Evan Thomas of Newsweek has moved swiftly to control the damage to his publication caused by the rioting and carnage engendered in Afghanistan by Newsweek’s anonymously sourced report of Koran flushing. There is some acknowledgement of culpability, but the article concludes with the kind of liberal cant that reminds former leftys like me why I have no home to return to, even if I wanted to:
Such stories may spark more trouble. Though decrepit and still run largely by warlords, Afghanistan was not considered by U.S. officials to be a candidate for serious anti-American riots. But Westerners, including those at NEWSWEEK, may underestimate how severely Muslims resent the American presence, especially when it in any way interferes with Islamic religious faith.
Thank you for sharing.
But more importantly, Thomas and Co. do not deal with the real problem, the anonymous sourcing that should be the instrument of a totalitarian press, not a free one. They seem to blame the problem on Michael Isikoff having misjudged his source:
On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur’an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report. Told of what the NEWSWEEK source said, [Pentagon spokesman] DiRita exploded, “People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?”
But who is that “son of a bitch”? Newsweek isn’t saying. Until they report such things as that, I won’t believe a word the magazine says. Why would anybody?
BTW, am I the only one who finds Newsweek always referring to itself in UPPER CASE to be repellent? It reminds me of people who post in caps on the Internet. You’re always suspicious they’re lying.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
91 Comments
1. Ron Wrght:GO PAJAMA MEDIA!
Roger,
Spot on as usual. The MSM is only a shell of its former self. Blessed be for the Internet and the Blogos to keep us free:
May 15, 2005 - 9:48 am 2. PJ:And now the media are pumping the aftermath story, giving credibility to a couple of clerics who demanding the “culprits” to be turned over to them or they will start a holy war…wait, another holy war.
BTW I’m reading about the growth of newspapers during the Civil War. The MSM today are proudly carrying on their tradition of lying, fabricating controversies, and reviling the President and his war policy (Lincoln was more hated than Bush) all for their partisan aims.
The AP was formed to help streamline reportage during that war as print circulation exploded. Blogs and Pajamas Media represent the organized revolt, if you will, against the print jihad against truth that began 150 years go. Bravo!
May 15, 2005 - 9:55 am 3. Terrye:PJ:
I have been reading about the press in the Colonial times and they almost brought down the republic in its infancy by lying, fabricating controversies, exploiting regional differences and in some cases siding with a foreign power [such as France] to make trouble for the American government.
parasites.
Yes, I saw on Reuters that clerics want the culprits so that they can punish them.
I say we give them management from newsweek for human sacrifice or whatever.
And that crap about resenting the American presence is self serving. There has been tension in Afghanistan because the Karzai government has been trying to cut down on poppy production while at the same time put together a reconciliation program. newsweek has probably set that back indefinitely.
May 15, 2005 - 10:07 am 4. Kevin P:Roger:
Oops! Maybe our “source” didn’t quite have it right. Golly! We thought we had it nailed solid as a rock and darn, now that we reconsider we might have slipped up a bit. People died as a result. Oh well, thats life.
Ilove the line about underestimating the response. Remember how President Bush was ripped apart for using the word Crusade in a speech. The lords of the MSM lectured him about his lack of knowledge of how that word would send shivers down the spine of every Muslim and that this was an example of how stupid Bush was, and of course indirectly pumping themselves up about how culturally aware and intelligent they were. Now they are trying to say “Gee, we never thought they would be so upset at the idea of a koran being flushed down the toilet.” In their effort to report any speck of American misconduct and the thought of Abu Ghraib Pulitzers dancing in their heads they have killed people and put our troops in more danger then they already were in to begin with. Now there coming back with shrugged shoulders and a shit happens excuse.
May 15, 2005 - 10:11 am 5. Ron:As much as I’m annoyed that Newsweek lied about this so called ’source’ what is very revealing is the reaction by the Moslems. Are these people completely crazy? Riots and deaths because of a goofy news article? These religious zealots are becoming very scary and I hope that our citizenry are taking notice. This is not a religion of peace and reconciliation, there is insanity here and its not going away, its getting worse. While its a minority in a country it can be rather sedate but once it reaches a tipping point it becomes intolerable to other religions and becomes murderous.
There were less than 150 participants in the ‘Peace’ march in Washington DC, what does that tell us. Just pretend that this is a political party acting like this, leave religion out of it, what would you think of a party that goes around killing people. We have had countries and national parties like this before within the last 75 years and we have had to stomp the life out of them for our safety.
May 15, 2005 - 10:24 am 6. Rick Z:It would seem axiomatic that any news source who knowingly passes on false information to a media outlet for whatever reason has forfeited any claim to annonymity, particularly when that information results in the loss of innocent lives.
Am I being hopelessly naive? Then again, I never went to J-school, so perhaps I’m not familiar with all the higher principles that distinguish true journalists from bloggers.
Someone enlighten me, please.
May 15, 2005 - 10:27 am 7. ShrinkWrapped:Ron,
I don’t know why you are surprised by the response to the article. There is a dangerous fringe of the ROP, a small minority ranging anywhere from ~30-70% (irony and/or sarcasm, please), who are sympathetic and supportive of the Jihadists. The GWOT is a war on Islamofascism, a movement akin to Nazism and other totalitarian isms; our MSM and elites minimize the danger for their own needs (some are genuinely clue-less, others are intellectualizing the own fears, and others are simply using the current situation to attack their true enemies, Bush and the Republicans). Spend any time at MEMRI or LGF to see what they are saying in th eir own words. What is happening now is no aberration.
May 15, 2005 - 10:32 am 8. Ripclawe:The editor’s note on all of this is even more smary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/
May 15, 2005 - 10:34 am 9. charlotte:We’re just jealous that NEWSWEEK has several layers of editors for fact-checking and responsible journalism, and blogs don’t.
May 15, 2005 - 10:34 am 10. Morgan:Kevin P.:
Why is it that reporting after having been handed pictures pertaining to a months-old story that is already under public investigation is Pulitzer-worthy, while a successful investigating into corruption in an almost universally-lauded organization that stonewalls and obstructs all attempts to determine what is really going on; reporting that leads to a Congressional investigation and a transparent attempt to whitewash the situation by the organization in question, is not.
And while you ponder that question (which I imagine will take much less time than it took to read my description of it), maybe you can figure out why it is that some people will continue to think NEWSWEEK provides more reputable news analysis than, say, http://www.rogerlsimon.com.
May 15, 2005 - 10:35 am 11. markwark:WHAT DO YOU MEAN LYING!?! I’M NOT LYING, I’M LAZY!!! AND SHOUTING!!1!
May 15, 2005 - 10:35 am 12. sammy small:Just another case where we have met the enemy and he is us (the MSM that is). Information warfare has truely yielded warfare’s results in the death of gullible “news” consumers.
