BBC World has just lead its 9am headline with “More protests in Kabul over the inadvertent buning of the Koran by NATO troops”.
The word “inadvertent” has been interpolated since the 8am headlines. Who was responsible for its introduction?
It seems to me simply untrue that the Korans were burnt “inadvertently”. The BBC have just reported that they were being burnt in an “incineration pit”. That is not inadvertent. The US story is that the Korans were used to smuggle messages. If the books contained hidden messages, the Americans would have been analysing them, not burning them. They would certainly have been subjected to scrutiny, and it is therefore impossible that the Americans did not know they were Korans they were burning.
Inadvertent no. Inexplicably stupid yes.
“listened to a bit of Beeb World Sce last nite ”
.
You do know that they receive funding from the US State Department? Apparently it’s to combat “censorship of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China”, how that works is not explained.
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/20/bbc-world-service-us-funding
Sorry, but violently protesting because somebody burnt a book is misguided and intolerant. It’s not compatible with any type of value system that would allow people of differing opinions to live peacefully together.
Violence and intolerance should be condemned – whether it comes from NATO forces, Israel, Assad, Terry Jones, Islamists, the British police, whatever. Which perhaps leaves only a small number of people we can support…
Peace, man!
David H, you are right in principle, of course, but I doubt that this is really about book burning. There are Muslims on all sides in the complex conflict in Afghanistan, except for the US/NATO forces where no form of Islam plays any part in the power structure. Thus, the US burning of the Korans provides a point of agreement between groups that disagree on other matters.
Ingo I think they would have to have a major debate about it on question time, and Panorama,should I stay nice and quiet about this stuff,I am sure if Rupert Murdoch or the BBC found out about it and our wonderfull security services,they would say ,now look here this sort of thing must stop.
I see it as more of the same.
In Iraq Qurans were used as target practice, in Gountanamo they were used as toilet paper. And after each case came to light, the Americans stated it was some sort of mistake.
Sooner or later, people will start will realise these things aren’t mistakes but are policy.
David H
Would it not be more appropriate to remember the US/UK/NATO aggression as in the following;
violently invading a country because somebody allegedly plotted the phoney attacks on WTC is misguided and intolerant. It’s not compatible with any type of value system that would allow people of differing opinions to live peacefully together.
,
Lest we lose the sight of the woods for the trees.
This morning The Today Programme used the phrase ‘apparently inadvertently’, slightly cumbersome, but at least they’re hedging their bets. Though they didn’t say to whom this was apparent.
The word, ‘inadvertently’ seems to be a refuge of last resort for media scoundrels. I once wrote an article into which – as far as I recall, without my knowledge – that word was inserted. So, that piece under my name has that word in it forever and ever, Amen. It was originally published in The Times in 2005, but I find that one now has to pay to access archival material from The Times, so I’ve found the entire article here (btw, I have no idea what the website is or who runs it; now I’ve found it, I should probably point it out to them). The phrase in question is here:
.
“From the mid-1970s, inadvertently encouraged by the US and its Saudi and Pakistani client states, the concept of global jihad began to spread, crushing mystical and rational streams of Islam, establishing book chains, taking over mosques and severely destabilising Muslim society and culture.” Supposedly, ‘Me’.
.
Now, I did not write the word, “inadvertently”. It changes the whole meaning of the sentence and also the politcal stance of the author. There was nothing inadvertant about the USA et al arming, training and financing the Islamist paramilitaries in Afghanistan during the 1980s – why, Tom Hanks was even in a film about it! So, if they boast about it – why cannot we write it?
.
Btw, I think things have chnaged for the better since 2005 wrt Muslim bookshops. There are many more texts – a much broader range – widely available now. And there is a profound discourse ongoing within the communities.
.
The key phrase is here:
.
“Islamist terrorism was the logical outcome of 80 years of Western complicity, conflict and covert operations.” Me.
.
Thankfully, that stayed in.
.
http://www.islamicpluralism.org/481/waging-the-war-of-words