Newsweek Lied, People Died

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by luckydevil

I wish people had the same outrage and anger when our government acts out on faulty information. It is truly amazing the amount of sh!t we allow the public sector to get away with.

Depends.

If it's against a country that hates us, I could care less.

If it's against U.S citizens, Then trust me, I am the first to jump up in outrage.

[NoCalMike]

Whether Newsweek was wrong or not, I think it is a silly argument to claim that these crazy islamic terrorists, NEEDED a newsweek article as cause to riot. As if they were all sitting around with their picket signs and evil thoughts swarming, but they didn't quite have justification to riot just yet, and *WHAMO* Newsweek comes out and they all jump with glee as NOW THEY FINALLY HAVE JUSTIFICATION. Stupid.

As far as the soldier wanting to make these guys read the bible, well the mere fact that there are people who call themselves christians that want all homosexuals killed, abortion clinics bombed, and any non christian politician thrown out of office, can you imagine the terror that would come out of a terrorist with christianity driving his cause?

[Larry]

Y'know, I'd bet that 20 of the 27 posts in this thread claim that Newsweek falsified the story.

According to the article quoted, they received information, checked the information with two other sources, and got a "no comment", and a "this other part, over here, is wrong".

So far, there's not been one piece of evidence posted here to support the blanket statement, repeated over and over, that Newsweek made it up without any basis whatsoever. (Unless you count the folks who judge their news sources on the basis of their Idiological Purity Rating.)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I like the idea of taking the Koran from these prisoners. The book itself is fine (obviously since a vast majority of Muslims are peaceful) but it's being used to harm innocent people by the whackjobs.

[Larry]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

As far as the soldier wanting to make these guys read the bible, well the mere fact that there are people who call themselves christians that want all homosexuals killed, abortion clinics bombed, and any non christian politician thrown out of office, can you imagine the terror that would come out of a terrorist with christianity driving his cause?

OTOH, I will point out, when a "christian" whackjob kills an abortion doctor and gets caught, Pat Robertson does not immediatly start a new charity to pay the guy and his family a reward.

(Although, I think a case could be made that some christian groups do do the same thing, they just do it through disposable aliases. And when one of the "christian" terrorists do get caught, many on the right do immediatly come out with a statement of "What he did was deplorable, but, he really was justified, because . . . ")

[TODD]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

I like the idea of taking the Koran from these prisoners. The book itself is fine (obviously since a vast majority of Muslims are peaceful) but it's being used to harm innocent people by the whackjobs.

Oi. Can't agree with you there. Can't take the only thing they have left, no matter how much they deserve to be in Guantanamo. You can't orchestrate attacks from Guantanamo, so there's no harm in allowing them to keep it there.

Take Bibles out of US prisons?

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Mike, buddy, there is no reason to belive IT WAS COMMITTED!!

Stop believing the latest Islamist propaganda every time it's uttered(even the Gitmo detainees GENERALLY have said they were not mistreated)

The story of the Koran in the toilet, by the way, was of a detainee causing problems by tearing up his copy and clogging the toilet.

Ghost, I am NOT jumping to the conclusion, but I am using logic and sound judgement to descern if this happened or not. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then I don't by the fact that it's a cow, I think it is a duck.

Maybe, just maybe if we were not caught with terror momos, we were not found to be sodimizing detainees with batons, were not found crushing detainees to death, were not found strapping electrodes to detainees nut sacks, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to a conclusion on mistreatment. Unfortunately, because of the history of the mistreatment to the detainees, I automatically jump to the conclusion of the negative. A charactor flaw? Possibly, but it is only human nature.

How about responsibility before publishing something that might be baseless and inflammatory to the less civilized portions of the world that we're trying to change?

Yes, a second source would have helped, but to call the story baseless, espcially in light of what has gone on is far from the truth. In fact, because of the lies, the secrecy and what has come out after the fact, it is human nature to assume the WORST, and you can blame that on Rummy, Gonzalez et all for that.

Now is Newsweek fully responsible? NO, those who rioted or hurt others are the ones committing the acts, but Newsweek was irresponsible---BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.

