In “The Big Picture(s),” I noted the case of Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi stringer working for the Associated Press with a history of taking staged photographs of Islamic terrorists, who was detained by the US military as a security threat in April 2006.
Today comes word that the US military plans to seek a criminal charges against Hussein in an Iraqi court and — as Michelle Malkin notes — the AP is outraged.
The AP story refers to Hussein as “an award-winning Associated Press photographer” and “part of the AP’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photo team in 2005.”
Notable in those descriptions is that if you look at the Pulitzer Prize-winning photos, you can quickly learn that Bilal Hussein’s name is on none of them. There is one photo attributed simply to “AP stringer.” That is of course the controversial photo of two Iraqi election workers being assassinated — a photo which forced the AP to admit that its photographer had been “tipped off” by terrorists that a “demonstration” was going to happen there. At that time, the AP refused to disclose the identity of that photographer, but has now cleary implicated Hussein.
As I noted in “The Big Picture(s),” former New York Times photographer D. Gorton reviewed the various stories the AP told about the incident and found them “confusing and at times contradictory†and that “there is nothing in the information put forward that would definitively answer critics who believe that the photographer may have been complicit in the event on Haifa St.â€ÂÂÂ
No wonder the AP is upset at Hussein’s detention.ÂÂ
Publicly, the AP maintains it is upset that they have been unable to defend Hussein without knowing the exact charges against him… but they still seem upset now that the charges are to be made public.
While the AP prepares to defend Hussein, they might want to consider defending the AP’s policy toward staged photographs of terrorists, which is that they print them unless the photographer tells the AP that the photographer was actively involved in the staging:
(Santiago) Lyon (AP’s director of photography) said that AP bars photographers from asking people to change a scene, but that a crowd’s spontaneous decision to change a scene in front of a cameraman presents a different situation…
If changing the scene includes a terrorist assasination, so much the better. It fit the AP’s editorial view that portrayed Iraq as ungovernable and chaotic, just months before the highly successful election. And it got them a Pulitzer, if not consciences.
Update: At the Jawa Report, Rusty claims that Hussein had been picked up in a raid in which the target was a known al Qaeda operative, Hamid Hamad Motib, and that bomb-making materials were found in the house. Moreover, that Hussein had been sitting in Abu Ghraib for a month, and nobody realized who he was until someone recognized him from the Jawa Report. If true, it would suggest that Hussein didn’t identify himself to the US military as part of the AP’s award-winning photography team… which would raise the question of why he didn’t.
Update x2: The AP reports to itself that Hussein was not present at the execution of the election workers… which raises the question of how the AP can claim he is “award-winning” or “part of the AP’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photo team in 2005.” Not to mention the question of whether the AP should recuse itself from reporting on a case in which it has an interest.
Hey, guys! Next time you’re going to fly a coupla planes into a coupla landmarks, couldja let us know in advance? Jesus!
As is typical, no proof is offered to substantiate any allegations that this photographer worked with insurgents, by either anyone on the right or the military. Just some muddying of the water, intended to create the impression of just such a conclusion.
As I noted previously, when the media is given a choice between doing the right thing or the wrong thing, they opt for jaw-dropping brain-poundingly fucking wrong every damn time.
And timmah, I told you to get your marble sack off of Caric’s forehead.
Xanthippas – A mere coincidence, huh?
Of course not. It’s just wonderful the way Bilal anticipates the executions. I’m so happy that he’s been there to chronicle them in an unbiased fashion. Because the media’s appetite for them really seems almost insatiable.
Because of all the shopkeepers, on all of the corners, in all of the sooks, in all of Baghdad, Bilal just happened to have his camera on this one. And Xanthippas would have us believe that this guy got the photography equivalent of winning the Lotto? And that his prior communications with the fucking terrorists aren’t relevant?
I swear, the moonbats will apologize for anything, so long as they can act un-American in the process. Yup, I went there, fuckstick. You and the likes of you, who could only aspire to be ilk, are un-fucking-American. Demonstrably.
He’s a dirty terrorist.
Hey! His last name is the same as Obama’s middle name. I just saw that. Weird, huh?
Bilal Xanthippas Hussein ?
I thought Xanthippas was plural.
Xanthippas sounds like a word that would be spoken with a lisp.
He thed he liked my xanthippas but I thed he couldn’t touch cuth they were thenthitive.
