CNN News Conference - Mishandeling the Quaran

[Torlough]

What the F is the military doing back peddeling on the subject of how the Quaran is handeled in front of the Detainees in Gitmo. All this sensaivity is going to make me PUKE. I could give a rats ass if you put the quaran in a shit filled toilet and gave all the Gitmo detainees a swirly in it.

My god the Military needs to get some balls.

[zagman76]

Is there a link to that site / article sir?

[Torlough]

I watched it on CNN. No update yet I am sure it will be updated in a bit.

[NUGHUFFER]

This one?

WASHINGTON - The Guantanamo detainee who told an FBI agent in 2002 that U.S. personnel there had flushed a Koran in a toilet retracted his allegation when questioned this month by military investigators, the Pentagon said on Thursday. "We've gone back to the detainee who allegedly made the allegation and he has said it didn't happen. So the underlying allegation, the detainee himself, within the last two weeks, said that didn't happen," chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told a briefing.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees

[NJshawn]

What the F is the military doing back peddeling on the subject of how the Quaran is handeled in front of the Detainees in Gitmo. All this sensaivity is going to make me PUKE. I could give a rats ass if you put the quaran in a shit filled toilet and gave all the Gitmo detainees a swirly in it.

My god the Military needs to get some balls.
It's not about having balls and being sensitive. It's knowing Muslims ALL over the world will go nuts if it is true. US soldiers may die because of this and nobody wants that. So instead of acting like a tough guy safe in the US mainland and out of harms way, remember are troops are in harms way. It worse enough as Americans the leaders of freedom are holding people without charging them with anything we don’t need to desecrate something they hold sacred.

[O&AVirus&more]

Quaran? Don't you mean Koran?

[Diceman Cometh]

Quaran? Don't you mean Koran?

There's different ways of spelling it.

I dont think its the military thats ball-less, its the politicians - but its really just a reflection of American society and culture.

[O&AVirus&more]

There's different ways of spelling it.

Ok, I'm just checking.

[NJshawn]

There's different ways of spelling it.

I dont think its the military thats ball-less, its the politicians - but its really just a reflection of American society and culture.

How is that a reflection of American society and culture? Desecrating a Religious symbol is not tolerated in ANY country or culture. Remember Sinead O'connor on Saturday night live? You think the American people would be happy to see Muslims ripping up a bible? As a person I could care less I am not Religious by any means but I also know certain things you just don't do.

[Diceman Cometh]

How is that a reflection of American society and culture? Desecrating a Religious symbol is not tolerated in ANY country or culture. Remember Sinead O'connor on Saturday night live? You think the American people would be happy to see Muslims ripping up a bible? As a person I could care less I am not Religious by any means but I also know certain things you just don't do.

I wasnt really referring to the military's attempt to cleanse themselves of the "Koran down the toilet" rumor...I dont think it would have been a smart thing to do if they actually DID do it, and in fact I would have called the soldier responsible for it a complete idiot....for many reasons, including bad publicity, but also because that's the same God the Koran is referring to, so you're basically desecrating something that praises God.

But the modern American military's willingness to sacrifice the safety of its own soldiers for the sake of saving a few savages from collateral damage (taking Falluja by urban assault rather than bombing the shit out of it, for example) is the unfortunate result of the pussification of this country - the complete and utter horror that the American people had for what amounted to frat-house pranks in Abu-Graib, for instance. Americans should pick up some books and photo journals on what REAL torture is, as was wonderfully demonstrated on our troops by the savages in Vietnam.

[NikDaSchwugie]

But the modern American military's willingness to sacrifice the safety of its own soldiers for the sake of saving a few savages from collateral damage (taking Falluja by urban assault rather than bombing the shit out of it, for example) is the unfortunate result of the pussification of this country - the complete and utter horror that the American people had for what amounted to frat-house pranks in Abu-Graib, for instance. Americans should pick up some books and photo journals on what REAL torture is, as was wonderfully demonstrated on our troops by the savages in Vietnam.
Because bombing the shit out of a country worked so well in Vietnam and Cambodia, right?

[Diceman Cometh]

Because bombing the shit out of a country worked so well in Vietnam and Cambodia, right?

You know nothing about Vietnam it seems.

Most Americans dont realize this, but we won 95% of the battles in Vietnam. Militarily, we fucken crushed the opposition. It was a POLITICAL defeat at home because of the anti-war movement.

So yes, bombing did indeed work in Vietnam....although we greatly held back in that case, too.

[Southpaw]

Americans should pick up some books and photo journals on what REAL torture is, as was wonderfully demonstrated on our troops by the savages in Vietnam.

