NationStates Jolt Archive

NPR showed its bias this morning on Morning Edition.

Remember the story from yesterday about an islamic website and terror group that claimed to have kidnapped an "American soldier" and showed his photo on the website. Remember that it turned out that no American soldiers were missing (quite the opposite of the story on the islamic website, where it was claimed that they were holding "many more American soldiers").

Remember that it turned out that the "American soldier" was a 1/6th scale replica of a soldier from a company named Dragon.

As a firearms expert, I took a set of calipers to the photo, and determined that the weapon shown in the photo has the wrong proportions in all respects and could not have been an M4 - even the magazine does not conform to any magazine used by US (or indeed, any) armed forces.

NPR still clung to the story this morning. They said that while the photo does bear a "striking resemblance" to the doll, they could only say that it "raises doubts" about the authenticity of the terrorists' claims.

Oh, so you can't say that it's obviously a fake. You can only say that we'll always leave the door open, even when it's obvious that someone has done something completely stupid.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Doing it when it is patently obvious that something is a fake is something else. I'm wondering what kind of "leap of faith" is required to get a job as a fact checker at NPR.

this shows just how far the liberal media will go to make a story....(not that other things haven't showed the apparent lack of integrity in the liberal media)

If an identical doll only "raises doubts" about the authenticity of a story for NPR, then I think it's pretty clear that they would be happier with the story if an American soldier really was held hostage.

If you really think you've got it solved, detective, why don't you show the rest of us this fake photo with your notes on just what parts of the gun are misporportioned?

Until then, you're just making mouth noises...

If an identical doll only "raises doubts" about the authenticity of a story for NPR, then I think it's pretty clear that they would be happier with the story if an American soldier really was held hostage.

Yes, obviously!

I'll bet they're all disappointed that it's a doll. I'll bet they could've checked it themselves because they're in league with the insurgents because they're anti-American. They're so biased!! They probably draw on pictures of President Bush and drink French wine.

And they probably want our drinking water fluoridated too.

You're absolutely right. Failure to conform with party-line doctrine or party-held beliefs is a clear indication of bias. In no way should a story be played if there is even the slightest hint of bias; all stories that have any hint of anti-party outcome shall, regardless of intention, be labeled as "slander" by all media watching members of the party.

The party will not tolerate those who dare to dissent in any form, including those who state possible scenerios whereby the party could be seen in a negative light. Have all media watchers scour the airwaves for all possible stories that could harm the party; then label them as slander and deride them.

Those who perpatrate such slander shall be publicly ostracized for their speech, not legally challenged. They will be burned by the flames of public opinion and their own words will be used against them in the court of public mockery.

All those who seek to harm the party must be forced to the fringes of public discourse, ours is the only true form of speech. Only party members can speak freely, even if they do make trouble for themselves our media watchers will be on hand to justify their words and excuse their gaffs.

The taint of hypocrisy will not apply to our party, for our party is greater than what it says, greater that what it does, and greater than the members it employs. It is beyond accountability, for the party is the purpose of the party, the party will reign everlasting through its pure form. Doctrine cannot be questioned, dissent will not be tolerated.

Ladies and Gentlemen; I give you the birth of an idea, the conception of a notion, the very creation of a system of thought. I give you...Big Brother.

NPR showed its bias this morning on Morning Edition.

Remember the story from yesterday about an islamic website and terror group that claimed to have kidnapped an "American soldier" and showed his photo on the website. Remember that it turned out that no American soldiers were missing (quite the opposite of the story on the islamic website, where it was claimed that they were holding "many more American soldiers").

Remember that it turned out that the "American soldier" was a 1/6th scale replica of a soldier from a company named Dragon.

As a firearms expert, I took a set of calipers to the photo, and determined that the weapon shown in the photo has the wrong proportions in all respects and could not have been an M4 - even the magazine does not conform to any magazine used by US (or indeed, any) armed forces.

NPR still clung to the story this morning. They said that while the photo does bear a "striking resemblance" to the doll, they could only say that it "raises doubts" about the authenticity of the terrorists' claims.