“As is typical, no proof is offered to substantiate any allegations that this photographer worked with insurgents, by either anyone on the right or the military.”
Read it again, there Matlock:
“Today comes word that the US military plans to seek a criminal charges against Hussein…”
Key words: Plans To Seek. Could you show some typical examples of any court producing evidence before charges are filed?
Didn’t think so.
Xanthippas is clearly too busy to actually follow a link. Or the original post, where it’s the non-VRWC National Journal noting Hussein’s controversial career.
BONUS: Folks might enjoy the comments here and here.
Nice to see the tag team is huffed up and ready to go! Karl, I acknowledge your careful work in tracking what you seem to conclude is a liberal slant on some press coverage of Iraq. But what’s the point? There is slant on every account, no matter the source. I have noticed that more and more as this “war” continues.
It’s just going to get more adversarial as time creaks on.
I’m sorry, cynn, but if that’s the case, it’s time to tell you to go fuck yourself.
I mean, I want to get a head start.
It isn’t a liberal slant, cynn, there is ample evidence the guy is a terrorist sympathizer and propogandist. Follow the links.
The AP gave money to a guy who wanted nothing less than for U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis to die. It really doesn’t matter what slant the coverage had. Kim Gamel would have been signing these checks yes?
cynn,
The point here would be that some people might consider passing off staged photos of terrorist activities — and perhaps providing the occasion for the assassination of two Iraqi election officials — to constitute the dissemination of enemy propaganda in a time of war. Indeed, given that terrorism depends in large part on publicity, some might consider it to be advancing their cause.
Perhaps you are not one of those people, cynn.
If not, here’s a question: Do you think the AP should have a policy of uncritically printing staged photographs, so long as they don’t know whether the photographer actively staged them?
So, by cynn’s account…killers have a liberal bias?
I mean, WTF?
cynn – Is it acceptable for an AP photographer to actively document the assassination of an Iraqi official? If you had that information would you – 1) help save their lives, or 2) take pictures?
“Do you think the AP should have a policy of uncritically printing staged photographs, so long as they don’t know whether the photographer actively staged them?”
You mean like a photo op?
If you had that information would you – 1) help save their lives, or 2) take pictures?
I predict that cynn won’t answer that, just as she won’t answer the one about what, exactly, should be done with enemy combatants who are captured out of uniform.
Since cynn will not answer, let’s see if andy will …
So, andy, which would you do?
andy,
1. Does the Western press print photos of US photo ops without providing context that indicates they are photo ops?
2. Would you approve of the Western press helping terrorists conduct photo ops?
Wow. Followed those links. Xanthippas sure does get around. And after reading his postings at various sites, one has to ask: Xanthippas, when you remove your tongue from CNN’s ass, can you still taste Saddam’s cock?
andy starts talking about “Mission Accomplished” in 3… 2… 1…
andy, I forgot:
3. Do you think the two Iraqi election workers or their families considered themselves part of a photo op?
“Is it acceptable for an AP photographer to actively document the assassination of an Iraqi official? If you had that information would you – 1) help save their lives, or 2) take pictures?”
People who have information that can save Iraqi lives should be printing it. Unless it gets them killed to do so.
“2. Would you approve of the Western press helping terrorists conduct photo ops?”
Is bilal hussein western?
andy – I really do not think we need to know much more about you. That you cannot answer such a simple question tells us all we need to know about you. Actually, we assumed as much before, and now you just confirmed it. I take that back, you are worse. Had you just answered that they did not have that responsibility, at least you would have taken a position. That would be more honorable of you. You did not answer and tried to be cute. You are a tool.
“andy – I really do not think we need to know much more about you. ”
Oh. I thought it was clear: if they have the information that could save that life they should share it to save that life. Of course if their life is put in danger by this, I understand they may not want to.
This is much more of a demand than regular people have. Generally we don’t have an obligation to share information to save lives, not without prior culpability. Certainly not a legal obligation.
The Associated Press is. But thanks for the lame dodge.
Hey! His last name is the same as Obama’s middle name. I just saw that. Kooky, huh?
“The Associated Press is. But thanks for the lame dodge.”
People in general shouldn’t be helping terrorists stage photo ops. I’m curious why only the western press?
Perhaps you aren’t aware that there are media outlets in the Mideast that are just fine with broadcasting Islamist and terrorist propaganda. In this context, the focus is on the Western press because the Western press ostensibly subscribes to higher standards.
