How did you know...

[Gonz]

Read the article,

Yes, do. They asked at least two other DoD officials & never got a response (including a denial) which to anti-Bush media moguls is a resounding YES!.

15 people are dead because Newsweek wanted to play politics. I wonder if CNN owns them?

 

[Winky]

OK I read the 'article' which up to this point I had assiduously avoided
because I knew it would piss me off.
(yep it has both me knees a jerkin'!)
(funny thing, when someone knows right from wrong
and sez so, it is automatically a "knee jerk reaction")

Lets begin again...

Your title:

How did you know...

then;

...that it would be somebody elses's fault?

Can you say "scapegoat?" I knew that you could.
------------------------
then:
Read the article, they verified the story with two other DOD sources. They did it and the easiest way out is to get Newsweek to retract.
-----------------------
So I'm left to believe that you think this Quran in the crapper thing really happened
and think the way for the United States of America
to weasel out of this crime against humanity is to force Newsweek to retract their accurate story.

Well big guy I say!

I stand by my statements and by way of response I'd say this:

"In Afghanistan, Islamic scholars and tribal elders called for the punishment of anyone found to have abused the Quran, said Maulawi Abdul Wali Arshad, head of the religious affairs department in Badakhshan province."

Hey buddie Fuck you!
you ain't inna position to call for nuthin'

"Arshad and the provincial police chief said the scholars met in Faizabad, 310 miles northeast of the capital, Kabul, and demanded a "reaction" from U.S. authorities within three days."

At the risk of being redundant yup you guessed it,
Fack U dood! I gots yer reaction right here

"In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah called the alleged desecration a "brutal" form of torture and urged Muslims and international human rights organizations "to raise their voices loudly against the American behavior."

ahem Ayatollah Fadlallah in case you haven't noticed
we took over your country like 43 months ago so I don't
give a rats ass what the hell you or the whole moosey world thinks!

It is bad enough preggers Lyndie England and her Boss
were stupid enough to take pics of the fun and games
at Abu Grave but this latest crap doesn’t even rate a
"hello"!

The issue here isn't whether Newsweek pushed out a false story nor is it whether or not a book got flushed down the pooper it is whether or not the US government is going to take crap off of you conquered 7th century A-holes!

I for one think they (the Mooseys) should STFU!

Sheesh.

Tell you all whut.

When the backward savages light off a nuke in this country during the Hillary administration
and her response is:
"Well we had this coming, the Bush regime brought this upon us.
There is really nothing I can do about it"

The reaction of the average Gonz ain't gonna be prudy.

-------------
of and by the way
thar ain’t no such thang as “elses's”

It should have read.

…that it would be someone else’s fault!

Oh and

 

[chcr]

Yes, do. They asked at least two other DoD officials & never got a response (including a denial) which to anti-Bush media moguls is a resounding YES!.

15 people are dead because Newsweek wanted to play politics. I wonder if CNN owns them?

Winky asked if they had the opportunity to respond. They did. But WTF, it says what you guys say it says regardless of what it actually says. Never mind.

 

[PT]

If it makes any difference to you, I see what you're saying and I agree. Our Govt. fucked up again. They got caught again. Some people are just so blind to the possibility of a Repub lying they just won't see it.

 

[Gonz]

Winky asked if they had the opportunity to respond. They did. But WTF, it says what you guys say it says regardless of what it actually says. Never mind.

One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge,

 

[Gonz]

Our Govt. fucked up again.

HELLO!!! Newsweek tried to pass a story off as credible & authentic on what was initially called "unnamed sources only to retract that to unnamed source only to later apologize & then, within 24 hours of the apology, to retract a story...which, while untrue, was spread to the area in which we're already engaged and causes the death of at least a dozen people & injuries to well over 100 & you say it's the fault of the government?

Is AIDS Reagans fault too?

 

[PT]

Did they deny it happened? NO. Is that a yes? YES. They reported it. I suppose we could let the govt censor the news from now on if that would make you feel better.

 

[chcr]

Winky asked if they had the opportunity to respond. They did. But WTF, it says what you guys say it says regardless of what it actually says. Never mind.

One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge,

See Gonz, our problem here is that you completely fail to understand that this post makes my specific point. The writers of the article gave two sources at the DOD the opportunity to respond and neither one chose to, either on or off the record.

As usual, you think it says something other than what it says.

Note that this does not in any way absolve Newsweek from responsibility for having the monumental bad judgement to publish the story, but they got it from somewhere and when given the opportunity, no one denied it.

