Who's Really Abusing the Koran?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]Who's Really Abusing the Koran?

By Max Boot

Los Angeles Times, June 09, 2005


All the headlines about "Abuse of the Koran at Gitmo" are absolutely accurate. Brig. Gen. Jay Hood's internal investigation has uncovered some shocking incidents. On at least six occasions, Korans were ripped up. They were urinated on three times, and attempts were made to flush them down the toilet at least three other times.

Why aren't millions of Muslims rioting in response to these defilements? Because the perpetrators were prisoners, not guards. As John Hinderaker notes on weeklystandard.com, the most serious desecrations of the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility were committed by the Muslim inmates themselves.

You'd never know this from the news coverage, which pounced on Hood's finding of five confirmed incidents of Koran abuse as proof that Newsweek was on to something with its phony-baloney report about guards flushing a Koran down the toilet.

Far from confirming accusations of American depravity, what the report actually shows is that Guantanamo is the first gulag in history run on the principle that no sensibility of the inmates should be offended, no matter how inadvertently.

All inmates are furnished a Koran at U.S. government expense. Since they're imprisoned because they are suspected of being violent religious extremists, some might object that this adds fuel to the fire. But that's not the view of the "Stalinists" who run the Defense Department. For some nefarious reason, they have issued guidelines that call for the utmost respect for the sacred scripture of their enemies.

At Gitmo, personnel receive instructions: "Do not disrespect the Koran (let it touch the floor, kick it, step on it)." They must "handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art." This means ensuring "that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet area." Only Muslim chaplains and interpreters are actually supposed to touch a Koran, and then only if wearing clean latex gloves. Moreover: "Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in a manner signaling respect and reverence."

The Hood report suggests that, for the most part, this elaborate etiquette is obeyed. The worst lapse, splashed (so to speak) across front pages around the world, occurred March 25, when a guard urinated outside an air vent and some of his urine blew into a cell and onto an inmate and his Koran. Human rights absolutists should be relieved (sorry, can't help myself) to know that the detainee received a fresh uniform and a new Koran, and the guard was reprimanded and reassigned.

That's the most heinous case of Koran abuse by Gitmo personnel. The four other verified incidents involved an interrogator kicking a Koran, guards accidentally getting a Koran wet with water, an interrogator (subsequently fired) stepping on a Koran and a "two-word obscenity" mysteriously appearing on the inside cover of a Koran.

Some of the most inflammatory allegations, such as guards flushing a Koran, appear to be the result of unsubstantiated rumors spread by inmates who may have been following Al Qaeda instructions to falsely claim mistreatment. Or maybe they were simply trying to deflect blame for all the Korans they were mutilating on their own.

More serious incidents of Koran abuse by Americans conceivably could come to light, but it is clear that anyone who did so would be acting against orders. Reading the Hood report -- which is by one count the 189th (no kidding) Defense Department investigation of how prisoners in the war on terrorism are treated -- I couldn't help but think: Too bad Muslims don't show the same exquisite concern for the sensibilities of others.

Too bad Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, far from handing out Bibles at government expense, make it a crime to possess that holy book. Too bad Islamic fanatics have no compunction about blowing up churches and synagogues and slaughtering Christians and Jews. Too bad the murderous intolerance of Sunni terrorists extends to Shiite "idolaters" as well.

All the bombings of Shiites in Iraq have resulted not only in the deaths of thousands of Muslims but also, I imagine, the destruction of quite a few Korans.

It would be nice if the global Islamic community, the news media and assorted human rights agitators could display the same level of outrage about the real atrocities perpetrated by our enemies as they do about the imaginary horrors of the American Gulag.

[/Q]
 
Let's face it, the people in this camp are scum. They were fighting for the Taliban. What kind of person fights for human trash like them? Let's be fair.
 
Too bad Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, far from handing out Bibles at government expense, make it a crime to possess that holy book.

Funny how we beat ourselves up over allegations of "Koran abuse" yet nod with cultural "tolerance" over the laws and practices of many other countries.
 
nbcrusader said:
Funny how we beat ourselves up over allegations of "Koran abuse" yet nod with cultural "tolerance" over the laws and practices of many other countries.

