|
Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine’s Death
|
Posted By:
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
May 16, 2005
|
Newsweek published an article last week, that alleged U.S. soldiers in Gitmo were flushing the Koran down the toilet, as an interrogation technique. This caused some people in Iraq to get seriously pissed off...So they killed some Marines.
Have you have had to say, "Sorry, if anything I said offended you..." Well, looks like newsweek can now say, "Sorry if anything I printed ever got you killed..."
ABC covers newsweek blunder.
Someone else carries info that Newsweek published.
|
Comments
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
Fender Washburn
in The Emerald Triangle
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 12:44 AM
The allegations of desecration of the Qu'ran have been made since the U.S. invaded/occupied Afganistan.
I have no doubt that the U.S. interrigators have used these tactic, in light of the other methods they have used.
It's understandably caused riots.
Some people think it's to torture and desecrate, but that telling about it is wrong. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 01:48 AM
Maegan said:
"The reason I was upset was b/c A news story (it could have been about anything) directly caused a riot in which Americans were killed.
"I don't think that Americans are a superior people in any way. But I AM an American. So knowing that an AMERICAN newspaper carried a story that caused AMERICAN soldiers to die is just awful."
Maegan, what actual EVIDENCE have you seen that supports the idea that the riots started as a direct result of the Newsweek story? (by the way, Newsweek is a magazine, NOT a newspaper)
Does it honestly make sense to you that people in Afghanistan rioted because Newsweek printed a story ABOUT disrespectful handling of the Koran, as opposed to having started because of the actual INCIDENTS reported? Why would they be mad at finding out about the incidents and NOT at the actual occurrences themselves?
Imagine this: A relative of yours is brutally murdered and a local newspaper prints a story about the crime. Would you be mad at the MURDER or the reporting ABOUT the murder?
Besides, do you honestly believe that Newsweek, a weekly American newsmagazine, published in New York City and owned by the Washington Post Company, has a significant readership in AFGHANISTAN, one of the poorest countries on Earth? Maybe the nomads are checking out newsweek.com? Seriously, this story doesn't smell rotten to you?
I'm worried about exceeding the word limit in this posting, so I'll continue it on my next one. I have some actual FACTS about this situation you may be unaware of. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 02:05 AM
OK, here are those facts I promised you.
FACT: The story about American troops treating the Koran with disrespect did NOT originate with Newsweek. It has been reported in numerous publications for the past TWO YEARS.
FACT: Newsweek's source was a government official, who said that he/she had read the information in an official report.
FACT: Newsweek's source now claims to "not remember" where he/she actually saw the information on which the story was based.
FACT: Before publishing the story, Newsweek took the unusual step of sending a copy of it to the Pentagon for comment.
FACT: The Pentagon neither took exception to the story nor asked Newsweek to change it or not run it.
FACT: During the period between when Newsweek gave the story to the Pentagon for comment and its publication of it, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave a speech during which he said that the riots were due to factors OTHER THAN THE NEWSWEEK STORY.
FACT: Newsweek has NOT retracted the gist of the story. It has said that it can no longer stand by what its source told it, since the source has now conveniently developed amnesia about the source of the information.
FACT: No one has yet produced any actual EVIDENCE that the riots were connected to the Newsweek story at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing Newsweek did wrong was to cave in to pressure from the Bush administration.
Despite the apparant wishes of some people in this forum, America still theoretically has a free press. It is NOT appropriate for members of the administration to be putting pressure on the press to "toe the line."
I would ask those of you who have "doubts" about free press to name countries which have official government censorship (the only logical alternative to a free press) that they would feel comfortable living in. North Korea sound good to you? How about mainland China? There are others but you get the idea.
Putting aside the radical change in American Democracy official censorship of the press would cause, would you really be happy with the HUGE new bureaucracy an official Department of Censorship would create? How about the enormous tax burden we'd all be saddled with to pay for the employees it would take to "vet" the news on a 24/7 basis?
Maegan, I never said you were dumb or that you didn't have the right to your opinions. What I DID say is that I suspected you were too young to have been in school in the 60's, as I was, when teachers routinely told children that the Soviet Union was bad, in part, because it didn't have a free press.
