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

[psi_radar]

But there has to be a limit on how far we go to respect them. Not letting the interrogators desecrate it is the right decision. Rioting because it's believed that they did desecrate anyway, isn't.

That depends upon their beliefs. To be devils' advote here, these same people destroyed ancient buddhist monuments that can never be restored. Are we talking about reporting creditiblity here, or crimes against religion? And is there such a thing as crimes against religion, if you live in a supposedly secular country?

 

[Tgace]

Yes..can we or should we punish Americans for "abusing a religious document"? Unless they were in violation of military policy, which means its up to the military to deal with it, meaning a reduction in grade or discharge at the worst.

 

[47MartialMan]

The media doesnt lie-it "exaggerates"!

 

[Makalakumu]

The media doesnt lie-it "exaggerates"!

Actually, they do lie, all of the time.

In Febuary 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifiying the news in the United States.

If you don't have time to check facts, then you probably shouldn't believe a word of what is said on TV these days.

 

[michaeledward]

From a government report, as reported by the New York Times.

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

​

 

[47MartialMan]

Actually, they do lie, all of the time.

In Febuary 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifiying the news in the United States.

If you don't have time to check facts, then you probably shouldn't believe a word of what is said on TV these days.

Hey, I was being sarcastic. The media tends to want others to think they dont

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, fine. I expect to hear no more complaints about flag-burning.

 

[michaeledward]

That depends upon their beliefs. To be devils' advote here, these same people destroyed ancient buddhist monuments that can never be restored. Are we talking about reporting creditiblity here, or crimes against religion? And is there such a thing as crimes against religion, if you live in a supposedly secular country?

" These same people " ?

Can you define that pronoun a bit for me? Do you mean Afghani's? Pakistani's? I know the Taliban destroyed the Buddha. But, I thought the demonstrations were perhaps the citizens of Afghanistan & Pakistan.

It's a bit like referring to all Americans as 'These same people dragged Matthew Sheppard to his death.'

I'm pretty sure you don't think that way, psi .... but, the allegation is not playing devil's advocate; it's racist (or nationalist, if you prefer).

 

[47MartialMan]

" These same people " ?

Can you define that pronoun a bit for me? Do you mean Afghani's? Pakistani's? I know the Taliban destroyed the Buddha. But, I thought the demonstrations were perhaps the citizens of Afghanistan & Pakistan.

It's a bit like referring to all Americans as 'These same people dragged Matthew Sheppard to his death.'

I'm pretty sure you don't think that way, psi .... but, the allegation is not playing devil's advocate; it's racist (or nationalist, if you prefer).

Hmmn....people have some astonishing behavior patterns

 

[Andrew Green]

Another Isolated incident... Seems to be a weekly thing...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4570631.stm

 

[47MartialMan]

Another Isolated incident... Seems to be a weekly thing...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4570631.stm

Of course it is going to be a weekly thing when daily there is tension.

 

[psi_radar]

" These same people " ?

Can you define that pronoun a bit for me? Do you mean Afghani's? Pakistani's? I know the Taliban destroyed the Buddha. But, I thought the demonstrations were perhaps the citizens of Afghanistan & Pakistan.

It's a bit like referring to all Americans as 'These same people dragged Matthew Sheppard to his death.'

I'm pretty sure you don't think that way, psi .... but, the allegation is not playing devil's advocate; it's racist (or nationalist, if you prefer).

You may have caught me in an overgeneralization there. I had read that those participating in the riots were Afghani muslim extremists, which I equated to people who had in the past tacitly supported the Taliban. Some Afghanis obviously supported the Taliban when they were in power, however, to say definitively that these people were among them would be a leap. We can safely say though, that some afghanis, perhaps not these specific afghanis, desecrated sacred artworks for no better reason than religious offense.

 

[Ender]

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.

And don't confuse rationalization with good journalism.

It doesn't matter if the government has stated any interrogation techniques were not being used. It doesn't mater if menstrual blood was used. That doesn't give Newswwek the moral right to print a false story.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Considering the Bush government's clear pattern of lies and exaggerations, it's somewhat remarkable to see anyone who supported our attack on Iraq arguing that "Newsweek," had no right to print a, "false story."

2. How do you know it was a false story? You know that they couldn't get the corroboration they needed; you know that they claimed their sources turned around and refused to confirm the story their sources had already told. You don;t know if it was true; you don;t know if it was false.

3. Regrettably, you do know--or you should--that it was a story very much in keeping with the pattern that we do know the Bush government has both endorsed and advanced...a pattern of a) denying that detainees have any rights whatsoever; b) of painting the conflict as Christians vs. Muslims; c) of officially-sanctioned physical and psychological coercion.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Duplicate post edited.

 

[sgtmac_46]

1. Considering the Bush government's clear pattern of lies and exaggerations, it's somewhat remarkable to see anyone who supported our attack on Iraq arguing that "Newsweek," had no right to print a, "false story."

2. How do you know it was a false story? You know that they couldn't get the corroboration they needed; you know that they claimed their sources turned around and refused to confirm the story their sources had already told. You don;t know if it was true; you don;t know if it was false.

