ought to be renamed, Apologist and Collaborater. Hey, and next time you mention my blog why not drop a link for all that is sacred and holy! You'd think your site wasn't html enabled......
And, as if on cue, you organize your story in such a way as to 1) set up claims of bias in the Pulitzer, in this case we are not talking about partisan bias but anti-American bias--a serious accusation 2) then refute those claims. Nice job.
Does the entire Associated Press corp pay you to kiss their asses or does your tongue just naturally like the brown eye?
Our objections are not about the war photojournalists and the brave work they do. It is with the hiring of stringers such as Bilal Hussein who is comfortable enough with Abu Musab al Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq or Sheik Abdullah al-Janabi's Mujahidin Shura Council of Fallujah that he can get up close and personal for some nice staged photos.
Our other objection is to the photos selected as worthy of the Pulitzer. Is the Associated Press an American organization or not? Cause, I was kind of under the impression that America was sort of in this little thing called a SHOOTING WAR!
Ernie Pyle is rolling over in his grave, right about now. I wonder if he ever got that up close and personal interview with the Waffen SS he always wanted to do? You know, to show their side of the story. Cause, you know, they had families too. And kids. And flower gardens. And kitties......
1
Journalists are there to capture imagery and interview. How they get it is their prerogative.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 06, 2005 06:25 PM (FV4oJ)
2
A completely and outrageously false statement Collin. Being an accessory to a terrorist attack is not merely illegitimate - its a crime.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at April 06, 2005 07:16 PM (xauGB)
3
Me no like bad people too.
Posted by: actus at April 06, 2005 08:05 PM (EQbuu)
4
Dear Beth and Robin,
It is m heartfelt desire to see Mr. Zarqawi stand trial and be convicted. Photos are evidence that will be used in his upcoming trial. He must receive the maximum penalty for his heinous acts.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 06, 2005 09:56 PM (FV4oJ)
5
Thank you Beth. Well and truly said. I'm beginning to believe this idiot is a paid commie.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 11:39 PM (CBNGy)
6
Dear Greyrooster,
Are you a paid communist?
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 06, 2005 11:53 PM (FV4oJ)
7
Those are unmodified photos and there's no changing that. Fact, though, is that the media, most of it, is a large organization of whores, and a somewhat effective means for Insurgents to demoralize their enemy = US.
The Chinese, now those guys are fucking smart as shit, because they've got the State-Controlled media, so when they go after Taiwan (or, Godforbid, get into WWIII with us) they won't have their press stabbing them in the back. Now, I'm not saying it should be unconstitutional for the press to demoralize the whole effort, because it isn't. I'm just saying some people are smarter than us. They just might even kick our ass ultimately that way, even if we do win all the battles.
What fun.
Posted by: JG22 at April 07, 2005 02:13 AM (1mRPJ)
8
"It is m heartfelt desire to see Mr. Zarqawi stand trial and be convicted."
This is the liberal view of the WOT, that it is a law enforcement problem. It's a war! It is my heartfelt desire to see "Mr." Zarqawi riddled with bullets.
Posted by: nobody important at April 07, 2005 07:53 AM (SHPL6)
9
Beth & Nobody Important---My sentiments exactly
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 07, 2005 08:17 AM (JQjhA)
10
One could argue the reporters who are "embedded with the enemy" are doing a service to America. The photographs they take of the enemy in action provide invaluable information for American intelligence agents to analyze - methodology, numbers, weaponry, possible location etc.
My guess is that American generals consider such photos a windfall rather than a nusance.
If I were an insurgent I would not want my picture taken.
Posted by: greg at April 07, 2005 09:07 AM (/+dAV)
11
You might argue that Greg. That would require, though, a sense of nationalism in the reporters in question. Further, it would require that the reporters saw our side of the conflict as 'the good guys'.
As long as reporters see themselves as neutral observers (which they are not) they will continue to spread terrorist propaganda. These reporters have in the past and continue to refuse to cooperate with the coalition in finding the enemies of the U.S.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 07, 2005 10:46 AM (JQjhA)
12
Collin: "Are you a paid communist?"
What did you mean by that? Just curious.
Posted by: Carlos at April 07, 2005 10:49 AM (8e/V4)
13
"As long as reporters see themselves as neutral observers (which they are not) they will continue to spread terrorist propaganda."
maybe they could just host it on their websites.
Posted by: actus at April 07, 2005 11:22 AM (Eg4/w)
14
I'm with nobody important. Zarqawi's trial should/must be held in the field by those who find him. This will avoid the beheading of innocents while Zarqawi's dogs are attempting to trade for him.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2005 12:07 PM (CBNGy)
15
We are supposedly in a war. But when the enemy fights back they're called terrorists. Doesn't make much sense to me. What should the enemy do, hurl kisses. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Posted by: greg at April 07, 2005 02:18 PM (/+dAV)
16
One man's "evil, hegemonic empire" is another man's greatest country in the world, defender of human rights and liberty, a shining beacon of hope to mankind, a liberator of enslaved millions.
Which man are you?
Posted by: nobody important at April 07, 2005 04:35 PM (SHPL6)
17
Whose freedom is Zarqawi fighting for? Whose freedom is Bin Laden fighting for? Whose freedom was Saddam, Uday and Qusay fighting for?
