Sounds "Nauseated" to me.

Regarding Andrew's complete flip-flop/flip-out from his stance of a year ago, I'm led to the conclusion that al Qaeda has issued a fatwa favoring gay marriage.

Cordially...

You want torture? You want TORTURE? (As Bruce Willis said when asked, I want to see you cry, what would it take?)

"Play some rap music."

(Actually I'm pretty sure they did that, no kidding.)

You're doing a public service, Ace. Your tenacity in the face of everyone trying to "get along" is a bracing bit of reality and clarity. Thanks.

The bit about the Israeli flag pretty well automatically disqualifies anything Sullivan shrieks about "government-sanctioned torture" from being taken seriously by grown-ups. Ever.

Aside from Sully's usual histrionics, I was really bugged by his concluding statement:

It is not being "basically, on the side of the enemy," as Glenn Reynolds calls it, to resist the notion of government-sanctioned torture and to report on it.

Yes, Sully, it damn well is being on the side of the enemy, when those reports are one aspect of a relentless, selective, and utterly negative campaign to portray the whole war as a mistake. If you essentially oppose your government's goals in a war situation and your opposition is congruent with the goals of the enemy, then you are on the side of the enemy. A simple Venn diagram would make this clear to the meanest journalistic intelligence.

Getting through to Sully, of course, might take something a little more vivid. Perhaps a flannel board presentation.

A simple question: after U.S. interrogators have tortured over two dozen detainees to death, after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag,

Two dozen,eh?
As an american taxpayer; I don't think I'm getting my money's worth.

Hell, I didn't even notice the worst part of that quote:

...after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag...

So, um, this happened exactly once, and it's some kind of symptom of how the Republic is sliding down the slippery slope toward fascism? Did they only try this once because the scum that they wrapped in the flag died of shame? Was he one of the "dozen" who were "tortured to death"? Have we lost all sense of dignity?

after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag, after they have smeared naked detainees with fake menstrual blood, after they have told one detainee to "Fuck Allah," after they have ordered detainees to pray to Allah in order to kick them from behind in the head,

Sounds suspiciously like a summer party at Andrew's beach cabin in P-Town. The only thing missing is amyl nitrate and a cute "bear".

My biggest problem with desecrating a Qur'an is that I think it will accomplish nothing except causing a PR disaster.

Is a Muslim terrorist going to crack because someone tears pages out a Qur'an and flushes them down the toilet? How about if they urinate on it? Smear it with bacon grease? I don't think any of that will help. They're not going to start crying, "Please, don't desecrate that Qur'an anymore! I'll tell you everything!" If anything, it will just reinforce their hatred of us and make them clam up even more. Why? Because there's no real fear factor. They might hate their captors more if they torture them, but they will also fear them more, and the fear may cause them to crack.

So I see little upside, but there is a huge downside. If we desecrate the Qur'an and word gets out, we can alienate many people that would be allies or at least neutral. There are a lot of good Muslim people that we could work with, and we would anger each and every one of them with a tactic like this.

Something Sullivan is doing here: three-card-monte.

37, I think it is, is the number of deaths of detainees in US custody under investigation, or already investigated.

Several have been ruled homicides, and at least one soldier has already been sentenced for his role in one of these deaths.

Sully has moved all of these deaths into the "tortured to death" category. All of them. No context, no nuance, nothin'. If they died in US custody, they were tortured to death, and that's the end of it.

He's hit bottom. He is one with DU and Kos. Bye, Andrew. We'll always have 2002, but I guess people change and move on.

A couple of quotes. First Ace:

Now, I grant you, some terrorists died in captivity.

Second Utron:

If you essentially oppose your government's goals in a war situation and your opposition is congruent with the goals of the enemy, then you are on the side of the enemy.

Here is the issue with interning people we picked up in the vicinity of a battlefield: it is easy to simply assume that they are terrorists without any process to determine this until last year. Afghani's fighting us in Afghanistan might be terrorists, or they might be patriotic Taliban supporting Afghanis. The fact that we have released some of these detainees years after their internment without any explaination of either their internment or release speaks to the capricious nature of our internment camp. See Ex-Guantanamo Prisoner for an example in which a Kuwaiti was, "Al-Mutairi said he was arrested near Mazar-e-Sharif by followers of anti-Taliban warlord Abdul-Rashid Dostum as he tried to leave the country.
[SNIP]
Some prisoners were then taken to a hospital in Mazar-e-Sharif, and it was there when he was arrested by American forces and transferred to Kandahar, then flown to Guantanamo, where he said half of his left lung was removed because of the pneumonia.

Once we have demonized people who are interred and tortured, and Ace's comment demonstrates this, without due process it is an easy skip and jump to start defining fellow citizens who disagree with the government's policies as enemies as well, as Utron demonstrates. This is what totally hits those of us on the left in the paranoid bone.

vonKreedon - as someone who was "on the left" not too long ago, I understand your concern. When and if The Man starts rounding up liberals, I'll be marching in the streets alongside all y'all.

