Newsweek Lied, People Died

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by chomerics

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.

I don't believe that the primary teachings in the OT are the basis of rCC doctrine. The RCC is a christian denomination and follows the teachings of Christ which are mainly the NT.

I also know of acts of violence in the OT but not a teaching of killing. In fact, isnt "Thou shall NOT kill" an element of the OT?

I'm not bashing anyone here, but it does irk me that some can post statements that the Bible dictates to "kill,kill, kill" without a basis in fact and not even a link to back it up.

[Ignatius J.]

I think Skin is going to win this. God did some pretty mean things in his day, but unlike the Koran, the bible does not instruct people to kill in his name with quite the same fervor.

More importantly, the teachings of christ are about as pacifist as you can get. If you want to condemn "christians" for thier actions, that's fine, but the religion itself is pretty peaceful.

but what's this doing here anyway, we're bashing libruls!

[dreamingwolf]

larry your agruing propaganda. Thats fine. If for you undermining the other party is fine so be it. Its the world we live in. Just understand that your method of politics is encouraging anti-american media sources. They will be pro when your guy gets in, but for me I cant stomach that you guys actually eat up anti-american propaganda.

Those reports come daily from al-jazera with no effect on the world, but our guys spill some lies for them and it comes with a gold pound for ever letter. I know you hate republicans but you have hate those how undermine the country. I maybe a republican and you maybe a democrat, but one thing that is for certain is that we are both americans.

For you to put your party above america really makes me question you, and you should really evaluate yourself. If your willing to undermine our countries efforts for political gain are you not an american you are a democrat stooge.

They admitted they printed the story with no proof of the claim. Thats not good enough for you? You dont see the damage that it did, you accept that the chaos that was bred from it was acceptable cause it was a dig on the administration?

Come on man be reasonable. Im all about free press, but Im not about press being so free as to subvert the opposition at will. The press has a responibility to be accurate and have fact behind them. Not lunge at every opp to descredit their opponent. Just to let you know the only radio I listen to is jfk so I guess from time to time orielly is on, but really Im just tracking don and mike(liberal douches). I dont think Ive ever heard a limbaugh broadcast.

Im not trying to argue whether the iraq war was prestine, Im just saying that we shouldnt be a propaganda machine for the enemy. Unfortunately you, and the others on the left, feel that its appropriate to be the enemies propaganda machine. Im not saying that our press should kiss the administrations ass, but that they should not try to sweep our legs out without facts. I guess on that we will have to agree to disagree.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

I don't believe that the primary teachings in the OT are the basis of rCC doctrine. The RCC is a christian denomination and follows the teachings of Christ which are mainly the NT.

I also know of acts of violence in the OT but not a teaching of killing. In fact, isnt "Thou shall NOT kill" an element of the OT?

I'm not bashing anyone here, but it does irk me that some can post statements that the Bible dictates to "kill,kill, kill" without a basis in fact and not even a link to back it up.

sorry, i had to leave for a hockey game, i didn't have time to quote anything for you, i'll give you a few:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them

Leviticus 20:27 A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; their blood is upon them

Leviticus 20:9 All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.

Exodus 22:20 Whoever sacrafices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction

Exodus 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.

the list goes on and on, so as you can see, the bible preaches murder. by all rights, i should be murdered soon, for i have worked today, the sabbath.

[dreamingwolf]

you have been trained well on how to exploit

[DjTj]

This thread really reminded me of something I just read in Time Magazine online:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1061436,00.html

As a rule, we at TIME Inc., publisher of this and many other magazines, believe that we should report the news instead of making it. We also believe in the rule of law, and we do not believe journalists, ours or anyone else's, should be held above it.

Sometimes, however, staying out of the news becomes impossible. And sometimes seeking a clarification of our nation's law from its highest court becomes an imperative. We find ourselves in just such a position with TIME Magazine and its White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, both of whom have come under extraordinary government pressure to cooperate in an investigation in ways that we believe are unwarranted and potentially damaging to the free flow of information that leads to accountability in our democracy. As this controversy unfolds, we want you to understand the story behind that story.

