Suspected terrorist and AP reporter Bilal Hussein in the news again. This time the AP is trying to get more coverage from the MSM over Hussein.

The AP actually wants other MSM outlets to use the detained without charge angle in the case. How about the is known associate of al Qaeda terrorists angle? That's how I would cover it. But, you know, that's just me and my quaint pro-Americanism talking.

From the ever biased Editor and Publisher (no link since every time E & P has mentioned the Jawa they did so without linking):

Associated Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll today called on other news organizations, especially those that use AP services, to increase their attention on imprisoned AP photographer Bilal Hussein, who has been held by U.S. military officials in Iraq for more than six months without being charged.

Saying Hussein "works on behalf of every news organization that receives news from the Associated Press," Carroll called on columnists and editorial writers at newspapers and other news outlets to focus on his plight and support efforts to release him.

"I wouldn't presume to tell them what to write, but I would presume to draw their attention to it," Carroll told E&P Wednesday. "Here is someone who has brought you pictures, images from a critical part of Iraq, who has now been in U.S. military custody for six and a half months, not charged with a crime, not charged with anything, but told he will be held indefinitely because his pictures are unwelcome."

I wouldn't wish that Carroll met up with some of Bilal Hussein's associates. The kind of people who behead American journalists for the fun of it.

See also Michelle Malkin's Bilal Hussein coverage here.

Hat tip: the very busy guys from Big Carnival who didn't have time to blog it.

UPDATE: The Bilal Hussein photojournalism kit. Bwahahahaha!

Posted by: Rusty at 06:46 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.

Osama is alive.

How can we trust the AP on this?

Bilal Hussein, anyone?

There is a pattern here. Good news for the Jihad, probably true. Bad news for the Jihad, less likely to be true.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Journalistic ethics be damned if those ethics include balancing coverage by hiring stringers with known ties to people killing American soldiers. If it is ethical to hire an enemy propagandist, then I'm just not sure what ethics really mean.

Call it ethics if you want. I call it treason.

Don't you just love it when the ethical thing to do gets people killed?

Ethics.

Michelle Malkin's latest column on the Bilal Hussein mess:

Let me repeat that: An Associated (with terrorists) Press journalist gets caught with an alleged al Qaeda leader and tests positive for bomb-making materials. That. Is. News. How does a news organization explain away its decision to sit on it for five months? Like this: "The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach."

The best approach to journalism? No. The best approach to suppressing a damning connection to terrorists.

The mainstream media enjoys mocking bloggers as journalistic wannabes who don't do any "real" reporting and have no concern for the "public interest." But as in the case of the Reuters photo-faking debacle this summer, it is bloggers in their little home offices -- not the professionals on the ground thousands of miles away -- who smoked out a war story with profound national security implications. Well before I reported on Hussein's capture, military bloggers and media watchdog bloggers had raised persistent questions over the past two years about Hussein's relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were staged in collusion with our enemies. (For a thorough overview, see http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/cat_bilal_hussein.php.)

Ethics.

Michelle also has inciteful analysis on her blog today.

Oh, and way to go NY Times. Ethics above love of country and the safety of our soldiers, as I always say.

Also, don't miss out on another find about Bilal Hussein from Dan Riehl. Ethics.

More on ethicsgate from the guys at Powerline:

Nowhere in the AP's response is there any recognition of, let alone response to, the fundamental criticism that we and others have leveled: news organizations like the AP should not pay photographers to consort with terrorists and take photos that the terrorists evidently believe will advance their interests. The AP apparently considers this practice to embody an appropriate neutrality between the terrorists on one side, and their victims and American soldiers on the other. And they don't seem to understand why that view is controversial.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:07 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 4 kb.

I just love this response by the AP to Dan Riehl's query as to whether or not Bilal Hussein held the camcorder as Michael Moore's minutemen murdered an Italian civilian.

Here is some of it according to the AP and via the blogfather, Charles Johnson:

This AP story explains that masked insurgents stopped Hussein and other AP journalists, including an AP video journalist, at a roadblock and took them to the site where the blindfolded body lay, already stiff with rigor mortis. They propped the body up and allowed the journalists to photograph and videotape it.

And here is the original story, as run by the AP. Italics and higlights are mine:

Iraqi militants said they shot and killed an Italian citizen after he tried to break through a guerrilla roadblock on a highway outside the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi.

Masked gunmen took three Iraqi journalists to a location in the desert outside Ramadi on Wednesday and showed them the blindfolded body, one of the journalists recounted.

Photos showed the body of the man in jeans and a leather jacket, a white rag tied around his eyes, propped up on a sandy incline. Two masked gunmen posed with their automatic rifles pointed at the body.

100 bucks says that single source is....Bilal Hussein. In any event, all three are Iraqi stringers.

Another troubling aspect to the original AP story is its headline: Iraqi militants say they shot Italian who tried to break through checkpoint

And here is the lead paragraph:

Iraqi militants said they shot and killed an Italian citizen after he tried to break through a guerrilla roadblock on a highway outside the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi.

But read the actual content of the story and you realize something else happened:

told by the militants that the man had tried to run the roadblock on Monday, hit and killed one of the gunmen, then crashed the car. The gunmen said they then "executed" the man.

Much later than that. In fact, so much later that Santoro's 'corpse' is seen with his hands tied behind his back and with a blindfold on. To spin his murder as just a casualty of war disgraces his memory and is an outrage!

No bias at the AP. Nope.

And what about the portions of the video and the photographs taken by Bilal Hussein which were taken indoors? Something else is going on here folks.

And all this from a witness who is being detained in Iraq right now for his known ties to al Qaeda.

Thank you for clarifying that AP. You're a peach.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:51 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 4 kb.

AP reporter Bilal Hussein a security threat with ties to insurgents? Nah, can't be! He's a reporter.

Can I just take a moment and gloat? I've been calling Bilal Hussein a security threat for nearly 2 years now! I think my first thoughts on him went something like, why haven't we killed that guy yet?

An enemy propagandist is an enemy with a weapon.

Anyway, Michelle sends along word that the Pentagon has spoken about Bilal Hussein and has updated and bumped her post. I'm so happy, I thought I'd give this its own post. Al Reuters:

The Pentagon said on Monday that an Iraqi photographer working for The Associated Press and held by the U.S. military since April was considered a security threat with "strong ties to known insurgents."...

"All indications that I have received are that Hussein's detainment indicates that he has strong ties to known insurgents, and that he was doing things, involved in activities that were well outside the scope of what you would expect a journalist to be doing in that country," he said.

In three separate "independent objective reviews," Whitman told reporters, "it was determined that Hussein was a security threat and recommended his continued detention."

When the story of the Iraq war is finally written we will learn that many lives would have been spared had we simply not allowed a free press. You cannot have a free press in a war zone.

UPDATE: Did AP reporter Bilal Hussein video the murder of Italian hostage Salvatore Santoro? Our original post about the civilian Italian hostage Salvatore Santoro murdered is here.

