Newsweek Debacle [Archive]

Goofball

05-16-2005, 18:22

Nice one.

Newsweek admits that they screwed up the story where they claimed US interregators have flushed copies of the Quaran at Gitmo.

Oopsies. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050516/ap_on_re_us/newsweek_quran)

Great reporting which so far has directly lead to more than a dozen deaths, and indirectly to countless more, and has inflamed the entire region, threatening to remove all progress that has been made diplomatically in recent years.

Of course no doubt 95% of the people who have seen their hatred of the US inflamed by this story will never see the retraction.

Not only should people be fired for this mistake, people should be prosecuted.

I think we all need to back up a minute here. The recent events in no way mean that the alleged Quran desecration didn't take place, only that we are less sure of it. First, let's look at the reason that Newsweek is back-pedalling:

Whitaker added that the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report Newsweek cited, and that it might have been in another document.

It is important to note that the source has not said that he never actually read in a report that the Quran was desecrated, only that it may have been in a different report than he originally thought.

This article also says:

Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry had sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.

Now, I agree that that certainly is not strong enough corroboration, and that Newsweek should have dug much deeper before printing what they did.

Having said that, I am inclined to believe that the Quran flushing actually did take place. Why do I believe this? Because I have already read dozens of accounts of abuse at Gitmo and Abu Gareib. I have seen pictures of detainees being forced into mock sexual acts with each other and being forced to wear panties on their heads.

When a system that has already been shown to allow (even condone) that type of treatment, then flushing a Quran down the crapper is not such a stretch for me to believe.

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2005, 20:08

LoL its the military's fault Newsweek put out an unsubstantiated report?

No, im afraid thats a lame attempt at passing the buck.

Newsweek has followed in the steps of CBS and put their political agenda over reality and now people are dead. That might work for politicians but not for a supposed objective news source.

This whole incident is disgusting. When did the media change from wanting to report the news objectively to feeling it was necessary to subvert the government in a time of war? Vietnam? I know this kind of crap wouldnt have happened during WW2.

It really says something about liberal bias, subjective news, opionated journalism or whatever you want to call it when an American news outlet gets an ubsubstantiated report that sheds negative light on the military and decides to print it anyway. They didnt check up on thier story because they wanted it to be true... just like Mr. Rather. Pathetic and subversive. :no:

Goofball

05-16-2005, 20:52

LoL its the military's fault Newsweek put out an unsubstantiated report?

Sorry, but where in my post did I say that?

Go set up your straw men somewhere else.

Redleg

05-16-2005, 21:31

Sorry, but where in my post did I say that?

Go set up your straw men somewhere else.

Probably from this statement of your's Goofball

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

When a news agency does slopply reporting in order to get a scoop ahead of the rest of the world's news media - it often leads to problems. Your comment here shows how well some will buy the position that its the past wrong doing of the subject of the story who is at fault - and not slopply journalism on the journalists part.

Frankly what is disrupting about your comment is that you want the United States Military to be fully responsible for its wrong doings (which I agree with) but are unwilling to hold the media fully responsible for its wrong doing.

Regardless if the allegation is correct or not - the way the story was done in its content was not correct - nor was proper and ethical journalism on the the part of Newsweek followed. However it seems you rather hold Newsweek to a different standard.

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2005, 21:31

Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

How is the US military's "public relations bed" at fault for a news story that is printed and cannot be substantiated? Its kind of hard to have good public relations when the media simply make things up about you.. ~;)

Your whole assertion that in fact the military is to blame for this debacle because of previous public relations issues is apologist.

Its no ones fault but Newsweek's if they print a story that cannot be proven or even substantiated and it causes problems.

My how our standards have changed havent they? Consider your opinion in comparison to your Iraq War stance.. You and President Bush seem to have the same thought process when it comes to believing what you want to believe. ~D

Goofball

05-16-2005, 21:58

LoL its the military's fault Newsweek put out an unsubstantiated report?Sorry, but where in my post did I say that?Probably from this statement of your's Goofball
Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

Both you and Panzer need to pay a little better attention to what people are actually saying Red.

I never said, or even implied that the U.S. military is responsible for the sloppy journalism of Newsweek. Nor am I excusing Newsweek. Apparently both of you missed this part of my first post, so here it is again:

Now, I agree that that certainly is not strong enough corroboration, and that Newsweek should have dug much deeper before printing what they did.

The point of my post is that the U.S. military has a very poor record of late when it comes to the treatment of prisoners, and because of that stories like this one, whether they are true or not end up having the effect of nuclear explosions instead of farts in a duststorm.

An analogy:

If careless passerby flicks a cigarette butt on your driveway and it bursts into flame and burns your house down because you spilled an entire can of gasoline when filling your lawnmower and didn't clean up the spill, then yes, the cigarette flicker is clearly at fault and should be held accountable for starting the fire. However, your life would have been a whole lot easier if you had just cleaned up the gas spill rather than letting it sit.

If the U.S. military didn't have such a poor track record when it came to the treatment of (prisoners (particularly muslim prisoners), then its metaphorical house wouldn't burn down every time some careless writer flicked the equivilant of a journalistic cigarette butt.

Don Corleone

05-16-2005, 22:06

I hear what you're saying Goofy, but I have to disagree. You are right that WE would probably be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if the US Army had acted like a bunch of Boy Scouts, and Newsweek had printed that article, the end result would have been much the same. I don't argue that stories like Abu Grahib (sp?) certainly do little to resist stories like this, but I argue the ability to resist them regardless of the conduct of the military.

Reason for my conjecture? The Egyptian street is STILL convinced that the CIA and Israel brought down EgyptAir flight 660. Through the Arabic world, the theory that Israel & the CIA were the ones who blew up the World Trade Center are abundant, and well received. They didn't need Abu Grahib (sp?) to jump to the acceptance of a deliberately planned information attack by Newsweek. My only question is who paid off Newsweek, and why?

Goofball

05-16-2005, 22:14

I hear what you're saying Goofy, but I have to disagree. You are right that WE would probably be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if the US Army had acted like a bunch of Boy Scouts, and Newsweek had printed that article, the end result would have been much the same. I don't argue that stories like Abu Grahib (sp?) certainly do little to resist stories like this, but I argue the ability to resist them regardless of the conduct of the military.

I'll concede that you have a partial point there Don. You are right, the true fanatical U.S. haters will always believe the worst about your soldiers no matter what the reality is. But in this case, there have been riots involving hundreds (thousands?) of average citizens, not just extremists. If there hadn't already been so much anger at real U.S. abuses, then the extremists would not have been able to stir up so much violence and hatred so fast. This Newsweek screw-up would not have been the straw that was able to break the camel's back.

Don Corleone

05-16-2005, 22:21

It's hard for me to know where the percentages of the 'Arab street' lie. I know that much like here, there's probably a wide breadth of opinion. I've always gotten the impression from our news that a large majority are actually anti-US, anti-West for that matter, but that there were large numbers of folks who weren't. Can't say how many people who used to just sit on the fence or even supported the US were driven to violence by this story that wouldn't have been if Abu Grahib hadn't happened. One point I'd like to make is that in the case of AG, it was an internal US Army investegation into itself that brought it all to light. It wasn't a Woodward & Bernstein moment.

Redleg

05-16-2005, 22:38

Both you and Panzer need to pay a little better attention to what people are actually saying Red.

Actually I read and quoted exactly what you stated there Goofball maybe its you who needs to be more clear and concise with what you are saying and what your statement means. Maybe its you who should read again what I stated before attempting to say I did not read something there. I could even get more defensive like you just did with this opening statement - but what the hell you should get the point by now.

I never said, or even implied that the U.S. military is responsible for the sloppy journalism of Newsweek. Nor am I excusing Newsweek. Apparently both of you missed this part of my first post, so here it is again:

What you fail to realize is that I am not discussing your intial paragraph but your last as it relates to the point that Panzer made.

The point of my post is that the U.S. military has a very poor record of late when it comes to the treatment of prisoners, and because of that stories like this one, whether they are true or not end up having the effect of nuclear explosions instead of farts in a duststorm.

Then you should of said that instead of what you did stated if that was your point. The initial paragraph says something totally different when its read.

If careless passerby flicks a cigarette butt on your driveway and it bursts into flame and burns your house down because you spilled an entire can of gasoline when filling your lawnmower and didn't clean up the spill, then yes, the cigarette flicker is clearly at fault and should be held accountable for starting the fire. However, your life would have been a whole lot easier if you had just cleaned up the gas spill rather than letting it sit.

doesn't apply to the point I was making about your initial comments.

If the U.S. military didn't have such a poor track record when it came to the treatment of (prisoners (particularly muslim prisoners), then its metaphorical house wouldn't burn down every time some careless writer flicked the equivilant of a journalistic cigarette butt.

And nor should it be blamed when the journalist does such a thing either. However it seems you are still attempting to point the finger at the United States Military for this journalists bad reporting. Its sloppy reporting on his/their part and they should be held accountable for it.

Proletariat

05-16-2005, 23:11

I love the game 'Let's try and explain to Goofball what he himself posted' but it looks like you guys already won.

This has been a particulary bad week for the press. With this and a bunch of headlines on Saturday claiming "American Ally fires on own people" which is about the unrest in Uzbekistan. Which of course has nothing to do with us. If the French had some civil unrest and people ended up getting hurt. Would the headlines read "American ally fires on own people"? I think not.

Embarassing doesn't begin to describe it. I think that anyone associated with this "story" should be fired and if possible sent to jail for negligent homicide.

With every one of these scandals, I hold a sliver of hope that we are one step closer to the media kicking themselves into performance of an accountable public service again.

You know, the anecdote in question is obviously patently ridiculous in a number of ways.

How do you flush a book down the toilet?

If you, say, go page by page, what kind of response is that supposed to induce?

"Talk!"
"No!"
*rip*
*flush*

"Talk!"
"No!"
*rip*
*flush*

"Talk!"
"No!"
*rip*
*flush*

I mean, would Gawain or Don or Redleg or Panzer crumble if pages of the Oxford New World Bible were in question here?

And here is the other sneaky question: Would they take to the streets shooting if they heard about it? I am sure that Newsweek looks very very stupid here mainly because larger forces just played them for a patsy. Nice.

Don Corleone

05-16-2005, 23:22

I probably would be offended, but I know I wouldn't riot over it. More to the point, I certainly wouldn't burn my church down....

