News 'Newsweek' retracts Koran desecration story

[Art]

A european perspective

Here's an interesting thought experiment regarding perspective
Imagine for a moment that Texas has a large percentage of the oil in the world. Then imagine that it has a corrupt government which is kept in power with the help of munitions and intelligence supplied by.. oh let's say France ... who in return for this support receives the oil they want to fuel their economy. In this very rich corrupt state of Texas the vast majority of the population are wretchedly poor and terrified of their government whilst the ruling elite amass more and more riches for themselves. Unfortunately (for them) the ruling elite get a little too big for their boots and no longer do as France tells them. France then decides they never really liked the Texan government anyway and so decide to invade Texas. As the Texans are none too fond of their own leaders they don't put up too spirited a fight in defense of them and so France has a bit of a cakewalk. Victorious France then tells the Texans "Hey we've saved you from those tyrants (that we supported for so many years) and we are even going to try some of them for killing a bunch of you with poisonous gas (which we supplied) so how about a big hand for Bonaparte?"
Now some Texans (remembering that we are still in Texas here) decides they have a big problem with Frenchmen occupying their country especially Frenchmen who had conspired with their former leaders to subjugate them and so start a guerilla campaign to drive out the invaders. France promptly declares these fighters to be terrorists (thus excepting them from the protection of the Geneva convention) and in their attempts to repel / attack them kill a whole load of Texan civilians in the process. This of course encourages other Texans to join the insurrection which brings us up to where we are now.
So if the above was the reality and the shoe really was on the other foot I wonder would Americans have a very different perspective on who is right and who is wrong in the middle east??
One thing I find peculiar when watching US television is that rarely if ever do Americans ask why people are trying to kill them. The message seems to be "Well they're terrorists and that's what terrorists do"
Do the American people already know why these 'terrorists' are trying to kill them and so it's not worth mentioning or do they just not care?
If US politicians were to consider that question seriously then perhaps foreign policy would change and Americans would no longer be the target of so much anger from so many. Or even after an evaluation process perhaps the US government would decide to maintain their current policy because they believe it is necessary to sustain their economy. At least then they could be honest to the American people and the rest of the world about their motivations like Hitler in 1939 who made no bones about the fact that he was going to invade his neighbours because "the German people need Living Room" Who knows?
Certainly it was a change in policy by the British government that led to peace with the IRA. After 25 years of trying to beat the IRA militarily finally a government came to power in Britain who asked the question why and actually began to understand why these people felt the need to try to kill them.
I realize this will not be a particularly popular view on this board but hey you guys are very proud of your constitution so I'm sure you all support free speech.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Victorious France then tells the Texans "Hey we've saved you from those tyrants (that we supported for so many years) and we are even going to try some of them for killing a bunch of you with poisonous gas (which we supplied) so how about a big hand for Bonaparte?"

The difference here is that Bonaparte is no longer in power. :-)

Certainly it was a change in policy by the British government that led to peace with the IRA.

Tensions are still high in Ireland. I'm not sure if you could chalk the reduction in violence up to policy or just a modern age where carrying out terrorist plots in technologically advanced countries is that much more difficult. From what I understand the brits have quite a few means of tracking potential terrorists. Hell the brits are the one that taught us the intelligence trade in the first place.

 

[Art]

The difference here is that Bonaparte is no longer in power. :-)


Tensions are still high in Ireland. I'm not sure if you could chalk the reduction in violence up to policy or just a modern age where carrying out terrorist plots in technologically advanced countries is that much more difficult. From what I understand the brits have quite a few means of tracking potential terrorists. Hell the brits are the one that taught us the intelligence trade in the first place.

The shift in policy lead directly to the Good Friday Agreement which lead directly to the IRA's ceasefire. As for difficulty in carrying out terrorist plots; the IRA suceeded in bombing the Conservative party conference when Thatcher was in power, landing mortar bombs in Major's back garden while he was in power and destroying the financial heart of London with a massive truck bomb.
During conflict both sides evolve in terms of capabilities and technology as in an arm's race. The danger is having set the race in motion you end up with a far more dangerous enemy than the one you started with.

 

[Burnsys]

"Hey we've saved you from those tyrants (that we supported for so many years) and we are even going to try some of them for killing a bunch of you with poisonous gas (which we supplied) so how about a big hand for Bonaparte?"

Well, the problem is that most americans seem to ignore that The us government and rumsfeld supported saddam even when he used chemical weapons, or at least they Prefer to ignore that... Becouse simply acknowlegding that results that the government didn't invade irak to liberate it's people from a tyrant, not even becouse iraq had weapons of mass destruction...

 

[Big Papa]

What you want when you want it.

Ther are two types of news reporters. One is like Dan Rather, Seriouse. The other is like Hunter S. Thomas, at the other end of the spectrum. Journalists, write because of the impact they themselves have on the world. If the story is 100% or 1% true they will write it, because it goes with their view. The point is not if the story was true or not. The point is it is the view point of one person who printed the story from one source. To these journalist's it does not matter what happens once the story breaks. Just printing the story is their art form. Seeing their name in print is like a musician creating music, or a painter creating a work of Art. They have ego's and want to be daredevils and push the evelope, until they finally get "called on the carpet for it." When they are held accountable, then the thrill of trying not to get caught is gone. They do this at a point in their careers like they are going through a mid-life crisis and want to go out with a big bang. The one thing they will be remembered for is not how good they were at reproting the facts like a high school geek. No, in their mind, they want to rebel and go out with that " wow, they had a lot of guts printing that fake story." Why did Hunter S. Thomas liw about the way he counducted interviews with Nixon? Why was it protrayed a totally different way in the Movie "where the Buffalo roam," staring Bill Murray, than what was Reported by Pat Buchanan in the Rolling Stone's tribute to the man? The reason is expressionism.