Indeed, in this particular case, the AP on paper has a prohibition on staged news of any kind. However, as the National Journal discovered, the practice is a bit different.
“Perhaps you aren’t aware that there are media outlets in the Mideast that are just fine with broadcasting Islamist and terrorist propaganda”
Sure. And I see non-middle eastern sources also linking to or hosting jihadist videos.
“In this context, the focus is on the Western press because the Western press ostensibly subscribes to higher standards.”
then maybe we should challenge that soft bigotry of low expectations. And that way we also dont have to wonder whether bilal hussein is a western of high standards or a middle eastern of low ones.
You go first.
andy,
It would be just peachy by me if the government of Iran suddenly decided to have a free press. But that’s kinda unlikely, absent events I’m sure you would disapprove. Same with the TV station HAMAS runs.
Conversely, I would love it if the Western press would treat the horrors of al-Qaeda, AQI and its affiliates with even one-tenth of the scorn they reserve for Abu Grahib — especially since AQ hacks heads as a modus operandi and certainly doesn’t discipline anyone for doing so.
I’ll hold all to a high standard, including the AP, which hired Bilal Hussein and published his product.
You, on the other hand, rhetorically compared a staged assassination to a “photo op.” So who has the low expectations?
“You, on the other hand, rhetorically compared a staged assassination to a “photo op.†So who has the low expectations?”
“staged photographs” includes photo ops. I want to know how far one goes with the prohibition on staging events. What if it wasn’t an assasination, but just a terrorist holding an RPG? Or clearing brush. Or giving a speech. Photo op? staged? prohibited?
Nice try at changing the subject. If you have examples of the Western press staging anything like Bilal Hussein’s extensive portfolio of propaganda, provide a link.
Or don’t, as anyone who needs help separating “clearing brush” (can’t imagine who you’re thinking of) with an assassination… clearly needs help.
“If you have examples of the Western press staging anything like Bilal Hussein’s extensive portfolio of propaganda, provide a link.”
There are lots of staged events. I want to know how far the prohibition on broadcasting them goes.
“Or don’t, as anyone who needs help separating “clearing brush†(can’t imagine who you’re thinking of) with an assassination… clearly needs help.”
I know they’re separated. Thats why I ask “how far.” Because they’re separate.
As I asked earlier:
You still haven’t answered, and given your past performance, I daresay none will be forthcoming.
By the way, you already conceded:
So, by your reference to “clearing brush” are you suggesting that Bush is the real terrorist here? Or are you just wanking to no real point? Or if neither, why don’t you suggest where the line gets drawn? Please enlighten the PW community with a brilliant exposition as to how these photos are perfectly fine to run without any suggestion that they were staged.
(In my best Major John voice) Don’t engage the telephone pole.
“You still haven’t answered, and given your past performance, I daresay none will be forthcoming”
I don’t know how often the context is provided. Is that the difference? So bilal would have needed to provide the context similar to what an embedded journalist with coalition forces provides?
The link you provided seems to deduce staging solely based on the photos, without looking at any of the extra context.
“So, by your reference to “clearing brush†are you suggesting that Bush is the real terrorist here?
I’m suggesting that photo ops get helped.
So, andy, pro-terrorist propaganda is ok?
You do realize that there is a moral difference, you know, between a photo of a politician kissing a baby and a terrorist hacking someone’s head off with a rusty scimitar?
Are you pro-terrorist, or just anti-American?
Can someone explain what the real argument against Bilal is here?
Is it that he is Iraqi and working for a Western organisation and they shouldnt employ him?
Or that when the press publish his work its unpatriotic to do so?
Or both?
I am still failing to see how his work is propagandist. Its basic documentary with EXCEPTIONAL access to a subject we would otherwise know very little about. The way in which it is used can therefore be construed as propagandist, but not in the actual work itself.
Thats my start here, lets roll…(and keep it respectful)
He’s a dirty terrorist, James.
Thanks for getting started happyfeet.
I cant find any proof of that; can you? The worst I can about his political alleigances is in this link http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/10/ap-and-reuters-photographer-bilal.html but theres nothing linking him to any specific attack?
I think hi pictures would show this also; if it were true?
Since Hussein has been in jail, terrorists attacks have fallen dramatically.
And also you can tell he’s a terrorist cause he works for the Associated Press. You don’t read much I guess.
Hey Happyfeet; try and keep it respectful – I read.
Just maybe not the same stuff, I guess.
