Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war

[August]

I wondered about the reporting by these "respected and unimpeachable" news organizations. I guess in truth they're as biasedas anyone else:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.' Reuters' head of PR says in response, 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged

[Fish]

I wonder if not a part of those cicvilian deads in Libanon are just hezbolla fighters, they don't carry uniforms. Look here.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html

[STEED]

You will never get 100% truth in the news.


News speak 1984 ;)

[tycho102]

There's a tremendous amount of deception going on, with all the OId Media outlets. Part of this stems from the fact that journalists all over the world would be executed if they actually reported the truth, in the countries where they were reporting.

It's a hideous cycle. The first reporting agency that starts reporting the truth will get kicked out (or outright murdered), and it'll be that one amoral agency that doesn't care who is getting gassed or murdered, that gets the "news stories" out of an otherwise closed nation.

Exclusive stories make and break a reporting agency. And if it's a rival getting the exclusives, you're going to go under unless you "compromise".

[waste gate]

I think this is Reuters' way of letting folks know that they, Reuters, control the news. The NY Times and CBS news also have done this in the recent past. They hurt their objectiveness in the eyes of the public whom they claim to represent.

I don't know what causes the abuses of the trust which is given news organizations. Is it the fact that all are in business for profit, and as a corrilary the pressure to make a scoop? Is it an idealogical paradigm, and the very human desire to hire people 'lke me'? Is it the, also very human desire to trust, the news services to provide an unbiased picture of what is happening while being more interested in the sports available on the TV 24 and 7, while demanding more caretaking by their Gov'ts, what was known as 'bread and circus' during the time of Rome?

I, for one, look to many sources for information. One reason I keep coming back to this forum.

[Yahoshua]

I suppose we could tie it all to the upbringing we were taught in the givernment institutions aka "Public School." In where we are taught to obey our teachers and governing authorities without question. Same with our parents. We are taught how to do things but nowadays we are rarely taught WHY we do it in a certain way.

I would blame this sort of blind faith as being the source of naievete that has become commonplace in the U.S. Now with the advent of bloggers, people are waking up and are turning to other outlets for their news. People with no real agenda other than for the facts on the ground as they find them.

Contrast this with the mega-corporation news outlets and the news anchor who gets $100 million a year and tells you what is news and what isn't, or the blue-collar blogger who earns $50k a year who tells you what is happening and where it happened. (how's that for a run-on sentence? :shifty: ). Who would people be more willing to trust if they make mistakes? And who would they retaliate more harshly against for trying to cover it up?

[August]

People with no real agenda other than for the facts on the ground as they find them.
But they can be problematic as well. How do we really know that these people have no agenda? Bloggers, for the most part, operate under the cloak of internet anonymity so, unlike the professional journalist, we can't even tell, again for the most part, whether they are who they say they are.

I think blogging is an instution that is the answer to a propagandists dreams. That is not to say that all or even most bloggers have ulterior motives, but it can certainly provide fertle ground to spread disinformation.

[Happy Times]

"What Really Happens Pallywood" http://www.break.com/movies/what_really_happens_pallywood.html

[TteFAboB]

Hey, didn't we had someone criticizing August for not worshipping Reuters?

Time is running, he who laughs last, laughs better. :lol:

[August]

All i wanted to know is why in every casualty total of Palestinian or Lebanese casualties the numbers of fighters vs civilians are never broken down like Israeli casualties are.

I suspect, that given this and the above cited article, that Reuters and other western news organizations are being used as a propaganda outlet by the Arabs.

[Yahoshua]

"But they can be problematic as well. How do we really know that these people have no agenda? Bloggers, for the most part, operate under the cloak of internet anonymity so, unlike the professional journalist, we can't even tell, again for the most part, whether they are who they say they are."

Good points, and those issues are always something to consider when reading something that is handed out to us from a "reputable" news outlet, and we should expect the same from bloggers: Honesty and Transparency.

