Newsweek Lies, People Die: Your MSM at Work

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newsweek magazine on Sunday said it may have erred in a May 9 report that said U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to victims of deadly violence sparked by the article.

The weekly news magazine said in its May 23 edition that the original source of the allegation was not sure where he saw the assertion that at least one copy of the Koran was flushed down a toilet in an attempt to get detainees to talk.

"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," Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's latest issue, due to appear on U.S. newsstands on Monday.

The report has sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it handed over the interrogators in question.

The May 9 report quoted unnamed sources as saying that military investigators probing abuse at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found that interrogators had placed copies of the Koran on toilets and "in at least one case, flushed a holy book down the toilet."

Newsweek said a Pentagon spokesman told the magazine late last week that the story was wrong and that the military has found no credible evidence to support separate allegations of Koran desecration made by released detainees.

The U.S. military opened an investigation into the charges while top U.S. officials urged Muslims to resist calls for violence, stating disrespect for the holy book would not be tolerated.
Link

So 16 people die, 100 injured, no credible sources found, U.S. forces put at additional risk, hatred for U.S. increased based on a false report Newseek so wanted to be true.

Fire Michael Isikoff, he was the reporter responsible. Is it any wonder no one takes the MSM seriously anymore? I can't believe I still have a subscription to this. No renewal on the way.
 
Lemme get this straight - Newsweek got the story wrong and people may have died, anti-American sentiment increase, troops are put in harms ways because of it and that pisses you off.

Meanwhile, Bush does the EXACT same thing by the War in Iraq multiplied by a million and you think he is the greatest guy since Jesus.

Nice reality you got there..you're such a tool.
 
The prisoners are saying it did happen. So it's the guard's word vs the prisoner's.

In January, British prisoners released from Guantanamo said guards threw their Korans into toilets and tried to force them to give up their faith. Human rights lawyer Tom Wilner, who represents several Kuwaiti prisoners at Guantanamo, said in February that his clients told him their Korans were thrown on the floor, stepped on and thrown into toilets at Guantanamo.

Newsweek's Whitaker said that when the magazine first heard of the Koran allegation from its source, staff approached two Defense Department officials. One declined to comment, while the other challenged a different aspect of the May 9 story but did not dispute the Koran charge.

The magazine said other news organizations had already aired charges of Koran desecration based "only on the testimony of detainees."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500493.html
 
I'd like to point out three things, one is this was hardly the first report. Second:

In Kabul though, imams preaching to Friday worshippers called for calm, saying it was acceptable to demonstrate over the allegations of the Koran being abused but not to resort to violence.


"We respect the Koran and support those who demonstrate," Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, who heads the country's peace and reconciliation commission, told worshippers in Kabul's main Blue Mosque.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4544833.stm

And third, this simply capped off already increasing tensions. For example, I think guantanamo is a little controversial, not sure about that one though.
 
Oooohh, american troops may have desecrated pieces of paper. That's a good reason for Sunnis to murder more innocent iraqis and other innocent bystanders. Whatever it takes, I guess.

Last I checked, god's word (whichever god) isn't contained on or by a piece of paper, it's eternal.

And, if a muslim took a shit on the temple mount in Jerusaleum, Americans wouldn't start rioting and murdering muslims indiscriminately, would they?

I don't think so, but they would blame it all on George Bush.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Oooohh, american troops may have desecrated pieces of paper. That's a good reason for Sunnis to murder more innocent iraqis and other innocent bystanders. Whatever it takes, I guess.

Last I checked, god's word (whichever god) isn't contained on or by a piece of paper, it's eternal.

And, if a muslim took a shit on the temple mount in Jerusaleum, Americans wouldn't start rioting and murdering muslims indiscriminately, would they?

I don't think so, but they would blame it all on George Bush.[/QUOTE]

It's not the fact that it's a book they're desecrating. It's the fact that it is blatantly disrespectful to the muslims. It is an intentional effort to humiliate and enrage them. I don't condone the reactionary violence, per se, but to make light of our soliders actively disrespecting another culture is simply lacking in social conscience. If a muslim walked down a street in texas and shat on a stack of Bibles, a dozen texans would have shot him before the first turd hit the book.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Oooohh, american troops may have desecrated pieces of paper. That's a good reason for Sunnis to murder more innocent iraqis and other innocent bystanders. Whatever it takes, I guess.

Last I checked, god's word (whichever god) isn't contained on or by a piece of paper, it's eternal.

And, if a muslim took a shit on the temple mount in Jerusaleum, Americans wouldn't start rioting and murdering muslims indiscriminately, would they?

I don't think so, but they would blame it all on George Bush.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, why did the christians rape and murder so many Arabs in the Dark Ages. My history may be fuzzy, but I don't think they were using imperialistic tactics to secure a vast source of oil back then.

Bush labeled the war on Iraq as the next crusade. Being such a "true believer" sure has a nice side effect of getting the troops all riled up, now doesn't it.

You may not think a degrading act against the main symbols of christianity would do anything, but then again you aren't in charge of programming at Fox News either.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Oooohh, american troops may have desecrated pieces of paper. That's a good reason for Sunnis to murder more innocent iraqis and other innocent bystanders. Whatever it takes, I guess.

Last I checked, god's word (whichever god) isn't contained on or by a piece of paper, it's eternal. [/quote]

Funny, I remember some states where it was illegal, and a hell of a lot of people agreed, to burn a piece of cloth. I also remember getting yelled at once in religion class for scribbling all over some christian book.

