NationStates Jolt Archive

From Reuters (Via YahooNews):Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc)

So let me get this straight, an intentionally fabricated story created to damage the image of American forces abroad is printed. That story is picked up by the usual suspects in the muslim world who goad their followers into rioting. Those riots then kill 15 people and counting. This is directly the fault of Newsweek.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.

From Reuters (Via YahooNews):Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc)

So let me get this straight, an intentionally fabricated story created to damage the image of American forces abroad is printed. That story is picked up by the usual suspects in the muslim world who goad their followers into rioting. Those riots then kill 15 people and counting. This is directly the fault of Newsweek.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.

"But Newsweek said the source later told the magazine he could not be certain he had seen an account of the Koran incident in the military report and that it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts."

Did you read the article?


It never said the desecration didn't happen. It said that Newsweek was wrong to say the source of the incident was "confirmed." That doesn't mean the incident didn't happen.

Wow....

From the article:

The weekly news magazine said in its May 23 edition that the information had come from a "knowledgeable government source" who told Newsweek that a military report on abuse at Guantanamo Bay said interrogators flushed at least one copy of the Koran down a toilet in a bid to make detainees talk

Do you think that a military report that documents abuse at the hands of "The global force for liberty" might provoke riots a bit of anger?

From Reuters (Via YahooNews):Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc)

So let me get this straight, an intentionally fabricated story created to damage the image of American forces abroad is printed. That story is picked up by the usual suspects in the muslim world who goad their followers into rioting. Those riots then kill 15 people and counting. This is directly the fault of Newsweek.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.
It was the source, not the story itself, that they apologized for. Its always fucking liberals and conservatives warring over this and that.

It apparently doesn't exist. Question asked, question answered.

created to damage the image of American forces abroad

You mean we needed more help?

From Reuters (Via YahooNews):Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc)

So let me get this straight, an intentionally fabricated story created to damage the image of American forces abroad is printed. That story is picked up by the usual suspects in the muslim world who goad their followers into rioting. Those riots then kill 15 people and counting. This is directly the fault of Newsweek.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.

Partisan hack. You sick, poor partisan hack.

Do you think that a military report that documents abuse at the hands of "The global force for liberty" might provoke riots a bit of anger?

What's your point? I don't quite see what you're getting at.

From the article:



Do you think that a military report that documents abuse at the hands of "The global force for liberty" might provoke riots a bit of anger?

the problem here, Afghregistan, is that the report didn't exist. It probably doesn't exist, but the Editors didn't check before running the story based on the report-that-did-not-exist. The eagerness of some people to believe material because it fits their preconcieved notions was combined with the desire to generate exactly the kind of response that sells copy (Riots), was put together with the need to get past a publication deadline, resulting in shoddy work that cost lives.

Newsweek will skate on by-the people they Libelled are forbidden from filing suit by U.S. Military policy, the directly-harmed victims of that libel are likewise unable to file suit for obvious reasons (1. they're dead, 2. they're not American Citizens, 3. THey don't have the money to take on an international Media corporation in court.)

With no consequences, this will happen again. The revenues generated by covering the Riots that resulted from the initial bad reporting will easily cover any other costs incurred, and there are enough people who share those same preconceptions that Newsweek can afford to lose any business from people offended enough to stop buying their rag.

Ethics in Journalism were a temporary thing-they formed in the 1930's, and died out by 1967.

It apparently doesn't exist. Question asked, question answered.
Twenty minutes on an internet forum and four responses and you've summed up the liberal response? Nice job Karnak.

We've been trying to get the news to actually investigate for a while now. Haven't you been paying attention? Newsweeks article is liberals fault how exactly? You're going to site sources and actual hard evidence for this, too-right? Not just call the media (which is corperate run) communist.

The arguement about liberal media is so 2000. It's really the populist media that's the problem, IMO.

Twenty minutes on an internet forum and four responses and you've summed up the liberal response? Nice job Karnak.

We've been trying to get the news to actually investigate for a while now. Haven't you been paying attention? Newsweeks article is liberals fault how exactly? You're going to site sources and actual hard evidence for this, too-right? Not just call the media (which is corperate run) communist.
Oh, you wishful thinker.

I still say that the journalists are the least to blame here.

Yes, very stupid reporting.

More importantly, some asses out there will kill over a stupid book being flushed.

