Newsweek aids and abetts Taliban
This weeks Newsweek, courtesy of Michael Isikoff and John Barry, release this story which sparks riots in Afghanistan leaving 15 dead and years of hard work up in smoke and then release this account of how Newsweek got it wrong.
The military are still to blame.
True, one would have to question a group of people who riot and kill each other because of a story about a book being damaged but I think Newsweek rushed the story to press, as trivial and unimportant as it was, to get an anti-Bush/Military article on the newsstands.
Austin Bay posts and mentions that news and pictures travels so fast and far in today’s e-world that Editors need to be aware of the ramifications of what they print because it’ll be read by some savage in the mountains of Afghanistan that very day. They are not writing for their readers in the Western world but for everybody in the world with all their weird thoughts on what is right or wrong
One particular reader leaves a telling comment,
AUSTIN: I’m on my way back to Kabul, as I typically do every summer, but my family is completely opposed to my travel and work this year in Afghanistan even though I’ve safely transited there, in and out of State and UN/NGO service for nearly 20 years. The word I receive from Kabuli friends is that Isikoff has singlehandedly turned US triumph in the country to a total disaster. It was thought an anamoly last summer that some wonderful–and tragically forgotten–American DynCorps workers (mostly ex-military and my good friends) were killed in an environment that was pro-American to the core. That could be seen as a terrible tragedy, an unreasonable sad event impinging on an overall positive atmosphere–a last ditch effort by desperate Al Qa’eda remnants from outside Afghanistan to vent anger at the overwhelming success of the Americans. Now thanks to one Bush-hating reporter (google Isikoff if you doubt his intentions,) the recidivist Taliban-Pathans of southeast Afghanistan once again have an issue to de-legitimize the Karzai-US alliance. This is a disaster perpetrated by a single reckless reporter…will he ever be required to answer for his sins? Fifteen dead so far…how many more? The streets of Afghanistan, just days ago filled with pro-American citizens, are now roiled with hatred. What has Newsweek wrought? Who will call Isikoff to answer in courts or Congress for his destruction of an important alliance? GW…it’s time for you to step up to the plate and talk directly about this issue, this renegade journalist, to both the American public and the Afghan people.MSM treatment of the misdemeanours at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have done nothing but damage the fight against terrorism, giving the fanatics, both left wing and Moslem, the chance to rant about the evil US. Evil is slitting some innocent’s throat or forcing youths to blow themselves up in the presence of women and kids. It is not taking happy snaps of tied up prisoners. Neither is flushing pages from a book down the toilet. This type of rubbish enflames and emboldens weirdos and subsequently lengthens the war. Soldiers die because of this rubbish and still it comes. Can we expect the Left to mention the futile deaths in Afghanistan and apportion blame to the media.. No. Can we expect a meaningful apology from Newsweek. No UPDATE: Another viewpoint via Silent Running UPDATE II:Quote of the day from Right Wing News
“The media does in fact have an impressive fact-checking system. If a quote or purported fact portrays Republicans, the military, or America generally in a positive light, they check it to death to make sure they’re not spreading propaganda. But… if the quote or purported fact portrays those things in a negative light, it pretty much gets into print with only the most cursory once-over by the editors. If it agrees with their basic world-view — if it feels “right” in their gut — then it runs.Sounds about right to me.
Facebook
Twitter
Evil is not a subjective descriptor. Try Immoral or unethical. In the case of the Koran, try discriminatory. It’s more than a little ignorant to dismiss religious beliefs you don’t or choose not to understand.
Aha…semantics.
■ Immoral or unethical don’t go anywhere near describing decapitation or suicide bombing women and children.
■ I’m not discussing religious beliefs..I’m discussing barbaric acts.
■ I used evil because it seems to fit the fanatical Moslem and left wing description of Bush and the US.
Ah Niall, good to see you are still up to your old tricks. After an work imposed absence OS, it was strangely comforting to come back and read your left wing views. Maybe if others could view their religious beliefs in a less fundamentalist light and see people more than simply Infidels, then maybe we might see less of this killing in the name of whichever God one prays to.
Oh yes, and while semantics are the flavour of the month, all descriptors other than of a non-interpretive sensory nature are considered subjective. (Look what you have reduced me to. ARGGHH!)
Not so, Niall
on ignorant…ignorebeliefs you don’t or choose not to understand.
If something is an inferior tradition including of beleifs, the only reason why one might attend to them is for scholarship. Otherwise, this notion that somehow it is wrong not `understand ‘ other beleifs is baloney. In fact, in a civilised world, I don;t have to understand my neighbour, I don’t have to understand any fellow employee. I need only go on what is demonstrable, their actions.
It might be mistaken, at times not to understand somethings, maths is a good e.g. because, it is essential to every day actions. I wouldn’t waste time bothering learning primitive nonsense, by contrast.
And, Niall, Muslim beleifs are primitive, so is the Koran.
Environmentalism, sociology are garbage. I would not have, if I had children ready for higher things, waste time on that crap, nor pyschology. On the other hand, I would have them go to an Oxbridge college, an Oz uni these days is a dead loss. Gee, Niall, that’s discriminatory.
In fact, contrary to the `anti- discrimination’ brigade, discrimination is a fundamental act. A hirer discriminates between job applicants in deciding who to hire. Discrimination is exercise, well in the past, between a below average, average, aboe average pupil.
Sound parents dsicrimate ast to who their children will and will no associate with. We discriminate between good and bad,
and while ethical and unethical are nonsense terms, even that distinction is an act of discrimnation. After all, whatever is supposedly meant by ethical, that presupposes any one who makes that distinction does have some sort test negative to discrimnate between actions which may be `unethical’ or `ethical Though, as I say, Niall, the usage of ethical and ethical is rubbish, its adoption occurring with the rise of `managerialise and govt. regulation.
Evil is not a subjective descriptor. Try Immoral or unethical.?????????? That wouldn’t, in the past anyway,be acceptable from the scholars stream in a school, let alone a uni fresher, and, wouldn’t pay to come out with it in anal phil, not unless you enjoy a bit of sudden humiliation.
If Mulsims wish to continue with their bleiefs and rituals, that is their business, not some damned blasphmey court in and a Govt. trying to compel all and sundry to kow tpow gobsmacked to primitive garbage. I, Niall, hold a B.D., as well as B.A. and, bluntly Nially, I’m fed up to the gills with primitive crap.