Site Council, Rush has requested a DQ

08/01/2006 09:36:15 PM · #1

Rush says Lebanon photos are staged

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

08/01/2006 10:46:34 PM · #2

And I suppose next they will say the girl was not dead, this is a vain attempt to discredit the photojournalist and to put a propaganda spin on it to deflect the fact that Israel killed innocent women and children.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/01/2006 10:50:34 PM · #3

I think it's a foolish assertion on the part of that website and Rush.

On the other hand, I find it interesting that AP doesn't seem to be able to present any sort of verifiable information to back up what they present as from-the-scene facts beyond 'our reporters/photogs are honest people and you should trust them'.

With my third, surgically attached hand, I would point to the essay Orwell wrote about how foolish it is to cry foul at the deaths of women, children and elderly in wars. If you think that only healthy young men should die in combat, you do greater harm to the society in question by removing a disproportionate amount of the 'earners' in that society and leaving more people who have a harder time supporting themselves to try and get by on their own. It is better if casualties are equally spread among all members of society, if casualties must occur at all.

Message edited by author 2006-08-01 22:54:07.

jrtodd

Nikon D850

08/01/2006 10:55:26 PM · #4

Funny, I didn't think Rush was out of rehab yet.

amber

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/01/2006 11:00:59 PM · #5

Originally posted by jrtodd:

Funny, I didn't think Rush was out of rehab yet.

Judging by this it doesn't sound like he is;)

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/01/2006 11:07:19 PM · #6

Who says the date on the camera is correct, if the time shown is the time the photo was taken and not the time the photo was posted?

I'm sure the last thing on those photographers minds is to get their time set right to the right time zone, etc.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

08/02/2006 06:23:26 AM · #7

Hmmm - I have read the original blog as well.

//eureferendum.blogspot.com/

The accusation is not quite as crazy as it sounds. The blog authors have retreated away from the time stamp argument to suggesting that some of the rescue workers appear to have been complicit in posing for the cameras. The better, later presented evidence of possible questionable behaviour by the photojournalists is some inconsistency between images (a jacket being removed) which might indicate that the body in question was used as a prop. The suggestion is not that the deaths were staged, but that some of the photos have lost some of their integrity as a photojournalistic record.

However, the analysis assumes complicity and looks for evidence of it, rather than the other way around. Unsurprisingly, given the vacuum of information surrounding the particular incident, seeming inconsistencies in the photgraphical narrative can be found. However, there are other, less damning, possible reasons for them than complicity between the photographers and subject. For example, it is assumed that all the photographs were taken before the body in question was loaded into an ambulance, that nothing happened that required the body to be moved again.

There is a more disturbing suggestion (evidencing the political persuasion of the blog's authors) that Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths as a PR move, despite Israeli acknowledgement that it targetted the area without knowing where the civilians were hiding.

It is also disturbing that criticism of the integrity of the photojournalists (which may be a real issue) should be used in the political debate to defend Israeli use of fundamentally inaccurate and indiscriminate weaponry in civilian areas.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/02/2006 10:46:53 AM · #8

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Hmmm - I have read the original blog as well.

//eureferendum.blogspot.com/

The accusation is not quite as crazy as it sounds. The blog authors have retreated away from the time stamp argument to suggesting that some of the rescue workers appear to have been complicit in posing for the cameras. The better, later presented evidence of possible questionable behaviour by the photojournalists is some inconsistency between images (a jacket being removed) which might indicate that the body in question was used as a prop. The suggestion is not that the deaths were staged, but that some of the photos have lost some of their integrity as a photojournalistic record.

However, the analysis assumes complicity and looks for evidence of it, rather than the other way around. Unsurprisingly, given the vacuum of information surrounding the particular incident, seeming inconsistencies in the photgraphical narrative can be found. However, there are other, less damning, possible reasons for them than complicity between the photographers and subject. For example, it is assumed that all the photographs were taken before the body in question was loaded into an ambulance, that nothing happened that required the body to be moved again.

There is a more disturbing suggestion (evidencing the political persuasion of the blog's authors) that Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths as a PR move, despite Israeli acknowledgement that it targetted the area without knowing where the civilians were hiding.
It is also disturbing that criticism of the integrity of the photojournalists (which may be a real issue) should be used in the political debate to defend Israeli use of fundamentally inaccurate and indiscriminate weaponry in civilian areas.