From "The Arab News", a Saudi Arabian English language newspaper:
Insult my religion?!?! Fine, I'll burn down my church! (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=63736&d=14&m=5&y=2005)

The US weekly "Newsweek" is a highly reputable and responsible publication, rarely prone to making mistakes. So when it reports, as it has done, that copies of the Qur'an were desecrated at the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, people will believe the story. People in the Muslim world certainly do. The anger it has stirred up in Afghanistan has left a trail of death and destruction. Incensed at the blasphemy, Afghans have lashed out in fury in all directions. The fact that not only government and UN buildings were burned but even mosques shows the depths of their rage. The same level public anger has been reported from Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt and many other Muslim countries.

Proletariat

05-16-2005, 23:29

The US weekly “Newsweek” is a highly reputable and responsible publication, rarely prone to making mistakes.

What a bunch of idiots. I mean, really!

Newsweek has been reeling ever since their attempts to get Kerry elected failed. Hopefully, they'll be irrelevant by the time the 2008 race starts in earnest.

They're still thinking back to their glory days when they plastered the word "Wimp" on their Bush 41 cover.

I've seen no evidence that this is still a news magazine. Just a political version of the National Enquirer.

...

Goofball

05-16-2005, 23:31

Actually I read and quoted exactly what you stated there Goofball maybe its you who needs to be more clear and concise with what you are saying and what your statement means.

That's once...

I could even get more defensive like you just did

That's twice...

Then you should of said that instead of what you did stated if that was your point. The initial paragraph says something totally different when its read.

That's three times...

However it seems you are still attempting to point the finger at the United States Military for this journalists bad reporting.

And ladies and germs, we have a winner! Redleg has just "informed" me four times in one post that, notwithstanding what I actually said, I was really saying something different.

Well, I guess I can't argue with such a cunning tactic. You're right Red. I was saying it is the U.S. military's fault that Newsweek printed the story. Please accept my apologies on behalf of all of your brave men and women in uniform.

Oh, and please check your PM box Red. I have decided to save myself a lot of time in the future by sending you my login password. That way you can just post for me from here on in. After all, you know what I really mean to say better than I do.

Redleg

05-16-2005, 23:45

That's once...

That's twice...

That's three times...

And ladies and germs, we have a winner! Redleg has just "informed" me four times in one post that, notwithstanding what I actually said, I was really saying something different.

Well, I guess I can't argue with such a cunning tactic. You're right Red. I was saying it is the U.S. military's fault that Newsweek printed the story. Please accept my apologies on behalf of all of your brave men and women in uniform.

Oh, and please check your PM box Red. I have decided to save myself a lot of time in the future by sending you my login password. That way you can just post for me from here on in. After all, you know what I really mean to say better than I do.

Once again you get pissed when someone reads your words exactly the way they are written - and calls you on them. So instead of attempting to be flippant and snide with your comments - maybe you should of practice on being more direct in your comments.

However I don't need your password Goofball this way is actually more fun for me.

The Black Ship

05-17-2005, 00:12

How much blame should Newsweek be given for the deaths in Afghanistan directly related to it's story? Shouldn't they be held accountable for the deaths IF they were the result of bad journalism?

People died because of this.

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 00:17

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

Goofball, what did you mean by this that no one in this thread has understood yet?

Big_John

05-17-2005, 00:32

that no one in this thread has understood yet?don seemed capable of understanding it.

Don Corleone

05-17-2005, 00:35

That's "The Don", to you pal. Don't make me call Rocco and Sal over.

Steppe Merc

05-17-2005, 00:35

Well this is sad... damn bad journalists. Wonder if it was on purpose, was a mistake, or some journalist just made up a story... Did they give an official reason? Because sometimes journalists just make up shit... or it could be a conspiracy, which is certaintly possible.

LittleGrizzly

05-17-2005, 00:41

Goofball, what did you mean by this that no one in this thread has understood yet?

basically without abu gahrib and other reports from gauntanamo this report would have had a lot less credibility

Big_John

05-17-2005, 00:42

That's "The Don", to you pal. Don't make me call Rocco and Sal over.you mean roxanne and little sally?

hmm.. this wouldn't happen to be an offer which i am incapable of refusing, would it?

Goofball

05-17-2005, 00:43

Goofball, what did you mean by this that no one in this thread has understood yet?

Okay. I am not being intentionally sarcastic or insulting by asking this Prole, but what is so hard to understand about what I said?

Don seemed to understand exactly what I was talking about even though he disagreed, and his post responded to and rebutted what I was saying instead of trying to set up a ridiculous straw man argument that could easily be defeated. He was able to to that because (unlike some others) he doesn't just start seeing red and stop processing information as soon as there is even a hint that somebody might be finding fault with the U.S. military.

If you really still don't know what I was talking about, then re-read my post right before Don's first post in this thread, then read Don's post, then read my response to him.

Don Corleone

05-17-2005, 00:49

Woah woah woah. No shortchanging me, I can see red and stop being rational just as well as anybody... ~D All kidding aside, I think it was an honest misinterpretation. How about if we all agree

1) Goofball was NOT indicting the US military for this incident

2) Panzer & Redleg were NOT intentionally misunderstanding Goofball's post

AND MOVE ON. Or all of you are going to find out that 'Roxanne' and 'Sally' carry around a blowtorch and a monkey wrench for problems like this. Oh, and John, they want to have a word with you about their new nicknames.

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2005, 00:55

Well this afternoon they retracted the story.

Screwing up a story isnt what bothers me about this, its the conscious or subconscious thought process behind it.

How are we as a country supposed to be successful in the middle east with a media that, time and time again, chooses to print stories that are so anti-american?

Since when did it become our media's job to give our enemies fodder to use against us?

They need to understand that making up stories about Bush is one thing, but American and Middle Eastern lives are at stake now. They need to put aside their petty hatred of Bush and act in a more responsible manner.

In any event, these shenanigans go a long way to explain why FOXNews is wiping the floor with the other networks in the ratings..

Big_John

05-17-2005, 01:01

'Roxanne' and 'Sally' ... Oh, and John, they want to have a word with you about their new nicknames.don't you mean "little sally"? or how about "lil' sally-wally, stawberry sweetie-cake"? well, send them my way (http://www.wlra.us/hb/hbbigjn3.htm).

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 01:02

And here is the other sneaky question: Would they take to the streets shooting if they heard about it?Wanna play sneakier than thou? Let's give it a try, let's take the American flag fetishism as an example. Suppose some country a hundred times more powerful than the U.S. would occupy your country, hold American citizens in camps, and rip up, burn or flush American flags to make them defecate on it - wouldn't you guys protest? Bet you would.

I'm surprised at the hysterical reactions here, in this forum, not those in Afghanistan. It takes only very little imagination to understand that the abuse of their 'holy' book coming on top of a lot of other real or imagined humiliation sets off such protests. You guys know your country is making serious mistakes and supporting dictators in its war on terrorism, but you haven't the guts to face up to it. Instead, you complain that the entire world seems deaf and blind to your noble intentions, and when those noble intentions hit the fan in countries you occupy you whine that it's all to blame on one tiny newspaper clipping.

Eleswhere in this board Americans try to make the case that their country isn't bound to the treaties it signs, that they have every right to teach Intelligent Decline in biology class and that the world is flat as long Americans chose to believe that. Confusion and superstition reign supreme, Madam. Hm, haven't we seen it all before?
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/coffee-n-news.gif

Don Corleone

05-17-2005, 01:05

You're not surprised that they decided that the appropriate response to somebody defaming their holy book was to burn down their holy building? I sure was. I'd defend mine with my life.

Big_John

05-17-2005, 01:08

I'd defend mine with my life.really? that's weird. i mean, no offense, but it's justa building, right? isn't it kind of impulsive to give up your life for a building that can be built again?

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 01:18

You're not surprised that they decided that the appropriate response to somebody defaming their holy book was to burn down their holy building? I sure was. I'd defend mine with my life.Now we're getting somewhere. Some peoples in this world are just as attached to their holy book as you are to your holy building. That's why they are prepared to defend it with their lives. And of course these protesters feel that the Newsweek story, whether true or not, is part of a much wider pattern of contempt for their convictions and abuse of their co-religionists in American camps. The protests would have happened sooner or later.

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 01:21

really? that's weird. i mean, no offense, but it's justa building, right? isn't it kind of impulsive to give up your life for a building that can be built again?I think in standing up for the building he stands up for the principle. I'd subscribe to that if I were Christian. Some things are worth defending with your life, not because those things aren't expendable or couldn't be restored, but because the fight is indispensable. It's what makes you a human being.

barocca

05-17-2005, 01:25

dumb Q's

where did the photo's of abuse come from?

what bright spark in the inteligence services allowed said photo's?

what bright spark thought said photo's would be found amusing by family and friends?

more importantly
why did phsycological testing not identify said bright sparks both within the military and within intelligence services before they had a chnace to inflict humiliation?

soldiers and intelligence officers involved should have known better and protested being ordered to break the rules of war

America's seeming acceptance of any thug into military service is America's responsibility

compensation is due to those tortured and humiliated
(it should be an overly generous amount to appease - OVERLY GENEROUS, not a paltry sum)

Newsweek should be fined for defamation of the USA and made to pay recompense to those injured in riots and relatives of those killed.

Standard rates in Oz are $1k per day of lifetime lost - if someone is only 30 then they still have 50 years of life, that is roughly $18Mill per person killed due to rioting as result of story.
If someone is injured and unable to work for a week they get $7K.

Newsweek should be Forced to pay.
DO THAT and you will find News agencies being far more carefull of what they report.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 01:31

Wanna play sneakier than thou? Let's give it a try, let's take the American flag fetishism as an example. Suppose some country a hundred times more powerful than the U.S. would occupy your country, hold American citizens in camps, and rip up, burn or flush American flags to make them defecate on it - wouldn't you guys protest? Bet you would.

There is protest by other nations and then there is shoddy journalism. Where is the ethical accountablity for the journalists.

I'm surprised at the hysterical reactions here, in this forum, not those in Afghanistan. It takes only very little imagination to understand that the abuse of their 'holy' book coming on top of a lot of other real or imagined humiliation sets off such protests. You guys know your country is making serious mistakes and supporting dictators in its war on terrorism, but you haven't the guts to face up to it. Instead, you complain that the entire world seems deaf and blind to your noble intentions, and when those noble intentions hit the fan in countries you occupy you whine that it's all to blame on one tiny newspaper clipping.

Now who is being hysterical - just pointing out a fault I see in the way Goofball attempted to justify the shoddy journalism by pointing out the past behavior of the United States Military.

However I see that doesn't prevent some to go off in this type of tangent - ah the logic must just escape me.