And, if a muslim took a shit on the temple mount in Jerusaleum, Americans wouldn't start rioting and murdering muslims indiscriminately, would they?

I don't think so, but they would blame it all on George Bush.
Click to expand...

I think you may have a problem with jews on that one, then again they have police that would take care of the person.

And besides, it isn't some random person who did it. It was done in a globally condemned facility, both for treatement of prisoners and the principles it operates on, and was viewed as one more insult to muslims by the americans.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']PAD, you just got served, pwned, and burned simultaneously.[/QUOTE]

You gotta love someone so fucking stupid, imbecillic and moronic that they can say someone got served, pwned and burned when they're not even debating .

Man, did Michael Jordon get served, pwned and burned by Shaq today!
 
What I like about the whole story is that now Newsweek has apologized and backed away from the story after 15 reported deaths so far.

Like anyone gives a shit that Newsweek is apologzing -- the damage that has been done cannot be undone. Yeah... I can see the radical Muslims in Pakistan thinking," hmmm maybe we over-reacted... sorry we killed people in riots this week. We accept your apology and lets all be friends."
 
But, after all, it's Bush who should be apologizing. It's HIS fault a group of armed muslim radicals want to take over a religion and kill as many muslims as possible until they all submit to their radical view of Islam.

When Bush says he's sorry, I'm sure the Left will forgive and forget. Then, when the Left regains power, I'm sure all the hatred for america will stop and be like it was under Clinton...
 
By the way, this information is not now. This info was reported by Human Rights Watch last year.

Alif Khan, from Afghanistan, told the BBC about life in Camp Delta (the facility which replaced Camp X-Ray):

Everyone was in a cage individually. Every cage had a tap, a toilet and water for washing. There was room to sit but not enough to pray. We were praying with difficulty. My joints were damaged. The light was very bright there as well. They were switched on all the time. Because of that our eyes were damaged and from constantly having to look through the netting [i.e. the tight mesh from which the door and walls of each cell are made].26

Detainees also complained about the interference with their ability to pray and the lack of respect given to their religion. For example, the British detainees state that they were never given prayer mats and initially were not provided Korans. They also complained that when the Korans were provided, the guards “would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.”

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/gitmo1004/3.htm#_ftn27


So to say Newsweek caused riots and people to die, is basically ignoring what is going on in Afghanistan now. The military is still trying to figure out what the cause is, they are not blaming Newsweek at the moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/international/asia/13afghan.html?

The Afghan authorities and Kabul residents said the spate of violence was the fault of outsiders, who they said were seeking to capitalize on student protests stirred up by reports, most recently in the May 9 issue of Newsweek, that Americans had desecrated the Koran during interrogations at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Islamic fundamentalist political parties, remnants of the former Taliban government and a renegade anti-American commander, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, are all possible sources of the violence, said Lutfullah Mashal, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry.

The American military is still trying to analyze whether the violence is politically driven, instigated by outsiders or a sign of general public frustration with the slow pace of reconstruction in the country, said a spokesman, Col. James Yonts. Students interviewed in Kabul pointed to the presence of American troops in the country as another source of resentment.

Local governors might also be encouraging protests against the central government and its American backers to improve their own standing before parliamentary elections in September, said Jandad Spinghar, head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in Jalalabad.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']But, after all, it's Bush who should be apologizing. It's HIS fault a group of armed muslim radicals want to take over a religion and kill as many muslims as possible until they all submit to their radical view of Islam.

When Bush says he's sorry, I'm sure the Left will forgive and forget. Then, when the Left regains power, I'm sure all the hatred for america will stop and be like it was under Clinton...[/QUOTE]


It is always fascinating (and disappointing) to see how conservatives debate the issues. Instead of having actual discussion on issued mentioned, they constantly argue with these straw-man points that no one is actually making. I mean we hear them time and time again;" What, you want Saddam back in power?", "If you don't like the US, then leave" and now "So you think everything will be perfect under the Democrats?" Talk about lazy.

And this second issue of "well, you Hate Bush" so therefore none of what you say can be right. Bullcrap. A screw-up is a screw-up. Personally, I liked Clinton but I can recognize some colossal f-ups he made. I couldn't write off the criticisms of the guy because the right wing hated him. Then again, I mature. Furthermore, the fact that I dislike Bush doesn't mean the f-ups he has made are not real. We aren't talking about how nice a guy he is but the ramifications of his actions.


p.s. Bush will never, ever say he is sorry.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm sure all the hatred for america will stop and be like it was under Clinton...[/QUOTE]

We are too far in the hole for that to happen.
 
Well, for one, whether this individual story is accurate or not, we still have all the other reports of it. Second though, mass demonstrations do have a tendency to sometimes turn violent, that happens everywhere and under many different conditions, it's just a strong police present can often prevent it from getting out of hand (or, in some cases, cause it to get out of hand).
 
[quote name='usickenme']It is always fascinating (and disappointing) to see how conservatives debate the issues. Instead of having actual discussion on issued mentioned, they constantly argue with these straw-man points that no one is actually making. I mean we hear them time and time again;" What, you want Saddam back in power?", "If you don't like the US, then leave" and now "So you think everything will be perfect under the Democrats?" Talk about lazy.