There should be a follow-up article in next week’s issue entitled “Just Kidding!”.
Of course there would then be more rioting and killing.
Then repeat the cycle until violence subsides due to lack of resources, or no one pays any attention to the MSM.
May 15, 2005 - 10:37 am 13. PJ:“I say we give them management from newsweek for human sacrifice or whatever.”
Amen, Terrye!
What really annoys me is the cloak of professionalism and moralism the media have adopted. In the past, they at least were transparently scurrilous bums.
May 15, 2005 - 10:38 am 14. Rick Ballard:“And now the media are pumping the aftermath story”
Of course they are. Let’s not forget that it was Evan Thomas who forthrightly promised that the DNC controlled Axis of Weasels which constitutes the MSM would give John Whatshisname a 15% advantage in the election. They’re still trying. And yes – comparing the current Fifth Column masquerading as the Fourth Estate to the Copperhead PeaceDem press of the 1860’s is entirely accurate. They have made precisely the same move from anti-administrationists to anti-Americans.
It’s a great Republic that can afford to extend First Amendment protection to a traitorous group with the foreknowledge that they will wrap themselves in a Bill of Rights that they will then spit on. Those reading this who live in that great Republic are indeed blessed. If we wish the viper that is the current MSM dead – we really need to stop feeding it.
Do your bit for America – cancel a subscription today. Support the new media with the money saved.
It must be said that not all publications are anti-American nor are all journalists so blinded by partisanship that they have slipped into treason. It takes very little discrimination to identify the Copperhead press and readers here are graced with sufficient intelligence to distinguish friend from foe.
The more problematic aspect of this concoction passed off as a story is the individual in the Pentagon. I would hope that phone logs are minutely examined for the time period in question and that internal investigations lead to dismissal with prejudice. Fifth Columnists in the Pentagon are much more worrisome than their counterparts in the fictitious Fourth Estate.
May 15, 2005 - 10:38 am 15. someone:The line they are pushing is “well, our source may have been wrong about this but look at ALL THE OTHER BAD STUFF THEY ARE DOING.” What’s infuriating is that the administration won’t call BS on this whole line of attack. If Gitmo becomes even more Club-Fed-ized than it is now, we’re screwed.
May 15, 2005 - 10:41 am 16. ShrinkWrapped:I have written before about the special narcissism of the MSM (and the academic elites). They write as if their words are the most important products in the universe, but they also write as if their words have no impact. We are supposed to look with awe and adulation at the brilliance and facility of their manipulation of words; the meaning of their words is actually secondary to the use of the words as a vehicle to evoke our admiration.
In the case of Newsweek, they pass off an explosive story, based on anonymous sourcing, as if it is no big deal, just a small note, not worth much investigation; they have handed the enemy another bullet to use against us in a war that is as much about information as it is about guns. The MSM, with its “sophisticated” relationship to information, has no real clue what they are doing.
May 15, 2005 - 10:44 am 17. Rick Ballard:Folks, you really need to give this piece by Shrinkwrapped a read. He goes on my ‘Blogging Analysts Living in Reality’ list with Dr. Pat and Neo-neocon.
May 15, 2005 - 10:58 am 18. Terrye:What have we learned from this story?
That the assholes at newsweek are not to be trusted and that jihadis can not deal with anger in any other way but violence.
It seems to me that the left will have a hard time spinning this. No doubt they will try, but the image of the usual flag burning and threats is just reinforcing the notion that a significant number of Muslims are crazed.
Is that what they want us to believe? Obvioulsy they have no respect for any one else’s religion or culture, so why should they expect different?
If not for the Taliban and AlQaida we would not even be in Afghanistan. If we just leave we will end up back where we started. If we stay we have jihad. If we kiss ass we have jihad. If we bend over backward not to offend people we have jihad. If we fight them we have jihad.
So where does that leave us and where does that leave them?
The movie Kingdom of Heaven was supposed to show us the other side of Islam. Well this is the Islam I am coming to know better than I ever wanted to.
The Bushies should tell these people in no uncertain terms that any attack on our people will be met with swift retaliation.
May 15, 2005 - 11:03 am 19. Kevin P:Roger:
The LA Times is helping spread the rumour fed MSMswarm by reporting on the calls by arab governments to investigate the charges. Not one word reporting that the original source is starting to tapdance away from his original statements.newsweek uses the “Well other people printed the story before we did” excuse, as if their new standard for reporting is if someone else reported it, not whether their report is up to snuff or not. They have been trying to make Gitmo into Abu ghraib since the start of the war and they are willing to print any scrap of info so they can spark an investigation. The LAT will keep the story going by covering the response to the original story, thus they can spread the slander without being on the hook for the original sloppy reporting. This is exactly the bad journalism that they accuse the blogs of doing. Taking a rumour, giving it credence, then covering the resulting firestorm without worrying whether the original story is true or not.
Morgan, I know you know the answer but I am responding to be polite. They want the Gitmo story to be true with every fiber of their body so they will print any morsel of quasi fact to keep the story going. They want the UN story to be false with the same fervor so they are pulling muscles as they attempt to dodge and ignore the story. Agenda journalism at it’s finest.
May 15, 2005 - 11:25 am 20. lindenen:“Are these people completely crazy?”
Check this out. I’d like to see a more official translation because it seems choppy and I’d like to know whether this is real, but wow. From an elderly Iranian cleric:
“You know like I do what lies behind this religion (Islam), after all this crime carried out against Iranians. lets do one good thing and tell the people what is behind this religion. Lets tell everyonel that this religion is neither “martyr generating”, nor pro-science nor pro the people, this religion tells the elite that it is for the plebs and it tells the plebs that it is for the elite, it tells the elite that all its silly laws are for the stupid plebs, in fact this religion is “ignorance generator”. It has come about to humiliate people. As you (Rafsanjani) once told me, it is one religion for the elite and another for the plebs. You rightly regard yourself, the supreme leader and your Guardian Council as the elite, and the “martyr generating” nation of Iran are the plebs. Now for the sake of God tell the truth to the people that there is nothing in this religion but stupidity and ignorance, other than silly laws about what is considered clean and what is untouchable, what is allowed and what is not allowed, believe me that God and the people will then forgive you, although I know you are conscious enough NOT to believe in God!”
May 15, 2005 - 11:36 am 21. Charlie (Colorado):Remember the Maine.
May 15, 2005 - 11:47 am 22. Terrye:lindenen:
I think this is the source of the rage. The clerics fear people will doubt the religion and the more outrageous the clerics become the more people doubt the religion.
Islam is a self fulfilling prophecy.
