French mag photographs resistance shooting down DHL plane

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think this quote fits in regards to Alchy's unsubstantiated claims of members admiring the Iraqi resistance. Can everyone guess who said it?

<< Me, along with about 240 or so million other americans, prefer to hear facts and evidence, not theories and innuendo.>>

Come on Gaard..that's a pretty weak one to pull out of the vault You gotta catch me jumping to conclusions about some news article, not insulting the local AT saddam sympathizers.

Well dangit, give me something! I've been waiting forever.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: miguel All I can tell you is that terrorists do not seem to discriminate when they attack.

For being such an expert on the traits of terrorists I don't think you know what a terrorist is. Their goal is to undermine the security and agenda of the foreign occupation, ie resistance. Defining everyone simply as "terrorist" or a "thug" rings ignorance, especially when most of the resistance are probably iraqi nationals who never previously had affiliations to international terrorism. If GW were president in the 1860's I think he'd call 1/2 the country terrorists and thugs.

jsole, I don't claim to be an "expert" on terrorists, nor did I call anyone a "thug". The discussion was around the attempted downing of a DHL plane. The description you described of the "resistance" also fits the description of the palestinian terrorists who blow up coffee shops and snipe at babies. Do you consider them "resistance" as well?

I would not call them terrorists any sooner than I would call Israeli policy and military decisions directed at palestinians state-sponsored terrorism, nor any later.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: jjsole

I would not call them terrorists any sooner than I would call Israeli policy and military decisions directed at palestinians state-sponsored terrorism, nor any later.

The reason and objective of most of the iraqi resistance is very different tho.

Well, I guess we just have to differ there. I guess one man's terrorist is another's "freedom fighter." Just curious though - are there any terrorists in your world?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You gotta catch me jumping to conclusions about some news article, not insulting the local AT saddam sympathizers.

Yeah, you gotta carch me jumping to conclusions about American foreign policy being morally bankrupt, not highlighting the inanity of vagabond US foreign policy.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: jjsole I would not call them terrorists any sooner than I would call Israeli policy and military decisions directed at palestinians state-sponsored terrorism, nor any later. The reason and objective of most of the iraqi resistance is very different tho.

Well, I guess we just have to differ there. I guess one man's terrorist is another's "freedom fighter." Just curious though - are there any terrorists in your world?

People aren't born what a society might deem a terrorist, but I believe people "resort to terrorism" on a military, peoples, or intersts, (whatever "terrorism" means.)

There are many different reasons why a person, group, or population might resort to this, and instead of giving them a shallow label as "terrorist", its more important imo to understand why they are resorting to such methods, what exactly is the agenda, and what they want to achieve by it. Flagrantly using the word "terrorist" is only political propaganda to polarize a population against the attacker/attackers agenda, regardless of any 'justified' or 'unjustified' issues at hand.

 

[miguel]

jjsole - that was nicely written post, thank you. My opinion is that one who resorts to terrorism has lost all credibility for his/her agenda, much like one who kills an abortion doctor. That doesn't mean we don't look at the problem from where they started their journey, but we should not give the act credibility at all, for it will only encourage similar behaviour.

 

[Gaard]

Shock and Awe

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: jjsole

I would not call them terrorists any sooner than I would call Israeli policy and military decisions directed at palestinians state-sponsored terrorism, nor any later.

The reason and objective of most of the iraqi resistance is very different tho.

Well, I guess we just have to differ there. I guess one man's terrorist is another's "freedom fighter." Just curious though - are there any terrorists in your world?

there are differences. is there a difference between a genocidal nazi and an american gi? they are both soldiers after all. the tactics and limits of behavior show real differences even though the terms are vague to the point where they can easily be misused. is there a difference between a freedom fighter that bombs a government building, perhaps even giving warning to keep casualties down and another terrorist that just blows up a pizza joint full of civilians?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: miguel
jjsole - that was nicely written post, thank you. My opinion is that one who resorts to terrorism has lost all credibility for his/her agenda, much like one who kills an abortion doctor. That doesn't mean we don't look at the problem from where they started their journey, but we should not give the act credibility at all, for it will only encourage similar behaviour.

"journey" is a great word miguel and very relevant imo.

What if 150 years ago slaves resorted to crude "terrorist" tactics to rebel against the slave traders and owners - should it instantly be denounced because 'civilians' were killed (ie not military targets, which of course the military has little to do with this situation). I think given their helplessnes and their lack of any other resources to defend themselves, their plight for freedom and means to accomplish it, however crude, would probably have been completely justified imo.

