Newsweek to the US.

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So just because you have a name to back up a statement it makes it less wrong or that the media is less responcible for reporting false information?

So if a named source said that they saw the Koran being used the way Newsweek reported, it would be ok?

If you have a name behind a story then chances are it is the official stance. Using an anon source means you can make anything you want up. Nobody knows who said it and how it was confirmed.

It would help to keep newsweeks credibility in the story. Because we can go to the source and find out where he got his\her information from. Right now it could be mickey mouse as the source and we wouldnt know the difference.

So it being an "official stance" makes it ok even if the "official stance" is completely wrong?

Interesting.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Relying on the testimonials of the insane in the asylum?

Sorry if it doesnt sway my vote.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So just because you have a name to back up a statement it makes it less wrong or that the media is less responcible for reporting false information?

So if a named source said that they saw the Koran being used the way Newsweek reported, it would be ok?

If you have a name behind a story then chances are it is the official stance. Using an anon source means you can make anything you want up. Nobody knows who said it and how it was confirmed.

It would help to keep newsweeks credibility in the story. Because we can go to the source and find out where he got his\her information from. Right now it could be mickey mouse as the source and we wouldnt know the difference.

So it being an "official stance" makes it ok even if the "official stance" is completely wrong?

Interesting.

Yes because the news agency did everything they could to verify the source. What do you suggest the new agencies go into Iraq and search for WMDs by themselves?

At this point the blame is shifted off the news agency and onto their sources which is the Bush administration and various intelligence agencies.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Give it up, they will never listen to anything that makes it look like this administration is wrong in anything it does.

 

[Rogue]

I should tell everyone here, having spoken with at least a dozen Military Police who served at Gitmo, that the prisoners themselves would regularly take their very own Koran and stuff it in their toilet to cause the system to backup and otherwise cause problems in the camp. One such incident recounted to me by a couple of MPs I know stemmed from the removal of M&Ms, yes, the candy coated chocolates, from their MRE (meals ready to eat) and a subsequent complaint to the staff at the camp. I trust every word that these guys say about this, because unlike all of the conjecture and heresay going around in this thread, I have interviewed actual people and heard another side of the story that will likely never make it into the mainstream media. In any case, I am not discounting the claims brought forth by the article or anyone else, however, it appears to me based on several discussions with various other MPs that the prisoners themselves are just as guilty of the crime they are up in arms about. For all we know, they are clearing their own name by blaming their actions on their captors so as not to bring punishment upon themselves for their indiscretions while in captivity.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Give it up, they will never listen to anything that makes it look like this administration is wrong in anything it does.

Sounds like you are taking your toys home with you.

You must have forgot this tidbit I just wrote

At this point the blame is shifted off the news agency and onto their sources which is the Bush administration and various intelligence agencies.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Rogue
I should tell everyone here, having spoken with at least a dozen Military Police who served at Gitmo, that the prisoners themselves would regularly take their very own Koran and stuff it in their toilet to cause the system to backup and otherwise cause problems in the camp. One such incident recounted to me by a couple of MPs I know stemmed from the removal of M&Ms, yes, the candy coated chocolates, from their MRE (meals ready to eat) and a subsequent complaint to the staff at the camp. I trust every word that these guys say about this, because unlike all of the conjecture and heresay going around in this thread, I have interviewed actual people and heard another side of the story that will likely never make it into the mainstream media. In any case, I am not discounting the claims brought forth by the article or anyone else, however, it appears to me based on several discussions with various other MPs that the prisoners themselves are just as guilty of the crime they are up in arms about. For all we know, they are clearing their own name by blaming their actions on their captors so as not to bring punishment upon themselves for their indiscretions while in captivity.

Rogue,

You're complaining about conjecture and hearsay with conjecture and hearsay.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Rogue
I should tell everyone here, having spoken with at least a dozen Military Police who served at Gitmo, that the prisoners themselves would regularly take their very own Koran and stuff it in their toilet to cause the system to backup and otherwise cause problems in the camp. One such incident recounted to me by a couple of MPs I know stemmed from the removal of M&Ms, yes, the candy coated chocolates, from their MRE (meals ready to eat) and a subsequent complaint to the staff at the camp. I trust every word that these guys say about this, because unlike all of the conjecture and heresay going around in this thread, I have interviewed actual people and heard another side of the story that will likely never make it into the mainstream media. In any case, I am not discounting the claims brought forth by the article or anyone else, however, it appears to me based on several discussions with various other MPs that the prisoners themselves are just as guilty of the crime they are up in arms about. For all we know, they are clearing their own name by blaming their actions on their captors so as not to bring punishment upon themselves for their indiscretions while in captivity.

