NEWSWEEK store recanted

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 23, 2005 12:42 am

briannell wrote:BAC- just informing you on US Ambassadors, not all are a-holes. take that comment personally, you just insulted my uncle, and other members of my family . uncle served Kennedy-Reagan era, several cousins now in positions in Germany, and Austria. sisiter-in-law worked in Korea as Saudi ambassador.

Case in point, you don't always shoot your mouth off until you know whom your really dealing with. not nice to insult. come from a political family, although I admittingly hate politics. Definitely been around the DC crowd too much in my life that I can say it is crap. (personal opinion) Doubt you have! with out personal reference, you should keep insults to yourself. now if there is a specific individual you'd like to comment on by all means blast away.

Just don't think blanket statements should be made on any occupation. i wont blast you if you make more informed comments. the political crowd i've met have some very good natured people wanting to really make a difference, however there are others like Nancy Pelosi (went to school with nick and dan) that I do not find to be genuine.

-rebecca

Rebecca,

Sorry -- I thought my reference was timely enough that everyone would know that I was referring specifically to Bolton's nomination for U.N. ambassador as it is the only recent one in the news dealing with an a-hole. [Just to defend myself a bit -- the Bolton story has actually been really, really big news over the last couple weeks.] I know in a perfect world I would qualify each specific item, and apparently I should have done so here.

Clearly, I don't think most ambassadors are a-holes. The fact that Bolton is an a-hole (by virtually all accounts, including both Powell and Rice) was ironic enough (as ambassador's jobs are to, you know, get along with people) that I thought it stood on its own. My bad, though.

I must say, though, that if I have to explain in detail every comment I make, we are REALLY going to run into some long posts ... and they will read like a boring research paper (and I am going to have to spend a lot of time tracking down links for background). Going forward, please cut me a little slack and try to read in the context of the statement before getting too mad at me. Or just ask me what I meant by a statement. Then, if my explanation of my statement still peeves you, then fire away, 'cause I deserve it.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 23, 2005 12:45 am

BobCatFan wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobCatFan wrote:http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/2005 ... red/nc:742

I think Ann Coulter has it just about right. Newsweek is so biased. You can read and decided for yourself.
Yeah, she has a pretty compelling case -- comparing Newsweek to the journalistic high water mark of Drudge. How can people read the pundit garbage and not just shake their heads and move on? Isn't it obvious that everything that comes from Coulter, Hannity, Savage, etc., is going to be so skewed and devoid of balance as to be useless? They are professional propoganda entertainers -- not journalists. Their opinions are essentially meaningless unless you proactively balance them out with a lot of research.

That being said, I made it about three lines -- right up to her complaining about Newsweek getting scooped on Clinton stories (many of which never panned out) by Drudge, and how that showed some sort of liberal bias.
Their point of view might be bias, but at least they tell the truth and do not make up reports.

Replace "but" with "and," and then take the "do not" out from in front of the "make" and put it in front of "the truth," and I will agree.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:06 am

Hell's Bells wrote:well yeah BAC might be one of the most level headed posters but I am pretty sure i am not the only one who notices that he lets his politics get in the way of thinking clearly....hes also not available to defend himself you know...i think this can wait like 2 more days....cant it??

I don't even understand this charge. My "politics" are based exclusively on thinking -- I don't support either team, so I have to actually think about and believe what I am saying. Unfortunately, that's not a luxury that I see some people in this country enjoying (that is a general statement and not pointed at anyone is particular, but I can provide a short list if requested). That's the main reason I get into these frays -- to challenge everything and force people to defend their positions with thinking (while challenging my thinking). I might be wrong in my thinking on certain points -- if I wasn't then I would probably be famous or something, but to say that my politics get in the way of my thinking doesn't make much sense to me. I have no political loyalties, so I'm on this island alone.

I am honestly baffled at this whole thread, quite honestly. Rebecca's comments I understand -- she took a somewhat subtle smartass comment of mine literally, and if I had read someone else's posts the same way, I would have been ticked as well.