You may be aware that Cooper, along with Judith Miller of the New York Times, faces the very real possibility of going to jail for refusing to disclose confidential sources to a federal grand jury investigating who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson. Ironically, neither Cooper nor Miller actually outed Plame. That revelation was made almost two years ago by syndicated columnist Robert Novak commenting on Wilson's allegations that the Bush Administration, which had sent him to Niger to investigate claims of Iraq's attempt to buy weapons-grade uranium there, had ignored his finding that there was no credible evidence of such an attempt. Novak said "two senior Administration officials" had told him the CIA had dispatched Wilson at the suggestion of his wife, whom Novak revealed as Plame, "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

After Novak's revelation, TIME's Cooper co-authored an article on the magazine's website, saying "some government officials" had told him basically the same thing, and the piece went on to suggest potential misconduct by those officials, who were perhaps seeking to discredit Wilson.

After some uproar, the Department of Justice appointed a special counsel to determine whether those who leaked Plame's role and her name violated a federal law barring the unauthorized disclosure of a covert operative's identity. The special counsel impaneled a federal grand jury and subpoenaed Cooper and TIME Inc., demanding that we disclose our sources. When we declined to do so, a federal district judge in Washington held Cooper and us in contempt, relying on secret evidence submitted by the prosecutor. The judge ordered that Cooper be jailed for up to 18 months and that TIME Inc. be fined $1,000 a day until we complied with the subpoenas and revealed our confidential sources. The district court's decision was upheld on appeal, with two of the three judges noting that this case presented important questions that could be resolved only by the Supreme Court.

We don't risk jail or fines lightly. It is our editorial policy to identify sources by name whenever possible. But sometimes we can obtain information only by promising confidentiality to a source, because many persons with important information won't speak to the press unless they are assured anonymity. Information given in confidence is especially valuable when it contradicts or undermines public positions asserted by governments or powerful individuals or corporations. Without confidential sourcing, the public would never have learned the details of many situations vital to its interests, from Watergate to Enron to Abu Ghraib.

Thus, TIME Inc. last week took the unusual step of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower-court decisions and rule that Matt Cooper may not be jailed and TIME Inc. may not be fined for refusing to disclose confidential sources to a federal grand jury. Our petition argues that much has changed in the 33 years since the Supreme Court last looked at this issue and ruled against several reporters in a 5-to-4 decision that resulted in murky law.

Furthermore, the District of Columbia and 49 states now protect confidential sources. We think those protections strongly support our contention that the First Amendment (which protects freedom of the press) and common law should be held to extend the reporter's privilege to federal cases.

We believe the Supreme Court should recognize a reporter's privilege under federal rules of evidence adopted since 1972—rules that have led federal courts to recognize a psychotherapist-patient privilege, a spousal privilege, a cleric-communicant privilege and many others.

We argue further that jailing or fining a witness based on secret evidence submitted by the prosecutor violates a constitutional right to due process. The Supreme Court held last year that accused enemy combatants have a right to confront the evidence against them. We cannot understand how journalists doing their jobs should be denied that same basic right.

We believe we must protect our sources when we grant them confidentiality, an obligation we take seriously. We also believe we must resist government coercion. Put simply, the issues at stake are crucial to our ability to report the news and inform the public. We hope the Supreme Court will hear our case and rule in our favor. As it said many years ago, freedom of the press was established "not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all of us."

---------------------

Now, in the case of Time Magazine and Robert Novak, a federal crime has been committed and all the witnesses are hiding behind the freedom of the press. Newsweek may have been sloppy, but they committed no crime. Newsweek has admitted to their mistake while Time is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Newsweek screwed up, and they apologized. It's a lot better than a lot of their competitors and associates are doing. We're still waiting for Robert Novak to apologize to Valerie Plame or the Washington Post to apologize to the Redskins. At least Newsweek shows that there is some accountability left in this world.

[dreamingwolf]

we are fighting ourselves and them

[Ghost of]

Dj

It's true they showed SOME accountability. And they are not at all as bad(despite what happened) as Eason Jordan from CNN with his blind eye to Saddam and then his charge that American troops were killing journalists. Guess his apology for toeing Saddam's line wasn't that sincere.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Liberty

yeah one would think Ghost (actually righties in general) would feel like a hypocrite saying Newsweek lied and cost lives but GWB was misled by faulty info.

Obviously they are both wrong. But which is worse, the government doing something like this, or the a privately published magazing which can print pretty much whatever it wants?

Actually, Liberty, the title was as much my point as anything.

Meaning, I don't think newsweek lied.

It's called turning something on its head to get people to understand that words MEAN things.

I knew that the less-swift would actually think I meant what should obviously have been an alteration of the popular leftist phrase.

Those rioters were responsible for their actions. Newsweek may have lit the powder keg, but in all honesty, it could have been a less reputable newsource making it all up that did the same thing.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Actually, Liberty, the title was as much my point as anything.

