Newsweek Is Not Alone

[Ant]

After hearing trauma-wood fall for the party line and buy into the whole Newsweek failed and embarassed America with shoddy reporting we find out that Newsweek is far from being the first or only organization to report these events.  In fact, what we find is once again the Bush Whitehouse is trying to cover up its own faults and failings by pinning the blame on someone else.  Just when you think republicans have reached the height of hypocrisy they take it one step further by attempting to hold the media to standards they refuse to impose on themselves.  Scott McClellan and the GOP choir wants us to blame newsweek for what has happened in afghanistan while at the same time asking us to turn a blind eye to the intelligence failures of the US govt which have had much more dire consequences.  Only a bigotted fool can't see the hypocrisy of hearing the US govt. demand a small news organization does better fact checking than the largest govt. in the world.  Of course at the end of the day, we find the Newsweek report had far more corroborating evidence than did Bush's claims of WMD, ties to terrorism, and mushroom clouds.

The reality of this whole thing is that rather than spreading freedom, liberty, and happiness as Bush asserts, the Bush Whitehouse spread hatred of the American population and in doing so weakened our national security, weakened our economy, and weakened our military.  The main point is this story is not even news, it has been reported on multiple occasions.  Violence exploded in Afghanistan because of a gradually building unrest and disdain for the US, when this story broke again it only fanned flames there were already burning.  Anyways, I don't expect you to read all these but you can easily get an idea of the number of times this story has been reported in the past by simply scrolling down. 

A list of other news articles that have discussed these allegations prior to the Newsweek story:

August 5, 2004

    The Independent (London)

    In the report, released in New York, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul - the so-called Tipton Three - said one inmate was threatened after being shown a video in which hooded inmates were forced to sodomise each other. Guards allegedly threw prisoners' Korans into toilets, while others were injected with drugs, it was claimed.

August 5, 2004

    Daily News (New York) | Byline: By James Gordon Meek and Derek Rose.

    They say that rats and scorpions had free run of their sweltering cages, loud rock music was used to drown out the sound of prayers, and sleep deprivation was common.

    "They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it," Asif Iqbal wrote.

    [...]

    Pentagon spokesman Michael Shavers said the military "operates a professional detention facility at Guantanamo" and does not condone abuse of detainees.

January 9, 2005

    Sunday | FINAL EDITION | HEADLINE: Nightmare of Guantanamo.... U.S. prison camp in Cuba has become legal black hole, reporter says BYLINE: John Freeman Special to The Denver Post

    "They pepper sprayed me in the face, and I started vomiting; in all I must have brought up five cupfuls. They pinned me down and attacked me, poking their fingers in my eyes, and forced my head into the toilet pan and flushed. They tied me up like a beast and then they were kneeling on me, kicking and punching. Finally they dragged me out of my cell in chains ... and shaved my beard, my hair, my eyebrows."

    [...]

    And earlier this year, that process finally began. In March, the government released five British men from Guantanamo after nearly three years. They had been captured in Afghanistan, where they had gone to offer humanitarian aid. Rose interviewed them that same month, two months before the allegations of Abu Ghraib first surfaced, and yet they described a period of captivity eerily similar to that of the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib.

    In August Mr Ahmed, Mr Rasul and Mr Iqbal issued a 115-page dossier accusing the US of abuse, including allegations that they were beaten and had their Korans thrown into toilets.*

    (*Also published in The Hartford Courant (Connecticut), January 16, 2005.)

January 9, 2003

    The New York Times | Late Edition - Final | SECTION: Section A; Column 2; Foreign Desk; Pg. 14 | THREATS AND RESPONSES: TERROR; Hate of the West Finds Fertile Soil in Yemen. But Does Al Qaeda? By Ian Fisher | DATELINE: SANA, Yemen, Jan. 8

    Investigators know the basic facts: In this poor and isolated nation with no lack of extremists, a young preacher named Ahmed Ali Jarallah assembled a small cell of militants to strike the enemies of Islam in Yemen. Two years ago, he read off a hate list in a speech at a mosque here, singling out specifically a hospital run by American Baptists.

    "In Jibla, there is the Baptist hospital, which is the source of Christian activities in the province," Mr. Jarallah said. Muslims converted to Christianity at this hospital, he charged, and even "stuff the Holy Koran into toilets of mosques."

    On Dec. 28, anger went into action: Mr. Jarallah himself assassinated a leading secular politician, Jarallah Omar, according to the police. Two days later, one of Mr. Jarallah's followers, Abed Abdel Razzak Kamel, is said to have killed three Americans in the hospital, which provided medical care in the southern town of Jibla for 35 years.