If we don't know who they are, they will not have a crowd for long.

"I think blogging is an instution that is the answer to a propagandists dreams. That is not to say that all or even most bloggers have ulterior motives, but it can certainly provide fertle ground to spread disinformation."

Yep. But just replace the word blogger with any of the big corporations and the same thing can be said about them. I guess I'm looking more along future lines where we as a population either move away from the large corporations and towards bloggers. Or we break the companies down into the points of view they really hold.

For example in France, there is a Communist newspaper, a Socialist newspaper, a Unionist paper, etc. Each newspaper reports events from their point of view and everybody knows it. Perhaps this may in fact be the answer to our larger corporations instead of carrying on this charade of honesty when they are being proven to be outright liars at times with no clear-cut agenda.

And perhaps I should've re-phrased my use of the word "agenda." All of us have an agenda, but it is the difference between eachother as to whether we allow that agenda to influence our work or not. I guess that's more of what I was trying to say in my last post.

[bradclark1]

We can start a "Dishonesty in Truth" annual award and make Reuters the first recpient. Make it a gold leafed roll of toilet paper. :rock:

[LoBlo]

The thing about bloggers is that they are absolutely influenced by personal agendas as anyone else. One or two people will obviously have personal political views (as everyone has) choosing what to report and what not to report, based on what they feel like reporting. How is that more "agenda proof" than any other source? Its not any better than any large news organizations.

What a blogger is free from is time/space compromising. A large news organization only has an 1/2 hour to report all the "worlds news" and a newspaper only have a few pages to put all the news in. So "news" competes with other news for reporting space, whatever is most eye-catching goes in... the rest is left out.

A blogger doesn't have those time/slot or article length restrictions so news items don't "compete" for attention as much IMHO, freeing them up from that pressure. But they are absolutely as influenced by personal agendas, probably more so.

[tycho102]

All news reporting has to be biased. There's just not time or room to "report" 10,000 stories. So everyone ends up either trying to find an agency that has the bias they are looking for, or they end up trying to convert all the other agencies to fit their bias.

Besides all this, Reuters is French, and France has sided with the jihadists since Charles DeGaulle decided they would. When I want to see jihadist propaganda, I specifically go looking at Reuters photos (usually via CNN or Yahoo). AP and AFP also play ball with the local dictators, but not to the same level as Reuters.


Man, either way, photoshopping photos is U. A. (Un-Authorized). I don't care what the bias is, liberal or warmongerish. Don't photoshop photos. Don't Premiere (or Ulead's Mediastudio) video.

[bradclark1]

Man, either way, photoshopping photos is U. A. (Un-Authorized). I don't care what the bias is, liberal or warmongerish. Don't photoshop photos. Don't Premiere (or Ulead's Mediastudio) video

Does that mean they can use Paint Shop Pro?

[Fish]

All news reporting has to be biased. There's just not time or room to "report" 10,000 stories. So everyone ends up either trying to find an agency that has the bias they are looking for, or they end up trying to convert all the other agencies to fit their bias.

Besides all this, Reuters is French, and France has sided with the jihadists since Charles DeGaulle decided they would. When I want to see jihadist propaganda, I specifically go looking at Reuters photos (usually via CNN or Yahoo). AP and AFP also play ball with the local dictators, but not to the same level as Reuters.


Man, either way, photoshopping photos is U. A. (Un-Authorized). I don't care what the bias is, liberal or warmongerish. Don't photoshop photos. Don't Premiere (or Ulead's Mediastudio) video.

The moment France will support Israël, they have a serious problem with their Islamic population.

[Skybird]

Some additonal relections on the problem of manipulated pictures, and incompetent editors.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-we-are-up-against.html

[CB..]

when they showed the initail photograph of the captured/kidnapped soldier on the news. i was completely baffled...never in my life had i seen a less convincing photograph....a picture of the most harmless looking kid concievable glued onto an incongrous picture of a military vehicle ....just sat there wondering what the heck was going on....not that it matters...real or fake..no one really cares any more ...

