| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Newsweek report on Quran desecration inaccurate
I'm sure many people here have been following the riots in the Muslim
world that occurred when the US newsmagazine Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Gitmo had flushed a Quran down a toilet in order to "rattle" the prisoners. Turns out that the "Pentagon confirmed" report was untrue. Their source was wrong. All a spokesman for Newsweek could say was the equivalent of "oops". "Words have consequences", he told the American TV network ABC. 16 people have died in the riots and Muslim clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization. The problem is, Bush really believes that it IS a holy war, Christianity vs Islam, may the best God win. I believe that that conviction is behind the West's repeated offending of the Muslim world, from Abu Ghraib and other abuses at US prisons (which are much, much greater and more serious than US media has reported) to sexual harassment of Muslim men at Gitmo to this. Bush needs to pull his drunken, cocaine snorting head out of his ass and realize that if he fails, we ALL die. I'm willing to commit ritual suicide, but most Americans, and certainly most Europeans, aren't willing to die as martyrs to fundie Christianity. Bush has said that he doesn't care about the verdict of history and future generations on his actions because "we'll all be dead". If he doesn't straighten up and fly right, those words will be horrifically accurate. Are YOU willing to have your head cut off by Muslim fundies? I am. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
....and all this has WHAT to do with shortwave radio?
bill "running dogg" wrote in message ... I'm sure many people here have been following the riots in the Muslim world that occurred when the US newsmagazine Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Gitmo had flushed a Quran down a toilet in order to "rattle" the prisoners. Turns out that the "Pentagon confirmed" report was untrue. Their source was wrong. All a spokesman for Newsweek could say was the equivalent of "oops". "Words have consequences", he told the American TV network ABC. 16 people have died in the riots and Muslim clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization. The problem is, Bush really believes that it IS a holy war, Christianity vs Islam, may the best God win. I believe that that conviction is behind the West's repeated offending of the Muslim world, from Abu Ghraib and other abuses at US prisons (which are much, much greater and more serious than US media has reported) to sexual harassment of Muslim men at Gitmo to this. Bush needs to pull his drunken, cocaine snorting head out of his ass and realize that if he fails, we ALL die. I'm willing to commit ritual suicide, but most Americans, and certainly most Europeans, aren't willing to die as martyrs to fundie Christianity. Bush has said that he doesn't care about the verdict of history and future generations on his actions because "we'll all be dead". If he doesn't straighten up and fly right, those words will be horrifically accurate. Are YOU willing to have your head cut off by Muslim fundies? I am. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
running dogg wrote: I'm sure many people here have been following the riots in the Muslim world that occurred when the US newsmagazine Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Gitmo had flushed a Quran down a toilet in order to "rattle" the prisoners. Turns out that the "Pentagon confirmed" report was untrue. Their source was wrong. All a spokesman for Newsweek could say was the equivalent of "oops". "Words have consequences", he told the American TV network ABC. 16 people have died in the riots and Muslim clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization. The problem is, Bush really believes that it IS a holy war, Christianity vs Islam, may the best God win. I believe that that conviction is behind the West's repeated offending of the Muslim world, from Abu Ghraib and other abuses at US prisons (which are much, much greater and more serious than US media has reported) to sexual harassment of Muslim men at Gitmo to this. Bush needs to pull his drunken, cocaine snorting head out of his ass and realize that if he fails, we ALL die. I'm willing to commit ritual suicide, but most Americans, and certainly most Europeans, aren't willing to die as martyrs to fundie Christianity. Bush has said that he doesn't care about the verdict of history and future generations on his actions because "we'll all be dead". If he doesn't straighten up and fly right, those words will be horrifically accurate. Are YOU willing to have your head cut off by Muslim fundies? I am. Damn... you're getting to be as wacko as Rickets and FDR. dxAce Michigan USA |
Bill Otten wrote: ...and all this has WHAT to do with shortwave radio? Well, it certainly is being reported on shortwave radio. You might try turning yours on. (If you have one). dxAce Michigan USA |
