In A Really Unexpected Turn Of Events –
– NewsWeek, according to the BBC newscast I was watching while on the treadmill earlier, has apparently completely retracted its’ story about the Koran being desecrated as an interrgation technique at Guantanamo Bay – that’s got to be an astounding piece of crow they’re eating just now, not only that but it begs the question as to what those of us who referenced the story do at this point.
(It’s a long post folks – read the rest in the extended text section)
As I understand it NewsWeek ran the story based on what their people were told by a US official who said that government investigators had found evidence of the events taking place; coupled with previous reports from detainees of Koran desecration at other times carried elsewhere it seemed like a fair bet for a story – all fairly reasonable until it turned around and bit them, and apparently those of us who blogged it if ya listen to the righties, solidly on the ass.
The whole thing has sparked a tremendous amout of controversy in and around the blog-o-sphere and various pro-Bush/pro-Iraqi war blogs have had a field day at demanding that every anti-Bush/anti-Iraqi war blog on the face of the planet that even mentioned the story immediately print their own retractions (which of course they all claim they would immediately do if the shoe was on the other foot) — a demand usually followed up with a ‘but they won’t do it because they never do’
So what really happened in the blog-o-sphere anyway? Reduced to its’ most basic form those of us who decided to blog it, in my case via the Memo To US Military, did what we usually do when what appears to be a credible story that backs our position do – we blogged it.
I’m not sure what others are saying about the retraction at this point, I haven’t had time to scoot around and see, but I know that I certainly do not fall into the category of ‘happy camper’ over these events – not because I’ve supposedly made some sort of grievous mistake, but because NewsWeek didn’t do their job and that resulted in
- a whole lot of unnecessary death and violence;
- additional unnecessary Muslim/western controversy; and
- a big ‘ole stump for the pro-Bush/pro-Iraqi war types to muddy future waters with
The first two items require no explanation, anyone with even half an ear to the news knows the results, so I’m gonna spend a bit of time on #3.
You may recall some time ago that there were reports that one of the primary tactics to be used by terrorists was to claim torture and abuse at the hands of the US military if they were captured – in the face of pictorial evidence to the contrary that became the rallying cry of the right…. “they’re lying, we don’t do that, here’s the evidence”… mark my words folks, we’re gonna see the same thing here.
Another question that needs to be looked at here is one of US credibility, I know the righties are gonna scream and yell at this one….. but they don’t have any in this particular arena do they? The first question I asked myself was “Is this something that they would do?” – and in my case the answer is yes. This is an administration that has told us any number of stories, everything from Iraqi WMD, to airborne drones capable of spreading chemicals over America, to Bush’s famous “We found the weapons of mass destruction“ – there have already been documented cases of torture by their own definition of the word, and pictures and court cases abound about sexual abuse and humiliation – what’s not to believe if we hear more of the same?
To sum it all up, if you came here looking for an apology for either believing the claims or posting on them you’re probably surfing away disappointed – I referenced what I considered to be a credible claim, I’ve stated my reasons for considering the claim credible, I’ve taken my swipe at NewsWeek, I’ve posted that the claims have now apparently been retracted, and the basement bunker will continue to follow the story….. the comments section is yours.
So you are using the “Fake but accurate” defense?
>>”….that’s got to be an astounding piece of crow they’re eating just now, not only that but it begs the question as to what those of us who referenced the story do at this point.”
I’m gonna bring my samurai sword over to your place. You’ve heard of Bushido, right?
I know, I know, I am SUCH AN ASSHOLE!!
I’ve got plenty to say about this one, but no time tonight, SL. Work awaits in the morning, and I’ve also taken the bait earlier tonight and got myself into a juicy discussion at an Aussie Blog where I lurk/troll. I sense some labour intensive posting in my immediate future….
I will say this, as a jumping off point for my future ramblings on this one;
This reminds me very much of the Leftist howling over the Schiavo memo, when Powerline and other prominent rightwing blogs insinuated (or in some cases outright claimed) that the Republican ” talking points ” memo was a Democrat plant.
When it was revealed that the memo had originated from a Republican Senatorial staff member, the Left side of the blogosphere was fully engaged in the crowing that you, StageLeft, are now ” enjoying ” from the Right side.