I'll ask the question again: If censorship of the news made Russia bad, why would it be good for the U.S. to do the same thing? |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 08:50 AM
I'm not saying the news should be censored...BUT a lot of news articles are not actual NEWS, but opinions. If you are saying that you are reporting the news (in a newspaper or magazine...excuse me!) and instead of reporting the news, you take a few snippets of dialogue and fact, and then put them into an article full of suggestion & speculation...You have not reported the news, you have given your opinion on something you heard.
I'd rather read an article that plainly and easily states the facts, than an article full of some journalists opinions about the facts. Yes, journalists (and everyone else) can have opinions, but when you are reporting facts, keep your opinions to your self, or include them on the OPINION & editorial pages. TYVM!
And I'm not really sure that I under stand your illustration: "Imagine this: A relative of yours is brutally murdered and a local newspaper prints a story about the crime. Would you be mad at the MURDER or the reporting ABOUT the murder?"
If the newspaper printed the facts: At 11pm on Tuesday, Family Member was brutally beaten, and then stabbed 47 times in the nose. Suspect is still at large, no witnesses to date; then I would have no issues. If instead the article read: Sometime on Tuesday night Family Member was beaten & robbed b/c he's the ugliest sonofabitch ever. He also never passed his SATs and probably deserved to die. No witnesses; then I would have an issue. While some facts were input, the opinion is not needed. Of course, I would be hurt that someone close to me was dead. I have a heart. I have dealt with death before - even violent death, and I don't really seem to gnash my teeth, wail, or wear sack cloth while covering myself in ashes. I feel like it's a normal function, even undeserved at times (such as a violent murder), but once they're dead...there's nothing to be done. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 05:44 PM
Haha, stabbed 47 times in the nose, indeed. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 06:51 PM
Maegan said:
"I'm not saying the news should be censored...BUT a lot of news articles are not actual NEWS, but opinions. If you are saying that you are reporting the news (in a newspaper or magazine...excuse me!) and instead of reporting the news, you take a few snippets of dialogue and fact, and then put them into an article full of suggestion & speculation...You have not reported the news, you have given your opinion on something you heard."
If you're not proposing censorship, what ARE you proposing? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who WOULDN'T say that they think reporters should be as accurate as possible.
I suspect you're confusing news reporting with commentary. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, everyone on Air America, et al are COMMENTATORS, not JOURNALISTS. It is their JOB to talk about news stories and give their opinion of them. That's very different from the role of news reporters whose job is to report on the news objectively. Even if YOU see the distinction, many people do not and get offended when commentators give opinion they don't agree with.
OK, back to the Newsweek story. You managed to avoid addressing the several questions I posed. I'll take one more stab at it.
In order to believe the Bush administration version of things, you have to believe that people halfway around the world in Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, are even aware of Newsweek, an American magazine, let alone know what one small article in it said. Do you think that that is likely?
Second, you further have to believe that those same people rioted AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THAT ARTICLE and NOT because of the incidents which the story reported on. This would be despite the fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly said that the riots were because of reasons other than the Newsweek story (I previously gave you a link to a story about his speech). Do you think that the Chairman was wrong and that the Afghanis did NOT riot because of the disrespect to the Koran (which has been reported in many venues other than Newsweek) but because Newsweek WROTE ABOUT IT??
The Bush version of events, to put it nicely, strains credibility. To put it less nicely, it's irrational, illogical bullshit, contradicted by a senior military official who doesn't have the same political axe to grind as George W. Bush.
You started this thread with the header "Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine's Death" That's a serious charge. On what FACTS do you base that statement? |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 | 08:44 AM
"you have to believe that people halfway around the world in Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, are even aware of Newsweek, an American magazine, let alone know what one small article in it said. Do you think that that is likely?"
Yes. If one person saw the article and then said to his fellow American haters, "Let's kill the bastards!" and then continued to spread this same sentiment throughout his community, sure it could happen.
And ya know...some people could have been in the crowd b/c of the above described scenario...others could have seen the crowd and thought, "This is a great way for me to get the issues on my agenda out..." So were 100% of the people in the crowd there b/c of a tiny Newsweek article? No.
I mostly brought up this particular instance, b/c this is not the first case of a news article causing harm. That was my point.
News articles can CAUSE HARM, especially when coupled with partial facts, or even unverified information. The title I used was the title from another source...I put it up b/c I thought that would be the title most people would recognise, in relation to the incident.