Do you have any link for anything about ‘Since Hussein has been in jail, terrorists attacks have fallen dramatically.’?
‘he’s a terrorist cause he works for the Associated Press’…? Explain?
The AP is a front group for Al Qaeda. You would know that if you had been reading their coverage.
How about this, James. He had prior knowledge of an assassination. Rather than trying to save the life of an innocent election volunteer, he chose to somply take pictures of it. On his best day, he is a disgusting immoral person.
Can someone explain what the real argument against Bilal is here?
Is it that he is Iraqi and working for a Western organisation and they shouldnt employ him?
Or that when the press publish his work its unpatriotic to do so?
Or both?
So this is how one starts a respectful conversation? By phrasing the questions at hand in the most dishonest way possible. Classy James, real classy.
He also assisted the Associated Press in inventing a non-existent “civil war” which downplayed the role of their Al Qaeda allies.
Andy, it’s both. Western agencies shouldn’t employ an enemy propagandist, nor transmit enemy propaganda. This is doubly true given that the propaganda goes well beyond the usual examples of that fine art into actual snuff films.
Now explain to me an argument against that proposition.
“I am still failing to see how his work is propagandist. Its basic documentary with EXCEPTIONAL access to a subject we would otherwise know very little about. The way in which it is used can therefore be construed as propagandist, but not in the actual work itself.”
Uh-huh. Leaving aside the issue of how this EXCEPTIONAL access is granted to someone not a friend, who’s “using” the work as a propaganda, and how did they acquire it from the simple documentarian who only wanted to tell the truth?
The Left never fails to decimate the lines of right and wrong. Apparently, in this case, it is more important to propogate images of assassination than to act like a moral human being, so long as it advances their narrative. Fuckers.
And they have the audacity to call me the vilest of the vile.
Education Guy; ‘Classy James, real classy’. Apologies – only now do I see what you mean, I’m not trying to cause a riot here.
JD; I agree with that; about the immoraility. Many photographers are like this – are you referring to the image of the muredered iraqi elction worker?
Andrew; Got your first point. Confused at the latter question.
Bilal Hussein Obama or whatever is not confused. When they captured him he did not reveal his affiliation with the AP, cause it’s a known terrorist front group.
James – Yes. Of course that is what I was referring to.
Ok. So Bilal is, at the VERY least an immoral photographer and human being. He witheld information about the murder of the election worker. And if thats true (It could be hazier than this – he might not have known exactly what was coming) then he is thus guilty of collusion with the enemy and therefore a guilty man.
But how about this hypothetical? I’m interested in the content of his pictures mostly.
What if James Nachtwey was ‘invited’ by insurgents to document their lives for a week. (With specific guarantees made for his safety).
1.) Would he accept the offer? I think he would
2.) Would this be propaganda? (if it was stunning Nachtwey style stuff and published on VII)
3.) Would photographing them be unpatriotic?
I think doing things terrorists invite us to do is extremely savvy. Good point.
James
The US military feels confident enough about Hussein being in bed with the insurgents that they are going to turn him over to the Iraqi court system to be tried. Until we know what the actual charges are going to be, we will just have to wait to find out what they they have on him. Isn’t this how it is supposed to work?
I suggest we not try to equate moral with legal in this instance.
In andy’s world, a photo-op involving President Bush is also enemy propaganda. It’s an advanced case, but by no means the worst case of BDS out there.
“Andrew; Got your first point. Confused at the latter question.”
That’s okay, I was confused by your statement to which it was a response. Let’s call the whole thing off.
People who have information that can save Iraqi lives should be printing it. Unless it gets them killed to do so.
Oh. I thought it was clear: if they have the information that could save that life they should share it to save that life. Of course if their life is put in danger by this, I understand they may not want to.
I don’t know how often the context is provided. Is that the difference?
Andy, if you cannot pick a side, what are you arguing over?
If you don;t have a moral center, how do you differentiate, right from wrong, better yet good from bad?
Misdirection to the left, qualifier to the right, take a step back and do it over again.
You are a an unserious person interjecting himself into a discussion without a point of view or a moral center to judge the argument. I suspect you think its funny to argue semantics in a pseudo legal manner, but at the end of the day, you just wind up wasting everyones time and not advancing any side of the opposing view points.
Why you would do this … actually scrach that, it makes you a silly person and paints you as an intellectual pygmy. Life is too short to waste time on such a goal. Just my $0.02
Bah. The situation is perfectly clear, and attempts to produce or perpetuate confusion — well, see below.