Another example, more current, if some helpless North Korean slaves became part of a resistance that crudely attacked their oppressors or their oppressor's interests, should they be instantly be denounced as 'terrorists with no credibility', and thus 'discouraged' from such actions? They of course would not be able to weaken an impenetrable military in order to achieve goals (ie build resistance momentum for support of govt coup, or whatever)...so to which extent of their desperate actions againsts their oppressors (within north korea) would you not be willing to call them freedom fighters?

To be more specific, would it be wrong if they blew up a residential venue that gave them access to their oppressors as they ate lunch, like for example a pizza parlor where there were perhaps also non-govt ee's? (example only, not meaning to justify any particular palestinian attack).

Personally I would find it hard to believe our government would denounce a situation like that "unacceptable terrorism", while at the same time I think our govt would become highly interested in aiding any such north korean resistance movement, a movement that assimilated such tactics or not (ie see support of binladen v. ussr, support of sadaam, even while using chemical weapons v. iran).

 

[Witling]

This thread started with the suggestion that "Weren't the French terrible for filiming a combat incident." In spite of arguments that most news crews would film their mothers being crucified for a good story, JJSole, maintained that the French were dastardly. Here's a link to an article about the United Press International going on an expedition shooting at American forces. The news person wasn't French. Link.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: chess9
No self-respecting American photographer would have taken that film.


-Robert

Excuse me, but I'm a "self-respecting American photographer" and I sure as hell would photograph something of that magnitude, no matter what. Would you opinion on this matter hold true if Eddie Adam's famous vietnamese execution photograph featured an american being killed?

 

[Witling]

Look at it another way. I presume you think it's OK for the photographers to go along for the Jessica Lynch rescue shoot. I don't see much difference between photographing that and photographing the shooting of the DHL? plane -- except the photographers who photographed the plane shoot weren't working for the government.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Look at it another way. I presume you think it's OK for the photographers to go along for the Jessica Lynch rescue shoot. I don't see much difference between photographing that and photographing the shooting of the DHL? plane -- except the photographers who photographed the plane shoot weren't working for the government.

You don't see much difference in the photo-op of a retrieval of a military prisoner of war, and an attempted downing of a commercial plane?

I wonder how you ever distinguish right from wrong. Or do you even bother? Or is right and wrong just a state of mind? Suppose your son was the pilot on that plane...then would it make a difference?

 

[Witling]

Al, suppose my son had been driving home at night in Iraq and turned the wrong corner into a raid. A whole Iraqi family was killed that way.

I tell you truly, I am always mystified by the value placed on American lives while pretty much completely discounting the value of the other lives lost in this conflict.

Finally, the job of photographers is to photograph. The job of reporters is to report. Some of our most valuable historical material comes because these people were doing their jobs. Sorry the weren't photographing something of which you approve. Did you read the earlier post where I postulated they might simply have had to show up for "a worthwhile story" and while in the custody of the insurgents had an opportunity to photograph the shoot. They maybe should have said, "No way."

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Whitling
Look at it another way. I presume you think it's OK for the photographers to go along for the Jessica Lynch rescue shoot. I don't see much difference between photographing that and photographing the shooting of the DHL? plane -- except the photographers who photographed the plane shoot weren't working for the government.

You don't see much difference in the photo-op of a retrieval of a military prisoner of war, and an attempted downing of a commercial plane?

I wonder how you ever distinguish right from wrong. Or do you even bother? Or is right and wrong just a state of mind? Suppose your son was the pilot on that plane...then would it make a difference?

I, along with the guy who shot that plane being hit, am a photojournalist. Our job is to document, not selectively censor. We try to do that as best as possible and photographing such an event is not "wrong".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Whitling
Look at it another way. I presume you think it's OK for the photographers to go along for the Jessica Lynch rescue shoot. I don't see much difference between photographing that and photographing the shooting of the DHL? plane -- except the photographers who photographed the plane shoot weren't working for the government.

You don't see much difference in the photo-op of a retrieval of a military prisoner of war, and an attempted downing of a commercial plane?

I wonder how you ever distinguish right from wrong. Or do you even bother? Or is right and wrong just a state of mind? Suppose your son was the pilot on that plane...then would it make a difference?

They are both "news".

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Al, suppose my son had been driving home at night in Iraq and turned the wrong corner into a raid. A whole Iraqi family was killed that way.

I tell you truly, I am always mystified by the value placed on American lives while pretty much completely discounting the value of the other lives lost in this conflict.

Finally, the job of photographers is to photograph. The job of reporters is to report. Some of our most valuable historical material comes because these people were doing their jobs. Sorry the weren't photographing something of which you approve. Did you read the earlier post where I postulated they might simply have had to show up for "a worthwhile story" and while in the custody of the insurgents had an opportunity to photograph the shoot. They maybe should have said, "No way."

Nice dodge. So in other words, you see no difference in an intentional act of violence against civilians, and an accident? Must be easy living in that world of grey.