And in both cases, the crowing was unwarranted. Timmy and I went at this at length at VITW (I won, Timmy just doesn’t realize it yet
There is absolutely nothing wrong with castigating the other side over an issue, if the evidence is there to question or disparage the position of your ideological foe. However, one should always hedge one’s bet, and issue a caveat, if the outcome is still in doubt. The worm will frequently turn, as veteran bloggers can attest to.
That being said, I see nothing wrong with you having at the Americans over the Koran allegation, just as I believe Powerline was on firm ground to question the Schiavo memo, ’cause it stunk!
As I said before, it’s all about hedging your bets (fellow Pro-Line players understand me perfectly).
Don’t make an ass of yourself is the operative rule. When committing to an absolute truth, it had better be an absolute truth.
Anyway, I think this was a damned good post/rearguard action, in the finest tradition of the ” never let’em see ya sweat ” tradition.
But just so you know, I am so looking forward to taking a cricket bat to your ass over your WMD remarks.
You took a giant shit on America’s Armed Forces and that’s all you have to say?
Jane Fonda’s acknowlegdements were more heartfelt.
“So you are using the “Fake but accurate†defense?”
I’d say he’s using the “I commented on a story from a credible source, and now the story has been withdrawn” defense.
“You took a giant shit on America’s Armed Forces and that’s all you have to say?”
Yeah, looks like it, eh? America’s Armed Forces are just going to have to learn to live with Stageleft’s disapproval. It won’t be easy for them, I know, but I’m sure they’ll struggle through somehow.
It’s interesting that when the story was first released, many right wingers accepted it without question. In the discussion on this blog, for example, even supporters of the US policy didn’t doubt it: it just didn’t seem that surprising. And why would it? Flushing a book down a toilet doesn’t seem like much of step down from the more direct forms of torture that all now acknowledge.
So let’s ease up a bit on the “giant shit on America’s Armed Forces” soapboxing, shall we? The story was credible precisely because certain elements of America’s Armed Forces have already taken giant shits all over themselves.
No, I’m saying that even if it is proven to be a complete and utter lie — or even proven to be a fabrication as part of the despicable leftwing media conspiracy I hear about every day — it is believable based on previous conduct.
You consider that a “giant shit” Gordon? Your standards are slipping old chum.
As I mentioned a few lines up, based on previous conduct the accusations were believable – really dude, it’s a concept you should be not only familiar with but supporting whole heartedly. If I recall correctly your president invaded and occupied a country because of Husseins previous conduct didn’t he?
So let’s ease up a bit on the “giant shit on America’s Armed Forces” soapboxing, shall we? The story was credible precisely because certain elements of America’s Armed Forces have already taken giant shits all over themselves.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, Blabulican reveals his hand. This isn’t about the issue, it’s about your loathing of the American Fighting Man. You, like Stagelepper, don’t care to apologize for the wrong you commited. There’s no remorse for the lives lost or the reputations tarnished. If fit your agenda at the time.
You see Blabulican, people like you have no honor. You openly shit on the very organization that has preserved your family and your country’s freedom for the last two centuries. Your debt to those men, you so willingly shit on, will never be repaid by you or your country.
So keep playing politics with peoples lives, it’s easy when you’ve never put yours on the line.
I’m afraid you’re not thinking very well, Gord. You should probably go buy a small rodent and beat it to death with a ball peen hammer. That might cheer you up. (Hey, I also just provided you with the setup for a great comeback line full of macho bullshit. Enjoy.)
For the rest of you: poor Gord…and regrettably, several others bloggers of his ilk…are showing signs of the willful suppression of critical thought, best described by Orwell in “1984″ when he defined the Newspeak term “crimestop”, or the art of being deliberately dumb to prevent understanding ideas that challenge the preferred wisdom. He called it:
“The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short….protective stupidity.”
1984 came sooner and stayed longer in some parts of the world than others, it seems.
Spare me. I’m being lectured on critical thought by the same moonbat that earlier wrote:
The story was credible precisely because certain elements of America’s Armed Forces have already taken giant shits all over themselves.
Got to love that logic. I believe it to be, so it is. Facts be damned.
Gord, old pal…sometimes we talk. And then sometimes you just wanna vent. Well, I’m here for ya, buddy. Vent on. I feel your pain. You just get it all out your system. Meanwhile we Canucks have something interesting to talk about (see the new story). But you just keep on venting. No problem. I’ll check in and see if the litter needs changing in a bit.
You call that interesting?
I think I’ll go clip my toenails.
