Muslims stage anti-US rallies over Koran abuse report

Oh, I'm not really in a position to counter that, Timber. I've got no idea how much coverage it really got in the Muslim world. But it got at least some coverage, all the events leading up to the riots...

And it's not just the western media. But we'll see. It might fizzle, and I really wish it would.

oh pleeeeease....


No story, ever. Lash.

I know you all say they fake stories.

So, I'm sure you can name one story they fabricated.

Thousands.

Like WMD - which they, indefiance of released intelligence, called proven.

Remember "I'll eat my hat"?

The Koran story isn't "faked" btw - much as you might wish it to be.

Its veracity was over-emphasised - but at present it is neither proven nor dis-proven.

Didn't somebody recently say "You can't prove a negative"? Wonder how the Army is going to do it. They'll have to come up with something really intelligent.

No. Can you link that? They reported WMDs found? Oh, was that when a mobile lab WAS found that had been identical to previous weapons labs, but it was agreed later they were actually ice cream vans...? They didn't fabricate that story. A lab was found.

What did they fabricate?

And, the paper's pseudo-retraction doesn't hold water with you--but their accusation did?

No sweetums - before the war - other, more responsible media were saying - even though many later admitted to having been too credulous - that there appeared to be WMD.


Lash - I a mnot getting into this one with you.

Do your own research. There is ample evidence.

Start with Media Matters. You will protest bias, of course, against them - but if you follow their evidence I doubt you will find them wrong.

I have not, so far, when I have done so.

Of course, as you know, I cannot prove a negative...

"And, the paper's pseudo-retraction doesn't hold water with you--but their accusation did?"

Lash - don't start with your falsely dichotomous Manicheasm.

I won't be drawn by such stuff. You have already seen - and commented on - my position earlier in the thread - that I neither believed nor disbelieved it.

Edit:

What IS it with this stuff? It is quite possible to with-hold belief of either side - as was the only wise thing to do re this - such accusations being easily made.


I do not have a memory of Newsweek saying it DID happen - simply that there was some evidence of its having done so - and the story was not denied.

The tinderbox used this as a spark.

How about proving your statement?

You stated that Fox fabricated a story.

Can you prove it?

See above. Enjoy your homework.

Lash, do you believe in Fox?

I believe that if someone makes an accusation--as you have told me, and we have all told one another--the onus is on them to prove it.

If she cannot prove it, she should say so.

It is unrespectable not to.

If Fox has fabricated a story, (likely all your little hands are furiously working to find something) she should prove it, or admit she was wrong.

Of course she does - she and Fox are kinda forum buddies, aren't they?

(Damned confusing names!)

Prove your accusation, or retract it.

You're one mean little bunny for sure

Can she prove it through intermediaries?

Lol!!! No dearie. You're not no god neither.

And do not take that tone with ME young lady!

Oh - here's a cute li'l tid-bit for you - just arrived in me mail box.

"O'Reilly admitted "misquoting" Houston Chronicle, continued to attack it anyway

FOX News host Bill O'Reilly admitted misquoting and mischaracterizing a Houston Chronicle editorial when he claimed the piece criticized a new sex offender law in Florida as "too harsh." O'Reilly apologized for misattributing a quotation to the editorial and also admitted that the Chronicle "didn't actually say" that the mandatory sentence stipulated by the new law was "too harsh." But he went on to argue that he was still justified in attacking the Chronicle based on "everything that I extrapolated from the editorial."

On the May 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly lambasted a May 10 Houston Chronicle editorial for criticizing a new Florida law. The so-called "Jessica's Law" strengthened sentencing guidelines for convicted sex offenders and required them to wear satellite tracking devices following their release from prison. O'Reilly claimed that the Chronicle described the law as "too harsh" and that it advocated counseling for convicted offenders rather than incarceration.

In a May 12 editorial, the Chronicle refuted O'Reilly's charges, asserting that it had never commented on the "harshness of the punishment" imposed on sex offenders, but rather the effectiveness of the safeguards put in place once the convicts are released on parole:

The [May 10] editorial, citing extensive research on this subject, said hooking GPS monitors to sexual predators released from prison might prove less effective than closer supervision by parole officers and other low-tech strategies. The Chronicle did not call for lighter punishment; it called for the adoption of the most effective measures to protect our children.

The Chronicle further criticized O'Reilly for misquoting the May 10 editorial in the segment.

On the May 12 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly admitted misattributing a quotation to the Chronicle during his original report. "My mistake. No excuses," he said. He also admitted that the Chronicle's editorial "didn't say the Florida law [...] was too harsh." Nonetheless, O'Reilly stood by his original criticism, noting: "But from everything that I extrapolated from the editorial, why would they bother to write the editorial if they didn't think it was too tough?" In fact, the editorial focused on the law's effectiveness, not its harshness.

From the May 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now most of us applaud that law, but not the Houston Chronicle. Oh, no. In an editorial today, it says the law is too harsh. "Although some compulsive offenders can only be contained rather than cured, counseling reduces recidivism. Community watch programs ... are a powerful disincentive for predators, researchers say. Finally, educating children about healthy and unhealthy touch ... remains the best defense against sexual abuse."

No, it doesn't. Taking convicted predators off the streets is the best defense, not counseling, not community watch programs. This is insane. That newspaper's incredible stance is what has failed in this country for years.

From the May 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: On Tuesday, I criticized the newspaper for publishing an editorial that said "Florida's sex offender law ... [is] not the best way to stop sexual predators from preying on children."

Now, I disagree with that. I think the law named after the murdered child Jessica Lunsford is a good one. A sentence of 25 years to life is the best way, in my opinion, to stop predators.

Well, today the Houston Chronicle replied in an editorial called "The No-Facts Zone," which blistered me for allegedly misleading you. The paper said, "O'Reilly told his viewers that the Chronicle editorial said the Florida law was too harsh. He was mistaken. The editorial excerpts that O'Reilly projected on the screen said nothing about the harshness of the punishment."

Well, that's true. I form my opinion by reading the entire editorial, which ended this way. "Although some compulsive offenders can only be contained rather than cured, counseling reduces recidivism."

Well, call me crazy, but I believe those words indicate a stance that calls for less punishment and more rehab of child molesters. Maybe I'm wrong.

I was wrong about one thing in my initial report. I misquoted the editorial in assessing what regular folks can do to protect kids. My mistake, no excuses.

[...]

O'REILLY: You know, one of the interesting things that they attacked me on today was that they didn't say the Florida law, 25 to life, first offender, molesting a kid under the age of 12, was too harsh. And they didn't. They didn't actually say that.

But from everything that I extrapolated from the editorial, why would they bother to write the editorial if they didn't think it was too tough? So I'm saying to myself, OK, you didn't say it, but they won't answer my question."


It's from here - http://mediamatters.org/items/200505130010

Go have an explore - you'll learn stuff.

Oh - they don't just target Fox - there's a great li'l piece on CNN where this came from.

That wasn't meant to be mean - it was just meant to be silly and funny.

There have been so many interchanges with our Fox about that rubbish pit Fox that have looked so funny - and got quite confusing!

"Fox is a steaming pile of horse-****!"

"That's against the TOS!"

"Huh?!!! I a so allowed to say that about Fox!"

"No you aren't!"

"Goddammit, I am too!!! It's not like it's a PERSON!"

"Yes she is! She's right here on this thread! She posted above you"

"Wha.?????"