In the meantime, let's restrict ourselves to discussing things that have actually happened.

Some of those released do indeed appear to have been innocent, wrong-place-wrong-time types.

Some have been killed, or recaptured, having gone right back to the jihad.

My point? It's a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world
... except for Lola.

There is a distinction between dissent and siding with the enemy, VonK, and I wasn't conflating the two. OTOH, I'd say the Left has indeed conflated the two from the other direction, so that actions and words in wartime that materially advance the interests of the enemy and put Americans in harm's way are described as "dissent."

Just read Denis Boyle's book Vile France last night, and he noted that the notion of press censorship in wartime was endorsed in 2003 by Walter Cronkite(!). At least that's how I'd interpret his comment at the News World International Conference in October of that year, when Cronkite said, "I'm for censorship," and went on to note that in World War II no press reports were filed without the prior approval of the military. "Despite that," wrote Boyle, "democracy survived. But maybe it was because of that."

Who? Ol' Dinosaur-skin Sully?

He's NOT the easiest person to offend.

But FUCK IT ALL this sticks in my craw:

they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag

GOL-FUCKING-DAMMIT! How is theis even REMOTELY torturous (sp)?

A FLAG.

Oh, it's the flag of the Jews, I forgot. That means Sullivan is buying into the fact that the israeli flag is somehow evil incarnate and to touch it is to be unclean.

HE'S BUYING INTO THE FUCKING JIHADIS' RACIST BULLSHIT.

The proper reaction to that allegation is a hearty "Fuck off you evil bastard. How'd you like the entire parade flag stuffed down your fucking throat."

I can't believe what a fucking tool he's become.

And lord knows, I'm not the easiest person to amaze with toolness.

vonKreedon,

I don't think you're being fair to Utron. Being on the side of the enemy doesn't necessarily imply you get the same treatment of the enemy. If you're on their side, a non-US-citizen, and an illegal combatant, you have virtually no rights. If you were fighting in a uniform, then you are protected by Geneva Convention rights. If you're a US citizen, then you have Constitutional rights.

A US citizen that is on the side of the enemy in the sense they're hoping we fail is not going to be treated the same as an illegal Afghani combatant, and neither Utron nor anybody else said they should be.

Oh, it's the flag of the Jews, I forgot. That means Sullivan is buying into the fact that the israeli flag is somehow evil incarnate and to touch it is to be unclean.

HE'S BUYING INTO THE FUCKING JIHADIS' RACIST BULLSHIT.

I don't know about that. In fact, I really doubt that Andrew Sullivan thinks anything of the sort, any more than his objections about desecrating the Qur'an mean he is a Muslim. I think he was just (stupidly) lumping that in with the things we do that traumatize the prisoners.

Wrapping the prisoners in an Israeli flag is just plain stupid though. Again, very little upside, lots of potential PR downside.

How many of the terrorist died of natural causes or wounds they suffered trying to blow up civilians? Hey, even if you don't like to face it, everyone will die. Millions do it every day. Some of them 9the terrorists) should be rolled in American flags, soaked in oil and burned. Don't panic, burning is an accepted way to destroy an American flag that has been damaged. The only disgrace would be wrapping it around a stupid terrorists.

So has someone told him theirs a War on?

It's been awhile, he might of forgotten.

Sir,

He's down. He's not moving...wait, I saw the body twitch. Continue the beating.

rcl

Abuses, not surprisingly, have happened. I'm glad to live in a republic where they happen rarely, and are punished when discovered. I'm frustrated (with Rumsfeld, mainly) that they did happen. It is possible to express these views with a bit of perspective and, you know, still want us to win this war.

There's a world of difference between calling out our mistakes in order to improve our ability to win, and harping on our mistakes in order to demoralize us.

If a Koran was desecrated, it's not torture. It is, however, what Ace might call "loose shit", and should be disciplined. Not out of respect for these terrorists, but simply because it would be stupid behavior from people who should know better. I mean, come on.

If an Israeli flag was wrapped around a terrorist, that too should be punished, mainly out of respect for our ally Israel. (I'd be somewhat grumpy if Israeli soldiers were wrapping US flags around Palestinian terrorists, although I sure wouldn't call it torture.)

If torture happens (and it has) people should go to jail (and they have). If unwise stupid things are done which provide ammunition for our opponents and accomplish nothing, then people should be disciplined. And, above all, we need to look at the big picture and understand that what we are fighting for is the right to live in a society which has these kind of discussions in the first place.

We must win this war. Andrew Sullivan used to be a genuine contributor to our victory. I wish he'd step back and think about the big picture for five minutes.

sullivan can take his koran, ball it up, put a light coat of oil on it, then grind his hot ass on it until it's buried deep in his colon. mmmmmm

I don't know why we should care what Sullivan thinks anyhow.

HOB!!! Can I bother you to hop over to my blog and answer a guy on my post on judges? I know you are a lawyer and I can't even understand what he wrote. You will see what I mean when you get over there.