"dxAce" wrote in message ... running dogg wrote: I'm sure many people here have been following the riots in the Muslim world that occurred when the US newsmagazine Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Gitmo had flushed a Quran down a toilet in order to "rattle" the prisoners. Turns out that the "Pentagon confirmed" report was untrue. Their source was wrong. All a spokesman for Newsweek could say was the equivalent of "oops". "Words have consequences", he told the American TV network ABC. 16 people have died in the riots and Muslim clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization. The problem is, Bush really believes that it IS a holy war, Christianity vs Islam, may the best God win. I believe that that conviction is behind the West's repeated offending of the Muslim world, from Abu Ghraib and other abuses at US prisons (which are much, much greater and more serious than US media has reported) to sexual harassment of Muslim men at Gitmo to this. Bush needs to pull his drunken, cocaine snorting head out of his ass and realize that if he fails, we ALL die. I'm willing to commit ritual suicide, but most Americans, and certainly most Europeans, aren't willing to die as martyrs to fundie Christianity. Bush has said that he doesn't care about the verdict of history and future generations on his actions because "we'll all be dead". If he doesn't straighten up and fly right, those words will be horrifically accurate. Are YOU willing to have your head cut off by Muslim fundies? I am. Damn... you're getting to be as wacko as Rickets and FDR. When everyone else is a wacko and you're not, then it's time for you to seek help. dxAce Michigan USA |
FDR wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... running dogg wrote: I'm sure many people here have been following the riots in the Muslim world that occurred when the US newsmagazine Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Gitmo had flushed a Quran down a toilet in order to "rattle" the prisoners. Turns out that the "Pentagon confirmed" report was untrue. Their source was wrong. All a spokesman for Newsweek could say was the equivalent of "oops". "Words have consequences", he told the American TV network ABC. 16 people have died in the riots and Muslim clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization. The problem is, Bush really believes that it IS a holy war, Christianity vs Islam, may the best God win. I believe that that conviction is behind the West's repeated offending of the Muslim world, from Abu Ghraib and other abuses at US prisons (which are much, much greater and more serious than US media has reported) to sexual harassment of Muslim men at Gitmo to this. Bush needs to pull his drunken, cocaine snorting head out of his ass and realize that if he fails, we ALL die. I'm willing to commit ritual suicide, but most Americans, and certainly most Europeans, aren't willing to die as martyrs to fundie Christianity. Bush has said that he doesn't care about the verdict of history and future generations on his actions because "we'll all be dead". If he doesn't straighten up and fly right, those words will be horrifically accurate. Are YOU willing to have your head cut off by Muslim fundies? I am. Damn... you're getting to be as wacko as Rickets and FDR. When everyone else is a wacko and you're not, then it's time for you to seek help. But I didn't say that 'everyone else' is a whacko you stupid 'tard. Please try to pay even the slightest bit of attention whilst you continue to tote and remain as ignorant as the proverbial rock. dxAce Michigan USA dxAce Michigan USA |
running dogg wrote:
I'm sure many people here have been following the riots in the Muslim world that occurred when the US newsmagazine Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Gitmo had flushed a Quran down a toilet in order to "rattle" the prisoners. Turns out that the "Pentagon confirmed" report was untrue. Their source was wrong. All a spokesman for Newsweek could say was the equivalent of "oops". "Words have consequences", he told the American TV network ABC. 16 people have died in the riots and Muslim clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization. The problem is, Bush really believes that it IS a holy war, Christianity vs Islam, may the best God win... {snippage} As far as abrupt, disconnected seques go, that one was a doozy! You acknowledge that Newsweek irresponsibly reported a story they did not try to confirm based on an anonymous source that could be Pentagon based... or could be based out of their own editorial dept! Heck as long as they were making it up, I don't see why they didn't attribute the information to a "White House Source"! It could almost be argued that their erroneous reporting was criminal in nature since it sparked a reaction leading to multiple deaths. You acknowledge that unidentified Muslim Clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization, yet you are demonstrably gullible enough to believe this is a recent occurrence. Are you truly unaware that "Muslim Clerics" have been calling for Jihad against modern/western society for decades? You are either laughably gullible -OR- you have a blind hatred for Bush that precludes your ability to understand the full extent of the islamic extremist opinion of infidels such as yourself. What's even *more* humorous is that you appear to think those same islamic extremists would behave, believe and/or treat you any differently based on who was leading the U.S., or any other modern western govt. So in an effort to reduce your post to its core point, correct me if the following is not spot-on: "Newsweek irresponsibly published a made-up a story and people were killed; ergo, Bush is bad". Do you think this crap up all on your own, or ar you ripping it off of some "DNC-Leg-Humping" blog site? -=jd=- |
|