What? WHAT? You’re taking a massive shit all over our political system?
Naw, can’t do it. I don’t have your gift for cheap, wind-up indignation.
Seriously, though…I realize this won’t mean much to non Canadians, but it’s a bit like Hillary Clinton announcing three days before an election that she’s decided to run as a Republican, except Belinda Stronach is cuter.
The organization that has preserved us for 2 centuries? My dear Gordon… what are they teaching you in the history books down there anyway?
If you are talking about protecting us from attacks by international imperialists I suppose mentioning the fact that the last time Canada was actually attacked by anybody it was attacked by — ah — well– ya know Gord — you guys, wouldn’t be productive thing here?
If you are talking about the threat of the Russian hordes coming over the North Pole I guess you’d first have to convince me that there was an actual verifiable threat. Admittedly your government did manage to convice our government of some type of threat to America, which is why we allowed all of those DEW Line and Pine Tree sites to litter the landscape up north to help protect you.
You have a good day now Gordon, ok?
What history books are YOU reading?
I noticed this fishwrapper is written in English, rather than German, Japanese, or Russian.
Will it be written in Chinese in 20 years?
Seriously, though…I realize this won’t mean much to non Canadians, but it’s a bit like Hillary Clinton announcing three days before an election that she’s decided to run as a Republican, except Belinda Stronach is cuter.
Impressive. Another lesson on “basic distraction strategies”.
Sorry, G…love ya like a brother, and normally there’s nothing I like better than listening to you froth and gibber, but I’m afraid you’ve been upstaged.
Well, Stageleft, I guess you and I really owe the US a big apology. As it turns out, they’re conducting their own internal – of course – investigation. Here’s how it’s described:
“The U.S. military’s Southern Command, responsible for the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, began a fact-finding inquiry last week in the aftermath of the Newsweek report. It is reviewing roughly 31,000 documents such as day-to-day log entries to check whether U.S. personnel at Guantanamo ever threw the Koran in a toilet, but was conducting no interviews as part of the effort, the Pentagon said.”
Get that? They’re reviewing log entries. They’re looking for an interrogator who wrote something like:
” 7:30 am Breakfast…yoghurt and milk.
8:30 am: Filled in reports, completed timesheets.
9:45: flushed Koran down toilet.
10: 37: picked up toothpaste at PX…”
Well, I have every confidence this kind of rigourous, internally conducted investigation will get at the truth. Pity about not conducting any interviews, does seem like a bit of an oversight…but I’m sure they know what they’re doing.
Pause, then burst into laughter.
Come on, Gord. As an adult, can you actually take this kind of nonsense seriously?
Actually, I guess you do. You re-elected Bush.
What’s laughable is your integrity.
I truly does amaze me how, with the ball solidly in their court like it is right now, they can come out with something like this… and people wonder why we question their ccredibility.
Oh, I don’t think Gord is really thinking at all. In this mood, he’s like a surly drunk late at night, drooling insults and hoping someone will indulge his desire for a fight. I don’t know, it seems to be characteristic of some of…those folks, you know? They seem to enjoy it. Odd lot, really.
Gordon, buddy, tell me it isn’t so…..
You don’t think you guys won WWII do you? Do make use of Mr Google more often, the US was one of the countries who banded together to win the war – IOW the US helped win the war buddy, they didn’t do it on their own. Because I’m in a generous mood tonight I won’t bother saying anything about how late they were getting there, Mr. Google can help ya out though.
– and on the Russian thing I think we’re still stuck at the issue of showing that there was some sort of verifiable threat to either of our countries.
Y’all have a nice night now – OK?
Of course we “helped”. The war was going just fine without us. We could have kept our men, supplies, and money at home and it would have turned out just fine anyway.
On both coasts.
That is right Geoffrey, the United States of America helped, they joined forces with other countries that were already there and they helped – inconvenient little facts like that may not sit to well with some folks, apparently you’re one of them, but fact it remains none-the-less.
If you want to believe that the US did it then, as an elderly lady I once knew was fond of saying, “hair on ya” – go to it buddy, discount what every other man and woman from any country other than the United States did and rewrite the history books in the grand American image… that sort of endearing “it’s all about us” quality is what makes y’all so popular with the rest of the us.
