Monday, May 16, 2005

"OOPS - sorry 'bout that!"

Too little, too late, Newsweak. The whole thing was virtually a hoax. In the escalating aftermath of shoddy and inaccurate reporting, Newsweak has fanned the flames of jihad against America, by publicizing an event that they don't even think is true!


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newsweek magazine said on Sunday it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.

Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

The report sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.


Michael Williams
says:

It's not exactly like the Muslim crazies need much of an excuse to riot, kill people, and burn the American flag, but Newsweek is still responsible for fanning the flames that led those deaths and injuries. It's particularly egregious because the magazine obviously intended to set this wildfire, and they're only apologizing because the crap they printed turned out to be false. Is it unpatriotic for an American magazine to purposefully incite hatred and violence against our country? Signs point to yes.

I agree. And Newsweak's weak statement, now that people have died as a direct result of its wrong information, is a lame attempt to cover its ass:

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Whitaker wrote in the magazine's latest issue, due to appear on U.S. newsstands on Monday.


This is the too little, too late part. It hardly goes far enough, and doesn't do a lick of good now that severe damage has been done.

Whitaker told Reuters that Newsweek did not know if the reported toilet incident involving the Koran ever occurred. "As to whether anything like this happened, we just don't know," he said in an interview. "We're not saying it absolutely happened but we can't say that it absolutely didn't happen either."
Again, Michael Williams has a scathing opinion of such wishy-washy unconvincing statements:

Wow, that's some spectacular content you've got in your magazine. Good thing you respected media elites have editors like Mark Whitaker to maintain that exalted maybe/maybe-not standard that all we bloggers marvel at.
Jay Tea at Wizbang thinks that Newsweak can't be held legally responsible for the collective Islamic Freak Out:

I have to argue against the most severe sanctions people are proposing against Newsweek - in particular, lawsuits for the deaths of those killed in the ensuing riots.

The purpose of such lawsuits is to hold people liable for reasonable and predictable reactions to their actions, and I don't think the riots and deaths fall into that category.

I willingly grant the "predictable" element, but I draw the line at "reasonable." The use of that is to justify the unjustifiable. The riots were a completely irrational and wrong response, and Newsweek should not be held responsible for what a bunch of religious, West-hating whackos do. Those lunatics are simply atrocities waiting to happen, and anything - anything - can be the trigger.


Borg Queen thinks that Jay Tea might be a little soft on Newsweaks' culpability:

It's not the first time these lunatics have gone on rampages, not the second, not the tenth, and certainly won't be the last. How could Newsweek NOT anticipate the likelihood that this is exactly what would happen?

Reporting an incident that actually happened is one thing. Reporting something that is so potentially explosive on the "I think I read somewhere" word of an anonymous source with no other corroberation at all is another.

One thing we all agree on is that Islam, the "Religion of Peace", is anything but. How many people have to die in religious-fervor inspired RIOTS, before the world gives a collective yawn and WAKES UP to the insanity of Islam? You heard it here: they're radically crazy - as a whole. Today's Islam is a crazy-in-the-head mental disorder."

It's a Muslim bloodbath out there! There is not even a modicum of restraint or prudence in a gathering of Muslim fanatics! No other religion on the planet inspires such violence, either toward themselves or others.

As Pirate commented here:

How many Buddhists rioted and killed people when the Taliban blew up Buddhists statues?

How many Jews rioted and killed people when Jewish graves were turned into bathrroms and Jewsish Temples were burned?

How many Catholics rioted when beastiality films were made with Priests and Nuns, or 'art' was made when a Cross was put in urine?


Last thoughts on the universal violence of the "Religion of Peace":

Did you know that out of 23 active conflicts on the planet today, Muslims are warring in 19 of them?! It’s NOT just about us(Americans) vs THEM! It’s about Islam’s stated goal of decimating the infidels. That’s everyone except THEM!

In 2000, 32 armed conflicts were underway; and more than two thirds involved Muslims. Today, only 4 wars do not include Muslims! The violence and reach of Islam is escalating. Yet Muslims are only about one fifth of the world’s population.

Contemporary global politics is in the age of Muslim wars. Muslims fight each other and fight non-Muslims far more often than do peoples of other civilizations. Muslim wars have replaced the cold war as the principal form of international conflict. These wars include wars of terrorism, guerrilla wars, civil wars and interstate conflicts. These instances of Muslim violence could congeal into one major clash of civilizations between Islam and the West or between Islam and the Rest.

The age of Muslim wars will end when its causes change or are changed.