The point is (at the risk of repeating myself) that no matter who you think is at fault, everyone involved should have recognized the possibility of the reaction and considered the consequences.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

The US government is perfect in its reasoning in all things, and has never made a mistake, colored outside the lines, or been dishonest toward any of it's subje...erm, citizens.

What, you guys didn't know?!

 

[HomeLAN]

No, your original point seemed to be that US forces did this and are using Newsweek's retraction as a blind. Now that we have a full retraction and some ambiguity regarding the reliability of their source, you;re trying to move to a more centrist position.

That's fine, but don't try to tell me that "everyone involved should have recognized the possibility of the reaction and considered the consequences" was your original thrust.

 

[chcr]

No, your original point seemed to be that US forces did this and are using Newsweek's retraction as a blind. Now that we have a full retraction and some ambiguity regarding the reliability of their source, you;re trying to move to a more centrist position.

That's fine, but don't try to tell me that "everyone involved should have recognized the possibility of the reaction and considered the consequences" was your original thrust.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way, but I see how it reads it that way. Honestly, I believe that some moronic yay-hoo at Guantanamo probably did the deed. I don't really care. As Winky says, they flushed a book down the toilet. That's not important. What is important is to be seen to have someone who's fault it was. Newsweek is the scapegoat. It might even work.

I also didn't intend to imply that "everyone involved should have recognized..." was my original thrust, just that it is the lesson in this fiasco. When I speak of repeating myself, I'm referring to post 15 not the original one.

 

[HomeLAN]

Whereas I'm far from sure thet actually did it at Gitmo, and if they didn't it becomes a crucial issue. If, in fact, it never happened, then Newsweek is directly responsible for these deaths, because in their rush to carry on their agenda of "America is always wrong", they published lies.

So, I don't know yet whether what happened at Gitmo is critical, because I don't know whether the DOD stammered, looking for a way to cover it up, or whether Newsweek fell victim to DanRather-itis. I'd love to know which is true, but I doubt I ever will.

 

[chcr]

Whereas I'm far from sure thet actually did it at Gitmo, and if they didn't it becomes a crucial issue. If, in fact, it never happened, then Newsweek is directly responsible for these deaths, because in their rush to carry on their agenda of "America is always wrong", they published lies.

So, I don't know yet whether what happened at Gitmo is critical, because I don't know whether the DOD stammered, looking for a way to cover it up, or whether Newsweek fell victim to DanRather-itis. I'd love to know which is true, but I doubt I ever will.

You're right. If it didn't happen that is important. I don't read Newsweek in general, so I can't really judge the "America is always wrong" agenda. As you say, we'll probably never know.

 

[The Other One]

.... how did it never occur to anyone involved that this would cause a problem with the muslims?

I wonder if the story was concocted TO CREATE a problem with the muslims??

And if I may further push the confines of possibility, I wonder if the "anonymous sources" were fabricated as well?? I mean, just to cause a problem for the President and U.S. military, so it would cause a problem with the muslims??


The fallout rains down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/politics/17koran.html?pagewanted=1&oref=login
Mark Whitaker, editor of Newsweek, said in an interview that the magazine was retracting the part of the article saying sources told Newsweek that a coming military report would say interrogators had flushed a holy book down the toilet to unnerve detainees. As it turned out, Newsweek now says, there was one source. And Mr. Whitaker said that because that source had "backed away" from his original account, the magazine could "no longer stand by" it.

Newsweek Told Koran Flush Story Was 'Slam Dunk'
by Scott Ott www.scrappleface.com
(2005-05-16)

Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff said his anonymous source is now unsure where he got the Koran-flushing information, which was broadcast across the Arab world by Al-Jazeera and others.

"If there's a bright side to this story," said Mr. Whitaker. "At least our anonymous sources are safe, unharmed. And of course, our advertisers now know that Newsweek has great credibility in the Arab world, despite the bad feelings that Muslims have about America in general."

In an effort to help in the grieving process, the magazine's publisher said that immediate family members of those killed in the rioting would receive a free 90-day trial subscription to Newsweek.

"If they're done grieving after 90 days, they can write 'cancel' on the invoice and pay nothing," he said. "Otherwise we'll just bill their credit cards in three easy installments at a substantial savings off the newstand price."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=8515540
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan dismissed on Tuesday as inadequate an apology and retraction by the Newsweek magazine of a report that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran.
The report in the magazine's May 9 issue sparked protests across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan, where 16 people were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan, India, Indonesia and Gaza.

"The apology and retraction are not enough," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told Reuters.

"They should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims."

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/46603.htm
By John Podhoritz

May 17, 2005 -- Let's do a thought experiment about the worst example of journalistic malfeasance in recent years — and considering the competition from Jayson Blair and Dan Rather, that's saying a lot.