Ok I am still trying to find where your read that the blogger was saying that Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths. I do believe the blogger raised the question who the guy who appears years apart in the same role is. I feel that this person is more likely to be media than hezbollah. That would cause to reason why he was there both times. But you have to admit while the deaths are real, the grandstanding is an afront. Taking a photo of a action such as removing bodies is news. Holding it up like a prize in front of a photographer is wrong. IMO

Message edited by author 2006-08-02 10:48:22.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/02/2006 11:38:59 AM · #9

Originally posted by coronamv:

Ok I am still trying to find where your read that the blogger was saying that Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths.

Originally posted by eureferendum.blogspot:

...the one thing the MSM does not want to entertain is any suggestion that the Qana incident was staged by Hezbollah. However, Israel Insider is but one of hundreds of sites that are expressing well-founded doubts about whether the whole affair was deliberately set up. If this is ever substantiated, it will destroy Hezbollah more certainly than the IDF..

Originally posted by coronamv:

But you have to admit while the deaths are real, the grandstanding is an afront. Taking a photo of a action such as removing bodies is news. Holding it up like a prize in front of a photographer is wrong. IMO

I think that there are a couple of issues there. I have little problem with someone reacting naturally to the presence of a camera and posing (even if it is in such a highly charged and emotive example as this). However, I do have a problem with photojournalists (or politicians) directing the action: that is not journalism.

I don't think that the blog gets anywhere near evidencing that journalists or politicians are directing the action, and its analysis has to be taken with a pinch of salt given its very strong right wing agenda. However, it does raise a couple of questions to be answered.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

08/03/2006 05:14:05 PM · #10

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Hmmm - I have read the original blog as well.

//eureferendum.blogspot.com/

There is a more disturbing suggestion (evidencing the political persuasion of the blog's authors) that Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths as a PR move, despite Israeli acknowledgement that it targetted the area without knowing where the civilians were hiding.

It is also disturbing that criticism of the integrity of the photojournalists (which may be a real issue) should be used in the political debate to defend Israeli use of fundamentally inaccurate and indiscriminate weaponry in civilian areas.

Putting aside for a moment the questions raised by the photos taken in Qana, I'm wondering what your opinion is, legalbeagle, with respect to how the Israelis should fight this war? If you believe they should fight it at all? I personally believe that every state should use its military only as a last resort. But with a group like Hezbollah, with whom one cannot bargain and whose raison d'etre in any event depends on making war with Israel, what other choice is there really but for Israel to defeat them militarily?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/03/2006 05:16:44 PM · #11

Deja vu all over again!

08/04/2006 12:05:09 PM · #12

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

with a group like Hezbollah, with whom one cannot bargain and whose raison d'etre in any event depends on making war with Israel, what other choice is there really but for Israel to defeat them militarily?

I suppose that I disagree with your fundamental supposition that Hezbollah cannot be negotiated with. Hezbollah has a democratically elected political wing (with seats in the parliament and cabinet). It has a militia that is semi-independent. However, Israel has regularly negotiated with the political and militia elements of Hebollah and Hamas (which has a similar political/militia split). Hezbollah and Hamas have both previously come to the negotiating table and agreed peace terms with Israel. Up until recently, you may recall that there has been a long period of peace as a consequence of those negotiations.

I also disagree that Israel has restricted itself to millitary operations against Hezbollah. If they are fighting the Hezbollah militia in Southern Lebanon, then it is a mystery why fuel depots, power stations, water treatment facilities, civilian airports (or even military airports given the absence of an Hezbollah airforce), or regular Lebanese army units in north Lebanon are targetted.

I don't deny that a military solution may be necessary for Israel to defend its borders (and they have managed to create a scenario in which this is now inevitable in the short term). However, Israel cannot achieve long term peace by unilaterally invading its neighbours: it is sowing the seeds of more violence, exacerbating the problem, delaying again the prospect of an international/political solution. Fundamentally, only a political solution will provide the long term peace and integration that will ensure the longevity of the Israeli state.

Message edited by author 2006-08-04 12:06:25.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/04/2006 12:22:23 PM · #13

Hopefully this won't go the way of the last thread on this...

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Hezbollah and Hamas have both previously come to the negotiating table and agreed peace terms with Israel. Up until recently, you may recall that there has been a long period of peace as a consequence of those negotiations.

Long period of peace during which Hezbollah's militia was supposed to be disarmed pursuant to UN resolution, wasn't disarmed, and then spent the time building up their arms supplies and constructing defensive fortifications. You may also recall who initiated this conflict by nabbing a couple Israeli soldiers.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I also disagree that Israel has restricted itself to millitary operations against Hezbollah. If they are fighting the Hezbollah militia in Southern Lebanon, then it is a mystery why fuel depots, power stations, water treatment facilities, civilian airports (or even military airports given the absence of an Hezbollah airforce), or regular Lebanese army units in north Lebanon are targetted.