While I’m not all that interested in the “We saved yer asses in dubya dubya two” debate I did think that this (May 18 post) was an interesting take in the Newsweek incident. I will say that anyone who would declare that “they’d never do that” had better review the things they have got caught doing in the last little while and then engage some deductive thought.
The credibility issue is one that that few pro-Bush / pro-Iraqi war folks are willing to admit is real – at least out loud anyway.
US credibility has taken a severe blow in a number of areas, and it will remain low until such time as they actually start to deal with that issue via more concrete methods than simple lip service
The NewsWeek incident is a prime example, because of previous events and actions the world was quite ready to believe that US intelligence would do exactly what they were accused of doing. From Baghdad Burning
Whether they like it or not they cannot contain information the way it once could be locked up and tucked away… the world has changed and they don’t appear to have clued in on that just yet.
Stageleft lecturing on credibility in the comment section of this post.
Talk about not being “clued in.”
Do I take that to mean that you do not think there are any credibility issues to be faced by either the current president or his administration?
You can try to turn that into the story if it makes it easier for you to write about. But we’re talking about your credibility gap, not theirs.
You may want to address it at some point with more than an “I’m not apologizing for being a nasty bastard based on false information” directed at people who didn’t deserve it.
But go ahead. Ramble on about the administration.
I think Balbulican would be very proud of the massive amount of diversion you’re engaging in.
“You can try to turn that into the story if it makes it easier for you to write about. But we’re talking about your credibility gap, not theirs.”
Yes, that’s what you’re talking about. As noted above. The thread started with a topic you find uncomfortable, and you’ve shifted it to something you’d much rather talk about. Thus..diversion.
“I think Balbulican would be very proud of the massive amount of diversion you’re engaging in.”
Sorry, V. Diversion is measured in distance from the original topic of the thread…not in the distance from your preferred topic.
The last time I saw this many dodges, I was at a Chrysler dealer.
Amazing how a fake story in Newsweek turned into a referrendum on the Bush administration.
But then again, to lefties, like yourselves, everything is a referrendum on Bush… Even when it isn’t actually true.
Carry on. Much has been learned here.
I don’t know whether you understand what I’m saying or not. I hope you do.
He understands just fine, you simply elect to ignore what he’s saying as you apply more of your “basic distraction strategiesâ€.
In case you lost track, the topic is Newsweek’s false reporting of flushing the Koran.
At any rate, I’m in tears at the moment laughing at you and your moonbat hordes that are so blind in your hatred of Bush and his Admin that you’re willing to set aside all common sense and logic.
And we all know it’s credible because of the sheer ease in which a 5-lb book can be flushed down a toilet….”
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is carrying the following regarding this
Aljazeera is reporting that
It appears that, regardless of the NewsWeek retraction, reports of incidents and similiar incidents abound – the question that needs to be asked is ‘can every allegation be a lie?’
ROFLMAO.
Whew! Those are some crdeible sources you’ve cited. Aljazeera?
But at least you’re on topic.
Just so you know, some people on Al Jazeera have also said the US is the home of Satan and that Jews have horns and forked tongues. And their coverage is always fair and balanced. And the CCR, to everyone but raging leftists (holds up mirror) is a joke…
It’s funny, actually, that you’ll so quickly believe people sitting in jail for trying to kill americans in a field of combat when they testify against americans.
How about the claims that they themselves were flushing pages down the toilet? You gonna go find some info on that, also?
Amazing how close to the lunatic fringe this site has moved, dude. One more step and you’ll be irredeemable.
Al Jazeera have also said the US is the home of Satan and that Jews have horns and forked tongues.
But it’s true, right Vinny?
They reported it. They believe it. Therefore it must be credible.
The tinfoil hat logic at this fishwrapper reminds me of a scene from a Monty Python film. You care to guess?
Of course. The only standard for credibility, as you know from reading here, is that you believe something. For example, Stageleft and his siamese-twin-in-leftist-denial Balbulican believe the Koran was swirlied, so it obviously was.
I mean, that’s how it works now. Credibility is defined by believability, not by connection to truth.
Moonbat Logic.
The Holy Grail – Scene Five.
Bingo.
A couple if interesting sets of avoidance, unless of course they are supposed to indicate that all of the reports are in fact lies – is that the case?
A couple if interesting sets of avoidance
Vinny,
Do you think he’s referring to Blab’s “basic distraction strategies†and off topic remarks?
Stagegone is suffering from nation envy. It’s a common Canadian affliction.