I'm sorry if I'm not able to answer each of your questions individually, if you noticed, you typed a hell of a lot of words, and I work during the day...so I pick up on pieces that I can explain quickly, or think on w/o getting into a lot of details. I hope this can explain what I meant.
I fully understand your ideas and why you have them. I don't doubt that growing up in the 60s, when the phrase of the day was "Duck and Cover" did some serious damage to people...so I understand your unwillingness to sterilize (for lack of a better word) news articles. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 | 08:59 AM
"Sure, reporters are supposed to report the news. But that doesn't mean they have to mindlessly regurgitate every last little thing they hear." - Accipiter.
A lot of 'news' has become gossip. Oooh, did you hear what Condoleeza Rice is saying?? It's SCANDALOUS. Well, what DID she say? What was the context that it was in, what was the subtext? Who was she talking to? The tone of her voice? Simply reporting that THIS person said THIS statement is being taken and used in conjuction with totally unrelated reports. It's making people look like idiots, when really it's the reporters who should come out looking like asses.
When people get just the facts, they're better able to form their own opinions.
I keep thinking back to 9/11. When the president and vice president started getting flown all over the country. All day long, the news reports were saying, "The President JUST left such and such airport..." WHAT THE HELL?? For all we knew, the terrorists were trying to kill the president. (Please, no snide comments, this is just an example.) Let's not make it obvious where he just was. Granted, he's not there anymore, but If he left Newark at 6pm, by 7pm, there are only so many places he could BE.
SMART reporting. That's all I ask. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 | 07:17 PM
Maegan, again, despite your use of many words, you have managed to avoid answering the DIRECT QUESTIONS I asked you in relation to the Newsweek flap.
The most pertinent is: What actual FACTS are you aware of that prove that the riots in Afghanistan were directly caused by the Newsweek story, as opposed to other causes, as publicly stated by the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
The title of this thread, started by you, is "Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine's Death" As I've said before, this is a serious charge. On what FACTS do you base it? |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 | 04:29 AM
Maegan said:
"Yes. If one person saw the article and then said to his fellow American haters, "Let's kill the bastards!" and then continued to spread this same sentiment throughout his community, sure it could happen.
"And ya know...some people could have been in the crowd b/c of the above described scenario...others could have seen the crowd and thought, "This is a great way for me to get the issues on my agenda out..." So were 100% of the people in the crowd there b/c of a tiny Newsweek article? No."
So, your "argument" is that *maybe* A person in Afghanistan saw *or heard about* the Newsweek story and that, somehow, started the riots? Gee, that's sure a long way from the heading for this thread, which you started: "Fake Newsweek Story causes Marine's Death"
I've now asked this question at least three times, but since I'm a masochist, I'll ask it again. What about the FACT that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said publicly that the riots were NOT caused by the Newsweek story, but by internal Afghani political problems?
What about the FACT that several publications ran stories about the abuse of the Koran by American military personnel before the Newsweek thing ran?
The International Red Cross says it informed the American government about abuse of the Koran by American soldiers well before the Newsweek story ran. Somehow, though, according to your theory, the Afghanis were moved to anger, not by the incidents themselves, but when some theoretical person saw the Newsweek story ABOUT the incidents. This makes sense to you? Fascinating.
Funny, even though YOU are so willing to convict Newsweek in this matter, a general (who certainly knows more about the situation than you do) says they *aren't* guilty of starting the rioting at all.
Eh, who needs facts? It's SO much more fun to jump to conclusions.
As far as me allegedly writing so much that you just can't find the time to read it all, uh, you aren't exactly succinct yourself. I do YOU the courtesy of reading everything YOU write and responding to it. It would be nice if you would extend that same courtesy to me. I've even taken the time to back up the things I say with citations and FACTS.
"I don't doubt that growing up in the 60s, when the phrase of the day was "Duck and Cover" did some serious damage to people...so I understand your unwillingness to sterilize (for lack of a better word) news articles."