Hold it...time fucking out. Why give this doucenozzle a pass on the "tortured to death" bullshit? Did I miss something? Gotta link to that info, Sully? Sources? (other than DU). I agree with the previous comment that he has to be making died in custody = tortured to death. Bullshit. He is about as credible as Al-Jazeera with that kind of hyperventilated fiction.

Huzzah, Ace! Well said!

I stopped reading Sullivan over crap like this a long time ago, thanks for tolerating his whining so the rest of us can read about it, instead of mucking through his site.

there you go, RWS

Thank you very much Hob!!!!!

I may have followed a link to Sullivan's blog a couple times in the past, but never been there on purpose.

He's a nobody to me, but everybody is always going on and on about this douche.

Andrew who, now?

As I've said here before, I don't mind torture, so long as we are torturing the right people.

As awful as it may sound, torture works for getting information out of somebody. It doesn't work for getting a confession, since almost anyone will confess after enough pain has been inflicted. However, if we grab some known Al Qaeda rat and break out the rubber hose and cage full of rats in order to get him to squeal on where car bombs are being built, or placed, or where the leadership has set up shop, then so what?

I'm not really sure what Sully's position here is. He is pretending like there is no opportunity cost for having a no-torture policy towards terrorists. Being unwilling to even pressure terrorists handicaps our efforts to root out their agents and thwart their operations. Essentially, Sully's position is he'd rather see innocent lives ended than inflict pain on the guilty. I see absolutely no way that position is defensible on the moral grounds he claims to take.

None of what I'm saying here is new or even original, but I think it is worth keeping in mind when torture comes up.

Question:

Anyone remember the fucking story of the Nazi terrorists that entered the US?

We'll ignore most of the beginning details, but just provide enough background for fuckheads like Sully to remember:

Shortly after midnight on the morning of June 13, 1942, four men landed on a beach near Amagansett, Long Island, New York, from a German submarine, clad in German uniforms and bringing ashore enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production. On June 17, 1942, a similar group landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, near Jacksonville, Florida, equipped for a similar career of industrial disruption.

Then this happened:

By June 27, 1942, all eight saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days.

The net effect that this swift capture and execution had on Nazi attempts to try such a stunt again?

So shaken was the German intelligence service that no similar sabotage attempt was ever made again. The German naval high command did not again allow a valuable submarine to be risked for a sabotage operation.

The above just quotes some highlights. If memory serves me (I just don't have the fucking time to find the link), this story was all over the US media for days.

On the night of the execution, Roosevelt sipped a drink, and some dignitary asked him about the terrorists that had been captured and tried. He responded by looking at his watch and without missing a beat said "They were killed about 5 minutes ago, not far from here." And he kept on with the light conversation.

Imagine this happening today. Why? You can't, that's fucking why. How do you fight a war and at the same time look over your shoulder at the bad judgment move you might just make. In a word, this adds a new filter to split-second decisions, and in effect shuts them down. Such shame brought upon those that are in the line of fire makes them more risk-averse and less likely to act boldly.

Definitely "nauseated". Perhaps even "filled with heart-ache".

JEFF B. EXCLUSIVE! MUST CREDIT JEFF B.!

It looks like Instapundit isn't yet finished playing whack-a-mole with Excitable Andy's head. Notice how he begins this post:

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, a Brit who has not gone soft in the war on terror...

The bold is mine. But goddammit do I ever love when Reynolds finally gets peeved enough to let actual indignation show. You always get the sense with him that it's never personal when he disagrees with someone. Which is why I enjoy those rare times when it obviously is.

KCTrio;

The Germans were shaken, you say?
Are you SURE that our brutality didn't whip them up and help them to recruit others* to their cause? You know, the dreaded 'German Street' rising in defiance?

*Uhhmm, the others that they weren't gassing to death, I mean.

JeffB,

I saw that.

It's on. Oh, it's on.

I really feel for Sullivan's boyfriend. If he's any sort of normal human being, he must be so ashamed of Sullivan's degeneration. But now that I think of it, I wonder, when was the last time that Sullivan mentioned "the boyfriend"? Merely sharing the Internet with Sullivan is difficult. Can you imagine sharing a house with him? Will someone with a strong stomach go through The Daily Ditch and see whether Sullivan's public disintegration has led to the destruction of domestic tranquility?

Very nice, lauaw. I don't know how you do it, but you slice through the fog.

As far as the Germans being shaken, that's the words used by the Navy historians.

German street? God how do you do it? How? Give me one little hint. Terse, funny and packed with insight.

BTW/OT: Where the heck is Jack M.?

they might be patriotic Taliban supporting Afghanis

Ah, so they were illegal combatants fighting to support a vile Islamofascist, terror-sponsoring regime?

Well, that's just ducky then.

given the cylindrical prism through which Andrea vioews the world, I'd say "gone soft" is the height of cutting insult.

Touche, sir.

Let's keep Sullivan's boyfriend - or private life - out of this. It's irrelevant, and besides I'm still smarting from the way in which They ("They" being the nameless hordes of the Left) brought down our sainted warrior-king Jeff Gannon. I don't want to relive those dark days.