"dxAce" wrote in message ... FDR wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... running dogg wrote: I'm sure many people here have been following the riots in the Muslim world that occurred when the US newsmagazine Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Gitmo had flushed a Quran down a toilet in order to "rattle" the prisoners. Turns out that the "Pentagon confirmed" report was untrue. Their source was wrong. All a spokesman for Newsweek could say was the equivalent of "oops". "Words have consequences", he told the American TV network ABC. 16 people have died in the riots and Muslim clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization. The problem is, Bush really believes that it IS a holy war, Christianity vs Islam, may the best God win. I believe that that conviction is behind the West's repeated offending of the Muslim world, from Abu Ghraib and other abuses at US prisons (which are much, much greater and more serious than US media has reported) to sexual harassment of Muslim men at Gitmo to this. Bush needs to pull his drunken, cocaine snorting head out of his ass and realize that if he fails, we ALL die. I'm willing to commit ritual suicide, but most Americans, and certainly most Europeans, aren't willing to die as martyrs to fundie Christianity. Bush has said that he doesn't care about the verdict of history and future generations on his actions because "we'll all be dead". If he doesn't straighten up and fly right, those words will be horrifically accurate. Are YOU willing to have your head cut off by Muslim fundies? I am. Damn... you're getting to be as wacko as Rickets and FDR. When everyone else is a wacko and you're not, then it's time for you to seek help. But I didn't say that 'everyone else' is a whacko you stupid 'tard. Please try to pay even the slightest bit of attention whilst you continue to tote and remain as ignorant as the proverbial rock. You're starting to build a list. Just trying to help you out before it gets too bad. dxAce Michigan USA dxAce Michigan USA |
FDR wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... FDR wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... running dogg wrote: I'm sure many people here have been following the riots in the Muslim world that occurred when the US newsmagazine Newsweek reported that American interrogators at Gitmo had flushed a Quran down a toilet in order to "rattle" the prisoners. Turns out that the "Pentagon confirmed" report was untrue. Their source was wrong. All a spokesman for Newsweek could say was the equivalent of "oops". "Words have consequences", he told the American TV network ABC. 16 people have died in the riots and Muslim clerics are now calling for a holy war against modern civilization. The problem is, Bush really believes that it IS a holy war, Christianity vs Islam, may the best God win. I believe that that conviction is behind the West's repeated offending of the Muslim world, from Abu Ghraib and other abuses at US prisons (which are much, much greater and more serious than US media has reported) to sexual harassment of Muslim men at Gitmo to this. Bush needs to pull his drunken, cocaine snorting head out of his ass and realize that if he fails, we ALL die. I'm willing to commit ritual suicide, but most Americans, and certainly most Europeans, aren't willing to die as martyrs to fundie Christianity. Bush has said that he doesn't care about the verdict of history and future generations on his actions because "we'll all be dead". If he doesn't straighten up and fly right, those words will be horrifically accurate. Are YOU willing to have your head cut off by Muslim fundies? I am. Damn... you're getting to be as wacko as Rickets and FDR. When everyone else is a wacko and you're not, then it's time for you to seek help. But I didn't say that 'everyone else' is a whacko you stupid 'tard. Please try to pay even the slightest bit of attention whilst you continue to tote and remain as ignorant as the proverbial rock. You're starting to build a list. I am? News to me, 'tard. dxAce Michigan USA |
wrote in message oups.com... So in an effort to reduce your post to its core point, correct me if the following is not spot-on: "Newsweek irresponsibly published a made-up a story and people were killed; ergo, Bush is bad". Do you think this crap up all on your own, or ar you ripping it off of some "DNC-Leg-Humping" blog site? -=jd=- As usuall, well said JD. The leg-humpers like Running_blog are sunk in '06 as well as '08. |
Ace, I've got more than one shortwave radio. And a 30+ year ham radio
license to go with it (Extra Class). So I'm no newcomer to dx or shortwave radio. I might have logged more years on radio than you are old...I don't know. I merely asked how the report had to do with shortwave....there are wonderful USENET groups where politics are discussed. bill KC9CS "dxAce" wrote in message ... Bill Otten wrote: ...and all this has WHAT to do with shortwave radio? Well, it certainly is being reported on shortwave radio. You might try turning yours on. (If you have one). dxAce Michigan USA |
Bill Otten wrote: Ace, I've got more than one shortwave radio. And a 30+ year ham radio license to go with it (Extra Class). So I'm no newcomer to dx or shortwave radio. I might have logged more years on radio than you are old...I don't know. I merely asked how the report had to do with shortwave....there are wonderful USENET groups where politics are discussed. I have more than one shortwave radio as well and got my license in 1970, though I'm only a General (gasp), but for purposes here this is not really an amateur radio group. dxAce Michigan USA bill KC9CS "dxAce" wrote in message ... Bill Otten wrote: ...and all this has WHAT to do with shortwave radio? Well, it certainly is being reported on shortwave radio. You might try turning yours on. (If you have one). |