Eleswhere in this board Americans try to make the case that their country isn't bound to the treaties it signs, that they have every right to teach Intelligent Decline in biology class and that the world is flat as long Americans chose to believe that. Confusion and superstition reign supreme, Madam. Hm, haven't we seen it all before?
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/coffee-n-news.gif

Yep straight from the hotbed of racism that is Europe. You want to pass such labels off about others - then you must expect and accept them about your neck of the woods.

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2005, 01:32

And of course these protesters feel that the Newsweek story, whether true or not, is part of a much wider pattern of contempt for their convictions and abuse of their co-religionists in American camps.

Whether true or not? I believe the story was retracted..

Its interesting how you worded that, a very skilled tactic. By mixing the lie in with other not so unproven lies, you have lessened its impact.

Its sort of like saying: Well I know the suspect didnt actually steal the TV, but I can still hope that he stole the car because that hasnt been categorically shot down as well.

The protests would have happened sooner or later.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that now do you?

Redleg

05-17-2005, 01:34

Okay. I am not being intentionally sarcastic or insulting by asking this Prole, but what is so hard to understand about what I said?

Don seemed to understand exactly what I was talking about even though he disagreed, and his post responded to and rebutted what I was saying instead of trying to set up a ridiculous straw man argument that could easily be defeated. He was able to to that because (unlike some others) he doesn't just start seeing red and stop processing information as soon as there is even a hint that somebody might be finding fault with the U.S. military.

If you really still don't know what I was talking about, then re-read my post right before Don's first post in this thread, then read Don's post, then read my response to him.

And once again I understood exactly what you said in the second posting - which is exactly what I stated. However once again the issue is the method and the words used in the initial. You are assume that I on purpose set up a straw man arguement - sorry there Goofball if I was going to on purpose set up a straw man arguement - I would of used a completely different tact and twisted your words to mean something completely different from what you stated. However in the first post your post stated exactly what I quoted - and was interpeted exactly the way I read it. If you don't want your words to be misunderstood - then maybe you should not post on an internet forum.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 01:36

Newsweek should be fined for defamation of the USA and made to pay recompense to those injured in riots and relatives of those killed.

Standard rates in Oz are $1k per day of lifetime lost - if someone is only 30 then they still have 50 years of life, that is roughly $18Mill per person killed due to rioting as result of story.
If someone is injured and unable to work for a week they get $7K.

Newsweek should be Forced to pay.
DO THAT and you will find News agencies being far more carefull of what they report.

Agree with you completely - Newsweek is responsible for shoddy journalism and should be held accountable.

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 01:50

You want to pass such labels off about others - then you must expect and accept them about your neck of the woods.Don't I always? But Afghanistan isn't my neck of the woods. Only a tiny part near Kabul is a Dutch neck of the woods, and Dutch troops don't hold prisoners against the law there. About a hundred Dutch commandos have recently joined in the search for jihadists in Afghanistan, but I haven't heard anything about them beating up chained prisoners, wiring them with electrodes and mock-executing them.

You won' want this to be the image of your country, then don't do it. People who know this sort of thing is going on will believe any bad newspaper story about the U.S. whether it's true or not.

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib1.jpg

Redleg

05-17-2005, 01:59

Don't I always? But Afghanistan isn't my neck of the woods. Only a tiny part near Kabul is a Dutch neck of the woods, and Dutch troops don't hold prisoners against the law there. About a hundred Dutch commandos have recently joined in the search for jihadists in Afghanistan, but I haven't heard anything about them beating up chained prisoners, wiring them with electrodes and mock-executing them. And as a journalist - should I point out the errors and unethical behavior of your peers in producing such an article and how it reflects on your profession. And then label every bad action of the journalistic community as a reflection of the whole. Because that is exactly what you and Goofball are attempting to implie with your statements.

You won' want this to be the image of your country, then don't do it. People who know this sort of thing is going on will believe any bad newspaper story about the U.S. whether it's true or not.

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib1.jpg

I have seen worse and have disagreed with it. However it does not excuse the bad journalism of the journalists who wrote and then published such an article. Neither to you see me attempting to justify torture or wrongdoing by military personal - I have always stated bring them under investigation and hold them responsible for their actions. Are you willing to stop attempting to justify these journalists bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior of the subject of the story? However it seems that you are not.

Futhermore I find it absolutely amazing given some of your statements in previous threads - That you are attempting to defend the actions of these journalists.

Tribesman

05-17-2005, 02:04

Redleg

05-17-2005, 02:13

You want to pass such labels off about others - then you must expect and accept them about your neck of the woods.
So very true .
So when Rumsfelt says "People have lost their lives , people are dead ,people need to be very careful about whast they say just as they need to be careful about what they do"
We can apply it to all the unsubstantiated fabricated bullshit he said about Iraq and all the lives that have been lost as a result of it .
How do you fell about paying 1k a day for all the lives lost because of the politicians lies ? Or should journalists have a higher level of accountability than politicians ?

Prove that it was done to fabricate a war for unethical reasons then I am all for holding Rumsfeld and others responsible for their actions.

Newsweek is responsible for shoddy journalism and should be held accountable.
The politicians are responsible for shoddy policy and should be held accountable

There is an accountablity process for them is there not - many are voted out of office. And some are even given prison sentences.

Where is the ethical accountablity for the journalists.
Where is the ethical accountability for the politicians ?
I wish there was one - then many politicians would indeed be driven out of office when their corruption has come to light.

However nice attempt to use my own arguement against me - however once again this is nothing other then an attempt to justify and excuse bad behavior of one group by pointing out the bad behavior of another group. Jump on the band wagon of bashing the United States or in your case every politician verus arguing that these journalists should be held accountable for their actions.

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 02:18

Are you willing to stop attempting to justify these journalists bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior of the subject of the story? However it seems that you are not.I'm not adressing Newsweek's ethics at all. I would have published the same story based on the same sources if I were them. The behaviour of American prison guards has been abominable in various cases, and they have been encouraged and supported by their government until the worldwide public outcry over Abu Ghraib. Newsweek is caving in under political pressure now, that's all. It's wartime censorship, and it shows once again that your country is at war and feels at war, in spite of declarations to the contrary. And like I said, we've seen all this before during the Vietnam war, including episodes where the press was blamed for losing battles. A story more or less won't change the image of your country that these people have.

Tribesman

05-17-2005, 02:26

Don Corleone

05-17-2005, 02:34

See, it's not just a building. To me, it's not just a good story that has me coming back every week. I BELIEVE in God, and his presence in the tabernacle. I wouldn't just let somebody show up and desecrate the place or burn it down. How would I explain that?

I dont' take offense to you calling it weird, because if you don't believe in the physical manifestation of God in the Eucharist, and most Protestants (and no atheists) don't, then you couldn't possibly understand.

Navaros

05-17-2005, 02:40

i am totally convinced that the Koran was indeed defiled. Newsweek probably just had to make a conspiracy about it being a false story in order to calm down the public relations nightmare this has caused. defiling the Koran is one of the worst crimes imaginable in Islam

why would any reasonable person think that this did not happen? it's already been proven that the USA has tortured and raped prisoners in Abu Gharib...defiling the Koran is just "small potatoes" compared to that.

let's use some common sense eh. the Koran defiling happened.

Big_John

05-17-2005, 03:25

Papewaio

05-17-2005, 03:45

The journalist and his editor should be stood down and investigated by Newsweek to see if what they did was on purpose or a case of very poor quality work.

If Newsweek does not transparently do something and be seen to do something in a short time frame then one has to ask if this was directed from the top. Anyone who was involved in creating this situation, specifically planning it and making the journalist do so (by inducements and/or threats) should have the book thrown at them. It would of course be best if an independent organisation investigated them that did not report to the board of Newsweek.

Don Corleone

05-17-2005, 03:50

Well, in truth, I think it was poor judgement by the editorial staff. It was Micheal Isikoff and John Barry, on the "Periscope" page, which unless I'm mistaken, is a bunch of "one-liners" they haven't had time to do full stories on at press time. The fact that they refuse to discipline these two makes it clear, in my mind, they still recognize no cuplability on their part. They essentially said "Oops, my bad". Hardly an honorable position to take, and one that will make salvaging their journalistic crediblity here in the West all the harder. And apparently, their friends in the East are only too willing to take them at face value.

Not for nothing, I'd be lying if I said Navaros was full of bull. I like to think he is, but I have to admit, I've had some of the same suspicions myself. Not the #1, #2 or #3 theory in my mind at the moment, but it is possible.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 04:06

I'm not adressing Newsweek's ethics at all. I would have published the same story based on the same sources if I were them. The behaviour of American prison guards has been abominable in various cases, and they have been encouraged and supported by their government until the worldwide public outcry over Abu Ghraib. Newsweek is caving in under political pressure now, that's all. It's wartime censorship, and it shows once again that your country is at war and feels at war, in spite of declarations to the contrary. And like I said, we've seen all this before during the Vietnam war, including episodes where the press was blamed for losing battles. A story more or less won't change the image of your country that these people have.

So you support sloppy journalism to sell papers and to make political points? Is that it.

That doesn't speak well for the journalist and media profession as a whole.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 04:07

or in your case every politician So glad you noticed ~:cheers:

Its just that I cannot believe the sheer hypocracy of the politicians statements concerning this article , they have all been at it today , I just singled out Rummys as it was the most striking piece of crap from a wide selection of rubbish .

Yep the politicans are full of hypocracy - but so are most of us here in this forum.

However I agree with your point concern Rumsfield - however once again pointing out others bad behavior to justify another's bad behavior is a weak arguement.

Don Corleone

05-17-2005, 04:09

Actually, Adrian, I have to agree with Redleg on this. You would publish a story based on the unclear, unverified testimony of a single witness who then recanted ever having seen it a military report? And you would have done so proudly and unapologetically? I thought you were a better journalist then that. How is Newsweek any better than the town gossip in this case?

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2005, 04:48

I love how the liberals (for the most part) whine and bemoan about President Bush not getting all the facts, and then defend this. It just shows liberals (for the most part) dont mind a little hypocrisy as long as they can take a shot, or defend a shot taken against our president.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 05:49

i am totally convinced that the Koran was indeed defiled.

Indeed it was. I see no one here has mentioned the true story. It seems one of the prisoners ripped some pages out of a Koran , provided I might add by the US gobernment and used them to stuff his toilet so as to overfllow it. Its an old prison trick. It was a Muslim who desicrated this 'holy book' But lets remember BP assures us not to worry about Irans nukes because the holy book say IRAN CANT HAVE NUKES right there on page 175.

Papewaio

05-17-2005, 05:53

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 06:45

Newsweek and the rioters
Dennis Prager (archive)

May 17, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

Newsweek magazine published a scoop last week.

Based on an unnamed source, Newsweek informed the world that American interrogators of suspected Islamic terrorists at Guantanamo Bay had flushed pages of the Koran down a toilet.