And this second issue of "well, you Hate Bush" so therefore none of what you say can be right. Bullcrap. A screw-up is a screw-up. Personally, I liked Clinton but I can recognize some colossal f-ups he made. I couldn't write off the criticisms of the guy because the right wing hated him. Then again, I mature. Furthermore, the fact that I dislike Bush doesn't mean the f-ups he has made are not real. We aren't talking about how nice a guy he is but the ramifications of his actions.


p.s. Bush will never, ever say he is sorry.[/QUOTE]

:applause:
 
[quote name='usickenme']It is always fascinating (and disappointing) to see how conservatives debate the issues. Instead of having actual discussion on issued mentioned, they constantly argue with these straw-man points that no one is actually making. I mean we hear them time and time again;" What, you want Saddam back in power?", "If you don't like the US, then leave" and now "So you think everything will be perfect under the Democrats?" Talk about lazy.[/QUOTE]

That's the way cable news channels, and Fox News in particular, train these people to think. Why bother with pesky facts and statistics when you can simply shout louder and longer than the other guy and declare yourself the winner? The left-wing can be just as guilty of this as the right-wing, too. Case in point: James Carville. Is there a more obnoxious man on the face of the earth? I think not. The difference is that Carville's boss (which was Clinton, for those of you who skip past C-Span in favor of SpikeTV) was only guilty of getting a little head, whereas the Bush administration's lies have costed thousands upon thousands of people their lives.

Back to the topic at hand, what made the Newsweek article so devastation, whether the allegations are true or not, is that it was all so utterly believable. This is the sort of thing we've come to expect from the military under Bush. It does a great disservice to the men and women of the armed forces that they come off looking like insensitive thugs because of the policies of their superiors. When an Iraqi kills a U.S. soldier because he's pissed off that his brother was tortured and humiliated in an American military prison, that death is on Bush's head.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']PAD, you just got served, pwned, and burned simultaneously.[/QUOTE]

Not at all.

The Newsweek statement of err is valid because it came from them.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Not at all.

The Newsweek statement of err is valid because it came from them.[/QUOTE]

I was referring to the post where someone pointed out that Bush had done the same only on a much larger scale.
 
There is a really good quote from the book "Spanking the Monkey" about conservatives (modern-day Bush loving neocons)

They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that will create opponents
 
[quote name='evilmregg']That's the way cable news channels, and Fox News in particular, train these people to think. Why bother with pesky facts and statistics when you can simply shout louder and longer than the other guy and declare yourself the winner?[/QUOTE]

What do statistics have to do with facts? And what does the media (republican or democratic leaning or not) have to do with facts either?

[quote name='evilmregg']Back to the topic at hand, what made the Newsweek article so devastation, whether the allegations are true or not, is that it was all so utterly believable. This is the sort of thing we've come to expect from the military under Bush. It does a great disservice to the men and women of the armed forces that they come off looking like insensitive thugs because of the policies of their superiors. When an Iraqi kills a U.S. soldier because he's pissed off that his brother was tortured and humiliated in an American military prison, that death is on Bush's head.[/QUOTE]

What I find devastating is that a media outlet obviously felt that they could publish something they hadn't verified because it knew what would appeal to its demographic. THE MEDIA IS SUSPECT, PEOPLE!!!!! Wake up! They don't give a fuck about the truth, just what garners ratings. The angles they take on each story they run (and there is always more than one) are directly responsible for public opinion. Then, in a big shocker, they run a 'public opinion' poll and 'gather statistics' to lend weight to their propaganda and make sure everyone knows that they are in the moral majority and thus must be right. Newsmedia is the new world religion, and too many people here think they can hide behind its extremely malleable 'truth' to justify their own points of view.

This whole thread is a perfect example. A very well-known news magazine delivers a false report, violating the only tenet the newsmedia is supposed to adhere to: report the truth. Instead, people discuss how believeable it is; as if it was a fake story in the Onion. WTF? Democrat or republican or other, you can't claim to be intelligent and pretend the news is reliable. Funny how you attack news outlets that seem to support different views than yours without ever considering the probable lack of objectivity of those that spout your gospel.
 
[quote name='usickenme']There is a really good quote from the book "Spanking the Monkey" about conservatives (modern-day Bush loving neocons)

They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that will create opponents[/QUOTE]

You do realize that applies to both major ideologies right? Do I even need to mention Dan Rather?
 
[quote name='atreyue']What do statistics have to do with facts? And what does the media (republican or democratic leaning or not) have to do with facts either?



What I find devastating is that a media outlet obviously felt that they could publish something they hadn't verified because it knew what would appeal to its demographic. THE MEDIA IS SUSPECT, PEOPLE!!!!! Wake up! They don't give a fuck about the truth, just what garners ratings. The angles they take on each story they run (and there is always more than one) are directly responsible for public opinion. Then, in a big shocker, they run a 'public opinion' poll and 'gather statistics' to lend weight to their propaganda and make sure everyone knows that they are in the moral majority and thus must be right. Newsmedia is the new world religion, and too many people here think they can hide behind its extremely malleable 'truth' to justify their own points of view.

This whole thread is a perfect example. A very well-known news magazine delivers a false report, violating the only tenet the newsmedia is supposed to adhere to: report the truth. Instead, people discuss how believeable it is; as if it was a fake story in the Onion. WTF? Democrat or republican or other, you can't claim to be intelligent and pretend the news is reliable. Funny how you attack news outlets that seem to support different views than yours without ever considering the probable lack of objectivity of those that spout your gospel.[/QUOTE]



Everyone is overlooking a major fact. Newsweek contacted the Pentagon, and they refused to comment on the story. If it wasn't true, why didn't they tell Newsweek right up front? Also, look at my earlier post, this info was out last year.
 