Oh, so you can't say that it's obviously a fake. You can only say that we'll always leave the door open, even when it's obvious that someone has done something completely stupid.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Doing it when it is patently obvious that something is a fake is something else. I'm wondering what kind of "leap of faith" is required to get a job as a fact checker at NPR.

NPR has "fact checkers?" :confused: :eek:

You're absolutely right. Failure to conform with party-line doctrine or party-held beliefs is a clear indication of bias. In no way should a story be played if there is even the slightest hint of bias; all stories that have any hint of anti-party outcome shall, regardless of intention, be labeled as "slander" by all media watching members of the party.

The party will not tolerate those who dare to dissent in any form, including those who state possible scenerios whereby the party could be seen in a negative light. Have all media watchers scour the airwaves for all possible stories that could harm the party; then label them as slander and deride them.

Those who perpatrate such slander shall be publicly ostracized for their speech, not legally challenged. They will be burned by the flames of public opinion and their own words will be used against them in the court of public mockery.

All those who seek to harm the party must be forced to the fringes of public discourse, ours is the only true form of speech. Only party members can speak freely, even if they do make trouble for themselves our media watchers will be on hand to justify their words and excuse their gaffs.

The taint of hypocrisy will not apply to our party, for our party is greater than what it says, greater that what it does, and greater than the members it employs. It is beyond accountability, for the party is the purpose of the party, the party will reign everlasting through its pure form. Doctrine cannot be questioned, dissent will not be tolerated.

Ladies and Gentlemen; I give you the birth of an idea, the conception of a notion, the very creation of a system of thought. I give you...Big Brother.

My hero!

When do we begin the 5 minutes Hate? I'm bursting with hatred for NPR!

No photo, eh? I wonder if you even own a pair of calipers, pally.

If you really think you've got it solved, detective, why don't you show the rest of us this fake photo with your notes on just what parts of the gun are misporportioned?

Until then, you're just making mouth noises...

I guess you don't watch the news, do you?

Here's the original photo.
http://apnews.myway.com/image/20050201/IRAQ_SOLDIER.sff_LON128_20050201125054.html?date=20050201&docid=D87VSVG80

The "weapon" is supposed to be an M4.

Take a close look at the magazine (if you know what a magazine is).

Now take a look at an M4 (a real one).
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121304fronts1.JPG

He's using an M4, and there are two attachments - an AN/PAQ-4 IR pointer, and a Leupold CQB scope. Note the bloody hand - the slightly curved magazine is pointing out from under his hand. All magazines are 30-round in the military (the 20-rounders faded out of use in the late 1980s). No ten-round magazines are in use. The magazine in the terrorist picture is straight - the real 30-rounder is slightly curved.

If he had been a real American soldier, he would have had only 30-round magazines.

His M4, with a minimum of attachments, would have looked more like:
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m4/m4-alone.htm

Note the pronounced curve of the magazine.

Here's the M4 again, with the following modifications:
-Colt M4 #LE6920 with reliability package from Specialized Armament Warehouse
-Knights Armament Company MRE rail system with KAC rail covers
-Magpul ladder rail covers
-Surefire 962 weapons light with SW02 clicker
-Tango Down Vertical Fore Grip
-Tango Down Battlegrip pistol grip
-Trijicon TA31 ACOG
-LaRue ACOG mount
-Troy Ind dual apeture BUIS (just received and installed yesterday)
-Magpul M93A Stock with magpul single point sling installed
-Gem-Tech Bi-Lock flash hider
and it looks like:
http://www.coloradoshooting.org/6920%20MRE%20left%2075%25.jpg

Now to the soldier in question. Remember what you just saw at the AP news site.

Here's a comparison to the Cody figure from Dragon Models:

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050201/capt.ny11802012115.iraq_soldier_ny118.jpg

Note that his webgear isn't hanging on his shoulders. Real webgear, even if loosely fitted, doesn't look like this and doesn't hang like that if you're sitting down.

The uniform has no patches. Hmm... All US military uniforms have patches and rank insignia in Iraq.