Not sure how you can restrict millitary operations against a millitia. A millitia by definition is a mob of armed civilians, not a regular army, so quite a bit of civilian infrastructure is going to be in the crosshairs as a result.

Setting that aside, airports were bombed and ports blockaded to keep Hezbollah from being resupplied. Taking out power stations is War 101, same with fuel depots for obvious reasons. The point is to choke your enemy, yes? Lebanese regular army has been supplying radar targetting info to Hezbollah for their rocket strikes. They've also done nothing at all to strike against the millitia that just plunged their country into war. They are either incredibly inept or, more likely, complicit.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

However, Israel cannot achieve long term peace by unilaterally invading its neighbours: it is sowing the seeds of more violence, exacerbating the problem, delaying again the prospect of an international/political solution. Fundamentally, only a political solution will provide the long term peace and integration that will ensure the longevity of the Israeli state.

Well we disagree on this and have discussed it to death elsewhere. It is possible that what is happening now will force some dramatic changes in that region. History will show how that turns out, but frankly I can't see how returning to the so-called 'peace' that diplomacy and resolutions had tried to create there benefits anyone. You've got an armed force lobbing rockets into civilian areas of Israel that was supposed to be dismantled by the do-nothing UN, you've got the Iranian's supplying them while the Iraninan prez is on TV saying the real solution to this conflict is "the elimination of the Zionist regime", etc. I think it is time people stopped trying to see some silver lining in this situation. These guys mean what they say, they are taking actions to acheive these horrific goals, and someone needs to stand up and stop them and not just try and cut Chamberlainesque deals.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/04/2006 02:01:44 PM · #14

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Hopefully this won't go the way of the last thread on this...

Agreed!

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I agree that the disarmament of Hezbollah was not done, and it should have been. However, Hezbollah represent a very strong military force (it did after all push back the Israeli army), and Lebanon (especially after Syrian withdrawal) does not have a strong military. Eg they had two helicopters, before Israel destroyed them a couple of weeks ago. Lebanon now has an even weaker army.

Originally posted by routerguy666:

You may also recall who initiated this conflict by nabbing a couple Israeli soldiers.

This has also been debated: it is not so clear cut as their was also a sequence of Israeli aggression that immediately preceded the Israeli hostage taking.

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Hezbollah is more than just "armed civilians": it is a military force, but not one that is state controlled.

I have not heard of there being much evidence of complicity between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah: they are very different beasts. I am not sure your suggestion that the Lebanese army formally (or even regularly but informally) supports Hezbollah is founded in anything but speculation (I would be interested to see something more concrete).

Failure to act is not necessarily down to complicity: Lebanon has been engulfed in internal politics attempting to remove Hezbollah forces through political dialogue. Hezbollah is, after all, also part represented by a political party. As I have said, the Lebanese army was never strong and "acting" would have resulted in civil war. I don't think that you can blame a country for trying other solutions before resorting to that.

Originally posted by routerguy666:

and someone needs to stand up and stop them and not just try and cut Chamberlainesque deals.

The references to appeasement are misplaced. Allowing a nation to be invaded to avoid violence (appeasement) is objectionable. In 1938-9 the appeasement related to permitting Germany to invade and occupy other nation states. In 2006, Israel has invaded and occupies land of other nation states. Should I be accusing you of doing something equivalent to egging on the German invasion of Europe?

There is a huge distinction between methods of defeating nation states in war, and the so-called "war" on terror. The "war" on terror is unlikely to be won using the techniques that have traditionally been used to fight other nation states. Instead, the object of the war should be to win the "hearts and minds" of the subject people. Invasion and destruction of a nation state's infrastructure might work in the traditional model of war, but is likely to be counter productive in the "war" for hearts and minds.

By comparison, would the UK have been justified in air raids thoughout Dublin and street to street fighting in fighting terrorism stemming from Ireland in the 90s? Do you think that if we had that we would have more or fewer enemies in Ireland than we have now, and if we had done this, would we have achieved the implementation of a peace process that has stemmed almost all terrorist activity?

Message edited by author 2006-08-04 14:03:48.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

08/04/2006 11:12:16 PM · #15

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Hopefully this won't go the way of the last thread on this...

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Agreed!

I didn't know that there is apparently another thread where this topic was/is being discussed. Sorry about that. I'll go look for it later.

