So who is going to believe the US isn't capable of destroying a Koran?

[Inland]

Is this an IMAGE problem? Or a problem of what the US is capable of today, now that 9/11 has changed everything?

Basically, everyone in the world believes that the US is fully capable of destroying a Koran, and much, much worse, to bring pressure on the "detainees".

That "image" came about because, well, we HAVE done much much worse, and basically admitted it, and said we don't care and would do it again. Thanks to Rush being beamed all over the middle east, all they have to do is tune the dial to know exactly how the US feels about humiliation and physical abuse, if not torture. We're good with it, from all they can see and hear, because Bush and his media friends are good with it, and that's all they know.

True, the US always had a bad image in the villages and schools of radical Islam. But today, the world is divided into two camps: those that think it happened, and those that think it happened but are going to deny it anyway in order to add a lie to the entire disgusting American Gulag experience. Because Bush is so widely hated, the numbers of those who believe it happened but are going to deny it anyway are limited to the Bushite theocrats and the rightie media. Everyone else just believes it and says so, with the predictable results (but NOBODY could EVER have predicted blah blah blah blah blah).

I'm ashamed of my country, because I can't honestly say that it isn't the type of thing that US soldiers would do at Gitmo. Bushites are proud, because they know our country is blessed by God, and therefore God justifies not only the actions but lying about them in order to protect Bush, and one can only be happy about that sort of god given power over mere mortals. Joyful liars, happy torturers, marching on the crusade. I'm going to be sick.

[mopaul]

1. our country is not 'blessed by god' so stop saying that

[Inland]

3. Yeah, thanks for missing my entire point and

trying to turn my thread into one of your famous anti religion rants.

[mopaul]

5. how does it feel?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

10. i rattled your cage, and you hate that

and you gotta real hard on for me admit it.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

12. i couldn't even understand your pointless post

i'm just here to piss you off you name caller

[Inland]

13. Of course you couldn't, poor guy

and you have no interest in it. You've got one note, you play it obsessively. Whatever. Just let the grownups have a nice chat about things and you go make your thousandth post about your own personal fixa--er, interests.

[mopaul]

14. you are obsessing on my very balls

and calling ME obsessive

[Inland]

15. That's what I was saying,all right. And it's all true. nt

[mopaul]

16. i'm used to dealing with people who feel they must have the last word

but i deny it to you

[Inland]

2. dupe

[forgethell]

4. As a way of bringing pressure

on the prisoners, this is about as harmless as anything that I can iimagine.

[Inland]

6. Except for the riots overseas part. Is that harmless?

And the part that makes it possible to declare a holy war agaisnt us, on the grounds we already started one. Is that harmless?

[forgethell]

17. Excuse me.

There is a disconnect between the flushing of the Koran and the rioting. This is solely the responsibility of the rioters, not the US.

[Inland]

19. There is NOT a disconnect.

There is a causal relationship. Flush a Koran, or abuse a national, or maltreat a co-religionists, and people react.

It is, simply, a predictable result, just as civilian deaths is a predictable result of a war. If you don't want the result, don't do the act.

[forgethell]

20. Rioters should

be dispersed by the authorities, regardless of the justice of their complaints. The justification for a war does not depend on the number of people that may be killed. If the was is justified, then the civilian deaths, if not deliberate but are the results of attacks on legitimate targets, are unfortunate, but not a war crime. If the war was unjustified the equation changes.

[Inland]

21. That's right. You go back to see whether it was justified,

from declaring war to flushing the Koran. It's pretty obvious that the war was not justified, and therefore the civilian deaths is blood on our hands.

Similarly, the flushing of the Koran and the other offenses against Islam aren't justified, since the intel value of the detainees is nil, blasphemy isn't an interrogation tactic, and therefore all that there is left is anti-US hatred--and even those who don't hate the US wonder what kind of doofus is running our show.

[forgethell]

23. On the other hand,

is blasphemy a criminal act in the US? If not, no punishment is due, regardless of how upset the Muslims get.

Nice try, though, at diverting the subject to the war on terror rather than the "desecration" of the Koran. A typical tactic of those who are losing the argument. :evilgrin:

[Inland]

24. No. I didn't know "Illegal" and "unjustified" were the same thing.

Is that what you meant? If it's legal, then its justified? And if its legal according to US law? Then by that measure, our invasion of Iraq was justified. Don't see any US laws being broken, because the real problem isn't what's illegal, it's what is legal and yet stupid and immoral and ultimately damaging to US security.

Which brings us back to the blasphemy and the descration and the defiling part of the detentions.

If that actually gained intel useful in protecting America, then it is justified, despite the knowledge that it would hurt American interests once the word got out. But I think we both know that doesn't happen, any more than making buttcrack pyramids or attaching hoods and fake wire and dog leashes does. No, this is the sort of thing "interrogators" do because they can, and the result is the predictable deaths and injury to US interests--in creating terrorists and governments that won't help us.

Gee, I wish that we COULD separate the treatment of foreigners in the course of our war on terrorism and the war on terrorism. But those goldarned foreigners and terrorists just won't let us.

[forgethell]

25. What I meant, sorry I was unclear, was

that no punishment is due unless illegal acts were performed. As for justification, I tend to agree with you. However, whether the war was justified or not, despite a near consensus here on DU, does not seem to be a settled matter in the greater American electorate.

Abu Gharib was a bad thing, both morally and politically in the greater world. On the other hand, it does not compare to the suicide bombings of civilians in Iraq and Palestine. It does not compare to the beheadings. It does not compare to the "honor" killings in almost all Arab and most Muslim countries. Although that last has nothing to do with the war, of course. Where is the outrage about these things?

[XemaSab]

9. As if

as a way of bringing pressure on the prisoners, this is highly offensive. Starving them would be less insulting.

[forgethell]

18. But less physically

harmful. Who cares if they get their feelings hurt? happens to me all the time.

[DesEtoiles]

7. Lynndie England sure wouldn't defile a Koran, would she?

Nobody believes that.

[AngryAmish]

22. Torture works

Almost everyone breaks under sleep deprivation and physical abuse. I don't understand why koran abuse was thrown in, because torture would work just as well. (This assumes, correctly, that they are criminals).