h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

For those of you who haven't noticed this story...

Newsweek ran a story about the Koran being desicrated by the guards of Guantanamo Bay...

Now, this directly led to riots in which over a dozen people died...

Now they're turning around and saying "Sorry, we got it wrong, it never happened".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4551683.stm for a better idea of what happened.

Now, there are two possibilities I see...

Either Newsweek did get it wrong... If this is the case, just how responsible should they be held (criminal procedings?)

or

Noting that released detainees from Guantanamo have independently described similar situation then the MIB came round to see the editors of Newsweek and persuaded them to recant their story. In which case, would the authorities be right to attempt to influence the press if that influence would lead to the saving of lives?

It's an interesting story, and one which has no right answer.

Of course, the cynic in me is bound to say that the Bush Administration has had remarkable success in getting 'anti' stories in the US press subjugated, removed and re-canted ever since his election (the first time).

My immediate thought on hearing this was what kind of benighted, ignorant, nasty, atavistic moron decides that because someone they've never met says that someone else they've never met on an island they've never been near is tearing pages out of a book and flushing them down the toilet, that that means they should go out and KILL someone?

That isn't civilised behaviour, not even ANIMALS would do something so f**king stupid. Twelve more barbarians removed from the planet? Good.

H.

"Either Newsweek did get it wrong"
or
"the MIB came round to see the editors of Newsweek and persuaded them to recant their story"

The same thing occured to me. I wouldn't put it past the current government. Especially given their conduct in the Guantanamo Bay issue. (saw a documentary on the kind of treatment prisoners have to endure the other day, chilling)

Did you hear the Newsweek spokesman on Radio 4 yesterday?

They didn't get it wrong, a normaly reliable source changed his mind after the official denial.

alji

Oh dear Hoo, that last posting really wasn't up to your usual standards .

... Sorry, should have finished my last post off properly...

Hoo... "My immediate thought on hearing this..."

Ok, I'll accept that... But what were your thoughts after a couple of minutes either reading up on the subject or thinking coolly about what has happened?

Hoo beat me to it and mine are still the same regarding the violence and the deaths. Yes burning flags, running aorund and killing/getting killed really helps solve the problem doesn't it.

I would like to know whether any pressure was put on Newsweek.

The Army is still looking into the allegations even though the US governemnt have denied it happened.

I thought the change came not because the source retracted what he said, but because he couldn't actually remember where he heard it.

's off to find a link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4553639.stm

Quote I am talking about is:-

"Mr Whitaker wrote that the magazine's original source is not sure where he saw the assertion."

Allthough it has to be said the tone of the news story has changed since I first read it.

"what were your thoughts after a couple of minutes either reading up on the subject or thinking coolly about what has happened?"

Not a lot different, actually. Think yourself, coolly, about it. What would it take to get you to go out onto the street and violently kill someone in protest? The invasion of your homeland? The rape of your wife? The murder of your children? The destruction of your home?

Or a man flushing some pieces of paper down a lavatory?

What, precisely, the F**K is WRONG with these people?

Another thing I heard last week was that some of the detainees at Guantanamo were being "tortured" by having an attractive female soldier proposition them sexually while stripping in front of them.

I'm sorry, can you say that again? Let me get this straight - we're supposed to feel outrage, shock and sympathy that these people are getting, for free, what would cost you at least a tenner in a lapdancing club? This is supposed to be TORTURE???

And the fact of the matter apparently is that yes, for these people, it is torture. To which I say again - good. We should have MORE of this type of torture. Never mind the electrodes on the genitals or the whippings with wires - bring on the dancing girls!

H.

Not quite propositioning them but being sexually provocative and also smearing the prisoners face with red liquid supposedly to mimic menstrual blood. It is said that one guy jumped out of his shackles when this happened he was so freaked out about it. OK, a bit icky if it actually was menstrual blood but to have a mindset such that it actually makes you that freaked out is...well freaked out.

Islam is very clever in keeping the Koran and Mohammed that sacred. Pictures of Mohammed are not allowed (so you can't draw silly glasses and a moustache on them) and also (I believe) pictures of the Koran?(There was definetely some hoohar about a picture of a Koran somewhere last year.) When a religion can create such unthinking reactions towards the use of various pictures and the (alledged) goading by 'abusing' a book then you have pretty much got it made and got control over the minds of the people who react in such a way.

