels anymore. It may have been at one time, but it is certainly not the case now. And what does that say about the job our military is doing over there? It says that we don't have the manpower to handle the security issues involved in rebuilding infrastructure.

As to your Germany analogy, well, it's crap, but I'm not surprised by it. It took ten years with a nation that wanted to be rebuilt, not a nation that was staring civil war in the face. Postwar Germany was practically docile compared to what we're facing in Iraq right now, and Iraq is getting worse.

And UT--Newsweek is a corporation, and could be sued for slander, if there were a case. There isn't one. What Newsweek reported--for the record--was that reports of Koran abuse, including one being flushed, had been corroborated in a government report. It hadn't been, and so they retracted that part--and only that part--of the story. Why? Because Koran abuse stories have been reported for the last two years, from Baghram to Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib. That part of the story was nothing new. And so when the military acknowledged this week that Korans were indeed misused, albeit not flushed, Newsweek was vindicated to a limited extent. And to be quite honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up being fully vindicated in the months to come.

No I meant if they had reported un substantiated claims about another person or corporation not if they themselves are a corporation
Again they can be 100 percent correct it still would not change my views about their reporting tactics

No I meant if they had reported un substantiated claims about another person or corporation not if they themselves are a corporation
Again they can be 100 percent correct it still would not change my views about their reporting tacticsAh--I see what you mean. What specifically is your problem with their reporting tactics?

OH MY!!!! GOD FORBID WE DEFILE THE KORAN!

Yet it's perfectly o.k. that the Arabs saw off our heads with steak knives and put it on tv for the whole world to see! Nope, nothing at all wrong with that! Nothing at all!

<_<

OH MY!!!! GOD FORBID WE DEFILE THE KORAN!
Yeah! It's not like this will piss off the Muslim part of the world even more than they are already, creating more hatred towards the US, and give people even more of a reason to support terrorism. Nah, thats not gonna happen.

As for Newsweek, whether the story is true or not, they messed up. If you have a story this important and with this sort of consequinces (riots, violence, etc.) you can't go on some questionable source.

NEWSFLASH!

NEWSWEEK WAS STILL WRONG!!!!

Ok with that said. The only thing resembling the newsweek story was a detainee flushing pages down down the toilet. That's the only thing resembling the newsweek story.

Someone care to point to where a US Soldier flushed it down the toilet in this article? Oops. Not there. Next?

OH MY!!!! GOD FORBID WE DEFILE THE KORAN!

Yet it's perfectly o.k. that the Arabs saw off our heads with steak knives and put it on tv for the whole world to see! Nope, nothing at all wrong with that! Nothing at all!

<_<


We are supposed to be held to a higher stranderd.

Or, simply put, we are the good guys.