As for the other ones, though, I'm missing something here. Very simply, here are my points. If anyone can poke holes in any of them, please do so:

1. Newsweek messed up when I published a report without proper research.

2. Desecration of the Koran may well have happened (which is bad, because there is never a good foreign relations result to our government intentionally pissing off any culture) based on circumstances (everything else that has happened) and some published reports from the Red Cross. However, that doesn't excuse Newsweek's faulty reporting. They should have corroborated everything before publishing it. For this, they will suffer in the way all news agencies suffer -- they lose credibility. Should we be upset with them? Yes, absolutely. Should we blame them for anger in the Muslim world directed at the U.S.? Well, if we do, we need to allocate it accordingly ... and they would register in at about 0.0002% of the total reasons on the list. So maybe we can pin that much of the liability on them.

3. I do not think that Newsweek bears the majority of the blame for the riots and the deaths. I believe the people who rioted deserve the blame. I am still waiting to hear anyone counter that argument while saying that 911 is any different than this situation. The 911 terrorists had "reasons" for doing what they did as well, and I don't accept the argument that their response to their greivances was appropriate. Therefore, I don't pin the responsility for 911 on the U.S. government -- I pin it on the terrorists. Similarly, I pin the responsibility for recent deaths on those who did the killing -- not the faulty reporting that led to the release of a news item that may or may not be true. If the story was true or if it was not true, I still don't accept that "reason" as adequate for someone to murder someone else.

4. And, even though I made it abundantly clear many, many times, when I speak of the people responsible for the riots/terrorism, etc., I am NOT making a blanket statement about all followers of Islam -- I am speaking only of the rioters and terrorists who do use Islam to justify their violence.

So, to boil that one down into a really simple statement, I am like, totally against any Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Satanist, Muslim, Sihk, Hindu or Teletubby committing a violent act in the name of their philosophy of choice or any of the symbols involved therein. I think that's bad, umkay? If anyone wants to argue against me (meaning, in favor of religiously motivated violence), then the floor is now theirs.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:16 am

Cabo was fun, by the way.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon May 23, 2005 2:26 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:well yeah BAC might be one of the most level headed posters but I am pretty sure i am not the only one who notices that he lets his politics get in the way of thinking clearly....hes also not available to defend himself you know...i think this can wait like 2 more days....cant it??
I don't even understand this charge. My "politics" are based exclusively on thinking -- I don't support either team, so I have to actually think about and believe what I am saying. Unfortunately, that's not a luxury that I see some people in this country enjoying (that is a general statement and not pointed at anyone is particular, but I can provide a short list if requested). That's the main reason I get into these frays -- to challenge everything and force people to defend their positions with thinking (while challenging my thinking). I might be wrong in my thinking on certain points -- if I wasn't then I would probably be famous or something, but to say that my politics get in the way of my thinking doesn't make much sense to me. I have no political loyalties, so I'm on this island alone.

I am honestly baffled at this whole thread, quite honestly. Rebecca's comments I understand -- she took a somewhat subtle smartass comment of mine literally, and if I had read someone else's posts the same way, I would have been ticked as well.

As for the other ones, though, I'm missing something here. Very simply, here are my points. If anyone can poke holes in any of them, please do so:

1. Newsweek messed up when I published a report without proper research.

2. Desecration of the Koran may well have happened (which is bad, because there is never a good foreign relations result to our government intentionally pissing off any culture) based on circumstances (everything else that has happened) and some published reports from the Red Cross. However, that doesn't excuse Newsweek's faulty reporting. They should have corroborated everything before publishing it. For this, they will suffer in the way all news agencies suffer -- they lose credibility. Should we be upset with them? Yes, absolutely. Should we blame them for anger in the Muslim world directed at the U.S.? Well, if we do, we need to allocate it accordingly ... and they would register in at about 0.0002% of the total reasons on the list. So maybe we can pin that much of the liability on them.