Dan Riehl has the video of Santoro's murder here.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:39 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Ah the glory of Allah and his mujahidin in the Associated Press! Bilal Hussein, an AP reporter who help get his organization the Pulitzer, has been detained by the U.S.--for five months. This is the guy who has a close working relationship with al Qaeda in Iraq.

That's right, al Qaeda. If the AP employs a guy who has access to al Qaeda, isn't there some sort of affirmative duty to report those contacts to the Iraqi government? And by not sharing that information does that not make the AP culpable in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis murdered by al Qaeda in Iraq?

And since al Qaeda in Iraq has also murdered foreigners, including Americans, it seems like the families of victims here might have legal recourse in U.S. courts.

We've been covering this for a long time now. Please see our Bilal Hussein archives for a complete history.

Michelle Malkin e-mails about the latest Bilal Hussein news. AP:

The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Associated Press photographer for five months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing...

The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces," according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq.

"The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities," Gardner wrote to AP International Editor John Daniszewski.

And thanks to Michelle for e-mailing...it does wonders for the ego.

UPDATE: And to Jim who also has more.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Michelle Malkin has the scoop that AP stringer Bilal Hussein has been detained by U.S. troops in Ramadi. Yes, that Bilal Hussein. The same Bilal Hussein that we opened a dead pool on in November of 2004. You know the guy.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? That maybe the recent footage out of Ramadi shown on CNN was taken by a certain AP stringer who just happnes to know when the terrorists are about to strike?

Bilal Hussein seems to be the Clark Kent or Peter Parker of Iraq.....only the alter ego I'm thinking of doesn't wear a cape, but a kafiyah.

And it turns out Bilal Hussein is even worse than I thought. Michelle found out that it was Bilal Hussein that took the photo of two terrorists standing over the body of murdered hostage Salvatore Santoro in December 2004. Just to remind you, Santoro was an Italian civilian working for a British NGO trying to help rebuild Iraq. A group calling itself The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Mujahidin took Bilal Hussein to the body of the murdered hostage just outside of....wait for it.....Ramadi---where Hussein was picked up today!

It's just too bad that American soldiers aren't 1/10th as murderous as Bilal Hussein has made them out to be in the past. If they were, Hussein would be dead.

Just read all of Michelle's post from start to finish.

And the next time you meet a soldier in a bar or restaurant, do us all a favor and pick up the tab.

Complete Bilal Hussein Archives Here

Bilal Hussein and the Continuing Saga of Insurgent Propaganda via the Media
When Journalilsts are the Enemy
The Pulitzer and Terrorist Embeds
Pulitzer Prize Given to Terrorists
Editor and Publisher Apologizes for Terrorist Embeds *shock*
Bilal Hussein dead pool.
Bilal Hussein, still anti-American

Posted by: Rusty at 09:13 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember our good friend Bilal Hussein? He's an Iraq stringer who works for the AP and who's up-close and personal photos of terrorists in Iraq helped to gain that organization last year's Pulitzer. Well, he's back in the news. This time as part of an expose of how photos are staged, faked, & doctored by pro-terrorist stringers employed by the AP, AFP, Reuters, and Getty Images.

On one forum that I frequently visit, some of these doctored photos discussed in the article have been used to justify killing American soldiers in Iraq. In all cases they are used by Islamic extremists to justify their hatred of America and recruit new jihadis. Thus, the images used by the AP & other organizations--which are often staged and sometimes fake-- lead directly to the deaths of American troops and will eventually help justify the next act of terrorism against American civilians.

Via James Joyner here are some of the highlights of the National Journal article:

Thanks to digital technology, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most photographed in history. Photographers with digital cameras have provided, almost instantaneously, an enormous flood of accurate, dramatic, and even shocking images to people around the world. But the daily downloads of news photos include some that are staged, fake, or so lacking in context as to be meaningless, despite the Western media's best efforts to separate the factual from the fictional....

The photo editors for Time and The New York Times' Web site declined to comment. Other publications printed images of damage from the missile strike that seem entirely accurate. For example, Newsweek and The Washington Times published wide-angle photos of locals standing beside houses that had obviously been severely damaged. The New York Times print edition published the same wide-angle photo on January 18.....

The problem sharpens when no Western reporter is on the scene, but a photographer, usually an Iraqi stringer, is. Photo editors, or even local Western bureau chiefs, have trouble judging the veracity of the images that come from such an event. Last October, for example, The Washington Post printed a striking image of four caskets, purportedly containing dead women and children, and a line of mourning men on a flat desert plain outside the town of Ramadi, west of Baghdad. The photo, provided by the Associated Press, accompanied an article that began this way:

Posted by: Rusty at 04:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1214 words, total size 9 kb.

Above photo taken by AP stringer Bilal Hussein embedded with terrorist forces in Iraq. Thanks for the tip from Sir Humphrey who has much, much more.

I've written extensively about Bilal Hussein and the traitors at the Associated Press who employ him. Since I know a number of soldiers from Centcom's Iraq offices read this blog, here's a hint on how to catch some more terrorists: put a bug on Bilal Hussein.

And if he refuses put him in jail and apply some extreme pressure for him to give up his sources in the terrorist organizations he is embedded with.

What is the line between spreading enemy propaganda, having contacts with the enemy, and actually being one of the enemy? In war, no such line exists. This is why, as I have argued extensively in the past, Nazi propagandists such as Joseph Goebbels were as guilty of war crimes as any of the other leaders of the Third Reich.

Propaganda is a weapon in war. Enemies with weapons can be shot. Journalists who do propaganda for the enemy are therefore legitimate targets unless they lay down their weapons.

Earlier posts on Bilal Hussein:
Complete Bilal Hussein Archives

Bilal Hussein dead pool.
Bilal Hussein, still anti-American
Pulitzer Prize given to Terrorists
The Pulitzer and Terrorist Embeds
Editor and Publisher Apologizes for Terrorist Embeds *shock*

Posted by: Rusty at 01:29 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Times does a half-ass job of questioning the Pulitzer Prize in this editorial. The article raises important questions, but like most of the blogosphere and those in conservative circles, they examine a single photo.

But there were 20 photos in the series. As we have been arguing from the beginning, what is troubling is the totality of the story those photos show. The story those photos tell is of an empowered insurgency, demoralized U.S. troops, and American brutality.

Several of the photos are disgusting, such as the one in question which shows the execution of Iraqi election officials and another which shows the residents of Fallujah celebrating the murder of American civilians as their charred bodies hang from a bridge, but it may be the case that these photos were taken by Iraqi photojournalists who were anonymously tipped off or who just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

We have also noted in the past that the photo in question is not nearly as damning as two others which clearly indicate something like 'embedding' with the isurgency is (or was) going on with AP stringers in Iraq.