THAT is a MUCH bigger issue than a minor report.

From Reuters (Via YahooNews):Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc)

So let me get this straight, an intentionally fabricated story created to damage the image of American forces abroad is printed.

What the hell article were you reading?

That story is picked up by the usual suspects in the muslim world who goad their followers into rioting. Those riots then kill 15 people and counting. This is directly the fault of Newsweek.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.

From the article:

"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."

"We believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item," Whitaker said.

"Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Koran incident in the report we cited," he wrote. ."

It's not like they never gave anyone the chance to clarify things before they printed the story, now is it? And as far as I can tell, they're not saying the Koran desecration never happened even now. Hadley just said TODAY that they're still investigating the incident.

No man, it's a liberal conspiracy..lol it's only an honest mistake when it's the Bush administration going to war without justification.. oop's!

What the hell article were you reading?



From the article:

"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."

"We believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item," Whitaker said.

"Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Koran incident in the report we cited," he wrote. ."

It's not like they never gave anyone the chance to clarify things before they printed the story, now is it? And as far as I can tell, they're not saying the Koran desecration never happened even now. Hadley just said TODAY that they're still investigating the incident.

Thank you! As I said near the very beginning of the argument (my response was conveniently ignored)... it seems as if Northern Fox didn't even read the article.

Nowhere does it say the abuse didn't happen! It doesn't even say that it probably didn't happen.

The assumption is, it probably did happen, but they are still investigating!

The arguement about liberal media is so 2000. It's really the populist media that's the problem, IMO.
Actually I'm really struck by the similarities between the turn of the last century and this one in terms of media. Newspaper photo re-production and other media advances increased the availablity of information and decreased the ability for the populace to sort and deal with it. Then like now it was the flashiest that made the impact and truth became a very blurry thing. I don't know that we've ever really had enough time to recover from that before the hose opened even more.

This is why I think it's paramount that we teach our students how to read media. But then, you know, you can't lead them around by the nose if we do that...

What's your point? I don't quite see what you're getting at.

My point is that the techniques that are used to torture detainees is immaterial. It is the fact that torture is being committed by the self described "beacon of liberty" that is provoking riots.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.

Don't tell me, you're a conservative?

This is why I think it's paramount that we teach our students how to read media. But then, you know, you can't lead them around by the nose if we do that...

Yeah, I say take a conservative paper and a liberal paper. Read both and pick out the parts that agree. Then piece together for yourself what happened.

Oh, and I think it should be taught to kids too. Also American laws should be taught from elementary school up. Too many kids don't know them and unintentionally break them.

Don't tell me, you're a conservative?

Wow man, are you like a mind reader, cause I was thinking the same thing..lol :D

Twenty minutes on an internet forum and four responses and you've summed up the liberal response? Nice job Karnak.

We've been trying to get the news to actually investigate for a while now. Haven't you been paying attention? Newsweeks article is liberals fault how exactly? You're going to site sources and actual hard evidence for this, too-right? Not just call the media (which is corperate run) communist.

The problem is Media-Laziness all around. With the exception of a few 'embedded' reporters early in the conflict, there has been no on-site reporting at all by Media outlets. They sit in the Green Zone and print what other people tell them is going on.
Naturally, like most folks, they're going to focus on those things that back up their own assumptions, rather than investigating on their own-a choice that might not result in the same kind of outcomes vis reportage.

In the case of GitMo, it's almost forgiveable since there's a fairly heavy cover of secrecy about the whole situation (it being a combination POW Holding and Intel gathering operation, a lot of what goes on is classified to protect ongoing operations elsewhere), but the problem is, it was reported without being checked, first.

Imagine you're a reporter, and a man comes up to you and says he's got evidence of some kind of malfeasance involving the government. He then spins you a wild tale.

Before you go to print with that tale, wouldn't it be a good idea to confirm the material? Put this way-if the malfeasance involved, say, Whoopi Goldberg, you're looking at lawsuit-city if it isn't backed by the facts-Libel suits protect prominent private citizens from Libelous acts, and can be a significant crimp on your publisher's profit-margin.

But the Government really can't afford to sue a journalist or news outfit for Libel-the immediate countermove is to cry "Censorship!" and stir the pot, thereby doing more severe damage to the Government (or, in this case, the Military).