The blousing ties on his pants don't match US military uniform blousing ties - they match the ones on the model.

BTW, the story about the doll DIDN'T come from the US military - it came from people who collect the models.

The terrorists would have been better off consulting with the people who did this:

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/team_america__world_police/team.jpg

NPR still clung to the story this morning. They said that while the photo does bear a "striking resemblance" to the doll, they could only say that it "raises doubts" about the authenticity of the terrorists' claims.

Let me get this straight...
NPR follows on it's previous story about an alleged kidnapped soldier but saying it's probably a fake and that the photo bear a striking resemblance to the doll.

It looks to me like they're doing the right thing by saying it's a fake. They leave wiggle room to make sure they don't have to go back on the air saying "you know the soldier we told you was a fake, well it's real finally" but they are essentially saying it's a fake.

What more do you want?

On a side note, only in the US would your mainstream media would be called liberal. The liberal media is a myth in the US. It's a lie propagated by pundits that got you biting hook, line and sinker.

Let me get this straight...
NPR follows on it's previous story about an alleged kidnapped soldier but saying it's probably a fake and that the photo bear a striking resemblance to the doll.

It looks to me like they're doing the right thing by saying it's a fake. They leave wiggle room to make sure they don't have to go back on the air saying "you know the soldier we told you was a fake, well it's real finally" but they are essentially saying it's a fake.

What more do you want?

On a side note, only in the US would your mainstream media would be called liberal. The liberal media is a myth in the US. It's a lie propagated by pundits that got you biting hook, line and sinker.

Hear, hear. Laurels to East Canuck.

Hear, hear. Laurels to East Canuck.
Thank You.
I'm here 'til thursday.
Try the veal.

Let me get this straight...
NPR follows on it's previous story about an alleged kidnapped soldier but saying it's probably a fake and that the photo bear a striking resemblance to the doll.

It looks to me like they're doing the right thing by saying it's a fake. They leave wiggle room to make sure they don't have to go back on the air saying "you know the soldier we told you was a fake, well it's real finally" but they are essentially saying it's a fake.

What more do you want?

On a side note, only in the US would your mainstream media would be called liberal. The liberal media is a myth in the US. It's a lie propagated by pundits that got you biting hook, line and sinker.


They won't say it's fake. They'll only say, "it raises doubts".
BTW, when the story first broke, they said that an American had been kidnapped. They reported it as a fact. Not that there were "doubts" in their minds.

You're putting blame on the NPR instead of putting favor on yourself. Why don't you try to report your findings!

I work in news, and I don't know jack about what an M4 is supposed to look like. I agree that it looks completely fake, but only after hearing your arguements. Before then I was like, "well it could be real..."

They won't say it's fake. They'll only say, "it raises doubts".
BTW, when the story first broke, they said that an American had been kidnapped. They reported it as a fact. Not that there were "doubts" in their minds.
When was the last time you heard any news organization say it made a mistake?

Why do you hold NPR to a higher journalistic integrity level to, say, Fox news?

As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't been proven that it is, indeed, a doll. It might turn out to be any kind of explication. Why would they have to emit a mea culpa when the inquiry is not over yet?

Methinks you are being biased...

When was the last time you heard any news organization say it made a mistake?

Why do you hold NPR to a higher journalistic integrity level to, say, Fox news?

As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't been proven that it is, indeed, a doll. It might turn out to be any kind of explication. Why would they have to emit a mea culpa when the inquiry is not over yet?

Methinks you are being biased...

I've seen one of the dolls firsthand. I know quite a bit about military equipment, especially firearms. Especially the M4.

I hold it to a higher standard for the same reason that others here hold the US to a higher standard. Obviously no one expects Fox News to meet any standard - but many here have said that NPR is completely unbiased.

Well, if you're going to hold the US to a higher standard of conduct on other issues because you expect more from the US, I expect far, far more from NPR because people here say it's unbiased.

Without being biased, with merely the knowledge I have of firearms and military equipment, and with having seen the doll itself, I am quite convinced the whole thing is a sad fake.