3. I do not think that Newsweek bears the majority of the blame for the riots and the deaths. I believe the people who rioted deserve the blame. I am still waiting to hear anyone counter that argument while saying that 911 is any different than this situation. The 911 terrorists had "reasons" for doing what they did as well, and I don't accept the argument that their response to their greivances was appropriate. Therefore, I don't pin the responsility for 911 on the U.S. government -- I pin it on the terrorists. Similarly, I pin the responsibility for recent deaths on those who did the killing -- not the faulty reporting that led to the release of a news item that may or may not be true. If the story was true or if it was not true, I still don't accept that "reason" as adequate for someone to murder someone else.

4. And, even though I made it abundantly clear many, many times, when I speak of the people responsible for the riots/terrorism, etc., I am NOT making a blanket statement about all followers of Islam -- I am speaking only of the rioters and terrorists who do use Islam to justify their violence.

So, to boil that one down into a really simple statement, I am like, totally against any Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Satanist, Muslim, Sihk, Hindu or Teletubby committing a violent act in the name of their philosophy of choice or any of the symbols involved therein. I think that's bad, umkay? If anyone wants to argue against me (meaning, in favor of religiously motivated violence), then the floor is now theirs.

1) we agree

2) I prefer to give our troops the benefit of the doubt....the pentigon looked into it and found out that it actually didnt happen....the detanees might be doingf that in order to get world opinion against us...manipulating the press in order to look meek and harmless

3) I agree that the people who rioted bear the majority of blame for the riots but what you must consiter is why are they rioting...and no this is different from 9-11. 9-11 was the latest in a series of terroristic events against us that included the uss cole...barricks in saudi...several embasies being blowen to peices and the first world trade center...I am not all for censorship but we are americans should hold newsweek responsible for not taking into account the possible reactions people might have to their article

4) you had only recently stopped making blanket statements calling all people of islamic faith extreamists....although to be fair It seems to be (correct me if i am wrong) that you are a member of the croud that thinks that religion is a "oppiate of the masses"...all that i am begging, pleading you to do BAC is to take a walk into the shoes of a religous person, christain/catholic, islamic, jewish, worshipps brittney spears....ect. their "holy book", for example the bible, koran, torah, nakid pictures of spears are consitered sacred and they easily get insulted when their holy book is desicrated. Yes i do realize that they are just books but please, i beg you *turning blue* to consiter the point of view of the religous person...it seems that the nice beaches of cabo have callmed you a bit and i hope and pray that you are able to "walk in the shoes of a religous person"

ok now i am off to bed again....havnt been able to sleep in a few...btw if i can say somthing red hat linux version 9 is mighty fun to run on a 8 year old gateway *shrieks in horror*

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon May 23, 2005 8:10 am

Hell's Bells wrote:I am not all for censorship but we are americans should hold newsweek responsible for not taking into account the possible reactions people might have to their article

I agree that they should be held accountable (or "responsible," which is the term you used), but the devil is, as they say, in the details.

Here's my question: what exactly do you mean when you say they should be "held accountable"? Accountability is a mantra that gets thrown around a lot these days, and its vagueness can be frustrating.

So to clarify, here's the question: what, EXACTLY, do you think should happen to Newsweek and its personnel? There's a spectrum of possibilities, including:

1. The general public, knowing that Newsweek has published unsubstantiated reports in the past, should look with increased skepticism on future reports by Newsweek;

2. The families of those who were killed should be allowed to sue Newsweek for the deaths of their loved ones;

3. Newsweek, as an entity, should be subject to criminal liability and fines;

4. Newsweek should be forced to close down and never publish an issue again;

5. The individuals who work for Newsweek should be subject to civil and/or criminal liability for their wrongdoing; or

6. Every employee of Newsweek should be shot, drawn, and quartered; the corporate headquarters should be burned to the ground, and copies of Newsweek should be burned in protest.

Now, obviously I'm being intentionally ridiculous with some of these suggestions, but my point is that when you say they should be "held accountable," that doesn't really tell us anything. I think they should be held accountable too, but I suspect that means something different to me than it does to you.