Yes, they did something which you would NEVER see anyone in this administration doing, ADMITING they were wrong. They did the correct thing, and admitted how the screwed up, maybe if our administration had the kind of moral makeup as this magazine, and admitted when they screwed up, then people would start to believe them. Until they do, which will never happen BTW, people will automatically assume they are lying. They only have themkselves to blame.

I find it telling that some are quick to believe those who've been instructed from the Supreme Jihadist to tell of torture to advance the PR side of their war while NEVER believing(and while writing stories as journalists, putting scare quotes and generally treating skeptically) the actual good guys(even if the good guys are imperfect as hell.)

Actually Ghost, Newsweek HAS published a lot of stories pro-soldier, but that disagrees with the whole conservative talking platform, so people ignore it.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by luckydevil

I wish people had the same outrage and anger when our government acts out on faulty information. It is truly amazing the amount of sh!t we allow the public sector to get away with.

So freakin' true lucky :respect:

[Sarge]

Originally posted by chomerics

Actually Ghost, Newsweek HAS published a lot of stories pro-soldier, but that disagrees with the whole conservative talking platform, so people ignore it.

Post one. I'd like to see it

[Sarge]

I guess being liberal, these guys think you can get away with anything, as long as you say "I'm sorry"

Newsweek backs off Quran desecration story

Account blamed for violent riots in Afghanistan

Sunday, May 15, 2005 Posted: 7:03 PM EDT (2303 GMT)

A boy joins more than 200 anti-U.S. protesters in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Image:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine backed away Sunday from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran while questioning prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base -- an account blamed for sparking violent riots in Afghanistan.

At least 15 people were killed and dozens injured last week when thousands of demonstrators marched in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world, officials and eyewitnesses said.

The Pentagon said last week it was unable to corroborate any case in which interrogators at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defiled the Muslim holy book, as Newsweek reported in its May 9 issue.

"Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's May 23 issue, out Sunday.

"But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita blamed Newsweek's report for the unrest in Muslim countries.

"People are dying. They are burning American flags. Our forces are in danger," he told CNN.

Violent protests broke out in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and elsewhere last week after the magazine cited sources saying investigators looking into abuses at the military prison found interrogators "had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet."

Muslims revere the Quran, and defacing it "is especially heinous," Newsweek wrote in its latest issue.

At a Pentagon press conference Thursday, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited U.S. commanders as saying the protests in Jalalabad, at least, were more about local politics than anti-American sentiment stirred by the Newsweek report.

Magazine: What went wrong?

In an article assessing its coverage, the magazine wrote, "How did Newsweek get its facts wrong? And how did the story feed into serious international unrest?"

Newsweek said Michael Isikoff, who reported the item with John Barry, became interested in the story after FBI e-mails that revealed an uglier side of life in Guantanamo were released late last year.

"Isikoff knew that military investigators at Southern Command [which runs the Guantanamo prison] were looking into the allegations," the article said.

"So he called a longtime reliable source, a senior U.S. government official who was knowledgeable about the matter.

"The source told Isikoff that the [investigators'] report would include new details that were not in the FBI e-mails, including mention of flushing the Quran down a toilet."

Whitaker wrote that before publishing the account the magazine approached two Pentagon officials for comment. One declined and the other challenged a different aspect of the report, Whitaker wrote.

Myers said at the Pentagon briefing Thursday the military was looking into the allegations.

He said investigators had so far been unable to confirm a "toilet incident, except for one case, 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 the toilet to stop it up as a protest. But not where the U.S. did it."

On Friday, Newsweek said, DiRita phoned the magazine and said that investigators found no incidents involving Quran desecration.

A day later, Isikoff reached his source again, who said that although he remembered reading investigative reports about desecration of the Quran, including a toilet incident, "he could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the [southern Command] report."

DiRita "exploded" when Newsweek informed him that one of the original sources behind the report had partially backed off the story, the magazine said.

"People are dead because of what this son of a ***** said," DiRita told Newsweek, according to the magazine's report. "How could he be credible now?"

DiRita confirmed the quote to CNN.

