 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! May 17, 2005 Quick ThoughtBy GreyhawkPerhaps the only way to ensure an end to stories of desecration of the Koran by American troops would be to ban the book from all military prisons. Had officials done that in the first place there would have never been a problem, right? It wouldn't happen, of course. It was never even considered. Muslim Chaplains, prayer rugs, the Koran - from the start the only guarantee the prisoners had at Guantanamo was freedom of religion. It's the American way. Update: By the way, is Newsweek allowed in your house? Update 2: The Washington Post More than two years ago, the Pentagon issued detailed rules for handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, requiring U.S. personnel to ensure that the holy book is not placed in "offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas." IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:I'll post a quote from a journalism textbook on ethics here later if I can find one. (Moved from 2005-05-16 19:56:19) Posted by Greyhawk / May 17, 2005 11:00 AM | Permalink 9 TrackBacksNewsweek has done the only honorable thing and retracted it's garbage piece about Koran flushing. Read More I have a copy of the Koran on my bookshelf. I don't quite remember how I got it and frankly the spine is unbroken, but as I looked at it, it occured to me, "How the hell would you flush... Read More The fallout from the story by Newsweek about desecrating the Quran at Guantanamo has plenty of parties that could have done a lot better. First off, how could Newsweek run with this story based on here-say from a single source. Read More Two excellent post mortem summaries at Winds of Change. (Note: In this case, I don't think this story will be truly "post mortem" for years, as Newsweek's carelessness and utter disregard of the outrage and violent response this would cause will reverb... Read More I do NOT have Newsweek in my house. Read More Here's my idea on how to truly test the level of trust of "journalists" against those two groups of people: Each reporter at Guantanamo gets a choice - 10 minutes alone with a prisoner, without handcuffs or any other restraints or 10 minutes alone w... Read More How many 'moderate' Muslims have moved themselves up a rung on the ladder to extremism? Read More 19 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
No Newsweek in this house!
I let my subscribtion to Newsweek expire months ago. Just could not stomach their blatant bias for John Kerry and my blood pressure is much lower since it no longer enters by abode.
Greyhawk,
as a temporary resident of England, my wife and I were proud to get Newsweek. But now that it has warmed up a bit, we no longer need kindling for our fireplace, so it has outlived its purpose.
Is it any wonder that if the only thing we allow the enemy to keep in prison is a Koran that he would use that as a weapon?
That's what these claims amount to after all.
Is there an initiative of some kind that DOD can undertake to codify some clearly understood rules or tenets that both sides (military and media) can sign up to about what should be held back from publication, and what is okay to publish?
Even Americans opposed to the Iraq war have had it with the constant, mindless bashing of the military by a press that hasn't been earning its keep for long time.
It's time to start televising the flag draped coffins. Interrupt the "Price is Right" and "Desparate Housewives" every time a fallen American Soldier lands at Dover. Mandatory coverage on all broadcast channels of every single funeral.
There are just too many people who think war is some kind of "College Debate".
The press doesn't cover the funerals, so they don't give a damn how many they cause.
"By the way, is Newsweek allowed in your house?"
Not any more.
Score one for the good guys,
Newsweek just retracted their story, finally. They never should have run it. I wonder if it was my deadly pieces or the White House that scared 'em most. I also got an update from my buddy Kev promising retribution if the press doesn't shape up, might have been him.
Cordially,
Uncle J
Jordan, you'd think so, wouldn't you?
But what are we supposed to do, appoint a minister of information to approve of what news services print?
We don't need rules, we need some common sense and for the news media to admit that they aren't outside of events and consequences. This particular event is so egregious that it can't be ignored... in one fell swoop Newsweek made greater advances for our enemy than our enemy could ever hope to make themselves. After all, they've been blowing up school children... hard to claim moral superiority when you're doing stuff like that. Nothing they could do could possibly have that much impact, no matter what they blew up or how many of our troops they killed. Newsweek has handed them a military victory they could not have even dreamed of.
But journalists think they have a holy calling and no responsibility for the consequences of their reporting. This time they killed people... and they still won't admit they did anything wrong.
("I'm sorry you go so upset" isn't admiting fault.)
The question I have not seen answered is:
Supposing the "Quran Abuse" is true. Why exactly is that even a story? I have never seen a story anywhere saying "Headline, bible tossed in dumpster! Psalm 23 desecrated by contact with refuse!"
It's crazy enough that these Muslims would get worked up and riot about it, but why would any rational westerner begin to think this was actually a story worth printing. Bar the riots, is there any english speaking person who give a s**t?
Well, Chip. The media has decided that "torture" includes anything that will offend the prisoner. That's why they report things such as wrapping a prisoner in an Israeli flag in the same sentence as other alledged torture.
No Newsweek and no Time magazines in this house. I think that most of our journalists have forgotten (or never learned) that they're Americans before they're journalists (that's just a job). To quote a well-known figure, "If they're not with us, they're with the Terrorists". From what I see and hear, they're not with US! I agree that a little common sense could go a long way.
We let Newsweak lapse long ago, based on a biased story that was much less serious. They reported that Barbara Bush "stole" hotel soaps to give to charity. Now, if St. Hillary had done it, her wonderful charity would have been the story. Then we started to notice all the bias, and let it go. I was sure glad it wasn't in the house THIS week!