What surprises me is the overly simplistic causal arrangment that's being argued:

"Newsweek's reporting = Afghani Riots"

Let's see what chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers has to say (from http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/Archive/2005/May/13-80476.html)
Air Force General Richard Myers told reporters at the Pentagon May 12 that he has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else.

According to initial reports, the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine that U.S. military interrogators questioning Muslim detainees at the Guantanamo detention center “had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book.” By the following day the protests in the city had turned violent with reports of several individuals killed, dozens wounded, and widespread looting of government, diplomatic and nongovernmental assets.

However, Myers said an after-action report provided by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of the Combined Forces in Afghanistan, indicated that the political violence was not, in fact, connected to the magazine report.

Meanwhile, Myers said the U.S. military has assigned Army General Bantz Craddock to investigate allegations about the handling of the Quran at Guantanamo. Craddock brings the full weight of his responsibility as commander of the U.S. Southern Command to this effort.

Myers said the International Committee of the Red Cross has approved the edition of the Quran that has been distributed to Muslim detainees in Guantanamo. Craddock has been investigating the claim that proper respect was not given to the Quran. There are now some 550 enemy combatants at the military installation, which is designed to isolate individuals whom the military has identified as likely to have valuable intelligence about international terrorism.
Click to expand...

Hmm. It's nice that PAD wants to stir things up, but is incapable of responding to anything offered here, save for quackzilla's point.

Anyway, simple causation. Would anyone dare argue that our foreign relations in the middle east were just fantastic and hunkey-dorey before the Jalalabad riots? If not, why would anyone be simple-minded enough to claim that one news report started all this?

Furthermore, perhaps the precedent of *OUR SOLDIERS* beating, humiliating, physically and sexually abusing, and killing those we detain created a bit more hostility than had existed prior. That might have made a few muslims angry (given the rationale for some of the methods of humiliation in Abu Ghraib). Additionally, the United States has been actively participating in rendition, in order to cover our collective asses from further cases of abuse - it's a bit like outsourcing, which many of you conservatives should be in favor of. If you're in favor of a free market, you wouldn't discriminate if another government is willing to do the work we don't want to be caught doing, right?

In light of the way our military (government, leaders, and soldiers alike) have been behaving, would you be more surprised to hear that Quarans have been treated poorly, of that they have *not* been treated poorly, as a means of inmate control?

myke.
...what the fuck is wrong with you?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']You do realize that applies to both major ideologies right? Do I even need to mention Dan Rather?[/QUOTE]

I would agree that the extremists on both side do seek to make "enemies". However that idea is much more popular/ accepted in the mainstream of conservatives. Just read their book titles and you will see. Just listen to them on talk radio. Hell, just read the posts here.

I don't know why you would mention Dan Rather outside of another example of the right-winger needing someone to hate.
 
[quote name='usickenme']It is always fascinating (and disappointing) to see how conservatives debate the issues. Instead of having actual discussion on issued mentioned, they constantly argue with these straw-man points that no one is actually making. I mean we hear them time and time again;" What, you want Saddam back in power?", "If you don't like the US, then leave" and now "So you think everything will be perfect under the Democrats?" Talk about lazy.

And this second issue of "well, you Hate Bush" so therefore none of what you say can be right. Bullcrap. A screw-up is a screw-up. Personally, I liked Clinton but I can recognize some colossal f-ups he made. I couldn't write off the criticisms of the guy because the right wing hated him. Then again, I mature. Furthermore, the fact that I dislike Bush doesn't mean the f-ups he has made are not real. We aren't talking about how nice a guy he is but the ramifications of his actions.


p.s. Bush will never, ever say he is sorry.[/QUOTE]

Ok. Here's what I think:

Bush was allowed to invade Iraq. Congress approved it and the UN made no move to stop it. Iraq now is instituting a democratic nation which will treat it's people better and will be a heck of alot more stable than the old governement which went as far as to use chemical weapons on the Kurds. Also, it will help stabilize the world's economy once they start producing oil in rapid ammounts. Bush might have or might not have knowen the truth about WMD but the fact is that Iraq is and will be in a much better position now than it was before. Bush is a Christian. He has the right to be one. Despite what some people on the left are saying, he is in no waying trying to convert anyone. Sure he is enacting laws based on his Christian morals. He is allowed to do that also, it is Congress who has to approve it before it even hits his desk. Further, Christian values are valid in our society. Speaking on a Higher Plane of Thought: who is to say which set of morals or values is right? As technology (cloning, stem cells, abortion, et al) brings new debates to the table, who is anyone in the grand scheme of things to say one set of morals is correct or isn't? Bush's is just as valid as anyone elses and if he gets the chance of course he's going to approve legislature applying his morals. The Beauty of It All is that if you don't like it, you can do one of many things: a) vote in a new president b) vote in new Congressmen c) protest and make your opinion heard without facing major consequences or d) move to another country if it is Really That Bad.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I would agree that the extremists on both side do seek to make "enemies". However that idea is much more popular/ accepted in the mainstream of conservatives. Just read their book titles and you will see. Just listen to them on talk radio. Hell, just read the posts here.

I don't know why you would mention Dan Rather outside of another example of the right-winger needing someone to hate.[/QUOTE]

Instead of people dealing with the issue (Newsweek) they felt the need to bring up Bush and avoid the Newsweek issue altogether. The Rather comment is simply the same thing only it is from a side of the political spectrum that Bush haters don't want to hear. The Rather comment is actually more appropriate because Rather's own credibility became an issue. Newsweek and Rather are media personalities/entities and are comparable in this issue. People tend to hear what they want to hear as long as it supports their own position or belief. It's tantamount to a parent believing their child can do no wrong even when there is proof otherwise.