Rogue,

You're complaining about conjecture and hearsay with conjecture and hearsay.

If his story is true about actually interviewing guards in gitmo then it isnt conjecture nor hearsay but direct testimonials from people who were there.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Rogue
I should tell everyone here, having spoken with at least a dozen Military Police who served at Gitmo, that the prisoners themselves would regularly take their very own Koran and stuff it in their toilet to cause the system to backup and otherwise cause problems in the camp. One such incident recounted to me by a couple of MPs I know stemmed from the removal of M&Ms, yes, the candy coated chocolates, from their MRE (meals ready to eat) and a subsequent complaint to the staff at the camp. I trust every word that these guys say about this, because unlike all of the conjecture and heresay going around in this thread, I have interviewed actual people and heard another side of the story that will likely never make it into the mainstream media. In any case, I am not discounting the claims brought forth by the article or anyone else, however, it appears to me based on several discussions with various other MPs that the prisoners themselves are just as guilty of the crime they are up in arms about. For all we know, they are clearing their own name by blaming their actions on their captors so as not to bring punishment upon themselves for their indiscretions while in captivity.

Rogue,

You're complaining about conjecture and hearsay with conjecture and hearsay.

If his story is true about actually interviewing guards in gitmo then it isnt conjecture nor hearsay but direct testimonials from people who were there.

He heard it from someone else. Ergo; hearsay.

 

[BBond]

The "senior administration official" who supplied this information to Newsweek heard "testimonials from people who were there" too.

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Rogue
I should tell everyone here, having spoken with at least a dozen Military Police who served at Gitmo, that the prisoners themselves would regularly take their very own Koran and stuff it in their toilet to cause the system to backup and otherwise cause problems in the camp. One such incident recounted to me by a couple of MPs I know stemmed from the removal of M&Ms, yes, the candy coated chocolates, from their MRE (meals ready to eat) and a subsequent complaint to the staff at the camp. I trust every word that these guys say about this, because unlike all of the conjecture and heresay going around in this thread, I have interviewed actual people and heard another side of the story that will likely never make it into the mainstream media. In any case, I am not discounting the claims brought forth by the article or anyone else, however, it appears to me based on several discussions with various other MPs that the prisoners themselves are just as guilty of the crime they are up in arms about. For all we know, they are clearing their own name by blaming their actions on their captors so as not to bring punishment upon themselves for their indiscretions while in captivity.

Rogue,

You're complaining about conjecture and hearsay with conjecture and hearsay.

If his story is true about actually interviewing guards in gitmo then it isnt conjecture nor hearsay but direct testimonials from people who were there.

Exactly. It's heresay to you because you didn't interview them directly, so for that I give credit because you're correct. I've offered before for people here to come visit me and talk with soldiers directly about their experiences in the War on Terrorism but have yet to hear from someone on the matter.

Also, there's one difference between myself and Newsweek, I'm not recanting my story.

 

[Last Rezort]

anti-administration?
have your eyes been closed the last few years?
At least now we are starting to hear both sides.
Are you saying we sould have a media that hides facts from the public, that its ok to lie to the people in the peoples intrest?

All i have to say about bad facts is: "There are WMDs in Iraq"

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Rogue
I should tell everyone here, having spoken with at least a dozen Military Police who served at Gitmo, that the prisoners themselves would regularly take their very own Koran and stuff it in their toilet to cause the system to backup and otherwise cause problems in the camp. One such incident recounted to me by a couple of MPs I know stemmed from the removal of M&Ms, yes, the candy coated chocolates, from their MRE (meals ready to eat) and a subsequent complaint to the staff at the camp. I trust every word that these guys say about this, because unlike all of the conjecture and heresay going around in this thread, I have interviewed actual people and heard another side of the story that will likely never make it into the mainstream media. In any case, I am not discounting the claims brought forth by the article or anyone else, however, it appears to me based on several discussions with various other MPs that the prisoners themselves are just as guilty of the crime they are up in arms about. For all we know, they are clearing their own name by blaming their actions on their captors so as not to bring punishment upon themselves for their indiscretions while in captivity.