One of the oldest concepts in the Common Law, and thus a fundamental of our jurisprudence, is the notion of an accessory. A person who assists another in the commission of a crime is an accessory, and if the assistance is material (for which read, in modern parlance, enabling) the accessory is held to be just as guilty as the perpetrator, even if the acts of the accessory are not themselves criminal. (The commission of a criminal act while acting as an accessory is a separate and independent crime.) The law distinguishes three categories of accessory: before, during, and after the fact.
A person who assists in the planning or preparation for a crime, while knowing that the crime is to be committed, is an accessory before the fact. People have been jailed for putting gas in a car while knowing that the car will be used for committing a crime (getaway vehicle, e.g.). The severity of the punishment depends on materiality — that is, just how much help was the accessory’s act — and culpable foreknowledge, that is, whether or not the accessory knew the act intended was a crime and that the perpetrator intended to commit it. The question of whether failure to act can be accessory is one of the few truly open ones in the theory — if a person knows a crime is to be committed, possesses the ability to prevent it, and does nothing, is that person an accessory? The answer is, it depends. A person who knows but fails to tell is generally not held to be an accessory, but a person who knows, is asked, and lies is definitely an accessory before the fact.
A person who provides assistance while a crime is being committed is an accessory during the fact. The classic case is a lookout — the crime cannot be conveniently committed if disturbance from outside is possible; the lookout serves to prevent such disturbance. Again, materiality and foreknowledge are significant.
A person who provides assistance in escaping or evading after the crime has been committed is an accessory after the fact. Providing a hideout or laying a false trail are the classic forms, but of course there are many other possibilities. Note that lawyers trying to “get the criminal off” don’t count — they are, in theory at least, not trying to help the perp evade punishment, but to establish that no crime took place.
Murder is a crime in every known jurisdiction, though the definition of “murder” may vary somewhat; it is what lawyers call malum in se, vile and culpable in itself without reference to the declarations of kings, legislators, etc. If this nago knew that a murder was to be committed, and assisted in the planning for it — advice on the best place to do it, for instance — then he is an accessory before the fact. If it can be established that the crime in that form would not have occurred without his concurrence, which I would think trivial from the known facts; after all, the motive for the murder was to get it on TV, and our friend materially assisted in that effort, he is an accessory during the fact. And if anybody asked him who the perps were and how they were to be found, and he lied or refused to answer, he is an accessory after the fact. As an accessory before, during, and after the fact the law is clear: he is just as guilty of the murders as the ones who handled the weapons.
The “Rose Garden” defense is an attempt to handwave. Posing for pictures with the Sultan of Swat is not a crime and cannot be construed as one except by people desperate to confuse a clear situation for their own political benefit. Murder is a crime, and assisting in the perpetration of murder remains a crime no matter how many pleas for exemption are entered.
It no longer surprises me that supposed “liberals” will support the establishment of legal principles that they, themselves, would scream like pigs in the abattoir if they found them applied to themselves. There used to be a principle called benefit of clergy. The gravamen of it was that priests, monks, etc. had to answer to a Higher Law and were therefore at least partially exempt from secular justice — had, at the very minimum, to be tried by (or with significant participation of) the Church, under a different standard from that applied to laymen. What people are trying to establish here is benefit of Journalists, under which doctrine a reporter is absolved of crime, even while acting as material accessory to it, on the grounds of the Higher Principle of the Public’s Right To Know. Benefit of clergy created so many clear abuses that it was abolished several centuries ago. I don’t see benefit of journalists being in any way better, and in many ways I see it as worse.
Regards,
Ric
James,
Ric speaks to the substance of the offense as it relates to warfare. I’m also looking at the case from the standpoint of what it says about our media.
Bilal Hussein is a case study in “The Big Picture(s)” of one problem the Western press faces in trying to cover the conflict in Iraq. The folks at the AP and elsewhere generally do not speak (or write) the language(s) and thus rely on local stringers for coverage. There is a tendency on the part of media consumers to assume that such stringers are rigorously vetted to ensure they will provide a given quality of work that meets the professed Western standards of fairness and objectivity.
If you read “The Big Picture(s),” you will quickly discover that there is every reason to believe that Bilal Hussein is both biased against the US and chummy with terrorists. There is also reason to believe that the AP doesn’t really hold to its stated standard against staged photographs, at least not when it comes to photographs staged by terrorists.