May 15, 2005 - 11:49 am 23. Dishman:hmmm.. maybe we should thank Isikoff for “exposing the truth about Islam.” I’m sure he’d appreciate that.
May 15, 2005 - 11:50 am 24. Rick Ballard:Terrye,
I think that it is important to distinguish the rabble rouser from the rabble. A singular characteristic of lynch mobs in the south was that they were composed of white Christians. Were all southern white Christians disposed to violent racism? A singular characteristic of the mobs that Rev. Al incited to murder in NY was that they were black. Are all blacks predisposed to murderous violence? Was anti-Semitic violence in Germany in the ’30’s due to an inherent German trait?
There is no group on earth that I am aware of which does not include rabble who are open to incitement through semi-skilled rhetoric. Islam is no religion of peace but I do not believe that it lies at the root of the current conflict. It is simply a propagandada tool being used by the powerful to subjugate the weak.
Read this Michael Ledeen Letter from an Iranian cleric for a better understanding of what I mean.
The Copperhead MSM are rabble rousing in a truly despicable manner. They can only be called to account by the People because we have justifiably removed that authority from our government. The weak fools on the streets of Lahore and Islamabad are not the enemy. The snakes in the editors offices in NY and Washington are the real enemy. There is not a tyrants boot which they would refuse to lick if it would help diminish America.
May 15, 2005 - 12:01 pm 25. Terrye:Rick:
I do not doubt that, but when was the last time you saw a story that dealt honestly with this religion?
I don’t mean a hatchet job..I just mean the truth. Like the charges of sexual abuse of children in the schools.
Can you even imagine people sucking up to Christians or Buddhists or Jews or Hindus or any other religion like this? shhh, don’t say anything, they might go nuts and burn flags and cut off people’s heads. sheesh.
I remember when the Palestinians took control of the Church of the Nativity and no one in the MSM would openly talk about what those gunmen did to the holy place. They used a bible for toilet paper but we are too PC to even discuss it much less get all outraged by it.
The result is that a lot of the people of the ME are like out of control children. The more you cater to their weirdness the more weird they become.
Moderate Muslims do not have the courage to even show up at a rally much less speak out against this insanity.
May 15, 2005 - 12:39 pm 26. Lan Nguyen:Terrye,
Trust me, there will be no one WITHIN to doubt the “religion” for those who has the slightest doubt have been slaughtered, tortured, maimed and those left alive will just have live without any political will but only the same will of those who leads.
In all of these environments, it’s like a desert after a prolong period of wildfire raging, excavating the earth to the core with no water streams left except for some small oasis for the rulers. The people will survive but they will degenerate to withdraw themselves into basic survival ability, or channel their energies into other paths, awaiting for the future if it ever come.
I for one understand the power of brutality and no people can stand it if it lets that happened. The most able and strong will 10% will die first while fighting against it or escape when direct confrontation becomes futile, and so on, so forth till no one left to carry the will. It’s no different in South Vietnam nor in Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran for the sake of completeness.
May 15, 2005 - 12:44 pm 27. Athos:You’re always suspicious they’re lying.
In the case of newsweek (who no longer deserve the ‘respect’ of caps) – we now know they are based on their track record.
This pathetic excuse for journalism makes the affronts by Rather and Jordan seem small in comparison.
May 15, 2005 - 12:55 pm 28. JK Ribera:What’s interesting about Newsweek is how deeply unsophisticated their journalists and editors seem to be while pretending to the utmost in sophisticaion.
May 15, 2005 - 1:01 pm 29. Terrye:Lan:
I guess it is always easy for people to stand outside a situation and make deicsions for others who do not live with the consequences.
But this is the 21st century and nothing is above reproach, not even Islam. If they do not find another way to deal with the things that upset them they will never develop into a modern society.
May 15, 2005 - 1:05 pm 30. PeterUK:Newsweek is no more sophisticated that the tabloid that had the headline “WWII Bomber found on Moon”
It is simply crass sensationalism designed to sell papers.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4078/is_200403/ai_n9389263
May 15, 2005 - 1:06 pm 31. bill:Both should be fired, and Newsweek should follow the NYTimes and swear off anonymous sourcing, especially sole sourced. If someone isn’t willing to put their name to something as incendiary as this, then it automatically becomes suspect and should be flushed.
I believe Isikoff and the NewsWeak editors were trying for abu-GrabII and reached too far. The deaths of innocents and the harm to our country and troops cannot be overlooked.
Bloggers should follow these standards as well.
The fact that innocents are dead, makes Rathergate pale by comparison.
May 15, 2005 - 1:19 pm 32. pilsener:I’m with Rick Z.
These instances are where I go ballistic on anonymous sourcing.
Newsweek’s anonymous source was either wrong or at least is no longer standing by his original assertion. Therefore he has forfeited all right to anonymity. Reveal his name NOW.
People died based on a false assertion by Mr. Nameless. If Newsweek feels compelled to protect him , it is on them. They cannot hide behind an anonymous source who was egregiously wrong and maintain any credibility.
May 15, 2005 - 1:46 pm 33. Neo:The proof is complete.
Words have consequences.
This story, much like Abu Ghraib, is a story in search of a prize, and damn with the consequences. Both stories seemed bent on causing more trouble than truth telling, and this time the truth came up short.
May 15, 2005 - 1:48 pm 34. marek:I’ve cancelled my Newsweek subscription about 2 years ago and the Times’ even before. pox on both
those weeklies.
May 15, 2005 - 1:57 pm 35. Terrye:pilsener:
Maybe there is no source. Maybe he is a fantasy, just like this story.
May 15, 2005 - 2:06 pm 36. ex-democrat:you guys are all missing the point : the report was “fake but accurate.”
May 15, 2005 - 2:24 pm 37. PeterUK:Perhaps the the system of doing penance should be restored.Whether Henry II knew that his words “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” would end in the murder of Thmas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury is uncertain,but those words shook the mediaeval world.Henry subsequently made a penitential pilgramage to Beckets tomb.Is it too much to ask the Newsweek team to walk barefoot to Afghanistan? Merely saying “Oops” doesn’t seem adequate somehow.
May 15, 2005 - 2:31 pm 38. Jamie Irons:Rick and Terrye
I think your remarks (at 12:01 and 12:39 respectively) encapsulate my ambivalence about Islam.
I just can’t decide whether what is called “Islamism” is a fringe, minority view, or whether the whole religion (Islam itself) is so poisoned by resentment, hatred and a primitive psychology of denial, projection and paranoia, as to be beyond hope.
Jamie Irons
May 15, 2005 - 2:42 pm 39. Terrye:Peter:
Yes I agree. There should be consequences other than a loss of face.
They used those people to get at Bush. No wonder I refuse to have anything to do with the left anymore. They don’t just lie to other people, they lie to themselves.