In any event, as I stated already, I do not generally approve of nations/factions settling their disputes through warfare. However, I do think that Israel has the right to defend itself after many months or years of bombings and kidnapping/killing of its soldiers. Yes, Israel could have done another prisoner/soldier exchange with Hezbollah (if that's what you're referring to as "peace negotiations"), but I don't see how that fundamentally alters conditions as far as Israel's security is concerned. As for your suggestion that the point of war is to win hearts and minds, I couldn't disagree with you more, which isn't to say that Israel shouldn't try to do that, but their attempts so far haven't met with very good results. Do you recall the refrain "land for peace"?

I wonder if the other side has ever tried winning hearts and minds. There are other tactics/strategies that have been used successfully to address social injustices, such as non-violent resistance, used effectively in the Unites States by Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. While I don't know the ins and outs of the peace process between the U.K. and Ireland, it is my understanding that a fundamental principle was agreed to first, namely the cessation of terrorist attacks. It seems to me that when Jordan and Egypt recognized Israel's right to exist, peace between those parties and Israel followed. The fundamental principle of Hamas and Hezbollah at the moment is the total destruction of Israel, and they live that principle every day when they strap bomb belts on their 5-year-olds and teach them to chant anti-Israeli hate slogans and the glories of martyrdom.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

08/05/2006 01:48:57 AM · #16

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

There is a huge distinction between methods of defeating nation states in war, and the so-called "war" on terror. The "war" on terror is unlikely to be won using the techniques that have traditionally been used to fight other nation states. Instead, the object of the war should be to win the "hearts and minds" of the subject people. Invasion and destruction of a nation state's infrastructure might work in the traditional model of war, but is likely to be counter productive in the "war" for hearts and minds.

By comparison, would the UK have been justified in air raids thoughout Dublin and street to street fighting in fighting terrorism stemming from Ireland in the 90s? Do you think that if we had that we would have more or fewer enemies in Ireland than we have now, and if we had done this, would we have achieved the implementation of a peace process that has stemmed almost all terrorist activity?

I do agree with your point of how it should be won. But disagree that it will ever be won. We are talking about a region of the world that has sit in chaos and turmol since the beginning of time. Some not all of the people who reside and in most cases control the powers that be have it embedded in them that there is no compromise. Here is a question I pose to all. I don't take credit for it I heard it somewhere else"don't remember where" but if Hezbollah put down it's weapons would Israel stop and allow peace in the region. Also on the opposite side if Israel put down its weapons would hezbollah allow peace in the region? If we look at history as a teacher you can answer that question with no neither side actually want s peace they both want to defeat the other. I once heard there are two wars going on in the middle east. One is over land which can be solved and one is over religion and will never be solved. It is a truly sad place to be if you just want to live in peace. Which I believe most of the average citizens and people of those counties want. So I leave you with one last thought since I just got back from Carlos Mencia concert... "If you ain't Laughing you ain't liven!"

08/08/2006 06:58:10 AM · #17

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hopefully this won't go the way of the last thread on this...

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Agreed!

I didn't know that there is apparently another thread where this topic was/is being discussed. Sorry about that. I'll go look for it later.

Don't worry - It was locked after a bout of name calling.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

As for your suggestion that the point of war is to win hearts and minds, I couldn't disagree with you more, which isn't to say that Israel shouldn't try to do that, but their attempts so far haven't met with very good results. Do you recall the refrain "land for peace"?

I don't think that the point of war is to win hearts and minds. I think that it does the opposite: it wins land and control. However, I don't think that opposing gloabl terrorism is a war in the normal sense of the word. Our leaders appear to be happy polarising opinion into a "them" and "us" scenario, in which there are two "sides" ("they" are everything from democratically elected parliamentarians through to fanatical terrorists), creating the semblance of an opposition for us to fight.

With our disregard for political complexity, and by lumping together such diverse peoples, and ascribing to all of them the opinions of the most radical, we are creating a monster. We are forcing people who would not ordinarily support fundamentalist terrorism to be "them". As a consequence of our indiscriminate fighting of "them", "they" are being forced into an unnatural unity.

We are losing the fight to gain people's respect and support throughout the middle east. As a consequence, we are gradually losing the military control. Iraq is verging on civil war, Afghanistan is demanding an increasingly large presence to maintain the limited control we have gained, Lebanon is becoming increasingly bitter at the lack of world (and in particular US) response to foreign invasion - just what is our end goal here?

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I wonder if the other side has ever tried winning hearts and minds.

I think that is exactly what the "other side" is doing. If the "other side" is limited to the fundamental religious terrorist, then yes: they are winning the hearts and minds of the majority, moderate and tolerant, people in the region.