Further, (and we saw this as early as 1898 with the Maine sinking in Havana Harbour) the practice of "Making the News" is a time-tested means of increasing the publisher's profit-margins. The louder and "sexier" a story is, the more a newsmagazine will overlook basic practices in favour of sensation-especially if the target is, effectively, unable to hit back due to other circumstances.

It's even easier if the story in question already fits with what most Journalists and Editors either secretly, or more common, openly believe to be a home truth.

If running the story generates a large and public outrage of the right kind, it's even worth the risk. The L.A. riots come to mind here. It wasn't until sometime after the Rodney King Trial was over, that his criminal record, presence of drugs in his system, and the background of the traffic-stop were reported-quietly, on page five. Media outlets made bank on covering the trial, and the resulting riots.

Yeah, I say take a conservative paper and a liberal paper. Read both and pick out the parts that agree. Then piece together for yourself what happened.

Oh, and I think it should be taught to kids too. Also American laws should be taught from elementary school up. Too many kids don't know them and unintentionally break them.
My only quarrel with that is that I don't think we should waste time with 'liberal' paper and 'conservative' paper-we need to escape the notion that bias can be measured by how many nice or bad things that they say about each side. The articles, all of them, should be read criticly. I have a friend who is an English prof. who every now and then assigns 3 or 4 articles on the same subject and then the source and has them examine the articles and where the articles come from to learn to understand how media is formed. I think he would have done this on his own, but I harp on him to do it and find stories to use all the time. I think it needs to happen a lot earlier, though. I don't know any high school english teachers.

Wow man, are you like a mind reader, cause I was thinking the same thing..lol :D

I try.

My only quarrel with that is that I don't think we should waste time with 'liberal' paper and 'conservative' paper-we need to escape the notion that bias can be measured by how many nice or bad things that they say about each side. The articles, all of them, should be read criticly.

Right, you need to know the bias of the news program you watch or paper you read. For example, I watch Fox News. I know they have a conservative bias and I take that into account. Also, we need to learn that Op/Ed programs like Hannity and Colmes or Bill O'Reilly or Scarborough Country are NOT news. You should differentiate the 2, which is something people seem to have a problem doing.

The problem is Media-Laziness all around. With the exception of a few 'embedded' reporters early in the conflict, there has been no on-site reporting at all by Media outlets. They sit in the Green Zone and print what other people tell them is going on.
Naturally, like most folks, they're going to focus on those things that back up their own assumptions, rather than investigating on their own-a choice that might not result in the same kind of outcomes vis reportage.

In the case of GitMo, it's almost forgiveable since there's a fairly heavy cover of secrecy about the whole situation (it being a combination POW Holding and Intel gathering operation, a lot of what goes on is classified to protect ongoing operations elsewhere), but the problem is, it was reported without being checked, first.

Imagine you're a reporter, and a man comes up to you and says he's got evidence of some kind of malfeasance involving the government. He then spins you a wild tale.

Before you go to print with that tale, wouldn't it be a good idea to confirm the material? Put this way-if the malfeasance involved, say, Whoopi Goldberg, you're looking at lawsuit-city if it isn't backed by the facts-Libel suits protect prominent private citizens from Libelous acts, and can be a significant crimp on your publisher's profit-margin.

But the Government really can't afford to sue a journalist or news outfit for Libel-the immediate countermove is to cry "Censorship!" and stir the pot, thereby doing more severe damage to the Government (or, in this case, the Military).

Further, (and we saw this as early as 1898 with the Maine sinking in Havana Harbour) the practice of "Making the News" is a time-tested means of increasing the publisher's profit-margins. The louder and "sexier" a story is, the more a newsmagazine will overlook basic practices in favour of sensation-especially if the target is, effectively, unable to hit back due to other circumstances.

It's even easier if the story in question already fits with what most Journalists and Editors either secretly, or more common, openly believe to be a home truth.

If running the story generates a large and public outrage of the right kind, it's even worth the risk. The L.A. riots come to mind here. It wasn't until sometime after the Rodney King Trial was over, that his criminal record, presence of drugs in his system, and the background of the traffic-stop were reported-quietly, on page five. Media outlets made bank on covering the trial, and the resulting riots.
I addressed most of this already in a response to someone else. I'll just get to two of them-

As people have pointed out, Newsweek was running a story that others where running as well and when the conformation man corrected other facts and not the bible one they ran with it. The idea here is 'me too'-ism of news, a game of follow the leader. If one reports it they all have to, and can wind up stuck in the mud.