3. Regrettably, you do know--or you should--that it was a story very much in keeping with the pattern that we do know the Bush government has both endorsed and advanced...a pattern of a) denying that detainees have any rights whatsoever; b) of painting the conflict as Christians vs. Muslims; c) of officially-sanctioned physical and psychological coercion.

So you're suggesting that the article might have been fake, but accurate? LMFAO.

So I guess there is going to be a new rule in journalism. We'll call it the Robertson's rule of journalism.

That rule says:

If any story lacks any support, cannot be confirmed, has evidence of being fabricated BUT advances a leftwing, anti-Bush, anti-US agenda, it should be considered as if it were Gospel against ALL evidence.

Example: "How do you Know it's a false story?" Written as if the burden of proof is on others to DISPROVE an article that supports his political agenda. In other words, if it's written, it's true until proven otherwise, and even THEN it's still true. Further, even if it IS proven untrue, it's still considered true because it "was a story very much in keeping with the pattern that we do know the Bush government has both endorsed and advanced."

Wow, remarkeable. Did you sell your credibility and objectivity, robertson, or did you just give it away for free?

The sad fact is, and you should pay attention to this robertson, this is why no one believes the left and their media anymore. Everything is considered true, no matter how absurd or baseless, because it fits an agenda. You're the proverbial kids that cry wolf. If you ever DO find damning evidence of anything, you've lied so much and reported things as evidence that were "Fake but accurate" so often, no one will believe you.

That's why credibility is so important. Integrity is a word that the leftists in the media might start researching again.

I'm sure the response to this post will be "Well, Bush should look up that word, he's the biggest lying pooh pooh head there is." <sigh>

 

[rmcrobertson]

As for what I actually said, you might wish to go back and re-read. I said that they can't provide corroboration (apparently because their original sources have now recanted), which means--I was explicit--"You don't know if it was true; you don't know if it was false."

In other words, I wrote that you have no rational or evidentiary basis for deciding one way or another. You simply don't know, and neither do I.

We do know that such an action is consistent with policies and procedures that our government has employed on many occasions; we do know that this explicitly contradicts the military's clear policy with regard to the Koran. Both our suspicions about whether or not this really happened, however, are politicized and therefore untrustworthy.

By the way, Hizzoner is an incompetent ideologue, whose actions as President we will come to regret. But you brought it up; I don't see what it has to do with this story.

 

[psi_radar]

<snip>

...this is why no one believes the left and their media anymore. Everything is considered true, no matter how absurd or baseless, because it fits an agenda. You're the proverbial kids that cry wolf. If you ever DO find damning evidence of anything, you've lied so much and reported things as evidence that were "Fake but accurate" so often, no one will believe you.
<snip>

<sigh>

Replace "left" with "right" in this quote and it accurately represents how at least 48 percent of the country feels.

 

[Ender]

So you're suggesting that the article might have been fake, but accurate? LMFAO.

So I guess there is going to be a new rule in journalism. We'll call it the Robertson's rule of journalism.

That rule says:

If any story lacks any support, cannot be confirmed, has evidence of being fabricated BUT advances a leftwing, anti-Bush, anti-US agenda, it should be considered as if it were Gospel against ALL evidence.

Example: "How do you Know it's a false story?" Written as if the burden of proof is on others to DISPROVE an article that supports his political agenda. In other words, if it's written, it's true until proven otherwise, and even THEN it's still true. Further, even if it IS proven untrue, it's still considered true because it "was a story very much in keeping with the pattern that we do know the Bush government has both endorsed and advanced."

Wow, remarkeable. Did you sell your credibility and objectivity, robertson, or did you just give it away for free?

The sad fact is, and you should pay attention to this robertson, this is why no one believes the left and their media anymore. Everything is considered true, no matter how absurd or baseless, because it fits an agenda. You're the proverbial kids that cry wolf. If you ever DO find damning evidence of anything, you've lied so much and reported things as evidence that were "Fake but accurate" so often, no one will believe you.

That's why credibility is so important. Integrity is a word that the leftists in the media might start researching again.

I'm sure the response to this post will be "Well, Bush should look up that word, he's the biggest lying pooh pooh head there is." <sigh>

Exactly. This sort of thing happens when principles become flexible. This whole story is a "News" story, not "opinion", not "News Analysis", but a factual story. Their whole line of reasoning is "We believe this to be so, so it must be true"

 

[Andrew Green]

So you're suggesting that the article might have been fake, but accurate? LMFAO.

No... I think what he is saying is that it may have been accurate and confirmed, but when the poo hit the fan the sources stopped wanting to confirm it.

advances a leftwing, anti-Bush, anti-US agenda, it should be considered as if it were Gospel against ALL evidence.

Left-wing is anti-US... Wow... Thats sure a good way of advancing a "us vs them" and "they are evil and want to destroy us mindset".

Guess Canada is evil and anti-US, with our social programs, health care, lack of invading other countries and the fact that our right wing is further left then your left wing...

So just out of curiousity, when are we going to get bombed?