Or, for that matter the horrific torture, mutilation, and murder comitted by US forces against the Vietnamese - often women, children and elderly.

[Diceman Cometh]

Or, for that matter the horrific torture, mutilation, and murder comitted by US forces against the Vietnamese - often women, children and elderly.

Only because they were provoked by the North Vietnamese - the war got uglier and uglier only because of the inhuman cruelty the North Vietnamese committed against Americans and even their own people. Also, these were isolated incidents - they were not endorsed or condoned by the military leadership...its a case of individual soldiers just snapping. The Vietnamese had torture down to a science, practiced it openly, and was completely acceptable within their military and society.

Asians in general are notorious for cruelty in/during war....the Japanese are another wonderful example.

[Diceman Cometh]

Marlon Brando summarized it faily well in Apocalypse Now, by the way....they were merciless savages, whereas the Americans, in general, had some compassion - something he saw as a bad thing, actually.

[Southpaw]

Only because they were provoked by the North Vietnamese - the war got uglier and uglier only because of the inhuman cruelty the North Vietnamese committed against Americans and even their own people. Also, these were isolated incidents - they were not endorsed or condoned by the military leadership...its a case of individual soldiers just snapping.

Actually, I'm refering to hundreds of documented cases in the south by a 45 man unit against non-combatants (the people we were allegedly "defending") which took place over many months, went unpunished, and were known about by military leadership all the way up to the office of the commander-in-chief. None of your post hoc rationalizations apply here.

[Diceman Cometh]

Actually, I'm refering to hundreds of documented cases in the south by a 45 man unit against non-combatants (the people we were allegedly "defending") which took place over many months, went unpunished, and were known about by military leadership all the way up to the office of the commander-in-chief. None of your post hoc rationalizations apply here.

post-hoc? Been talked about since the 18th century, and pointed out by Asian historians.

a 45 man unit

Hardly a good statistical representation of our military, is it?

and were known about by military leadership all the way up to the office of the commander-in-chief.

But not ordered by the leadership, was it? There is a difference between leadership that specifically orders the terrorism of a population and leadership that orders the accomplishment of a mission and irresponsibly gives the soldiers too much freedom to do anything they want.

all the way up to the office of the commander-in-chief.

Now this is, plain and simple, a crock of shit. Do you really think Nixon and Johnson were briefed on the specific tactics of a group of 45 soldiers?

Just like the predictable self-hating American liberal you are, you will stretch an incident to ridiculous lengths just for the puropse of having something bad to say about your country, and will defend filthy savages in the process.

[NikDaSchwugie]

You know nothing about Vietnam it seems.

Most Americans dont realize this, but we won 95% of the battles in Vietnam. Militarily, we fucken crushed the opposition. It was a POLITICAL defeat at home because of the anti-war movement.

So yes, bombing did indeed work in Vietnam....although we greatly held back in that case, too.
I admit that the Vietnam War is not something I pore over at night, but I know enough to say it was a pointless fucking war we never should have been in. Why should the American people support a war that we only entered into because the French (of all people) begged us to? And the bombing didn't work especially well, considering that the Vietnamese repaired their supply lines and pulled off the Tet Offensive even after we'd been bombing them for two years.

[Southpaw]

post-hoc? Been talked about since the 18th century, and pointed out by Asian historians.



Hardly a good statistical representation of our military, is it?



But not ordered by the leadership, was it? There is a difference between leadership that specifically orders the terrorism of a population and leadership that orders the accomplishment of a mission and irresponsibly gives the soldiers too much freedom to do anything they want.

Just like the predictable self-hating American liberal you are, you will stretch an incident to ridiculous lengths just for the puropse of having something bad to say about your country.

If you argue this poorly in law school you are not going to last very long.

Point 1 - As is clear from the context of my rejoinder, the many cases to which I refer do not fall under the catagories of defense you offered. They weren't in response to acts by the North, they weren't isolated incidents conducted by lone soldiers who snapped, and they were most definately condoned by the military leadership because not a single soldier was punished despite the horrendous findings of a 4 year Army investigation which was covered up until 2002. Since every single excuse/defese you originally offered fails here you simply reiterate the one point you made I did not address because it wasn't directly relevant. On that I will concede that Asians are notorious for their cruelty in war, but white Europeans are not known for being choirboys in combat either so big fucking deal.

Point 2 - I've offered just one example which happens to be known only because a cover-up was exposed and which also directly contradicted the defenses you asserted so it was highly relevant. There are likely many more where that came from known only to the perpetrators and their victims. You could find many other well-documented examples if you ever decide to read beyond the right-wing propaganda version of what the US did in Southeast Asia.