Here are the two photos. One of insurgents in Fallujah with ties to Abu Musab al Zarqawi's al Qaeda network firing on U.S. Marines and another of al Sadr's Mahdi Army which was then fighting against U.S. troops. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:18 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday, a stringer for CBS News was shot by U.S. troops in Fallujah. Steve S. has the report here. So, why was the man shot at? Yahoo News:

The U.S. military said in a statement from Mosul released at the Pentagon that U.S. soldiers had been involved in an engagement with at least one suspected insurgent who was "waving an AK-47 (assault rifle) and inciting a crowd of civilians."

During the incident, "an individual that appeared to have a weapon who was standing near the insurgent was shot and injured. This individual turned out to be a reporter who was pointing a video camera," the military statement said.

Maybe.

Paul at Wizbang makes the case and Rathergate note that it is quite possible that the AP stringer who shot this photo just happened upon the scene. Granted.

However, while most of the blogosphere is up in arms against that photo, the really troubling photo is this one.

This photo has no other explanation than that of the AP photographer being privy to the highest ranks of the insurgency. The photo was taken in Fallujah, where the 'resistance' was led by two well known terrorist groups, al Qaeda in Iraq and The Army of Ansar al-Sunna, and their salafist sympathizers of the Fallujah Mujahidin Shura Council--the religious leaders of the city that instituted a Taliban-like rule when the U.S. withdrew from the city.

As we noted when that photo was first taken, these 'insurgents' are in clear violation of the Geneva Convention because they wear no identifiable uniform. The photo also appears to be staged. All the evidence seems to suggest that the AP photographer, Bilal Hussein, had access to terrorist forces and was 'embedded' with them in every sense of the word.

Here is one more photo taken by the AP and which helped them win the Pulitzer. This time, the reporter is clearly embedded with Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army at a time when they were fighting U.S. troops. Note, again, the absence of identifiable uniforms. The dove on the fighters shoulder is just the icing on the cake.

While it may be argued that the murder witnessed by an AP photographer in Iraq was not staged for his benefit, clearly the above photos were. The Pulitzer Prize was, in fact, given to an organization that has information, ties, and serves the propaganda purposes of terrorists.

Aiding the enemy in a time of war is treason. The AP, an American non-profit organization, is guilty of that crime.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:58 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 4 kb.

The Pulitzer Prize has been "Awarded to the Associated Press Staff for its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities."

What photographs won for Breaking News Photography?

The 20 photographs can be found here.

5 of the 20 photos were taken by journalists who were working with terrorist forces. 11 of the 20 photos would likely cause anti-American inflamation. Only two show Americans in a positive light. Three more show the victims of terrorism.

Included in the 5 photos are 1 photo taken by Bilal Hussein [more background on Bilal Hussein here and here] of terrorist forces firing at the U.S. in Fallujah. Another photo identified as taken by a 'stringer' shows terrorists murdering an Iraqi election worker. Both of these photos are by individuals who saw Geneva Convention crimes and did nothing to stop them. Both photos indicate also that the individuals who took them had prior knowledge to the crimes being committed.

Of the remaining 15 photos, 2 show prisoners receiving harsh treatment by U.S. forces [here and here]. One more shows a dead child identified as being killed by the U.S. Another photo, taken by Khalid Mohammed, shows the residents of Fallujah rejoicing as they hang the charred bodies of dead American civilians on a bridge. The famous photo that caused Kos to cry 'screw them.' The family of an alleged Abu Ghraib victim is also shown mourning. Displaced children from the Fallujah conflict are also shown, the exact story Giuliana Sgrena was working on when she was taken hostage.

Only these two photos are positive. One shows the humanity of soldiers on patrol. The other one shows soldiers praying for a fallen comrade. But even the last one might be interpreted as defeatist.

To their credit, at least three photos show the victims of terrorism. See, fair and balanced.

No photos show U.S. troops rebuilding Iraq. No photos show U.S. troops playing with kids in the street. No photos show the results of the first democratic election in Iraq. No photos show the thousands of freed prisoners from Saddam's tyrranical rule.

The Jawa Report must therefore decline it's Pulitzer Prize. I might consider taking the $10,000 reward as soon as the Pulitzer committee stops hating America.

Thanks to Avenue for the tip.

Update 4/06: I have a new post up about the controversy. The most important photos is not the ones currently stirring up such emotions in the blogosphere. Instead, two other photos clearly show that the AP has ties to terrorists and insurgents fighting the U.S.

Update: Vivi e-mails to remind us that the Associated Press is a non-profit organization. So here we have a group that has terrorist sympathizers on their payroll yet is tax exempt? There is something wrong with this picture. I wonder if the Finance Committe might look into that status?

UPDATE: A lot of other fine bloggers have important things to say on this topic. You can find them by checking out the fatwas issued below. Especially good, in my not-so-humble opinion, are Michelle Malkin's take and that of Riding Sun (via the blogfather Charles Johnson) who has a very similar take as my own.

If you're new to The Jawa Report why not surf around? Maybe, add us to your favorites list? And if you're a blogger please, for the love of all that is holy, add us to your blogroll!! If you don't, the terrorists have already won.

Others: Joyner missing the real story here. Cranky and Mark cheer Jawa, will receive fatwa ASAP. Eric has some pics more fitting the Pulitzer. Itsalanche from Dr. Glenn Reynolds.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:25 PM | Comments (99) | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Kinetics attracts attention and media accordingly. Should a photo incite viewers to have a negative opinion of the United States, the fault is the scene captured, not of the reporter taking the image.

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 04, 2005 06:45 PM (fufbw)

2 But selection is 90% of presentation. Of the thousands of photos which could have been shown, most of the ones chosen show the U.S. in a negative light.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 04, 2005 07:11 PM (JQjhA)

3 They gave it to ARAFAT dont forget and they gave it to JINMMY CARTER and although carter was no terrorists he has associated with tyrants like CASTRO

Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2005 09:06 PM (pN5ZK)

4 Is someone confusing Pulitzer with something else?

Posted by: gryrooster at April 04, 2005 10:08 PM (CBNGy)

5 Pulitzer....Nobel...what's the difference?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 04, 2005 10:27 PM (JQjhA)

6 The PP committee certainly lives up to my expectations in that regard. But, do take a closer look at the award for Investigate Journalism and the story associated with it. It is one of the most under-reported scandals of the year. You'll see why everyone else including the Oregonian ignored it... and they sat on it for two decades. I've linked it at my blog.

Posted by: Mr.Atos at April 04, 2005 11:10 PM (9K3Yw)

7 Doc S.
You gotta learn you can't let a bunch of facts get in the way of a good gig, man.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 04, 2005 11:22 PM (3DOby)

8 Did I miss something or were there no other pictures taken in the world lasy year nut in iraq? How could that be?

Posted by: Red at April 04, 2005 11:49 PM (gU2pl)

9 I think perhaps this may be a blessing in disguise.
For whatever reason Pulitzer has clearly demonstrated through the majority of these pictures why we have an obligation to be in IRAQ taking care of business.