It's that kind of skewed "logic" from the right and left that drove people away from voting in the past in the first place.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Everyone is overlooking a major fact. Newsweek contacted the Pentagon, and they refused to comment on the story. If it wasn't true, why didn't they tell Newsweek right up front? Also, look at my earlier post, this info was out last year.[/QUOTE]

I hardly think that the pentagon refusing to comment is enough to say that the story was true. And info about similar things (possibly?) happening last year doesn't mean the same things are still happening now.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What surprises me is the overly simplistic causal arrangment that's being argued:

"Newsweek's reporting = Afghani Riots"

Let's see what chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers has to say (from http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/Archive/2005/May/13-80476.html)


Hmm. It's nice that PAD wants to stir things up, but is incapable of responding to anything offered here, save for quackzilla's point.

Anyway, simple causation. Would anyone dare argue that our foreign relations in the middle east were just fantastic and hunkey-dorey before the Jalalabad riots? If not, why would anyone be simple-minded enough to claim that one news report started all this?

Furthermore, perhaps the precedent of *OUR SOLDIERS* beating, humiliating, physically and sexually abusing, and killing those we detain created a bit more hostility than had existed prior. That might have made a few muslims angry (given the rationale for some of the methods of humiliation in Abu Ghraib). Additionally, the United States has been actively participating in rendition, in order to cover our collective asses from further cases of abuse - it's a bit like outsourcing, which many of you conservatives should be in favor of. If you're in favor of a free market, you wouldn't discriminate if another government is willing to do the work we don't want to be caught doing, right?

In light of the way our military (government, leaders, and soldiers alike) have been behaving, would you be more surprised to hear that Quarans have been treated poorly, of that they have *not* been treated poorly, as a means of inmate control?

myke.
...what the fuck is wrong with you?[/QUOTE]

Since none of this has to do with what I've posted and I don't disagree with you, I'm not really responding.

Just wanted to show my appreciation for your avatar. That was the first dvd I ever bought. i've been looking all over for his sunglasses.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']Ok. Here's what I think:

Bush was allowed to invade Iraq. Congress approved it and the UN made no move to stop it. Iraq now is instituting a democratic nation which will treat it's people better and will be a heck of alot more stable than the old governement which went as far as to use chemical weapons on the Kurds. Also, it will help stabilize the world's economy once they start producing oil in rapid ammounts. Bush might have or might not have knowen the truth about WMD but the fact is that Iraq is and will be in a much better position now than it was before. Bush is a Christian. He has the right to be one. Despite what some people on the left are saying, he is in no waying trying to convert anyone. Sure he is enacting laws based on his Christian morals. He is allowed to do that also, it is Congress who has to approve it before it even hits his desk. Further, Christian values are valid in our society. Speaking on a Higher Plane of Thought: who is to say which set of morals or values is right? As technology (cloning, stem cells, abortion, et al) brings new debates to the table, who is anyone in the grand scheme of things to say one set of morals is correct or isn't? Bush's is just as valid as anyone elses and if he gets the chance of course he's going to approve legislature applying his morals. The Beauty of It All is that if you don't like it, you can do one of many things: a) vote in a new president b) vote in new Congressmen c) protest and make your opinion heard without facing major consequences or d) move to another country if it is Really That Bad.[/QUOTE]


This presumes several things:

(1) That Iraq will become (and remain) stable; this war is now approaching $400 billion in cost incurred by the United States. Why don't you tell me what Paul Wolfowitz claimed this war would cost the United States just priot to the invasion (hint: check the Meet the Press archives).

(2) That christian morals are compatible with United States law. This is just plain wrong, as the separation of church and state is guaranted by the constitution that you hold so dear. Furthermore, the killing of thousands of Iraqis to oust the former leader of the Iraqis because he has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is not moral. Why would you be that damned foolish to even claim this is christianity at work, when the Pope himself had stated that the Catholic church does not condone this war?

(3) Christian morals, by virtue of oversimplification, just can not be effective in our policies (contingent upon its legality). If we were a more truly christian nation, the need to help the poor would take a far higher priority in our national agenda; upward mobility would be a far greater probability, as would education and welfare programs. Christianity is by no means compatible with individualism and meritocracy, two values most cherished by US citizens. I dare you to tell me otherwise.

(4) Another American value we cherish is the freedom of religion (or the freedom from religion, if you will). If you cannot see that christians, although a majority of our population, are exceedingly overrepresented in our government, you're a fool. Name me one president who was not a christian; name me a muslim, buddhist, or hindu senator or representative; name me one judge trying to erect a statue of the "eight pillars" in his courthouse. Goddammit, you're just so wrong on so many levels.

(5) If we're so concerned about the salvation of members of other countries, why hasn't Bush invaded Sudan? Syria? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Zimbabwe? fuck your bullshit altruism, because there is no "ends justify the means" argument that satisfactorily explains the war in Iraq. Why don't you tell me how the United States is perceived by the middle east as a whole? You can break it down into countries, if you like.