Meaning, I don't think newsweek lied.

It's called turning something on its head to get people to understand that words MEAN things.

I knew that the less-swift would actually think I meant what should obviously have been an alteration of the popular leftist phrase.

Those rioters were responsible for their actions. Newsweek may have lit the powder keg, but in all honesty, it could have been a less reputable newsource making it all up that did the same thing.

Well that might count you out, but there are plenty of other righties in this thread who I accurately portrayed as being hypocrites.

[rebornempowered]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

by all rights, i should be murdered soon, for i have worked today, the sabbath. [/b]

This shows you have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand those verses within their context.

Did you know that Saturday is the Sabbath?

That's what I thought.

[codeorama]

People actually read Newsweek?

[Larry]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf

They admitted they printed the story with no proof of the claim. Thats not good enough for you? You dont see the damage that it did, you accept that the chaos that was bred from it was acceptable cause it was a dig on the administration?

Come on man be reasonable. Im all about free press, but Im not about press being so free as to subvert the opposition at will. The press has a responibility to be accurate and have fact behind them. Not lunge at every opp to descredit their opponent.

And yet you, aparantly, still haven't read the article.

They "admitted" that they published a story that came from a previously reliable source, and which had been confirmed (although, in a backhanded kind of way) by a second. And when more information came out, which disputed their story, they immediatly retracted the story (even though they point out, factually, that the story may, in fact still be true. They just aren't as confident as they were.)

Now, no, they didn't have video camera footage of the "Koran in the toilet". If your standard of "no proof" is "the reporter didn't personally witness it", then you're right. Newsweek published a story which the Bush administration has likely spent millions of dollars making certain that there cannot possibly be any witnisses. And by that same standard, Bush had no evidence whatsoever of WMDs in Iraq, or of links to 9/11.

In what I'm assuming (if I can figure out your message) is the point of your opening, you seem to have missed the point of the comparason I made.

Bush took a piece of information from a man who had millions of reasons to lie. The evidence was outright refuted by a second source, and was disputed by another. He used it anyway. And when the audience found out it was untrue, he blamed everybody else within 100 yards, and still hasn't admitted a mistake.

Obviously, George Bush is an honorable, ethical man, who was dragged into a war he didn't want (but which he had been planning even before he took office) by his lieing subordinates. Not only was there nothing wrong with his use of materials which he knew were forged, but he hasn't done a single thing wrong, ever.

Newsweek took a piece of information that they've heard from numerous (questionable) sources, and which has now come from a (previously reliable) source, and has been (kind-of) substantiated by another. They used it. And when the audience found out more information, Newsweek then pointed out that part of the story has now been called into question, and they are therefore withdrawing the whole story, pending more information.

Obviously, Newsweek (and I) are a bunch of enemy agents who's mission is to destroy America at all costs. All of us know this information is false, but our blind hatred, personal greed, and lack of any morals whatsoever is so powerfull that we simply cannot resist any lie, no matter how obvious it is to those of you who Know the Truth.

-----

Just to point out something else, here. At least based on the contents of this thread, there's a lot more evidence in this thread that the Newseek story was correct than there is to show that they lied.

Newsweek has shown evidence to support their story, and has explained that they can no longer consider their evidence reliable.

And 20 people (or, maybe, two people ten times each. I haven't checked.) have pronounced that "Newsweek had no evidence whatsoever". With no evidence whatsoever.

[Larry]

Originally posted by DjTj

Now, in the case of Time Magazine and Robert Novak, a federal crime has been committed and all the witnesses are hiding behind the freedom of the press. Newsweek may have been sloppy, but they committed no crime. Newsweek has admitted to their mistake while Time is appealing to the Supreme Court.

I will point out, however.

Time didn't print the leak. They knew it was nothing more than a smear campaign against somebody who dared to dispute the White House, and likely recognised that it would be illegal for them to print it.

(Bob Novak also knew it was a smear campain. And likely knew it was illegal (it's concievable that he didn't remember that law). But he was just fine with that. You want an annonymous smear, Mr. Bush? I'm your man.)

In short, the White House broke the law. Bob Novak broke the law. And the government is now trying to jail two reporters who didn't break the law.

To use an analogy, if Tony Soprano tries to hire me to commit a murder, and I refuse, and someone else then commits the murder, should the government throw me in jail (while the murderer has not even been charged), if I fail to testify against Tony Soprano?

