Closed-Minded Irish Skeptics

Turley

Chronology
May 17, 2005

Newsweek Magazine retracted Michael Isikoff's story that the Koran was flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

May 16, 2005

The Irish Times reported, "Newsweek magazine has acknowledged that there were errors in a story reporting that US interrogators had desecrated the Koran while attempting to extract intelligence from Muslim prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility."
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0517/

May 9, 2005

Newsweek Magazine's investigative journalist Michael Isikoff repoted, "sources tell Newsweek: interrogators, in an attempt to rattel suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet..."

May 3, 2005

I said that I did not trust Newsweek. I was first to make the Irish Skeptics aware they should be skeptical of Newsweek and in particular Michael Isikoff.

Turley wrote:

"I spent an extraordinary amount of time gathering all of the official facts and evidence available and then I presented the official facts and evidence to the leading American journalists and editors of publications, including Newsweek. I knew the facts and I made sure they also knew the facts. They suppressed the evidence of MURDER and they supressed the truth. Therefore, I gradually came to no longer believe in publications "the rest of [you]" still consider "moderately respectable and truthful."

On this thread I have presented evidence that publications like Newsweek have concealed the evidence of a MURDER of a White House official. Newsweek's investigative reporter Michael Isikoff played a prominent role in the MURDER cover-up from the beginning while he was at the Washington Post. Should we consider a publication that does not report evidence of a White House MURDER, even after it is made public by three Federal judges, David Sentelle, John Butzner and Peter Fay, to be even moderately respectable and trustworthy? I think we can all agree covering up MURDER is not respectable.

When I presented Ted Gest, of Newsweek evidence of the FBI intimidation of grand jury witness Patrick Knowlton, Gest responded by saying, "Our publication covers consumer issues, that is not the kind of story we cover, try one of the daily papers."

Newsweek, Newsweek polls and similar publications and polls shape public opinion and determine what is "generally accepted." They have publicized the official version of Foster's death as well as the 9/11 hijacker conspiracy theory. Based on the evidence I have presented http://www.fbicover-up.com/report/report.pdf, I do not trust Newsweek.

March 25, 2005

Our moderator Robin asks, "And if you don't believe publications which are considered moderately respectable and truthful by the rest of us, like Newsweek et al, then whom *do* you believe, and how do you make that choice that they are trustworthy?"

June 1999

Michael Isikoff and Newsweek's role in covering-up the muder of Vincent Foster was first revealed in a 511-page court document published and available at http://www.fbicover-up.com/

Months ago when I expressed skepticism about placing our trust in Newsweek many people here considered me to be "nutty." I have been called an assortment of names by people here. I was skeptical of Newsweek and Michael Isikoff long before it was popular to be skeptical of Newsweek. The closed-minded members of this group just got the news to be skeptical of Newsweek.

Robin said it best when he said that I, "don't believe publications which are considered moderately respectable and truthful by the rest of us, like Newsweek et al..." I thank God I don't think like the rest of you. I do not have a need to follow whatever is popular.

Our moderator was unable to recognize Newsweek was not a source to be trusted even after all the evidence I presented.

I enjoy the freedom of an open debate with all the rough and tumble for the truth. I do not need a moderator controlling what I and others say. I am not a child.

Comments or questions? Email me for unfiltered discussion.

Myksyk

"Newsweek magazine has acknowledged that there were errors in a story reporting that US interrogators had desecrated the Koran while attempting to extract intelligence from Muslim prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility."

Sounds like an honest acknowledgement. Does this mean that there are truthful people at Newsweek too?

By the way, National Geographic recently published a doctored, untruthful article and had to apologise to readers. Should I now not trust National Geographic ... or just that particular writer?

Our moderator Robin asks, "And if you don't believe publications which are considered moderately respectable and truthful by the rest of us, like Newsweek et al, then whom *do* you believe, and how do you make that choice that they are trustworthy?"

Interestingly he used the term "moderately respectable and truthful". This implies that they are certainly not always truthful ... so you're in agreement ... unless you are claiming that Newsweek is always untruthful. Are you? Otherwise you seem to be making the rather obvious point that we shouldn't believe everything we read.

I enjoy the freedom of an open debate with all the rough and tumble for the truth. I do not need a moderator controlling what I and others say.

No-one is forcing you to frequent moderated boards.

I am not a child.

robindch

Hi Turley -

Welcome back.

> Robin said it best when he said that I, "don't believe publications
> which are considered moderately respectable and truthful by the
> rest of us, like Newsweek et al..." Our moderator was unable to
> recognize Newsweek was not a source to be trusted even after
> all the evidence I presented.