It's rather funny, though, to think that they said they have "other Americans". There are several more dolls in that series, and I wonder if they wasted the roughly 45 dollars on each one in the hopes that someone would believe their story.

Obviously, NPR is willing to believe terrorist websites at face value - accept the kidnapping as first reported as fact - any report any discrediting information as non-fact. So to them, the kidnapping remains a fact.

And they probably want our drinking water fluoridated too.

Not my precious bodily fluids.

Even The Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-631669.php) is only willing to say that the doll "raises doubts." Your (Whispering Log) beef seems to be that your expertise in the field, obviously unparelleled, is not being utilized by the major news because they don't want your "patently" fake truth to get out...but has the librul media even sunk in to the Air Force as well? Sad.

I've seen one of the dolls firsthand. I know quite a bit about military equipment, especially firearms. Especially the M4.
Heresay from a internet user. While it seems you know what you're talking about, I'm have no knowledge of these things so I cannot form an informed opinion.
Hence the benefit of the doubt.


Obviously, NPR is willing to believe terrorist websites at face value - accept the kidnapping as first reported as fact - any report any discrediting information as non-fact. So to them, the kidnapping remains a fact.
That's slander, that is. You are putting intent on a newscast where there is none apparent. Only your bias sees it that way. There are many more interpretation.

You obviously only want to slander NPR and discredit it as a trustworthy newsource. If you have a complaint, I suggest you write a letter to NPR and explain your view in a polite manner. Or write to the FCC. I doubt it will do any good as your "proof" is hardly credible such as it is, but if enough people complain, we might see a thirty second delay to make sure that Janet Jackson's boob doesn't appear in the news.

So do you believe that the kidnapping is a "fact" and will remain "true" unless proven otherwise?

I seem to recall that Bush used the same logic with the "WMD".

Are you resorting to Bush's logic now?

So do you believe that the kidnapping is a "fact" and will remain "true" unless proven otherwise?

I seem to recall that Bush used the same logic with the "WMD".

Are you resorting to Bush's logic now?
No. I question your conclusions. Your are using a bad debating tactic.
Nowhere had I said that the kidnapping is a "fact". Do not put words in my mouth.

You argued that NPR is clearly biased because it did not use strong enough words to refute a story. I destroyed that argument. I never went into whether the story was true or not. Nice try, but your no cigar.

No. I question your conclusions. Your are using a bad debating tactic.
Nowhere had I said that the kidnapping is a "fact". Do not put words in my mouth.

You argued that NPR is clearly biased because it did not use strong enough words to refute a story. I destroyed that argument. I never went into whether the story was true or not. Nice try, but your no cigar.

NPR said in their first report that US soldier had been kidnapped. Not that the terrorists "claimed" or that the terrorists were "alleged" to have kidnapped.

They still haven't retracted the story.

I dont think it has anything to do with the media being liberal (which is just a boogeyman for the conservatives) but more so that the media does not want to be wrong. When we live in a world where media is not really competing against each other for journalistic integrity but rather who can be the "most watched news". Its all about ratings, and if NPR admits that they were wrong yada yada they might lose listeners.

I dont think it has anything to do with the media being liberal (which is just a boogeyman for the conservatives) but more so that the media does not want to be wrong. When we live in a world where media is not really competing against each other for journalistic integrity but rather who can be the "most watched news". Its all about ratings, and if NPR admits that they were wrong yada yada they might lose listeners.

Well, other outlets have taken back the story - in a hurry. Some others didn't even take the bait when it first came out (Reuters and the BBC held back while the AP made an ass of themselves).

P.S. as far as I know the United States was still confirming with units that no one was missing and have not annouced that the picture is indeed a fact. The people who have claimed it is a fake are you and some hobby shop owner in Arizona. I think its a fake, I think we all know its a fake, but til the news organizations who are you going to retract a story over, some guy on a messageboard claiming that it is a fake or some hobby shop owner claiming the same thing. Or the CIA and the Government?

I'm willing to make this a bet.