If this were true, the interrogators would be both morally wrong and stupid. The words of the Koran and the pages on which they are written are considered intrinsically holy to Muslims.

As it happens, it was not true. Like Dan Rather and CBS News, Newsweek put politics and craving a scoop ahead of truth, not to mention ahead of America's security.

As I said on my radio show days before Newsweek revealed that its report was baseless, even if the report were true, the magazine was highly irresponsible when it published the report. It could have only one effect: inflaming the wrath of hundreds of millions of Muslims against America.

If an American interrogator of Japanese prisoners desecrated the most sacred Japanese symbols during World War II, it is inconceivable that any American media would have published this information. While American news media were just as interested in scoops in 1944 as they are now, they also had a belief that when America was at war, publishing information injurious to America and especially to its troops was unthinkable.

Such a value is not only not honored by today's news media, the opposite is more likely the case. The mainstream media oppose the war in Iraq and loathe the Bush administration. Whatever weakens the war effort and embarrasses the president raises a news source's prestige among its domestic, and especially foreign, peers.

Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America. As a typical member of the American news media, Newsweek's primary loyalties are to profits and to its political/social agenda. We are very fortunate that in America, at least, we now have talk radio and the Internet; the mainstream news media are no longer Americans' only sources of news. Europe and the rest of the world still rely almost exclusively on news media for their understanding of the world, which is a major reason for their anti-Americanism.

And now a word about the rioters. They have desecrated their religion and their holy text far more than the alleged flushers of Koranic pages.

Did any Buddhists riot and murder when the Taliban Muslims blew up the irreplaceable giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?

Did any Christians riot and murder when an "artist" produced "Piss Christ" -- a crucifix immersed in a jar of the "artist's" urine? When all Christian services and even the wearing of a cross were banned in Saudi Arabia? When Christians are murdered while at prayer in churches by Muslims in Pakistan?

Have any Jews rioted in all the years since it was revealed that Jordanian Muslims used Jewish tombstones in Old Jerusalem as latrines? Or after Palestinians destroyed Joseph's Tomb in 2000 and set fire to the rebuilt tomb in 2003?

It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Koran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Koran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

Nevertheless, one will have to search extensively for any editorials condemning these primitives in the Western press, let alone in the Muslim press. This is because moral expectations of Muslims are lower than those of other religious groups. Behavior that would be held in contempt if engaged in by Christians or Jews is not only not condemned, it is frequently "understood" when done by Muslims.

That, not phony reports about an American desecrating Koranic pages, should really upset Muslims. It won't. Just as the CBS and Newsweek debacles won't upset the American news media.

The lowest of the Muslim world and the elite of the Western world: Anti-Americanism makes strange bedfellows.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

PS How about a few years ago when Palestinian Muslims used the Church of the Nativity as a fort. Any chritains riot?

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2005, 06:53

Do I count as a liberal?

Of course, but youre the reason i put "for the most part" in there. ~;)

Ser Clegane

05-17-2005, 08:06

Of course no doubt 95% of the people who have seen their hatred of the US inflamed by this story will never see the retraction.

This is usually the case - but this time it seems that the whole thing is getting quite some airtime - it even was mentioned in the major TV news here in Germany which surprised me a bit.

Papewaio

05-17-2005, 08:08

Of course, but youre the reason i put "for the most part" in there. ~;)

Ok second question (I want to get my facts straight) am I in the "for the most part" or outside it with regards to this thread? :dizzy2:

Beginning to sound like yes minister.

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 09:57

It was a Muslim who desicrated this 'holy book'.Yeah yeah. I think you, Redleg, Don Corleone and some others have little idea how the press works, or should work. A real paper doesn't publish government communiques, it goes out and gets the news despite government interference. It's an area of conflicting interests, where the government will say that everything it does is smart and truthful and in the national interest and any criticism is invalid. And if it is seriously criticised in the press nonetheless, the gloves come off. That's what happened here.

There is ample proof that American interrogators intentionally desecrated the Quran. The innocent Brits who were released from Guantanamo last summer said that guards kicked the Quran and threw it in the toilet. An innocent Kuwaiti ex-detainee said routine desecration of the Quran once led to a hunger-strike among the inmates that was ended only after the camp commander apologised for it over the loud-speaker system. That story was later corroborated by a former American translator in Guantanamo. Need I go on?

Amid all of this, Newsweek gets word from a 'long-time reliable witness' that the desecration practice will be included in a forthcoming Pentagon report. The reporters show the story to a Pentagon official who doesn't deny it, and they go with the story. I would do the same if I had a long-time reliable witness who corroborates a story that's been out there already thanks to other sources.

The only reason the story was retracted is because said witness 'went back' on his statements. Retroactively. After the fact. Under pressure...

And to round off the case, General Myers last week said that according to the theatre commander in Afghanistan the riots weren't triggered by the Newsweek story so much as by the fall-out of the local reconciliation process. If anything, the story of Quran desecration lit a fuse that was there all along. But since this looks like an ideal occasion for right-wing bloggist America to kick the press for publishing all sorts of unwelcome truths like the Abu Ghraib pictures, such facts are conveniently passed over.

Sorry guys, you haven't convinced me.

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 12:09

Wanna play sneakier than thou? Let's give it a try, let's take the American flag fetishism as an example. Suppose some country a hundred times more powerful than the U.S. would occupy your country, hold American citizens in camps, and rip up, burn or flush American flags to make them defecate on it - wouldn't you guys protest? Bet you would.

Uhm, I honestly doubt I would bother. Let alone go around marauding. Even if I was a fetishist.

Instead, you complain that the entire world seems deaf and blind to your noble intentions, and when those noble intentions hit the fan in countries you occupy you whine that it's all to blame on one tiny newspaper clipping.

Right, that's what I've been saying. America is just peachey and no one else gets it.

:dizzy2:

Eleswhere in this board Americans try to make the case that their country isn't bound to the treaties it signs, that they have every right to teach Intelligent Decline in biology class and that the world is flat as long Americans chose to believe that. Confusion and superstition reign supreme, Madam. Hm, haven't we seen it all before?
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/coffee-n-news.gif

What common ground do these things have? I don't even understand what's relevant here. Were you just particularly angry with America when you wrote this?

In what way do 'confusion and superstition' reign supreme? We all go running around here screaming about ID and international treaties?

I would have published the same story based on the same sources if I were them.

All media outlets need to understand that just because the administration doesn't deny something doesn't mean they are tacitly approving it.

That used to be the way it worked - not any more. Ignore the change at your own risk.

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 12:14

Anyhow..

I don't buy Newsweek's admission of error. They may have just screwed up on this one and the admission may be genuine, but it's also very convenient.

The situation was getting out of hand in many places around the world, Americans were put to risk and I can't preclude that Newsweek's editors were pursuaded to renege on the most controversial part of the story.

Newsweek's spokesman who I saw on TV seemed too comfortable for a crisis of this magnitude for the magazine.

Although, I can't think that their non-denial was part of a secret plan to destroy Newsweek's credibility.

Let's be fair to both sides here. Stuff like this happens -and happens rarely- because successive avoidable or even silly mistakes pile up on each other. The end result looks improbably because it is improbable, and because the improbable happens every once in awhile.

Also, malice is a very difficult thing to exercise with restraint. If the military or the Bush Administration was plotting to undermine the credibilty of news organizations, or if news organizations were plotting to undermine the Bush Administration or the military, they wouldn't be so selective about it. It would be more of an all-out assault; these are all big organizations where stuff tends to happen by inertia rather than by design. And if it is an all-out assault that succeeds this rarely, then the folks on both sides are far more inept than average.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 12:21

Yeah yeah. I think you, Redleg, Don Corleone and some others have little idea how the press works, or should work. A real paper doesn't publish government communiques, it goes out and gets the news despite government interference. It's an area of conflicting interests, where the government will say that everything it does is smart and truthful and in the national interest and any criticism is invalid. And if it is seriously criticised in the press nonetheless, the gloves come off. That's what happened here.

There you go assuming once again - my grandmother was a journalist. A journalist has the ethical obligation to insure what they are reporting is accurate in detail and accurate in facts. A professional journalist has a code of ethics that they are suppose to follow which obligates them to confirm the story from multilple sources before going to print. Are you attempting to state that the newsweek journalists followed this ethical code in their report? You have alreadly publicaly claimed that you would of done the same thing - if the evidence is there and can be verified then great report the truth - but if its not then a journalist has the ethical obligation to not report it until they can verify the story as factual.

There is ample proof that American interrogators intentionally desecrated the Quran. The innocent Brits who were released from Guantanamo last summer said that guards kicked the Quran and threw it in the toilet. An innocent Kuwaiti ex-detainee said routine desecration of the Quran once led to a hunger-strike among the inmates that was ended only after the camp commander apologised for it over the loud-speaker system. That story was later corroborated by a former American translator in Guantanamo. Need I go on?

Those are not the incidents that were reported in the Newsweek article - and you probably know it. Once again justifing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior is a weak arguement. That there is ample "proof" of the intentional desecrated in other instances was not the point of this story - this story mentioned a spefic instance that now has been shown to not be true in its initial blowback from this report.

Edit: doing what you advocate in this paragraph would actually be an editorial and would be perfectly acceptable - but its not reporting the news is it?

Amid all of this, Newsweek gets word from a 'long-time reliable witness' that the desecration practice will be included in a forthcoming Pentagon report. The reporters show the story to a Pentagon official who doesn't deny it, and they go with the story. I would do the same if I had a long-time reliable witness who corroborates a story that's been out there already thanks to other sources.

Try reading what is being reported now - there seems to be some confusion over this little tibit of information. Once again where is the ethical professionalism of the two journalists - and may I say it seems yours also given your statements.

The only reason the story was retracted is because said witness 'went back' on his statements. Retroactively. After the fact. Under pressure...

Seems to be more then just that - given the recent statements from Newsweek itself.

And to round off the case, General Myers last week said that according to the theatre commander in Afghanistan the riots weren't triggered by the Newsweek story so much as by the fall-out of the local reconciliation process. If anything, the story of Quran desecration lit a fuse that was there all along. But since this looks like an ideal occasion for right-wing bloggist America to kick the press for publishing all sorts of unwelcome truths like the Abu Ghraib pictures, such facts are conveniently passed over.

And the story that lit the fuze is responsible for the act. That the trouble was already developing does not excuse the effects the story had in lighting the fuze and setting off the explosion.

Sorry guys, you haven't convinced me.

Don't really care if your convinced - the story and your responses to it - show how far down ethical journalism has fallen in reporting the facts.