He said investigators have found nothing to support allegations that U.S. troops had desecrated copies of the Quran, but turned up one case he said has now led to stricter procedures at the prison camp.

In that case, a Quran fell to the floor during a routine search, he said. The book was encased in surgical mask, which prisoners at the facility are given to protect the book.

Camp commanders have since established stronger procedures when searching near a Quran, DiRita said -- including a rule that allows only Muslim troops, interrogators or chaplains to touch a copy.

But Newsweek said Isikoff has uncovered more allegations of Quran desecration.

One, from an attorney representing some of the detainees, provided some declassified notes indicating 23 detainees had tried to commit suicide in August 2003 when a guard dropped a Quran and stomped on it. (Full story)

Isikoff found two other references to Qurans being tossed into toilets or latrines, the magazine reported.

U.S. military officials said such claims are standard terrorist tactics.

"If you read the al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," Army Col. Brad Blackner told Newsweek.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by Sarge

He's exactly right. Too bad we don't have to will to do it.

As long as they are following to violent aspencts of the religion of peace, they should be converted or not have a koran at all

you think the bible's any better? it explicitly says kill kill kill. i don't know about the qur'an, but i do know that the bible preaches murder for almost no reason at all.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Sarge

I guess being liberal, these guys think you can get away with anything, as long as you say "I'm sorry"

Or, perhaps, being human (and not speaking for Jesus) they sometimes make mistakes.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

The angry atheist strikes again.

Let me know when you identify a global Buddhist or Christian jihad movement.

A pack of Christians gets on a plane or a bunch of guys carring Korans. What makes you more nervous?

As for converting, I agree that to even attempt it would be silly.

But we shouldn't feed the flames of their ideology by giving them Korans, either.

It's not a denial of human rights. They should still be allowed to pray and the like, just not read source material for their jihadism.

unless i'm mistaken, their religion forces them to read the qu'ran every day, so if you take it away, you are depriving them of their religious freedom

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Larry

Or, perhaps, being human (and not speaking for Jesus) they sometimes make mistakes.

But again, being liberal, this story was nothing but an attempt to stir up the "prisoner abuse" stories again, and of course an indirect shot at Bush.

But that's what you get when you have libs and their unrealistic views of the world writing stories. They have no idea what they're talking about to begin with. The ones that wrote this story and the editor should be sent Afghanistan to cover the unrest, up close and personal

All the good work that has gone on there, ruined by a couple of lib a$$holes that wanted to further their agendas

[Sarge]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

unless i'm mistaken, their religion forces them to read the qu'ran every day, so if you take it away, you are depriving them of their religious freedom

What a shame that would be, huh?

They don't even know what religious freedom is

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Sarge

All the good work that has gone on there, ruined by a couple of lib a$$holes that wanted to further their agendas

No, Sarge, all the good work done there was ruined by a bunch of a$$holes that liked to torture people and take pictures. It was NOT done by a magazine.

But isn't that the new conservative way now? Blame everyone else and never accept responsibility for your actions? I think the leaders of the ownership society should own up to a few of their mistakes, then you wouldn't have situations like what is going on now.

But then again, everything is the librals fault. Iraq, the libs. Abu Ghriab, the libs. Global warming, again the libs. :doh; I'm still waiting to hear some of the righties claim Abu Ghriab was Clinton's fault, because you know they think it.

Just on a side note, is the sky red in your world Sarge? I mean I think you have an inability to see anything blue, so you must see a blood red sky. . . am I right?

[Sarge]

Originally posted by chomerics

No, Sarge, all the good work done there was ruined by a bunch of a$$holes that liked to torture people and take pictures. It was NOT done by a magazine.

You're right. All that looting and burning is being directly caused by all those NCO's that are now in prison. Al Newsweek has no responsibility in this at all:rolleyes:

[dreamingwolf]

we have degraded from two political philosophies engaged indebate to make America the greatests nation, to two parties embattled in war to undermine the others administration at all costs. I put the blame of the leftists for the most part, but I dont absovle the right from the same practice. The right just seems to assassinate the character of the left instead of wholesale state suicide.