(6) "You can do something about it if you like." You're false presumption here is probably the greatest, and one touched upon by the subject of this thread. Our media is threatened into retraction by our administration; our media has not uttered one word about the infamous "Downing Street Memo" (www.downingstreetmemo.com), save for one Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. This document is the "smoking gun" that the United States and Britain had planned to invade Iraq, and simultaneously fabricate the reasons for doing so. Why has nobody in our media reported about it, which is a document that proves Bush is a war criminal and thus should be impeached. The main point here is that you presume equal access to information by all citizens. Go check out a poll to see how many Americans still think Saddam and the Iraqi government are responsible or were involved in 9/11, and you'll see how out of touch with reality most of our countrymen really are.

myke.
...jesus fucking christ on a pogo stick, you're so fucking naive.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I hardly think that the pentagon refusing to comment is enough to say that the story was true. And info about similar things (possibly?) happening last year doesn't mean the same things are still happening now.[/QUOTE]

What I meant was, if it wasn't true, why didn't the Pentagon say that when asked, and not start crying after the article came out. Also, I was pointing out that this was not new information, that this was reported last year.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']What I meant was, if it wasn't true, why didn't the Pentagon say that when asked, and not start crying after the article came out. Also, I was pointing out that this was not new information, that this was reported last year.[/QUOTE]

Because someone probably told them that if they always only say "We can neither confirm or deny..." when something is true, someone someday would crack their code. :lol:
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Instead of people dealing with the issue (Newsweek) they felt the need to bring up Bush and avoid the Newsweek issue altogether. The Rather comment is simply the same thing only it is from a side of the political spectrum that Bush haters don't want to hear. The Rather comment is actually more appropriate because Rather's own credibility became an issue. Newsweek and Rather are media personalities/entities and are comparable in this issue. People tend to hear what they want to hear as long as it supports their own position or belief. It's tantamount to a parent believing their child can do no wrong even when there is proof otherwise.

It's that kind of skewed "logic" from the right and left that drove people away from voting in the past in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Which part of Rather's credibilty is an issue for you? That they did the story at all, or that Rather kept defending the memo? CBS would have been fine if they had gone on with the story if they just didn't use the memo they couldn't verify, since they had plenty of other verified evidence in their story. The panel that looked into the memo couldn't verify it either.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Because someone probably told them that if they always only say "We can neither confirm or deny..." when something is true, someone someday would crack their code. :lol:[/QUOTE]

DaVinci code? :lol:
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Which part of Rather's credibilty is an issue for you? That they did the story at all, or that Rather kept defending the memo? CBS would have been fine if they had gone on with the story if they just didn't use the memo they couldn't verify, since they had plenty of other verified evidence in their story. The panel that looked into the memo couldn't verify it either.[/QUOTE]

The memo was shaky at best. Yet he defended it as rock-solid. That was my main issue. If someone finds something legitimate then truth is truth. I had a problem with faked pictures of John Kerry and Jane Fonda too. When the media feels the need to either make-up stuff or not investigate it before publishing, that is VERY scary to me regardless of what side of the political spectrum it is on.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']The memo was shaky at best. Yet he defended it as rock-solid. That was my main issue. If someone finds something legitimate then truth is truth. I had a problem with faked pictures of John Kerry and Jane Fonda too. When the media feels the need to either make-up stuff or not investigate it before publishing, that is VERY scary to me regardless of what side of the political spectrum it is on.[/QUOTE]

I agree. When you know something is shaky, you shouldn't defend it as rock solid. The media should report facts, because with facts there is no left or right.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']I agree. When you know something is shaky, you shouldn't defend it as rock solid. The media should report facts, because with facts there is no left or right.[/QUOTE]

If only the media agreed with us.
 
(1) That Iraq will become (and remain) stable; this war is now approaching $400 billion in cost incurred by the United States. Why don't you tell me what Paul Wolfowitz claimed this war would cost the United States just priot to the invasion (hint: check the Meet the Press archives).


(2) That christian morals are compatible with United States law. This is just plain wrong, as the separation of church and state is guaranted by the constitution that you hold so dear. Furthermore, the killing of thousands of Iraqis to oust the former leader of the Iraqis because he has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is not moral. Why would you be that damned foolish to even claim this is christianity at work, when the Pope himself had stated that the Catholic church does not condone this war?

They are compatable. It is possible to have the morals from a religion without following it. I, for example, think there is some goodness in the statement "Thou shalt not kill" yet I'm not a Christian. And I think it would be much less moral to let a man like that remain in power and remain a danger to his neighbors and to us.

(3) Christian morals, by virtue of oversimplification, just can not be effective in our policies (contingent upon its legality). If we were a more truly christian nation, the need to help the poor would take a far higher priority in our national agenda; upward mobility would be a far greater probability, as would education and welfare programs. Christianity is by no means compatible with individualism and meritocracy, two values most cherished by US citizens. I dare you to tell me otherwise.

It really depends on your interpratation of Christianity. The people in Iraq, for example, where in a much worse situation than our poor. Sure its not great living on the streets of New York but you need to put this into perspective. There are parts of the world where slavery is still rampant. I would ask in response, how do you feel about the Puritans who founded this country? A "City on the Hill" and all that. Salvation through good works. Working hard. These are the basis upon which these values you speak of entered the American society!

(4) Another American value we cherish is the freedom of religion (or the freedom from religion, if you will). If you cannot see that christians, although a majority of our population, are exceedingly overrepresented in our government, you're a fool. Name me one president who was not a christian; name me a muslim, buddhist, or hindu senator or representative; name me one judge trying to erect a statue of the "eight pillars" in his courthouse. Goddammit, you're just so wrong on so many levels.

