The Koran and the Terrorists

What is the connection anyway?

http://www.amritas.com/050618.htm#06182006
from JoeUser Forums
Lawrence Auster's reader makes a good point:

"The way to end the "Koran abuse" is simply to take the Korans away. I don't think there is anything legally that requires we provide Korans to war prisoners and terrorists. Frankly, it seems the harder we try to be polite and respectful to these prisoners the more we are hated. So why bother with this courtesy."

And Amritas provides an interesting insight as well:

"Shouldn't they have memorized al-Qur'an by now? Real Muslims don't need paper reminders that can be contaminated by infidels."

But they both miss the major point.

The question is not why do we provide the book to the imprisoned terrorists (and suffer all the bad publicity for it), the question is why do we believe that the terrorists have any valid claim to the Koran at all?

We complain that the Muslim community does not speak up against the terrorists. It is true, they don't. (And those who do often re-define "terrorism" to exclude terrorist acts against Jewish civilians.) But all the official statements made by Arab dictators (those on the "good side", including our "key ally" Saudi Arabia) and Islamic scholars tell us that the terrorists are NOT the real Islam, and that Islam is a "religion of peace".

So why don't we accept that as true, and stop treating the terrorists as Muslims? When they are cought, they go to prison. Since they fight outside the law and without clear markings or uniforms, and attack civilians rather than military targets, they don't have any civil rights and are not covered by the Geneva convention (it is their choide and their RIGHT to choose to not be covered by the Geneva convention!). If they go to prison, they do NOT get a Koran, because the holy book of Islam is too good for them! They do NOT get to pray at whatever time they think they should, because for them praying is too late anyway. They do NOT get to complain about Americans mistreating a book, because they will never get to see the book again.

And if the islamic world complains, remind them that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that thus the terrorists are not Muslims and do not deserve access to the Koran.

Problem solved.
14,910 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think your first quoted, Lawrence Auster's idea should be done.  I think yours is as ironic as hell, but cnat be and never will be done.

But it is fun to dream like that!

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
don't forget to tell them if they are true Muslim's that they should have memorized the book. That would be the second reason.

And I do think they would get away with it, although I am not sure why go through all the bad PR.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem with your argument is that you are eager to assume that all those arrested, be they muslim or not, are guilty. While if i remember correctly the law presumes innocence until proven otherwise. Of course the law stops at the gates of guantanmo. It is a well know fact that many of those incarcerated in guantanmo and elsewhere are not guilty but are kept for different utilitarian purposes and are also just there because their "case" has not been processed timely. so, take away the korans from a group of people who are muslims, most of which were picked up off the street, have nothing to do with terrorism....problem exasperated. give it another try my friend.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

While if i remember correctly the law presumes innocence until proven otherwise.

Show us their citizenship card.

Oops!

They dont have one!

Try the facts before you go off half cocked.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dude,

you seem to believe that the law you quote refers to terrorists captured in a war. It does not. You don't remember correctly.

The presumption of innocence is a feature of most legal systems because a case has been made that society at large benefits from each individual having such a right, even if it is clear that they are guilty. But I am not aware of any such case being made for a similar right for the terrorists captured in Afghanistan. Can you make that case?

The Geneva Convention covers what the laws of a country's legal system do not cover. But it applies only to parties that have signed and only with regard to another party of the convention. But the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have announced that they are not bound by the Geneva Convention (it is apparently against Islam) and have certainly not followed it. Those captured in the war in Afghanistan are thus NOT covered by any such principle as you seem to remember exists.

So in short: you do not remember correctly.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

So in short: you do not remember correctly.

Ouch!  you do put it well,

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

So in short: you do not remember correctly.

Ouch!  you do put it well,

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Andrew, you do indeed put it well, though I think so did Dude.

May I ask, would you equally deny prisoner's rights to the Bible, considering it is supposedly a religion of peace, in spite of all the violence committed in its name.

However, your unsubstantiated assertion that the Muslim community does not speak out against terrorism simply revels your ignorance. Perhaps you need to move outside the mainstream media and JU for your sources.

But other than that flaw in your argument, you make a compelling point. Except one other thing that just occurred to my mind is that you haven't actually substantiated Lawrence Auster's point either. You just take it as fact because he said it. This is the sort of unsubstantiated argument the Left is constantly accused of, yet when the Right does it they get featured. Go figure. Nonetheless, some good points, you just need to work a bit harder to justify your position mate.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Andrew, you do indeed put it well, though I think so did Dude.

May I ask, would you equally deny prisoner's rights to the Bible, considering it is supposedly a religion of peace, in spite of all the violence committed in its name.

However, your unsubstantiated assertion that the Muslim community does not speak out against terrorism simply revelas your ignorance. Perhaps you need to move outside the mainstream media and JU for your sources.

But other than that flaw in your argument, you make a compelling point. Except one other thing that just occurred to my mind is that you haven't actually substantiated Lawrence Auster's point either. You just take it as fact because he said it. This is the sort of unsubstantiated argument the Left is constantly accused of, yet when the Right does it they get featured. Go figure. Nonetheless, some good points, you just need to work a bit harder to justify your position mate.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am a white English Christian Male. I think that along with GW Bush and T Blaire, your comment rank as some of the most distasteful I have ever seen written.
I admit, I do not know a lot about Muslims, however I do know that, although I am not a very devout Christian, I would expect to be able to have a book of my own choice to read, if incarcerated a long way from home, by a country I despised, for a crime that I probably didn't commit. If that book happened to be the bible, I would be angry if it was pissed on or violated in any other way.
America wake up you can not change peoples belief by supression... Oh sorry that was what Iraq was doing, not the Good Old US of A, friendly Uncle Sam with his puppets - you are all asses
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"May I ask, would you equally deny prisoner's rights to the Bible, considering it is supposedly a religion of peace, in spite of all the violence committed in its name."