But hey...God forbid American Christians develop more cultural tolerance of those different from them. As far as I see it, their hysteria over gay marriage is as irrational as Saudi Arabia's intolerance of everyone but Sunni Muslims.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:


Funny how we beat ourselves up over allegations of "Koran abuse" yet nod with cultural "tolerance" over the laws and practices of many other countries.

Yeah...but when it comes to American-Saudi relations, especially at the White House/House-of-Saud level, I don't think "our" ability to ignore their dodgy practices is due to "cultural tolerance." It would seem the "look the other way" attitude is lubricated by some other imperative.
 
Judah said:
Yeah...but when it comes to American-Saudi relations, especially at the White House/House-of-Saud level, I don't think "our" ability to ignore their dodgy practices is due to "cultural tolerance." It would seem the "look the other way" attitude is lubricated by some other imperative.

Two points:

Focusing on the House of Saud ignores the practices of other countries.

Also, the government's relationship with the Saudis should not silence other's commentaries about the Saudis.
 
nbcrusader said:

Focusing on the House of Saud ignores the practices of other countries.

Yeah, let's not get the House of Saud and Islam mixed up with each other. Saudi Arabia is the only Wahhabist state in the world. This school of Islam is scorned in other Muslim states. It's another school of fundamentalist Islam, the Deobandi tradition, based in India, that gave us the Taliban.
 
Ok, firstly it's the tone of this article. Bias is not uncommon, but it bugs me no end to see immature writing in journalism. I'm sure both sides can see the poor quality of it. But that alone is no big deal I guess. What comes from that though, is more of the implication that there is absolute right and wrong in this whole Guantanamo situation. Therefore, you either need to be of the opinion that the personnel working there are all redneck hicks with no respect, who are violent, who mistreat the detainees, who are all for prolonging incarceration without trial. Surely everyone knows this is not the case. Or on the opposite end, the same is also true. Surely. That not all the detainess are downtrodden mistreated innocents who are having every human right violated.
My point is, I reckon there is partial truth in both sides. Attempting to sully the opposing view with juvenile commentary is not going to get anyone near the truth. Did any staff mistreat the Korans? It would seem not. That is a genuinely good thing. If true, and I am going to assume it is, then this fact is good news. Is it then fact to paint Guantanamo as a pillar of justice and fairness? Not according to any dictionary definition of such. Contrary to that, is it then fair to paint Guantanamo as an American Gulag? Not bloody likely. I'm going to guess the truth is somewhere in the middle, that some staff working there are like any in a correctional facility who act as cowboys do actually mistreat those under their care. I'm going to guess a much larger portion treat the detainees with as much respect as they can, like the majority of staff in correctional environments do. Like humans do. Like most militaries are trained to do. I'm going to guess there are some detainees who make working there damned difficult and use every opportunity to either cause trouble or utilise the media for whatever gain. Again, contrarily, I'm going to guess some behave and either miserably await the truth of their innocence to come forth in due time or alternatively accept their fate and their guilt will soon be known - whichever, and go about as well as they can without too much fuss.
It isn't either good or bad; it is a place which contains both. To imply that it is only one, is in my opinion wrong. This article is like many others from either side which seems to do just that.
 
I agree with you Angie. No group of people is complete scum, and no group is completely saintly and without fault. It's somewhere in between. The inmates fought for the Taliban. But they have good traits, too, like loyalty. Either group is perfectly capable of abusing Korans. You can't put anything past a group of people who've been involved in morally questionable activities.
 
The author of the article is a member of the Council on Foreign relations. I resent the tone of the post implying you must be BRAINDEAD to think it is a decent article. I am not saying that everything written is Gospel...but it is fair to present such a case given the BIASED media portrayal of the alleged Koran abuse.

I fail to see how this article is interpreted to be a GITMO is an awesome place. I see it as presenting the entire story....something most do not care to hear.
 
Yes, media is biased, as my last reply agreed. See it as presenting the entire story if you must, knock yourself out. I cannot see how it is an entire anything when it is as guilty as the opposing camp for petulant self justification.
 
I'm busting for a pee and about to be kicked off my net cafe time, but you know this is not a personal jab at you, and that I am fully allowed to feel this is a silly article. I could quote it to show you where, but you're smart enough and I cant be bothered patronising you. We dont have to go there lol.

:truce:
 
Back
Top Bottom