Posted by: Mr E.M.T. at April 05, 2005 12:03 AM (tUmDH)

10 Upon closer inspection of the Pulitzer photos, the haunting image of young Mohammad Saleem in the roughly hewn wooden coffin hits me like a powerful kick in the chest. Mohammed was killed when American forces brutally machine-gunned him and four other members of his family dead in the street. I encourage Jawa readers to take a few minutes to view this photo of his lifeless 18 month-old body and consider the look on his face. The violence of this hideous, bloody war gives nothing - it takes and keeps taking.

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 05, 2005 12:45 AM (fufbw)

11 Collin Baber - please take a few minutes to consider why we are in iraq. The photo has the ability to stir pro-terrorist views - such as yours.

The "bloody war" you refer to - we removed a man who killed 2 million of his own people. That is bloody. We are installing the seed of freedom in the worst place of all - and the sound is being heard all over the world.

It was also "bloody" to fight Hitler - but thank God we did. Or we would all be saying "Gott seit dank".

Posted by: GreatDane at April 05, 2005 03:37 AM (6GN8H)

12 I have a breakdown of the AP's Pulitzer-winning photos by content here.

My findings:

• U.S. troops injured, dead, or mourning: 3
(2, 3, 11)
• Iraqi civillians harmed by the war: 7
(4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 1
• Insurgents looking determined or deadly: 3
(6, 15, 20)
• US troops looking overwhelmed or uncertain: 3
(7, 12, 14)
• US troops controlling Iraqi prisoners: 2
(16, 17)
• Iraqis celebrating attacks on US forces: 2
(1, 19)

Equally telling is what the photos don't show:

• US forces looking heroic: 0
• US forces helping Iraqi civillians: 0
• Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
• Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0

Posted by: GaijinBiker at April 05, 2005 03:56 AM (zydfd)

13 Who gives a crap what that photo stirs up. Terrorists don't need an excuse to murder innocents. They don't care about iraqis dying. They kill iraqis every freaking day. You really think that picture stirs up terrorist sympathizers? It might have before their dad got blown up signing up for the iraqi national guard.

So instead of worrying about what the picture is going to do, why don't you try acknowledging that it freaking happened. Why don't you acknowledge that innocents are dying everyday. Everyone loves to remind us that 3000 innocents died on 9-11. Why is it that everytime a photo reminding us that over 18,000+ innocents have died in Iraq turns up you dismiss it as "terrorist propoganda."

Put aside your paranoid propoganda fears and pray for the poor child and the rest of the people in iraq who have to put up with that shit. The worst thing you can do is PRETEND like that little child didn't die at all.

Now go ahead and call me a traitor. I would rather be a traitor and mourn the losses of this war (ON BOTH SIDES) than be a heartless ignorant who pretends its not happening at all.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 04:12 AM (jcSwY)

14 Dear GreatDane,

Please be assured, this dissenter of the Bushian Cult wants peace, order and good government in Iraq. I pray every day for Zarqawi's capture.

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 05, 2005 07:37 AM (fufbw)

15 "Bushian Cult"

Greyrooster: Shall we toast our leader with a Jonestown martini?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 08:37 AM (x+5JB)

16 Jim,
Well said.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 08:48 AM (/+dAV)

17 I reluctantly agree with Jim. If innocents have to die, the least we owe them is to acknowledge their deaths. I always look at pictures of the innocent dead. It anguishes me, but it's the price I pay for supporting this mission.

Posted by: Carlos at April 05, 2005 09:02 AM (paKD6)

18 "More Empty Rhetoric for Veterans",
By Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5451

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 09:08 AM (/+dAV)

19 "The Jawa Report must therefore decline it's Pulitzer Prize. I might consider taking the $10,000 reward as soon as the Pulitzer committee stops hating America."

Hey, that aprostophe shouldn't be in there. Maybe you should learn how to use punctuation correctly before criticizing Pulitzer Prizes awarded for journalism.

Ta!

Posted by: Terrence at April 05, 2005 09:09 AM (SEFvy)

20 Check out these pictures of crispy Fallujan's. It's from the new version of napalm - white phosphorous.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m10211&l=i&size=1&hd=0
WARNING--EXTREMELY GRAPHIC

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 09:41 AM (/+dAV)

21 Greg: How do we know that these poor souls are not some of Saddam's victims?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 09:48 AM (x+5JB)

22 Rusty, Dale Dribble says phone home.

Hank

Posted by: Hank Hill at April 05, 2005 10:02 AM (kcvS3)

23 Hey Terrence,
Learn how to spell apostrophe.

Posted by: meg at April 05, 2005 10:14 AM (6mUkl)

24 Greg: How do we know that these poor souls are not some of Saddam's victims?
Posted by Young Bourbon Professional at April 5, 2005 09:48 AM

YBP, I know in your heart you don't really believe that.
Did you check out those horrific pictures? The people look like leather with bones and teeth coming through.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 10:37 AM (/+dAV)

25 Greg: I was truly asking in earnest. I did look at the pictures. truly horrible and sad that this happened to ANYONE.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 10:49 AM (x+5JB)

26 White phosphorous is not new. It's been around for decades. Every military in the world has WP munitions. And it is not a replacement for napalm. Before the criticism of the military, it might help to know a little something about the subject.

Posted by: nobody important at April 05, 2005 10:56 AM (SHPL6)

27 those are nice pics

Posted by: actus at April 05, 2005 11:14 AM (CqheE)

28 White Phosphorous is as loathsome as any napthal/petroleum mix. Water accelerates the chemical reaction as do cellular fluids, hence the melting of flesh.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 11:24 AM (/+dAV)

29 Bottom line.
WP is a chemical weapon of mass destruction.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 11:26 AM (/+dAV)

30 I see the hate America first cult is out in numbers today. Yes, war is terrible, to say otherwise is to lie. But consider that for the Iraqi's, the alternative was just as terrible, and that the dealing of death occuring now will eventually stop. Under Saddam, there was no such hope.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 11:42 AM (jPCiN)

31 If your definition of 'chemical weapons' is any weapon made from chemicals then practically all modern weapons are chemical weapons. WP munitions are normally used for illumination or as incindiaries. They don't have a very large dispersal range, thus cannot qualify as a weapon of mass destruction (as opposed to some type of gas).

Posted by: nobody important at April 05, 2005 11:47 AM (SHPL6)

32 I notice they snubbed Susan Lucci again this year. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HOW MANY LIMBS DOES MAX CLELAND HAVE TO LOSE FOR SUSAN LUCCI TO GET A STINKING PULITZER PRIZE?

Posted by: Liberal Larry at April 05, 2005 11:47 AM (7ldvV)

33 Anyone: How does WP "work"? is it fired? A gas? Assuming the people in the photos were victims, how did they die?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 12:08 PM (x+5JB)

34 Ha! Suzanne Lucci!!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 05, 2005 12:08 PM (JQjhA)

35 It's nice to see that the libbys here can take a pic and read EVERYTHING INTO IT!

"Hey!! There is a pic of a dead baby!!! Let's blame it on the American troops!!"

"But....where is your evidence that American troops did that?"