As for King, I remember discussing his record and what he was doing before the riots. I wasn't really as aware of the media at the time, but I think that says something then that I and others where talking about it at the time. (Incidently, I didn't at the time nor now think it justified pummelling a prone man.)

From Reuters (Via YahooNews):Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc)

So let me get this straight, an intentionally fabricated story created to damage the image of American forces abroad is printed. That story is picked up by the usual suspects in the muslim world who goad their followers into rioting. Those riots then kill 15 people and counting. This is directly the fault of Newsweek.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.

Conservative decency, paging conservative decency .... oh, nevermind.

1. Either you didn't read the article or you lied about what it says. Care to pick?

2. What gave you the impression Newsweek is run by liberals?

3. As someone else pointed out: Repeated false statements about WMDs and nuclear weapons -- honest mistake; one slightly erroneous news story -- "liberal lie[s]." :rolleyes:

Sloppy reporting that wasn't helped by sloppy news briefing by the DoD (The lines about how the report was denied, but the alagation of Koran flushing was not).

I'm more interested in the reaction of the goverment, Sec of State Rice's apology for this that quickly and the quick reaction to investigate and condem makes me wonder if the alagations are true and known to be true (thus the butt covering manuvering), or if the Bush Admin is really starting to worry about its image abroad.

Right, you need to know the bias of the news program you watch or paper you read. For example, I watch Fox News. I know they have a conservative bias and I take that into account. Also, we need to learn that Op/Ed programs like Hannity and Colmes or Bill O'Reilly or Scarborough Country are NOT news. You should differentiate the 2, which is something people seem to have a problem doing.
Still, I think if we rely on 'knowing' FOX is this CNN is that we've alread surrendered a signifigant portion of our judgment. A historian friend of mine was giving me research tips when I did my first turn as a dramaturg that I thought worked out well-he said that everyone has a reason for writting down a specific piece of history and you have to determine what that is to be able to understand that persons take on it.

So we can't just say "this is liberal this is conservative" but look at the material itself. Chances are its going to be both.

Still, I think if we rely on 'knowing' FOX is this CNN is that we've alread surrendered a signifigant portion of our judgment. A historian friend of mine was giving me research tips when I did my first turn as a dramaturg that I thought worked out well-he said that everyone has a reason for writting down a specific piece of history and you have to determine what that is to be able to understand that persons take on it.

So we can't just say "this is liberal this is conservative" but look at the material itself. Chances are its going to be both.

That's a little bit over my head. I'm just a Film Production Major. Maybe someday my work will have Rush Limbaugh saying it's "irreverent and should be banned because of the subject matter of intergenerational relationships" or "it shows abortion as a positive thing" when seriously.... it's only a movie. Could Rush's comments preserved for say 50 years make people think my movie was indeed crude and unacceptable because they mistake his views for news?

The problem is Media-Laziness all around. With the exception of a few 'embedded' reporters early in the conflict, there has been no on-site reporting at all by Media outlets. They sit in the Green Zone and print what other people tell them is going on.

Naturally, like most folks, they're going to focus on those things that back up their own assumptions, rather than investigating on their own-a choice that might not result in the same kind of outcomes vis reportage.

I grant more investigative journalism is needed.

But, of course, the Bush Administration has made it a policy to try to keep reporters out of the field in Iraq.

This Administration works hard to prevent real journalism. Where is your outrage at that?

In the case of GitMo, it's almost forgiveable since there's a fairly heavy cover of secrecy about the whole situation (it being a combination POW Holding and Intel gathering operation, a lot of what goes on is classified to protect ongoing operations elsewhere), but the problem is, it was reported without being checked, first.

Imagine you're a reporter, and a man comes up to you and says he's got evidence of some kind of malfeasance involving the government. He then spins you a wild tale.

Before you go to print with that tale, wouldn't it be a good idea to confirm the material? Put this way-if the malfeasance involved, say, Whoopi Goldberg, you're looking at lawsuit-city if it isn't backed by the facts-Libel suits protect prominent private citizens from Libelous acts, and can be a significant crimp on your publisher's profit-margin.