Posted by: nobody important at April 07, 2005 04:37 PM (SHPL6)
18
Let's say you hated our president. Imagine that John Kerry won the election. And then we are attacked with foreign troops on our land. Wouldn't you fight the invaders even though you hated the president? Of course you would.
Posted by: greg at April 07, 2005 04:46 PM (/+dAV)
19
>>>"Wouldn't you fight the invaders even though you hated the president? Of course you would."
Of course I would not. Not if these invaders liberated us from some dictator and then allowed democracy to flourish and supported it.
In that case, I would help them stabilize my country, and I would fight the terrorists posing as patriots. That way the liberators could leave earlier.
Posted by: Carlos at April 07, 2005 06:25 PM (8e/V4)
20
Dear Carlos,
Greyrooster's statement at 11:39 is strange, just like the quotes he keeps attributing to me. He still hasn't provided the Fallujah quote URL that we both asked for.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 07, 2005 06:29 PM (FV4oJ)
21
For the record Collin, I welcome dissenters like you on this blog. How else am I going to turn you into a rightwinger.
Posted by: Carlos at April 07, 2005 06:50 PM (8e/V4)
22
Dear Carlos,
Thank you.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 07, 2005 08:15 PM (FV4oJ)
23
"That way the liberators could leave earlier."
We've never left a country we've invaded except for the odd cases of Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia where we got an ass woopin'. When "liberators" stay for ever they are "occupiers".
We're never going to leave Iraq. We're building permanent bases there so we can use it as a launch point to invade other muslim countries.
Posted by: greg at April 08, 2005 08:59 AM (/+dAV)
24
"You might argue that Greg. That would require, though, a sense of nationalism in the reporters in question. "
Rusty, There's no requirement for nationalism. We receive and make use of intelligence from foreign agents who have no nationalistic feelings toward America. When there is an opportunity to get important intelligence it doesn't matter if it''s from the bad guys or the good guys.
Posted by: greg at April 08, 2005 09:05 AM (/+dAV)
25
Greg, I have to disagree with you to a point. Any citizen of an invaded country does have the right to take up arms in protest. As long as they target our troops, and any other official military target is okay. That is guerilla warfare. But to go out and capture civilian contracts and reporters, that is terrorism. That is what Zarqawi is doing.
""But I am shock that most of you would want Zarqawi to be outright killed. If that happen, all the national networks and state and federal judges could go bankrupt. They would not get to show 500 days of trails and appeals. This does not even mention the 3 different made for TV movies we would not have. Shame on you all.""
Posted by: Butch at April 08, 2005 03:27 PM (Gqhi9)
26
Butch
" I have to disagree with you to a point. Any citizen of an invaded country does have the right to take up arms in protest. As long as they target our troops, and any other official military target is okay."
I don't know Butch. Take the Palestinians. They're just too weak to go after the military targets. You''ve seen the footage - throwing stones at a TANK, come on. They really haven't many options. People talk about fighting fair - no scratching, no biting or pulling hair. But, when the victim is much weaker than their oppressor what options do they have? Should a rape victim be scorned for poking her rapist in the eye? Of course not, she's acting with virtue. And when the weak fight back it's really a thing of beauty.. I makes me proud to be a human knowing that the human spirit is so resilient.
Posted by: greg at April 08, 2005 03:43 PM (/+dAV)
27
Greg, It makes no different how strong or weak you are. It depends on the target you select. A bunch of rag heads can easily grab a lone soldier. With as many AK47Â’s the Middle East has, I canÂ’t believe anyone is unarm over there. To me, when a group targets
military or government targets, that group is saying we hate your policies. But when they start targeting civilians, the group is then saying we hate your people. It is okay for a group to hate a policy; policies can change. Hating a group of people is a different matter.
Every military is suppose to be trained to protect themself. Civilians do not always have that luxury.
Posted by: Butch at April 08, 2005 04:00 PM (Gqhi9)
28
"Greg, It makes no different how strong or weak you are. It depends on the target you select"
Butch,
by your logic a rape victim should just lay there and "enjoy" it if she can't fight back without being a dirty fighter. You go after the targets that are available. And when you're the weaker party there are limitations to what you can hit.
Posted by: greg at April 08, 2005 04:18 PM (/+dAV)
29
How many innocents have the insurgents killed? Estimates of innocent Iraqis killed by Americans range from 20,000 to 150,000. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Isn't America also guilty of "terrorism"?
Posted by: greg at April 08, 2005 04:26 PM (/+dAV)
30
Greg,
For one thing, there is no real comparison between rape and what I call guerilla warfare. Rape is a crime and the victim should use ever means possible to kill the sicko
trying to do it.
What I am saying is that terrorism is a crime because they are intentionally attacking
civilian targets. Guerilla warfare is where you have a small outmatch group that still attacks an occupying force. They attack legitimate targets that they feel the can harm and get away. Also the difference between the US troops killing civilians and the terrorist, is that we were not aiming for the civilians. These were unfortunate individuals that were in the wrong place.
Posted by: Butch at April 08, 2005 05:00 PM (Gqhi9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