EDIT: A separate point that I intended to make (which I have made earlier in this thread, but will repeat here just for clarity's sake), is also that, when I say Newsweek should be held "accountable," (or "responsible," if you prefer that term), I still believe they should be held accountable for their journalistic mistakes only, not for causing the actual riots.

I am still a firm believer that true stories, however unpleasant, should be published. Thus, if the stories about desecration of the Koran HAD been properly substantiated, I would not hold Newsweek responsible for the consequences of their publication. My position on that issue is the same as it has always been...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 23, 2005 9:36 am

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote: 4) you had only recently stopped making blanket statements calling all people of islamic faith extreamists....although to be fair It seems to be (correct me if i am wrong) that you are a member of the croud that thinks that religion is a "oppiate of the masses"...all that i am begging, pleading you to do BAC is to take a walk into the shoes of a religous person, christain/catholic, islamic, jewish, worshipps brittney spears....ect. their "holy book", for example the bible, koran, torah, nakid pictures of spears are consitered sacred and they easily get insulted when their holy book is desicrated. Yes i do realize that they are just books but please, i beg you *turning blue* to consiter the point of view of the religous person...it seems that the nice beaches of cabo have callmed you a bit and i hope and pray that you are able to "walk in the shoes of a religous person"

I stongly, strongly disagree (and resent the implication, quite frankly). I think every time I have spoken negatively about Islamic extremists, I have been very clear that I was speaking specifically about the extremists, and not the entire religion. I am very sensitive about people making blanket statements about all of Islam myself (I don't want to have a throwdown as to who's more sensitive to the evils of stereotyping, but please take my word for it, I am not in favor of it), so I am quite certain that any time I made a statement, either the context of the statement or the actual statement itself made it clear that I was speaking only of those people who were extremists.

In case you didn't notice it, it was that exact mischaracterization of my thoughts that caused most of the friction in this recent thread.

And no, I am not interested in "walking in the shoes" of extremist fundamentalist religious people. Anyone who takes any holy book as literal truth (as opposed to a philosophy or a set of parables with life lessons) scares me, and I usually try to avoid them. I think the main issue here is killing over a religion or religious imagery, and I have no sympathy for people with those views, nor will I ever. However, run-of-the-mill down-to-earth friendly and not scary people of faith are perfectly fine. Heck, some of my best friends are people of faith.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Mon May 23, 2005 9:56 am

Welcome back BAC. You will need another vacation to recover from posting on bobcatnation from the looks of it...

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:45 am

bac- i will do my best not to read into your posts, and contain myself from being miffed. Sorry! I hope your vacation was great. enjoy being back home, I'm sure you'll be busy with new posts by the time i get a chance to read the board again. moving into my new home and wont have pc access for awhile.

Hey, you can start a thread about real estate prices again, or simply the shortage of affordable homes. we are getting the CA boom here in WA and the whole home buying process sucks. blessed to have a home to move into, and for a somewhat affordable price.

have a wonderful day!

-rebecca

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Mon May 23, 2005 11:37 am

This will make some smile and other cringe...

In April, two former Cornell University entomologists, in what they said was a show of respect, named three new species of beetles that feed on slime mold after President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. "We admire these leaders," said Quentin Wheeler, for their "courage" "to do the very difficult and unpopular work of living up to principles of freedom and democracy ...." The Agathidium bushi are found in Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina, while the cheneyi and rumsfeldi are native to Mexico. [MSNBC-AP, 4-13-05]

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 23, 2005 12:01 pm

mquast53000 wrote:Welcome back BAC. You will need another vacation to recover from posting on bobcatnation from the looks of it...

Thanks. Interestingly, I am going on vacation again this Thursday for a longer stint, so maybe you are exactly right!

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:02 pm

BAC all that i am asking you is to stop typecasting all/most religous people as extreamist...the fact that you are is insulting. I know of several people you would consiter religous extreamists that are the nicest, kindest people on the planet...and not all islamic people are extreamists. Personally i conster a religous extremists sombody who is willing to kill/maim for god/alla.buddah.....ect... However, the desicration of one's holy book is rather insulting to begin with and to publish an article about the "rumor" of such activities will only inflame most if not all of the religion who's holy book you desicrated

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:09 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:I am not all for censorship but we are americans should hold newsweek responsible for not taking into account the possible reactions people might have to their article

I agree that they should be held accountable (or "responsible," which is the term you used), but the devil is, as they say, in the details.

