• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pentagon CONFIRMS Qu'ran "mishandling

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
That DAMNED Newsweek! how dare they print lies about flushing of a Qu'ran. When we only pissed on it.

U.S. Confirms Gitmo Soldier Kicked Quran

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for "a pattern of unacceptable behavior."

In other confirmed incidents, a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.
The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report ? later retracted ? that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet.

The story stirred worldwide controversy and the Bush administration blamed it for deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan.

Hood said in a written statement released Friday evening, along with the new details, that his investigation "revealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Quran dating back almost 2 1/2 years."

Hood said that of nine mishandling cases that were studied in detail by reviewing thousands of pages of written records, five were confirmed to have happened. He could not determine conclusively whether the four others took place.

In one of those four unconfirmed cases, a detainee in April 2003 complained to FBI and other interrogators that guards "constantly defile the Quran." The detainee alleged that in one instance a female military guard threw a Quran into a bag of wet towels to anger another detainee, and he also alleged that another guard said the Quran belonged in the toilet and that guards were ordered to do these things.

Hood said he found no other record of this detainee mentioning any Quran mishandling. The detainee has since been released.

In the most recent confirmed case, Hood said a detainee complained on March 25, 2005, of urine splashing on him and his Quran. An unidentified guard admitted at the time that "he was at fault," the Hood report said, although it did not say whether the act was deliberate. The guard's supervisor reprimanded him and assigned him to gate guard duty, where he had no contact with detainees for the remainder of his assignment at Guantanamo Bay.

As described in the Hood report, the guard had left his observation post and went outside to urinate. He urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the cell block. The incident was not further explained.

In another of the confirmed cases, a contract interrogator stepped on a detainee's Quran in July 2003 and then apologized. "The interrogator was later terminated for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership," the Hood report said.

Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Qurans. "These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran," Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for those alleged abuses.

In the most recent of those 15 cases, a detainee on Feb. 18, 2005, allegedly ripped up his Quran and handed it to a guard, stating that he had given up on being a Muslim. Several of the guards witnessed this, Hood reported.

Last week, Hood disclosed that he had confirmed five cases of mishandling of the Quran, but he refused to provide details. Allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay have led to anti-American passions in many Muslim nations, although Pentagon officials have insisted that the problems were relatively minor and that U.S. commanders have gone to great lengths to enable detainees to practice their religion in captivity.

Hood said last week that he found no credible evidence that a Quran was ever flushed down a toilet. He said a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hood's investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration.

Other prisoners who were returned to their home countries after serving time at Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects have alleged Quran desecration by U.S. guards, and some have said a Quran was placed in a toilet.

There are about 540 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Some have been there more than three years without being charged with a crime. Most were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 and were sent to Guantanamo Bay in hope of extracting useful intelligence about the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Both President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have denounced an Amnesty International report that called the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time."

The president told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday that the report by the human-rights group was "absurd."

On Wednesday, Rumsfeld called the characterization "reprehensible" and said the U.S. military had taken care to ensure that detainees were free to practice their religion. However, he also acknowledged that some detainees had been mistreated, even "grievously" at times.
 
Tbh i find it worse that he was urinated on, and someone should get slapped for that.
But i guess people are anal about different things.
 
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.

I still wonder why people get so pissed because Janet Jackson shows a damned nipple!
I mean, if i had an erection while watching it i would've lost it, but is that enough reason to run amok?
 
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.

I still wonder why people get so pissed because Janet Jackson shows a damned nipple!
I mean, if i had an erection while watching it i would've lost it, but is that enough reason to run amok?

No, that's why it's also a stupid issue. And I don't think mobs ran around murdering people and destroying property over seeing a nipple.
 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.

I still wonder why people get so pissed because Janet Jackson shows a damned nipple!
I mean, if i had an erection while watching it i would've lost it, but is that enough reason to run amok?

No, that's why it's also a stupid issue. And I don't think mobs ran around murdering people and destroying property over seeing a nipple.