"SHUT UP DO NOT QUESTION MY LOGIC I AM RIGHT!!!"


The libby m00nbats do not understand war



and thank GOD they lost the last election

Posted by: bunnymud at April 05, 2005 12:10 PM (iEtZ1)

36 As if after Rathegate anyone needs more proof that the MSM hates America. Well here it is!

Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 05, 2005 12:17 PM (Wcsda)

37 To greg, jim, and collin Baber; where was all your anguish over the innocent dead during Saddam's heyday? Where were you when Saddam gassed the Kurds and murdered Shia'? Where was your outrage and anguish over Rwanda? Where is your anguish and rage over Darfur, over the Congo? Gee, I guess its 'cool'as long as 'people of color' kill their own. Your 'feelings' are cheap, convienient, and pathetic.
On a practical matter, this is a war where the enemy use suicidal fanatics to drive explosive filled vehicles of various types into US or Iraqi troops and civilians. When a vehicle ignores posted signs, barriers, yelling, hand waving, and warning shots and keeps getting closer then we shoot the vehicle. The bad guys rarely wear anything indentifiable as a uniform. And they will carry the wife and kids along during battle hoping that gets them past or close to US forces. US troops are never happy about these accidental shootings. For that matter, accidental shootings of one's own troops or friendly civilians has a long, sad history in war and also police work.
The caption I have seen accompanying the photo of the dead child gives no indication of the circumstances of the shooting. Was it during the open warfare in Sadr City last year? Was it a checkpoint mishap? As usual the press is very bad at giving any context to events in Iraq, other than that of an anti-US troops or of an 'anti-US in general' nature. I saw it my first tour in Iraq and it continues into my second.
KJB43

Posted by: KJB43 at April 05, 2005 12:23 PM (l+guQ)

38 White Phosphorous munitions are usually artillery rounds packed with WP. I'm not sure of the exact chemical properties, but I do know that it is highly pyroforic, that is it burns intensely. It kills by burning, however, it isn't normally used to kill as it would be very inaccurate. I've fired these types of rounds from a variety of artillery pieces (105mm, 155mm) using timed fuses so that the round explodes and ignites high overhead to illuminate an area. Of couse, pieces of burning WP eventually fall to the ground and if you are unfortunate to have it fall on you, you are in danger of being severly burned, perhaps fatally.

The idea that these types of rounds would be used as anti-personnel weapons is not realistic. Since artillery batteries have much more destructive rounds at their disposal, it wouldn't make sense to use WP in that manner. The artillery batteries would be miles away, and if the 'evil' US forces wanted to destroy a village full of 'innocent' Iraqis, I'm sure we'd use high explosives to much greater effect. Of course, if we wanted to give anti-US media outlets a reason to bewail the visciouness of our evil weapons, then perhaps WP would do in a pinch.

Posted by: nobody important at April 05, 2005 12:36 PM (SHPL6)

39 KJB43-

Uh, are we discussing Saddam's evil regime? Are we discussing Rwanda, Darfur or the Congo? NO. Very silly of you to question my anguish by demanding to know my feelings on other massacres occuring in the world. Should I list everything that is fucked up in the world next time in order to justify my feelings about Iraq? That would be a very long post.

The matter in discussion here is that MANY PEOPLE choose to ignore the fact that innocent iraqis are dying everyday (due to both insurgents and US collateral or mistargeted damage). When photos documenting this unfortunate loss of life turn up, they dismiss them as "terrorist propoganda." I feel that instead of worrying about politics, people should acknowledge the ugliness of war and mourn the loss of innocent life instead of denouncing the photos.

As for those who love to bring up Saddam's evil regime as if it excuses the fact that thousands of Iraqis have died throughout this war, I will say this: Yes Saddam was a monster. Yes he killed his own people. Yes he needed to be overthrown. However, I feel that there were other options. I feel that in this day and age, there is ALWAYS a better option other than WAR. Why not snipe the fucker? Why not instigate a coup or encourage a revolution. I think any option other than invasion would have resulted in less casualties than we have right now. If you can prove that Saddam killed 18,000+ Iraqis (and 3000 US soldiers) every year then perhaps I will change my views on this war. Otherwise, I will believe that there was a better way.

You see KJB43, I didnt want to come out and object to the War outright...I was just making a case for the AP photos in question. You see I dont think there is a point to complain about this War because now that it has started there is no other option but to see it through. Obviously the worst thing that can happen now is for us to leave this situation in its current state. But you bringing up all those other examples of inhumanity simply proves my point. Why make matters worse by adding to the loss of life? With that said, I think it is YOU that is CHEAP and PATHETIC.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 01:17 PM (RMdxJ)

40 Water accelerates the chemical reaction as do cellular fluids, hence the melting of flesh.

Silly liberal, willy pete doesn't melt flesh, it freaking incinerates it! Do you know how you can tell you got a handful of WP? You don't have a hand anymore!

But you know what might make them dead folks look the way the do? Fire. Good old fashioned fire.

Poor, deluded liberal. So sad. When the vast majority of decent Iraqis agree with us and are glad we put Saddam in a cell, guess who that leaves for you to be friends with? First hint: You can't visit Saddam.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:23 PM (sh7lC)

41 Kick his ass Jim!

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 01:26 PM (/+dAV)

42 However, I feel that there were other options. I feel that in this day and age, there is ALWAYS a better option other than WAR. Why not snipe the fucker? Why not instigate a coup or encourage a revolution.

Are you serious? Snipe him? You think nobody ever tried that? And for what, to put Uday/Qusay in power? Rumor has it that that coup was about to be put into play when we showed up. That would have been an improvement, huh? Revolution? They've tried that too. Ever hear of Halabja? How about the Shia uprising after GW I? Any idea how that worked out?

You know what we didn't try? We didn't ask nicely for Saddam to please stop slaughtering people, pillaging their wealth and just leave them alone and be nice to everyone.

I'm sure he would have done that, because a nice guy like Saddam understands that there is ALWAYS a better option than WAR.

I'll bet the Kuwatis understand that too, huh?

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:31 PM (sh7lC)

43 Melts or incinerates. BFD. It's still a barbaric weapon.
I wonder how many innocents stayed behind in Falujjah. I read a report that men between the ages of 16 and 60 were turned back and not allowed to evacuate.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 01:33 PM (/+dAV)

44 Pablo, I wish I could visit Saddam so I could shoot him myself. And you are right, many Iraqis agree with the US AFTER the invasion. Then again they are alive to experience its rewards in god knows how long it takes for the madness to end. Unfortunately we cant ask the 18000+ that are dead how they feel.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 01:34 PM (RMdxJ)

45 Regarding Halabja where 5000 innocent Iraqiis were slaughtered. Halabja iis on the Iranian border and in 1988 when the incident occured Iraq was our ally and the Iraqiis were lobbing chemical weapons at the Iranians with our approval. In 1988, we the righteous Americans said the Hallaba massacre was the work of the Iranians as thhe Iraqis have allways claimed. Saddam was our boy so don't go getting too sanctimoniuos Pablo.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 01:41 PM (/+dAV)

46 Greg, the point is that it's generally not used as an anti-personnel weapon. It's used largely for illumination, creating smokescreens and burning stationary objects such as weapons caches.