We may want all newsreporters to tel all of the truth. The deal is only if it's exciting will they expose the truth. When the truth is boring, then the exciting thing is the big pay check for reporting the boring truth. When the mid-lide crisis says," hey it's time for a change, let's do some daring reporting and see if we get caught." Then that's when yellow journalism comes in. The Spanish American war was trigger by the Hearst newspapers form of yellow journalism. Why would it change just because we are in the 21st century instead of the last two years of the 19th?

 

[Art]

I can't imagine why anybody would think that the nice US guards looking after the welfare of misguided miscreants abroad would desecrate a holy book. Okay, they may torture prisoners, subject them to extreme sexual abuse and even beat them to death but desecrate a book? The very idea is shocking. Besides even if they did it's not their fault that it provoked outrage amongst muslim populations, it's that damn liberal press' fault for publishing the details.
I think the above sums up the republicans' attitude to this debate.
Guess we'll just have to wait for the photos to be published to see if it's true or not.

 

[Burnsys]

Why do they hate us?

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/why01.html

 

[Informal Logic]

I can't imagine why anybody would think that the nice US guards looking after the welfare of misguided miscreants abroad would desecrate a holy book. Okay, they may torture prisoners, subject them to extreme sexual abuse and even beat them to death but desecrate a book? The very idea is shocking. Besides even if they did it's not their fault that it provoked outrage amongst muslim populations, it's that damn liberal press' fault for publishing the details.

I think the above sums up the republicans' attitude to this debate.
Guess we'll just have to wait for the photos to be published to see if it's true or not.

I was watching a recent interview of Cheney on this topic. The majority of his remarks consisted of a rant about how much America has been doing to provide peace/freedom/democracy in the world, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq, so how dare people question America. More frigging propaganda from 'la-la land' instead of addressing the topic at hand.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8046041/

Now we have Bush out front on this, and I couldn't help but wonder if Bush Sr. ever told him the story about "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Even if Amnesty's claims are "absurd" the problem is no one believes anything that comes out of Bush's mouth anymore anyway.

 

[faust9]

With every passing day, it looks as if the newsweek story was true; however the Bush admin wanted to scape-goat the media for its (Bush's not the media's) failings. Newsweek did not cause the riot. Gitmo caused the riot. Abu Graib caused the riot. The war in Iraq for fictious weapons resulting in ten thousand deaths in 18 months caused the riot. An overzeleous political figure in Pakistan with a bone to pick with US and Musharraf policies caused the riot. It's a sad sad sad day when so many American sheep are so easily hearded by the demogogues running the asylum right now. "Cast no aspersions on Lord Bush his holyness you foul foul liberals!" We all know you are either with Bush or from Mass. right?

Anywho, here's a linky-linky for those who have to come across its like yet. Enjoy.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/03/guantanamo.quran.ap/index.html

 

[Informal Logic]

I don't know why the American people continue to tolerate the lies from the White House, and the people in it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8090656/

Pentagon details mishandling of Quran
Detainees’ copies of holy book kicked, splashed with urine

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:13 p.m. ET June 3, 2005

A Pentagon report detailing incidents of mishandling of the Quran by U.S. guards at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, comes after the White House last month blamed deadly anti-American riots in the Middle East on a Newsweek report about alleged abuse of the Quran. The magazine later retracted its story.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/03/pzn.01.html

Aired June 3, 2005 - 20:00 ET

ZAHN: Breaking news out of Washington. The developing story we're following tonight. The U.S. military says that an investigation has confirmed the mistreatment or mishandling of Korans at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba.

That investigation was the result of a report later retracted by "Newsweek" magazine that a Koran at Gitmo was flushed down a toilet. That report sparked worldwide outrage thanks to a media savvy Pakistani lawmaker who is gaining worldwide attention.

KHAN: The problem is when you make it a war against Islam rather than terror, then you help terrorists. At fringes of society, the fanatics, you help them, who are not scared of dying.

ZAHN (on camera): But they said that hate and anger has been there for centuries and will never go away.

KHAN: This is such nonsense. Look, if people didn't -- if there was such hatred against the U.S., then people wouldn't be dying to come to the U.S. I mean, it's, you know, if you open up the visas, probably a lot of them would turn up here. So it's not obviously that, you know, there is no problem with the people of U.S.

ZAHN (voice-over): According to Khan, for most Muslims there is no problem with the American people. But there is a problem, he says, with U.S. foreign policy.

KHAN: When you deal with terrorists who you think are terrorists, why humiliate them, according to their culture or their religion? Why humiliate them, you know? This whole issue of Koran, or before that a woman soldier with naked prisoners, or shaving their beards off, because then that whole thing is perceived not a war against terror, but a war against Islam. And when you -- and that's what the terrorists want, because then they get more recruits. It's a never-ending war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Imran Khan is now back in Pakistan. He continues to urge his fellow Pakistanis not to hate the American people, but to protest U.S. policies that are offensive to the Muslim faith. And, again, the Pentagon confirming tonight after office hours that an investigation has confirmed that incidents of mishandling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay have happened.