Since NPR reported the picture of the "soldier" as a kidnapping yesterday, and they are dancing around any real retraction of the story because it can't be "proven" (other than by anyone with common sense) that it's a doll,

I give you...

The Torture Woman of Guantanamo Bay - the woman who did it all...

(not an offensive link...)

http://i17.ebayimg.com/01/i/03/56/3a/8b_3.JPG

see, now you're just being facetious.

(while having a cheap shot at NPR.)

She's not as cute as Habib said she was. Maybe it's because of her outfit. She might look cuter in a thong.

My, my...a grown man who plays with dolls, is a crack expert on obscure weapons, and posts on message boards online...

What a towering, indispensable commodity you must be...no, wait that's right - I can't speakee the english too well, I must have meant to say 'commode'...

The M4 is not obscure. And what's wrong with dolls? Terrorists play with them, too, you know...

It's obscure to most people. Most people don't feel the need to familiarize themselves with military hardware. I've found this is more often than not the realm of adolescents harbouring control issues, or lonely adults living in a state of arrested development, though.

It's obscure to most people. Most people don't feel the need to familiarize themselves with military hardware. I've found this is more often than not the realm of adolescents harbouring control issues, or lonely adults living in a state of arrested development, though.

Or people who do legal work for defense contractors. Who used to be in the military.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Doing it when it is patently obvious that something is a fake is something else. I'm wondering what kind of "leap of faith" is required to get a job as a fact checker at NPR.
I don't see how this is such undubitable evidence of bias. Maybe they don't have a weapons expert at hand or maybe you are wrong?

I don't see how this is such undubitable evidence of bias. Maybe they don't have a weapons expert at hand or maybe you are wrong?

At this point, if I'm wrong, nearly all other media outlets, and the experts they're relying on, are wrong as well.

NPR showed its bias this morning on Morning Edition.

Remember the story from yesterday about an islamic website and terror group that claimed to have kidnapped an "American soldier" and showed his photo on the website. Remember that it turned out that no American soldiers were missing (quite the opposite of the story on the islamic website, where it was claimed that they were holding "many more American soldiers").

Remember that it turned out that the "American soldier" was a 1/6th scale replica of a soldier from a company named Dragon.

As a firearms expert, I took a set of calipers to the photo, and determined that the weapon shown in the photo has the wrong proportions in all respects and could not have been an M4 - even the magazine does not conform to any magazine used by US (or indeed, any) armed forces.

NPR still clung to the story this morning. They said that while the photo does bear a "striking resemblance" to the doll, they could only say that it "raises doubts" about the authenticity of the terrorists' claims.

Oh, so you can't say that it's obviously a fake. You can only say that we'll always leave the door open, even when it's obvious that someone has done something completely stupid.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Doing it when it is patently obvious that something is a fake is something else. I'm wondering what kind of "leap of faith" is required to get a job as a fact checker at NPR.


uh... I listened to NPR on my way to work this morning and they said that a toy manufacturer claimed it as on of their own dolls and said nothing to the effect of what you said. They straight out said it was a fake.

uh... I listened to NPR on my way to work this morning and they said that a toy manufacturer claimed it as on of their own dolls and said nothing to the effect of what you said. They straight out said it was a fake.

I was listening to Morning Edition at 5 AM.

If they've retracted their story, that's great.

And since it would appear that they have, then anyone who thought that there was a chance the doll was really an American soldier should take the rest of the day off, and go buy one. Dragon Models makes them, and it's the African-American variant of their doll named Cody.

...or maybe collect stamps. Press flowers? Capture butterflies?

No wait, this is America. Go ahead and spend money on plastic shaped and painted to look like a gun-wielding state-sanctioned killer instead. That's a red-blooded American hobby, after all...

...or maybe collect stamps. Press flowers? Capture butterflies?

No wait, this is America. Go ahead and spend money on plastic shaped and painted to look like a gun-wielding state-sanctioned killer instead. That's a red-blooded American hobby, after all...

I buy real firearms. But I know where to find the models as well.

I was listening to Morning Edition at 5 AM.

