Newsweek lied, people died - or - 16 and counting.

[Andrew Green]

I don't know about anyone else, but killing another human being because of what somebody they didn't even know did to a book is an overreaction in my opinion regardless of how your culture is linked to that book. How can anyone in thier right mind not think that is overreacting?

Or, you can twist the facts....

This is not an isolated incident.

US forces destroyed the country and are occupying it.

People where killed when police opened fire on protestors.

This is not someone going next door and killing thier neighbour because someone on the otherside of the world insulted their beliefs.

This is a country that is a people that have their country being occupied by a foriegn army that shows no respect for their culture and beliefs fighting back.

This is not a black and white issue like you are trying to paint it as.

 

[psi_radar]

.....
In light of this, it seems very probable that the anti-war movement and the left leaning media are in fact quite responsible for negative attitude and aggression towards our allies and troops around the world....

Gee, and all this time I thought it was the misrepresented war of aggression on a sovereign nation that was getting those guys all riled up. And all this time it was the "liberal media." Silly me.

MisterMike, your statement above is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A report on misbehavior by our troops is more responsible than the actions depicted, or the war itself? Ever hear the term "shooting the messenger?" Come on.

The article was cleared by the Pentagon, NewsWeek met its due-diligence. We stacked naked muslims into pyramids and attached leashes to them. It's so hard to believe we flushed a Quran?

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of the White House witch hunt in this case? They say a poorly researched article that may have incited a few deaths requires not just an apology and a retraction, but a resignation as well?

Here's a parallel with a much different ending--George W. Bush and his staff poorly researched the motivation for this entire multi-billion dollar, deadly-thousands-of-times-over war, and instead of resigning when there are no WMDs ("our sources were wrong"), runs for re-election and changes the motivation of the war to Spreading Freedom.

What a smoke screen--probably to obfuscate any backlash the Downing Street memo and oil-for-food scandal might be having in the seven-second attention span of the american public.

 

[psi_radar]

BTW, Michael Isikoff, the guy they want to send out to dry for this, was also the guy who rabidly went after Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal using sources like Linda Tripp. So before you start labeling people "liberal" you might want to confirm whether they have a bias at all or are just gung-ho newsmen that go after any juicy story.

 

[MisterMike]

Gee, and all this time I thought it was the misrepresented war of aggression on a sovereign nation that was getting those guys all riled up. And all this time it was the "liberal media." Silly me.

MisterMike, your statement above is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A report on misbehavior by our troops is more responsible than the actions depicted, or the war itself? Ever hear the term "shooting the messenger?" Come on.

Short-term memory failing ya? No-one asked you to like it. But dem's the facts. I seriously doubt anyone in Afghanistan subscribes to Newsweak. But this was reported and was the spark to the powderkeg.

If you think irresponsible reporting has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment, then "dumb" is starring you right back in the mirror.

Also, who's calling who a liberal? Don't know if that was directed at me too but if I had to sift through all the garbage posted in the Study I'd have another full time job..

Did more than 1 person answer my first 2 questions in post #1? Doubt it. How typical. Looks more like personal shots - glad there are no pies around.

 

[arnisador]

FIRE!

But that's intentional. I don't believe Newsweek fabricated the story--I do believe they were lazy. Isn't it more comparable to my culpabilit if you tell me there's a fire, and I yell FIRE!, and something happens? I was relying on your information.

Addressing another poster, they've been apologizing constantly, haven't they? I've seen them on a few news shows already.

I agree that people have to take responsibilities for their own actions, but I do not think their hands are clean either. That is asumming, they truly lied, or falsely reported.

My understanding is that they placed too much reliance on a single unnamed source, plus the Pentagon's refusal to deny it. (Full agreement that they can't really read anything into the govt.'s declining to comment.) It was a sloppy process, not a case of malintent. But, if I am mistaken here I hope someone will correct me.

 

[arnisador]

No 'cultural mores' exception for those who kill people because they learn that a book got wet. Yeah, I know it's more complicated than that, but if your culture calls for killing people physically near to you if you hear that someone somewhere desecrated your Holy Book, then that's not a case that cries for cultural tolerance.

Please, no one need point out that that cuts on both sides--the Crusades are just the best known example.

 

[Ender]

I suppose it wouldn't just be that the Media were 'wrong'.

What happens when the Administration is similarly 'wrong' about the reaction of liberated Iraqi's, the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the accuracy of 'intelligence reports' ... etc, etc, etc?

Oh yeah, you defend them ... and call those who question these inaccuracies traitors.

This is just more obfuscation, pure and simple. Bush didn't do anything to a Quran, WMD had nothing to do with this, nor intelligence reports. This was a magazine who printed a wrong story, whether intentional or not, and didn't get the facts right. Either way, it was incompetence, or them trying to push an agenda. Forget that this was ANOTHER bogus story, blame someone else.