The phrase that I used is "moderately respectable and truthful". I had included the adjective because Newsweek, like any other publication, can screw up, and it's a bit strange that even after I'd written it, you seem to think that I believe that Newsweek can't make a complete dog's breakfast of something.

BTW, given that the current US administration created a department specifically to propagate fictional news stories (see here, subsequently, er, laid to rest here), I can't help but think that this lot might have been responsible for the retraction of the Qu'ran-down-the-loo story, if not for the original story as well.

> I enjoy the freedom of an open debate with all the rough
> and tumble for the truth. I do not need a moderator controlling
> what I and others say.

Neither davros nor I have the ability, nor have we any wish, to control what you or any other posters write. Our interest, as specifically requested by the majority of posters who expressed a preference, is that we try to ensure that whatever's being debated, is done in a polite way, and in general agreement with the rules of scientific skepticism.

If you've not already done so, please check out my own definition of scientific skepticism here -- I welcome any comments that you, or anybody else, may have about why this defintion might point the way to a useful, or useless, means of determination.

> Email me for unfiltered discussion.

Your postings are not filtered on this board.

bus77

Myksyk wrote:

Sounds like an honest acknowledgement. Does this mean that there are truthful people at Newsweek too?

Probably, but it look's like they hired a man seemingly involved in some (possibly serious) shenanigans up in Wasington. This does call into question the integrity of the magazine as a whole. Personally, I allways just viewed it as just another American rag.

robindch

> Personally, I allways just viewed it as just another American rag.

Likewise, but at least it publishes the occasional interesting article from time to time, making it a welcome change from the truly awful Hello, Reader's Indigestion (etc, etc) in dentists' waiting rooms...

Poisonwood

Got to agree with the embarrassment bit. Turley, I know I can be a harsh old cow but you really seem to lack some basic social skills. I cringe at your hubristic pronouncements. Am I the only one who cringes at the way Turley runs into the forum to announce "Y'see!! ... I was right ... no-one listens to me about anything ... did you see how right I was? ... Did ya? ... Did ya?".

As always, you've completely overstated you case and this is the greatest weakness of your arguments. When you see individual mistakes or individual conmen you cry conspiracy. I have no particular views on Newsweek. I wouldn;t now trust that particular journaist you refer to. I have no reason to stop (or not start) reading Newsweek on this basis. You have presented no evidence that Newsweek as an organisation is to be intrinsically mistrusted. Please answer the question posed earlier by Robin or Myksyk ... Are you saying that Newsweek are untruthful all the time? Also, do you seriously think that WE think that some publications are to be trusted without question?

KCF

Ignoring Turley's pitiable grand-standing, there are a couple of interesting things about this story. Firstly, it says quite a lot about religious fundamentalism in the US that 'desecration' of a bit of paper with water is considered such a scandal, while the open use of torture* and the flagrant flouting of international law in too many ways to mention are considered unproblematic in this "war against rationality" as I like to call it. Does anybody really think that there aren't far worse things going on in Guantanomo, not to mention on board the infamous CIA 'torture-express' gulfstream jet, than a book getting wet? Who on earth can have such warped priorities as to get outraged about the latter and stay quiet about the former. Actually, I do know the answer, it's fundamentalist religious hypocrites and they have them in spades in the good 'ol US.

Secondly, it very much looks to me like another version of the BBC vs New Labour dispute over the Kelly interviews. That is to say a situation where a reporter accurately identifies a serious governmental transgression and as a result of this his reputation is destroyed on the basis of not being able to definitively prove the truth of every comma in the story.

*I think that prolonged sensory deprivation and various other interrogation techniques that have been publicly admitted at Guantanamo clearly qualify as torture and that is only the stuff that they talk about.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

Chronology
May 17, 2005

Newsweek Magazine retracted Michael Isikoff's story that the Koran was flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

May 16, 2005

so?

Months ago when I expressed skepticism about placing our trust in Newsweek many people here considered me to be "nutty."

So?

I have been called an assortment of names by people here.

Whether or not that is true and you haven't shown it is it has nothing top do with your first two points above.

I was skeptical of Newsweek and Michael Isikoff long before it was popular to be skeptical of Newsweek.

So what? Look. If people called you "nutty" is was not because you were sceptical of Newsweek. There were other reasons. for example by being sceptical of a single journalist you extrapolated that and linked it to 9/11 being a coverup.

The closed-minded members of this group just got the news to be skeptical of Newsweek.

I don't read it actually and I cant think of a time when I ever referred to it as a sole single piece of supporting evidence. I am sceptical of journalists but thank you for the piece of minor evidence point to something Newsweek printed that was probably not true. Now maybe you can move on to proving that Kevin Myers was factually incorrect in using the word "bastard" several times.