May 15, 2005 - 2:45 pm 40. PeterUK:Terrye,
Somehow being liberal left means never having to say you’re sorry.
May 15, 2005 - 3:00 pm 41. chuck:Newsweek is no more sophisticated that the tabloid that had the headline “WWII Bomber found on Moon”
Ah, Peter, I believe you are wrong here. The way some of the tabloids work, they send the writers a photo and get back an entertaining story to go with it. Or so I was told by one such writer whose stories were so wild that she got moved down (up?) to a weirder tabloid. No, tabloids are *quite* sophisticated and are well aware of the quality of their sources, unlike, say, NEWSWEEK.
My favorite tabloid cover was a picture of Clinton staring at the bosom of a woman with three breasts.
May 15, 2005 - 3:04 pm 42. PeterUK:Chuck,
My suspicion is that Newsweek was quite aware that the story was unverifiable but that it made good copy.Was the informant called Elvis?
May 15, 2005 - 3:17 pm 43. David Thomson:ìThey have made precisely the same move from anti-administrationists to anti-Americans.î
These so-called elite journalists instinctively consider themselves as primarily citizens of the world. Their membership in American society is of secondary importance. These individuals have no hesitation in placing our troops and other personnel in danger.
I have read a fair amount of material about the journalists who covered WWII. This much I can say without any hesitation whatsoever: those reporters perceived themselves as being on the same side as the troops. The Axis powers had to be defeated and none of them covered the war with the attitude of ìabove the fray objectivity.î Todayís journalists are often philosophical relativists. They feel uncomfortable asserting that the values of Western Civilization are superior to those of the Islamic fascists.
May 15, 2005 - 3:29 pm 44. Terrye:I think that MAD magazine should run a story to the effect that they are using pages from the Koran in the men’s room at Newsweek.
see how they like it.
May 15, 2005 - 4:01 pm 45. Rick Ballard:Terrye,
We’re the People, we can’t go there. We can stand on our soapboxes and shout that the objective results of this article amount to de facto if not de jure treason by the writers and editors – but we can’t use their same tactics to call for a rope.
Itsikoff and Evans instigated a lynch mob that took fourteen lives. I expect no act of penitence from them such as Henry II performed for his responsibility for the death of Becket. Henry’s penitence was an act of honor by a devout man. I have seen no evidence that these men possess the slightest modicum of honor and their devotion is to a One World Government for which they would probably sacrifice fourteen thousand lives without flinching.
It is enough to denounce them for the rabble rousing scum that they are. I wish it were possible to identify the fourteen that they caused to be lynched. They probably weren’t particularly good men but they were sons and fathers and brothers and uncles and they died because of lies published by a magazine owned by the proprietors of the Washington Post. All for a good cause and with the very best of intentions, naturally.
May 15, 2005 - 4:26 pm 46. PJ:I think the riots were as “spontaneous” as any protest in ME dictatorships. IOW, they were staged by anti-American, anti-democratic factions to make the six o’clock news and to sell more Newsweeks. Notice how no protests occurred in Iraq, where they have learned from past experience not to trust dictators, media, or self-declared prophets.
The MSM is doing its best to resurrect their much vaunted, and phony as hell, Arab street.
May 15, 2005 - 4:30 pm 47. Les Nessman:“They have been trying to make Gitmo into Abu ghraib since the start of the war..”
Amen. The MSM has been trying to make Gitmo into *an almost non-story fueled by misinformation and exaggeration* since the start of the war.
The reports I now hear say an Islamist prisoner was actually the one to try to flush a Koran down the loo. If true, maybe we should turn this ‘pious, holy jihadist/Koran desecrator’ over to the Islamist extremists calling for justice.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to watch as their heads explode while trying to decide whether to torture him to death for defiling the holy book or lionize him as a great warrior who stood up to America.
May 15, 2005 - 4:54 pm 48. Les Nessman:But, hey, I’m just glad that Newsweek is on the case. Since they’re the ‘professionals’ with ‘editors’ and ‘journalistic standards’, I’m sure we’ll get the full, truthful story. And I’m sure they’ll fix any damage done.
Good thing the ’sloppy, unprofessional’ BLOGGERS didn’t attempt to report this story. After all, their ‘wild west attitude’ would have caused them to get the ’story’ wrong.
/sarcasm off
May 15, 2005 - 5:03 pm 49. PeterUK:Rick,
Since these people have no shame,the stench of incompetence and callousness must be attached permanently to their names.
May 15, 2005 - 5:11 pm 50. Terrye:The truth is this is just a story to them, but Afghanistan’s future as well as the lives of young Americans are in the balance and it seems newsweek could care less.
May 15, 2005 - 5:31 pm 51. Kyda Sylvester:“We can understand torturing prisoners, no matter how repulsive,” says computer teacher Muhammad Archad, interviewed last week by NEWSWEEK in Peshawar, Pakistan, where one of last week’s protests took place. “But insulting the Qur’an is like deliberately torturing all Muslims. This we cannot tolerate.”
At least now we know where we went wrong. Torture: repulsive but understandable. Flushing the Koran: intolerable.
Evan Thomas showed his true colors long ago–he is a journoscumbag exemplar. I’d call newsweek a rag, but that’s far too complimentary. A few years ago friends gave us a “gift” subscription. I took it from the mailbox directly to the recycle bin only because I didn’t think of flushing it.
It strikes me that the focus by newsweek and others is almost entirely on reports, or reports of reports, of abuse or, perhaps, “abuse”, rather than the veracity of those reports. Amazing.
Terms like “senior government official” or “highly placed source” mean next to nothing. I have an idea that I would define “senior”, “official” and “highly placed” somewhat differently than newsweek. Anonymous sourcing, feh.
May 15, 2005 - 5:31 pm 52. Tinker:Rathergate was bad. This could be worse. Rather trying to kill a presidential candidacy is really vicious. Blood on your hands in front of the whole world is a nightmare for the MSM. Let’em squirm.
I’ve lived and worked in Muslim nations. There are a lot of good people out there, some who are dying side-by-side with our military men and women (Iraq, Phillipines, Afghanistan, etc.). Let’s keep our eye on the ball – work and ally ourselves with the moderate muslims (who know better than us what the jihadi goals are, and it scares them).
And bring it on.
May 15, 2005 - 5:45 pm 53. Kyda Sylvester:Whoa, you mean they didn’t find a WWII bomber on the moon?!
These so-called elite journalists instinctively consider themselves as primarily citizens of the world. That makes perfect sense once you consider how many of them are drunkards.
May 15, 2005 - 5:47 pm 54. PeterUK:Kyda,Oh course they did,it was covered up,because they used the propulsion unit they reverse engineered from the flying saucer thats in area 51.How else do you think Elvis got there?