A good example is how easily the left allows their guys to fight wars, I remember durring kosovo reading a college professor and pacifists paper on how distraught he was over the turn out of his war protest. The right durring kosovo put up a little stink, but nothing compared to what you see now. The majority of it was mocking clinton for covering his blow job with the war.

What we have here is a leftist rag destabilizing nations by promoting an anti-Bush assualt based on no facts. If this was based on undeniable facts then I would say its news, and the results are medicine that we need to take. What we have here though is subversive political tatics, that any american should understand the next time they decide to reup a subscription to Newsweek or frequent an establishment that presents it.

What this scandal has highlighted is that political legions carry a war standard instead of an american standard. As long as we as americans subscribe to this war mentality of Republicans vs democrats we as a nation will suffer. We as consumers controll what these political lap dogs present to us as news, and we can reject those entities that put their political agenda above america. The arena should be political philosophies duking it out, not seeing who can undermine our countrys administration the best.

[dreamingwolf]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

Whether Newsweek was wrong or not, I think it is a silly argument to claim that these crazy islamic terrorists, NEEDED a newsweek article as cause to riot. As if they were all sitting around with their picket signs and evil thoughts swarming, but they didn't quite have justification to riot just yet, and *WHAMO* Newsweek comes out and they all jump with glee as NOW THEY FINALLY HAVE JUSTIFICATION. Stupid.

they are no different from us, they look at their news as biased and if their news had run this a % would have generated fervor. However, when its the other sides news source that runs it that takes on a whole new light.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf

What we have here is a leftist rag destabilizing nations by promoting an anti-Bush assualt based on no facts. If this was based on undeniable facts then I would say its news, and the results are medicine that we need to take. What we have here though is subversive political tatics, that any american should understand the next time they decide to reup a subscription to Newsweek or frequent an establishment that presents it.

[/b]

No, I would say we have a neo-conservative kool-aid drinker who blindly ignores the fact that our federal government sent an entire army out based on false allegations, and instead wants to blame some measly magazine for their publication of questionable facts. You know, if you held Bush and co. to the same scrutney you are holding Newsweek to, we wouldn't be in this place to begin with. But that would be admitting something you can't admit to yourself now wouldn't it.

What this scandal has highlighted is that political legions carry a war standard instead of an american standard. As long as we as americans subscribe to this war mentality of Republicans vs democrats we as a nation will suffer. We as consumers controll what these political lap dogs present to us as news, and we can reject those entities that put their political agenda above america. The arena should be political philosophies duking it out, not seeing who can undermine our countrys administration the best.

The most disengenuous post I have seen on ES in a long time. I can't believe you have the unmittigated gaul to claim in one breath that the "leftist rag" is destabilizing nations with a single article, then you say it's time to end the bickering

It smells like a big stinking load of :pooh: to me. . . that last paragraph was complete :bsflag: If you think I am wrong, go back and read some of your own posts.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

you think the bible's any better? it explicitly says kill kill kill. i don't know about the qur'an, but i do know that the bible preaches murder for almost no reason at all.

Now you need to show us all where the Bible says to "kill, kill, kill" please.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

Now you need to show us all where the Bible says to "kill, kill, kill" please.

Skin, I think he was referring to the OT. There is a LOT of killing in the OT, and there has been a lot of killing done throughout world history in the name of god. I think that is what he was talking about.

[Larry]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf

What we have here is a leftist rag destabilizing nations by promoting an anti-Bush assualt based on no facts. If this was based on undeniable facts then I would say its news, and the results are medicine that we need to take. What we have here though is subversive political tatics, that any american should understand the next time they decide to reup a subscription to Newsweek or frequent an establishment that presents it.

Have you even read the article? Or did Rush simply tell yo what to think?

What we have, here, is an article in a magazine, based on two sources who have in the past given reliable information to that magazine.

And we have a bunch of people who have decided that, because the magazine says things that don't fit their opinions, then therefore everything it says must be a lie, and not only that, it was a knowing lie, that was clearly created from thin air simply because of their desire to overthrow nations.

-----

All right. This thread was created for the express purpose of drawing a contrast between the actions of Newsweek magazine and President Bush. If you folks want a comparason, then let's have one. I'll even color-code things, to help the comparason.