March 26, 2003

    The Washington Post | Final Edition | SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A12 HEADLINE: Returning Afghans Talk of Guantanamo; Out of Legal Limbo, Some Tell of Mistreatment | BYLINE: Marc Kaufman and April Witt, Washington Post Staff Writers

    The men, the largest single group of Afghans to be released after months of detainment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gave varying accounts of how American forces treated them during interrogation and detainment. Some displayed medical records showing extensive care by American military doctors, while others complained that American soldiers insulted Islam by sitting on the Koran or dumping their sacred text into a toilet to taunt them.

    [...]

    Ehsannullah, 29, said American soldiers who initially questioned him in Kandahar before shipping him to Guantanamo hit him and taunted him by dumping the Koran in a toilet.

August 4, 2004

    CNN.com | SECTION: LAW | HEADLINE: British men report abuse from Guantanamo BYLINE: By Jonathan Wald CNN
    DATELINE: NEW YORK

    U.S. soldiers "would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet, and generally disrespect it," Iqbal said.

June 28, 2004

    Financial Times Information | Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire | InfoProd | Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

    One of the men, Timur Ishmuratov of Tatarstan, told ORT on 24 June -- prior to the release -- that he had been captured by Northern Alliance forces shortly after the beginning of the U.S. military action in Afghanistan and "sold" to the Americans for $ 3,000-$ 5,000. Former prisoner Airat Vakhitov told ORT about alleged mistreatment while he was at Guantanamo. "They tore the Koran to pieces in front of us, threw it into the toilet," Vakhitov said. "When people were praying, they forced their way in and put their feet on people's heads and beat them."

[Woodrow]

LMAO!!!

So now you're quoting people who have made it their life's purpose to destroy America?

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Newsweek retracts Quran story

[Woodrow]

It's bizzare as hell to me that you turn this into a political debate when missing the entire issue.

Flushing a book down a toilet is not grounds for murder.

It's even stranger to me that the news outfit that printed the story retracted it, but somehow, in your blind hate, you just want it to be true!

[Matrix Heart]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/


Lights down, you up and die

[Don Rizzle]

It's bizzare as hell to me that you turn this into a political debate when missing the entire issue.

Flushing a book down a toilet is not grounds for murder.

It's even stranger to me that the news outfit that printed the story retracted it, but somehow, in your blind hate, you just want it to be true!

if u believe that retraction your a bigger fool than i thaught! of course they were gonna retract it after the reaction it caused in the middle east I would be HUGELY suprised if this story was not true. Of course Bush will deny it too, just like he will deny torture, lying etc. its standard practise, because if he didn't the reaction would be a whole lot worse THIS IS ALL CALLED DAMAGE CONTROL YOU FUCKING ZOMBIE

[Woodrow]

if u believe that retraction your a bigger fool than i thaught! of course they were gonna retract it after the reaction it caused in the middle east I would be HUGELY suprised if this story was not true. Of course Bush will deny it too, just like he will deny torture, lying etc. its standard practise, because if he didn't the reaction would be a whole lot worse THIS IS ALL CALLED DAMAGE CONTROL YOU FUCKING ZOMBIE

thaught? suprised? practise?

Yeah. I'm the fool.

[Don Rizzle]

if u believe that retraction your a bigger fool than i thaught! of course they were gonna retract it after the reaction it caused in the middle east I would be HUGELY suprised if this story was not true. Of course Bush will deny it too, just like he will deny torture, lying etc. its standard practise, because if he didn't the reaction would be a whole lot worse THIS IS ALL CALLED DAMAGE CONTROL YOU FUCKING ZOMBIE

thaught? suprised? practise?

Yeah. I'm the fool.

i thought we had put this to rest I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT SPELLING U COCK SUCKER THIS IS A INFORMAL FORUM, NOT WORK, I'M NOT BEING ASSESSED ITS ABOUT DISCUSSING ISSUES.

This is a classic republican ploy when you have no argument or anything to add to the discussion, try and discredit the opposition rather than sticking to the actual issue.

but you are right you are the fool!

[Woodrow]

i thought we had put this to rest I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT SPELLING U COCK SUCKER THIS IS A INFORMAL FORUM, NOT WORK, I'M NOT BEING ASSESSED ITS ABOUT DISCUSSING ISSUES.

This is a classic republican ploy when you have no argument or anything to add to the discussion, try and discredit the opposition rather than sticking to the actual issue.

but you are right you are the fool!

Classic republican ploy?

How am I supposed to discuss issues with somebody who can't put together a coherent sentence?

You can't spell, but somehow you think you're smart enough to find a case of governmental censorship that nobody else has! Keep up the work Sherlock!