I have no idea what you mean by that. For the record, I think the whole "Duck and Cover" thing was the 60's equivalent of the current terror alert color code nonsense. For a supposedly "free" country, our government sure seems to like to scare us. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 | 04:35 AM
Maegan said:
"A lot of 'news' has become gossip. Oooh, did you hear what Condoleeza Rice is saying?? It's SCANDALOUS. Well, what DID she say? What was the context that it was in, what was the subtext? Who was she talking to? The tone of her voice? Simply reporting that THIS person said THIS statement is being taken and used in conjuction with totally unrelated reports. It's making people look like idiots, when really it's the reporters who should come out looking like asses."
Can you provide an actual EXAMPLE of what you're talking about?
"I keep thinking back to 9/11. When the president and vice president started getting flown all over the country. All day long, the news reports were saying, "The President JUST left such and such airport..." WHAT THE HELL?? For all we knew, the terrorists were trying to kill the president. (Please, no snide comments, this is just an example.) Let's not make it obvious where he just was. Granted, he's not there anymore, but If he left Newark at 6pm, by 7pm, there are only so many places he could BE."
I don't believe that any such thing actually happened. To the best of my recollection, information about the location of the President after he left the school he was at when the planes hit the WTC was very scant. I do not believe that any news source gave any such indication of where the President was for most or all of the rest of that day. Can you provide evidence from 9/11 that such a breach of Presidential security actually happened? |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 | 08:37 PM
Several times now, I have asked those on this thread who claim that Newsweek directly caused the death of ANYONE in Afghanistan to provide some FACTS to back up that assertion. I'm still waiting.
Conversely, I have presented much information which contradicts that idea.
Arguments are won on FACT, not baseless assertion. As I am the only one in this discussion who has provided ANY facts, I declare myself the winner of this debate.
Next topic! |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 09:18 AM
"I've now asked this question at least three times, but since I'm a masochist, I'll ask it again. What about the FACT that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said publicly that the riots were NOT caused by the Newsweek story, but by internal Afghani political problems?"
Oookay..getting a little testy? "Internal Afghani political problems"...that seems like a high falutin' way to say, "these guys are pissed at us, and they're going to keep rioting".
Fine, he said the riot was caused by reasons other than the Newsweek story. At the time that this thread was posted...I WASN'T AWARE of any further reasoning for the riots. I never said he was wrong, or that you were wrong. In fact, the only issue I have continued to push is the issue that news stories can have damaging effects (is that the right effects/affects...) if not properly executed.
"The International Red Cross says it informed the American government about abuse of the Koran by American soldiers well before the Newsweek story ran. Somehow, though, according to your theory, the Afghanis were moved to anger, not by the incidents themselves, but when some theoretical person saw the Newsweek story ABOUT the incidents. This makes sense to you? Fascinating."
Well, then it seems no one put the two incidents together until now! I'm sure the flushing of a Koran would anger them...but until it was printed, it might not even have occured to them that as terrible as Americans are, some might still try to desecrate a 'holy' book.
"As far as me allegedly writing so much that you just can't find the time to read it all, uh, you aren't exactly succinct yourself. I do YOU the courtesy of reading everything YOU write and responding to it. It would be nice if you would extend that same courtesy to me. I've even taken the time to back up the things I say with citations and FACTS."
I DO read everything you write, it's reading it all, then replying to each thing that I had a problem with. Usually, by the time I got to the end of the post, I just responded to the things that stuck out as "most pissed off paragraph". I'm sorry I haven't been able to go into more details about something that we apparently AGREE ABOUT. After googling more information...FINE, you're right. According to all the government official types (as reliable as they are), the riot wasn't caused by the Newsweek article in particular. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 09:44 AM
"I do not believe that any news source gave any such indication of where the President was for most or all of the rest of that day. Can you provide evidence from 9/11 that such a breach of Presidential security actually happened?"
Well, I googled, and couldn't find anything from directly after the incident. My mother has got the 2nd plane hitting the tower on tape, but none of the following news stories with it. But I remember talking to my mother about it while we were eating dinner (in front of the T.V.), "Why do they keep saying where the President & Vice President were, if they're moving them to keep them safe??" Sorry, I don't know how else to document that for you. We were watching local television, no CNN or anything...I checked my local station's website, and they don't have anything in their archive.
"Can you provide an actual EXAMPLE of what you're talking about?"
No. I don't have the time to search news 'story' after news 'story' for the perfect example of what you mean. BUT if you would like to look at your own local newspaper, I'm sure you will see what I mean.