The AP has also given out information (see my 2nd update to this post) that is somewhat contradictory as to Hussein’s role as photog for the murder of those two Iraqi election workers.
These are all problems with the credibility of the Western press (here, the AP) before we even reach the question of the AP’s patriotism.
On that point, I infer from the AP’s approach to this case that they will go the route of claiming that they have an obligation to cover all sides of the war and that either: (a) patriotism per se does not enter into that equation; or (b) full coverage of all sides to the conflict informs the public and thus is patriotic. These are questionable lines of argument. No WWII-era journalist would have subscribed to the idea that they had to help Mussolini get his message out, or give positive coverage to enemy atrocities.
The current generation of Big Journalism takes quite a different attitude, as evidenced by the infamous exchange in which Mike Wallace and the late Peter Jennings concluded that they would not attempt to warn US troops of an enemy ambush in Vietnam. There are plenty of people who would view this as the attitude of the “useful idiot” for savages who would make beheading journalists one of the first orders of business in any theater where they prevailed.
this reminds me somewhat of the sami al-arian indictment. Recall that the initital legal work was exceptionally vague and open-ended….until the stuff about 5 years worth of wire-taps and surveillance came out. in short, it was clear the guy was a terrorist.
I well remember eric boehlert of Salon–a clear Al-Arian defender–admitting that he was stunned over the depth of the evidence.
that said, Im a big time skeptic of federal prosecutors and their ilk: lota power, little results. I’ll give the USG the benefit on this one for a little while though.
they have to have a loaded gun to go after a member of the press just as things are begining to turn around.
“… but they still seem upset now that the charges are to be made public.”
All the rest is BS – this is all that matters.
My Q: When and under what conditions are the charges to me made public? Anyone have any links re: this?
steve,
I don’t think anyone knows the exact timing, but the process in the Iraqi court is fairly open — it’s not a Gitmo-style enemy combatant tribunal, if that’s your concern.
#
Comment by JD on 11/19 @ 7:18 pm #
Xanthippas sounds like a word that would be spoken with a lisp.
#
Comment by happyfeet on 11/19 @ 7:28 pm #
He thed he liked my xanthippas but I thed he couldn’t touch cuth they were thenthitive.
Too clever! You guys tag team often?
I swear, the moonbats will apologize for anything, so long as they can act un-American in the process. Yup, I went there, fuckstick. You and the likes of you, who could only aspire to be ilk, are un-fucking-American. Demonstrably.
Demonstrably. That’s a bold claim. Please demonstrate how I am un-American…I mean, other than by disagreeing with you and thinking you’re a clown.
I will now present to you the un-Americanness of Xanthippas in the form of an interpretive dance. Ok. Ready?
–Guess Who?
Zippy – I guess it does not surprise me that you would have the temerity to defend the press, who in this case, were in bed with the terrorists, to the extent that they were able to document the assassination of a volunteer Iraqi election official. That is demonstrably un-American.
Zanfir (and his Skin Flute) called me a clown. It is a mean person.
Karl, JD, et al:
The mistake you are making here is in treating andy, Xanthippas, cynn, James, etc. as fellow citizens who wish this country well. They are not. They are Copperheads, direct descendants of the slavery-loving traitors from the Civil War. They wish this country ill. The only way they should be engaged comes in calibers. Hopefully, that day is not far off.
The AP and most of the media and academics in this country are objectively members of the same reptilian species. If you simply assume they are lying, you will have the correct understanding.
cynn is different even if sometimes it’s hard to tell cause of what she says.
But you’re bang-on for the rest of it.
The problem with the political discourse in this country?
SDN @ 81.
It’s more or less all there.
Uh oh. Did someone question the consensus again?
Bastards.
Sorry I dropped this commentary, Karl. There was a driveby shooting incident at my neighbor’s house. Keep flogging; I’m listening.
That can be upsetting. A friend of mine saw a murder out of her apartment window and it upset her so she got some sort of counseling through work at big happy mediaco and took some time off here and there to heal and eventually got some helpful pills and then got fired after a decent interval.
The mistake you are making here is in treating andy, Xanthippas, cynn, James, etc. as fellow citizens who wish this country well. They are not. They are Copperheads, direct descendants of the slavery-loving traitors from the Civil War. They wish this country ill. The only way they should be engaged comes in calibers. Hopefully, that day is not far off.
