O'dell:

1) I agree that, a few years hence, we'll probably learn that Newsweek recanted at figurative gunpoint. I mean, the case for making such a claim is weak, but by that standard, you would have a "corrections" section that filled half of every news magazine. As far as whether or not this specific incident happened, who knows? Neither answer would shock me.

2) I don't know, man. I have a hard time understanding the degree of explosively violent outrage involved.

Kearns:

1) I agree we should have a higher standard for the behavior of a democracy's military than for terrorists. If soldiers did flush a Koran down the toilet, I do think they are scum, on par with the thugs running Abu Ghraib. That is an interesting question, the relative importance of *who* did an act vs. *what* the act was.

2) No, reasoning won't work with rioters; God knows how many of my own people died at the hands of Christian mobs who held infinitely less rational beliefs (e.g. poisoning wells, kidnapping babies and using their blood in matzoh).

Heck, Pakistan and Afghanistan have sub-50% literacy among men; they depend almost entirely on word-of-mouth for their "news". Whom I was referring to, with this question, is a man like Sullivan, who should know better than to say "maybe XYZ didn't happen, but who cares -- it might as well have!"

Bubba:

I don't think you should be killed for it, but that would be a disgusting thing to do.