Point 3. Whether or not these hundreds of cases of torture, mutilation, and murder were "ordered" by the military leadership is beside the point. If they know it is occuring and do nothing to stop it they are complicit. If they know it occured and do not punish the guilty they are complicit as well.

Point 4. I didn't write, "Nixon and Johnson were briefed on the specific tactics of a group of 45 soldiers" - I wrote that the cases "were known about by military leadership all the way up to the office of the commander-in-chief." According to records in the National Archives, summaries of the case were forwarded to the Nixon White House and offices of Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger and Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway.

Point 5. I'm not a self hating American liberal - the only thing I really hate about this country are the right wing cowards who never want to admit when the US does something wrong. To quote Orwell:

"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts...Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by "our" side...The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

[turdfrgsn]

If you argue this poorly in law school you are not going to last very long.

Point 1 - As is clear from the context of my rejoinder, the many cases to which I refer do not fall under the catagories of defense you offered. They weren't in response to acts by the North, they weren't isolated incidents conducted by lone soldiers who snapped, and they were most definately condoned by the military leadership because not a single soldier was punished despite the horrendous findings of a 4 year Army investigation which was covered up until 2002. Since every single excuse/defese you originally offered fails here you simply reiterate the one point you made I did not address because it wasn't directly relevant. On that I will concede that Asians are notorious for their cruelty in war, but white Europeans are not known for being choirboys in combat either so big fucking deal.

Point 2 - I've offered just one example which happens to be known only because a cover-up was exposed and which also directly contradicted the defenses you asserted so it was highly relevant. There are likely many more where that came from known only to the perpetrators and their victims. You could find many other well-documented examples if you ever decide to read beyond the right-wing propaganda version of what the US did in Southeast Asia.

Point 3. Whether or not these hundreds of cases of torture, mutilation, and murder were "ordered" by the military leadership is beside the point. If they know it is occuring and do nothing to stop it they are complicit. If they know it occured and do not punish the guilty they are complicit as well.

Point 4. I didn't write, "Nixon and Johnson were briefed on the specific tactics of a group of 45 soldiers" - I wrote that the cases "were known about by military leadership all the way up to the office of the commander-in-chief." According to records in the National Archives, summaries of the case were forwarded to the Nixon White House and offices of Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger and Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway.

Point 5. I'm not a self hating American liberal - the only thing I really hate about this country are the right wing cowards who never want to admit when the US does something wrong. To quote Orwell:

"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts...Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by "our" side...The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."


very well said

can you explain with equal eloquence just exactly what that pillow tastes like, counselor?

[Diceman Cometh]

I admit that the Vietnam War is not something I pore over at night, but I know enough to say it was a pointless fucking war we never should have been in. Why should the American people support a war that we only entered into because the French (of all people) begged us to? And the bombing didn't work especially well, considering that the Vietnamese repaired their supply lines and pulled off the Tet Offensive even after we'd been bombing them for two years.

Ah, the Tet Offensive....yet another event that many Americans have big misconceptions over.

Yes, they did manage to set up an offensive and they did manage to get into the backyard of the American embassy, but thats because the Americans would have never thought they were stupid enough to launch an offensive when they were so weak. They were so completely undermanned, ill-equipped, and strategically inept for the offensive. It was like a kitten taking a swipe at a tiger, and whoopty-do, the kitten managed to scratch the tiger's toe before the tiger realized the kitten was dumb enough to walk onto his turf.

The Tet Offensive was an absolute disaster for the enemy - they lost TEN DIVISIONS, and, in the end, were pushed even further back than where they started the Offensive.

Once again, although it was a military ass-kicking, the political ramifications were bad at home. The anti-war movement used the fact that they managed to catch us by suprise as a sign of the Vietnamese' strength, which was, of course, utter horseshit.

[Diceman Cometh]

As much as I'm sure you'd love to silence me before I get a chance to respond, I think I'll continue to uncover your way of completely dodging the issue and bending the truth.

First of all, Nixon and Johnson did NOT get those case briefs, and in all likelyhood neither did the Defense secretaries. Just because they are classified as information available to the commanders-in-chief does not mean they had actually read them. Do you know how many reports come into the White House that are "to be read by the President"? How many of them do you think they can read? And how much fucken free time do you think they have that they would waste on individual cases of soldiers going apeshit?