EDIT: A separate point that I intended to make (which I have made earlier in this thread, but will repeat here just for clarity's sake), is also that, when I say Newsweek should be held "accountable," (or "responsible," if you prefer that term), I still believe they should be held accountable for their journalistic mistakes only, not for causing the actual riots.

I am still a firm believer that true stories, however unpleasant, should be published. Thus, if the stories about desecration of the Koran HAD been properly substantiated, I would not hold Newsweek responsible for the consequences of their publication. My position on that issue is the same as it has always been...

if it were substantiated....which it was not which is why i have the beef with newsweek. I guess the saying goes the story was "to good to be true", not to mention newsweek ended up retracting that story. Did the koran get flushed....we dont know so for the sake of fareness let us assume it did not happen. Personally it is not fair to assume guilt.

secondly as for accountability i would like newsweek to at least admit that the story was a mistake and more then likley not true instead of trying to prove their story, a process that should have been done long before publishing.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:51 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:secondly as for accountability i would like newsweek to at least admit that the story was a mistake and more then likley not true instead of trying to prove their story, a process that should have been done long before publishing.

They have admitted that the story was a mistake, have they not?

As for admitting that the story is "more than likely not true," I really don't think that would be appropriate. Follow your logic to its conclusion: what we're advocating for in this thread is the view that the media should limit itself to the unbiased reporting of substantiated, verifiable facts, correct? What substantiation do they have for expressing the view that the events in their story "more likely than not did not occur"??

If they were to express the view that the acts did not occur, then that view would properly be characterized as opinion, not fact -- correct? Thus, I think retracting the original story was appropriate, but expressing a view that the allegations are NOT true would be just as bad as expressing an (unsubstantiated) view that they ARE true.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Mon May 23, 2005 2:09 pm

There's been a pretty good amount of thought put into all your posts. Here's something I'd like explained, Grizlaw may be best as I assume he's had actual journalism courses or been hanging out with these students in a prior life: when did reporters start giving what used to be limited to the editor's job, that is, giving us the public something other than just the facts? Not many years ago the only op ed pieces were found in the editorials of papers and the front section of magazines. Seems the news could/should get dinged with that NCAA catchall: Lack of Institutional Control.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 23, 2005 2:18 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:BAC all that i am asking you is to stop typecasting all/most religous people as extreamist...the fact that you are is insulting. I know of several people you would consiter religous extreamists that are the nicest, kindest people on the planet...and not all islamic people are extreamists. Personally i conster a religous extremists sombody who is willing to kill/maim for god/alla.buddah.....ect... However, the desicration of one's holy book is rather insulting to begin with and to publish an article about the "rumor" of such activities will only inflame most if not all of the religion who's holy book you desicrated

Are you just trying to be difficult at this point? How many more times do I have to explain to you what I mean when I say "extremist?" I tell you that I am speaking of people who kill in the name of religion. You then tell me I am insulting all/most religious people. You then proceed to define your personal view of extremist as people who kill in the name of religion.

WE ARE SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!! I AM NOT CALLING ALL/MOST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE EXTREMISTS!!!! I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO KILL FOR RELIGION!!!!

I'm just beating my head against a wall here. If you want to be insulted because you can't figure out what I have clearly stated about ten times, so be it.

However, if you do feel insulted, please don't kill me or anyone else. For if you do, then I will label you as an "extremist." There, will that real-life application of the logic clear things up?