May 15, 2005 - 5:59 pm 55. Luther McLeod:Anyone who had any level of involvement with that story should be either fired or demoted to a non-journalistic position. It was outrageous, irresponsible and downright criminal for them to publish such unverified crap. All for the sake of damaging GWB, this country and our military. If any of those involved had a shred of decency or self respect they would be submitting their resignations tomorrow.
Of course, we also have this;
“Even if this incident turns out to be false, our previous policies have made it perfectly plausible.”
From Andrew Sullivan: “Quote of the Day II”
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_05_08_dish_archive.html#111608930505929172
Via Instapundit, via NZBear http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2005/05/15/fake_but_accurate_is_so_2004.php#001675
Read the whole paragraph from which that quote springs. This is someone else who should consider the results of their remarks. I countenance no defense of this man anymore.
May 15, 2005 - 6:09 pm 56. Syl:I’m less inclined to call Isikoff and Evans anti-American.
I see incompetence in sourcing abetted by a refusal to see what this war means, and a total blindness to the consequences of speaking to the world rather than just to Americans.
Combine this with a bias in favor of absolute civil rights (among other things) which pits them against the administration. Now add a hot button issue that would ’sell’ and you end up with something deadly like this. They wanted this story to be true, just like Rather wanted the AWOL story to be true.
I would place the anti label on many at the LA times, though, especially after hearing (I mentioned this before) the foreign editor say “so-called war on terror” on book TV. I think Isikoff does understand we’re at war, he just doesn’t seem to internally grasp the real nature of what we’re dealing with.
You know, like some people think our fight is only with Al Qaeda, not an entire intolerant totalitarian movement.
May 15, 2005 - 6:14 pm 57. Luther McLeod:Perhaps you are correct Syl, those all sound like logical and believable defenses. But my question then is, how can they be so damn stupid? Do they give no thought to the consequences of their actions, other than to further their own agendas and sell newsspeak?
May 15, 2005 - 6:28 pm 58. Dymphna:I posted my take on this topic at Gates of Vienna: Newsweek Lied! People Died!.
When does the referee call the Emperor naked and send him home?
May 15, 2005 - 6:51 pm 59. Ray:Roger,
Does MSM stand for Morons Simulating Media?
May 15, 2005 - 6:51 pm 60. richard mcenroe:Thank God Andrew Sullivan abandoned us when it counted. Anyone with this man on their side is screwed.
May 15, 2005 - 7:32 pm 61. chuck:Syl,
You know, like some people think our fight is only with Al Qaeda, not an entire intolerant totalitarian movement.
We’ve got to play the hand we were dealt. We don’t hold all the aces, in large part because of the domestic political situation, so we have to play carefully. You may be right that Isikoff is *not* anti-american, the evidence isn’t in, and indeed, even Kos could not be called anti-american when he has so many American followers. So, the country is split, but this American citizen does not hold a high opinion of what Isikoff did.
I seem to recall that a NEWSWEEK reporter in Baghdad was interviewed just after Uday and Qusay were killed. As the celebratory shooting started up, he claimed that the Baghdadis were attacking the American troops out of anger. Geez, there is something really wrong at that magazine, something stinks. Really, really stinks.
May 15, 2005 - 8:04 pm 62. Kevin P:Luther:
Andrew isn’t going to let the truth or falsity of the story get in the way of his Jihad against orthodox American religion. He even states that even if the story is bogus he is going to use against people he doesn’t agree with.We have entered the realm where lies are used openly and without shame to tar your opponent. Andrew has embraced the fake but accurate ethos. Hugh Hewitt is to balme for the Koran flushing incident that probably didn’t happen. Andrew is using his mindreading power to figure out that Hugh or anyone who shares some of his beliefs wants to do it, so Andrew has no problem using the myth to slander him with it.Propaganda at it’s finest. Truth is just an annoying triviality that can be abandoned when Andrew feels like it.
May 15, 2005 - 8:12 pm 63. Rick Ballard:Syl,
I work from a set of givens that includes two brands of Islamofascist thuggery. One is centered in southern Arabia/Yemen and is led by Wahabbist clerics. The other is centered in Qom and is led by Iranian clerics. They despise each other and in a perfect world we could watch them fight to the death like scorpions in a bottle. Both sides use a religion whose name translates as ’submission’ to subjugate and abuse inhabitants of their home countries and both are involved in proselytization at sword point throughout the ME, Africa, Asia, the Indian/Pacific oceans and Europe. Both versions have had some success and both receive weekly butt kissings by western leadership including George Bush, whose picture holding Prince Abdullah’s hand may have served some realpolitik purpose but which caused me to lose a tremendous amount of personal respect for the man.
I regard those two branches of Islam as being mortal enemies of America and the West. I believe that in one sense America was tragicly fortunate to be struck by al-Queada because the strike gave us the opportunity to address our enemies directly. I will not regard this war as having been completed until there are different regimes in Teheran and Riyadh. I hope that the regimes are democratic but I’ll settle for tyranny – if we control the tyrants.
I could have phrased my opionion of Isikoff and Thomas without the inflammatory term anti-American but I have grown overweary of calling spades ‘individual excavating implements’. Their actions are objectively damaging to American interests and therefore defintionally anti-American. Others may wish to call them pro-Islamofacist but that would be a distinction without a difference. In truth, I am indifferent to the fate of the rabble who respond to their master’s call but that does not wash their blood from the hands of Isikoff and Thomas.
May 15, 2005 - 8:17 pm 64. Terrye:Rick:
This is probably neither here nor there but the King is an old man and he stumbled, Bush was steadying him.
I must admit the thought of him flopping around on the ground in his skirts does not overly trouble me, but I guess Bush thought he should keep him upright.
I don’t like the Saudis and I wish we could find a way to break free of the whole region.
But I do wish the Iraqis well. It seems they have suffered enough.
May 15, 2005 - 8:40 pm 65. Rick Ballard:Terrye,
That was Prince Abdullah (acting regent) who is not that old. The handclasp may have been accidental or it may have been a signal to some of the Prince’s brothers. Have you noticed the price of oil subsequent to the handclasp? A fortuitously odd coincidence that ties in happily with the rollup of the Riyadh-Damascus-Baghdad ratline that was moving primarily Saudi suiciders into Iraq. Do you think that the Saudi secret police might have had some idea as to which of the young Saudis flying to Damascus might have had plans to move on to Baghdad? I’m sure it’s all coincidental though.