If they've retracted their story, that's great.

And since it would appear that they have, then anyone who thought that there was a chance the doll was really an American soldier should take the rest of the day off, and go buy one. Dragon Models makes them, and it's the African-American variant of their doll named Cody.


Or you could invite them over to come play with your set of dolls. :p

~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps they hadn't fact checked the doll story claim yet, and didnt want to fully commit to it and by the time I heard the story they had and were sure.

If you listen to NPR then you will know that thay have just as many if not more conservatives on thier station than liberals. They ask fair and tough questions of each and do somewhat of a good job of trying to ACTUALLY be fair and balanced. THey are more of a "maybe this is true" kinda station.

Of coruse that doesnt mean that there aren't liberals or conservatives working there that won't somehow slip their bias into the stories when they can.

That photo was hillarious! They didn't even try (besides adding a little blur).
:P

So they didn't want to dismiss it out of hand? How is that biased?

What happens if, and this is a pretty big if, it were true and the picture really is of a captured US soldier? Sucks to be the people who dismissed it out of hand and went on to sports.

Try to remember that the neocon media also jumped all over the beheading bandwagon - even in those cases where the beheaders were speaking Egyptian with decidedly Western accents. Let's talk about that sort of reverse bias as well, shall we?

Oooh! Someone with a turban! He must be a terrorist! A middle eastern terrorist! He has to be Muslim!

Right ... and Prince Harry's a Nazi just because he put on a brown shirt and swastika, eh?

Fact is, if a newscast doesn't agree with your delicate Western sensibilities, it must be "TEH LIBERAL BIAS!!11!!one!1!"

I suggest stabbing your eyes out with a fork.

No, instead of reporting the contents of an Islamic web site that purports to show the actions of a group of terrorists as a "fact", they should say that the matter is alleged to have happened.

But no, they didn't say that. They said it happened.

And then when confronted with evidence (ample, and separately verifiable) that it was not true, they said for a while that the evidence fell into the "alleged" category.

I see. Immediately trust the Islamic web site, or the claims of terrorists. Distrust anyone else. That's bias.

I don't have to be a neocon to see that's bias.

BTW, here at the office we're having a party this afternoon to laugh at the terrorists who captured a doll. They must be completely desperate and at the end of their rope if they can't capture an American soldier anymore.

BTW, here at the office we're having a party this afternoon to laugh at the terrorists who captured a doll. They must be completely desperate and at the end of their rope if they can't capture an American soldier anymore.

And what are you going to do when it turns out to be some bored American white kids who did this as a joke? You're saying "terrorist" and "Islamic" without knowing a damn thing.

All you see is a flag with the shahadah (something anyone can get) behind a specific kind of action figure (not something just anyone can get) and based on the flag, make assumptions. I doubt you even know the URL of the website where it was originally posted.

You are clearly biased .... NPR was being careful. In the wake of the Dan Rather incident, almost any media should be careful. Being careful does not bias make.

No, instead of reporting the contents of an Islamic web site that purports to show the actions of a group of terrorists as a "fact", they should say that the matter is alleged to have happened.

But no, they didn't say that. They said it happened.

And then when confronted with evidence (ample, and separately verifiable) that it was not true, they said for a while that the evidence fell into the "alleged" category.

I see. Immediately trust the Islamic web site, or the claims of terrorists. Distrust anyone else. That's bias.

I don't have to be a neocon to see that's bias.

BTW, here at the office we're having a party this afternoon to laugh at the terrorists who captured a doll. They must be completely desperate and at the end of their rope if they can't capture an American soldier anymore.


So you say... although I listen to NPR and never heard such a claim. Do you just dislike stations that dont parrot whatever the Bush Administration says without question?

Anyway, even if they had thought that the Islamist website was a fact right away it is kind of understandable since they have captured and killed American troops and civilians before, so why shoudl it be so hard to believe?

I think you are grasping at straws. There really is no story here.

http://ansarnet.ws/

It was there until last night, when they took it down and replaced it with the text you see now.