But thats besides the point....those soldiers' superiors knew what went on, so we can start from there. You once again ignored my point that the things those soldiers did were isolated incidents of soldiers doing what they felt like doing. This was NOT STATE SANCTIONED. That is the big difference, and that is the point that I am trying to hammer home here. Torture and the general lack of compassion is ingrained in their military, and more importantly, in their culture. Atrocities were not only condoned, they were ordered and encouraged.

If you argue this poorly in law school you are not going to last very long.

If you can twist reality this well, you should be the one in law school.

[Diceman Cometh]

Oh and I forgot one more point - yes, the soldiers' superiors may have known about it, but simply "ignoring" the issue is not the same as ordering torture. Although ignoring the atrocities was clearly wrong, their rationale behind it was to avoid any messy backlash in the media. It wasnt because they actually saw any use in what was going on.

And you are an self-hating American .... liberals never have anything good to say about their own country. I don't think the U.S. is incapable of wrong - I have many grievances against my country. I am not by any means a blind patriot.

[NikDaSchwugie]

Ah, the Tet Offensive....yet another event that many Americans have big misconceptions over.

Yes, they did manage to set up an offensive and they did manage to get into the backyard of the American embassy, but thats because the Americans would have never thought they were stupid enough to launch an offensive when they were so weak. They were so completely undermanned, ill-equipped, and strategically inept for the offensive. It was like a kitten taking a swipe at a tiger, and whoopty-do, the kitten managed to scratch the tiger's toe before the tiger realized the kitten was dumb enough to walk onto his turf.

The Tet Offensive was an absolute disaster for the enemy - they lost TEN DIVISIONS, and, in the end, were pushed even further back than where they started the Offensive.

Once again, although it was a military ass-kicking, the political ramifications were bad at home. The anti-war movement used the fact that they managed to catch us by suprise as a sign of the Vietnamese' strength, which was, of course, utter horseshit.

I never said it was a success, in fact I did know that it wasn't. The problem with the Tet Offensive is that we bombed them for two years straight, and they still got organized enough to launch a country wide offensive. Combine that with the already tepid public support for the war and you now have a public clamoring for it to be over. We fight a war against people who just want to rule their own country, we bomb them to shit, get our POWs tortured, and for what, exactly?

The bombing campaign was just like every other tactic used in the war - useless in the end. But of course, since I'm a liberal, I'm sure you'll find a way to discount my opinion. (I hate it when people assume all liberals hate America. News flash: All liberals don't think alike.)

[Diceman Cometh]

But of course, since I'm a liberal, I'm sure you'll find a way to discount my opinion. (I hate it when people assume all liberals hate America. News flash: All liberals don't think alike.)

Not at all...I am, in fact, very conscious of the different "types" of liberals in the West. I know that not all of them are self-hating or anti-American/anti-white. I dont agree with your assessment of the utility of bombing campaigns or the usefulness (or uselessness) of the Vietnam War, but I dont see anything inherently anti-American in it.

By the way, the tepid support you speak of is also a common misconception in the pop culture. Actually, opposition to the war never exceeded 30% of American voters. The minority just happened to be a very vocal minority.

[turdfrgsn]

um, news flash, the soviet union fell, which pretty much killed communism as any kind of viable threat to us (which, vietnam was about, you know, the whole stopping communism thing)

and bombing works

just ask japan

[Southpaw]

First of all, Nixon and Johnson did NOT get those case briefs, and in all likelyhood neither did the Defense secretaries. Just because they are classified as information available to the commanders-in-chief does not mean they had actually read them. Do you know how many reports come into the White House that are "to be read by the President"? How many of them do you think they can read? And how much fucken free time do you think they have that they would waste on individual cases of soldiers going apeshit?

Again, I never wrote that Nixon or Johnson personally saw the summaries. What is known is that John Dean, Nixon's chief counsel, personally ordered the Army to file weekly updates on ongoing war crimes investigations starting in May 1971 and received them until June 1973, so there was quite a bit of interest coming from the White House on this matter.

As for your point about the "rationale" of the superiors, concern for media backlash did not exempt them from the responsibility of following MACV directives and other military law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[Smoke]

Americans should pick up some books and photo journals on what REAL torture is, as was wonderfully demonstrated on our troops by the savages in Vietnam.

Been reading my "What is Torture" 1 + 2 Threads, sir?

Can the thread title be changed to "Vietnam War - Hijacked Thread" ?

[Jimmy's Dignity]

Yeah, Smoke's got quite the point there...

side note, if an "infidel" touches the Quran or if the f'in book even touches the floor, that's considered "desecration" in their eyes.

Islam = beautiful religion; the majority of Musilms = too fucking weak-spined to try to take their religion back from the Sand Newfies that have hijacked it :icon_evil