How did you know...

chcr

chcr

Too cute for words
...that it would be somebody elses's fault?

Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before it published the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.

Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman said the magazine believes it erred in reporting the allegation that a prison guard tried to flush the Koran down a toilet and that military investigators had confirmed the accusation.
Click to expand...

link

Can you say "scapegoat?" I knew that you could.
 
The liberal media bias kills!

Newsweak used false information to fit their agenda: they were foaming at the mouth to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad.

The riots that Newsweak caused are a direct result of the liberal media's jihad against the United States, and they should be held accountable for the deaths that they caused. And their shoddy journalism that set it all off.

I'm sure we will soon see a beheading video that blames the desecration of the holy Quran for the infidel's death. Way to put it out there, Newsweak! A new recruitment plan for al Queda.

And why get all bent out of shape about flushing a Quran down the can anyway???
 
writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials.
Click to expand...

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.

And why get all bent out of shape about flushing a Quran down the can anyway???
Click to expand...
Then you don't care if I flush this bible?
 
Chic's got a point re: the Bible. Usually its pretty damn bad thing to fuck with other people's religious symbols. I'm still srprised that the KKK gets away with burning crosses, but that's a story for another day.
 
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source"
Click to expand...

...they verified the story with two other DOD sources.
Click to expand...


Unless the allegations can be confirmed by a person who will GO ON THE RECORD the reporter should have prefaced the quote with "according to an unnamed source."

The reason is obvious: a person whose identity is protected is free to lie. It should be pointed out in the story that "this information is coming from someone who does not want to be identified." Under no circumstances should any journalist report what an anonymous source says as a FACT, but only as an ALLEGATION. Hmmm. Journalistic integrity at its' finest. In this example the results were deadly. It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none, and 10 people are stomped to death in the rush to get out.

Newsweak has done more for Islamofascism than the average terrorist ever accomplishes: 6 riots in several Muslim countrys,17 people dead, many more injured.


Then you don't care if I flush this bible?
Click to expand...

You'd burn a U.S. flag wouldn't you? Desecrating a countries' national and religious symbol is a form of free speech here. Over there they'd cut your head off.
 
Ya know, I've lived in the south for over 30 years, and I've never seen a cross-burning. I'm not sure they do still "get away with it".
 
HomeLAN said:
Ya know, I've lived in the south for over 30 years, and I've never seen a cross-burning. I'm not sure they do still "get away with it".
Click to expand...
I think they still do it, they just do it on their own property now instead of in town on someone elses.

As for this story, the first thing I thought was that as soon as I see there aren't US flags burning over there, then I'll apologize for destroying a Koran. In my mind the US flag is just as sacred as the Koran.
 
The Other One said:
You'd burn a U.S. flag wouldn't you? Desecrating a countries' national and religious symbol is a form of free speech here. Over there they'd cut your head off.
Click to expand...
Its just barely protected by free speech
and still controversial.

Its legal to burn the bible or the flag...mind you, it would also fall under 'fighting words'...the main defence against the freedom of speech. Basically, you're free to say anything that you want, but if the gey next to you kicks your teeth in for it :shrug: maybe you were a bit too free with your words.
 
I'd just like to remind everyone that the normal, accepted way of disposing of a used, damaged, or just unwanted flag (or Bible) is to burn it. That was considered the best way to honour it. As opposed to tossing it in the trash.

You may continue your uninformed ranting as usual.
 
Professur said:
I'd just like to remind everyone that the normal, accepted way of disposing of a used, damaged, or just unwanted flag (or Bible) is to burn it. That was considered the best way to honour it. As opposed to tossing it in the trash.
Click to expand...
Good point.
You may continue your uninformed ranting as usual.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will.

confirmed by a person who will GO ON THE RECORD
Click to expand...

Golly, think how incredibly likely that is to happen at this point.

If it didn't happen, why didn't they deny it in the first place? The likely truth is that they don't really understand anything about Islam and were therefore surpised by the response. They shouldn't have been. This was their very best, half-baked solution to defusing the situation. Maybe it will even work. I hope so.
 
Wow if wiping yer ass with Qur'an inflames the mooseys
then Charmin needs to get busy imprinting them werds
on all their products, I know I'd buy it.


NEWSWEEK LIED*. PEOPLE DIED.
 
No wait the folks with a dearth of bathroom reading materials would all convert and then where'd the wimens movement be then.

Charmin, scratch that idea.
 
Winky said:
So jus whut ARE you convinced of???
Click to expand...

Not convinced of anything, it just seems odd that they double checked the story before it was printed yet now it's being retracted. Why didn't the DOD deny it in the first place? Plus, regardless of who's being "liberal" with the truth, how did it never occur to anyone involved that this would cause a problem with the muslims? The whole business stinks like week old flounder. We'll never know for sure.
 
"Why didn't the DOD deny it in the first place?"

Were they given the chance?
Does the media check with the DOD before printing any of the inane bull-hooey they come out with?
If in the event the DOD said:
That's a fricken load of bull-poop!
If you come out with that horse excrement we will
um oh I dunno be pissed?
Would it have had any effect on their irresponsible action?

"Plus, regardless of who's being "liberal" with the truth, how did it never occur to anyone involved that this would cause a problem with the muslims?"

Am I to infer that you think some (or any) of that ratsh*t the Liberal press 'comes out with' is even remotely related to the truth?
As for the moosyies so-called reaction, who gives a raccoon turd what they think???
If their response to something that never happened, that they don't like, is to riot in their own countries and kill some of their fellow muzzies, tell me who the heck gives an
aardvarks ass about it?

But you nevah told us what you ARE convinced of…


chcr said:
I'm just seriously not convinced that this is what really happened.
Click to expand...
 
Ah Jeebus,
I can see it in my minds eye now...

The American interrogator is trying to get the low down from the moosey baddie.

Hadji, if you don't tell me what I want to know I will flush this book down the crapper.
I'd much rather pull your finger nails out and stuff them up your nose but that wouldn't be politically correct so I will have to resort to flushin' yer wholly book.

And the Baddie thinks to himself:
Sheesh the guys back home would understand it if they tortured me then threw me in a mass grave but wait til they hear about this, Man the infidels are gonna catch hell over this! Allah Akbar!
 
Sorry Wink. I thought perhaps you might have actually read the aricle I posted. Foolish of me I know. You were far to busy with your knee-jerk reaction to what you thought the article was about to actually find out what it was about, huh?

Were they given the chance?
Click to expand...

Why yes, yes they were.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before it published the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.
Click to expand...

I know it's probably difficult for you, but try to keep up if your going to join the discussion, huh?
 
Oh christ. Now you want us to READ the articles? I suppose next you're going to expect us to actually make sense in our posts.
 
chcr said:
Not convinced of anything, it just seems odd that they double checked the story before it was printed yet now it's being retracted. Why didn't the DOD deny it in the first place? Plus, regardless of who's being "liberal" with the truth, how did it never occur to anyone involved that this would cause a problem with the muslims? The whole business stinks like week old flounder. We'll never know for sure.
Click to expand...


I had thought they retracted it because it would start problems although the CBS news I watched tonite said it did cause some major problems. Did the DOD know about it before they had it retracted?



Oh christ. Now you want us to READ the articles? I suppose next you're going to expect us to actually make sense in our posts.
Click to expand...


:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top