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed May 25, 2005 12:55 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:BAC all that i am asking you is to stop typecasting all/most religous people as extreamist...the fact that you are is insulting. I know of several people you would consiter religous extreamists that are the nicest, kindest people on the planet...and not all islamic people are extreamists. Personally i conster a religous extremists sombody who is willing to kill/maim for god/alla.buddah.....ect... However, the desicration of one's holy book is rather insulting to begin with and to publish an article about the "rumor" of such activities will only inflame most if not all of the religion who's holy book you desicrated
Are you just trying to be difficult at this point? How many more times do I have to explain to you what I mean when I say "extremist?" I tell you that I am speaking of people who kill in the name of religion. You then tell me I am insulting all/most religious people. You then proceed to define your personal view of extremist as people who kill in the name of religion.

WE ARE SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!! I AM NOT CALLING ALL/MOST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE EXTREMISTS!!!! I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO KILL FOR RELIGION!!!!

I'm just beating my head against a wall here. If you want to be insulted because you can't figure out what I have clearly stated about ten times, so be it.

However, if you do feel insulted, please don't kill me or anyone else. For if you do, then I will label you as an "extremist." There, will that real-life application of the logic clear things up?

I'll just conclude that we are...although there are still some statements that you have made that confuse me...but i am just going to drop it for the sake of my sanity.

Looks like the senate will not tackle judical fillibusters until renquist retires.....bad thing no matter where on the fense you sit....must be me but i prefer to tackle a problem once it arrises not 4 years down the pike. I just hope this issue is settled soon and not used for campaign material in 2006 but then again there is a reason why i am trying to move myself away from politics. Sorry for the rant just frusterated

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed May 25, 2005 1:31 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:Looks like the senate will not tackle judical fillibusters until renquist retires.....bad thing no matter where on the fense you sit....must be me but i prefer to tackle a problem once it arrises not 4 years down the pike. I just hope this issue is settled soon and not used for campaign material in 2006 but then again there is a reason why i am trying to move myself away from politics. Sorry for the rant just frusterated

Personally, I don't think the issue of judicial filibusters is particularly relevant -- the bigger issue is the fact that both parties have been abusing the judicial confirmation process for at least the past fifteen years or so. It doesn't matter what the Senate decides about filibusters; until the parties stop abusing the process, we'll have problems.

The Constitution grants the President the power to appoint judges, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Traditionally, that has always meant that the President was free to appoint whoever he chose -- the Senate would confirm his choice unless they were somehow unfit for the bench (i.e. ethical issues, demonstrable bias, etc.) The rule was *not* read, until relatively recently, as giving the Senate the right to block nonimees based strictly on ideological grounds; however, the Senate did block 168 of Clinton's nominees for largely ideological reasons, and the current Senate has done the same to Bush. (The practice may have also occurred earlier than that; I'm not trying to "blame" one party or the other for "starting it.")

My point is, the judicial filibuster is not really the key issue; the key issue is the general abuse of the system by both parties. If the filibuster is done away with, we'll still have a problem as soon as the White House is controlled by one party and the other party has a one-vote majority in the Senate, if the party with that one-vote majority decides that it has a license to block all of the President's nominees simply because they come from the wrong side of the aisle.

Anyway, just my .02 worth...

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Thu May 26, 2005 1:53 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2068555

Fully understand this thread has gone several different directions; why shouldn't Sports Illustrated be forced to reveal their sources (if in fact there were any sources because if this was just another fabrication and a decent man lost more than his reputation...) One would hope UTEP gave him a second chance at worst and has as much distrust of the media as I do at best

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri May 27, 2005 2:02 pm

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Thousands of Muslims marched Friday in Islamic countries from Asia to the Middle East, burning symbols of America to protest the alleged desecration of the Quran by military personnel at a U.S. prison in Guantanamo, Bay, Cuba.

The rallies in Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere followed an admission Thursday by U.S. investigators that Islam's holy book was mishandled at Guantanamo. But American officials claimed it was often inadvertent and denied that any Qurans were flushed down a toilet, as Newsweek magazine had reported in a now-retracted article.

No injuries were reported in Friday's demonstrations, with police simply watching in most places. In India's Kashmir region, however, police fired tear gas and used batons to disperse hundreds of Muslims gathered outside a mosque in the capital of Srinagar.