But the Government really can't afford to sue a journalist or news outfit for Libel-the immediate countermove is to cry "Censorship!" and stir the pot, thereby doing more severe damage to the Government (or, in this case, the Military).

Further, (and we saw this as early as 1898 with the Maine sinking in Havana Harbour) the practice of "Making the News" is a time-tested means of increasing the publisher's profit-margins. The louder and "sexier" a story is, the more a newsmagazine will overlook basic practices in favour of sensation-especially if the target is, effectively, unable to hit back due to other circumstances.

It's even easier if the story in question already fits with what most Journalists and Editors either secretly, or more common, openly believe to be a home truth.

This would be beautiful if it were not based on a false premise.

They did investigate the story. They did check with DoD sources.

They printed what they learned.

Perhaps they could have dug deeper. But are you seriously contending that anytime the government denies a story you should kill it -- even if you have credible sources?

If running the story generates a large and public outrage of the right kind, it's even worth the risk. The L.A. riots come to mind here. It wasn't until sometime after the Rodney King Trial was over, that his criminal record, presence of drugs in his system, and the background of the traffic-stop were reported-quietly, on page five. Media outlets made bank on covering the trial, and the resulting riots.

Complete make-believe.

Perhaps you should take your own preaching to heart about checking facts before making wild-ass allegations.

Just for this you've forced me to move my Conservative Douchbag Alert Ranking to yellow... YELLOW DAMN YOU!

I grant more investigative journalism is needed.

But, of course, the Bush Administration has made it a policy to try to keep reporters out of the field in Iraq.

This Administration works hard to prevent real journalism. Where is your outrage at that?



This would be beautiful if it were not based on a false premise.

They did investigate the story. They did check with DoD sources.

They printed what they learned.

Perhaps they could have dug deeper. But are you seriously contending that anytime the government denies a story you should kill it -- even if you have credible sources?



Complete make-believe.

Perhaps you should take your own preaching to heart about checking facts before making wild-ass allegations.


I am not paid to report the news, my circulation doesn't rely on market share or advertising, and I don't think anyone is fool enough to base a course of policy affecting thousands of other People on what I have to say.

OTOH, Newsweek, TIME, and other major outlets of reporting are paid to report the facts-or to just boost circulation, depending on your point of view.

On the Rodney King thing: for every two hours on the news out here in which they talked about the abusive LAPD, there were maybe two minutes worth of actual coverage involving the factual background. For all intents and purposes, the LA riots in '92 were generated for the sole purpose of upping interest in the newsmedia and selling airtime. Same with Camp O.J., that murder in California last year, and Terry Schiavo.

Second: Governments have historically tried to block reporters. it's the natural order of things, and it's the Reporter's Job description to dig. Think about how long CBS held on with Danny Rather after the forgeries started becoming public knowledge-if a newsagent is admitting that "There may have been some errors" it likely means "There may have been a hell of a lot of prevarication, but we're not going to admit it right away, first we're going to find some way to save face by diverting attention."

On the national level, it takes pretty near an act of god to get a major media outlet to admit to something like fabrication, plagiarism, or outright lying.
The NYT reporter who was caught inventing stories didn't make much of a splash until the NYT could safely admit to it-by showing just how sorry they were, and how they were taken in by this evil reporter-dude who lied in print.
at that time, they had 9/11, followed by Afghanistan, to cover their asses-it didn't make front-page status.

If Newsweek can't produce the documents backing their story up, it means those documents don't exist. "The investigation is ongoing" means the reporter (or reporters) who wrote (compiled) the story can't produce their evidence. If I were a Journalist (rather than an amatuer online forumgoer)
it would be an obligation to get the details correct, because it's allegedly how my living would be made.
I can be wrong as a forumgoer without doing significant damage to the lives of other people.

That's a little bit over my head. I'm just a Film Production Major. Maybe someday my work will have Rush Limbaugh saying it's "irreverent and should be banned because of the subject matter of intergenerational relationships" or "it shows abortion as a positive thing" when seriously.... it's only a movie. Could Rush's comments preserved for say 50 years make people think my movie was indeed crude and unacceptable because they mistake his views for news?
I graduated last year in Film Production. We had a lot of classes on media. You might have noticed...