What ways of killing the enemy do you approve of, silly liberal? Why don't you go back to uruknet and ask your jihadi friends how they'd like to be killed? Inquiring minds....

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:44 PM (sh7lC)

47 Pablo you love to bring up the vast amount of influence and power that Saddam's regime enjoyed in its "good days" but the Iraq of 2 years ago was a very different place. Uday was a crippled bastard who unfortunatly survived an assasination attempt by who many believe was his own brother. The Saddam family was too busy trying to kill each other so I don't see how hard it is for us to help the process. We all know there were no WMD and after decades of sanctions imposed on the country, Saddam was in no shape to attack another Kuwait or gas entire provinces. All he could do was publically execute his citizens every now and then in an attempt to scare them into submission. So stop trying to pretend like Saddam was about to take over the world. More Iraqis were dying from starvation due to imposed sanctions than what Saddam was doing. There HAD to be a better way.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 01:46 PM (RMdxJ)

48 greg, Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils as far as we were concerned. Iraq was a Soviet client state, which is why they flew Mig's and not F series fighters. Saddam was Russia's boy. I'm beginning to think you're too stupid to have this discussion with, as you plainly have no ideaa what you're talking about. Sometimes things actually happen in the world that aren't our doing. I know it's tough for you to believe that, but it's true.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:49 PM (sh7lC)

49 There you go Pablo! Once you run out of shit to say just call us "silly liberals" and say that we are friends with the jihadists. You have lost the plot ENTIRELY. There is no point in arguing with you.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 01:50 PM (RMdxJ)

50 Jim, those would be those horrible sanctions that were killing untold thousands of poor Iraqis, while Saddam, Kofi, Kojo, Fwance, Germany, Russia, et al made a mockery of the OIF program and lined their pockets with the cash intended to feed people and buy medicine, right?

Uday was still hearty enough to be raping and killing, and those folks have been coming to power by killing each other for a long time.

We all know there were no WMD

So what was in all those trucks that crossed into Syria while we advanced toward Baghdad? If you know what wasn't in them, surely you know what was.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:54 PM (sh7lC)

51 "Greg, the point is that it's generally not used as an anti-personnel weapon. " Pablo

Well, it was in Fallujah you "silly" blood lusting fascist.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 01:55 PM (/+dAV)

52 Jim baby, I called greg a silly liberal because it's glaringly obvious that he's a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. You seem to have at least a tenuous grasp of some facts which greg clearly does not. Of course, if you're feeling silly, I won't argue the point.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:57 PM (sh7lC)

53 See what I mean, Jim?

greg finds some idiotic thing like "WP is a WMD!" and just can't let go of it, regardless of the facts. You're not that stupid, are you?

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:59 PM (sh7lC)

54 "So what was in all those trucks that crossed into Syria while we advanced toward Baghdad?" Pablo

Now you're making stuff up. Face it, when Bush said they had WMD it was a lie so scared Mommies would send their babies to war. The first casualty of war is the truth and your truth is in a body bag. Silly!

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 02:03 PM (/+dAV)

55 SILLY PABLO!

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 02:06 PM (/+dAV)

56 In 1991 we said the Iraqis were stealing incubators from Kuwaiti neonatal hospitals and dumping the babies on the cold floor to die.

In WWII we said the BUCK--TOOTHED Japs were bayonetting Phillipino babies and that Philipino mothers were jumping off cliffs with baby in hand to avoid dying at the end of a bayonnet.
These are "silly" lies used to provoke themmasses into a war pitched hysteria and make everybody "silly".

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 02:13 PM (/+dAV)

57 greg, if i thought you could read and comprehend it, I'd send you over here and refer you to the Kay report, and let you explain what it was that went to Syria...

But, since I know you've got the IQ of a goldfish, I won't bother. You really should be back at uruknet sucking up the slop you're fed.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 02:23 PM (sh7lC)

58 Give it up Pablo. If you met a liberal that would admit he didn't have all the facts, or was quick to source his 'facts' then he wouldn't be a liberal.

Remember, it is far worse for us to have killed 18,000 or so Iraqi's than it was for Saddam to have killed hundreds of thousands, to have rape rooms, to have spent the money designated for the starving children on palaces and bribes, to have actually used WMD both on Iran and the Kurds, to have started multiple wars against his neighbors, and to have financed and harbored terrorism in the region. Why? Well, you see Bush 'lied', the US once allowed slavery......

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 02:24 PM (jPCiN)

59 Pablo, I am not going to sit here and pretend like I know everything. But I know how to refute arguements from people based on the things that I DO know. I am not speaking for greg or Colin or anyone else here. I have also never referred to anyone here as a "silly republican." I am just presenting my views and personally would rather have an intelligent discussion rather than be dismissed as a "silly liberal," "traitor" or "terrorist."

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 02:24 PM (RMdxJ)

60 Jim, as I've mentioned, I was referring and will continue to refer to the moron in the room as such. The remark was not directed at you, and I don't intend to explain that for a third time.

It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is remarkably unintelligent, such as our friend greg. If you've got an argument, by all means present it. At this point, greg ought not bother.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 02:31 PM (sh7lC)

61 Pablo,

What went to Syria? I want to hear this BS about how the Syyrians have WMD and we should attack them next. The lie worked once. You fascists should stick with it. Who should we get next?

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 02:33 PM (/+dAV)

62 Defense Guy- I would post a retort but I would be repeating everything I said to Pablo. The things you speak of occured more than 2 decades ago. Perhaps we should have invaded Iraq then but we were too busy giving them money and guns so they could fight Iran. The Iraq of two years ago was a different place. Yes Suddam was still using torture and public execution to scare his people but thats all he had. At least people were not getting blown up trying to get to work. The time was ripe for a revolution. Saddam's regime was crippled. Get that through your head. Or prove to me that Suddam was killing 18000+ iraqis in 2003. You do that and I will not post again on this blog.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 02:34 PM (RMdxJ)

63 Jim,

A revolution would well have led to those very people who are blowing people up being in power today, rather than allowing the people to choose. Your idea that the only problem in Iraq as recently as 2 years ago was that Saddam was torturing and killing people is quite telling. Will you now make some lame ass retort about Abu Gahrib or the bombing of innocents as a wat to make them 'equal'?

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 02:38 PM (jPCiN)

64 greg, it was the bushitler neoconcabals stock of wmd to plant. Once we got Saddam we didn't need them in iraq anymore so Cheney had Halliburton have Uday (who has been on the CIA payroll for decades) load 'em up and move 'em out.