Jack M? I wish I knew. Followed him for weeks but he lost me.

I tracked his radio collar to a ditch. Near it in the dirt these figures were scratched: "STOP HIJACKING MY THREADS."

And his laptop lay close by in some shrubbery. No WiFi for miles, anyway.

I'm sure he'll turn up when he gets hungry.

Anyone catch this just yummy op-ed piece in todays WSJ?

Newsweek and the Quran

By KENNETH L. WOODWARD
May 18, 2005; Page A14

Three-and-a-half years after 9/11, you would think that we Americans would get it: Muslims take their religion very, very seriously. Now 17 people are dead, Afghanistan is on edge and there are protests in Pakistan, our most vulnerable and valuable ally among Muslim states -- in part, it seems, because of six words in a brief item in Newsweek magazine. The offending passage, a small but colorful detail in a story on the investigation of abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, reads in full: "Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell Newsweek: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet . . . ."

This was not the first time a major news organization had reported allegations that copies of the Quran belonging to detainees had been desecrated in this fashion -- the Washington Post, the BBC and the New York Times all got there first. For this reason, perhaps, my colleagues at Newsweek, where I spent 38 years as Religion Editor, did not foresee how this single example among others mentioned in the story might incite Islam's most rabid anti-Americans. Neither, apparently, did the Pentagon official who read the Newsweek story before it went to press -- a precaution the Newsweek editors took -- and made no objection to the passage.

I am in no position to pass judgment on my Newsweek colleagues, nor would I want to. Among them are highly sensitive editors who frequently caught errors in my own copy. My concern is that all Americans understand how deeply sacrilegious such an act as Newsweek described would be to Muslims, and why it is not like flushing pages from the Bible down the drain -- as Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and other commentators have suggested.

The Quran is not "the Bible" of Muslims. It is infinitely more sacred than that. To use a Jewish analogy, it is more like the oral Torah first revealed on Mount Sinai which was later passed on orally through the prophets and eventually written down on scrolls for all to read. Whereas Christians regard the Bible as written by human beings inspired by God, Muslims regard the Quran -- the word means "The Recitation" -- as the very words of God, revealed aurally to the Prophet Muhammed in Arabic. To hear those words recited is, for Muslims, to hear Allah. If, for Christians, Jesus is the logos or eternal Word of God made flesh, the Quran is the Word of God made book, and every Arabic syllable in it lives as the breath of the divine.

In short, what Christ is for Christians the Quran (in Arabic) is for Muslims: the living Word of God made present in this world. Moreover, to recite the suras or verses of the Quran, as devout Muslims do, is to breathe in the very words of Allah. Thus, recitation of the Quran is for Muslims much like what receiving the Eucharist is for Catholics -- a very intimate ingestion of the divine itself. This, then, according to Newsweek's story -- now retracted and "regretted" by the magazine's editor -- is what some interrogators flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

Gen. Richard Meyers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this week that in the opinion of the senior commander in Afghanistan the recent outbreak of violence there "was not at all tied" to the Newsweek story. Whatever the truth turns out to be, the two are now linked in the minds of militant Muslims.

Ironically, it was Newsweek that, six months after 9/11, published a lengthy cover story comparing and contrasting the Bible and the Quran. It was a gutsy decision on the part of the magazine's editors, given the sensitive feelings of adherents of both scriptures -- and the mood of the American public in general so soon after the terrorist attack on New York City. To say more would be self-serving since I researched and wrote the story. But several of the points made above about the meaning of the Quran to Muslims were discussed in that issue of Newsweek. I am chagrined by the realization of how little impact that story made in the long run on the education of Americans about Islam and its holy book, how quickly it was all forgotten. For very different reasons, I hope this more recent story in Newsweek finds the same fate.

Mr. Woodward, contributing editor at Newsweek, is author of "The Book of Miracles: The Meaning of the Miracle Stories in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam" (Touchstone Books, 2000).

In short, I don't know who's the bigger douchebag. Seriously. Sullivan or this fucker. Tell me. What am I missing?

Let's flush Newsweek down the fucking toilette, asshole. Well, I suppose you've compared the Bible to your fucking magazine in the relative scheme of things. Let's see, where's my Catechism...

Finally, here's a question: Did this cocksucker write this with such opacity because his head was up his ass at the time? Or does he simply has it up his ass all the time, whether writing or simply living?

Ok, so he's all pissed about people having to use the Israeli flag as a blanket? Geez what if we started beheading them? Would that be ok? Especially if it were Muslim Marines doing it?

Would someone just jam a cork in his ass already? Please?

These asshats are lucky we're not having some rabbi perform a bris on 'em.

Sorry to pile on the quotes, but did anyone catch this latest op-ed piece by Sowell? Here's my favorte bits:

A reader recently suggested this formula: Monopoly plus discretion minus accountability equals corruption. That kind of corruption can be found not only in the mainstream media but also in two of our most important institutions, the public schools and the federal courts.

