So the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are directly related to the removal of the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama?
Damn. If I’d’ve known that, I’d’ve protested its removal, too.
Newsweek? Oh yeah, they were the ones who teamed up with CNN to give us the ‘US Troops used nerve gas in Vietnam story.’ Are they still in business?
To expand upon my thoughts above, here’s Kevin Drum’s take on it, from Washington Monthly (bolding mine):
You’re mixing situations. Whose power was taken away in Pakistan? In Afganistan? What percent of the rioters in those countries were tortured? (by the coaltion, not their own governments.) The average non-Taliban in Afganistan has more rights and power than he did a few years ago. And why is that an excuse for rioting and calls for war because AN interregator is REPORTED by an UNNAMED source to have flushed a Koran? What one individual does (even if an agent of the government) is reason for a holy war?
You say, “Just imagine what the fundies would do!” There has been repression of (among other religions) christianity in (in past decades) communist countries and (currently) in Islamic states. Does anyone doubt that there have been desecration of Bibles in those countries? Did they have “their power taken away from them?” Of course. Truthfully, I HAVE heard cries for holy war by fundamentalists. But not many, just the crackpots. But no rioting, burning, shooting, maiming, or tearing asunder.
Also, I doubt the story. You can’t flush a Koran. Too big. Unless they print micro-korans, and that’s what got flushed. Or they have kick-ass toilets there.
On a light, and sacreligious, note, I bet that this baby could flush a holy book.
Seriously, though:
Diogenes, I’m generally on your side, but your argument is WAY off base here. In one case, we have a report of a religious violation on one side of the globe, which (assuming that there is, in fact, a causal relationship) results in rioting and death on the other side of the world.
In the other case, we have what some view as a religious violation that was going to happen, and people went to that site and protested against it, in person, at that place, in order to stop it from happening, and no one was injured.
How you can even remotely compare those two cases is beyond me.
How so? The US made the decision to invade Iraq. That decision had, as an extremely predictable consequence, the ratcheting up of anti-American feeling in the middle east. The US also (unfortunately) did some horrible things in Abu Ghraib. Put all of those together and you have a situation where even unsubstantiated reports of Koran desecration (a) are far more believable than they would have been 4 years ago, and (b) are heard by an already angry and riot-prone populace.
To propose an analogy, the warden of a previously-relatively-peacable prison institutes a harsh new dress code in which all the prisoners must wear hideously uncomfortable itchy shirts in sweltering heat, all the time. Then a guard accidentally leaves a prisoner unguarded and, angered by his uncomfortable shirt, he goes on a killing spree. Clearly, we must first and foremost blame the prisoner. He’s the one who killed the people. And the guard is also responsible. He’s the one who made the mistake. But the warden is ALSO responsible, because he’s the one who established the conditions which led to the fatal outcome.
The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of those who became violent because of such information. Either I can treat those living in the middle east as human beings capable of being held to account for their actions or I can treat them as children in need of someone to civilize them. I will not do both however.
Marc
The Pentagon and the White House? Aren’t they the ones who teamed up with Judith Miller and the New York Times to give us the “Saddam got nukes and coming to get yo mamma!” story? They still in business?
Well put.
It seems to me that Newsweek was much more concerned with playing “gotcha” with the Bush Administration than the consequences of thier actions. Whether you think that the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is the right move or not, the fact remains that we are there. Given that reality, Newsweek should have recognized that they were putting lives in danger by publishing what appears to be third hand information.
But why would they worry about that? It makes the Bush administration look bad and will sell some magazines. Who cares if people die because of it?
Do you support the Iraq invasion? Would you have supported it had the US troops found WMDs there? By your logic, you would be wrong to answer no to the first and yes to the second as it was believable that they did in fact have WMDs, plus Bush was acting on reliable sources. Whether they in fact had them was inconsequential as it was simply believable that they did.
Really? Welcome to the wonderful world of unintended consequences, in that case. Because Bushivik apologists will point to this every time bad news comes out, it nourishes thier fantasy that dat ol’ debbil Liberal Media is out to git 'em, and they can’t be believed cause they’re out to git 'em.
That story that came out a couple weeks ago, about the Downing Street Memo? Did you hear about that? You know, the memo that underscored our certainty that we were misled into war? Did Newsweek shriek that headline from the rooftops? Frankly, I don’t know 'cause I never read Newsweek, but I am confident in your unbiased even-handedness. Did they?
Howzabout those revelations on 60 Minutes a couple weeks back, wherein it was alleged that interrogators at Gitmo were using sexual/religious humiliation to gain thier ends? Did they trumpet that to the skies?
If not, it would seem that your assertion as to Newsweek motives are just so much Bushwah.
But let’s cut to the chase! Let’s demand an open investigation into all such allegations, sunshine is a marvelous disinfectant! Let’s throw open Gitmo to international scrutiny, since, after all, we have nothing to hide, right? Right?
Princess Leia: You stuck up, half-witted, scruffy looking nerf herder!
Han Solo: Who’s scruffy looking?
Wanna buy a bridge? 
You almost had a decent argument going, but then you slipped into your I-hate-all-theists-and-right-wingers mode again.
Fuck you. I’m sorry, but that’s insane. What you’re talking about would destroy the idea of free press. The clerics who whipped their parishioners into a frenzy (who happend to use this article as an excuse) incited the riot. Not Newsweek’s publishers half a world away. They MAY have gotten a story wrong. I’m not positive that we’ll ever know. Regardless, the guilt is misplaced.
The rioters, the Taliban, and the people who are using this article as a pretext for violence are responsible, not Newsweek.
We know North Korea has WMDs. What do you suggest we do about that?
By your logic we should invade them…
I don’t think we’re communicating clearly here.
I don’t think it’s right for people to riot and kill people based on the destruction of a book. That means that the rioting is wrong if the book was actually destroyed, and also wrong if they riot based on mistaken information.
Anyhow, to reiterate the more important point: regardless of whether the Iraq was was right or wrong, it is not at all surprising that it led to the current situation, in which, due to heightened tensions, riots and deaths like the current ones occur. The rioters and killers are still the ones directly responsibility, but those who made the decision to invade Iraq, creating the current situation, also hold some responsibility. Agree or disagree?
(Note: saying that the invasion of Iraq led to the current situation, and the deaths therein, doesn’t necessarily mean the decision was wrong. The decision to invade at D-Day directly led to huge numbers of deaths, but that doesn’t make it wrong.)
As well, there is the pervasive scent of rodent in the air. Norwegian Brown Rat? A bit uncertain…
Newsweek did not invent this story out of whole cloth, it would appear. They were tipped by the ever popular “highly placed source”. Such a source would almost have to be a Bushivik official, I doubt very much that MoveOn.org is on the “cleared” list.
This unamed official has recanted, and yanked the rug from underneath Newseek, and, by an extraordinary coincidence! given oodles and gobs of ammunition to Bushivik apologists. Wow, what luck! Gee willikers, kind of thing makes me just a bit suspicious. I sometimes think that Mr. Bush and Co have not been entirely candid with me.
No, really. Sometimes.
But when is it going to Muslims’ turn to start understanding things?
I think that if Hindus came all that distance to do this I’d laugh. Not out of disrespect–it’s just such a bizarre thing to do.