Its alot more simple and more complex than you're making it sound. With such a large country and a roughly equal distribution of people, there is far less chance that Hindus > Christians in any particular city. And with that they don't get people elected. Is that bad? Sure. But should the majority of the people in that city be forced to accept a representative that lost the election? I don't think so.

(5) If we're so concerned about the salvation of members of other countries, why hasn't Bush invaded Sudan? Syria? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Zimbabwe? fuck your bullshit altruism, because there is no "ends justify the means" argument that satisfactorily explains the war in Iraq. Why don't you tell me how the United States is perceived by the middle east as a whole? You can break it down into countries, if you like.

Why not? Because there is nothing there related to our self interests. Iraq has oil that will benefit us and the rest of the world. A stable Iraq will output plenty of oil to keep us SUV loving jerks on the road for years to come. How many countries are beggining to loosen up civil rights wise? Saudi Arabia is starting to have elections (some with WOMEN), the recent revolutions in Ukraine, Lebanon, and so forth. Libya allowing UN inspectors into their country. Democracy is inheriently stable and is one of the two best governments in existance (the other being a straight up republic which isn't too feasible in a country our size). When have two democratic nations gone to war with each other?

(6) "You can do something about it if you like." You're false presumption here is probably the greatest, and one touched upon by the subject of this thread. Our media is threatened into retraction by our administration; our media has not uttered one word about the infamous "Downing Street Memo" (www.downingstreetmemo.com), save for one Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. This document is the "smoking gun" that the United States and Britain had planned to invade Iraq, and simultaneously fabricate the reasons for doing so. Why has nobody in our media reported about it, which is a document that proves Bush is a war criminal and thus should be impeached. The main point here is that you presume equal access to information by all citizens. Go check out a poll to see how many Americans still think Saddam and the Iraqi government are responsible or were involved in 9/11, and you'll see how out of touch with reality most of our countrymen really are.

HE DID IT FOR THE OIL. DUH! What's wrong with that? Has Bush massacred people in torture chambers? No. But the end's do justify the means. Not only do people gain civil rights

I'll comment more later, got to run now...

(P.S. Is it possible to debate politics now a days without being called fucking naive?)
 
Democracy is inherently stable? You do realize Iraq was a democracy, Iran was a democracy (well, it's now a pseudo democratic authoritarian state), most of the middle east was a democracy, practically all of africa was a democracy (rwanda before, and after, the genocide, zimbabwe under mugabe before he became power mad etc.), south america has had multiple democracies destroyed, and later reborn (argentina anyone?), germany was a democracy before hitler, russia was a democracy after the revolution and before lennin etc. Democracy is a lot of thing, but inherently stable is not one fo them.

And I think there is an indian senator (or maybe just representative?), not sure if he's hindu or not but I think he's an immigrant.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']
(P.S. Is it possible to debate politics now a days without being called fucking naive?)[/QUOTE]

Calling someone names is something people often do so they won't have to deal with opposing views.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Democracy is inherently stable? You do realize Iraq was a democracy, Iran was a democracy (well, it's now a pseudo democratic authoritarian state), most of the middle east was a democracy, practically all of africa was a democracy (rwanda before, and after, the genocide, zimbabwe under mugabe before he became power mad etc.), south america has had multiple democracies destroyed, and later reborn (argentina anyone?), germany was a democracy before hitler, russia was a democracy after the revolution and before lennin etc. Democracy is a lot of thing, but inherently stable is not one fo them.

And I think there is an indian senator (or maybe just representative?), not sure if he's hindu or not but I think he's an immigrant.[/QUOTE]

Democracy is stable only if the people want it to be. Democracy allows many things (good and bad) that couldn't happen in a monarchy, totalitarian regime, communist state, etc.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Democracy is stable only if the people want it to be. Democracy allows many things (good and bad) that couldn't happen in a monarchy, totalitarian regime, communist state, etc.[/QUOTE]

So, Iranians wanted the shah? Argentinians wanted pinochet? Zimbabweans wanted mugabe to become power mad?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So, Iranians wanted the shah? Argentinians wanted pinochet? Zimbabweans wanted mugabe to become power mad?[/QUOTE]

If they didn't, they would have voted for the other guy.

myke.
... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='me'](1) That Iraq will become (and remain) stable; this war is now approaching $400 billion in cost incurred by the United States. Why don't you tell me what Paul Wolfowitz claimed this war would cost the United States just priot to the invasion (hint: check the Meet the Press archives).[/quote][/quote]

What? No answer? I'll let this one pass, then: he said $1-2 billion. Are you laughing yet?

[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='me'](2) That christian morals are compatible with United States law. This is just plain wrong, as the separation of church and state is guaranted by the constitution that you hold so dear. Furthermore, the killing of thousands of Iraqis to oust the former leader of the Iraqis because he has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is not moral. Why would you be that damned foolish to even claim this is christianity at work, when the Pope himself had stated that the Catholic church does not condone this war?[/quote]

They are compatable. It is possible to have the morals from a religion without following it. I, for example, think there is some goodness in the statement "Thou shalt not kill" yet I'm not a Christian. And I think it would be much less moral to let a man like that remain in power and remain a danger to his neighbors and to us. [/quote]

That's one, and one that christianity did not originate, much less have the market cornered on. How about abortion? Shall we follow the contradictory demands of the christian faith, that we should prevent contraception from being distributed, prevent safe sex from being taught, and prevent abortion, all at the same time? The church is implicitly responsible for a higher rate of pregnancies for actively preventing people from access to resources that would prevent unwanted pregnancies. If churches can embrace war in the case that less life is lost, why not embrace contraception (since fewer abortions will be the necessary result of less unwanted pregnancies)? I'd like to request an example of christian faith that works for the nation as a whole, and is not a social norm conventionally held by others.