Both the schools and the courts flatter themselves that their job is to change society. So does much of the media. But what qualifies these people to be world-changers? They are usually poorly informed about science, uninformed about history and misinformed about economics.

And who elected them to change the world while pretending to be doing something else and betraying their trust?

OK, so the thread is about Sullivan and him being a silly bitch. But I say fuck the little pussy, and let Sowell slice like a fuckin' hammer on the little fucker's wouned heart.

Why doesn't Sully just admit that he's a proud memeber of the groupthink MSM, and do us all a favor and stop pretending to be a Blogger?

Off topic, sorry, but I have to note this - Peter Beinart (TNR) is on Scarborough Country and he has a seriously goofy-sounding voice. High-pitched, nasal, slanted in some weird way. Vaguely cute clean-cut face though, now if he could just stop keeping his eyebrows up around his hairline.

Oh, and stop being a damn commie, that'd be nice too...

Just as I don't like AS bashing everything Bush because he's really worked up about gay marriage, I'm not a big fan of bashing AS when it's not justified. Sorry, but, looking at the origina quote, AS didn't really claim all those things were torture:

A simple question: after U.S. interrogators have tortured over two dozen detainees to death, after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag, after they have smeared naked detainees with fake menstrual blood, after they have told one detainee to "Fuck Allah," after they have ordered detainees to pray to Allah in order to kick them from behind in the head, is it completely beyond credibility that they would also have desecrated the Koran?

Glenn accuses him of not writing with clarity, but I have to say that to me it looks like "tortured two dozen detainees to death" is one item on a list of complaints. I really don't think you can read that to say he's claiming everything after that is torture. Well, of course you can read it that way, but I'd call that a case of sloppy reading rather than sloppy writing.

Although I will say it's kind of stupid to even list those things together. "Tortured to death" vs. "wrapped in an Israeli flag"? Hmmm...I think at least those things should be in separate sentences.

> The Quran is not "the Bible" of Muslims. It is infinitely more sacred than that.

I'll grant that Woodward may be making an astute comparative-theological observation in noting that for many Christian denominations, the Bible is technically not the Word of God, but rather the record of the Word of God.

Having said that, my overall (and perhaps unChristian) reaction to his argument is closely akin to what Wendy Testaburger concluded about Gregory's ear.

KCTrio,

Actually, Christians did at one point hold the physical book itself to be Holy, and would die trying to keep it secret from the Romans during the persecutions by the Romans. Notice I said they would "die" not "kill" because early Christians were pacifists.

Anyhow, the Church ended up splitting into two factions partially over this issue, among others, in the Donatist Heresy. You don't hear much about Donatists anymore because they were centered around the Bishoprix of Carthage and when the Muslims came through, well...

I just think it is interesting that, as far as I have seen, Islam had never been in similar circumstances of widespread, systematic repression as have Christianity & Judaism. I suspect that may have something to do with the lack of flexibility & tolerance we see all too often.

I think I figured out partly what has Reynolds so pissed off. A Brit on American soil who's made it his battlecry to denounce anything and everything American. At least I gather that's how Reynolds percieves it.

Nah. I didn't even know he was British until you said so, and this crap ticks me.
But I bet that cute accent helps him get friends at highway rest stops.

Alex_fs:

Yes, the Donatist Heresy is certainly an important piece of history about which it is worth reminding oneself.

But if your pont is that Christians do not take the Bible as indeed the Word of God, I have a few questions for you?

1) Why does my King James Bible have the words uttered by Christ in red? Yes, I'm Catholic, but I was raised Episcopal. And you can take my KJV out of my cold dead hands. I get the Apocrypha from the Rheims Bible.

2) Why does my Catechism say, in passage 105:

God is the author of Sacred Scripture [Bible]. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirt.

"For the Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the aposolic age, accpts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

And passage 136:

God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. he thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth.

3) Finally, aren't we really splitting hairs here? For Catholics, at the very least, if not for many Protestant faiths, Christians hold the Bible as the inspired word of God AS IF HE HAD WRITTEN IT HIMSELF. This isn't some matter of indirect versus direct authorship. If this doesn't give teeth to the notion that the author of that column in the WSJ isn't a douchebag, then I don't know what is.

I'm not meaning to be rude; if I'm missing something here, please help me out. But the Church's position seems pretty clear to me:

Writers inspired by the Holy Spirit=Written by God.

How does that make the Bible any different from the Quran?

"How does that make the Bible any different from the Quran?"

Well, by the fact that we're not completely fuckin' psycho about it.

It maybe on, but the outcome is inevitable. Which I guess kind of turns it off.

Why of course, wise and witty woman.

But you know I meant only in the context of the op-ed piece by the douchebag from Newsweek and his so-called distinction between the Bible and the Quran as viewed by each respective follower. He says:

The Quran is not "the Bible" of Muslims. It is infinitely more sacred than that.

How about some more logic games? Infinitely more sacred? What's more than infinity, Woodward-asshole? Furthermore, how can one book be more sacred to one group of followers of one religion to that of another? Sacred=sacred. Where did degrees of sacred come from, in the specific context of the Bible versus the Quran?

