Koran being flushed story was fake.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


William Jennings Byran!

Mr. Monkey Trial:

[Drake Tungsten]

Cross of Gold:

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why not? Newsweek put themselves on that level. Though we will have morons like Ted and techumseh who will believe the story even though the person who put it out says it was a lie.

I never said the story was true.

Quote me.

I said it is a possibility.


Thanks.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


You give too much credit Ted. These are the same people that are sure that Israel did 9/11. They may have access to a lot of modern communications, but they are largely uneducated and illiterate. It's difficult (to say the least) for them to put reports in perspective, such as waiting for corroboration before getting themselves killed in a riot. We have plenty of people like this in our country, but they are balanced out by and large by people who are educated enough to wait for the other shoe to drop before they rush to their deaths.

It's a diverse group of people. The demographic you describe is even more affected by Abu Gharib especially because it was all told by the sensational pictures that came with it. They might not know the details of the story, but they know there is a US soldier wearing a US uniform, with a US flag on it, torturing and humiliating a fellow Muslim.

And then you have these guys, who are obviously uneducated and illiterate. In two languages even.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I said it is a possibility.

And that is what makes you a moron.

Thanks.

[Ted Striker]

You're only allowed to make comments on another person's opinion when you have the courage to express one yourself.

Coward

Thanks.

[DinoDoc]

100-0

[Ted Striker]

I think the bed you usually hide under is in another thread. Ask the cat for directions. You know, the P USSY cat.

Thanks.

[DinoDoc]

You amuse me sometimes, Ted.

[Ted Striker]

Probably not as much as you pretend to amuse yourself though.

[DinoDoc]

You're more fun than Zorba.

[Ted Striker]

You're more transparent than DinoDoc.

Wait...

[GePap]

According to the reports I have seen on this, Newsweek, before ever putting on the two paragraph story (the Koran was not flushed, it was suppsoedly placed in a toilet), sent it to be commented on by the government-no one objected to it.

When riots began kast week, The Joint Chief of Staff told reporters he did not think the Newsweek article was responsible for the riots, but instead said it was due to local politics. The commander on the ground in that part of afghanistan, which was the worst hit, also stated that the main causes were local politics.

Then over the weekend, and today, the WH denounces Newsweek and blames them for the deaths, then the anonymous source retracts their statement and newsweek then retracts the story.

I would like to know:

1. Who was the anonymous source?
2. Why did the government not object to the story being put on in the first place?
3. Why did Military sources last week refuse to say that the story was the reason behind the riots?
4. Why the the story change from the government?

[Ted Striker]

GePap

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
According to the reports I have seen on this, Newsweek, before ever putting on the two paragraph story (the Koran was not flushed, it was suppsoedly placed in a toilet), sent it to be commented on by the government-no one objected to it.

When riots began kast week, The Joint Chief of Staff told reporters he did not think the Newsweek article was responsible for the riots, but instead said it was due to local politics. The commander on the ground in that part of afghanistan, which was the worst hit, also stated that the main causes were local politics.

Then over the weekend, and today, the WH denounces Newsweek and blames them for the deaths, then the anonymous source retracts their statement and newsweek then retracts the story.

I would like to know:

1. Who was the anonymous source?
2. Why did the government not object to the story being put on in the first place?
3. Why did Military sources last week refuse to say that the story was the reason behind the riots?
4. Why the the story change from the government?

It seems quite likely that the person who vetted the story either missed the Koran bit (which was a tiny part of a larger story) or did not know for a fact that it was false (which is understandable as that would be quite difficult to find proof of that). There was some correction of the facts put forth in the advanced copy of the story by this same official, so it's obvious that they didn't simply rubber stamp it. Even a dubious claim could be problematic for the government to complain about if it was difficult to refute. This is an uncomfortable process for both institutions as it tiptoes pretty close to prior restraint even on its better days.

As to questions 3 & 4, there seems to have been a spin coordination problem between Washington and Afghanistan which was exacerbated by the rapidly changing story. The story out of Afghanistan by both Afghan and American government sources was that there were some small and reasonably well-behaved protests that were used as cover by extremists and / or others opposed to the current regime for their own nefarious purposes. Whether this was laying the groundwork for a counter-operation against some of these government opponents or not I can only speculate, but it seems that at a minimum it was meant as a warning.

I think it took a while for the government to acertain that the story was weak or false. They certainly stepped up their criticism of the story as Newsweek backed up step by step. It looks to me as if people simply spun the story in the way that best suited their needs based on the information they had available. In other words, business as usual.