Interesting disclaimer.

interesting site - I just read:

7 Reasons to Read the Glorious Qur’an

1. Inimitable

It dares you to disprove it. How? It says that humans cannot write a book like this even if they pooled all their resources together and got help also from the spirits. The Qur’an said this fourteen hundred years ago and yet no one has been able to disprove it. Billions of books have been written-but not another one like the Qur’an.

2. Incorruptible

It is the only religious sacred writing that has been in circulation for such a long time and yet remains as pure as it was in the beginning. The Qur’an was kept intact. Nothing was added to it; nothing was changed in it; and nothing was taken away from it ever since its revelation was completed 1400 years ago.

3. Unsurpassable

The Qur’an is God’s final revelation to humankind. God revealed the Torah to Moses, the Psalms to David, the Gospel to Jesus, and finally the Qur’an to Muhammad. Peace be upon Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad. No other book will come from God to surpass His final revelation.



4. Indisputable

The Qur’an withstands the test of time and scrutiny. No one can dispute the truth of this book. It speaks about past history and turns out right. It speaks about the future in prophecies and it turns out right. It mentions details of physical phenomena which were not known to people at the time; yet later scientific discoveries prove that the Qur’an was right all along. Every other book needs to be revised to accord with modern knowledge. The Qur’an alone is never contradicted by a newly discovered scientific fact.

5. Your Roadmap for Life and Afterlife

The Qur’an is the best guidebook on how to structure your life. No other book presents such a comprehensive system involving all aspects of human life and endeavor. The Qur’an also points out the way to secure everlasting happiness in the afterlife. It is your roadmap showing how to get to Paradise.

6. God’s Gift of Guidance

God has not left you alone. You were made for a reason. God tells you why he made you, what he demands from you and what he has in store for you. If you operate a machine contrary to it’s manufacturer’s specification you will ruin that machine. What about you? Do you have an owner’s manual for yourself? The Qur’an is from your Maker. It is a gift for you to make sure you function for success, lest you fail to function.

It is a healing from God. It satisfies the soul, and cleans the heart. It removes doubts and brings peace.

7. Your Calling Card to Communicate with your Lord

Humans are social creatures. We love to communicate with other intelligent life. The Qur’an tells us how to communicate with the source of all intelligence and the source of all life-the One God. The Qur’an tells us who God is, by what name we should address Him, and the way in which to communicate with Him.

When do we begin the 5 minutes Hate? I'm bursting with hatred for NPR!

Double plus good.

http://ansarnet.ws/

It was there until last night, when they took it down and replaced it with the text you see now.

Interesting disclaimer.

Ooooh ... yes ... that proves it. A site that has a ".ws" URL must be anti-American terrorists.

If you click on their links to learn about Islam, you find all these messages of peace and brotherhood among all mankind (and not just Muslims!). Such terrorists there ... yep yep yep ... they should just be wiped out.

Anyway, all they're saying is that what gets posted there is a temporary public posting. Basically, if I were to have posted that same thing on these forums, you'd be screaming that Nationstates is a terrorist organization ... "teh suck-ass liberal media" would disagree with you.

Fork ... eyes ... trust me ... your life will be easier.

interesting site - I just read:

7 Reasons to Read the Glorious Qur’an

1. Inimitable

It dares you to disprove it. How? It says that humans cannot write a book like this even if they pooled all their resources together and got help also from the spirits. The Qur’an said this fourteen hundred years ago and yet no one has been able to disprove it. Billions of books have been written-but not another one like the Qur’an.

2. Incorruptible

It is the only religious sacred writing that has been in circulation for such a long time and yet remains as pure as it was in the beginning. The Qur’an was kept intact. Nothing was added to it; nothing was changed in it; and nothing was taken away from it ever since its revelation was completed 1400 years ago.
<snip the rest>

Wow, as for #1, humans haven't written a book like all the writings of Shakespeare, but that doesn't give it mystical properties. I'll be sure to check my Riverside Shakespeare for signs of God at work.