[DB44]

Any news outlet that reports this drastic of misinformation should be fined heavily.

This oops mentality, and media bias junk has got to stop.

You just can't believe anything you read any more.

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't think its an oops mentality.

I believe in today's issue, they printed a whole lay-out on the process of this story. When they talked to people, how many they talked to. What was said. I believe putting all the info they have for people to see.

Must be a lot of stuff or they'd just take a "We had sources, so pffffffffttttt on you" approach that you see our Gov't use these days.

[Henry]

Well, what a lovely thread to read first thing in the morning. Let's keep the 'evil libs/neo-cons' and '[insert religious text here] is all about death' talk to a dull roar, ok?

Thanks.

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Henry

Well, what a lovely thread to read first thing in the morning. Let's keep the 'evil libs/neo-cons' and '[insert religious text here] is all about death' talk to a dull roar, ok?

Thanks.

Why don't you just cut off Sarge from breathing?

[Destino]

Originally posted by Sarge

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:

The military serves the civilian population. Any mistakes made in uniform should be reported to us no less then mistakes made by elected officials, who are also serving us. This is the basis behind "freedom of the press" and the reason our founding father saw the need to provide it. Civilians can't properly run their democracy if they aren't told what's going on.

The blame rests with those that have done wrong, not the media that dares to report it. You may like the idea of keeping things quiet, but I don't. Such behavior encourages corruption.

Also blaming riots on Newsweek is like blaming the LA riots on a jury. The people at fault here are the violent morons seeking to show their anger by killing people. Newsweek should fire the idiot that didn't get enough sources to cover his ass, but a story didn't FORCE anyone to harm anyone. The decision to be violent was made by the animals who let's face it, were waiting for an excuse to do what they wanted.

[Art]

I've not read this whole thread, but, may I ask, does anyone actually HAVE a problem with the entire Newsweek story being absolutely true? I mean, no one here is really all that upset by the thought that we'd flush a Koran down the toilet in an effort to get someone to talk, are we?

Or, are we? .

[Larry]

Originally posted by Art

I've not read this whole thread, but, may I ask, does anyone actually HAVE a problem with the entire Newsweek story being absolutely true? I mean, no one here is really all that upset by the thought that we'd flush a Koran down the toilet in an effort to get someone to talk, are we?

Or, are we? .

I'm assuming your question is: Would anybody here really complain a lot if it were revealed that someone did flush a Koran?

Or, to make the question shorter, when does something become torture? (Or, when is it "going too far"?)

Is playing Beach Boys music in the prison torture? Or does it have to be It's a Small World before it rises to that level? (Is it torture if the music is loud enough to deny sleep?)

I'll agree that, on one level, I can see a parallel between flushing a Koran and "Give us ze secret plans, or we will torture this teddy bear".

So, IMO, no, flushing a Koran isn't going to far with a prisoner.

OTOH, you also have to admit. We knew when we started this fight, that the people we're fighting are going to claim we're attacking their religion. (In fact, we are attacking the terrorist's religion.)

I think, if this incident did occurr, my feelings would be similar to those from the Abu Garahib photos: It's not really torture, it might be "going too far", and it did hurt our war effort.

[Art]

Larry,

First, no, you can not equate doing anything to the Koran with any level of torture. Second, no, we were not the people who started this fight. It's a terrible thing that you would still put this on us.

I don't think it hurt our war effort at all. It might even HELP it if we openly said, "Yeah, we did it. Will again. In fact, doing it right now." .

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by rebornempowered

This shows you have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand those verses within their context.

Did you know that Saturday is the Sabbath?

That's what I thought.

i was going by current christian definition of sabbath, but yes, you are correct, saturday is the true sabbath. somehow the christians and jews got mixed up down the years. doesn't realy matter, because I worked on saturday and sunday

[Sarge]

And such a short memory some of us have.

Oh wait, it was only Bibles that were trashed in this incident. I wonder where Al Newsweek was during this incident?