“Copperheads”…how amusing. Did you have to look that term up when you read it on another right-wing blog?
Zanfir (and his Skin Flute) called me a clown. It is a mean person.
Actually, it was the nicest thing I could think to say.
I’ve been meaning to google “Copperheads” for awhile now and also what happened that you’re singular now? Rough day.
Demonstrably un-American.
Demonstrably un-American.
Repeating what I say does not an argument make. Try again.
Also, tell happyfeet to keep dancing. I’m not persuaded as to my un-American-ness yet.
ha ha, I’ve found it helps to live with a pedantic history major. He’ll just go on and on. also I sent him this book while he was in the ‘stan.
You have to watch the dance, feel it. It doesn’t work if you just stare at my ass.
Thanks, maggie. I couldn’t have been more serious, btw.
If I remember it’s A. Jacksonian that really goes to town on this stuff at some length, but I could be mixing people up.
I like the part about how they were “disgraced after the war.”
well, sure, but I’ve been drinking, so whatevs. A.Jacksonian goes on about all kinds of things really, so it wouldn’t surprise me. NTTAWWT.
You leave Burton Cummings out of this!
Xanthippas:
When was the last time you were on the same side as the United States in a war?
What’s with the Greeks bearing misspelled monikers?
SDN@81 Thats is an appalling comment. I hope it is not sincere.
I don’t remember if it was here or not, but somewhere I was reading the other day there was an aside about the definition of sophmoric. If anyone still isn’t sure, check out Xantippes blog.
“I don’t think anyone knows the exact timing, but the process in the Iraqi court is fairly open  it’s not a Gitmo-style enemy combatant tribunal, if that’s your concern.”
If its good enough for blackwater, its good enough for Hussein.
“Andy, if you cannot pick a side, what are you arguing over?”
Its pretty simple. You should try to save lives, but not if it puts you in danger. And this is more of a burden than people in the US face. Here if you fail to save a life — without complicity — then you’re scot free.
“Western agencies shouldn’t employ an enemy propagandist, nor transmit enemy propaganda.”
I have seen western blogs as well as mainstream news agencies broadcast and discuss the content of enemy propaganda and bin laden videos. I don’t have a problem with that.
You should try to save lives, but not if it puts you in danger.
If “putting yourself in danger” trumps all other moral issues, perhaps “combat photographer who chums around with murdering psychotic Islamofascist terrorists” isn’t the ideal career choice for you. You think?
On another issue, I guess it’s taking a little while for Ex-Tippi to remember the last war in which he was on the same side as the United States.
“Its pretty simple. You should try to save lives, but not if it puts you in danger. And this is more of a burden than people in the US face. Here if you fail to save a life  without complicity  then you’re scot free.”
It may be simple, but it is also completely incoherent.
“I have seen western blogs as well as mainstream news agencies broadcast and discuss the content of enemy propaganda and bin laden videos. I don’t have a problem with that.”
And how did you know it was propaganda? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING TOLD YOU! The issue is reporting propaganda and labeling it as objective reporting. How thick is your fucking head?
First, visualise the Hoover Dam. Then…
I believe it was Dean Wormer who said “Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
“If “putting yourself in danger†trumps all other moral issues, perhaps “combat photographer who chums around with murdering psychotic Islamofascist terrorists†isn’t the ideal career choice for you. You think?”
not if you want to have awesome morals.
“And how did you know it was propaganda? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING TOLD YOU! The issue is reporting propaganda and labeling it as objective reporting. How thick is your fucking head?”
I also know its propaganda when its #1, bad news, and #2, on the emm-ess-emm.
“On another issue, I guess it’s taking a little while for Ex-Tippi to remember the last war in which he was on the same side as the United States.”
Grenada?
not if you want to have awesome morals.
You’re not even trying any more, are you?
“You’re not even trying any more, are you?”
its turkey day. People should save lives, but not at the cost of their own. And they definately should not give aid and missles and help to the islamist enemy.
the reflex is a lonely child
Why do you say, “Notable in those descriptions is that if you look at the Pulitzer Prize-winning photos, you can quickly learn that Bilal Hussein’s name is on none of them.”
He took this photo and it is labeled.http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/breaking-news-photography/works/warzone15.html
I read on the AP website that he was in a blown-out store across the street when the photo was taken and the insurgents were not aware of his presence. So it was not posed??