From Reuters (Via YahooNews):Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc)

So let me get this straight, an intentionally fabricated story created to damage the image of American forces abroad is printed. That story is picked up by the usual suspects in the muslim world who goad their followers into rioting. Those riots then kill 15 people and counting. This is directly the fault of Newsweek.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.
As a liberal (A deploy the hydrogen weapons and import self-lighting glass kind) I'm not outraged because I don't read Newsweek. It's Time for people who don't like celebrities SOOO much. They should print all their pictures as line art so their readers have enjoy stories with a box of crayons.

That said, accuracy or inaccuracy aside, do you really think there were a bunch of people in Afganistan getting their oil changed or hair cuts when they noticed the most recent issue on a table? Of course not. They don't care if it's true or not, and neither do the people telling them its true. Newsweek was just one information vendor that gave them something that just hadn't occured to them before (probably because they're knuckle draging rapist savages conducting a 600 year experiment on the merits of bad hygiene). We don't speak their language, and they wouldn't listen to us if we did. The truth of Newsweeks report is entirely irrelevant, and at the very most determined the timing of the inevitable.

That said. It is a really good idea. Imagine the boutique market for offending religions. Koran tampons and maxi pads. Brilliant on two accounts because if you're ever sent out to buy those feminine hygiene articals without brand model specifics, bring those back, and you'll have (barely) plausible deniability and won't be asked again for a while.
Koran toilet paper and Klennex. Plungers with the most popular rendition of Mohammed. Haters have money. It's a simple fact. And freedom is a wonderful thing. Get a story on Al-Jezeera, free publicity. Take down an Islamist web site, replace the pictures with your products in packages and in action. More publicity. Could make TP with pictures of Uncle Sam (I want your dookie) and the flag on it too, but I'd set that up as another seperate company that appeared unrelated. I bet all of that stuff would kill in Europe where there's got to be massive seething resentment to the muslim immigrants and Americans. I really need to write this up as a business plan, get an appointment with the bank and make a couple of phone calls.... I could be a millionaire by next year.

How about a new slogan! The Source Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.

I agree.

Actually I'm really struck by the similarities between the turn of the last century and this one in terms of media. Newspaper photo re-production and other media advances increased the availablity of information and decreased the ability for the populace to sort and deal with it. Then like now it was the flashiest that made the impact and truth became a very blurry thing.
And that's when the British military invented concentration camps.

And that's when the British military invented concentration camps.


Hey, according to Ward Churchill, the U.S. had 'em first-WE invented concentration camps, dammit, not the British fighting the Boers in S. Africa...

If you go through it, those aren't british or American inventions, either-there were examples of concentration-of-minorities throughout Continental Europe all the way up to the end of the Enlightenment period (and beyond. "Ghetto" is a very, very, old word. most such places were virtually prison-camps for most of history.)
the Romans did it, the Spartans did it to the Helots for centuries before that, the Egyptians were doing it to the Hebrews for quite some time...

My point is that the techniques that are used to torture detainees is immaterial. It is the fact that torture is being committed by the self described "beacon of liberty" that is provoking riots.
You seem to have a highly flexible defintion of the word "torture."

From Reuters (Via YahooNews):Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc)

So let me get this straight, an intentionally fabricated story created to damage the image of American forces abroad is printed. That story is picked up by the usual suspects in the muslim world who goad their followers into rioting. Those riots then kill 15 people and counting. This is directly the fault of Newsweek.

Where's your outrage, liberals? Hmm? How about a new slogan! Liberals Lied, People Died. Sounds like a winner.


Okay...

How was this a liberal's fault, exactly?

Seems like bad journalism, but not liberal lies.

Okay...

How was this a liberal's fault, exactly?

Seems like bad journalism, but not liberal lies.
Come on, everybody knows that the liberals are in league with the Jews, and the Jews control all the world's media.
;)

Come on, everybody knows that the liberals are in league with the Jews, and the Jews control all the world's media.
;)

shhh.

ixnay on the evealingray of the evensay ewsjay in the aultvay in itzerlandsway in cahoots with the esbianlay entistday artelcay! ;)

Come on, everybody knows that the liberals are in league with the Jews, and the Jews control all the world's media.
;)
mmmm, bagels

Okay...

How was this a liberal's fault, exactly?

Seems like bad journalism, but not liberal lies.

I'm not outraged, but I'm so enraged..lol (Just kidding)