How much of an asswipe do you have to be to know that if you go off with some "insurgents" that they aren't going to have a "worthwhile story" that involves brain-splattering? What, you think they are taking you to a terrorist camp ground-breaking ceremony? Publicity for a bake sale? Whatever...

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Whitling Al, suppose my son had been driving home at night in Iraq and turned the wrong corner into a raid. A whole Iraqi family was killed that way. I tell you truly, I am always mystified by the value placed on American lives while pretty much completely discounting the value of the other lives lost in this conflict. Finally, the job of photographers is to photograph. The job of reporters is to report. Some of our most valuable historical material comes because these people were doing their jobs. Sorry the weren't photographing something of which you approve. Did you read the earlier post where I postulated they might simply have had to show up for "a worthwhile story" and while in the custody of the insurgents had an opportunity to photograph the shoot. They maybe should have said, "No way."

Nice dodge. So in other words, you see no difference in an intentional act of violence against civilians, and an accident? Must be easy living in that world of grey. How much of an asswipe do you have to be to know that if you go off with some "insurgents" that they aren't going to have a "worthwhile story" that involves brain-splattering? What, you think they are taking you to a terrorist camp ground-breaking ceremony? Publicity for a bake sale? Whatever...

"Insurgents"? Its their fvckin country, we are the insurgents, hello.

And since when should journalism be limited to covering only what you deem as "just"? Thank god there's journalists willing to cover both sides of the story.

For that matter, it would have been great if there was another objective journalist to cover the Jessica Lynch rescue so that we could have seen earlier how much the administration originally lied about the details of the mission.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Whitling
This thread started with the suggestion that "Weren't the French terrible for filiming a combat incident." In spite of arguments that most news crews would film their mothers being crucified for a good story, JJSole, maintained that the French were dastardly.

How did you come to this conclusion of why the thread was started, muchless that I claimed the french journalists were cowardly? Not only was the title and post as neutral as possible, none of my ensuing posts support your conclusions.

Beyond the fact that this was a good news story, one reason I posted it was because the french journalists said the iraqi's bowed toward mecca, something that was most likely a contradiction to the administrations statement they were 'sadaam-loyalists'.

 

[alchemize]

It never ceases to amaze me to all the YABB's who cry "morally bankrupt", "evil", "we are the invaders"....but when it comes to something as cut and dried as denouncing a terrorist attack on a commercial airliner, it just pains them to no end to even draw the thinnest line of morality, and think of all measure of excuses of why what they were doing was just and moral and good. Those who beat their chest and moan "what about the iraqi civilians", but then claim to "support the troops".

I have a question for all you YABB "troop supporters" out there. What value do you put on the life of an American Soldier? Is it the same as any other life? Or when you say "you support the troops", this means Saddam's? Because you CANNOT support the troops without understanding that means the troops will have to take the lives of others, and yes sometimes the lives of civilians.

 

[Witling]

JJSole, you're right. I just went back and read your posts. I made an error in saying that you said the French were "dastardly." The word "cowardly" doesn't appea in my posts. I guess the guilty fleeth when no man persueth. I read what I wanted to see into your post.

 

[Lucky]

It never ceases to amaze me to all the YABB's who cry "morally bankrupt", "evil", "we are the invaders"....but when it comes to something as cut and dried as denouncing a terrorist attack on a commercial airliner, it just pains them to no end to even draw the thinnest line of morality, and think of all measure of excuses of why what they were doing was just and moral and good. Those who beat their chest and moan "what about the iraqi civilians", but then claim to "support the troops".

My only argument is that the people covering this are just doing their job, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Whitling
JJSole, you're right. I just went back and read your posts. I made an error in saying that you said the French were "dastardly." The word "cowardly" doesn't appea in my posts. I guess the guilty fleeth when no man persueth. I read what I wanted to see into your post.

Thanks, I figured it was a misunderstanding because I don't remember us butting heads before altho needed to clear my name as having been aligned with one of the narrowminded posters in this thread.

 

[charrison]

DHL has resumed flights back to Iraq.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: alchemize
It never ceases to amaze me to all the YABB's who cry "morally bankrupt", "evil", "we are the invaders"....but when it comes to something as cut and dried as denouncing a terrorist attack on a commercial airliner, it just pains them to no end to even draw the thinnest line of morality, and think of all measure of excuses of why what they were doing was just and moral and good. Those who beat their chest and moan "what about the iraqi civilians", but then claim to "support the troops".

I have a question for all you YABB "troop supporters" out there. What value do you put on the life of an American Soldier? Is it the same as any other life? Or when you say "you support the troops", this means Saddam's? Because you CANNOT support the troops without understanding that means the troops will have to take the lives of others, and yes sometimes the lives of civilians.

The reporters reporting were being denounced.