Bush's Niger yellowcake story

Newsweek's Koran in the toilet story

Bush is disapointed with the intell he's getting from CIA and the Pentagon, post-9/11. Bush really, really wants intel that says Saddam is building WMDs, and that he was behind 9/11. CIA says they don't have any such evidence.

Bush's response: Create another intel agency for the purpose of investigating Iraq. But it under the command of a non-US citizen, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi hasn't set foot in the mideast for 12 years, because of a death sentance for embezeling. But, he's been a Cheney employee for 12 years, so while he may not be qualified, he is loyal. (He also has a heck of a motive to start a war, since he's the guy we want to make the new Shah.)

Later, this new unit produces a report that Saddam purchased yellowcake from Niger, with a receipt.

Newsweek receives a story from a long-term source within the Pentagon. The story repeats a story (Koran down the toilet) that's been heard before, and dismissed because the complaints were comming from suspected terrorists. But this source claims that the US has substantiated the claims.

Bush decides to confirm his information, and asks the CIA to look into it. CIA says they can find no evidence to support it (which isn't the same thing as denying it), but that they don't consider Chalabi a reliable source. They later conclude that the document is a forgery.

Bush also sends in someone on the ground to verify the story. He also reports that he finds no evidence to confirm, and that he considers the report unlikely. (He does not comment on the authenticity of the receipt, because he wasn't shown it.)

Bush's response, given a report that has been refuted by one source, and called unlikely by another: Use it anyway.

Newsweek decides to confirm their source. One attempt at confirmation produces a "no comment". But the other source disagrees with part of the report, but not the "Koran in the toilet" part. (Not exactly the same thing as a confirmation, but it's leaning that way.)

Newsweek's response, given a report that has been kind-of confirmed by a second source: Use it.

After Bush uses the Niger yellowcake in his speach, the guy they sent to confirm the story goes public, and says "I told him that story didn't stand up". Bush's response: Smear the messenger. And if you can't smear him, then smear his wife.

At roughly the same time, CIA sources leak the fact that the report was based on forged documents, and that Bush had been told they were forgeries. Bush's response: The CIA made me start this war. And I never said "we had documents (that we knew were forged)", I said "The Brittish had documents (that we knew were forged)". Brittish response: Even though we now know that they knew, at the time, that Bush was lieing about the intel: Don't retract the report.

Longer-term result: Chalabi, the guy who gave us (and the Brittish?) the forged document, is obviously still a stand-up guy. The US tries to unilaterally appoint him as head of the new Iraqi government, after we win the war he helped create. When the Iraqis object, then we compromise by creating a council, and making him head of the council. When The Man Who Would Be Shah gets uppity, and asks the US to leave Iraq, now that he's in charge, then Bush suddenly discovers that he's an embezler.

Three years later, Bush still didn't make a mistake using that false information to start a war. And the folks who told him the information was false? It's their fault.

A few days after Newsweek prints their report, Pentagon spokesmen deny the report. Newsweek re-contacts their original source, who now says he's still certain he read about the incident, but it may not have been in the document that he said it was in. Newsweek reaction: Immediatly print the information that their story was at least partially wrong, and that they no longer consider the story to be as reliable as they thought it was. Apologise.

Yep, you folks are right. Those liberals are all power-hungry liars who'll do anything, and the heck with how many people die, to promote a political agenda.

[Ignatius J.]

I can't believe how many people think that things would be better off if only the government had more power.

Newsweek may have been wrong, but I am thankful that someone is at least trying to fight the governments hegemony of information when it comes to terrorists and what we do with them.

It's my country, and whatever acts we commit are done in my name. When the government says it has no reason to tell me what it does in my name or "no comment", I say let newsweek write what it wants.

[NoCalMike]

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this point has already been brought up, but why are the same people that are probably complaining about this article "aiding terrorists" also at the same time willing to turn a blind eye to all the misleading statements and horrible inaccuries in which this war was based on and a lot of strategical errors in fighting this war, I mean it would seem that might spark some anger in the middle east a little more then a newsweek article.