By the was I believe ( and it is some time since I thought about it) that Muslims are mistreated in Guantanamo Bay. I seem to recall that Muslim clerics ( and I mean US ARmy ones) were prevented from seeing prisioners.

Our moderator was unable to recognize Newsweek was not a source to be trusted even after all the evidence I presented.

One of the greatest problems solved in the last decade was Fermats last theorem. the proof was flawed! I believe it was published. the flaw was later corrected. do you think the journal is not to be trusted?

Now I dont even rate Newsweek but given the context of absence of others to peer review; driving concverns of deadlines; advertising budgets; sensationalism why do y uthink Newsweek being wrong (again) is so serious. Are you perhaps now going to move on to claiming this proves a government coverup of 9/11 or a CIA/FBI conspiracy in the Foster murder case?

you are beginning to sound like the revisionists. A Koran was not defaced therefore mistreatment of Muslims does not happen is similar reasoning to "there are no remains of bodies in location xyz which is x metres from a specific location in a specific "death camp" therefore there is no evidence of the holocaust."

I enjoy the freedom of an open debate with all the rough and tumble for the truth. I do not need a moderator controlling what I and others say.

More damage is done by stupidy than malice. Now I happen to believe that if you continually post long off topic replies then you certainly do need a moderator. Thats why moderators exist! To moderate people who have such opinions that they disregard acceptable standards of discussion and to sanction them if they do not follow those standards.

If you don't like that then post elsewhere. I can guarantee you (without evidence but I bet my prediction will be 100 per cent correct) you will be ignored or silenced.

But go and try a newsnet group on conspiracy e.g. alt.conspiracy. you will probably find allies there. But you will also probably fall out with them because they posted all the stuff you claim you were researching years ago.

I am not a child.

Then stop whinging and whining and contribute to debate.

For starters post anything you like except:

there is an FBI coverup of something - you should refer to the thread of just put a single line sig at the end of your posts. If people think you are sensible on the rest of your posat they might visit your site.

Newsweek is controlled by a conspiracy - again post a single line sig or occasionally post a reference to newsweek being wrong and where.

If you contribute to other topics people will rate you for that. You might even get interested in other skeptic issues and not just in US government conspiracy issues.

ISAW

Oddly it now appears that the claim made by the small paragraph in Newsweek i.e. that the Koran was being defaced in the prison, were true. I am actually annoyed by Newsweek because they did not stand by a story which was true and it seems they backed down after the Whitehouse put pressure on them to withdraw!

Anyway the idea that Newsweek was wrong no seems to be in error. It turns out Newsweek was correct! Bizarre.

ISAW

Turley wrote:

Chronology
May 17, 2005

Newsweek Magazine retracted Michael Isikoff's story that the Koran was flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

[snip]

Our moderator was unable to recognize Newsweek was not a source to be trusted even after all the evidence I presented.

I enjoy the freedom of an open debate with all the rough and tumble for the truth. I do not need a moderator controlling what I and others say. I am not a child.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/BreakingItDown/story?id=775487&page=1

http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/5/21/141128/255

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=8549743

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4567457.stm


Turley, do you now accept you have been roughed up and tumbled? Maybe Newsweek was part of an even bigger conspiracy to out the US for mistreatment of prisioners by pretending not to out them ?

ISAW

Turley wrote:

Chronology
May 17, 2005

Newsweek Magazine retracted Michael Isikoff's story that the Koran was flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

[snip]
I enjoy the freedom of an open debate with all the rough and tumble for the truth. I do not need a moderator controlling what I and others say. I am not a child.

Comments or questions? Email me for unfiltered discussion.

Chronology

May 20th, 2005

ISAW posted several media and official references which suggest the byline about abuse of the Koran was actually correct! An open debate and request for comment is called for by ISAW. The question is whether Turley who admits he wants open debate will respond.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Months ago when I expressed skepticism about placing our trust in Newsweek many people here considered me to be "nutty."

Thats not the reason people think you are "nutty" ... people think you are nutty because you seem to believe that there exists a huge government conspiricy to hide the truth and the organisations such as Newsweek are part of that conspiricy, they know about it and go along with it.

As someone already said to you about 9/11 don't confuse malice with ineptituted. Newsweek published a story they shouldn't have because they should have cleared their source better. It was bad journalism. They didn't publish this story because they were attempting to purposly mislead the American public.

Also, because Newsweek ignored your correspondence you seem to be reading into that that they must know you are right and are choosing to ignore you on purpose. But listening to you, with the rather weak and circumstantial "evidence" you have would be as bad as listening to the Koran source that Newsweek should have ignored or at least though "no this doesn't add up".

So, in your mind apparently, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't