"Arguments are won on FACT, not baseless assertion. As I am the only one in this discussion who has provided ANY facts, I declare myself the winner of this debate."
You are driving me to insanity. I don't post topics b/c I want to spend 30 posts debating anything. Where do you get this energy? I post topics for pure discussion only. My comments in the first thread are purely for entertainment only. There was a short debate after about how much I want to supress the media and how awful I am b/c I'm not old enough to remember why the cold war started, and that I obviously want to to flush the Constitution down the toilet!
AND, Mr. "I'm-crying-because-you-don't-read-my-posts-all-through-and-now-I'm-going-to-ask-questions-that-have-already-been-answered"
AS for the TITLE of the thread, I quote myself:
"The title I used was the title from another source...I put it up b/c I thought that would be the title most people would recognise, in relation to the incident." |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 10:02 AM
So, in summation: AFTER the thread was posted, I had no problem that the news article did NOT actually cause the riot. Since the first part of this thread was how I obviously want to censor the news, I was simply trying to make my points about that, first. I SHOULD have let you know that I found information that led me to believe the riots were caused by something else. I probably could have saved myself a lot of trouble. |
stork
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 08:37 PM
Okay, Maegan and CMG. Sorry, I haven't read all 150,000 words you've bothered to argue about. What I know in my heart is this; *no-one* should have died over this incident. Not 15 Afghanis, and not one Marine. But errors occur in war, and they're not all about "friendly fire". I was on what initially passed for the "front lines" in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, which means, I was in the *rear*, picking up shrapnel on the roof of our building in Khober Towers, Dhahran, from the goddamn Patriot missles and scuds dueling overhead almost every night. I was grateful to get CNN, then, 'cause it would be another week before we learned anything thru official channels. There's a price we pay for our freedom of the press, and sometimes people die for it, unfortunately. Oh well, crucify me, now. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 | 03:30 AM
stork said:
"Okay, Maegan and CMG. Sorry, I haven't read all 150,000 words you've bothered to argue about. What I know in my heart is this; *no-one* should have died over this incident. Not 15 Afghanis, and not one Marine. But errors occur in war, and they're not all about "friendly fire". I was on what initially passed for the "front lines" in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, which means, I was in the *rear*, picking up shrapnel on the roof of our building in Khober Towers, Dhahran, from the goddamn Patriot missles and scuds dueling overhead almost every night. I was grateful to get CNN, then, 'cause it would be another week before we learned anything thru official channels. There's a price we pay for our freedom of the press, and sometimes people die for it, unfortunately. Oh well, crucify me, now."
I have no interest in "crucifying" you. I confess, however, that I don't know quite what your point is. Are you saying that you DO believe that Newsweek is guilty of causing the rioting that killed people or that they AREN'T guilty of it? That question is, of course, the subject of this thread.
By the way the answer, as I have pointed out, using FACTS, is NO, Newsweek is NOT guilty of causing the rioting. You're welcome.
I still win the debate! |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 02:01 AM
Cranky Media Guy,
Okay, first off, why do you persist in misrepresenting what people such as Maegan and I have posted on here? You're repeatedly accusing us of wanting to abolish Freedom of the Press and to start a program of government censorship. This is despite the fact that Maegan and I have both repeatedly said that this was not the case. So I shall repeat it one final time, and if you still persist in your claim, then I'll have to conclude that you're either being deliberately obtuse or else are simply incapable of understanding written English. Now, to once again re-state my position on Freedom of the press: Freedom of the Press is good as a useful tool for keeping other powerful institutions (e.g.: the national government) in check. For this reason, it is important that the news is allowed to be printed. However, there have been numerous times when reporters have either been careless or else deliberately untruthful, and some of these instances have resulted in problems. For examples of such instances, there are these links:
http://www.afsp.org/education/recommendations/5/1.htm
http://www.analog-rf.com/journalism.shtml
http://www.journalism.ubc.ca/thunderbird/2005.03/opinion/ethics.html
http://www.friends.ca/Resource/Publications/publications03310304.asp
Those are some examples that I found in just two minutes of looking online. There are many, many more. Plus, I have seen firsthand how reporters printing information that they had no business reporting has resulted in a lot people killed. Thus, it would be beneficial to everybody if journalists and editors would take personal responsibility for their work and use their judgment on what should and should not be reported, considering the possible outcomes of their reports.