May 15, 2005 - 8:53 pm 66. Cave Bear:OT: I remember that “WW II Bomber Found on the Moon” bit from the “Weekly World News”, I think it was about fifteen years ago. In fact, it created a bit of a humorous stir among aviation history buffs, because the picture of the “bomber on the Moon” was that of a Convair B-32 Dominator. The B-32 was created as a backup for the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, should it have developed any major flaws. Very few B-32s were built, and even pieces of one today are harder to find than chicken’s teeth…:)
But I digress…
That Newsweak would have run such a phony story, and even worse failed to accept responsibility for the needless deaths that it caused, while unconscionable, is not surprising. I cancelled my Newsweak (along with “Time”) subscription years ago because of their blatant LLL spin.
Something that some of us have known for years and that many others are now finally beginning to learn is that the LSM is not to be trusted. Large segments of the media will lie, spin, obfuscate, say or do anything if it will damage the United States in general and Republicans/conservatives in particular. It is part and parcel of their ideology. And just how desperate they can get was demonstrated not only during the last election (Rathergate, etc) but in this sorry case as well.
For that matter, I would love to see some media denizen look into an aspect of this that has so far been left almost totally untouched. And that is a report I caught just a bit of the other day that said that this Qu’ran down the toilet thing at Gitmo was, in fact, done by one of the prisoners for the purpose of stopping up the sewer line, just to let his Marine guards know he still cared. I THINK this came from the Pentagon, but I only got part of the report on the radio the other day.
But never fear, I’m sure the media, in all it’s journalistic might, will be on this in no time, to make sure that the PRAVDA…er, excuse me, truth comes out about this affair. /sarcasm
May 15, 2005 - 9:01 pm 67. Luther McLeod:Kevin P
I was a reader of TNR from approximately 1971 until last January. When A.S. took over as TRB some time ago I realized that things were different. After a while I could not stand to read the man. If I remember correctly this was before 9/11, it was worse after that, even taking into account his temporary support for OIF. I should check those dates but I am lazy.
I think you are entirely correct in your appraisal of A.S. Unfortunately, the tactics with which he is trying to undermine religion and consequently the U.S., as you say, are becoming prevalent throughout the MSM. All that matters is their worldview and the implementation of same thereof. And I say this as a non-believer.
I am a late bloomer to the realization of what it is that makes this country special. It was something I was always aware of but mostly in an abstract manner. I never truly appreciated the SERIOUSNESS and the suddenness with which our way of life could be threatened. But I am asleep no longer.
As I have mentioned before, IMO, the greatest threat facing this country is not beyond our borders. The threat resides in some of the most visible and influential segments of our society. Education and Media. That is where the threat lies. A.S. is working it as hard as he can. Oh forgive me, no pun intended.
Very good thread by the way. Sorry for the overdone rant, its late, I’m tired. Off to bed.
May 15, 2005 - 9:40 pm 68. Katherine:ìDo they give no thought to the consequences of their actions, other than to further their own agendas and sell newsspeak?î
I believe that from the beginning, our friends at MSM were fervently hoping that alleged (and some real) abuses at both Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib will get Bush impeached. Once you visualize a prize like that at the end of your rainbow, life and death of few people somewhere far far away will mean very little. Especially if these people are ìnot like usî i.e. are either members of the US military or belong to some insignificant nation/ethnic group who mostly exist to provide ìlocal colorî on foreign assignments for our esteemed journos.
May 15, 2005 - 10:42 pm 69. neo-neocon:Andrew Sullivan has a number of issues on which he regularly goes over to the dark side. Anything to do with prisoners of war is one of them. I have noticed it and noticed it: Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are issues on which he loses all sense of reason and logic.
I am wondering whether he will recant, or if he will just defend himself ever more vociferously with the “false, but accurate” meme.
May 15, 2005 - 10:43 pm 70. Cecil Turner:“two brands of Islamofascist thuggery [. . .] receive weekly butt kissings by western leadership including George Bush, whose picture holding Prince Abdullah’s hand may have served some realpolitik purpose but which caused me to lose a tremendous amount of personal respect for the man.”
I think it’s dangerous to overgeneralize or treat the Saudis as a monolithic entity. While it’s true that Saudi Arabia is part of the problem, and in general the government has been supporting radical Islamists, much of it is due to factionalism among Saudis and reflects attempts to woo hardliners. And, especially since 9/11, the power struggles within the royal family directly coincide with the sides in the GWOT. This DEBKA post meshes fairly well with my understanding (multiple edits for brevity):
Currently, the power struggle in the House of Saud means no one faction holds complete power, and various government agencies have differing loyalties. Our preference (Prince Abdullah) is in charge, but could be ousted. As a practical matter, excessive pressure on him (or public snubbing) will just serve to strengthen the pro-Osama side. Considering that military action against Saudi Arabia is impractical, supporting Abdullah seems the logical path. And that specifically includes public hand-shaking as necessary.
May 15, 2005 - 10:51 pm 71. Syl:Luther, I was not trying to defend them. It’s just that all the anti-American talk turns lots of people off. I do think it’s more arrogance and, yes, stupidity than anything else.
But the consequences of this, the more I think about it, are going to get worse and worse. I don’t see how this can sort itself out.
Now, more than even before 9/11, if you are American you are a target.
It’s weird, but the thought has often crossed my mind that there will come a time when the safest place for an American would be Baghdad.
May 15, 2005 - 10:59 pm 72. Rick Ballard:Cecil,
How is that argument different than the one that kept Arafat breathing way past his proper expiry date? Or Saddam at his butchery for an extra twelve years?
The KSA is definitely not monolithic and Sultana and and Nayef (see Roger’s post above) appear to be of Saddam quality but Abdullah is just the best appearing of a thoroughly rotten bunch.
I don’t believe that there are any spoons long enough to use and be safe in sitting down to sup with a Saud. The Saud hand you shake will hold a knife to your throat just as easily.
May 15, 2005 - 11:28 pm 73. Billy Hank:Recall that Thomas and Isikoff hounded Admiral Mike Boorda to suicide with a charge that the Admiral wore an unauthorized “V” on a medal. After the fact, it turns out the “V” was authorized. Once you’ve got blood on your hands, what’s a little more. Their mothers must be so proud.
May 16, 2005 - 3:03 am 74. Cecil Turner:Hey Rick,
“How is that argument different than the one that kept Arafat breathing way past his proper expiry date? Or Saddam at his butchery for an extra twelve years?”
He’s our ally in a war . . . they weren’t. If FDR could hold his nose and shake Stalin’s hand, GWB can do the same for Abdullah (who, though somewhat less useful than Joe Steel, is also less thoroughly disreputable).
“The Saud hand you shake will hold a knife to your throat just as easily.”
I share your sentiment–but we have bigger fish to fry at the moment. And it’s important to recognize that while any alternative would have been preferable to Saddam or Arafat, Abdullah is as good as we’re going to do in SA for the near future (just as Putin and Musharraf are our best bets in Russia and Pakistan, respectively). And dissing allied heads of state because they’re imperfect (or placing impossible demands on them that only serves to strengthen their less palatable opposition) strikes me as a good way to lose allies . . . and eventually the war.
