Way to start a holy war, Newsweek

[Frank]

@ralph124c

We ought to send them back, after first planting stories about how they became apostates, ate pork and drank beer.
I wonder how Sharia “law” would deal with them?

Every now and then I start to think maybe you’re not as bad as I thought, then something like this comes along and reminds me of why I would pay good money to buy you the custom title “SDMB’s stupidest poster”.

[Avenger]

We ought to send them back, after first planting stories about how they became apostates, ate pork and drank beer.

I missed the part where they were found guilty of something. Or charged with something. Or where any shred of actual evidence was presented that they might have actually done anything at all. You meant to type ‘we ought to send them back with a humble apology and substantial compensation’, surely?

[Squink]

@Evil One

And the retraction is in.

So Newseek will be covering press conferences at the white house in the future? Color me surprised :dubious: What of all these other reports of Koran abuse that’ve cropped up from Gitmo? Have they all been retracted, or are we going to fall back on the ‘few bad apples’ defense again?

[if6was9]

Just wanted to say, bugmenot.com is one of my favorite sites on the 'net. I’ll hush now.

[elucidator]

@ralph124c

…We ought to send them back, after first planting stories about how they became apostates, ate pork and drank beer.
I wonder how Sharia “law” would deal with them?

You are aware, of course, that a number of Gitrmo detainess have been adjudged innocent of terrorist involvement?

@Evil One

Does that mean we are “sinking to their level”? Yes. We can climb back up on the pedestal after the people that are trying to kill us are dead.

Do you really think so?

[Airblairxxx]

White House spokesman Scott Mclellan, pooh-poohing the Jeff Guckert controversy earlier this year:

Also, I don’t think it’s the role of the press secretary to get into being a media critic, and I think there are very good reasons for that.

The aforementioned Mr Mclellan, today on the Newsweek controversy:

It’s puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story. I think there’s a certain journalistic standard that should be met and in this instance it was not.

Christ almighty, this is sickening, watching Newsweek cave like this.

[Merijeek]

@Airblairxxx

Christ almighty, this is sickening, watching Newsweek cave like this.

IOKIYAAR.

Anyways, you don’t understand. It’s all because the librul media…ah, fuck it. Who has the energy?

-Joe

[rjung]

@Merijeek

IOKIYAAR.

The meme is spreading!

[Flyhalf]

@BabaBooey

Whether they in fact had them was inconsequential as it was simply believable that they did.

Hey, I’m honest enough to admit that I may have read too much into your statement. But that’s not how this sentence came across to me.

Asshole.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Well, let’s see.

1. Former inmates claim that the Koran was abused.

2. Then, for the first time, a US governmental official claims the same. This is news.

Now, responsible news organizations do fact checking. What did Newsweek do?

Newsweek claims the following:

Two weeks ago, in our issue dated May 9, Michael Isikoff and John Barry reported in a brief item in our Periscope section that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that American guards at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had committed infractions in trying to get terror suspects to talk, including in one case flushing a Qur’an down a toilet. Their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur’an charge.

Thank you, Newsweek for not burying a story that is very much in the public interest.

That one of your sources later backtracks possibly following later administration pressure (my speculation) is not Newsweek’s fault.

The job of the press is to provide the facts. The facts are that a reasonably reliable admin official confirmed claims of abuse of the Koran. Later, the same official backtracked. Newsweek reported both.

If you want Happy Talk, look to the entertainment channels, such as Fox shmooze.

[SteveG1]

So is it true or not? Did they do it, or didn’t they? In other words, which set of people do we believe? If it is true, why on earth DID Newsweek retract? There is no law against telling the truth, if it was true.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Their source retracted, the admin applied pressure, the story evaporated, Newsweek rolled.

As for whom to believe, I would have to study the consistency of the stories of the original released inmates.

More generally, it is prudent to wait at least a couple of days to see how these things play out before moving to judgment.

As for myself, I confess that I don’t really care too much; the reports of “Waterboarding” and torture are solid enough without me worrying about certain strategic errors with religious texts.

[Princhester]

@zuma

Stunningly accurate, though. Nobody wants to face the 800 pound elephant. The Religion Of Peace is the most violent, backward, oppresive religous culture around. How they stole that title from the christian fundamentalists is beyond me.

There is only one 800 pound elephant. Look in a mirror.

They didn’t steal the title. They had the title bestowed upon them by others. If you want a clue as to who deserves the title, I’d suggest you look amongst those doing the bestowing for your suspects.

[BabaBooey]

@Flyhalf

Hey, I’m honest enough to admit that I may have read too much into your statement. But that’s not how this sentence came across to me.

Asshole.

I felt that it was clear in context that I feel said logic is incorrect.

[SteveG1]

After so much misinformation, malinformation, outright bullshit and all over the years, I really don’t know who to believe anymore, and I sometimes wonder why I should even try to care. At this point I guess the only logical course is to assume everyone is lying through their teeth about everything. Isn’t there anyone who stands for something anymore??

[Princhester]

@BabaBooey

Do you support the Iraq invasion? Would you have supported it had the US troops found WMDs there? By your logic, you would be wrong to answer no to the first and yes to the second as it was believable that they did in fact have WMDs, plus Bush was acting on reliable sources. Whether they in fact had them was inconsequential as it was simply believable that they did.

The SDMB has a higher level of political awareness than Joe Schmuck. Joe may still believe this crap, but attempting it around here is just dumb. You need to read up.

@MaxTheVool

Diogenes, I’m generally on your side, but your argument is WAY off base here.

[snip]

How so? The US made the decision to invade Iraq. That decision had, as an extremely predictable consequence, the ratcheting up of anti-American feeling in the middle east. The US also (unfortunately) did some horrible things in Abu Ghraib. Put all of those together and you have a situation where even unsubstantiated reports of Koran desecration (a) are far more believable than they would have been 4 years ago, and (b) are heard by an already angry and riot-prone populace. [etc]

I’m surprised that someone who so clearly understands (and even propounds) the latter argument doesn’t see where Diogenes was coming from.

@sqweels

I have another question: How widely available is Newsweek and similar US news sources in Afghanistan and other Islamic countries?

Very. Get out and see the world. You’d be amazed. I hear that TV and printing have reached some parts of Asia, these days. And some Muslims, believe it or not, are capable of reading and translating English. The cunning bastards.

@sqweels

But when is it going to Muslims’ turn to start understanding things?

Right after Americans get a grip on some basic facts relevant to an ability to formulate foreign policy.

Note for the terminally thick: the previous paragraph contains a significant element of gross generalisation as a deliberate act of parody, so don’t bother telling me off about it.

[BabaBooey]

What exactly do you feel I should read up on, that Bush and congress based their decision on the most reliable sources we had?

[FinnAgain]

Um… if you think they based their decisions on the ‘most reliable sources we had’, you really do need to read up. I’d suggest searching the dope for “Office of special plans.” and/or “Chalabi.”

[Measure_for_Measure]

---- After so much misinformation, malinformation, outright bullshit and all over the years, I really don’t know who to believe anymore, and I sometimes wonder why I should even try to care. At this point I guess the only logical course is to assume everyone is lying through their teeth about everything.

Those who have a track record of lying, prevaricating, word games or consistent PR to the exclusion of even off-the-record candor should not be believed.

Not all politicians reflect these traits. For example, when liberals advocate National Health Insurance, they don’t try to shift the terms around when their labels don’t do well in focus groups. And they don’t deny that they ever used such terms.

In the present case though, methinks it’s wise to withhold judgment at the present time.

[SteveG1]

I am just having trouble registering my feelings of disgust and distrust in a way that doesn’t sound whiny or paranoid.