As for #2, the Torah was an oral tradition for a long time before being transcribed. A big reason for the singing of the Torah writing is that it serves as a mnemonic. Apparently, around 800 BC, it was written down. As far as I know, and I may be wrong on this, every one was transcribed from another by hand. It might be possible to claim that the Torah has another 1600 years on the Koran in terms of incorruptible.

But all of this is crap. If you're going to believe in a religion because of mystical signs and claims surrounding a book, then you might as well go back to any prior religion that uses the participation mystique.

I hate any religious site that says, "our book is better than yours".

And I'm going to close my ears and become deaf to any arguments along those lines, because they are irrelevant.

I hate any religious site that says, "our book is better than yours".


Really? Yet that's the same site you used to prove Islamic Terrorists are trying to pass off a doll as a captured US soldier?

Wow ....

I dislike any religion that claims it is the one and only truth. But that doesnt mean they dont have soom good ideas in them. Religion just isn't for me.

What happened to Jenn Jenn's post? Let me paraphrase:

Shut up! Shut up! Stfu!

Who cares??? Get over yourself!

NPR has "fact checkers?" :confused: :eek:

Yup. Just like Fox news..... ;)

NPR showed its bias this morning on Morning Edition.

*SNIP*


Hmm a conservative bitching about NPR. SOSDD.

BTW, here at the office we're having a party this afternoon to laugh at the terrorists who captured a doll. They must be completely desperate and at the end of their rope if they can't capture an American soldier anymore.

Whoo-hoo. What a cause for celebration. You guys must have a parade down Main Street every time Rush Limbaugh passes wind, too...

Whoo-hoo. What a cause for celebration. You guys must have a parade down Main Street every time Rush Limbaugh passes wind, too...

No, we don't listen to Rush here. And we don't watch Fox.

Surprise, surprise...

No, we don't listen to Rush here. And we don't watch Fox.

Surprise, surprise...
There is hope for you yet... ;)

I've seen one of the dolls firsthand. I know quite a bit about military equipment, especially firearms. Especially the M4.

I hold it to a higher standard for the same reason that others here hold the US to a higher standard. Obviously no one expects Fox News to meet any standard - but many here have said that NPR is completely unbiased.

Well, if you're going to hold the US to a higher standard of conduct on other issues because you expect more from the US, I expect far, far more from NPR because people here say it's unbiased.

Without being biased, with merely the knowledge I have of firearms and military equipment, and with having seen the doll itself, I am quite convinced the whole thing is a sad fake.

It's rather funny, though, to think that they said they have "other Americans". There are several more dolls in that series, and I wonder if they wasted the roughly 45 dollars on each one in the hopes that someone would believe their story.

Obviously, NPR is willing to believe terrorist websites at face value - accept the kidnapping as first reported as fact - any report any discrediting information as non-fact. So to them, the kidnapping remains a fact.

Here is some news for you: they've been saying it's a doll for some time now.

Perhaps you could offer to be their doll expert.

NPR showed its bias this morning on Morning Edition.

Remember the story from yesterday about an islamic website and terror group that claimed to have kidnapped an "American soldier" and showed his photo on the website. Remember that it turned out that no American soldiers were missing (quite the opposite of the story on the islamic website, where it was claimed that they were holding "many more American soldiers").

Remember that it turned out that the "American soldier" was a 1/6th scale replica of a soldier from a company named Dragon.

As a firearms expert, I took a set of calipers to the photo, and determined that the weapon shown in the photo has the wrong proportions in all respects and could not have been an M4 - even the magazine does not conform to any magazine used by US (or indeed, any) armed forces.

NPR still clung to the story this morning. They said that while the photo does bear a "striking resemblance" to the doll, they could only say that it "raises doubts" about the authenticity of the terrorists' claims.

Oh, so you can't say that it's obviously a fake. You can only say that we'll always leave the door open, even when it's obvious that someone has done something completely stupid.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Doing it when it is patently obvious that something is a fake is something else. I'm wondering what kind of "leap of faith" is required to get a job as a fact checker at NPR.
Dan Rather was asked about this "story". He says even though it's fake, he believes it's accurate.