I don’t know Gordo. Somehow this turned from a Newsweek screwup into a knock on the administration that had nothing to do with it. Seems they go to great lengths to just bash bash bash. I’d say the speed with which they moved from the topic at hand (Newsweak) to their favorite bashing subject (Bush) is proof that someone is avoiding something.
Geoff,
Are you referring to the 51st State Trama?
Excellent. Now we’ve got them all talking to each other.
Continue, lads. This little American Petrie dish is fascinating.
unless of course they are supposed to indicate that all of the reports are in fact lies – is that the case?
How many different sources are all of the reports based on? I’ll agree that quantity has a quality all of its own but what is the real quantity?
And there you hit on a real issue, A Wolf. I’ve found that Al Jazeera tends to have fairly weak verification standards: and stories that seem to have a number of different datelines tend, if tracked back to their original sources, to stem from the same report.
I am thinking of the allegations that American marines threw an Iraqi civilian off a bridge (which disappeared), and of at least one of the “slain wedding party” stories (which never seem to get confirmed). When I dug, both those stories tracked back to unconfirmed narratives, and were originally reported in a single newspaper: the story was then picked up and reissued, with no additional investigation, by a number of expat media sources in Britain and Pakistan, which gave the impression of mass coverage.
By and large, when something appears in Western (i.e., European or North American) mainstream media, it’s been fact-checked and reviewed by an editorial board. We can all name exceptions, when an un- or undersourced story made it to publication. The fact remains, those are exceptions.
Bab, Stage, et all rational folk:
Isn’t it amusing how “uncredible” any cited source becomes when ir doesn’t fit Gordicks, Sk(v)inny and gayfrey’s agenda?
You shouldn’t even bother arguing with these half-wits. These are jackasses whom I like to refer to as Bush’s Flock or the Rats of the Lied Piper. These are morons who will sit and sway to whatever tune BushCo sings and like good little children, go out and repeat it as if it were Gospel.
They are like arguing with a brickyard preacher – so sure they are right, but utterly fucking insane. Where Gordick, Skinny (btw, vinny is hardly skinny) and Gayffrey are concerned, you cannot get any farther to the extreme right.
Newsweek is “uncredible” on this issue, Walter. No amount of stupid insults changes that fact.
Stageleft is “uncredible” on it because he isn’t retracting or apologizing for his blatant smear of the US military based on that lie.
You are “uncredible” because you add nothing to the conversation but insults.
Not a whole lot of credibility on the left side of Cannuckistan these days.
As for following “Bush’s lead” you really need to read more of my site before you make that claim. That’s one even Balbulican and Stageleft won’t make.
But you can go right ahead and believe it if you really want. I don’t care what you have to say about anything else so your opinion of me isn’t going to change my mind.
It’s interesting to note that this has moved into the realm of a “lie” Vinny, the Newsweek story was reviewed by the Pentagon before it was published and according to Newsweek they did not dispute the desecration claims in it. As part of their vetting process one would assume that that factor would have played heavily in the decision making process - that is not passing any blame on to the Pentagon, it is saying that I would assume that Newsweek could reasonabily consider that if the claims were not disputed at that stage that there was some accuracy in them.
In other words, according to the best information available to them, which was not disputed by the Pentagon at the time, the events and circumstances were as they thought them to be. Do remember that other more prominent people in the world than the editor of Newsweek have used the same rational for things like the mobolization of their military machines for invasion and occupation of a country…. and we’ve all been told many, many, times that that wasn’t a “lie” haven’t we?
The retraction statement (on the same page linked above) reads as follows:
It would appear to me that their statement says they are retracting that part of the story that says an internal military investigation had uncovered abuse – and not the entire story or its’ associated desecration claims.
I knew it was only a matter of time before Stagelepper began backpedaling.
So we blame the Pentagon.
It’s nice to see you following the lead of your lib friends, SL.
“If the Pentagon had caught it, it wouldn’t have been a problem.”
Nice to know that Newsweek, with all its editors and everything else, can’t even take the time to verify a source, a source which upon a second look wasn’t credible.
But then again, you didn’t retract your memo either and you know the basis of that to be false also.
I went back to my comment and made the “that is not passing any blame on to the Pentagon” bold Vinny, I guess you must have missed it.
I would think that a reasonable person could reasonably conclude that their lack of denial or questioning of that aspect of the story would have played a role at some level in the decision making process.