Newsweek retracted the story. The only damage control going on is Newsweek trying to save its reputation because they printed a false story.

[Don Rizzle]

i thought we had put this to rest I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT SPELLING U COCK SUCKER THIS IS A INFORMAL FORUM, NOT WORK, I'M NOT BEING ASSESSED ITS ABOUT DISCUSSING ISSUES.

This is a classic republican ploy when you have no argument or anything to add to the discussion, try and discredit the opposition rather than sticking to the actual issue.

but you are right you are the fool!

Classic republican ploy?

How am I supposed to discuss issues with somebody who can't put together a coherent sentence?

You can't spell, but somehow you think you're smart enough to find a case of governmental censorship that nobody else has! Keep up the work Sherlock!

Newsweek retracted the story. The only damage control going on is Newsweek trying to save its reputation because they printed a false story.

maybe it wasn't gramatically correct and the spelling wasn't great but hey my post never are, this is old ground your not going to get me to make an effort just to impress you. you are no better than me, your points are no more valid than mine because they maybe constructed in the queens english (well american bastardised english).  if you couldn't understand what i said in my origional post i suggest you go back to school.

The bush administration was very critical of newsweek, if you don't believe political pressure (direct or indirect) led to the retraction then you really are nieve....if you want me to explain it in simpler terms and go through the chain of events i'll be happy to do that for you.

[Low Key]

Either way you look at it, the story being true or not, people were murdered over a fucking book. Yeah, so US troops were flushing pages of the Quaran down the toilet? At least they aren't driving cars full of explosives into the middle of a crowd, killing their own people. I mean, some of yall act like tearing pages out of a book is the worst thing ever. They are trying to interagate people who murder.

And what would happen if they captured a US troop? Give them hot tea and a bath? Fuck no. They would kill them.

And no one here can talk. The troops are over there worried about getting shot or blown up everyday. They aren't over their trying to convert people to christianity, they are over there to bring some stability to a place full of poverty. People just don't understand, the quicker they can get a working government up and a full police force, the US troops will almost all leave. The Iraqis don't want them there, and I'm sure the troops don't want to be there. But no, they can't make this easier.

[Ant]

It's bizzare as hell to me that you turn this into a political debate when missing the entire issue.

Flushing a book down a toilet is not grounds for murder.

It's even stranger to me that the news outfit that printed the story retracted it, but somehow, in your blind hate, you just want it to be true!

I have no desire to want the story to be true.  Your best bet to defeat my argument is to argue against a point I've never made.  You claimed the story had no corroborating evidence.  You were wrong.  Multiple news organizations published similiar story in the past.  You implied people were rioting and murdering solely over this story.  That is also wrong. This story only fanned flames that were already burning, if you look deep enough you find violence was already occuring and unrest with America had been growing for months.  Our own government initially came out and said the Newsweek story was not the underlying cause of the riots... of course when the White House saw a political opportunity to save its own hide it viewed things differently and the riots in Afghanistan rested entirely on the shoulders of Newsweek.  You continue to ignore the fact that Newsweek recieved approval from the Pentago to run this story before printing it.  Practically every assertion you've made against me is proven wrong by reality so now the best you can do is attempt to counter arguments I've never made. 

[Woodrow]

You just don't get it do you...

 

[Don Rizzle]

You just don't get it do you...

 

I think your the one who doesn't get it!
the only valid point you've raised in this thread is 'Flushing a book down a toilet is not grounds for murder.' which no one has even disputed or attempted to argue that it is grounds for murder. but in a country where disrespecting this book carries the death penalty, its not suprising they are more than a bit miffed. and like ant pointed out it just added to volcano of hate already present in region.

[Woodrow]

maybe it wasn't gramatically correct and the spelling wasn't great but hey my post never are, this is old ground your not going to get me to make an effort just to impress you. you are no better than me, your points are no more valid than mine because they maybe constructed in the queens english (well american bastardised english).  if you couldn't understand what i said in my origional post i suggest you go back to school.

The bush administration was very critical of newsweek, if you don't believe political pressure (direct or indirect) led to the retraction then you really are nieve....if you want me to explain it in simpler terms and go through the chain of events i'll be happy to do that for you.

I am better than you because my points are based on common sense.

[Low Key]

You continue to ignore the fact that Newsweek recieved approval from the Pentago to run this story before printing it.

No they didn't. I saw the interview they had with the Newsweek guy. They said the Pentagon didn't even respond when they sent the article in. They waited like 11 days for an okay, but nothing, so they printed it. I would have done the same if I didn't get any response, but you have to admit, there is a difference.