[Yahoshua]

good article skybird......

[Skybird]

good article skybird......
There is more good stuff on that site, as I have linked to some days ago. Some thoughts and materials are not bad simply because they are published on a blog site only. Their quality depends on the thinker - not on the type of site, as some people have suggested to me in the past.

[scandium]

What to me is interesting is the contrast between the title of the thread "Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war", the actual Israeli newspaper's headline "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo", and the actual event itself as reported in this paper: "Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut."

Notice the differences?

1. The actual event consists of changes made to a photo (note the singular use of the word photo) by the photograher who Reuters had already suspended and whose photo they'd pulled before this Israeli "news" story was even printed;

2. From there it morphs into a headline asserting that the news organizations itself altered the photo;

3. And finally, the event again becomes even more distorted when its posted here as Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war.

But perhaps I am the only one to see the irony in this controversy over Reuter's "distortions".

But if I am I will point out a photographer != Reuters
a photo != photos
and altered != doctored (this last point may be subtle, but the words have different meanings and implications)

[scandium]

And while we're on the subject of Israel/Lebanon, spin, and propaganda, here's a newspaper story from Skybird's neck of the woods:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,429105,00.html

The Mideast PR War: News on a Platter

Propaganda is part of every war, just like bombs and soldiers. Still, it's remarkable how professionally Israel deals with foreign journalists, catering conscientiously to all their needs. Lunch included.

[August]

What to me is interesting is the contrast between the title of the thread "Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war", the actual Israeli newspaper's headline "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo", and the actual event itself as reported in this paper: "Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut."

Notice the differences?

1. The actual event consists of changes made to a photo (note the singular use of the word photo) by the photograher who Reuters had already suspended and whose photo they'd pulled before this Israeli "news" story was even printed;

2. From there it morphs into a headline asserting that the news organizations itself altered the photo;

3. And finally, the event again becomes even more distorted when its posted here as Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war.

But perhaps I am the only one to see the irony in this controversy over Reuter's "distortions".

But if I am I will point out a photographer != Reuters
a photo != photos
and altered != doctored (this last point may be subtle, but the words have different meanings and implications)

It wasn't an Israeli newspaper that outed Reuters, it was a blogger, and it was only after publication of the photos, 192 of them to be exact, so yeah, the title of this thread is accurate.

But no comment on the practice Scandium? No comment on the many reports of journalist coercion by Hezbollah? No comment on the trucks of dead babies being trucked from location to location to provided photo ops?

If it were Israel you'd be screaming to high heaven yet here you wait until page 2 to attack the thread title. Hmmm, you don't happen to own a "green helmet" do you?

[TteFAboB]

It would be quite a scape goat, quite an alibi, to throw all the blame into the lap of one lone photographer, operating alone, without instructions, the weakest chain, which still doesn't exclude responsability from the agency publishing the photos anyway. Though I'm more inclined to believe the prestigious Reuters agency wouldn't allow such autonomy in the hands of a computer geek whiz kid, nor that they don't have anyone to verify the photos or even check if they were doctored before passing forward.

[scandium]

What to me is interesting is the contrast between the title of the thread "Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war", the actual Israeli newspaper's headline "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo", and the actual event itself as reported in this paper: "Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut."

Notice the differences?

1. The actual event consists of changes made to a photo (note the singular use of the word photo) by the photograher who Reuters had already suspended and whose photo they'd pulled before this Israeli "news" story was even printed;

2. From there it morphs into a headline asserting that the news organizations itself altered the photo;

3. And finally, the event again becomes even more distorted when its posted here as Reuters caught doctoring photos in Lebanon war.

But perhaps I am the only one to see the irony in this controversy over Reuter's "distortions".

But if I am I will point out a photographer != Reuters
a photo != photos
and altered != doctored (this last point may be subtle, but the words have different meanings and implications)
It wasn't an Israeli newspaper that outed Reuters, it was a blogger, and it was only after publication of the photos, 192 of them to be exact, so yeah, the title of this thread is accurate.