JD,
|
RHF wrote: JD, . There were People Killed and Injured as a result of NewsWeek's False Reporting (Lies). . The Families of these Dead and Injured People should file Wrongful Death Law Suites against NewsWeek. That's absurd... NewsWeek itself had nothing to do with a bunch of kooks failing to restrain themelves. dxAce Michigan USA |
On 17 May 2005 05:03:55 -0700, "RHF"
wrote: JD, . There were People Killed and Injured as a result of NewsWeek's False Reporting (Lies). . The Families of these Dead and Injured People should file Wrongful Death Law Suites against NewsWeek. . The US Congress should hold Hearings on : . What Did NewsWeek Know ? [ Why Did NewsWeek 'choose' to LIE ! ] . And When Did NewsWeek Know It ? . Why Won't NewsWeek Apologize ? [ For Publishing a False Report. ] . NOTE - The Reporters, Writers and Editors at NewsWeek should be Subpoena to Testify before Congress. . All Journalist and Publishers need to be Held Accountable for False Reporting and the Outcome of their Irresponsible Actions that result in Property Damage; and the Injury and Death of People. . The Press is NOT a Protected Class above the Law [.] . Why Did NewsWeek Publish an Unsupported, Non-Verified, Incendiary False Report, {Made-Up News} that NewsWeek KNEW would cause Riots and Deaths and put American Citizens and US Soldiers in the Field "At Risk". . ~ RHF . . = = = wrote: So in an effort to reduce your post to its core point, correct me if the following is not spot-on: "Newsweek irresponsibly published a made-up a story and people were killed; ergo, Bush is bad". Do you think this crap up all on your own, or ar you ripping it off of some "DNC-Leg-Humping" blog site? -=jd=- . . . . . The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie: He's knocking off Newsweek He's diverting attention from English smoking gun story about fake Iraq war. |
On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:13:03 -0400, dxAce
wrote: RHF wrote: JD, . There were People Killed and Injured as a result of NewsWeek's False Reporting (Lies). . The Families of these Dead and Injured People should file Wrongful Death Law Suites against NewsWeek. That's absurd... NewsWeek itself had nothing to do with a bunch of kooks failing to restrain themelves. dxAce Michigan USA Wow. Ace and I agree on something! |
David wrote: On 17 May 2005 05:03:55 -0700, "RHF" wrote: JD, . There were People Killed and Injured as a result of NewsWeek's False Reporting (Lies). . The Families of these Dead and Injured People should file Wrongful Death Law Suites against NewsWeek. . The US Congress should hold Hearings on : . What Did NewsWeek Know ? [ Why Did NewsWeek 'choose' to LIE ! ] . And When Did NewsWeek Know It ? . Why Won't NewsWeek Apologize ? [ For Publishing a False Report. ] . NOTE - The Reporters, Writers and Editors at NewsWeek should be Subpoena to Testify before Congress. . All Journalist and Publishers need to be Held Accountable for False Reporting and the Outcome of their Irresponsible Actions that result in Property Damage; and the Injury and Death of People. . The Press is NOT a Protected Class above the Law [.] . Why Did NewsWeek Publish an Unsupported, Non-Verified, Incendiary False Report, {Made-Up News} that NewsWeek KNEW would cause Riots and Deaths and put American Citizens and US Soldiers in the Field "At Risk". . ~ RHF . . = = = wrote: So in an effort to reduce your post to its core point, correct me if the following is not spot-on: "Newsweek irresponsibly published a made-up a story and people were killed; ergo, Bush is bad". Do you think this crap up all on your own, or ar you ripping it off of some "DNC-Leg-Humping" blog site? -=jd=- . . . . . The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie: He's knocking off Newsweek He's diverting attention from English smoking gun story about fake Iraq war. If it's 'fake' then why are you and the other 'tards in such a tizzy? dxAce Michigan USA |
David wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:13:03 -0400, dxAce wrote: RHF wrote: JD, . There were People Killed and Injured as a result of NewsWeek's False Reporting (Lies). . The Families of these Dead and Injured People should file Wrongful Death Law Suites against NewsWeek. That's absurd... NewsWeek itself had nothing to do with a bunch of kooks failing to restrain themelves. dxAce Michigan USA Wow. Ace and I agree on something! Yes, you and I both agree that you need to take your meds. dxAce Michigan USA |
dxAce wrote:
RHF wrote: JD, . There were People Killed and Injured as a result of NewsWeek's False Reporting (Lies). . The Families of these Dead and Injured People should file Wrongful Death Law Suites against NewsWeek. That's absurd... NewsWeek itself had nothing to do with a bunch of kooks failing to restrain themelves. dxAce Michigan USA Well, Newsweek should have known better than to publish something that could be so violatile without actual proof, and they should be more responsible, but then as you say, it takes very little for the muslim mind to go completely berserk. Does anyone think that if some kook muslim flushed a Bible down the john that there would be rioting among Christians screaming death to muslims? |
"David" wrote in message ... The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie: That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it. |