You could have degrees of sacredness with regards to your Swarovski crystal collection, but your Holy book?

Wordward from Newsweek is an crapweasle.

The Koran (sorry, the Holy Qur'an) is meant to be the dictated words of Allah, through Gabriel, to Mohammed. That is, the words are God speaking to you the worshipper - the words actually ARE God in a sense, and they existed before time itself.

Plus, they are only holy in Arabic, which is why until relatively recently, and in sharp contrast to (protestant) Christianity, the Koran was never meant to be translated.

So there is a difference.

I can't believe all the nervous hand-wringing about this bullshit. I fully SUPPORT flushing each and every "sacred" Quran down the filthiest sewage lines as often as is possible, if that's what it takes. In fact, that's nothing compared to what ought to be done. Feed 'em to a herd of pigs, or stuff them in a pile of hog shit.
I'm sick of all the politically correct whining "oh we're supposed to be above that" crap. There's a frickin war going on, for crying out loud.

I'm only against "torture" (and how is this torture??) when it happens to OUR side, not the bad guys.

Sully is just silly little girl trying to be moralistic, which makes me laugh.

F.E.T.E.

Good God, I just went and actually read all of his garbage about this.

Now I see why you didn't link it; you were trying to spare all of us. My eyes are bleeding. What a tool!

KCTrio,

Yes, you are missing something: the part where I said "the physical book itself to be Holy." I have no quibble with the the fact that it is the Word of God, but my copy of the New American Bible (Catholic as well) is a book, though the message is sacred. If someone were to deface a Bible, or use it as a doorstop, etc. I would be disappointed at the complete lack of respect and crassness, but I would not feel it was a direct mortal insult aimed at the Almighty that can only be avenged through fire and blood. The Holy Spirit did not typeset my copy of the Bible. The Word of God is eternal, books are transitory collections of wood pulp. No amount of abuse done to a Bible can in any way deface the message.

Military investigators found the reports of Koran flushing to be "not credible." Well, duh. Ya think? I hope they didn't have to leave their desks to figure that out.

I hate to make a "smell test" point about the whole toilet allegation, but don't any of these people have indoor plubing of their own? Lunatics in moslem backwaters can be forgiven for missing the obvious, but what kind of prejudices does it take for Newsweek, Sullivan, etc. to believe the military, or anyone else, can flush a koran down a toilet? Surely they would be at least a skeptical if they were told a civilian friend had flushed, say, a small town phone book. I mean, something would sound just a little funny about that, right?

I have a hard enough time getting modern toilets just to do the job they're assigned with one flush. And they think the military has super-toilets capable of eliminating libraries one volume at a time?

Maybe Isikoff, Sullivan, et al. can redeem this debacle just a little by letting the rest of us know where we can find these super-potties that they apparently believe in. I've always aspired to having a crapper tough enough to endanger small children and pets. Finding one that can handle books, old shoes and empty beer cans would be a good start. Especiallythe beer cans. I could save a lot of walking that way.

Why are people still bothering to read these loons?

Damn, Reynolds slices like a very precise (and, thus, all the more deadly) hammer.

Like a f'n Viking with manners.

Sorry, he's not just a silly bitch.

He's also an anti-semite.

As someone has remarked before, "Glenn's pimp-hand is subtle, but strong."

For one thing, we cannot give detainees civilain trials or treat them as POWs because that would encourage the next group of enemies to ditch the uniforms and rules of armed conflict. "Hey, if we don't wear uniforms , we get lawyers, etc.! " It's a moral harzard.

Secondly, you have situations in Afghanistan where you catch two Arab males wearing burkas who are trying to enter the country. "No laws against wearing women's clothes. I guess we have to let them go Barney." It's a serious war and the enemy has not surrendered yet. Despite that we already have released some prisoners...meanwhile the UK and the USA kept some dangerous German prisoners in camps until 1948.

Think about that for a minute.

Thank you for the clarification, Alex_fs. Now, this seems rather silly, doesn't it? Or, at the very least, simply one step past the other's views (profound perhaps, but one step; I still don't get the fucker from Newsweek's statement of "Infinitely more sacred).

Both groups believe that what's in the Book is holy, it's just the other believes the printed pages are also holy. I'll follow this post with some information regarding this issue further (since I know just a bit about this topic, but I need to gather my sources before I post; for now, I'll address this distinction).

I believe that we have both established that both religions believe that their books are indeed the word of God.

Unless Gabriel spoke to Allah's prophet and somehow wrote that book out with some God-held pen or other writing instrument, then getting those words on some kind of paper doesn't seem to be at issue. Both books had to be recorded using some earthly method.

So what you and the guy at Newsweek said it is the nature of how both party's take the degree of sacredness regarding their Holy books (the physical book itself). This is the nut, not whether one book is written directly by God, dictated by God's messenger and somehow recorded, or inspired by God. [God I bet Allah's prophet would have loved to have had a dictaphone and a nice telex terminal back then; oh, and a secretary. Don't get me started on some WiFi or broadband wireless laptop. Dictaphone/telex is ancient, and who gives a fuck how ancient. The analogy is perfect (limit approaching perfection equals perfection; trust me, I'm relying on Leibniz's calculus, not Newton's fluxion method, so it worked), so fuck it.]