>Islam is very clever in keeping the Koran and Mohammed that sacred.<

Yes, and Western Civilisation has been very clever in keeping other people's believes and sacred beliefs as laughable objects so that this sort of behaviour is treated like the subject of a boys night out down the Dog and Duck.

Western civilisation...or just common sense and a bit of objective rational thought and analysis of what those believes are based on or who made them up?

And none of this is laughable at all it is a very sad episode - the whole story altogether both the type of torture and the reactions. Very sad that both are still happening.

The very fact that these actions can actually be put under the title 'Torture techniques to use against devout Muslims' in this supposedly enlightened day and age boggles the mind - how sexually repressed are these people?

Hoo I understand where you're coming from on the stripping thing but lets turn the table dances round a bit shall we?

Women detainees being exposed to naked men who sexually proposition them?

I know some women enjoy and even pay for this sort of thing and a whole lot more. This fact does not make other women who might for whatever reason be offended or feel threatened by such actions *wrong* in those reactions. I think the same principle can go for men too the difference in proportions who take it negatively might vary across the gender divide but lets make some allowance for personal sensibilities here.

I can agree totally about the Koran pages, if someone did that with copies of "Slaughter house 5" My reaction would be "well more fool you I can get another copy" I certainly wouldnt feel the need to kill anyone.

one love

Hmm, does everything have to come down to bashing people's religious beliefs???

Despite this going completely off topic, what I'm reading here is a complete disregard for other people's belief systems (and no, you can't start blaming Islam exclusively for this sort of behaviour, if you did you'd have to start blaming Christianity too). So, are you telling me that people who have belief systems are basically flawed and deserve to die?

How many people were on the streets in London demonstrating when Fox-hunting was banned, or when GWB came to town??? If there had been an accident then and a dozen people were killed then would they have been equally to blame?

And as to the examples of torture being used in GB... Quite simply put - effective torture is whatever gets you the information or result you want... OK, for you, having a dancing girl taunting you might be more reminiscent of a stag night than torture, but think about that type of torture as it might be applied to someone influenced by western culture... How would you feel if you were forced to have sex with your sister or mother?

----

Getting back to the initial question now...

Is the US government responsible for quashing this story? And if they did, despite the obvious reason of it looking bad for the US Government, should a government be allowed to influence the press if that influence actually saves lives in the long run (however misguided those lives may be).

No, I think we are saying a level of pragmatism and realism within those religions is probably required. If you can get the required sort of reaction in a torture situation by a) flushing a religious book down a toilet or b) dancing provocatively in front of someone then carrying out mass demonstrations where people are killed is not really the best way to stop it happening is it? Also, is it worth people dying just over a copy of a person religious basis. Has that one act destroyed Islam to the ground? No, it will not. Does Islam teach the phrase 'turn the other cheek' or does it teach mob rule wins?



Quite possibly - we may never know.



That's democracy in Gods-Chosen country and the country who can kick the ass of anyother country in the world.

And they will not have quashed the story to save a the lives of non-Americans. They will have done it to make sure America does not look bad.

"And they will not have quashed the story to save a the lives of non-Americans. They will have done it to make sure America does not look bad."

Absolutely, but if they ever did admit it then you can be sure they wouldn't give that as a reason.

----

Ok then, assuming an imperfect world where people _do_ have strong religious beliefs and _do_ react emotionally to the destruction of something symbolically important to their upbringing/teaching...

Are the actions of Newsweek in releasing this story justified?

And just so you know where I stand... my personal belief is that they were justified in releasing this story _if_ they had sufficient proof. If they didn't - then they should now all be shot or demoted to preparing entries for Wikipedia, however, if this is a case of the US government standing on a few toes to quash anti-american feelings, then shouldn't Newsweek be screaming that from the rooftops?

Which is better - the Government influencing the media - or the media influencing the Government ?

Whilst it may be nice to be in a country effectively managed by Private Eye, suppose the media in question was one of Mr Murdoch's many organs.

"Which is better - the Government influencing the media - or the media influencing the Government ?"

I am pretty sure it is neither one nor the other. There needs to be a degree that the "media" helps to hold the government to account. Otherwise a "pluralist" Liberal Democracy just couldn't function.

"Whilst it may be nice to be in a country effectively managed by Private Eye, suppose the media in question was one of Mr Murdoch's many organs."

I would be all for PE, all against Murdoch. I think the truth is the singly most important "govt" influencing media body is the Daily Hate Mail.

For a healthy democracy you need the media from all stripes to be able to influence and inform. At least for my