Just so you know, and barring some major change in the way they operate, the Pentagon only checks for classified information being leaked, not the accuracy of the statements inside articles. Fact checking accuracy in stories would be an undue influence on the press.
Then you libs would bitch about that and bemoan the nazi-style governmental control of the press.
Is this something that they would do?†– and in my case the answer is yes.
Bullshit.
Well, it all depends on how you define “jackass”.
I don’t know Geoffrey at all.
I know Gordon a bit better. His default stance is usually a kind of manic hyper aggression, which appears to be the norm for certain blogs. He can also be quite funny, and away from Dogsnot, in a thread where actual discussion is occurring, I’ve seen him calm down and say some very interesting things. Not easy to get or keep him in that mode, though.
Vinny is not a jackass. He’s a smart, volatile guy who, at the moment, appears to working his way through some very difficult stuff at several levels.
Sorry to go off topic, guys, but we all know there are a few deeper things going on here
The preceding was a response to WalterP’s observation:
“You shouldn’t even bother arguing with these half-wits. These are jackasses.”
Should have made that clear. Sorry.
The other day, a coulmnist made a fabulous observation. A very obvious one, but fabulous nonetheless – And I don’t quote word for word, but here is the jist of it:
Radio Host: You, as a journalist, how do you feel about this situation, about the integrity of journalism as a whole, and how do you feel about one of your collegaues in the profession (the editior of newsweek)?
Journalist: Like anything, there are the goods and bad, the ups and downs and ins and outs of it. I don’t think the discussion here should be about journalisms integrity but of the fact that the source of this story, one who has been a very credible source for 20+ years to not only newsweek, but many other news organizations and the fact that when the fire got to hot, newsweek retreacted the story, but nobody ever denied the facts. What we are looking at here is more than whether a sopurce is credible or not.
Host: Are you saying that newsweek was pressured into retratracting the story? if so, why do you feel this way?
Journalist: If there is one infallible fact that we cannot ignore, is the Iaq war is a complete failure. But it is heavily sugar and honey coated. The Bush Administration not only has put our military into a no-win situation (think of it like tic tac toe where we start by putting an X in the middle), but with the failures abound (see no WMD’s found, see Abu Gharib), this one story breaks and causes mass anger throughout the entire muslim world. Things are much worse in this war than it seems and the Bush administration knows it is an uteer failure.
Host: So you’re saying the story is true and the administartion is trying to cover it up?
Journalist: I am saying that daddy is out of the bathroom and used some perfume to cover the smell in hopes nobody will smell it. Only thisw bathroom and smell won’t go away.
I don’t expect this to be obvious to those who support Bush and think Newsweek lied about this. Not only do I believe the government is lying about this, but if I had the power, I would charge them for lying about it. They may not have known it was happening at the time, but they certainly do know that it DID happen.
So Newsweek caved in to the administration on a story that was factually accurate and verifiable.
I guess that doesn’t say much for their credibility, either.
The fact is, if Newsweek had the information that this story was true, and it was factually verifiable in any way, that information would be all over the place at the drop of a hat.
Instead, the story was retracted because they couldn’t get their “source” to commit to it. Why this didn’t turn up in a cursory fact-check is beyond me, however it is what it is, and they got caught.
The story isn’t true. There’s no conspiracy theory, and there are no facts to back it up. If there were, Newsweek would’ve kept it in the magazine and we wouldn’t even be talking about it right now.
Go on living life with your head up your ass Vinny. More power to you.
You completely misread a story and my head is up my ass. Such mature debating skills.
Wanna stick your thumbs in your ears and wiggle your fingers next time? It’s a much nicer effect.
No, the story is, the military fucked up (again), go caught, and it was reported on which caused mass anger among the muslim world, and BushCo is shitting their pants. This is even worse than a Quagmire.
Even worse, the retracting of the story doesn’t mean shit to the Muslims. And you know what? For every redneck macho son of a bitch american who shits on someone elses culture – they deserve what they get.
Not only is there a difference between what we and the Muslims do, but we are worse. We know better, we are informed. They are ignorant and brought up without exposure. THAT is the difference. Sure, it doesn’t make it right for them to do what they do, but what is sad is we DO KNOW what we are doing.
So all muslims are ignorant.
Nice tolerance there.
Off Constantly?
What an appropraite name for a ‘tard that can’t get her facts straight.