They certainly knew they were participating. I just wonder how active they were in its staging.

and the possibility that somebody might not like what they see.

So if you have some evidence that this was staged, let's see it.  

Is this some kind of shock to you, that this shit happens when people start shooting?  Would you call it propaganda if the kid was off an Israeli bus?

Or are you just sharing the usual conservative lament that people can't be trusted with information?

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll watch em' die.

Hurry! While the bloodshed is raging.

to pretend to play dead?

Or they really were dead, but someone rearranged the corpses?

Or they were dead, but not mutilated and managed sufficiently for for purposes of "photogeneity" so someone added some extra damage to the corpses?

Wish I had come up with it, but AP stands for American Pravda.  Unfortunately journalistic integrity has become quite the oxymoron.

where's the dead kids?

Someone that actually addressed the content of the post instead of:
1) Reflecting their hatred of the Bush administration
2) Showing their hatred of Israel
3) Empathizing with terrorists.

ie, one that makes specific adverse conclusions based on facts not in evidence.

Your post is a jerkoff concept.   People do you a favor by not responding.

further proof that you have no problem with or actually approve of news that is falsely amplified.

Let me ask you another "jerk off" question. What is your personal limit of accepting staged or falsified news? I guess for you it would depend on the subject matter.

exactly what is your allegation?

That it's many pictures of the same people?  That the children involved should have been cleaned up before they were photo'd?  That the ubiquitous rescue worker was actually the photographer's helper?

What allegation of fraud are you making?

What does the photo show, and what exactly are you contesting was false?

It seems to me that a reasonable person could take only one inference from the photo, and that is that some children were killed in an air raid.   Does ANYBODY contest that?  

There is another issue that photos sometimes get across to dolts, and that is to convey some of the reality, ie, war is not a fucking video game.  That is the thing you seem to be objecting to.

So you have a lazy assed photographer who suits up his helper to pick up kids and take photos of them.   Are you alleging that the children were not actually hurt?   Because it seems to me that is the only material and legitimate inference, and AFAIK, nobody has contested that.

Your objection seems to be the fact that people are talking about it.  That's the disadvantage of a free press, ie, you don't get to control it.

Now, if somebody committed a fraud, then anybody harmed by that is free to sue them.   If there is any fraud here, I invite you to specify it, describe it, and of course that affects credibility.  

But it seems to me like you are objecting to facts that nobody is actually contesting - you just don't like the discussion.  

It seems to me that you'd be much happier in places like Tehran, where they don't let people discuss unapproved ideas, or perhaps even another time, like Stalin's Russia, or Hitler's Germany.  Would that make you happy?   Because that sort of attitude doesn't belong in America.

Let’s indeed keep this simple.
What did I do?
I called the photographs propaganda.
I claimed the photographer participated in same.
I wondered how willing he was in said participation.

My original post contained exactly 22 words
”AP Participates in Propaganda Photographs: They certainly knew they were participating. I just wonder how active they were in its staging.” And then a link that speaks for itself. “Milking it”

Have you ever TRIED to respond to what a person says? Why are you compelled to read so much into things and then rebuke those issues that were never even raised?

The last time someone was burned to death in your city, did the rescue workers take the charred body out of the ambulance and return it to the ruble so that the press photographer could get some really good shots? Of course not. If it happened that photographer would lose all credibility.

This blogger presented some compelling evidence that the rescue worker was staging the dead bodies, over and over, in and out of the ambulance, just for effect. Fine, that’s his right I guess. The dead baby’s mother probably helped for all I know. But the photographer had to know and was a willing participant. Even real events can be enhanced that make their propaganda effect even more effective. Indeed they were MILKING IT for greater propaganda effect. It’s no more complicated than that.

Of course the deaths were real, although there is also "some" evidence that they were not caused by the IDF (i.e. 7 hours after the air strike)

Your only other fake debate item worthy of response is the one where you suppose that someone involved here that felt a fraud has been committed was free to sue!!! Come on, it’s fucking war in Lebanon. I wonder what court has jurisdiction here?