Good to hear from you, btw. Cheers.
May 16, 2005 - 4:17 am 75. JJay:A close reading of Andrew Sullivan is not necessary to realize everything goes through the prism of his homosexuality. If he prefers the West to Islam, it’s because gays suffer more under Allah.
May 16, 2005 - 5:48 am 76. JJay:Your attention is directed to an article (linked by Drudge) in the Indepedent, where the reference is usually to “George Bush’s so-called war on terror.” This left wing publication is pumping up a story about a supposed increase in AWOL in the American military. “The most recent Pentagon figures suggest there are 5,133 troops missing from duty. Of these 2,376 are sought by the Army, 1,410 by the Navy, 1,297 by the Marines and 50 by the Air Force. Some have been missing for decades.”
Note the use of “suggest”? Oh, and “missing for decades.” Going back as far as the Vietnam war?
As one of the representatives of this desertion surge, they interviewed a chap who joined the army believing “he could help change its culture.” Into something more New Age, one supposes. Imagine his surprise when he discovered “the Army simply wanted to turn him into a “ruthless, cold-blooded killer.” So Mr Adler begged to be sent home and even pretended to be gay to be discharged. Eventually, he and another recruit fled in the night . . .” They eventually turned themselves in and got other than honorable discharges.
Just another example of the MSM pumping a lot of hot air into a story from highly suspect numbers and then finding some poor misfit to serve as a hook to hang it on.
May 16, 2005 - 6:07 am 77. HA:Rick Ballard,
An excellent point…
A singular characteristic of lynch mobs in the south was that they were composed of white Christians. Were all southern white Christians disposed to violent racism? A singular characteristic of the mobs that Rev. Al incited to murder in NY was that they were black. Are all blacks predisposed to murderous violence? Was anti-Semitic violence in Germany in the ’30’s due to an inherent German trait?
…followed by a complete non-sequitur:
There is no group on earth that I am aware of which does not include rabble who are open to incitement through semi-skilled rhetoric. Islam is no religion of peace but I do not believe that it lies at the root of the current conflict. It is simply a propagandada tool being used by the powerful to subjugate the weak.
This is like saying National Socialism didn’t lie at the root of WWII or that Communism didn’t lie at the root of the Cold War. But Germans and Russians are not inherently wicked. Their National Socialist and Communist ideologies made them so. Likewise with the lynch-mobs reacting to Newsweek’s disinformation, but the ideology fueling their wickedness is Islam. Arabs and Pakistanis are not inherently wicked. Islam makes them so.
Make no mistake. This is a war with Islam. Not Islamism or Islamofascism or Islamic Fundamentalism or some other eupamism designed to distance the euphemizer from accusations of racism or xenophobia. Islam, like National Socialism and Communism, is a dehumanizing death cult that turns otherwise decent human beings into raging killers.
Only Islam is more dangerous than National Socialism and Communism because it has “religion” status and is therefore protected by Western standards of tolerance. That is why Islam has survived for 1400 years while National Socialism and Communism crashed and burned except for the dead-enders like skin-heads, ANSWER goons, the dominant media, Hollywood and academia. That is why Islam has been able to exploit the moral and cultural rot brought into Western Civilization by Marxism and resume its global conquest that has been on hold since the Siege of Vienna:
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/ViennaSiege.html
May 16, 2005 - 6:16 am 78. Luther McLeod:Syl
My writing is not so good. I did not mean to imply that you were defending him. Sorry.
May 16, 2005 - 6:18 am 79. Jamie Irons:This is an excellent thread.
HA’s post (just above at 6:16 AM) addresses the question I raised much earlier in the thread. If anyone is so inclined, I would love to hear other views on this matter.
Is the problem Islam itself, or “Islamism”?
Jamie Irons
May 16, 2005 - 7:49 am 80. PeterUK:Jamie,
Any creed that regards itself as the one true faith and holds all others as heretical or subservient is,at some point, going to cause conflict.Any creed or doctrine that demands respect but gives none in return,offering the options of submission or death is going to bring problems in an increasingly pluralist world
May 16, 2005 - 10:07 am 81. Steve J.:Pentagon: No Abuse of Koran, Afghan Protests Unrelated
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
Voice of America
12 May 2005
Link
General Myers also told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday that the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Carl Eichenberry, disagrees with the reports that protests in the city of Jalalabad were caused by anger over the alleged Koran incident.
“It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine,” he explained.
May 16, 2005 - 11:28 am 82. Syl:Luther…no problem at all.
Steve J….well I saw Karzai demand all Afghani prisoners at guantanamo be returned. I saw Karzai distance himself from the Americans. What does Karzai know that you don’t? It’s more likely that Eichenberry is trying to diffuse the situation.
May 16, 2005 - 1:29 pm 83. flenser:Jamie Irons
I don’t think there is anything inherent in Islam that is directly responsible for the troubles we’re seeing. Until recently the Islamic world had followed the common pattern of military conquest, golden age of empire, then a long period of decline. Unfortunately today it is being acted on by a combination of forces.
I’ve met five separate college educated Muslims, mostly Pakistani, who were all fans of Noam Chomsky.
That obviously begs the question of whether they were “normal” people who fell under Noam’s spell. or if they were pre-disposed to anti-Americanism in the first place. I’d guess the latter myself. Even so, as Bernard Lewis noted, many of the pathologies wracking the Muslim world have Western origins. I’ve spent some time checking out various Islamic web sites, and many of them seem to be channeling Ward Churchill. The upper middle classes from their society are typically educated in the West. We may roll our eyes at the idiocy of our tenured professors, but they can have a lasting effect on those whose only other knowledge of our culture is gleaned from television.
To my non-expert eyes reading the news, it would seem that Islam is slowly but steadily radicalizing. For example, there is a rise in “honor killings” and an increase in the adaption of traditional Muslim dress, especially by women. This is generally considered to be due to Wahabism. While disturbing in it’s own right, especially as regards the future of Europe, I don’t think that extreme religious practices in themselves are grounds for Americans to be concerned. It is the marriage of these disparate ideas, the religious fanaticism and the Western nihilism and hatred of modernity acquired from the American intelligentsia, that forms such a toxic brew.
When you add to this the vast unearned wealth from oil, and the failure of their societies to establish a just and peaceful order, you get the situation we’re trying to deal with.
I believe that to solve our problem we need to put a stop to the Wahabi madrassas, which provide the cannon fodder for our enemy, and also to close down our own madrassas, which provide the “officers”, if you will. We are taking halting steps towards the first, and doing nothing about the second. So a struggle lasting a generation or two seems about right.