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 13:05

Are you attempting to state that the newsweek journalists followed this ethical code in their report?Try reading what I wrote above. You're on the mark, Redleg. Only with hindsight, knowing that their key source would cave in under pressure, they should have held that story and worked it again. And I'll bet this story is going to come back to haunt some people.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 13:47

Try reading what I wrote above. You're on the mark, Redleg. Only with hindsight, knowing that their key source would cave in under pressure, they should have held that story and worked it again. And I'll bet this story is going to come back to haunt some people.

You might want to try reading what Newsweek has had to say about their little article. Its not only a hindsight issue - but one of a lapse in professional ethics and proper verification of facts before publishing a story.

For instance where did they verify the one source's information.

Mark Whitaker, editor of Newsweek, said in an interview that the magazine was retracting the part of the article saying sources told Newsweek that a coming military report would say interrogators had flushed a holy book down the toilet to unnerve detainees. As it turned out, Newsweek now says, there was one source. And Mr. Whitaker said that because that source had "backed away" from his original account, the magazine could "no longer stand by" it.

one source does not equate to sources now does it?

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 14:25

This is usually the case - but this time it seems that the whole thing is getting quite some airtime - it even was mentioned in the major TV news here in Germany which surprised me a bit.

And now they don't even believe it. Sheesh.

Goofball

05-17-2005, 17:11

Now who is being hysterical - just pointing out a fault I see in the way Goofball attempted to justify the shoddy journalism by pointing out the past behavior of the United States Military.

Here we go again.

From my first post:

Now, I agree that that certainly is not strong enough corroboration, and that Newsweek should have dug much deeper before printing what they did.

Please tell me how that is trying to justify Newsweek's shoddy journalism?

Also from my first post:

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

Neither is that an attempt to justify what Newsweek printed.

But since you have had such a hard time understanding it, simple and short though it is, I have written the following précis that should be a little easier for you to get your head around:

U.S. military abusing muslim prisoners before = anger erupting quickly whenever any abuse stories emerge, whether they are true or not

You have used the straw man argument (Goofball is defending Newsweek) this entire thread, because you can't face up to the simple truth: because of past shameful, systemic abuse of muslim prisoners, average people the world over are now ready to believe the worst about them rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 17:22

You have used the straw man argument (Goofball is defending Newsweek) this entire thread...

No, he didn't.

because you can't face up to the simple truth: because of past shameful, systemic abuse of muslim prisoners...

sys·tem·ic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=systemic)

1. Of or relating to systems or a system.

Prove it.

Ser Clegane

05-17-2005, 17:25

And now they don't even believe it. Sheesh.

I believe that I do not quite understand what you are trying to tell me (seriously ... not trying to mock you...).

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 17:28

Well, they're saying the retraction is a White House cover-up.

Goofball

05-17-2005, 17:30

sys·tem·ic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=systemic)

1. Of or relating to systems or a system.

Prove it.

Abu Gareib speaks for itself.

No, he didn't.

straw man
n.

A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.
Prove it.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 17:31

Abu Gareib speaks for itself.

Not to prove your point it doesnt.

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 17:33

Bad journalism is bad journalism.

Any journalistic enterprise that can get played by two different antagonists over the same issue (first by Islamist radicals who seek destabilization, second by the White House) is not really serious. (Still shocked Adrian fully backs them on this.)

From where I stand, I don't know whether the formula for anonymous sources need to be tweaked or not. But I do believe that editorship in journalism today is embarassingly sloppy.

From CBS News to the NYT to Newsweek, the energy that has driven journalism has been a bottom line that promoted controversy toward more notoriety and sales. That energy has ridden on the coattails of public trust, and after a while the free ride must end.

It does not end with bias, which is where the debators usually think it does. Bias is okay, except in the absence of integrity and accountability. I find very little cross checking on the part of writers. I find that much of the press amounts to gossip and salacious 'inside sources.' It is so obvious that the mainstream wants what Drudge has had -- if Drudge had the item about the Koran, would anyone have really noticed?

No, because Drudge hasn't ever really sold itself as a source edited for content. That is part of its shtick. But the mainstream guys? People are supposed to believe what is in these newscasts and publications.

The editors are in effect serving two masters. The more the mainstream tries to add edge to attract a dwindling audience, the more they get away from the people who tuned out to begin with, and the more open it leaves itself to attacks on its pretense of integrity. It is a sad stupid joke, and Newsweek is sitting atop the pinnacle right now because they couldn't even figure out how they wanted to tell the story of the Koran being flushed down the toilet. Nobody paid attention to ascribing any meaning to this story, and left it to politically motivated other entities to do it for them. Journalism in general has been trying to foist off responsibility for its content, and I am glad to see people and organizations screwed for it.

As for the ensuing murders, well. What can I say? It's infreakingsane.

There's more outrage in the Muslim world over these (which turned out to be false) allegations regarding the Koran then there was over Arabs butchering and oppressing Arabs for the decades.

I respect people of Faith, Muslims included. I have a hard time working up much concern for morons.

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 17:34

Abu Gareib speaks for itself.

Systemic? Please see above definition.

Goofball

05-17-2005, 17:35

Not to prove your point it doesnt.

You're right. Lynndie England (clearly an evil genius cleverly hiding her mental prowess) was the mastermind who engineered all of the prisoner abuse behind the backs of all of the military authorities.

~;)

Ser Clegane

05-17-2005, 17:37

Well, they're saying the retraction is a White House cover-up.

That's certainly not what they were saying in the news I was watching here this morning (and it would be quite inappropriate to offer such an interpretation on the news)

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 17:37

No shes just an idiot.

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 17:40

That's certainly not what they were saying in the news I was watching here this morning (and it would be quite inappropriate to offer such an interpretation on the news)

Really? I don't have a link, but I was certain this is what the NPR/BBC news was saying. That there was a feeling amongst the protestors that the retraction was brought about by White House pressure. Odd that we both understood/were presented with such differing reports.

(Not trying to be rude whatsoever, this is exactly how I remember the news on the drive to work today.)

Redleg

05-17-2005, 17:43

Here we go again.

From my first post:

Please tell me how that is trying to justify Newsweek's shoddy journalism?

Also from my first post:

Go to this sentence Goofball

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

Notice what I highlighted in bold just for your simple mind to understand.

That statement states that its the military's fault that newsweek chose to publish such an article and for it to be believed. Where is holding the journalist resposible for reporting the truth in your statement here. Here you are justifing their shoddy reporting by blaming the subject past behavior for the reason the story was published.

Neither is that an attempt to justify what Newsweek printed.

No but your are excusing and accepting it based upon bad behavior of the past. ANd in your statements instead of focusing on the bad behavior of the journalist - you are using a straw man arguement yourself in defending the journalists and those who believed the article on its face value.

But since you have had such a hard time understanding it, simple and short though it is, I have written the following précis that should be a little easier for you to get your head around:

Want to go the condesending approach now do we? I to can play that game with you if you wish.

U.S. military abusing muslim prisoners before = anger erupting quickly whenever any abuse stories emerge, whether they are true or not

again with the justifing bad behavior by point out previous bad behavior of a group that happen to be the subject of the story - talk about strawman arguements.

You have used the straw man argument (Goofball is defending Newsweek) this entire thread, because you can't face up to the simple truth: because of past shameful, systemic abuse of muslim prisoners, average people the world over are now ready to believe the worst about them rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.

And it seems you have not understood my point at all - so should I take the same condesending approach that you have?

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 17:53

Really? I don't have a link, but I was certain this is what the NPR/BBC news was saying. That there was a feeling amongst the protestors that the retraction was brought about by White House pressure. Odd that we both understood/were presented with such differing reports.

Did you ever expect them to believe it? This is just another reason this is such a fiasco. I believe in journalism you used to be required to have at least 2 other sources back up your original and that one should be prepared to go on the record. It seems you can print anything you hear nowdays from anyone.

S I was saying before but everyone seemed to ignore here is what the report was really based on.

UPDATE at 5/13/05 10:23:53 am:

No evidence to back reports of Quran’s desecration: US military. (Hat tip: Red Hot Cuppa Politics.)

Washington: The top US military officer, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that no evidence has been found yet to back allegations that a Quran was put down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba to intimidate Muslim prisoners.

Myers told reporters yesterday that in an unconfirmed incident, a Guantanamo prisoner flushed pages from a Quran down a toilet in an effort to clog it. He said Army General Bantz J Craddock, head of US Southern Command, “has been in Guantanamo for the last couple of days digging into this issue to see if there was a time when the Koran was not respected.

”They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and they cannot confirm yet that there was ever the case of the toilet incident,“ the General said. ”He did note a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Quran and putting them in a toilet to stop it up as a protest. But not where the US did it."

Ser Clegane

05-17-2005, 17:55

Goofball

05-17-2005, 18:01

Go to this sentence Goofball

Quite frankly, the U.S. military's overblown indignation about how they have been so hard done by by this Newsweek article is a joke. If they had had their house in better order, then the world would not be so inclined to accept articles like this at face value. Unfortunately, they have made their own public relations bed, and are now being forced to lie in it.

Notice what I highlighted in bold just for your simple mind to understand.

That statement states that its the military's fault that newsweek chose to publish such an article and for it to be believed.

No it doesn't. Please allow me to suggest that you engage in a course of study through either "Hooked on Phonics" or "The Sylvan Learning Program." Both of those study programs greatly enhance reading comprehension, I am told. I have provided links for your convenience:

http://www.hop.com/

http://www.educate.com/creativeAds/2002fall.cfm?cmpgn=g&PC=NWGAD-GEN-0103&CFID=15286372&CFTOKEN=50835026

Ser Clegane

05-17-2005, 18:12

:stop:

Not wanting to spoil a good party here - but I think the discussion about what Goofball wrote and what he didn't is getting a bit into nit-picking right now ... and as it is also slowly turning a bit snappish I would appreciate if this side-discussion ended before we have a bar brawl at hands.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 18:15

Yeah it looks as though were about to have a debacle of our own here. My post has been totaly swallowed up and ignored by this little brawl.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 18:52

No it doesn't. Please allow me to suggest that you engage in a course of study through either "Hooked on Phonics" or "The Sylvan Learning Program." Both of those study programs greatly enhance reading comprehension, I am told. I have provided links for your convenience:

http://www.hop.com/

http://www.educate.com/creativeAds/2002fall.cfm?cmpgn=g&PC=NWGAD-GEN-0103&CFID=15286372&CFTOKEN=50835026

Ah look where you have gone with this - should I refer you to some professional mental help for your inablity to discuss an issue or a difference of opinion. Looks like someone needs to grow up a little.

