Newsweek steps in it...

It's possible you might be overstating the original levels of tolerance and democracy in early Islam Most. Whilst I would agree that it frequently gets a bad rep, I would also argue that the pre-schismatic era was brutal, violent and blatently usurping regional traditions by the sword... even if set to poetry.

I'd argue that the era of tolerence came a hundred years later when the caliphates were forced to live with the non-Arab people they'd conquered: Egypt, Syria, Judea, North Africa and most obviously Spain. The same would follow a 700 years later with Turkey and it's incurssions into Europe.

It would be wrong I think to place the reputation of Islam firmly at the feet of European Christians and then claim it is therefore unfair. There are good historical reasons to argue that the reputation is in many respects deserved given the rather belligerent 1000 year history of the Middle East itself towards them (not merely a 150 years of small scale skirmishes and massacres). It wasn't until a century after the Battle of Lepanto that they were truly safe, and centuries more before the Greeks and Balkan Slavs were free.

Oh and then there is the whole White Gold thing.

I would just note, Illum, that Christianity and other religions were all "religions of the sword" for a large portion of the Middle ages, say from 800 to, when did the 30 years war end? I dunno, maybe 1710 or so, if you include the big Catholic/Protestant stuff. Different time periods within there for other religions, but it's pretty much an ugly time for everyone.

Looks like Newsweek has completely retracted the story. Idiots. Why go partway and then do this? Makes no sense.

I would just note, Illum, that Christianity and other religions were all "religions of the sword" for a large portion of the Middle ages, say from 800 to, when did the 30 years war end? I dunno, maybe 1710 or so,

Of course Robear, hence my 150 year point on the Crusades. Though there is actually a marked difference between the Counter-Reformation's internal and political conflicts 1550 years on, and the ideologically motivated wars of v. early Islam. My point was that Islam promoted warfare against non-Muslims from it's very inception and was not merely spread by it as an afterthought or expedient. This is an acute difference between the two.

It is also why Muslims must particularly be on their guard against fundamentalists because of the ease this prima facie xenophobic mindset sits within the theology.

Newsweek retracted the story -- but it is hard to feel like that matters when dozens of people are dead. This whole thing just sucks.

Now for the P&C part. What I'm hearing from most everyone in governement and the media regarding this tragedy is something like, "We would NEVER violate international law, detain hundreds of people without accountability or transparency, provide them no real legal recourse, hold them indefinitely in questionable conditions, and desecrate the Koran. We merely violate international law, detain hundreds of people without accountability or transparency, provide them no real legal recourse, and hold them indefinitely in questionable conditions."

As much as folks want to pin this tragedy on Newsweek, they may have been the catalyst but they didn't provide the fuel.

Funny, we never heard a retraction from the White House on all their "evidence" about Iraq that turned out to be false. Rice and some others are still repeating some of these to this day ("this war came to us", for example, trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 directly). They are all bozos on that bus. I guess pre-emptive war means never having to say you're sorry...

Some of you guys almost sound like you want the story to be true. Am I misunderstanding or are you expressing dissapointment that Newsweek is backing down? I don't get that attitude. Is there such hatred towards our current administration or is it something else?

Wow...good points and I'm just on page 1...my thoughts.

There was a time when the fundamentalism was on the other foot, so to speak. It resulted in the Crusades. It was a time when christians needed an identity, something they could be proud of, something to give meaning to their life.

I think the more fundamental issue of the Crusades was a) giving the knights a job so they stop battling each other, and b) the Pope's wanting to spread Catholicism by any means necessary. - Don't really see it as Christians seeking an identity.

I think that the lack of education and prosperity drives people to ignorance and fanaticism; they'll take the prosperity, but they reject our freedoms and culture as inappropriate.

My point would be that the lack of education and prosperity is the the basis of the ignorance and fanaticism. Until you address that, the root causes will remain - because an uneducated and very poor person, is, quite easily (as history has shown) manipulated and pulled over to the dark side of fanaticism (of any religion)

Americans often accidentally insert their values as universally applicable without even thinking about it (e.g. "Everyone except dictators believe that democracy is good). Of course, fundamentalist Muslims believe that democracy is bad, as an insult against Allah, as it presumes that the people, as opposed to Allah, have the right to govern. At least that's my understanding.

The other great statement - Americans, with one of the shortest history spans in the world, are a unique situation, and quite frankly, it is difficult at best to apply American democracy and values to - Latin America, India, China, Mid-East, Vietnam, Korea, etc... This is one of the US' main obstacles - we think everyone wants democracy like we have - when in fact, the majority of the world doesn't give a rat's ass if they are under democracy or communism...they just want to know whether they get one bowl of rice this week, or 1 and a half...and the US does not understand that.

I still maintain that until we root out the base causes of uneducation and poverty in the mid-east, the fundamentalists and extremist will control many - but I'm at a loss for any way out of the quagmire...thoughts?