May 16, 2005 - 7:44 pm 84. HA:flenser,
I don’t think there is anything inherent in Islam that is directly responsible for the troubles we’re seeing.
Nothing? Not anything? Are you blind? If not, go have a look:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
May 17, 2005 - 2:52 am 85. esmense:I’m curious about why no one is suggesting that Isikoff resign or be fired?
May 17, 2005 - 3:49 am 86. flenser:HA
That’s unhelpful. Someone in sixteenth century Europe could have observed all that and more about Christianity.
The twentieth century was the bloodiest on record, and no religion was the culprit. If you want to look for causes for our current troubles, examine the various -isms produced by the Western intelligentsia over the last few centuries.
Otherwise you are forced to argue that for the last few hundred years the Islamic world has been ignoring the tenets of it’s faith, and that it suddenly rediscovered them in the last generation.
May 17, 2005 - 7:17 am 87. HA:flenser,
You won’t find me defending sixteenth century Christianity except to say that even that is better than Islam. But that is beside the point.
I agree with you about the “isms” spawned by Western intelligentsia as long as you are referring to Marxists. Even Islam can’t exceed secular Marxism and its Fascist and Communist mutations for sheer unsurpassed horror.
As for the Islamic world rediscovering the tenets of its faith, nobody is “forced” to make that argument. That is exactly the argument the “islamists” are making on their own accord. And they are finding widespread theological and popular support for this argument.
May 17, 2005 - 6:37 pm 88. flenser:HA
You are claiming that one of the worldís major religions, about 1300 years old and with roughly a billion adherents, is inherently bad and needs to be extirpated, like Nazism.
Iím a reasonable guy, and am persuadable by actual argument. But a list of anecdotes does not an argument make.
People have tried stamping out religions in the past, for example Christianity and Judaism. You can see for yourself how successful those attempts were. Given the disparity in military power between the West and the Islamic world, we may be able to succeed in what you propose, although at a cost of scores of millions of dead. But if Iím right, than it would gain us nothing. In fact, it would leave us worse off than when we started. So setting aside any moral issues with what you propose, Iím against it on practical grounds.
Which is not to say that the moral problems are insignificant. Wasnít there some movement in Europe in the twentieth century that felt that a certain religion was inherently evil and needed to be stamped out? That genie is best kept in its bottle.
May 18, 2005 - 7:45 am 89. HA:flenser,
You are claiming that one of the world?s major religions, about 1300 years old and with roughly a billion adherents is inherently bad
My claim is fully supported by the historical record and current events that are perfectly consistent with Islamic theology.
and needs to be extirpated, like Nazism
I’d prefer that Islam evolve past the 7th Century. There are Islamic reformers, but they don’t appear to have the upper hand at the moment. When I see a nearly widespread consensus among Muslims that the Koran is a metophorical creation of man rather than a literal word of God, and they can express these views without fear of murder, then I will know that the Islamic world has evolved.
There is currently a race condition between reformers and Jihadists. The Jihadists are pushing for a full-scale clash of civilizations. If they win the race and aquire nukes, I have no reason to believe they will not use them. If that occurs, we will have to destroy Islamic civilization before they destroy ours.
I?m a reasonable guy, and am persuadable by actual argument. But a list of anecdotes does not an argument make.
My arguments are fully supported by the facts. To dismiss my arguments are a mere list of anecdotes is foolishness. I suggest you do some reading on your own. You should start with “Why I Am Not a Muslim” by Ibn Warraq
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879759844/103-6869275-1650248?v=glance
I also recommend “What Went Wrong” by Bernard Lewis. Although Lewis resists the logical conclusion that the problem is Islam itself, his point by point contrast between Islamic civilizational features and Western civilizational features betrays his conclusion. I think that as part of the “intelligentsia”, Lewis was constrained – at least subconciously – from drawing the only possible conclusion.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060516054/qid=1116498887/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-6869275-1650248
May 19, 2005 - 3:40 am 90. flenser:HA
Thanks for that gracious response. Iíve been known to glance at a book or two, and I read ìWhat Went Wrongî when it first came out. As you noted, Lewis does not agree with your reading of the situation, but with mine.
If you provided an argument then I must have misunderstood it. I was under the impression that you were claiming that Islam was inherently bad, but you sound in your more recent post as if you believe it can be reformed. Inherently bad means that something cannot be reformed, that its badness is intrinsic to what it is.
We are not in fact currently at war with the Islamic world. Some Islamic countries are either neutral or on our side at present. If we announce that our goal is the elimination of their religion then we basically telling Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt that we declaring war on them. Fortunately, Bush has no intention of doing any such thing, which makes the discussion slightly academic.
There is no question that the spread of WMD is cause for concern, and even for war in some cases. This is a separate issue from the question of whether we should try to eliminate Islam. Iraq was not a particularly Islamic country, but was a source of trouble all the same.
Christian and Jewish communities existed more or less peacefully within Islamic countries for a very long time. This would seem to be conclusive evidence that it is not ìinherentlyî evil. It is certainly possible that it can go bad, (just as Germany went bad) and I concede that does seem to be in the process of happening.
The question becomes how to arrest and reverse that process. I believe your proposed solution focuses on a symptom rather than the underlying disease, and that the Islamic world could convert to Zoroastrianism tomorrow and we would have the same problem. History indicates that people who want to hate and kill are never at a loss for justification.
It was an interesting discussion. Maybe weíll have it again on a more active thread sometime and see what others think.
May 19, 2005 - 11:30 am 91. HA:flenser,
You’re post raises several issues I’d like to respond to, but I don’t have time right now. If you’re going to continue to monitor the thread, I’ll take the time to reply over the weekend. If not, I won’t bother. There’s no use pushing all those bits into the ether if nobody is going to read them.
However, there is one comment in particular I’ll respond to for the moment:
Christian and Jewish communities existed more or less peacefully within Islamic countries for a very long time. This would seem to be conclusive evidence that it is not ?inherently? evil.
This is a common misconception of the status of Christian and Jewish communities within the Islamic world. Christians and Jews under Islamic Shariah law are “dhimmis” with an official, second-class legal status EXACTLY like that of blacks during the Jim Crow era. I’m sure you’ll agree that the Jim Crow south was inherently evil. But it also reforemd – with some outside intervention.
The “intelligentsia” loves to fantasize that Islamic civilization at its height during the middle ages was some kind of utopia of tolerance. That is a myth, of course, of the “noble savage” variety. One could make an argument that Islamic civilization was more tolerant of Jews than Christian civilization during the middle ages. But even if true, that isn’t saying much. In reality, and by contemporary Western standards, that “utopia” was in fact a brutally repressive dystopia.
May 20, 2005 - 4:08 am