Yesterday, a stringer for CBS News was shot by U.S. troops in Fallujah.
. So, why was the man shot at?
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.
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.
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.
1
So, do we have any cases where a reported, embedded or not, was killed by hostile forces and/or terrorists? And did the media rise up in arms against the non-US forces deliberately targeting reporters? That would be an interesting contrast.
Posted by: dodgeman at April 06, 2005 09:04 AM (fRt6P)
2
>>>"Aiding the enemy in a time of war is treason. The AP, an American non-profit organization, is guilty of that crime."
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)
3
Is that...the Fallujah photo...can it...on the right...isn't that MC Hammer??!!
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 06, 2005 10:04 AM (RHG+K)
4
Please Hammer, don't hurt 'em.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 06, 2005 10:12 AM (JQjhA)
5
IMHO... its the responsibility of journalists like these AP photographers to get as close to the news as possible. If that means travelling alongside terrorists then so be it.
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)
6
I find it disturbing that this blog is so keen to publicise one form of propaganda (i.e. staged beheading videos); but at the same time so eager to censor less offensive "propaganda" (i.e. real-life military events as they occur on Iraqi soil).
Can anyone explain?
Posted by: Martin at April 06, 2005 11:59 AM (oe5ye)
7
Both the Pulitzer and the Nobel Prizes have been awarded to people who are/were anti-American. This AP award just maintains a several decade long tradition. As the awards to the LAT further shows and the snub of Claudia Rosett for the great work she did the last 5 years on the scam known as Food-for-Oil.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 06, 2005 12:39 PM (Wcsda)
Posted by: Jim at April 06, 2005 01:02 PM (jcSwY)
9
It's simple, my bias is openly pro-American. I thought that was obvious?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 06, 2005 01:27 PM (JQjhA)
10
Please recall that the USA is/was _invading_ a country and killing its civilians (as collateral damages). Pictures were taken by Iraqis who see it as it is.
Posted by: Goofie at April 06, 2005 02:11 PM (B+6/8)
11
Please recall that Saddam Hussein was killing his civilians and that he was doing it on purpose, and not as a horrible and inevetable side-effect of war.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 06, 2005 02:18 PM (JQjhA)
12
This is why I don't weep when reporters are killed in war. Even less so when they're traveling with/aiding terrorists. In fact, we should take them out FIRST.
Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at April 06, 2005 02:25 PM (WsZ4F)
13
"This photo has no other explanation than that of the AP photographer being privy to the highest ranks of the insurgency. "
why the highest ranks? could be just these guys with the mortar.
Posted by: actus at April 06, 2005 02:44 PM (CqheE)
14
Well in my opinion if the reporters are travelling or know the "insurgents/terrorists" why is it when the media reps are kidnapped or anyone else for that matter they dont know who to contact? Hmmmmm Could it be selective memories?
Posted by: sparky at April 06, 2005 03:09 PM (F1nba)
15
"The dove on the fighters shoulder is just the icing on the cake."
It was probably that sentiment that made that photo a winner.
Posted by: actus at April 06, 2005 03:14 PM (CqheE)
16
Actus,
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)
17
"Because the 'insurgency' in Fallujah was planned by Abu Musab al Zarqawi himself."
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)
18
I don't understand how the AP photographers were "aiding" terrorists. You don't see them shooting an rpg or bringing them another mortar between snap shots. Where does it say that the AP reporters are cooking for the insurgents after a hard day's work? They are just there to document the events. If anything you have to question their morality because if they really knew when an attack was going to take place they should have reported it. I don't know about other circumstances but as far as that election worker execution is concerned, the AP were tipped off on a "demonstration". If they chose to report on any information they witness or hear then their life would be in danger. They are simply choosing neutrality in order to document the events. NOT PARTAKING IN IT. How is this treason?
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)
19
I can't inagie a staged photo with a US Marine,dove on shoulder would get anything but laughter and criticism.
No bias indeed!
Posted by: Brad at April 06, 2005 04:59 PM (NzgK/)
20
Jim,
"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)
21
Martin: Maybe because the so called actual events are staged. The sight of an American military vehical blowing up in the air. Yea, right, the photographer didn't know it was going to happen. A million miles of road and the photographer just happened to be standing there.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 05:17 PM (CBNGy)
22
Benedict Arnold was just as responsible for killing American patriots as any redcoat. Without firing a shot. He sided with the enemy. That in itself was enough to give aid and comfort to the enemy. A traitorous act.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 05:21 PM (CBNGy)
23
GOOFIE, Hmmmm, YEP! Goofie is right. As goofie as can be.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 05:24 PM (CBNGy)
24
Rusty,
"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)
25
" Either you are with us or you are against us. "
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)
26
>>>"The dove on the fighters shoulder is just the icing on the cake."
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)
27
This photo has to be staged. That moron with the mortar has no idea of what the hell is doing. MC Hammer looks like the only one who does.
These guys look like part of Ringling Bros, Barnnum and Bailey.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 06:59 PM (CBNGy)
28
Notice the only way the jihadi could get the dove to pose was to wrap a noose around the bird's neck.
Posted by: Carlos at April 06, 2005 10:23 PM (tFXpR)
29
Poor dove probably ended up as a kabob, slowly cooked over a camel dung fire after his head was removed with a dull knife.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2005 12:13 AM (CBNGy)
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 07, 2005 03:56 AM (FV4oJ)
31
Birds of a feather, flock together.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2005 07:57 AM (CBNGy)
32
What would the animal rights people say about this blatant animal exploitation?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 07, 2005 08:16 AM (x+5JB)
33
Rusty... your exposing of media-terrorist collaboration seems to be a contentious issue....
...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)
34
Ya! What ever happened to MC. I know that he was building a 10,000,000 house in Fairmont, Ca. that ended up costing $30,000,000 resulting in bankruptcy. You would think he would make a comeback. I enjoyed his dancing.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2005 12:44 PM (CBNGy)
35
"What ever happened to MC"
I'm more interested in what Slim Whitman's been up to.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 07, 2005 02:48 PM (x+5JB)
36
Collin,
I don't know your email. Send it to me.
Posted by: Jim at April 07, 2005 03:04 PM (jcSwY)
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 07, 2005 06:25 PM (FV4oJ)
38
What about Hanoi Jane? How come she was never tried for being a traitor? See all the media shit about her, since she wrote a tell all book? NOW she's sorry about posing with those gooks! She'll say anything to get book sales.
What a twat.
Posted by: Laura at April 10, 2005 06:55 PM (L3PPO)
39
Dear Laura,
Perhaps she was not tried for being a traitor because the didn't fit the criteria.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 10, 2005 07:03 PM (FV4oJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