Copingsaw wrote:

Some of you guys almost sound like you want the story to be true. Am I misunderstanding or are you expressing dissapointment that Newsweek is backing down? I don't get that attitude. Is there such hatred towards our current administration or is it something else?

Hell no, Newsweek ought to be ashamed for publishing that if it isn't true. I'm wondering how the editor can sleep at night knowing the results of his or her negligence. But scapegoating the media for enraging Muslims is foolish. It is policy, not shoddy journalism, that pisses people off.

Am I misunderstanding or are you expressing dissapointment that Newsweek is backing down?

No, I didn't intend that ambiguity. What I was upset about was that they first attempted to leave the door open, then they just shut it completely yesterday. That makes things more difficult for people like me who are trying to fit this into the context of existing reports from other services. The information I was using from their initial attempt at clarifying the situation turns out to be wrong, and that's not good for people like me who are trying to figure out what the big picture is.

Either that, or they've been pressured into this. But I have no evidence for that.

They are idiots for trying to save face and not fessing up right away.

Pigpen, I'm with you on that last post, on my points that you addressed.

Most wrote:

Sly, I obviously cannot convince you if you dont want to, but you should simply do some fact checking . . . . Simple fact checking might be an eye opener.

I think you are making the presumption of "simple Westerner who knows nothing of the region and can therefore be cowed by the 'nothing is as you learned in elementary school'" line of argument. Actually, I studied the subject of Middle Eastern history for a year as an undergrad with a very prominent prof, who I believe is viewed to have some knowledge and ability in the area. Further fact checking has been performed by reading a lot of books on the subject, and talks with Palestinian friends. So any eye openers are going to have to come from specific cites and facts, and not the general old canard of "Westerner who is relying on assumptions."

I'm not saying I'm any type of scholar on the subject, but I'm comfortable enough to believe I am not going to learn more based on generalized statements that fundamentalist Islam is really very democractic. And I'd note that you did not answer my questions about what you view democracy as being, or whether the democracy of fundamentalist Islam is such that the people may choose their leaders and laws, other than to say it is an unfair question.

P.S. Sorry if that came across a little harsh, but for some reason the assumption that I am completely ignorant of what I'm discussing bothered me a bit. It reminds me of a common liberal tactic (not saying you are liberal); rather than answering questions with specific details, throw out the, "All of your presumptions are likely wrong, you're an X (Christian, Western, White, Male, etc.). No insult intended to you; I just want greater specifics than general allegations that fundamentalist Islam is compatible with democracy.

Is there a confusion in terms here? I used "fundamentalist" to mean those who are extremists based on a tribal-tradition reading of the Koran, while Most seems to use it more in the sense of "traditionalist", for which I wrote "mainstream". Sly seems to be using it in the sense I did...

Is there a confusion in terms here? I used "fundamentalist" to mean those who are extremists based on a tribal-tradition reading of the Koran

That is how I have been using the term. I believe there is a significant different between a fundamentalist and a traditionalist/mainstream muslim.

Islam needs its version of the reformation.

And Sandy Berger probably has the reports that the Newsweek story was based on in his pants.

From Dennis Prager:

Even if the report were true, the magazine was highly irresponsible when it published the report. It could have only one effect: inflaming the wrath of hundreds of millions of Muslims against America.

If an American interrogator of Japanese prisoners desecrated the most sacred Japanese symbols during World War II, it is inconceivable that any American media would have published this information. While American news media were just as interested in scoops in 1944 as they are now, they also had a belief that when America was at war, publishing information injurious to America and especially to its troops was unthinkable.

Such a value is not only not honored by today's news media, the opposite is more likely the case. The mainstream media oppose the war in Iraq and loathe the Bush administration. Whatever weakens the war effort and embarrasses the president raises a news source's prestige among its domestic, and especially foreign, peers.

Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America. As a typical member of the American news media, Newsweek's primary loyalties are to profits and to its political/social agenda.

It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Koran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Koran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

Nevertheless, one will have to search extensively for any editorials condemning these primitives in the Western press, let alone in the Muslim press. This is because moral expectations of Muslims are lower than those of other religious groups. Behavior that would be held in contempt if engaged in by Christians or Jews is not only not condemned, it is frequently "understood" when done by Muslims.

Yes, I do find it fascinating that when large amounts of Muslims riot, pillage, and murder over something, we are to understand that they do not represent Islam as a whole or the Middle East as a whole.

Taken for the sake of argument, however, that someone did desecrate a Koran, there is apparently no thought among these people that the actions of one American does not represent Christianity, the U.S., or the Western World as a whole. What a surprise.

How can a human being not have the logic to compare results?

*

*

*

Sly, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Four times.

Argh. Stupid thing hung up, and did multiposts. Why can't we delete posts we've written?