Let's say that the item that Newsweek magazine disavowed on Sunday and retracted yesterday — the item by Michael Isikoff and John Barry that said an American interrogator of terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay had flushed the Koran down the toilet — was actually true. It wasn't. But let's say it was.

Would factual accuracy have justified publishing the item in Newsweek or anywhere else?

That publication led to the furtherance of the notion, extraordinarily dangerous to Americans abroad, that our government is in the habit of desecrating the Muslim Holy Book — and to scores of people getting killed and hundreds getting injured in riots that extended from Afghanistan to Gaza.

The answer seems obvious now, doesn't it?

Newsweek ran an incendiary item about an American official desecrating the Koran, and this incendiary item did what incendiary items are supposed to do. It blew up.

Only it didn't blow up the target it was intended to blow up. The intended target was in Washington. We'd have to know the identity of Newsweek's supposedly "good and credible" source to know precisely whom the source was trying to injure (and you can bet that, no matter what evil nonsense this supposedly "good" source was peddling, Newsweek will protect his name forever).

But it doesn't really matter, does it? What matters is that people in Afghanistan are dead for no reason other than some "good and credible" source had an axe to grind with one of his bosses 15,000 miles away in the United States.

There's no question that, for journalists in trouble, truth is always the best defense in a courtroom. But the world is not a courtroom. The world is a messy, complicated place. There are consequences even for reporting the unvarnished truth.

In this case, the potential consequences should have outweighed — by a factor of about 1 billion — the very mild benefit to Newsweek to running something titillating about the War on Terror in its Periscope section.

And so what if the item had been true? Journalists routinely withhold the truth from their readers for all sorts of reasons.

They don't reveal the names of "good and credible" sources, for example, which is a withholding of a truth. They don't publish the identities of rape accusers. Many papers no longer reveal the race of a crime suspect, even though the purpose of describing a crime suspect is to help ordinary citizens avoid him or report him to the authorities.

Why do they withhold these facts? They do so because they have decided that something else is more important than the revelation of all known facts — something like the right of a crime victim to privacy, or the fear of making all black and Latino males seem stereotypically frightening.

We've already learned that the mainstream media do not believe the reputation of the United States at a time of ideological war against Muslim extremism is worthy of the same care. In fact, in many quarters there is a moral and spiritual incentive to tell horrid tales about the United States and its conduct of the War on Terror.

So Newsweek went and told one such horrid tale. And the world has reaped the whirlwind. The fact that the tale in question is a cock-and-bull story is almost beside the point.

No matter what degree of certainty the editors and reporters had about the item's veracity, moral responsibility for the fallout from it falls squarely on their shoulders.

The magazine has blood on its pages regardless. The magazine caused a geopolitical storm injurious to the countrymen of its own editors and reporters regardless.

They forgot there was a war on. Or they didn't forget, but just didn't care. Now they remember. Now they care.

Now it's too late.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Let's say that the item that Newsweek magazine disavowed on Sunday and retracted yesterday — the item by Michael Isikoff and John Barry that said an American interrogator of terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay had flushed the Koran down the toilet — was actually true. It wasn't. But let's say it was.

Would factual accuracy have justified publishing the item in Newsweek or anywhere else?

[edit] I first quoted the wrong part of your post[edit]

This was already in the public domain back in 2004 albeit Afghanistan and reported by Al Jazeera,why would they assume "re-reporting" of this as potentially Inflaming if Muslims were already aware of it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/68168BCC-608B-4593-91A4-637656C20625.htm

"I could bear all the obscene abuse and all the beatings but I was agonised to see one US soldier stomp on the Holy Quran, while another soldier in Kandahar threw it into the toilet," he said.

 

[HomeLAN]

Coming from a detainee and coming from a national news outlet are two very different things, no?

 

[A.B.Normal]

Coming from a detainee and coming from a national news outlet are two very different things, no?

In the eyes of the Muslims ,I wouldn't think so,I'd think they would believe one of their own .And wouldn't Al Jazeera also be a "National/International News outlet " at least in the Arab world.

 

[HomeLAN]

And yet, no riots when Al Jazeera reported it. Only when Newsweek did it.

Who do they believe, again?

 

[A.B.Normal]

And yet, no riots when Al Jazeera reported it. Only when Newsweek did it.

Thats what I'm saying " why the indignation now ,when it wasn't a surprise "

 

[HomeLAN]

Obviously, because Al Jazeera isn't getting the circulation, even over there, that Newsweek is. All the more reason to check out your sources 8 ways from your ass, wouldn't you say? With great power, yada yada.