Whats wrong Goofball you like to dish it out - but not recieve criticism in return. Typical logic of the far left and anti-American crowd that you seem to worship.

By the way Ser Clegane- its to late especially with the last little bit of insult that Goofball decide to level toward me. Edit: by the way I will edit this comment out when I see Goofball do the same.

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 19:11

one source does not equate to sources now does it?Two sources do. You forgot the Pentagon official to whom they showed the story, and who didn't deny the part about the forthcoming report.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 19:19

Two sources do. You forgot the Pentagon official to whom they showed the story, and who didn't deny the part about the forthcoming report.

Edit to add: Oh yes the unnamed pentagon official - when they name him so that the story can be verified then I will concide your point - however given how the rest of the article has been protrayed by Newsweek itself - I can only conclude the following:

From what the news report states is that this Pentagon Offical did not deny or ackownledge that he was given any part of several stories that were supposely given to him. Sometimes silence is consent - sometimes silence means that the individual did not read the article prior to it going to print. The reporter still has the obligation to insure is story is factual before going to print. If the reporter does not have solid confirmation of his facts from at least two sources - he must delay printing the story. You claim this is all Hindsight because the main source latter denied his own allegation. What is being reported by Newsweek - is frankly slopply journalism on the part of the author and editor of the article.

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 19:22

From what the news report states is that this Pentagon Offical did not deny or ackownledge (..)Yeah right, a Pentagon official who denies any knowledge after his superiors make a huge stink about his involvement is really convincing.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 19:28

Yeah right, a Pentagon official who denies any knowledge after his superiors make a huge stink about his involvement is really convincing.

Just as convincing as the Newsweek article and retraction of the same article. And every statement coming out of Newsweek about their slopply journalism in this matter.

Lets see when a news agency admitts that they did not follow the procedures that they themselves set-up, its the American government's pressure that made them issue this retraction and apology. And the story is still legite and correct in your opinion? Is that what you are trying to state?

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2005, 20:52

There is ample proof that American interrogators intentionally desecrated the Quran. The innocent Brits who were released from Guantanamo last summer said that guards kicked the Quran and threw it in the toilet. An innocent Kuwaiti ex-detainee said routine desecration of the Quran once led to a hunger-strike among the inmates that was ended only after the camp commander apologised for it over the loud-speaker system. That story was later corroborated by a former American translator in Guantanamo. Need I go on?

LoL - do you really think any of that is proof?

You offer "proof" from people who were detainees? What a joke!

This is why Goofball got himself into such an indefensible position. You leftists eat up all the propaganda surrounding guantanamo and now you actually expect clear thinking people to believe it. :dizzy2:

Steppe Merc

05-17-2005, 22:00

So just because someone is arrested, they are automatically not to be believed?

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 22:01

So just because someone is arrested, they are automatically not to be believed?

Are they automaticly telling the truth?

Goofball

05-17-2005, 22:09

You offer "proof" from people who were detainees? What a joke!

This is why Goofball got himself into such an indefensible position. You leftists eat up all the propaganda surrounding guantanamo and now you actually expect clear thinking people to believe it. :dizzy2:

I don't know what indefensible position you are talking about. My position all along has been that given the U.S. military's proven record of mistreating prisoners, people are willing to believe the worst about them whether it's true or not. They have lost the benefit of the doubt. It's a reverse "boy who cried wolf" situation. They have been crying innocence and been proven to be liars for so long, that now that there is a situation where they might actually not be guilty of what the press accuses them of, nobody believes them. Well, nobody except for "clear-thinking" Bush supporters (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) anyway. And that seems to be a sentiment that you just echoed with your last post.

Thank you for proving my point.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 22:21

Even if the US had done what its accused of this doesnt in anyway put the blame for what happened on us. Again theres no reason to kill someone over a book. Much worse has been done to holy Christain things without any violence at all. It just shows the mindset of these a holes. When will you guys admit or recognise that the US is the good guy here. Listening to you guys you would think it is we who are the evil ones.

You remind me of that shmuck Balion in kingdom of heaven who lets that bastard live knowing he will bring war death and destruction to all because he cant do anything wrong. I loved when the girl said someday you shall see that its better to do a small evil to prevent a great one. Truer words have never been spoken.

Steppe Merc

05-17-2005, 22:23

Are they automaticly telling the truth
Certaintly not.
But to me, PJ was just sort of saying "Well, of course they would say bad things and lie, because they were to jail."

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 22:31

My point just was that the news here reported the retraction without implying that it was under the pressure of the White House.

Oh. I guess you guys still get news over there. Tendentious commentary is our version.

Yeah it looks as though were about to have a debacle of our own here. My post has been totaly swallowed up and ignored by this little brawl.

Yep. Mine times three. And no, I knew it would've been taken that way. This is the same region where there are still rampant rumors that the CIA and Israelis are responsible for 9/11 and that Egyptian plane accident.

You offer "proof" from people who were detainees? What a joke!

Not to mention the fact that Al Qaeda training manuals list "claim you were tortured" as rule #1 for detainees.

But, that won't stop the anti-American left from believing the worst about our soldiers.

Goofball

05-17-2005, 22:49

Not to mention the fact that Al Qaeda training manuals list "claim you were tortured" as rule #1 for detainees.

But, that won't stop the anti-American left from believing the worst about our soldiers.

What a very Coulter-esque statement. Come on, Proletariat, I thought you were a much brighter woman than that. Just because somebody disagrees with Republican dogma doesn't make them anti-American. At any rate, when the world stops seeing photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing "detainees," or video footage of American soldiers shooting unarmed, wounded prisoners, then maybe they'll stop believing the worst about them.

Proletariat

05-17-2005, 22:56

What a very Coulter-esque statement. Come on, Proletariat, I thought you were a much brighter woman than that. Just because somebody disagrees with Republican dogma doesn't make them anti-American. At any rate, when the world stops seeing photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing "detainees," or video footage of American soldiers shooting unarmed, wounded prisoners, then maybe they'll stop believing the worst about them.

So there's no way we're going to discuss anything but this?

I mean, I guess I'm just a dumb Coulter-esque broad, because here I am thinking I'm in the 'Newsweek Debacle' thread. Boy, I've made an ass of myself. I just had no idea that I was really in the 'Abu Ghraib happened so anything goes!' thread.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 23:05

Brenus

05-17-2005, 23:13

A quick participation in the debate, if I may:

Don Corleone, actually the US went in war with “a story based on the unclear, unverified testimony of a single witness”.

More seriously, the Journalists belong the ONLY corporation where nobody kills boy/girl friend, is corrupted, is a liar. Did you heard or see any story (except as the last defender of freedom) implicating journalists in TV, Newspapers or Radio. I didn’t.

Of course, they aren’t responsible. They lied, they misinformed, and they manipulated and still do. From Vietnam (where the failed to report what happened in the Vietcong side) to Timisoara (remember the mass grave coming from the morgues), from Iraq (where Saddam was supposed to have the 4th or 6th army of the world, and TV showing T54/55 and 62), in Bosnia and Kosovo when they publish the stories they were paid for… They aren’t guilty… Depending from which newspaper or political side they belong and pay them, they just give you what you want. That is why you buy/listen/watch a particular newspaper/radio station/TV Channel.
I lost definitively my confidence in journalists in BOSNIA. I read an article about a situation about a region I was working and nothing was true. The witness never said what was reported, I know it because the journalist’s translator was a friend… Does it matter? For the journalist, no, because he got his headline… I will not compare them with mercenaries; it would be an insult to mercenaries. At least the last one pay with their own skin when they made a mistake…
They don’t give facts, they give opinions… Fair enough, but they should be clear enough. They are one-sided, ignored the facts which are against what they reported, they confirmed what you (readers/listeners/others) think and are NEVER responsible for what happened after…

LittleGrizzly

05-17-2005, 23:30

You offer "proof" from people who were detainees? What a joke!

your right! any soldier who did torture prisnors would hand himself over, under this rule PJ abu gahrib prisnors could have testified they were tortured and you would find it a joke, but they'd be telling the truth...

Tribesman

05-17-2005, 23:32

Not to mention the fact that Al Qaeda training manuals list "claim you were tortured" as rule #1 for detainees.
Any chance of a link to an Al-qaida training manual Prole ?
The only ones I have read about recently actually turned out to be a book published by a Californian based survivalist group and a translation of a State Department publication .

Goofball

05-17-2005, 23:37

So there's no way we're going to discuss anything but this?

I mean, I guess I'm just a dumb Coulter-esque broad, because here I am thinking I'm in the 'Newsweek Debacle' thread. Boy, I've made an ass of myself. I just had no idea that I was really in the 'Abu Ghraib happened so anything goes!' thread.

I never said anything of the kind.

You began this thread saying that because Newsweek printed a questionable story about U.S. troops abusing prisoners, people are dying and somebody should be held accountable.

I pointed out that yes, while Newsweek is certainly guilty of sloppy reporting, if the U.S. did not have such a bad record already with respect to prisoners, then the reaction might not have been so bad.

Then Redleg and I sniped at each other for a while, which was fun for us, but quite tedious for the rest of you, and for that I apologize.

Then you made the statement that the "anti-American left" will always believe the worst about your soldiers, so I simply made the point that those beliefs are not groundless. I really don't understand how you can be upset with that statement, or think it's not on topic.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 23:43

I pointed out that yes, while Newsweek is certainly guilty of sloppy reporting, if the U.S. did not have such a bad record already with respect to prisoners, then the reaction might not have been so bad.

Such a sloppy record? It was in our newpaperes for over a month straight an on the news even more.. Every alligation of any kind of abuse is big headlines. They knew what they were doing but didnt expect these nuts to react so violently. There are ore people looking for US abuses than for terrorissts here it seems to me. Again you people need to get your priorities straight here and realiise the US is on your side. The guys you feel so bad about most likely would murder you and your whole family and say its the will of god.

LittleGrizzly

05-17-2005, 23:50

Again you people need to get your priorities straight here and realiise the US is on your side. The guys you feel so bad about most likely would murder you and your whole family and say its the will of god.

whether they would kill us without a second thought or not i would want them treated humanely.

Goofball

05-17-2005, 23:52

Such a sloppy record? It was in our newpaperes for over a month straight an on the news even more.. Every alligation of any kind of abuse is big headlines. They knew what they were doing but didnt expect these nuts to react so violently. There are ore people looking for US abuses than for terrorissts here it seems to me.

Sorry G, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but I honestly don't understand what you said there or how it relates to what I said, if that was your intent.

Again you people need to get your priorities straight here and realiise the US is on your side. The guys you feel so bad about most likely would murder you and your whole family and say its the will of god.