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

The PA Takeover of the Church of the Nativity

On April 2, 2002, as Israel implemented its Defensive Shield operation to combat the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, in Bethlehem "a number of terrorists took over St. Mary's Church grounds and...held the priest and a number of nuns there against their will. The terrorists used the Church as a firing position, from which they shot at IDF soldiers in the area. The soldiers did not return fire toward the church when fired upon [emphasis added]. An IDF force, under the command of the Bethlehem area regional commander, entered the Church grounds today without battle, in coordination with its leaders, and evacuated the priest and nuns."33

That same day, "More than 100 Palestinian gunmen...[including] soldiers and policemen, entered the Church of the Nativity on Tuesday, as Israeli troops swept into Bethlehem in an attempt to quell violence by Palestinian suicide bombers and militias."34 The actual number of terrorists was between 150 and 180, among them prominent members of the Fatah Tanzim. As the New York Times put it, "Palestinian gunmen have frequently used the area around the church as a refuge, with the expectation that Israel would try to avoid fighting near the shrine" [emphasis added].35

And in fact this was the case. The commander of the Israeli forces in the area asserted that the IDF would not break into the church itself and would not harm this site holy to Christianity. Israel also deployed more mature and more reserved reserve-duty soldiers in this sensitive situation that militarily called for more agile, standing-army soldiers.36

On the other hand, the Palestinians did not treat it the same way. Not only did they take their weapons with them into the Church of the Nativity and fire, on occasion, from the church, but also reportedly booby-trapped the entrance to the church.37

On April 7, "one of the few priests evacuated from the church told Israeli television yesterday that gunmen had shot their way in, and that the priests, monks and nuns were essentially hostages....The priest declined to call the clergy 'hostages,' but repeatedly said in fluent English: 'We have absolutely no choice. They have guns, we do not.'"38

Christians clearly saw the takeover as a violation of the sanctity of the church. In an interview with CWNews, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's Undersecretary of State and the top foreign-policy official, asserted that "The Palestinians have entered into bilateral agreements [with the Holy See] in which they undertake to maintain and respect the status quo regarding the Christian holy places and the rights of Christian communities. To explain the gravity of the current situation, let me begin with the fact that the occupation of the holy places by armed men is a violation of a long tradition of law that dates back to the Ottoman era. Never before have they been occupied - for such a lengthy time - by armed men."39 On April 14, he reiterated his position in an interview on Vatican Radio.40

On April 24, the Jerusalem Post reported on the damage that the PA forces were causing:

Three Armenian monks, who had been held hostage by the Palestinian gunmen inside Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, managed to flee the church area via a side gate yesterday morning. They immediately thanked the soldiers for rescuing them.

They told army officers the gunmen had stolen gold and other property, including crucifixes and prayer books, and had caused damage....

One of the monks, Narkiss Korasian, later told reporters: "They stole everything, they opened the doors one by one and stole everything....They stole our prayer books and four crosses...they didn't leave anything. Thank you for your help, we will never forget it."

Israeli officials said the monks said the gunmen had also begun beating and attacking clergymen.41

When the siege finally ended, the PA soldiers left the church in terrible condition:

The Palestinian gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity seized church stockpiles of food and "ate like greedy monsters" until the food ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They also guzzled beer, wine, and Johnnie Walker scotch that they found in priests' quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. The indulgence lasted for about two weeks into the 39-day siege, when the food and drink ran out, according to an account by four Greek Orthodox priests who were trapped inside for the entire ordeal....

The Orthodox priests and a number of civilians have said the gunmen created a regime of fear.

Even in the Roman Catholic areas of the complex there was evidence of disregard for religious norms. Catholic priests said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed. "Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold," said a Franciscan, the Rev. Nicholas Marquez from Mexico.42

A problem that arose during the siege again shows Christian fear of Muslim domination. Two Palestinian gunmen in the church were killed, and the PA wanted to bury them in the basilica. "With two Muslim bodies inside the Church of the Nativity, Christianity could be facing an absolute disaster in Bethlehem," said Canon Andrew White, the special representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Middle East. "It would be catastrophic if two Muslim martyrs were buried in the church. It could lead to a situation like that in Nazareth," he said.43 Only after intensive mediation efforts were plans to bury the bodies inside abandoned.

[MrSilverMaC]

Some of you self proclaimed "conservatives" are ridiculous. Who do you think would have reported this if Kerry were in office?

Fox news?

Rush?

Probably. Would you be howling about it like you are now if your boy hannity broke this story? Probably not.

I think the reporter and his source should be executed for the danger they have put our soldiers in.

When you report something like this, you are taking peoples lives in your hands, you better be 1000% sure of your story. Any one who says different isn't thinking of our soldiers or thier loved ones.

No the terrorists and other morons in the middle east didn't need this to act out, but it sure as hell doesn't help us to reinforce and rejuvinate thier hatred of us. And if you think it's doesn't make any difference in their level of determination, you're not paying attemtion.

And BTW, dremingwolf, when you type it, it's capital "A" in America, and American.