April 06, 2005
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."Let's get a few facts straight. The individual shot at here may not have been embedded like AP photographers were. He may have just come across this scene after it began.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.
Posted by: dodgeman at April 06, 2005 09:04 AM (fRt6P)
So when they are incidentally killed by U.S. troops during combat, justice is being served.
Posted by: Carlos at April 06, 2005 09:06 AM (tFXpR)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 06, 2005 10:04 AM (RHG+K)
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 06, 2005 10:12 AM (JQjhA)
They are not aiding the insurgency in any way, nor are they giving it publicity (terrorist media wings are fully adept at doing that themselves). All these journalists are doing is risking there lives to show us whats happening in Iraq first-hand.
Those mortars would have been fired whether or not the AP dude was there to take snaps!
A good analogy is US intelligence agents cooperating with small fish terrorists so as to build a picture of the wider insurgency. You don't complain about that, do you?
Posted by: Martin at April 06, 2005 11:54 AM (oe5ye)
Can anyone explain?
Posted by: Martin at April 06, 2005 11:59 AM (oe5ye)
Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 06, 2005 12:39 PM (Wcsda)
Posted by: Jim at April 06, 2005 01:02 PM (jcSwY)
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 06, 2005 01:27 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Goofie at April 06, 2005 02:11 PM (B+6/8)
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 06, 2005 02:18 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at April 06, 2005 02:25 PM (WsZ4F)
why the highest ranks? could be just these guys with the mortar.
Posted by: actus at April 06, 2005 02:44 PM (CqheE)
Posted by: sparky at April 06, 2005 03:09 PM (F1nba)
It was probably that sentiment that made that photo a winner.
Posted by: actus at April 06, 2005 03:14 PM (CqheE)
A) Because the 'insurgency' in Fallujah was planned by Abu Musab al Zarqawi himself.
B) You're right, it was. I also once saw a photo of Hitler receiving a flower from a little girl. Touching.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 06, 2005 03:28 PM (JQjhA)
Whats that got to do with privity between a photogropher and some men with a mortar. You think our commander in chief is privy to every media person in the field? every piece of media made by our embeds? Are you sure it was zarqawi and not former baathists, or both?
" I also once saw a photo of Hitler receiving a flower from a little girl. Touching."
Slightly. He did lots of PR shots.
Posted by: actus at April 06, 2005 03:48 PM (CqheE)
And just stop with the terrorist propoganda crap. If anything the US military should appreciate the work the AP is doing. They show faces of the insurgents. They give clues to their location, types of weapons used, level of orgnization and experience.
Some are asking why pictures that show the brighter side of Iraq were not chosen. In this case, I don't think Pulizter or the AP staff is trying to show anti-American views. I think the AP staff was honored because they risked their lives and showed the carnage of war. Although pictures of soldiers playing with kids SHOULD be shown, I don't see how the photographers who took those pictures put themselves in the same level of danger as the AP photographers that were honored. If anything, Pulitzer is awarding them for their courage instead of their "pro-terrorist propoganda activities."
So you can view the photos and judge the award all you want. Just don't go as far as declaring their actions as treason.
Posted by: Jim at April 06, 2005 04:39 PM (RMdxJ)
No bias indeed!
Posted by: Brad at April 06, 2005 04:59 PM (NzgK/)
"I don't understand how the AP photographers were "aiding" terrorists."
In a war-zone, there is no such thing as 'neutrality'. This is not "Rebublicans vs. Democrat" or "liberals vs. conservatives" this is US vs. THEM. Either you are with us or you are against us. If you are 'neutral' then get out of the war zone.
Further, propaganda is part and parcel to warfare. Media, then, serves that purpose. Goebbels, for instance, was every bit as much responsible for Nazi aggression as was Hess or Goering and Thomas Paine was every bit as responsible for the Revolutionary War as was George Washington, even though he never fired a gun.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 06, 2005 05:04 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 05:17 PM (CBNGy)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 05:21 PM (CBNGy)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 05:24 PM (CBNGy)
"If you are 'neutral' then get out of the war zone."
If journalists and photographers are not allowed to assume a neutral role in a war zone, how will the world get an unbiased and accurate documentation of the events? The last thing we should want is for a drape to be spread over Iraq and only lifted after "everything becomes okay". As an educator, I don't see how you would endorse this form of censorship and denial of information.
As for the propoganda issue, you mention Goebbels (a minister of propoganda) and Paine who both spread propoganda through speeches and written work. If the AP was attaching notes such as "People of Iraq, unite against the US!!!" with their photographs then you would have a foundation for your arguement. The AP photographers only release images that document the events of war. People viewing them are left to decide the impact and validity of the images on their own.
Posted by: Jim at April 06, 2005 05:33 PM (RMdxJ)
Showing a terrorist is with us or against us? I mean, I can think of a website that gives updates and publicity on all the latest terrorist execution videos. Videos I don't really hear about otherwise. With us or against us?
Posted by: actus at April 06, 2005 06:16 PM (EQbuu)
Good point. That's the silliest thing I've ever seen. Yet someone got a Pulitzer for it. What a joke.
Posted by: Carlos at April 06, 2005 06:36 PM (tFXpR)
These guys look like part of Ringling Bros, Barnnum and Bailey.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 06:59 PM (CBNGy)
Posted by: Carlos at April 06, 2005 10:23 PM (tFXpR)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2005 12:13 AM (CBNGy)
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 07, 2005 03:56 AM (FV4oJ)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2005 07:57 AM (CBNGy)
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 07, 2005 08:16 AM (x+5JB)
...whereas your discovery about the current whereabouts of MC Hammer (plus understudy) seems to be hugely popular.
Please post more pictures if you have any.
Posted by: Martin at April 07, 2005 10:27 AM (oe5ye)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2005 12:44 PM (CBNGy)
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 07, 2005 02:48 PM (x+5JB)
Posted by: Jim at April 07, 2005 03:04 PM (jcSwY)
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 07, 2005 06:25 PM (FV4oJ)
What a twat.
Posted by: Laura at April 10, 2005 06:55 PM (L3PPO)
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 10, 2005 07:03 PM (FV4oJ)
34 queries taking 0.0722 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.