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie: That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it. You have been brainwashed. The USA mass media news is, with very rare exceptions, total bull****. |
David wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie: That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it. You have been brainwashed. The USA mass media news is, with very rare exceptions, total bull****. That may be true... but you're pretty full of it too, are you not, 'tard boy? dxAce Michigan USA |
David wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie: That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it. You have been brainwashed. As for you... it would be pretty darn hard to wash something that did not exist. Hope your morning tote went OK. Did you strut proudly? dxAce Michigan USA |
David wrote:
Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In? And a total idiot. |
To even the score, I've been flushing photos of Shrub down the toilet.
Maybe I'll put a photo of Shrub in the portapotty at the park. |
On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:30:33 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie: That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it. You have been brainwashed. The USA mass media news is, with very rare exceptions, total bull****. Yeah ok Mr. Buzzflash. They Lied to Us Memo proves leadership knew Saddam was not a threat by Molly Ivins Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that pus-riddled question.) Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the hell do we do now?" However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned. On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun." "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections. "The foreign secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. "The attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case." There is much more in the memo, which can be found easily online. What's difficult now is placing the memo in the timeframe. Can you remember how little you knew about a war with Iraq in July 2002? Most of us who opposed the war concluded some time ago this was the way it went down. There was plenty of evidence, though nothing this direct and cold. Think of the difference it would have made if we had known all this three years ago. Now? The memo was a huge story in Britain, but is almost unreported here. The memo does get us some forwarder. At least it finally settles this ridiculous debate about how Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring democracy all along and we did it all for George Washington. Enough said. What to do? Now that we're there, at least we're on the right side, not even withstanding the disgusting Ahmed Chalabi as oil minister. Unfortunately, our very support for the good guys is making it much harder for them. A tactical Catch-22. I was impressed by the premise of Reza Aslan's new book, "No God but God," which is that all of Islam is undergoing a struggle between the modernists and the traditionalists, between reformers and reactionaries. But in Iraq, which already had a secular state, we have the additional complication of sectarian/ethnic divisions -- your Sunnis, your Shiites, your Kurds -- not to mention, the tribalism within those divisions. (Am I bitter enough to point out once again that Paul Wolfowitz said under oath, "There is no history ethnic strife in Iraq"? You bet your ass I am.) Our most basic problem in-country is that having the U.S. of A. on your side automatically makes you about as popular as a socialist in the Texas Legislatu We are working against the guys we want to win by supporting them. This requires some serious skulling but is not, in politics, all that unusual a pickle. There is a political solution. Like all politics, it requires a deal. What about letting the interim government make a deal with the Sunnis for us to withdraw -- as in, "You cooperate with us, and we'll get the Americans out of here for you." We can't make that deal, but the Iraqis can. Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In? |
David wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:30:33 -0500, "MnMikew" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie: That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it. You have been brainwashed. The USA mass media news is, with very rare exceptions, total bull****. Yeah ok Mr. Buzzflash. They Lied to Us Memo proves leadership knew Saddam was not a threat by Molly Ivins Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that pus-riddled question.) Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the hell do we do now?" However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned. On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun." "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections. "The foreign secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. "The attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case." There is much more in the memo, which can be found easily online. What's difficult now is placing the memo in the timeframe. Can you remember how little you knew about a war with Iraq in July 2002? Most of us who opposed the war concluded some time ago this was the way it went down. There was plenty of evidence, though nothing this direct and cold. Think of the difference it would have made if we had known all this three years ago. Now? The memo was a huge story in Britain, but is almost unreported here. The memo does get us some forwarder. At least it finally settles this ridiculous debate about how Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring democracy all along and we did it all for George Washington. Enough said. What to do? Now that we're there, at least we're on the right side, not even withstanding the disgusting Ahmed Chalabi as oil minister. Unfortunately, our very support for the good guys is making it much harder for them. A tactical Catch-22. I was impressed by the premise of Reza Aslan's new book, "No God but God," which is that all of Islam is undergoing a struggle between the modernists and the traditionalists, between reformers and reactionaries. But in Iraq, which already had a secular state, we have the additional complication of sectarian/ethnic divisions -- your Sunnis, your Shiites, your Kurds -- not to mention, the tribalism within those divisions. (Am I bitter enough to point out once again that Paul Wolfowitz said under oath, "There is no history ethnic strife in Iraq"? You bet your ass I am.) Our most basic problem in-country is that having the U.S. of A. on your side automatically makes you about as popular as a socialist in the Texas Legislatu We are working against the guys we want to win by supporting them. This requires some serious skulling but is not, in politics, all that unusual a pickle. There is a political solution. Like all politics, it requires a deal. What about letting the interim government make a deal with the Sunnis for us to withdraw -- as in, "You cooperate with us, and we'll get the Americans out of here for you." We can't make that deal, but the Iraqis can. Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In? I'm going to write a book... working title is: Who Let the 'Tards In? dxAce Michigan USA |
On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:50:13 -0400, Cmd Buzz Corey
wrote: David wrote: Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In? And a total idiot. She seems very nice. Went to High School with the president. |
DX Ace,
|
da, Da. DA ! - DaviD,
|
RHF wrote: DX Ace, . NewsWeek 'lit' the Match in the Power Room - Bang ! . YES - The Radical (Islam-O-Fascist) Muslim Leaders used the NewsWeek Phony Story to Incite their Street Mob of Followers to Riot against the West (The Infidels). . YES - The News Week "Lie" was put to use as an Excuse in the {Arab} Street for Political Anti-Government Action. . BUT - NewsWeek Should have Known that the very Nature of their Report (True or False) would have this impact in the Islamic World. . NewsWeek Did NOT Check It Facts (LIES) and People Died [.] . NewsWeek Does Bare the Responsibility for it's Actions and the Results of those Actions. Especially when NewsWeek Prints LIES in the name of truth. So in other words if some Boston rag published a glowing story about John Fraud Kerry and some folks in Keokuk, Iowa went on a rampage because the Boston rag published lies and 30 people were killed the Boston rag would be responsible? I don't think so. dxAce Michigan USA |
DX Ace - Because DaviD Knows . . .
|
DaviD,
|
MnMikew wrote:
"David" wrote in message ... They Lied to Us Memo proves leadership knew Saddam was not a threat by Molly Ivins "Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer" A liberal with an axe to grind. Yawn. And one would be hard pressed to find anyone in Texas who can stand her rantings. |
LC wrote:
There is no excusing Newsweek's irresponsibility in this. But this is not really a story about media bias or carelessness at all. There is a much larger story that is getting hardly any attention at all. The gorilla in the living room that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Qur'an down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder. You don't need much ground for the radical islamic mind to go beserk and commit murder. When dealing with the radical muslim mind, it isn't a rational mind you are dealing with. Neither one says anything whatsoever about a culture that condones - celebrates -wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem, and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book. The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Qur'an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad. And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad. But that is the mindset of radical islam. |
"David" wrote
That's laughable. Reports of trashing the Koran have been around for years. Christian fundamentalists have trashed them on TV. George Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Newsweek magazine, a couple dozen. Get surreal. And Leftist NeoCOMS have killed a hundred million. ______________________________________________ The Real Lesson of Newsweekgate When in April EBay offered a consecrated host for sale, imagine if Catholics had rioted and seventeen people were killed. The media would have been full of stories about the dark side of the "Christian Right." Imagine if, when Muslims desecrated the Tomb of Joseph in Nablus in 2000, destroying it with hammers, rampaging Jewish mobs had killed dozens of Palestinians. The establishment media response would again have inundated us with stories about the heroic Palestinians and their Israeli oppressors. Neither of those things really happened. But seventeen people have been killed and hundreds wounded in riots by Muslims since Newsweek published its story about an American interrogator flushing a Qur'an down the toilet at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. And yet the media establishment seems preoccupied only with the fact that Newsweek, in publishing a false story that it has since