Quick, go tell all your friends.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 02:39 PM (sh7lC)

65 Jim

Prove to me that Saddams regime was crippled, put up or shut up.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 02:39 PM (jPCiN)

66 Since I'm new here I don't know all the various personalities who frequent this site. However, it's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who thinks weapons have qualities other than lethality. It is the use to which these weapons are put that determines what and who is barbaric. If the US specifically targeted those children and specifically chose WP to cause as much agony as possible and used it in a systematic, widespread, campaign to wreak as much havoc on the civilian population, then I would agree that such actions were barbarism. But of course, that is hardly the fact of the matter.

Posted by: nobody important at April 05, 2005 02:40 PM (SHPL6)

67 Jim, I'm going to suggest that living under Saddam 2 years ago was far worse than living under him 20 years ago, unless you were part of the cannon fodder he threw at Iran back then. 2 years ago, he was desperate and the country was quite broken. That is not a good combination.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 02:44 PM (sh7lC)

68 OK, A fairly good source for numbers is here:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

Of course the demand to prove what Saddam might have done with the extra 9 months in 2003 is hard to accommodate.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 02:50 PM (jPCiN)

69 The groups who are blowing people up today are:

1. Remains of baathist party who supported Suddam.
2. Terrorists from all over the middle east and beyond who have been manipulated by radical "muslims" who promote a twisted version of Islam. They are in Iraq for the sole purpose of fighting against the US, causing mayhem and getting attention for their sick cause.

IF a revolution did indeed take place, I doubt the people who were tired of Suddam's regime would allow a successor from the baathist party or some terrorist. Who knows how it would have ended up. I am not going to assume that suddently everything would have been fine and they would elect a new leader. Perhaps the country would have been hurled into Civil war. But at least the current situation would have been avoided. A situation where iraqis who are trying to sign up for the national guard or a position in office are immediately assasinated by terrorists who use the excuse that "they are helping the US" as a justification for murder. If the US was not involved, then the terrorists would have no excuse. They would simply be killing iraqis and they would face the same opposition as suddam's regime. I doubt they would even be involved as much as they are now.

Put up or shut up? I will when you practice what you preach.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 02:54 PM (RMdxJ)

70 "In WWII we said the BUCK--TOOTHED Japs were bayonetting Phillipino babies"

This isn't quite accurate. It was "buck-toothed NIPS"

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 02:54 PM (x+5JB)

71 Again, the "twisted version of Islam" that involves killing infidels IS true Islam. Hasn't everyone seen the quotes agaion and again?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 03:01 PM (x+5JB)

72 I stand corrected. Buck-tooth NIPS it was.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 03:02 PM (/+dAV)

73 I agree with part of Nobody's post. Arguing over the lethality of a weapon is pointless. A nuke'll kill you just like gas, or bullets, or a wire-guided ATGM, or a pencil fromt he putt-putt golf course that gets jabbed in your eye.
But really, the whole "bushitler" tagline is frankly getting old, it'd be nice if those who use it would go out of their way and thought up some new attempts to insult/amuse.

Posted by: Amanda B. Recondwith at April 05, 2005 03:03 PM (RtQcj)

74 Bourbon, please lets not go down that road. If ALL Muslims think that killing infidels is true Islam then more than half the population of the WORLD would be after us right now. They are not. Those who think they are, I feel sorry for them.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 03:05 PM (RMdxJ)

75 nobody important, there are a number of uses for weapons that needn't be lethal, such as using them to destroy infrastructure (think bridges, roads, airfields, train tracks) or weapons dumps, etc. Even napalm wasn't used for it's lethality, but to clear vegetative cover so as to deny the enemy a hiding place. Of course, that doesn't make you any less dead if you get nailed with it, but that wasn't the intended use. Some weapons most definitely have qualities other than lethality. That is a fact.

As for WP we have weapons far more effective than that for killing people. You'd get a much higher kill rate with high explosive and shrapnel. WP is often used for illumination and cover purposes. Trying to kill people with is would be like trying to stab someone with a spoon while leaving your knife in your pocket. It's possible, but why would you bother? It wouldn't make any sense.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 03:05 PM (sh7lC)

76 Jim,
These people could give a darn about the Iraqis and democracy. Basically there just out to avenge 9-11. Afghanistan wasn't enough for these bloood lusters. Now it's Iraq.And when they're done killing brown people in Iraq they'll find some brown muslims somewhere else to kill/"liberate".75% of Americans think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 and about an equal amount think that we found WMD in Iraq. You can''t reason with these IGNORant people.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 03:09 PM (/+dAV)

77 Jim, the same people that are killing Iraqis now would still have been in the mix looking for power. All they want is to replace Saddam, not to democratize. They're anti-democracy, and the people of Iraq are standing up to them in the interest of self-determination.

Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 03:11 PM (sh7lC)

78 Greg, yes some just want to avenge 9-11. Others genuinely care about Iraq and feel this was the best way to help. If I assume one way instead of the other, then I would be no better than those who call us "traitors" for stating our opinion. I am not going to try to stop reasoning with ignorant people. That would be like ignoring the fact that the poor child in the AP photo (and 18000 others) died because of this War. However, I am going to have to stop reasoning for the time being because its time for me to get some lunch. Take care everyone.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 03:16 PM (RMdxJ)

79 And YBP,
as a Catholic you should know bettter than to speak such evil about an entire religion. JPII knew better and tried to teach us so. He may be dead but you can still learn from him.
Some of our religious leaders have made some outrageous quotes too. But I don't blame all Christians I just assume a "christian" who didn't know what he was saying let his mouth flap a little.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 03:17 PM (/+dAV)

80 Jim: True, if all Muslims were "good" Muslims, then they would be after all non-Muslims. But most Muslims don't take the Koran to heart and are content to "get along"--thank God.

Greg: I'm not speaking "evil" about a religion, I'm speaking the truth. Islam as a false religion by several Popes. The idea that "all roads lead to heaven" has been labeled as indifferentism and latitudinarianism by a past pope--heresies. JPII "dialogued" with leaders of other religions, but this does not mean that the Church condones these religions as pleasing to God. many of the faithful were confused by some of these actions. And the confusion continues. The ambiguous writings of Vatican II again rear their ugly heads.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 03:34 PM (x+5JB)

81 YBP,
Many more popes were even harsher on "the Jesus killers", but JPII reached out for a reconciliation with Jews, Muslims and Orthodox Christians, inter alia. JPII is being mourned in Muslim countries. I'm sure the next pope will continue on this path.

Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 04:00 PM (/+dAV)

82 Greg: Yes, Christians have wrongly accused the Jews as killing Christ, but we know this is silly. Christ (the man) was Himself a Jew. The sins of mankind were responsible, not a people. And we should reach out to others of different beliefs to tell the Good News--Christ's own mandate ("Go out and teach all nations," etc.). Pax!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 04:06 PM (x+5JB)

83 A confession from a photographer working for the terrorists in Iraq was videotaped by the Iraqi police. The video is on memritv.org, a link to the transcript is below.

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=625

There was another accusation by an Egyptian who escaped the terrorists who were holding him captive in Fallujah. He told reporters that a stringer used by Al Jazeera filmed him prior to his expected execution.