Women in black veils marched through Kashmir, where schools and businesses were closed as part of the protest, and set American flags and copies of the U.S. Constitution ablaze.

"The defilement of our holy book is outrageous because we consider it to be the word of God," thundered Asiya Andrabi, head of the women's group Daughters of the Community, through her veil. "Guantanamo Bay is a cage. It is not a prison."

More than 15,000 people took to the streets of Pakistan's largest cities. A demonstration in the capital of Islamabad began in a tense atmosphere, just hours after a bomb at a Muslim shrine killed at least 20 people at an annual celebration. The motive for the suspected suicide bombing was not immediately clear.

"We condemn sacrilege of the Quran by U.S. extremists," read one banner draped across a bus while protest leaders chanted into loudspeakers during a rally of at least 2,000 in Islamabad.

In Pakistan's southwestern city of Quetta, 5,000 demonstrators chanted slogans against the United States and Britain. Another 5,000 gathered in the southern city of Karachi, demanding the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador. Protests also were held in Lahore, near the Indian border.

The rallies were organized by a hard-line religious coalition, Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, or United Action Forum -- a vocal opponent of Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

About 12,000 people, many of them supporters of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood group, gathered in Alexandria, Egypt, filling a three-story building and spilling into surrounding streets, listening to preachers who demanded an apology from U.S. officials. The neighborhood was ringed by police, who arrested 12 of the demonstrator's organizers.

About 1,000 people -- mostly lawyers -- gathered in downtown Cairo and were surrounded by double that number of riot police.

A similar number gathered in the Lebanese capital of Beirut, carrying black banners and burning American and Israeli flags.

"We will cut off the feet that desecrated the Quran!" the crowd yelled.

Thousands gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, and demanded an investigation into all actions against Muslims held in Guantanamo.

In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, protesters shouted "Go to hell, America!" and waved placards reading "Long Live Islam," as they burned U.S. and Israeli flags outside the U.S. Embassy. Riot police guarded the compound, and the crowd dispersed peacefully nearly an hour later after handing a note to embassy officials. The protest was the second of its kind in as many weeks.

About 50 people chanted anti-American slogans and threw tomatoes at a portrait of President Bush in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. The protesters were outnumbered 4-1 by police officers in riot gear and left after about an hour.

In Bangladesh's capital of Dhaka, about 5,000 people rallied after Friday prayers, spitting on U.S. flags, kicking them and then burning them. They shouted "Death to America!" and "Destroy America!" Many carried copies of the Quran, held over their heads.

The protesters used shoes to beat a Bush dummy and burned an effigy of the president, chanting "Bush -- the killer!" Riot police watched the demonstrators, who dispersed peacefully.

"No one has the right to debase our holy book. We are prepared to die to protect the honor of our religion," Fazlul Huq Amini, a lawmaker from Islamic Oikya Jote told the rally.

The groups included Islamic Oikya Jote or Islamic Unity Council, a member of the coalition government led by Prime Minister Khaleda Zia.

Anti-U.S. sentiment has been running high in Muslim countries since the Newsweek report. The Bush administration blamed it for demonstrations this month in Afghanistan, where more than a dozen people died and scores were injured.

In Washington on Thursday, investigators confirmed five cases in which military personnel mishandled the Qurans of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. But they said they found no "credible evidence" that a holy book was flushed in a toilet.

Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, the Guantanamo Bay prison commander who led the investigation, said five of 15 alleged incidents were substantiated. Four were by guards and one was by an interrogator.

Hood said the five cases "could be broadly defined as mishandling" of the holy book. He refused to discuss details but said two of the cases apparently were accidental.

Hood emphasized that his investigation was not complete.

------

Associated Press reporters Maggie Michael in Cairo, Egypt; Mujtaba Ali Ahmad in Srinagar, India; and Julhas Alam in Dhaka, Bangladesh, contributed to this report.

Well I guess that they don’t really care that Newsweek went and retracted the story. Some of these people will only believe what they want to believe fact based or not.