Yes. If some terrorist group claimed to be Christian but isn't, I would also withhold the Bible from them in prison, under the same circumstances (i.e. violence in Christian countries because of alleged mistreatment of a BOOK.

"However, your unsubstantiated assertion that the Muslim community does not speak out against terrorism simply revels your ignorance. Perhaps you need to move outside the mainstream media and JU for your sources."

Ok, where are the mass demonstrations against Palestinian attacks on kindergardens?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good idea, piss off those stupid terrorists. Don't care about what the Muslim world will think about it. So they have a few hundred extra suicide volunteers? Good riddance. So those volunteers will take some more American soldiers with them? Shit happens. Besides, those soldiers died for the good cause. Didn't they?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I am a white English Christian Male."

Why would you think that the colour of your skin is important?

"I think that along with GW Bush and T Blaire, your comment rank as some of the most distasteful I have ever seen written."

Ok, I withdraw my comment: the terrorists ARE Muslims, the Muslim scholars and Arab heads of state who repeatedly tell us that terrorism is NOT what the Koran is about are wrong, attacking civilians IS a way to prove one's worth to G-d, and The Koran is a book that dictates evil deeds and absolutely appropriate reading material for the terrorists.

Is that better?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Don't care about what the Muslim world will think about it."

Why should we? And furthermore, why would the Muslim world be angry? Isn't it them who keep telling us that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are not Muslims?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gitmo, of course, is not on American soil


only when one observes the world thru the looking glass described by lewis caroll. if it's not american soil, why hasn't castro stopped by to check things out as any other landlord might do?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gitmo, of course, is not on American soil.


Sorry LW but your dead wrong on this. Gitmo DAMN sure is considered American soil just as much as any of our embassy's on foreign soil are.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sorry LW but your dead wrong on this. Gitmo DAMN sure is considered American soil just as much as any of our embassy's on foreign soil are.

No, Gitmo is Cuban.  We just have a 100 year lease that Castro cannot get out of.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Gitmo is Cuban."

Are there any laws against torture and wrongful imprisonment in Cuba?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

#18 by Dr. Guy
Monday, June 20, 2005





Sorry LW but your dead wrong on this. Gitmo DAMN sure is considered American soil just as much as any of our embassy's on foreign soil are.


No, Gitmo is Cuban. We just have a 100 year lease that Castro cannot get out of.



It's "still" considered American soil just like our embassies are.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler: source?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

From Answers.com

U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay was established in 1898, when the U.S. obtained control of Cuba from Spain at the end of the Spanish-American War, following the 1898 invasion of Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. government obtained a perpetual lease that began on February 23, 1903 from the newly independent Cuban state. The terms hold that the U.S., for the purposes of operating coaling and naval stations, has "complete jurisdiction and control" of the area, while the Republic of Cuba is recognized to retain ultimate sovereignty.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not sure of any Constitutional requirement that prisoners be supplied the Bible or Koran at all. I think in most prisons just material is a priveledge you earn, and that can be taken away. Given the descriptions of prisoner behavior at Gitmo, I find it hard to believe they have earned anything.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't you think that taking away someone's Holy Book is wholeheartedly wrong no matter the situation? Just another ignorant solution that would only deepen the resentment towards the US throughout the Muslim world. Like it or not, that solution would ultimately get more GI's killed in the Middle East which makes it pretty clear to me that you have no loved ones in the military serving overseas. If you did, you'd never suggest inflaming the so called 'raghead terrorists' the GI's have to face every day. Tolerance people, will make things more peaceful.
As Mr. Chomsky said so eloquently:
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, yes, don't make the terrorists mad, give them what they want. That'll put them in their place... That ignorant, non-confrontational policy has been followed for decades and we find ourselves where we are now.

It's sad when people like R.H. attack their own, ignorant of the fact the people they are defending hate them even more. You just end up alienating the people who want to protect you, and gaining no ground with the people who wish you harm.

Owning a book isn't freedom of expression, and prisoners have many, many rights taken away when they are incarcerated. You're just, again, inventing rights that never existed so you can complain that they've been taken away.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
From Simon
I admit, I do not know a lot about Muslims, however I do know that, although I am not a very devout Christian, I would expect to be able to have a book of my own choice to read, if incarcerated a long way from home, by a country I despised, for a crime that I probably didn't commit. If that book happened to be the bible, I would be angry if it was pissed on or violated in any other way.

From Rekki-House
Don't you think that taking away someone's Holy Book is wholeheartedly wrong no matter the situation? Just another ignorant solution that would only deepen the resentment towards the US throughout the Muslim world. Like it or not, that solution would ultimately get more GI's killed in the Middle East which makes it pretty clear to me that you have no loved ones in the military serving overseas. If you did, you'd never suggest inflaming the so called 'raghead terrorists' the GI's have to face every day. Tolerance people, will make things more peaceful.

Hmmm. Well, why don't you try getting detained. thrown in jail, arrested, or whatever you want to call it, in...oh...say Saudi Arabia and asking for a Holy Bible. Oh...wait...that's right...it's illegal to own a Holy Bible in Saudi Arabia. Getting caught with one will get you arrested. So I guess that request will fall on deaf ears. Try entering the country with one. It will be confiscated and destroyed. Funny, though, you don't hear anyone screaming bloody murder about them. You don't see Christians any where in the world rioting and murdering their own over the Saudi's descration of the Bible. And I haven't seen anyone calling Saudi prisons "the gulags of our time". Funny how that works. Huh?

JollyFE