It's a different country. And it somehow works if i call it a 1600's country. People react differently.
 
Originally posted by: Forsythe
It's a different country. And it somehow works if i call it a 1600's country. People react differently.

This whole arguement is a smokescreen so drop it.

Why should I care if some book was "mishandled"?
 
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.

I still wonder why people get so pissed because Janet Jackson shows a damned nipple!
I mean, if i had an erection while watching it i would've lost it, but is that enough reason to run amok?

No, that's why it's also a stupid issue. And I don't think mobs ran around murdering people and destroying property over seeing a nipple.

It's a different country. And it somehow works if i call it a 1600's country. People react differently.

That doesn't excuse the idiocy.
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Forsythe
It's a different country. And it somehow works if i call it a 1600's country. People react differently.

This whole arguement is a smokescreen so drop it.

Why should I care if some book was "mishandled"?

Because whether you think it's stupid or not, the book is very important to a lot of people, and dealing with them requires that we (to some extent) respect their beliefs. I don't find anything particularly important about the Christian faith, but if I want to deal with Christians, I probably shouldn't go around pissing on Bibles, right?
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.
Ah, ignorance of other cultures.

Xenophobic much?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Because whether you think it's stupid or not, the book is very important to a lot of people, and dealing with them requires that we (to some extent) respect their beliefs. I don't find anything particularly important about the Christian faith, but if I want to deal with Christians, I probably shouldn't go around pissing on Bibles, right?

A lot of the problems we face in this world is that the world is full of pansies now. I see no need to respect pages of paper be they important to muslims, christians or even scientoligists. It's paper and what is done to it means nothing, if someone wants to get their panties in a bunch about it that is their problem.
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Because whether you think it's stupid or not, the book is very important to a lot of people, and dealing with them requires that we (to some extent) respect their beliefs. I don't find anything particularly important about the Christian faith, but if I want to deal with Christians, I probably shouldn't go around pissing on Bibles, right?
A lot of the problems we face in this world is that the world is full of pansies now. I see no need to respect pages of paper be they important to muslims, christians or even scientoligists. It's paper and what is done to it means nothing, if someone wants to get their panties in a bunch about it that is their problem.
And people wonder why Americans are thought around the world as fat, lazy, and arrogant.


:roll:
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.
Ah, ignorance of other cultures.

Xenophobic much?

That's not really xenophobic at all. One should not necessarily respect or care about idiotic and insane beliefs at all times.
 
Jackasses.


Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.

Do you care about people trying to recreate 9/11? Because crap like this fans the flame of Muslim hatred. And if you don't care about people trying to plot EVEN MORE terrorists attacks, I really don't know what to tell you and you can consider yourself right that it doesn't matter if, in exchange, you stop posting about it.
 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.
Ah, ignorance of other cultures.

Xenophobic much?
That's not really xenophobic at all. One should not necessarily respect or care about idiotic and insane beliefs at all times.
Is that that "compassionate conservatism" we heard about during 2000?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: rahvin
I still want to know why I should care if some book was "mishandled". It's slices of dead trees, who cares.
Ah, ignorance of other cultures.

Xenophobic much?
That's not really xenophobic at all. One should not necessarily respect or care about idiotic and insane beliefs at all times.
Is that that "compassionate conservatism" we heard about during 2000?

I have no idea since I'm not a conservative.

Is the previous statement some sort of looney liberal crap?
 
Just wondering aloud.

IMO, we have NO right to belittle another culture, no matter how "backward" we may think they are. Are they not free to worship and believe as they like or must they conform to American standards?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Just wondering aloud.

IMO, we have NO right to belittle another culture, no matter how "backward" we may think they are. Are they not free to worship and believe as they like or must they conform to American standards?

People can be free to do whatever they want, but they are not free of criticism, ridicule, and whatever else from others.

For example, the practice included in my sig is quite deplorable. I think it would be foolish to not speak out against such barbaric acts.
 
Back
Top