Rogue,

You're complaining about conjecture and hearsay with conjecture and hearsay.

If his story is true about actually interviewing guards in gitmo then it isnt conjecture nor hearsay but direct testimonials from people who were there.

He heard it from someone else. Ergo; hearsay.

You must have missed this

should tell everyone here, having spoken with at least a dozen Military Police who served at Gitmo

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond
The "senior administration official" who supplied this information to Newsweek heard "testimonials from people who were there" too.

Yet nobody knows who this person is. Maybe mickey mouse visited newsweek.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Relying on the testimonials of the insane in the asylum?

Sorry if it doesnt sway my vote.

IOW, it doesn't suit your agenda despite the reams of evidence of myriad abuses and torture in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc.

 

[conjur]

MSNBC now reporting that Newsweek did *not* issue a retraction.

This is going to be akin to the CBS Dan Rather incident where the way the story was presented is attacked and the content is ignored.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Relying on the testimonials of the insane in the asylum?

Sorry if it doesnt sway my vote.

IOW, it doesn't suit your agenda despite the reams of evidence of myriad abuses and torture in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc.

There is a reason why previous convictions arent usually allowed in a court of law.

 

[conjur]

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Relying on the testimonials of the insane in the asylum?

Sorry if it doesnt sway my vote.

IOW, it doesn't suit your agenda despite the reams of evidence of myriad abuses and torture in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc.

There is a reason why previous convictions arent usually allowed in a court of law.

There is also a reason why hearsay is inadmissable as well.

 

[BBond]

Does that fact that this information was obtained from a senior administration official bother anyone other than me?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Relying on the testimonials of the insane in the asylum?

Sorry if it doesnt sway my vote.

IOW, it doesn't suit your agenda despite the reams of evidence of myriad abuses and torture in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc.

There is a reason why previous convictions arent usually allowed in a court of law.

There is also a reason why hearsay is inadmissable as well.

Are you trying to build a case for or against newsweek with this comment lol

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond
Does that fact that this information was obtained from a senior administration official bother anyone other than me?

Not if we got a name of the person.

Without a name it can be anybody including myself.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Last Rezort
anti-administration?
have your eyes been closed the last few years?
At least now we are starting to hear both sides.
Are you saying we sould have a media that hides facts from the public, that its ok to lie to the people in the peoples intrest?

All i have to say about bad facts is: "There are WMDs in Iraq"

Care to stick with the topic at hand or do you want to say that since the admin might have lied, newsweek can lie too?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Relying on the testimonials of the insane in the asylum?

Sorry if it doesnt sway my vote.

IOW, it doesn't suit your agenda despite the reams of evidence of myriad abuses and torture in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc.

There is a reason why previous convictions arent usually allowed in a court of law.

There is also a reason why hearsay is inadmissable as well.

Are you trying to build a case for or against newsweek with this comment lol

I'm trying to point out to you that the senior administration official who provided this information to Newsweek is the same as the soldiers who provided the information above.
Newsweek's Isikoff had a relationship with this senior adiminstration official. He trusted this official based on past history.

IMO, the Bush administration is using psyops to discredit the press.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87
According to the people who wrote a story they are now retracting as false.

ok

False? Explain this then:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

??

Relying on the testimonials of the insane in the asylum?

Sorry if it doesnt sway my vote.

IOW, it doesn't suit your agenda despite the reams of evidence of myriad abuses and torture in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc.

There is a reason why previous convictions arent usually allowed in a court of law.

There is also a reason why hearsay is inadmissable as well.

Are you trying to build a case for or against newsweek with this comment lol

I'm trying to point out to you that the senior administration official who provided this information to Newsweek is the same as the soldiers who provided the information above.
Newsweek's Isikoff had a relationship with this senior adiminstration official. He trusted this official based on past history.

IMO, the Bush administration is using psyops to discredit the press.

Not even close provided the poster did indeed talk with guards from gitmo.