Where was I? Oh yes, the difference is simply how intensely attached one group versus the other is to the printed word on those pages of paper. If both religion's believe that their books are the Word of God (which the Catholic Church does), and you don't seem to care as greatly about someone desecrating your book that contains the Word of God as another man does about his book, then aren't we dealing in the area of human psychological/emotional/nutjob reaction to such an act of desecration?

Don't fucking tell me that they feel more intense because they believe that what's written on those pages is the Word of God. I fucking believe that about my King James Bible. We're dealing with earthly humans' reaction to the potential desecration that they hold to be the Word of God. So you look at your Bible as the printed word of something eternal but the book itself is not that big of a deal (you wouldn't go into a frenzy over it, or murder someone over it), while the fucker who believes his book is the Word of God somehow adds the element of the book itself being sacred or reaching the level of God itself, just as much as what's on the page).

Now we're getting somewhere. Perhaps the analogy better fits if we look at the body/blood of Christ that we imbibe ever Sunday at our local mass. The priests treat that as rather sacred. But somehow I can't see them going into a rage if one wiseacre priest decides to fuck with them and pull a prank and spit on non-blessed wafers, but makes them think it's the blessed batch. Oh, and the priest pisses on them too, to add to the humor effect of his prank. Then he says "That batch just came from the factory; they weren't blessed. Gotcha, fuckers."

This is all just fucking insane. The only thing I've learned is that one group gets more into a rage about their book than the other (in general terms). I still stick to my statement that the guy from Newsweek is an asshole, and I also stick to my statement that both groups believe that their book is the Word of God.

I won't judge the bit about desecrating the Quran. I believe Ace's sentiments match mine just fine. In the abstract, it's probably not a sensitive thing to do. In practical terms, if it works to get some crackpot murderer to talk, then why the fuck not flush it down the toilette?

Now I'll adress this Quran=holy versus the Bible not being holy in and of itself (something to the effect that the words in it are holy, but the book itself is not).

Suppose the US Military prints some fake Qurans and makes them look exactly like some authoritative one written in Arabic. The only difference? These fake books contain passages from Aristotle's ethics, and have nothing about Allah in them. Oh, and they also have Ptolemy's treatise on the motion of the planets.

Now, he flushes that down the toilette...after he has pissed on it, took a shit on it, and made the terrorist smell it and perhaps taste some of it.

No harm done. See. The book was a fake; it's just that the prisoner believed it was holy.

Try this: The US makes a deck of cards, written in Arabic, with the complete Quran printed on them. It's just that on the other side are photos of some hot babes from Lebanon that just happen to be Christian.

The US Military guy takes those cards, and dumps them on the ground so that they are out of order, and does magic tricks with them. Are those cards, if in order, holy and sacred? Well, with the babe photos, they probably are not. What about the magic tricks? Well, that seems really wierd. The cards, even if out of order, are printed on one side with the proper Quranic verses. They just have the babe photos on the other side.

What does this prove? Nothing. I just think it seems rather strange. If I don't share the belief that the Muslim shares, I can respect his belief and even understand and empathize with it. But if I'm trying to get a murdering believer to talk, why the fuck not use that belief to my advantage? I guess that's my point.

That's Paul Anka's thoughts on the Quran book being holy. How'd I do, John? I started off pretty weak, but finished pretty strong. This is going to be a long fucking weekend.

I just wanna know if Reynplds is going to show gratitude for the Ace-a-lanche.

Well, with my posts, I think Reynolds might not quite appreciate it all that much, WarrenM.

> The cards, even if out of order, are printed on one side with the proper Quranic verses. They just have the babe photos on the other side.

I'm guessing the cards would be considered defiled from the moment they were printed.

OK, enough about Andrew Sullivan. It's now time to talk about Star Wars. Anybody seen it?

Fake menstrual blood? Fake?? This is outrageous! Outrageous!

Get me the Quartermaster's Corps on line one. Out boys absolutely have to have the best equipment to carry the fight to the enemy in this struggle against evil. That means the best food, the best weapons, and by God the best real menstrual blood that money can buy!

I'm pretty sure we can fast track the contract through Raytheon - they know how to move when called upon.

Anybody seen it?

No, dammit. I have to wait until 7:10 tonight.

I'm having a bit of a geekout moment at work, though. I'm listening to the soundtrack while writing.

Searching my memory banks...when was it that Yasser Arafat's boys broke into a church (monastery, maybe?), used bible pages as toilet paper, damaged and stole sacred items and relics?

Anybody remember what I'm talking about?

It really happened, and I don't remember Christian rioting.

Fake menstrual blood? Fake?? This is outrageous! Outrageous!