So, let me get this straight. In your view, the fact that somebody belongs to an ethnic group or religion (i.e. Arab/Muslim) that is statistically more inclined to posing a danger to Americans, makes it okay to lock them up as a precaution and hold them indefinitely without trial or any other proof of guilt other than their ethnicity and the location they were taken into custody?

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 23:52

whether they would kill us without a second thought or not i would want them treated humanely.

Is flushing a Koran down the toilet treating them inhumanely? It wasnt even done and look at the reaction. Wake up and smell the friggin coffee.

Again the movie kingdom of heaven shows where your good intention lead. The more I think of Balion the bigger a hole he appears to me. He caused the death of all those pele and the loss of Jerusalem because he was too nice .

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 00:01

Is flushing a Koran down the toilet treating them inhumanely?

well its not physically doing anything to them, but i don't think its right to do.

Again the movie kingdom of heaven shows where your good intention lead. The more I think of Balion the bigger a hole he appears to me. He caused the death of all those pele and the loss of Jerusalem because he was too nice .

so if we treat prisnors likely AQ will manage to take over ?? i think not (and i haven't seen Kingdom Of Heaven)

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 00:09

well its not physically doing anything to them, but i don't think its right to do.

I dont either. But is killing people because you heard someone may have done this half way around the world seem better?

so if we treat prisnors likely AQ will manage to take over ??

Im trying to decipher this. Do you maen if we treat them like they treat us? Im not suggesting that.

Kanamori

05-18-2005, 00:12

At any rate, it should be quite easy for our government to find out if the abuses are happening. I think they have had enough time with prisoners to report the absolute truth of how things work there (if they have not already printed official reports or investigations into the allegations), or, journalists to do their own investigations inside of guantanamo, unless they seriously hamper prison security or usual operations there - I am not entirely sure of the rules for the press in prison or holding facilities.

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 00:14

Im trying to decipher this. Do you maen if we treat them like they treat us? Im not suggesting that.

sorry my brain scrambled, i meant.. if we treat prisnors humanely AQ will manage to take over ? (because thats how it looked from your last sentence)

I dont either.

good

But is killing people because you heard someone may have done this half way around the world seem better?

I think its silly to kill anyone over a book that can be easily replaced, even if it is a religious text.

Proletariat

05-18-2005, 00:15

I dont either. But is killing people because you heard someone may have done this half way around the world seem better?

Good Lord, you're an imbecilic American. Haven't you heard? Abu Ghraib! Of course rumors of books in latrines cause murdering and rampaging now, and rightly so! And who cares what method the media used? Or the White House? Let's talk ABU!

No blood for oil, suXors!

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 00:54

Well this is to all you americn hating terrorist apologists out there if you have the nerve to listen. Your just a bunch of sheep being led around by the liberal media. This deserves a thread of its own but its on this topic and address many issues brought up here. Pump up the volume and let the truth be heard.

LINK (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051705/content/america_s_anchorman_2.guest.html)

ENGLE: I think they do and if you talk about a battle for hearts and minds, I'm not sure if we're winning that battle. There are a lot of, uh... Still there's today fallout from the Abu Ghraib incident. There have been, uh, rumors come up again and again that are in the local newspapers, for example, that women were raped in Abu Ghraib. One woman said that -- and published an open letter in the newspaper, said -- she was raped every night by six American soldiers. US troops here say this is absolutely not true, but that after this happened, other women came out and wrote similar claims in other newspapers -- and this does have repercussions on the ground. Abu Ghraib, al-Zarqawi when he carried out an attack on April 2nd said it was to avenge the women who were raped in Abu Ghraib.

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 00:57

and this proves what exaclty ? that terrorists have siezed on bad publicity and got more out of the situation, seems even more reason to act like boy scouts to me....

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 01:00

and this proves what exaclty ? that terrorists have siezed on bad publicity and got more out of the situation, seems even more reason to act like boy scouts to me....

You obviously only read the quote. Go to the link and listen if you dare. I bet you have a much stronger reaction ~D

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 01:01

You obviously only read the quote. Go to the link and listen if you dare. I bet you have a much stronger reaction

i thought the link was just to show the source, ill check it out now.

Papewaio

05-18-2005, 01:05

IMDHO

There is an irony here methinks.

This is what happens when capitalism is the be all and end all.

Let the buyer beware.

----

This is an example of corporate greed being allowed to make more money for the shareholder without having to think about there negative impact outside of the P/E ratios.

Newsweek want to sell more material therefore they pump out an unverfied headline designed for circulation.

This is the same moral vacuum as corporations giving exec's their pensions but not the staff. The same money is everything let the environment be damned lets pollute it so we can make more money.

Governments do need to legislate corporations so that the corps remain honest.

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 01:11

You obviously only read the quote. Go to the link and listen if you dare. I bet you have a much stronger reaction

the american media hate america and are working with the islamic militants...ill leave this for the tin foil hat crew...

Proletariat

05-18-2005, 01:12

The Taliban, who blew up priceless Giant Budda statues, are upset because they heard a book got thrown in a toilet.

The Taliban, who fight from mosques regularly, are upset because they heard a book got thrown in a toilet.

This is really the other side of this issue. I'm starting to agree with those who say that while Newsweek should get its stories straight, they can't be blamed for the reaction of psychopathic, 7th century cockroaches.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 01:16

the american media hate america and are working with the islamic militants...ill leave this for the tin foil hat crew...

Its been apparent to me all along. Its sells papers and hurts conservatives. Its a win win situtation. How else do you explain it. Bye the way I put you in the same boat as the liberal media you love to quote so much. You and those like you do more to help the terrorists than Zarqwai himself. How many times have a said those who agree with you are their only hope of winning. They count on you and you and the press never let them down.

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 01:21

Its been apparent to me all along. Its sells papers and hurts conservatives. Its a win win situtation. How else do you explain it. Bye the way I put you in the same boat as the liberal media you love to quote so much. You and those like you do more to help the terrorists than Zarqwai himself. How many times have a said those who agree with you are their only hope of winning. They count on you and you and the press never let them down.

ahh yes, and i think your side helps the terrorists more by supporting things like the iraq war and gauntanamo bay.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 01:23

ahh yes, and i think your side helps the terrorists more by supporting things like the iraq war and gauntanamo bay.

Yes we support then by fightig and killing them. Great logic you have there. Cant we all just get along ~;)

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 01:27

Yes we support then by fightig and killing them.

the Iraqi army was working for AQ ? your not really fighting or killing them in gauntanamo bay creating a whole load of bad pr though..

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 01:36

the Iraqi army was working for AQ

Who are we killing there now?

your not really fighting or killing them in gauntanamo bay creating a whole load of bad pr though..

No you and the press are. Heres more if you can stomach the truth. This should be required listening for all conservatives.

LINK (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051705/content/rush_is_right.guest.html)

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 01:46

Who are we killing there now?

the Iraqi insurgency which im guessing you assume is mostly AQ ?

No you and the press are.

well you couldn't have bad pr because of gauntanamo bay without there being a gauntamano bay

PanzerJaeger

05-18-2005, 02:13

But to me, PJ was just sort of saying "Well, of course they would say bad things and lie, because they were to jail."

Please read what Adrian wrote. He claims that allegations made by people who have a vested interest in making the place look bad should be taken as proof.

Now do you really think that if you had spent 3 years in Gitmo, whether you were guilty or innocent, and someone gave you the opportunity to defame the place you wouldnt take it? I doubt that.

I am not even questioning the truthfulness of the detainees as much as i am questioning Adrian's idiotic assertion that their claims were "proof".

Proof where? In court? I seriously doubt such a conflict of interest would stand up in any court. :bow:

Steppe Merc

05-18-2005, 12:54

OK, good point. I took it out of context, sorry.

This is really the other side of this issue. I'm starting to agree with those who say that while Newsweek should get its stories straight, they can't be blamed for the reaction of psychopathic, 7th century cockroaches.
Not all of them were Taliban that were protesting.

Paul Peru

05-18-2005, 13:16

Please read what Adrian wrote. He claims that allegations made by people who have a vested interest in making the place look bad should be taken as proof. Like that Chalabi fellow a couple of years ago?

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 14:09

Now do you really think that if you had spent 3 years in Gitmo, whether you were guilty or innocent, and someone gave you the opportunity to defame the place you wouldnt take it? I doubt that.

I bet thats what happened with saddam, people get sent to jail and they make nice mr saddam look this evil guy claiming all this torture was happening to them

Adrian II

05-18-2005, 14:26

I bet thats what happened with saddam, people get sent to jail and they make nice mr saddam look this evil guy claiming all this torture was happening to themLOL! So all those stories about Saddams' torture chambers come from his ex-detainees, huh?
Liars to a tee. :whip:

PanzerJaeger

05-18-2005, 16:42

LOL! So all those stories about Saddams' torture chambers come from his ex-detainees, huh?
Liars to a tee.

Oh and the US soldiers who found them. ~;)

Goofball

05-18-2005, 16:44

The Taliban, who blew up priceless Giant Budda statues, are upset because they heard a book got thrown in a toilet.

The Taliban, who fight from mosques regularly, are upset because they heard a book got thrown in a toilet.

Two very well-made points. And please don't think that this sort of hypocrisy is lost on those of us on the left, because it's not.

But the problem is not with the Taliban, or other extremists. Those are hearts and minds that America has no chance of winning, so flushing a book down a toilet really makes no difference there. The problem with the book flushing is that it gives the Taliban ammo to stir up hatred in the rest of the more moderate population.

LittleGrizzly

05-18-2005, 16:45

Oh and the US soldiers who found them.

i think we've come to a consenus there is no torture or mistreatment of detainees

Adrian II

05-18-2005, 17:20

The problem with the book flushing is that it gives the Taliban ammo to stir up hatred in the rest of the more moderate population.Yup, they've found a propaganda theme that reverberates throughout the muslim world because it's not a 'political', but a purely religious issue. Maybe if the Pentagon had demonstrated the same sort of outrage over the Abu Ghraib incidents right from the start, instead of waiting till the truth came out despite its efforts to play them down, the ground wouldn't have been so fertile for these groups. After killing over two dozen detainees, wrapping one in an Israeli flag, telling others to pray so they could be kicked in the back of the head, forcing them to masturbate and smearing them with 'menstruation' blood -- practises that remind one of the SA concentration camps in 1930's Germany -- the U.S. shouldn't be surprised at the ease with which this report brought people out onto the streets. Oh, and the problem won't just disappear if we call the demonstrators 7th century psychopaths.