-- Modified on 8/12/2006 12:35:28 PM

So a clear shot of a dead kid is propaganda, ie, an unjustifiably inflammatory idea?

Exactly where have you been that dead kids are news to you?  Would it be propaganda if it was not a Lebanese kid?

What strikes me as unusual is that you don't contest the underlying fact, that a kid was killed in an airstrike.   If you were awake, you would realize that has happened in virtually every general military air action since about 1914.  Yet you & the blogger go to suggest that the photographer may have gotten a more dramatic shot someway.  Is, for example, opening a window to get more light, or telling a subject to stand up, "staging" a photo?

The only possible reason you could be disturbed is if you are alleging that in fact children have not been killed in these strikes, or that if they are, their faces are washed when they are.

Now, if you believe that you or somebody else has been hurt by these photos - perhaps your feelings or world view has been damaged - you are free to take your complaint into court.

You have serious comprehension problems here.

or ignore what you read.

I did indeed cite claims that these people were NOT killed by the initial airstrike. You missed that.

If you want to address the points I made, I'd be glad to respond, instead you make up new issues and attribute them to me.

Until then you're just a large but simple waste of time.

-- Modified on 8/14/2006 11:24:56 PM

We don't infer, we don't search the net.  We read your posts, and your links.

As I see it, your complaint is the subject of the report, ie, that the report is "propaganda".   Your link complains the photo was "staged", and the detail suggests that the timing and the rescue worker was the issue of "staging".  Ie, that the times and persons were not entirely accurate.

I don't see ANY suggestion that these people were made up, or not actually killed in air raids.  No discussion that I see.

It could be that you & your sources are just inarticulate.  But thoroughly confused seems more likely.

I invite you to explain or footnote your work.

Two posts above, on (8/12/2006 1:58:37 AM) I said “Of course the deaths were real, although there is also "some" evidence that they were not caused by the IDF (i.e. 7 hours after the air strike)”

On your very next post, on (8/12/2006 10:46:38 AM) you said, ” The only possible reason you could be disturbed is if you are alleging that in fact children have not been killed in these strikes…”

While I didn’t “allege” it, I clearly implied it.

The “evidence” has been talked about in a few threads right here. If you’re still interested simply do a Google search for “Qana staged”.

what you're trying to say.  You didn't say the kids weren't killed in the airstrike.  Now your claim is that we should know from your tone of voice.

You linked to a a whole page of diatribe that found all sorts of fault, some of which could be true.

But both of you seem to miss the obvious, ie, the allegation that the kid was, or was not killed in the airstrike.

So you say there's evidence, but you want me to go looking for it.

Look, I already know a little about this.  1 thing is that there's always somebody slinging immaterial bullshit.  Another is that when airplanes drop bombs on cities, you can bet kids will be killed.  

AS I POINTED OUT, if kids were NOT killed in this war, it'd be the 1st in the history of aerial attacks.

So your whole dissertation has only one point:  you have nothing to suggest the kid wasn't killed in the airstrike.   What really pisses you is that somebody would point out the obvious (ie that kids get killed) when it happens to be your favorite war.

So you want censorship, fascism, etc.   At least Al Qaeda is holed up in caves in the Hindu Kush.  The real threat to America is people like you, who think the purpose of the press is to support the regime with their propaganda.

but to say that reports should be censored because there's some possibility that they're phony shows that you're just another propagandist.

Who the hell expects an airstrike to be exact?  Who expects a building to stand after it's been bombed?  And if Hezbollah is firing from it, well, shit happens.

But many of us aren't as clear about how determined Republicans - like you - are to destroy our constitution, and subvert our freedom of speech to their political power.

I'm done.

It's pointless and I don't have the energy to fill more liberal entitlements.

al qaeda would love nothing more than for us to destroy our own Bill of Rights, you constitution-hating, unAmerican al qaeda, 5th column propagandist!

I agree with Ann Coulter, people like that should be flogged, drawn & quartered at high noon in front of the Lincoln memorial.   Your patriotic duty requires you to do a hara-kiri on top of the Empire State bldg, then roll yourself off.