Please keep reposting and reposting and reposting the Jihad Handbook. Some Americans just aren't getting 'it' - this is ALL part of the game. And we're stupid enough to keep investigating and reporters are stupid enough to keep giving credence to TERRORISTS who mention 'abuse', 'torture' or any other whiny thing they may not have liked while held by us. Just remember - WE don't get such luxuries when captured by them. We get killed, beheaded, disemboweled or worse. They don't care if we get a bible. They don't care if we're comfortable. They just kill us, DEAD. I think some Americans need to be TAUGHT about how terrorists are using our own system against us - and how our media is helping them. Not to mention how the ACLU is fighting FOR THEIR RIGHTS! Useful fools at their worst. Remember after 9/11 when SOME in the media refused to wear an American flag pin - they didn't want to seem - BIASED! Well - right there set the tone for how they would cover the war. They won't show pictures of 9/11 (people jumping to their certain deaths) - because they don't want to upset us, YET, pictures of Abu Graib or the Mosque shooting are PERFECTLY FINE. Hmmm? Seems like the media don't know where their bread is buttered. If they're so worried about being politically correct - then - move their offices to Tehran or Islamabad and see how it goes.
GreyHawk,
What is it about an American journalism career that causes a reporter to automatically take the word of an accused terrorist, killing in the name of his religion in the most extreme and violent ways, supporting the vast majority of stonings, hand amputations, and beheadings for trivial crimes in this world, before they will take the word of any man or woman who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States? Is there an interlock or something which requires reporters to disregard the truth when it is given by the US Government in favor of half truths or blatant falsehoods spouted by evil men who would rather remove your American head from your American shoulders because they don't agree with how you Americans live your life in your own American country?
Just curious.
Subsunk
Millions of hard-earned yankee dollars, lives of our fine soldiers thrown into this effort, and much of that disappears with these untrue and overplayed reports questioning the integrity of Americans trying to do their jobs. Kind of reminds me of the myth of Sysiphus. We get kicked back, pick up the ball, and start trudging back up the mountain.
Last week, I watched U. of Pennsylvania's ROTC commissioning. Each cadet showed such strength of purpose and motivation (and each so young!) I was struck with our own responsibility to watch over them in any way we can. Just like the ones deployed now, these guys don't know what giving up means.
Media is making much hay now over the fact that the Pentagon did NOT censor them, and that the story had been reported previously. Of course, it had not been attributed to an official government source previously, which is being taken to mean the government confirmed that in global media.
Also, none are questioning the very existence of this unknown government source, which supposedly backpedaled over the weekend. I very seriously doubt the existence of this source. I haven't seen news of the retraction on Al Jazeera.com yet.
What would have happened if the Pentagon HAD asked Newsweek to not publish the story because they felt it was not credible? "Pentagon Squashes Unflattering GITMO Tactics Info". Blaming the Pentagon for NOT disputing that one data point is rather, well...effete.
Still, the MSM is HIGHLIGHTING that the retraction came only after White House pressure, almost as if trying to give the rioters more legitimacy and reason to continue! How long can this stuff continue before something implodes? Like America's patience?
"What is it about an American journalism career that causes a reporter to automatically take the word of an accused terrorist,"
Most journalists start out as "Freelancers", Free lancers are only paid if their story is published. Free Lancers make zero reporting the "Police Blotter". Very early in there carreer's they discover that to make money, they need an extra angle to sell a story. Even if there is no "extra" angle they imply an extra angle.
"A prison guard was arrested for prisoner abuse" doesn't sell. Everyone knows that prison abuse occurs to some degree in every prison in the world.
"A prison guard was arrested for prisoner abuse, Whitehouse MAY be involved" sells big.
The Whitehouse may be involved in the mystery of the missing sock in my house. GWB could have formed a secret CIA group to steal one sock from my laundry. I may need psychological treatment.
The other problem with the Press is that "fact checking" just does not happen. Yesterday, Bloomberg, reporting on the Newsweek debacle, misidentified CENTCOM as SOUTHCOM.
Definitely no Newsweek in my house, not in reaction to this - just don't like it generally.
Isn't it just wonderful how we 'Pajama wearing bloggers' are accused of not checking facts, while these fools get away with such crap?
Newsweek is a spineless rag and I have nothing to offer in their defense. However, it's important to know what they wrote and what they did not write. Their error was writing that an official military report was going to confirm the reports that U.S. troops had desecrated the Koran. The desecrations themselves have been reported in a variety of publications for the past two years.
The sources of the reports are detainees who have been released. Given that the U.S. is still holding people it considers to be terrorists, the act of releasing a detainee signifies a belief that the person is NOT a terrorist and was in fact arrested by mistake. The military in fact has acknowledged that many arrests were made by mistake.
Therefore, if a former detainee makes the allegation it's not enough to dismiss it by calling that person an "accused terrorist." If you do that, then you're essentially saying that every Arab is a terrorist, even the ones we pick up by mistake, and should not be believed about anything. And if that's true, then why are we spending 1,600+ troops, 10,000+ wounded troops and $200 billion to bring "freedom" to the region?
The allegations of Koran desecration have been made by a number of detainees freed from U.S. custody in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan. When Newsweek first ran its report, the Pentagon said it had been unaware of ANY allegations of Koran desecration. Within one day, the Pentagon changed its tune and said it had investigated the claims and found them without merit. The Pentagon cannot be considered credible on this issue.
As for the seriousness of the charge, you must consider not OUR feelings but rather THEIR feelings. Islam regards desecration of the Koran as a grave offense, but our soldiers were doing it anyway, incident to the torture of Iraqi prisoners. It's the kind of thing that can trigger a worldwide religious war, so brushing off the allegations is very unwise.
It seems as though people here simply want to ignore any news that doesn't fit their preconceptions. That's a very, very dangerous thing to do at any time, but it's even more dangerous to do when you are at war. Blame Newsweek all you want, but their error was a flyspeak compared to the truth, which is that U.S. troops have indeed desecrated the Koran while incarcerating and otherwise mistreating prisoners. It's a very serious issue.