retracted, has done a very bad thing. And that the Bush Administration must do something to calm tempers and soothe feelings in the Islamic world. There is no excusing Newsweek's irresponsibility in this. But this is not really a story about media bias or carelessness at all. There is a much larger story that is getting hardly any attention at all. The gorilla in the living room that no one wants to notice, is that flushing a Qur'an down the toilet should not be grounds to commit murder. This aspect of the story is being ignored by spokesmen on both the Left and the Right. After the initial reports of rioting, Juan Cole sputtered, "Whatever goddam military genius came up with the bright idea of flushing the Koran down the toilet at Guantanamo should be court-martialed, and Bush had better get out there apologizing before this thing spirals further out of control." On the other side of the political spectrum, Paul Marshall wrung his hands in National Review: "Even if Newsweek publishes a full retraction, the damage is done. Much of the Muslim world will regard it merely as a cover-up and feel reconfirmed in the view that America is at war with Islam." Neither Cole nor Marshall, however, made any moral judgment about the rioters. Marshall was furious with Newsweek: "It would be charitable to think that if Newsweek had known how explosive the story was it may have held off until it had more confirmation. If this is true, it is an indication that the media's widespread failure to pay careful attention to the complexities of religion not only misleads us about domestic and international affairs but also gets people killed." Cole, for his part, directed his anger at the Bush Administration: "As a professional historian, I would say we still do not have enough to be sure that the Koran desecration incident took place. We have enough to consider it plausible. Anyway, the important thing politically is that some Muslims have found it plausible, and their outrage cannot be effectively dealt with by simple denial. That is why I say that Bush should just come out and say we can't be sure that it happened, but if it did it was an excess, and he apologizes if it did happen, and will make sure it doesn't happen again (if it did)." Neither one says anything whatsoever about a culture that condones - celebrates -wanton murder of innocent people, mayhem, and destruction in response to the alleged and unproven destruction of a book. The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Qur'an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad. And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad. I suspect that even Juan Cole and Paul Marshall, somewhere in the back of their minds, know that it is mad too. But why don't they say so? Because Rule #1 in the establishment (Left and Right) view of this present conflict is that it has nothing to do with Islam. To bring a moral judgment to bear upon Muslim people, or to explore the ways in which Islam fuels the conflict, is therefore absolutely forbidden. This kind of analysis, dominant as it is in the media, does the Western world an enormous disservice. The reaction to the Newsweek story in the Muslim world only shows how critical it is that the elements of Islam that give rise to fanaticism and violence be examined and confronted. Lives are at stake. But Cole and Marshall, and many others like them on both the Left and the Right, can't see this necessity through the enveloping fog of political correctness. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch; author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery), and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter); and editor of the essay collection The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: Islamic Law and Non-Muslims (Prometheus). He is working on a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (forthcoming from Regnery). http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=18108 |
RHF wrote:
NewsWeek Does Bare the Responsibility for it's Actions and the Results of those Actions. How would making one's responsibility naked help? Perhaps you meant "Bear the responsibility"? mike |
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
You don't need much ground for the radical islamic mind to go beserk and commit murder. When dealing with the radical muslim mind, it isn't a rational mind you are dealing with. You don't need much ground for the radical Christian mind to go berserk and commit murder. When dealing with the radical Christian mind, it isn't a rational mind you are dealing with. You don't need much ground for the radical zionist mind to go berserk and commit murder. When dealing with the radical zionist mind, it isn't a rational mind you are dealing with. |
m II wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: You don't need much ground for the radical islamic mind to go beserk and commit murder. When dealing with the radical muslim mind, it isn't a rational mind you are dealing with. You don't need much ground for the radical Christian mind to go berserk and commit murder. When dealing with the radical Christian mind, it isn't a rational mind you are dealing with. You don't need much ground for the radical zionist mind to go berserk and commit murder. When dealing with the radical zionist mind, it isn't a rational mind you are dealing with. And of course, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as a Canucky mind. dxAce Michigan USA |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com