See? I have said nothing about repealing the 1st Amendment. I have said nothing about setting up a Federal Bureau of Proofreading that will okay or veto any potential newspaper column or magazine article. I have made no claims that a new USSR should be formed where the USA currently is. The only changes I'm hoping for are within the media's own work ethics.
*continued below* |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 02:25 AM
*continued from above*
Secondly, regarding your statements that the Newsweek story is not responsible for the protests and riots in Afghanistan that led to people being killed. You wrote, "just the other day, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the protests were caused by something other than the Newsweek story." That is not correct. General Myers' report said that "the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine". Then, "the following day the protests in the city had turned violent". True, Myers did say that there were other factors involved: "rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process". Note that one word, "more". Not "only", not "to nothing other than", but "more". That means that the rioting was at least partially about the Newsweek article.
So, you have the Newsweek article leading to a large number of people gathering in protest, leading to a riot (that itself was at least partially regarding the information carried in the article), leading to a number of deaths and a sharp deterioration in international relations. Newsweek chose to print that article, therefore they are responsible for the aftermath of the riot. If you throw a lit match into a car's gas tank, you're responsible for that car's destruction even though it was the gasoline, not you, that caught fire and exploded. As Mark Whitaker, the story's editor, himself wrote, "After several days, newspapers in Pakistan and Afghanistan began running accounts of our story. At that point, as Evans Thomas, Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai report this week, the riots started and spread across the country." Even he admits that the Afghans were upset by the article.
Oh, and regarding your comment that people in Afghanistan couldn't have known about what an article in Newsweek says: there's this process that magazine companies tend to favour doing, and it's called distribution. They send copies of their magazine to all sorts of places all over the country (or, in the case of large magazines like Newsweek, all over the world). Thus, people in Utah can read Der Welt while people in South Africa can read The New York Times. And, believe it or not, there are actually people in Afghanistan who are not only literate, but who can also speak to those people who are not. In General Myers' report that you're so fond of misquoting, it specifically says that the people had gathered "reacting to a report in Newsweek magazine". It is obvious that the Afghans were aware of the article. And again, as Mark Whitaker, the story's editor, himself wrote, "After several days, newspapers in Pakistan and Afghanistan began running accounts of our story. At that point, as Evans Thomas, Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai report this week, the riots started and spread across the country."
*continued below* |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 | 02:29 AM
*continued from above*
Furthermore, you wrote: "Does it honestly make sense to you that people in Afghanistan rioted because Newsweek printed a story ABOUT disrespectful handling of the Koran, as opposed to having started because of the actual INCIDENTS reported? Why would they be mad at finding out about the incidents and NOT at the actual occurrences themselves?" You seem to be implying that we're arguing that the Afghans already knew about the specific instances mentioned in the article, and that it was merely the fact that those instances were published in a magazine that caused them to riot. Nobody on here has suggested that. What we've said is that the Newsweek article is the source that the Afghans got their information from, and the information that they gained from the article is what led them to gather in protest. This is the view that is further substantiated by that report of General Myers'.
You have further argued that there have been previous reports of the Koran being desecrated. To quote you, "What about the FACT that several publications ran stories about the abuse of the Koran by American military personnel before the Newsweek thing ran?" Well, like you said, what about it? Are you saying that those previous publications didn't start the May 11th riots, and therefore the Newsweek article couldn't have? A few months ago in Delaware I saw a green SUV slide on some ice and crash into a red van. I have also seen cars slip on ice in Bavaria around 1995 and in Tennessee in 2003. Neither the car in Bavaria nor the one in Tennessee ran into the red van in Delaware. Does that mean that the green SUV didn't run into it, either? In order for an event to cause another event, there has to be some sort of connection between them. The car in Bavaria and the car in Tennessee slid on ice that was too far away in both space and time to have any influence on the red van in Delaware. The green SUV was in the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time, if you want to take the drivers' perspectives). It's already been established that the Newsweek article was the trigger behind the May 11th riots. That of course means that it was in the right time and place to cause that event. Obviously, the other publications weren't.
Incidentally, can you give me any evidence of these previous articles you've mentioned?
*continued below* |
|
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