The fact that this doesn't bother people as it should, is disturbing.

 

[michaeledward]

This is just more obfuscation, pure and simple. Bush didn't do anything to a Quran, WMD had nothing to do with this, nor intelligence reports. This was a magazine who printed a wrong story, whether intentional or not, and didn't get the facts right. Either way, it was incompetence, or them trying to push an agenda. Forget that this was ANOTHER bogus story, blame someone else.

The fact that this doesn't bother people as it should, is disturbing.

There is not substantiation that this is a 'bogus story'. What there is, is a poorly sourced story that an official government report will, or will not, include statements concerning abuse of the Koran.

Has the government stated that the interrogation techniques do not include using religious degredation?

Has the government stated that interrogators are not using simulated menstrual blood on detainees?

Don't confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

 

[Brother John]

America also isn't a Theocracy, much to many fundamentalist right-winger's dismay. Don't like it? Does that disgust you? Don't go. Find something else to do. I'm sure there's 10 billion other things around...

Wow... relax Moose, it's okay.
I was just contrasting the difference there, a country with an over-reaction to profaning something that the popular religion deems holy or sacred COMPARED to America where it seems the level of 'moral outrage' is pretty shallow.

Of course I wouldn't want their level, but oh well...I was just contrasting.

Also: Their reactions weren't backed by a government, but they were the reaction of their people. The art exhibit I'm talking about was funded by tax payer dolars. It's not a matter of "Does it disgust you? don't go..." That's not the point, the point is that it was paid for with public money. I agree that the government and it's funds (tax dolars) shouldn't go toward promoting a religion, I also believe that it shouldn't go toward profaning it either.

BTW: There really aren't that many people who are "Fundamentalist-right winggers" who'd WANT a theocracy. I know I wouldn't.

Interesting discussion
Your Brother
John

 

[Tgace]

Hey. I thought this happened in Afghanistan which was the "good war" on terrorism...ya know, the place that was run by the Taliban and Al Queda? Is that under the blanket of "US oppression" now too?

Or is it a bash fest on everything US now?

Killing each other because the US was accused of flushing a Koran is odd enough (guess they taught us). How it's "well thats their way and thats OK" is odder still.

Here we have to "tolerate" the "Piss Christ" as freedom of expression but in the same breath we have to worry about offending Religions of other nations? Sorry but it just seems out of whack.

 

[Andrew Green]

Again... this is not people just deciding to go out and kill each other... this is protests. Police opened fire on protestors in order to subdue them.

People have been killed in North America at Protests before too. And at these ones it wasn't a protest against a military that is occupying the country and insulting your culture, religion and entire belief structure.

 

[Tgace]

Again..is Afghanistan a "wrong" war now too? As I recall, there was widespread support for operations there.....

 

[Andrew Green]

Guess that depends on who you ask

I really doubt any country in the middle east would want to be invaded, occupied and forced into a democracy under American control

 

[arnisador]

I really doubt any country in the middle east would want to be invaded, occupied and forced into a democracy under American control

No govt. would...I wonder if the people of Afghanistan will be happier in the long run, though. I suspect so--at least, 50% of them will be.

I have no problems with us being there, for a few reasons. Iraq...that's another kettle of fish.

 

[ginshun]

There is not substantiation that this is a 'bogus story'. What there is, is a poorly sourced story that an official government report will, or will not, include statements concerning abuse of the Koran.

Has the government stated that the interrogation techniques do not include using religious degredation?

Has the government stated that interrogators are not using simulated menstrual blood on detainees?

Don't confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

Your right, having no evidence of something doesn't prove that it didn't happen, but finding evidence that it did should be the burden of the accusers, not the other way around. Your using backwards logic. The burden of proof should be on the accusers, not the accused.

If somebody accuses me of robbing a bank, they have to prove that I did for me to get in trouble. I don't have to prove that I didn't to stay out of trouble.

Regardless of your opinions on the issue, this is just plain crappy journalism. I don't know that there is an adgenda against the administation or not, but the story should never have been published.

 

[michaeledward]

Regardless of your opinions on the issue, this is just plain crappy journalism. I don't know that there is an adgenda against the administation or not, but the story should never have been published.

There is evidence of an agenda by the administration against the media.

This from Elisabeth Bumiller and the New York Times.

Republicans close to the White House said that although President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were genuinely angered by the Newsweek article, West Wing officials were also exploiting it in an effort to put a check on the press.

"There's no expectation that they're going to bring down Newsweek, but there is a feeling that there is no check on what you guys do," said one outside Bush adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to be identified as talking about possible motives of the White House.

"In the course of any administration," he continued, "you have three or four opportunities, at most, with a high-profile press mistake. And if you're going to make a point - and no White House is ever going to love the way it's covered - you have to highlight those places where there is a screw-up."