Ser Clegane

05-18-2005, 17:20

Here is an article from the online version of the German newsmagazine "Der Spiegel" that fits quite well into this thread (including the headline ~:) ):

The Newsweek Debacle (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,356267,00.html)

I first thought that the article was a bit one-sided but the end evens that out a bit, IMO

Redleg

05-18-2005, 18:02

Yup, they've found a propaganda theme that reverberates throughout the muslim world because it's not a 'political', but a purely religious issue. Maybe if the Pentagon had demonstrated the same sort of outrage over the Abu Ghraib incidents right from the start, instead of waiting till the truth came out despite its efforts to play them down, the ground wouldn't have been so fertile for these groups. After killing over two dozen detainees, wrapping one in an Israeli flag, telling others to pray so they could be kicked in the back of the head, forcing them to masturbate and smearing them with 'menstruation' blood -- practises that remind one of the SA concentration camps in 1930's Germany -- the U.S. shouldn't be surprised at the ease with which this report brought people out onto the streets. Oh, and the problem won't just disappear if we call the demonstrators 7th century psychopaths.

And remember the problem is not helped when irresponsible journalists publish a story that has not been adequately checked to insure it is accurate. However I guess for some of you its easier to excuse bad behavior or actions by pointing out other bad behavior.

Hell I could publish a story that all muslims in the middle-east are fanatics and want to cut the heads off of Ameicans from just one little story and an examble from the current and past situations in the Middle-East - and many would believe it. However is that responsible and ethical journalism? From what you and Goofball have stated so far in this thread would lead me to conclude that you feel that it is.

Edit: And by the way Adrian and Goofball if I was to write such an article - I would be just as wrong as the authors of the Newsweek article. Because it would not be a news report based upon factual evidence that has been verified - but would be nothing more then an editorial. And this editorial has been done in some of the worst rags here in the states. However it seems some are willing to accept it as valid not only in countries where I expect to see such emotional reactions - but even in Ser Clegane's article refers to such editorialized garbage as being accepted as real news in Europe.

The messiness of the saga -- and the fact that no one really knows what the truth is -- is disheartening. Especially given the fact that people died over what was written. And, as an editorial in Tuesday's Jordan Times rightly insists, there is, in this post-Abu Ghraib era, a "credibility deficit." In other words, the paper implies, America has already blown its image as a benevolent and sensitive conquerer. "Even an ordinary illiterate peasant understands, that Newsweek's apology was a decision by America to save itself," the paper says, quoting an Afghani Muslim cleric. "It comes because of American (administration) pressure."

Redleg

05-18-2005, 18:29

And now for a rant - concerning the methods used by the authors of this article and now the follow-up news articles coming from Europe and else where, coupled with the justifing and excusing scenerio's painted by some members of this forum.

If I was to go and state -

Given the nature of the muslim in the Middle-East if an American or other Western is taken hostage by such individuals - they will end up on a websight and have their head seperated from their shoulders in the name of Allah because we are infidels and worthly of nothing but contempt and death because of our government's actions.

Futhermore this stance of Muslim hatered for America is futher supported by the governments of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran given that their leaders do not condemn these actions outright - nor do they activitly pursue individuals that committ such crimes. These nations allow the fanatical muslim clerics to continue to preach hate toward the west, and activitly encourage young men to go to Iraq to fight against the Americans. A leaked document from an unnamed source within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia confirms this secert agenda of the Saudi Arabia governement.

There is futher evidence of this with a known Criminal and terrorist killer who has recently recieved medical aid from a Syrian hospital under the watchful eyes of a government offical, this story was leaked from an un-named source within the Syrian Government.

One can only conclude from such evidence that the past behavior of these muslims means that given the chance - any muslim from the Middle-East is more then willing to kill any western individuals because we are not muslim.

If you think I believe any of the crap I just wrote based upon hearsay and conjucture - then I can see exactly why you believe such shoddy reporting as what Newsweek reported with their story of descrection of the Koran in Gitmo.

PanzerJaeger

05-18-2005, 18:46

The problem with the book flushing is that it gives the Taliban ammo to stir up hatred in the rest of the more moderate population.

Theres another problem as well. It didnt happen.

Ser Clegane

05-18-2005, 18:48

but even in Ser Clegane's article refers to such editorialized garbage as being accepted as real news in Europe.

I am not quite sure were you get that message from, Redleg.

How did you get the impression that "editorial garbage" is accepted as "real news"?

At least the part of the article you quote clearly refers to an "editorial" when quoting from the Jordan Times and it seems pretty clear that they are presenting "opinions" not "facts".

Redleg

05-18-2005, 19:05

I am not quite sure were you get that message from, Redleg.

How did you get the impression that "editorial garbage" is accepted as "real news"?

At least the part of the article you quote clearly refers to an "editorial" when quoting from the Jordan Times and it seems pretty clear that they are presenting "opinions" not "facts".

Just from reading the whole article from the website. Its an editorial story - however it seems from reading it and the location without mentioning that its an editorial - that they are publishing it as news.

Ser Clegane

05-18-2005, 19:31

Just from reading the whole article from the website. Its an editorial story - however it seems from reading it and the location without mentioning that its an editorial - that they are publishing it as news.

If an article starts with

Something is wrong when respected news agencies become the makers, rather than the reporters, of news.

it seems pretty clear to me that it has quite an editorial character and that opinions of the author ought to be expected.
Also, if I am not missing something, there is no statement at all on the English overview page that there are any "news" to be expected.

Redleg

05-18-2005, 20:06

If an article starts with

it seems pretty clear to me that it has quite an editorial character and that opinions of the author ought to be expected.
Also, if I am not missing something, there is no statement at all on the English overview page that there are any "news" to be expected.

I could be missing it because of the way it is written - and the fact that its not mentioned as a editorial. Most articles that are written in news mags that are editorials state that they are an editorial in the heading or at the end of the article. This one does not. Neither does the overview page state that its an editorial.

My assumption is that the magizine is a news magizine not an editorial magizine only.

Proletariat

05-18-2005, 22:43

But the problem is not with the Taliban, or other extremists. Those are hearts and minds that America has no chance of winning, so flushing a book down a toilet really makes no difference there. The problem with the book flushing is that it gives the Taliban ammo to stir up hatred in the rest of the more moderate population.

I do see your point, although I think your absolving them a bit too much by saying the extremists are not the problem.

I don't think America has been in a position to win any hearts and minds over there ever since they stuck up for Israel. We're just two countries used to deflect attention from their own corrupt leaders. We didn't win a damn bit of good will in Bosnia or with tsunami aid or anything else we've done when we've been on the side of Muslims. Oh well.

Oh, and the problem won't just disappear if we call the demonstrators 7th century psychopaths.

No, it will go away when we realise America is where Confusion and Superstition Reign.

Maybe if the Pentagon had demonstrated the same sort of outrage over the Abu Ghraib incidents right from the start, instead of waiting till the truth came out despite its efforts to play them down, the ground wouldn't have been so fertile for these groups.

Nice. So Soldiers should be Guilty Until Proven Otherwise but extremist detainees should all get a visit from a lawyer.

Proletariat

05-18-2005, 23:19

I think I'll have a conversation with myself, since anytime I've put thought into a post on this thread it gets drowned out by 13 posts of nit picking.

I just can't believe that the story made so many people go crazy. Wow.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised when some lunatics go crazy b/c the book that tells them how to live their lives is flushed down the toilet.

If you were a protestant in 1640 England you would be pretty upset if something similar happened to the bible. That's the analogy.

Would we allow any Christian to get away with this excuse? It's the 21st century. We know better, they could know better if they wanted to. But, they don't.

You're speaking as a person who's part of a society that has gone through the Reformation and the Enlightenment. And even though you're a big religious person, you accept the fundamental tenets of tolerance and people-centric thought that provide the ideological underpinnings of this society.

Most muslim countries -especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan- are societies that haven't gone through the reformation and the enlightenment. God has a literal presence in most people's lives and in their thinking and it's not an accident that there's always a "GOd Willing" or "Praise God" in virtually everything that's written.

These are God-centric societies and disputes over minor detail of dogma are important.

Obviously, I think they re wrong and out of their minds, but I also understand that they have different conceptions of the world, while the historical process that would allow these societies to reach a level that's close to ours is a long and arduous one.

And yes, comparing contemporary Muslim societies with 1640 -perhaps even 1550- England is very apt if one wants to understand what's going on there.

No, it's not. 1550s England had no Enlightenment to model itself after. 21st Century Muslims do. Yet they ignore it. This is why the Iraq invasion was so necessary -- drag them kicking and screaming into the modern world. No matter what the cost of doing so in this decade, it far dwarfs the cost that would come due in the form of a suitcase nuke in next decade if the cause was now foresaken in the name of a misidentified and false "peace."

There was no "peace" in the Middle East. They were already at war with us, just as Germany was already at war with the rest of Europe in 1936. George Bush, unlike Bill Clinton, was willing to recognize this.

You say that because you haven't studied how difficult it is for a country to model itself after another. Models aren't simply copied. They are brought over, fought over, rejected, brought back in again until they are assimilated into a peculiar hybrid.

No country has managed to replicate enlightenment and its institutions outside its cultural milieue in Western Europe and the US. Sure, many countries have nominal institutions of democracy and the free market but there's something missing which make these societies not quite right. It's not the same, because you can replicate the forms, but you can't replicate the historical development that gave birth to the prototype. See Latin America and its struggles with authoritarianism and the capitalist system for example. They know what to copy, but they ve still mangled it.

Most importantly, societies aren't a singular human being to make an easy choice of a prepackaged option. They are diverse and multifaceted with many interests and trends fighting against each other trying to impose their vision.

Also if you notice, the western values most Arab countries adopted were nationalism and socialism . That's what the Baath parties and Nasserism is. Granted, they now seem either failed (socialism) or passe (nationalism) but at the time they were adopted they had a very strong intellectual appeal.

It's these children of western thought that the radical muslims are fighting against.

Somehow, someway, muslim societies need to get through their reformation and their enlightenment, but it's hard. It took 4 or 5 centuries for Europe to do it and it was partly a happy accident.

Uh... ...you guys DO realize that without the enlightened Islam of the time of the Dark Ages, while Europe was under a cloud of Roman Catholic suppression and repression, which kept alive ancient learning from Greece and earlier, there would have been no Enlightenment and no Reformation....don't you?

The Enlightenment was built on knowledge preserved through the European Dark Ages by Islam, especially in Moorish Spain. Our science is built on their work. Furthermore, the spiritual impulses which eventually led to the Reformation owe a lot to the Sufis.

Islam kept the lamp of knowledge alive and well through a time when Europe was awash in mud and superstition.

A little respect is in order.

Ad infinitum