It is odd Pulitzer left that off the list of honorable reporting from Iraq. Cooperating with terrorists to film hostage videos seems to be on par with the level of journalistic integrity that the Pulitzer committee recognizes of late.

Posted by: Cog at April 05, 2005 04:35 PM (UxviT)

84 I showed you mine Jim, and you have yet to show me yours. Show me where you get your facts that the regime was crippled.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 04:42 PM (jPCiN)

85 A point for all the arguers: it does help to know what one is talking about and to present it carefully with an eye to prevent misrepresentation. To wit: WP is used mainly to illuminate rather than to kill. High explosive amunition rounds are more effective at killing than WP rounds. There were no chemical, biological, or nuclear devices used in Fallujah. Kuwaitis stated that Iraqis were dumping neonates out of their incubators. No precise numbers on coalition-caused civilian deaths in Iraq since the coalition invasion are known, and the estimates that have been made by certain newspapers and medical journals are fatally flawed since they count terrorist deaths as civilian deaths and terrorist-caused deaths as coalition-caused. There are no Pulitzer Prize-award-winning photographs documenting Saddam's rule of terror because Iraq was a fascist state. There are such awards for photographs documenting the recent Iraq war because the coalition forces are not fascists. War is a terrible business. Although there were reports of truck convoys headed into Syria before the Iraq war in 2003, not much has surfaced to corroborate those reports. Components of Saddam Husseins illicit WMD program have turned up outside of Iraq since its fall.

There. Hope that helps.

MakeMineRed

Posted by: MakeMineRed at April 05, 2005 04:49 PM (0bFUM)

86 Half the population of the world is Muslim. Ignorance at its best.

Pablo you are wasteing your time. As I mentioned before. A snake is a snake and a traitor is a traitor. It's more productive to hang them than listen to them.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 05, 2005 05:50 PM (CBNGy)

87 Thanks for the kind words and the link, Dr. Shackleford.

I thought you were already on the Riding Sun blogroll, but much to my dismay, it appears you are not. Rest assured that this situation will be remedied shortly.

Posted by: GaijinBiker at April 05, 2005 05:58 PM (moROy)

88 Half the world is not Muslim. There are @ 1 billion Muslims in the world. By comparison, China and India each have @ 1 billion people and @ 1 billion people in the world self-identify as Catholics.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 05, 2005 05:59 PM (JQjhA)

89 Perhaps I exagerated a bit on the percentage of the world population. In either case, I am pretty sure the number is about 1.3 billion and growing every year. My point remains the same.

Its rather ironic that the most ignorant asshole on this blog is the one that points this out.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 06:11 PM (RMdxJ)

90 not only that...but he used his magic word again: traitor. Brilliant.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 06:19 PM (RMdxJ)

91 Nice of you to share those insightful observations Beth! Rusty, so much for left wing and right wing bloggers holding a debate eh? I really like Beth's mentallity.

Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 10:30 PM (jcSwY)

92 Still no word from Jim on how Saddam's regime was crippled, how shocking.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 06, 2005 08:44 AM (jPCiN)

93 First, all of you wingnuts:

We went to war over WMDs. We can't give a Pulitzer for a picture of nothing.

Second, newspapers are NOT PR agencies of the United States goverment (unless your name is the NY Times and your reporter is Judith Miller).

If you don't like it, watch the mind control of Faux News.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly at April 06, 2005 02:15 PM (cvVq7)

94 OK moonbat - show me where the only reason we went to war was over WMD. I will grant you that it was one of the reasons given, but it was not the only one. So, once again I will ask a moonbat for proof of his claims.

Posted by: Defense Guy at April 06, 2005 03:46 PM (jPCiN)

95 Moonbats don't prove. They just claim.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 06:40 PM (CBNGy)

96 Dear Greyrooster,

We're still waiting for you to verify the Fallujah quote claim.

Posted by: Collin Baber at April 06, 2005 09:50 PM (FV4oJ)

97 No, newspapers aren't communications organs of the US Govt. They're the propaganda tools of the vague cloud of gas oozing out of New York City, Hollywood, and most of the Ivy League Universities. Same damned instruction on race, sex, and culture in general.

Check out www.fredoneverything.net and you'll see what I mean.

Posted by: JG22 at April 07, 2005 02:03 AM (1mRPJ)

98 Just thought I'd post to tell you that you're a bloody idiot. If you don't like pictures of people who've had their limbs blown off, then don't support stupid, pointless wars that you can not win.

Posted by: badnewswade at April 09, 2005 01:09 PM (kpZhP)

99 Just what we need a pulizer prize to a terrorists but lets not forget the nobel peace prize going to arafat and jimmy carter

Posted by: sandpiper at August 12, 2005 08:44 AM (MNa1O)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Complete Bilal Hussein Archives Here

A week ago today I noted that the AP was using Bilal Hussein to cover the terrorists' side of the story from Fallujah. You can see some of Bilal Hussein's propaganda photos here. Mr. Bilal became APs 'embed' to those forces trying to kill Americans all over Iraq. By hiring a photographer to follow our enemies and to distribute their propaganda, the AP has betrayed our country. Let me suggest that there are higher standards of morality than so-called journalistic ethics. When your fellow countrymen are dying in a war, the highest obligation is to nation. By distributing images and messages of the enemy you bolster their support. There is a reason the resistance in Iraq is not getting any lighter, it is because the messages they recieve in their media is that they are winning. Why give up when you think you are winning?

Today the AP releases a story on the harrowing ordeal Hussein went through as he tried to escape Fallujah. It comes as no surprise to learn that Hussein's anti-American roots go deep. He is a native of Fallujah, the town that brought you 'We love you Zarqawi' and 'Let's mutilate the bodies of American civillians'. AP story via Boston News:

In the weeks before the crushing military assault on his hometown, Bilal Hussein sent his parents and brother away from Fallujah to stay with relatives.

The 33-year-old Associated Press photographer stayed behind to capture insider images during the siege of the former insurgent stronghold.

''Everyone in Fallujah knew it was coming. I had been taking pictures for days,'' he said. ''I thought I could go on doing it.''

Posted by: Rusty at 12:30 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 823 words, total size 5 kb.

Complete Bilal Hussein Archives Here

Via Six Meat Buffet and Charles Johnson some interesting pics out of Fallujah. According to the Geneva Convention, soldiers caught wearing civilian clothing are not afforded protection and are thus subject to summary execution. I say we start with Bilal Hussein, the SOB working for the AP who is in Fallujah putting out enemy propaganda. If he's not already dead, that is. I give him 48 hours, tops. From the looks of it, he's hanging out in the exact areas that the 'shaping the battlefield' bombs are dropping. And now that the battle has begun in earnest, I expect to hear from journalistic rights groups complaining that we targetted him when the MOAB fell on his exact location (not that I have anything against targetting him. (PS-Is that MC Hammer and why is he wearing a mask?)

Posted by: Rusty at 05:16 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 2 kb.