Even if the report were true, the magazine was highly irresponsible when it published the report. It could have only one effect: inflaming the wrath of hundreds of millions of Muslims against America.

So even if it's true, don't publish anything unfavorable to the US? Is that the message here?

If an American interrogator of Japanese prisoners desecrated the most sacred Japanese symbols during World War II, it is inconceivable that any American media would have published this information. While American news media were just as interested in scoops in 1944 as they are now, they also had a belief that when America was at war, publishing information injurious to America and especially to its troops was unthinkable.

Absolutely false. In fact, American government propaganda constantly smeared the Japanese Emperor and other symbols of their society, in posters, in news reports and in other ways. We went out of our way to piss them off. It was ingrained in the US culture and considered part of the war effort. Why we believe it's not done now, when even in SERE training instructors desecrate Bibles in front of the "captured" servicemen, I don't know.

And furthermore, please explain why the commander of the Gitmo camp apologized to the prisoners after a guard stepped on a Koran as part of the intimidation process? Since we are not desecrating it and all. Flushing it is not the only way to abuse it, and we've shown our willingness to use the Koran as a tool for interrogations. This whole flap is about one particular purported incident, not the overall approach.

Such a value is not only not honored by today's news media, the opposite is more likely the case. The mainstream media oppose the war in Iraq and loathe the Bush administration. Whatever weakens the war effort and embarrasses the president raises a news source's prestige among its domestic, and especially foreign, peers.

Mainstream media? Quick! Someone shut down FoxNews! Oh, wait, the single most popular TV News is not, well, mainstream. Sure...
As for raising it's appeal among it's peers, how about the greater than 50% of Americans who think the war was a mistake?

The mainstream media vehemently supports Bush and his policies. Even the Post and Times are in that camp on the Iraq War.

Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America. As a typical member of the American news media, Newsweek's primary loyalties are to profits and to its political/social agenda.

Yep. And Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 innocents and thousands of soldiers, due to his loyalty to his political and social agendas. Looks like the Liberal Media has a bit of catching up to do. At least they apologize when they are wrong. Don't lose track of the fact that the error lies with the anonymous source as much as anyone else.

Nevertheless, one will have to search extensively for any editorials condemning these primitives in the Western press, let alone in the Muslim press. This is because moral expectations of Muslims are lower than those of other religious groups. Behavior that would be held in contempt if engaged in by Christians or Jews is not only not condemned, it is frequently "understood" when done by Muslims.

That, not phony reports about an American desecrating Koranic pages, should really upset Muslims. It won't. Just as the CBS and Newsweek debacles won't upset the American news media.

The lowest of the Muslim world and the elite of the Western world: Anti-Americanism makes strange bedfellows.

Thanks, Mr. Prager, I have low expectations of you, too. Kiss kiss.

Even if the report were true, the magazine was highly irresponsible when it published the report.

Eeee gads man don't be daft! As the old addage goes "Sir. Publish and be damned! ".

Veritas vos liberabit.

Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America. As a typical member of the American news media, Newsweek's primary loyalties are to profits and to its political/social agenda.

What saddens me is that we don't see same degree of worldwide outrage when MUSLIMS in Iraq are blowing up other MUSLIM CLERICS and bomb MUSLIM MOSQUES, goddamit. No worldwide waves of violent outbursts against such practices. Maybe blowing up temples full of worshippers in it's not sacrilegious enough. Or maybe Shiites, who are the usual recipients of these atrocities, are not Muslims enough (or humans worth compassion for that matter)? Or maybe this all is considered an internal matter in the world family of Islam which we can't even hope to fathom? I don't know.

But when an AMERICAN magazine publishes a report that one copy of Koran may have been flushed, the reaction is very clear. Which is: said magazine is DIRECTLY responsible for a deluge of blind hatred that ensues. Nice. Perhaps it means that much maligned American media is held up to the higher standards by Muslims world over than the Muslims themselves? Or their cultural and religious sensitivities are only allowed to themselves?

I can't help but take a more hawkish position here. Which in this context, paradoxically, means "pro-media".

P.S. and "roast-beef is a Swedish word for beef that is roasted". End of rant.

I think it's hilarious that the Bush admin is crying "This has irreparably hurt our image around the world!"

My response is: "No, you asshat...you are the one who did that by sending folks to die and kill in the name of revenge."

-Fan

From Rich Lowry:

How many stories has Newsweek written about the Bush administration allegedly "skewing intelligence" by relying on raw, insufficiently sourced data? How many times has it lamented that these mistakes have hurt the U.S. abroad? Too many to count.

What would be funny if it weren't so tragic is that some of them were authored by reporters Michael Isikoff and John Barry, the very duo that has itself dealt the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan a blow by stretching poorly sourced information into a false report about the deliberate desecration of the Koran by U.S. interrogators.