 

[psi_radar]

Short-term memory failing ya? No-one asked you to like it. But dem's the facts. I seriously doubt anyone in Afghanistan subscribes to Newsweak. But this was reported and was the spark to the powderkeg.

If you think irresponsible reporting has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment, then "dumb" is starring you right back in the mirror.

Also, who's calling who a liberal? Don't know if that was directed at me too but if I had to sift through all the garbage posted in the Study I'd have another full time job..

Did more than 1 person answer my first 2 questions in post #1? Doubt it. How typical. Looks more like personal shots - glad there are no pies around.

No, my short term memory is just great, as is my long term. It's others' I'm concerned about. You said:

"In light of this, it seems very probable that the anti-war movement and the left leaning media are in fact quite responsible for negative attitude and aggression towards our allies and troops around the world...."

You blame worldwide anti-american troop sentiment on left-leaning media. You're not specific to Afghanistan. I regret saying this was the dumbest statement I have ever heard, that's too personal, I should have said it's one of the most misinformed and illogical conclusions I have ever heard.

The Afghanis supposedly rioted over this story, though it has been reported that the Quran flushing story was only one of several reasons for the unrest. The people responsible for the Afghani deaths are the Pakistani police who shot them, not NewsWeek. NewsWeek vetted the story with the Pentagon, and after publication, the Pentagon went back on its story. As a result, NewsWeek retracted the story. Who's a more reliable source than the Pentagon? At a certain point, reporters must trust their sources. We can't always have videotape or photos.

Do you think our media even holds a candle to the types of inflammatory pictures and stories that are broadcast all over the Muslim world? We don't see the burned babies and the bomb victims that are sanitized/censored from our media. Well, they see it all. I'd say their media is more likely a source of aggression than our vanilla reporting.

Don't act like the long-suffering rightie. You brought this up.

They didn't do anything wrong, they followed protocol.
They shouldn't post anything more than a retraction.

 

[MisterMike]

No, my short term memory is just great, as is my long term. It's others' I'm concerned about. You said:

"In light of this, it seems very probable that the anti-war movement and the left leaning media are in fact quite responsible for negative attitude and aggression towards our allies and troops around the world...."

You blame worldwide anti-american troop sentiment on left-leaning media. Yes, in part. I never said they were 100% responsible. People are slow to listen and quick to respond. You're not specific to Afghanistan. I regret saying this was the dumbest statement I have ever heard, that's too personal, I should have said it's one of the most misinformed and illogical conclusions I have ever heard. That's OK, I'll let it go, as well as the anonymous red rep I got for answering you back.

The Afghanis supposedly rioted over this story, though it has been reported that the Quran flushing story was only one of several reasons for the unrest. Nothing new here. I mentioned powderkeg later on, in case you missed it. The people responsible for the Afghani deaths are the Pakistani police who shot them, not NewsWeek. [Well, I'd have hated to see the Pakistani police dead from rioters just as much, how bout you?] NewsWeek vetted the story with the Pentagon, and after publication, the Pentagon went back on its story. As a result, NewsWeek retracted the story. Who's a more reliable source than the Pentagon? At a certain point, reporters must trust their sources. We can't always have videotape or photos. This is probably the most important point to your arguement. I'll be checking it's validity, thanks.

Do you think our media even holds a candle to the types of inflammatory pictures and stories that are broadcast all over the Muslim world? We don't see the burned babies and the bomb victims that are sanitized/censored from our media. Well, they see it all. I'd say their media is more likely a source of aggression than our vanilla reporting.

Don't act like the long-suffering rightie. You brought this up. No-ones acting like their suffering, except some of the people responding from a little excess hysteria.

They didn't do anything wrong, they followed protocol. That is such a cop-out. Perhaps there's something wrong with the protocol.
They shouldn't post anything more than a retraction.

Thanks for the answer, and finally supporting it with some backup.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gosh, the smug editors of a mildly-conservative newsmagazine were sloppy about documenting their facts before they went forward with a story? Color me shocked into a frenzy.

Well, all I can say is the obvious: good thing my government hasn't been systematically lying in order to justify getting my country into an unnecessary war, or making up ridiculous stories about why it's OK to torture people, or twisting reality into all sorts of weird shapes in order to justify its ideological agenda with regard to minor issues like Social Security.

Good thing, too, that the Ollie Norths, Ann Coulters, Michael Savages, G. Gordon Liddys, and Jerry Falwells of the world haven't been running around lying through their teeth so they can make a ton of money for stirring up hatred of their fellow Americans. Why, that would be so very wrong.

 

[arnisador]

Well, all I can say is the obvious: good thing my government hasn't been systematically lying in order to justify getting my country into an unnecessary war, or making up ridiculous stories about why it's OK to torture people

Well put, but...for better or worse, we've come to expect Watergate etc. from the govt., and truth and justice from the media. So, as a practical matter, the hypocrisy charge isn't as damning as it should be.

Of course, that sucks.