Additionally, the Bush administration has consistently favored business interests over individuals. Consider the contrast in the individual bankruptcy bill that just passed, where a person could fall under the weight of the overpriced medical system, file bankruptcy, and still be required to pay back that money. Contrast that with the experience of United Airlines, which is no longer required to pay its employees the pensions that *they paid into* over their careers there, because United has filed for bankruptcy protection *again*. How is it christian to value businesses over people? The credit card industry took in $30 billion in profit this past fiscal year - are they in greater need than individuals heading into bankruptcy?

[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='me'](3) Christian morals, by virtue of oversimplification, just can not be effective in our policies (contingent upon its legality). If we were a more truly christian nation, the need to help the poor would take a far higher priority in our national agenda; upward mobility would be a far greater probability, as would education and welfare programs. Christianity is by no means compatible with individualism and meritocracy, two values most cherished by US citizens. I dare you to tell me otherwise.[/quote]

It really depends on your interpratation of Christianity. The people in Iraq, for example, where in a much worse situation than our poor. Sure its not great living on the streets of New York but you need to put this into perspective. There are parts of the world where slavery is still rampant. I would ask in response, how do you feel about the Puritans who founded this country? A "City on the Hill" and all that. Salvation through good works. Working hard. These are the basis upon which these values you speak of entered the American society![/quote]

There is some influence, as I forgot my Max Weber ("The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"). This is a poor argument you make, however, because it implies that Americans are altruistic, which, as you argue later, is not the case, because you state that we had a vested interest ($$$) in going to Iraq and not Zimbabwe.

[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='me'](4) Another American value we cherish is the freedom of religion (or the freedom from religion, if you will). If you cannot see that christians, although a majority of our population, are exceedingly overrepresented in our government, you're a fool. Name me one president who was not a christian; name me a muslim, buddhist, or hindu senator or representative; name me one judge trying to erect a statue of the "eight pillars" in his courthouse. Goddammit, you're just so wrong on so many levels.[/quote]

Its alot more simple and more complex than you're making it sound. With such a large country and a roughly equal distribution of people, there is far less chance that Hindus > Christians in any particular city. And with that they don't get people elected. Is that bad? Sure. But should the majority of the people in that city be forced to accept a representative that lost the election? I don't think so.[/quote]

Do you prefer this method, which helps reinforce white hegemony, over a parlaimentary voting technique, which allows for representation based upon the percentage of overall votes received? Of course, that method is related to party affiliation, and not diversity. Also, what do you mean by "roughly equal distribution of people"? Do you mean that I'll find the same proportion of blacks in rural North Dakota that I will in Harlem or Oakland? That I'll find the same proportion of whites in Martha's Vineyard as I will in the barrio sections of Miami? No way, dude; I recommend that you start with reading some William Julius Wilson if you want a good description of the differential racial composition and life experiences in American society over the past thirty years (he has three equally excellent books, but his most recent, When Work Disappears, is probably the most relevant).

[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='me'](5) If we're so concerned about the salvation of members of other countries, why hasn't Bush invaded Sudan? Syria? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Zimbabwe? fuck your bullshit altruism, because there is no "ends justify the means" argument that satisfactorily explains the war in Iraq. Why don't you tell me how the United States is perceived by the middle east as a whole? You can break it down into countries, if you like.[/quote]

Why not? Because there is nothing there related to our self interests. Iraq has oil that will benefit us and the rest of the world. A stable Iraq will output plenty of oil to keep us SUV loving jerks on the road for years to come. How many countries are beggining to loosen up civil rights wise? Saudi Arabia is starting to have elections (some with WOMEN), the recent revolutions in Ukraine, Lebanon, and so forth. Libya allowing UN inspectors into their country. Democracy is inheriently stable and is one of the two best governments in existance (the other being a straight up republic which isn't too feasible in a country our size). When have two democratic nations gone to war with each other?[/quote]

Okay, you're contradicting the "good works" and "city on the hill" explanation you've placed here, only because vested interests serve as the catalyst between invasion and inaction. Also, democracy is inherently stable? I think alonzomourning covered this already.

[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='me'](6) "You can do something about it if you like." You're false presumption here is probably the greatest, and one touched upon by the subject of this thread. Our media is threatened into retraction by our administration; our media has not uttered one word about the infamous "Downing Street Memo" (www.downingstreetmemo.com), save for one Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. This document is the "smoking gun" that the United States and Britain had planned to invade Iraq, and simultaneously fabricate the reasons for doing so. Why has nobody in our media reported about it, which is a document that proves Bush is a war criminal and thus should be impeached. The main point here is that you presume equal access to information by all citizens. Go check out a poll to see how many Americans still think Saddam and the Iraqi government are responsible or were involved in 9/11, and you'll see how out of touch with reality most of our countrymen really are.[/quote]

HE DID IT FOR THE OIL. DUH! What's wrong with that? Has Bush massacred people in torture chambers? No. But the end's do justify the means. Not only do people gain civil rights

I'll comment more later, got to run now...

(P.S. Is it possible to debate politics now a days without being called fucking naive?)[/QUOTE]

What's wrong with doing it for the oil? Well, for starters, would Jesus do it for the oil? :rofl:

myke.
...to answer your final question, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top