Isikoff and Barry wrote in the May 9 edition: "Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell Newsweek: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet." They continued that "these findings (are) expected in an upcoming report by the U.S. Southern Command [SouthCom] in Miami." Based on the report, destabilizing and deadly anti-U.S. riots broke out in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The report gave the impression that (1) FBI e-mails from Gitmo mentioned the Koran-flushing incident; (2) the incident had been confirmed; and (3) it was about to appear in a U.S. government report. All of these claims are, according to the Pentagon, false (which is not to say that nothing bad ever happened at Gitmo).

No one is perfect â€" not even the brilliant Mike Isikoff â€" but this is a telling error. One government official told Isikoff that he had seen the Koran-desecrating incident in the forthcoming Gitmo report. Newsweek tried to confirm this. But a spokesman for SouthCom refused comment because it is an ongoing investigation. Another Defense official attempted to correct one error unrelated to the Koran desecration, but didn't comment on the rest. With this solid nonconfirmation in hand, Newsweek ran with its explosive single-sourced item.

Once people started dying, Isikoff's original source said he couldn't be sure that he had read about the incident in the SouthCom report. Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker issued a weaselly statement saying that "we regret that we got any part of our story wrong," without detailing what the errors were. Nor did he forthrightly apologize â€" although Newsweek was part of the press pack demanding that President Bush acknowledge and apologize for his errors during last year's presidential campaign.

It is, of course, unfair to blame the magazine for the deadly work of anti-American fanatics abroad. But it can be blamed for its shoddy original work, for its nonapology, and for the media culture of hostility toward the military that makes its mistake so characteristic. That is not to say that any of its reporters or editors harbors personal animosity toward the military. But they work in an industry that has defined its success since the Vietnam War almost exclusively in terms of exposing U.S. wrongdoing. The media collectively want to believe the worst about the military, and in light of Abu Ghraib, they have panted after every possible prison abuse.

During the fallout from last year's CBS forged-documents flap, shrewd Newsweek political writer Howard Fineman said: "A political party is dying before our eyes â€" and I don't mean the Democrats. I'm talking about the 'mainstream media.'" He argued that the media had been identified with a crusading liberalism since Watergate and Vietnam, but their power was waning in the new political and information environment: "It's hard to know who, if anyone, in the 'media' has any credibility."

It's only getting harder. Back in November 2003, Newsweek complained in a cover story that Vice President Dick Cheney "bought into shady assumptions" leading into the Iraq war, partly because of his "dire view of the terrorist threat." In its Koran story, Newsweek itself bought into shady assumptions, partly because of the media's dire view of the U.S. military. And so the media party continues its decline.

From Fanatka:

My response is: "No, you asshat...you are the one who did that by sending folks to die and kill in the name of revenge."

Revenge is an interesting word choice, which I think is more telling about your worldview than about reality. But thanks for joining the conversation.

Revenge is an interesting word choice, which I think is more telling about your worldview than about reality. But thanks for joining the conversation.

Well technically Bush did mention Saddam putting a hit on his father, so revenge for that is a plausable piece of the motive Bush may have personally had. Sure, we'll never really know, but the possibility IS there.

If "the media" is so biased this way, how come all it's doing is beating Newsweek to death with it's own paper? This is the new Political Correctness, folks. Heaven forfend we should be interested in finding out whether US soldiers did this sort of thing; it's been reported independently of Isikoff and others in the Italian press, but saints preserve us from ever having to mention *that* side of it. Let's keep it nice and simple and loyal, stay out of the dark corners or you'll be pilloried, especially if you make a mistake. Heck, even the actual prison abuse reports were denigrated before the scope became clear, and there were gigs of *pictures* backing them up. So much the worse for someone working with sources that can't present direct evidence. (Granted, that's practically divinely blessed as a standard when Cheney or Bush push that kind of evidence, but hey, the press needs to be held to a higher standard, I guess.)

By extension, any paper that digs into actual physical abuses at places like Gitmo is damaging the country, or even traitorous. The real agenda here is to create the death of the media as independent investigator, by painting it as biased and politically active. That ignores the fact that there is indeed one network that was *created* to push a view - Fox. And that's hardly liberal.

But then, it's human to impute one's own motives to one's enemies.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

From Fanatka:

My response is: "No, you asshat...you are the one who did that by sending folks to die and kill in the name of revenge."

Revenge is an interesting word choice, which I think is more telling about your worldview than about reality. But thanks for joining the conversation.

Wow...I can't believe that the one word in that sentence that you used to describe my worldview was "revenge", and not "asshat":)

Oh..and by mentioning the hit on his father during the "decision" period, our favorite drunk-driving, cocaine snorting, C student **cough** leader **cough** is the one who brought the concept of revenge into the deal.

Oh...and reality is overrated:)

-Fan