Wow. Fake menstrual blood? What was George Lucas thinking? I guess you really shouldn't take your kids to this latest Star Wars movie.

when was it that Yasser Arafat's boys broke into a church (monastery, maybe?), used bible pages as toilet paper, damaged and stole sacred items and relics?

I think that was in the Special Edition of Episode VI, but some fans consider it non-canonical.

Anybody seen it?

No, dammit. I have to wait until 7:10 tonight.

I'm having a bit of a geekout moment at work, though. I'm listening to the soundtrack while writing.

I'm seeing it at 9:10 PM with my wife and some friends and coworkers.

Speeking of geekout moments, I'm actually starting to think it will be pretty good. It's gotten good reviews, and some people I trust have liked it. It sounds like despite some wooden acting and clunky dialog it turns out to overall be a good movie.

I was discussing the movie with one of the people I'm going with, and he told me he had recently watched Episodes I and II to get ready for it. I told him that my wife and I had planned to do that, but we just couldn't bring ourselves to sit through them. He liked them a little better, but he said in retrospect what was the point of Episode I? It sets up very little. It's mostly filled with incidental nonsense that has little bearing on the overall story arc (I'm looking at you, pod race).

We basically came to the conclusion that Lucas didn't have anything close to three movies' worth of story in him, but he had promised a prequel trilogy, so, damn it, that's what he had to deliver. So he fluffed it out with childhood Anakin, Jar-Jar, and all that other crud.

The good news, though, is that toward the end of Episode II and during all of Episode III we're actually into the story he wanted to tell. Here finally are all the things we had heard about: The Clone Wars, the betrayals, the birth of Luke and Leia, Jedis defeated and the remnants going into hiding, etc. It should be fun.

Damn it. I told myself I wasn't going to get my hopes up this time...

Got your link for you right here, lauraw. First appeared in the Washington Times, May 15, 2002.

Good memory bank.

Also, check the comments section of this thread over at Captain's Quarters, and do a search for the word "Arafat," and you'll find the same comment you made.

The first link won't work because of the content filter (it blocks Linksdotcom), so I put a hyphen in it. Copy the link, drop the hyphen, and you're good to go.

I just think it is interesting that, as far as I have seen, Islam had never been in similar circumstances of widespread, systematic repression as have Christianity & Judaism. I suspect that may have something to do with the lack of flexibility & tolerance we see all too often.

That may have something to do with it. But I think the primary reason is that Christian doctrine teaches that the kingdom of God is in the hearts of men, and not in the halls of Caesar. Over and over, the Jews kept demonstrating their belief in an earthly Messianic kingdom that would overthrow Rome. Every time, Jesus set them straight about the true nature of the kingdom.

But to Muslims, the spiritual and the temporal are unified. If Islam does not conquer earthly kingdoms, Islam does not exist.

On Star Wars: If anyone has seen it yet, please warn about spoilers if you are going to mention it in the comments

I agree with Bob. I was going to watch the prequels again (rent them, I certainly wouldn't buy them), but episode 1 was such complete fluff, I doubt I'll bother. I might watch episode 2 one more time since I don't remeber it that well.

Bob, I suppose I should have refreshed before posting, but I didn't, and you posted your change of subject while I was reading.

Anyway, obviously I wasn't responding to the Star Wars thing.

Have fun at the movies.

The problem I have with the "not enough for three prequels" is the fact that the Clone Wars, which have been hinted at as being the major conflict that preceeded the OT, is being told as fucking cartoons on fucking TV. Why didn't it go something like this:

I: Aniken is found, Clone Wars heat up
II: All Clone Wars, Aniken is Creepy but Effective
III: Fall of Aniken, Resolution of Clone Wars

"Fuck Allah" is a bad thing because it is our government offends someone else's religion.

"Piss Christ" on the other hand being financially supported by our government is a good thing because it's art.

Look, why don't we just use NEA finds to support the Military?

First linky no worky, KCTrio, but thanks.

That chick who wrote that comment followed up with a doozy later on.

lawraw:

My gosh you are right. That last comment from that woman is not only a doozy, it by itself is a daisy cutter or a MOAB.

Good Lord.

Megan got it COMPLETELY right about the difference between the Bible and the Quran. Although not the words I would have chosen...;-)

We Christians love the Bible for what it says to our hearts. The paper it is printed on means nothing.
It seems Muslims, on the other hand....well..what Megan said.

KCtrio, I am pretty sure using the F-word is a venial sin. Now get to confession!...;-)

On Star Wars: If anyone has seen it yet, please warn about spoilers if you are going to mention it in the comments

Was that a joke, Brak?

What could possibly be a spoiler, really?

no i was serious. if jar-jar pulls off a mask and turns out to be an evil sith droid from hell or something, you know, unforseen stuff like that

RWS:

My dear lady. I have three kids and a wife, who don't ever hear those words. But, I just kind of like using them on these stupid comment sections of great Blogs. Let me ask you: Is it not better for me to drop the F-bombs here than to do it verbally in my home?

Perhaps you would respond that it would be better not to drop them at all. But I think here is better than in my home.

Besides; it's kind of fun.

Now, off to confession.