But no comment on the practice Scandium? No comment on the many reports of journalist coercion by Hezbollah? No comment on the trucks of dead babies being trucked from location to location to provided photo ops?

If it were Israel you'd be screaming to high heaven yet here you wait until page 2 to attack the thread title. Hmmm, you don't happen to own a "green helmet" do you?
The article you quote says "altered photo". Singular. Not "doctored photos". Further, Reuters pulled all photos submitted by this photographer and have since found one more photo that was also altered by this same photographer (that was after the Ynet story was printed). Quite a big gap between 2 and 192. And I hadn't realized there was a posting schedule I was expected to adhere to. My comment is on page two because I felt like commenting today rather than yesterday or the day before. Simple enough for you?

As to the rest of your claims, what are you basing them on? If you are going to ask me questions then give the links that you are basing your assertions on and I will answer them.

[Edit] By the way, even a blog linked to from Ynet's LGF asserts that there were only two altered photos, so again what are you pulling this 192 figure out of?

http://theshapeofdays.com/2006/08/a_photojournalist_weighs_in_on_the_adnan.html

So now we know the what. We know what happened — Adnan Hajj faked at least two photos and submitted them to Reuters. We will probably never know why.

[fredbass]

Hey, there's a war going on people.

Things like this are expected. The good and the bad do it.:know:

[WutWuzDat]

I'd be willing to bet that this kind of stuff is common in the news.

[August]

The article you quote says "altered photo". Singular. Not "doctored photos".
Doctored: To alter or modify for a specific end.

And two is not singular...
Further, Reuters pulled all photos submitted by this photographer and have since found one more photo that was also altered by this same photographer (that was after the Ynet story was printed). Quite a big gap between 2 and 192.
So you're saying the rest are ok then. That's why they pulled them all i guess, because they were fine examples of journalistic integrity.

And I hadn't realized there was a posting schedule I was expected to adhere to. My comment is on page two because I felt like commenting today rather than yesterday or the day before. Simple enough for you?
Yeah you're right. My apologies for bringing it up.

As to the rest of your claims, what are you basing them on? If you are going to ask me questions then give the links that you are basing your assertions on and I will answer them.

[Edit] By the way, even a blog linked to from Ynet's LGF asserts that there were only two altered photos, so again what are you pulling this 192 figure out of?

http://theshapeofdays.com/2006/08/a_photojournalist_weighs_in_on_the_adnan.html

So now we know the what. We know what happened — Adnan Hajj faked at least two photos and submitted them to Reuters. We will probably never know why.
Oops you're right, it's not 192, it's much worse, it's 920!

As for what i'm basing my opinions on you don't have to look much further than the links posted here in this thread:

For example:

It then shows a number of pictures, taken from different angles, by Reuters and the Associated Press, of the man holding the same child's body – but notes that there is a 4 hour time discrepancy between the time logs of the photographs.


http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/850304/NN104_wa%281%29.jpg
The man in the green helmet holding a child's body (Photo: AP)

The website posts a series of photographs of the same man holding the child, each picture being separated by a significant time gap, before finally showing an AP photograph of the child's body in an ambulance taken at 7:21 in the morning – around nine hours before an AP photo was taken of the same child being held by the man in the green helmet.
A photograph is shown of "the same girl, this time apparently being placed in the ambulance. Also taken by AP… Intriguingly, though, the dateline given is 10.25 am, three hours after she has already been photographed in the ambulance."
While in previous photographs the man carrying the child's body is seen without a fluorescent jacket and helmet, the website then shows another AP photograph "of the same worker, showing obvious distress, carrying the same girl. But now he is wearing his fluorescent jacket and helmet and has acquired latex gloves."
Additional questions

An American weblog, Confederate Yankee (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) , whose logo is that "liberalism is a vegetative state," says that "in a picture that hits the wires just one hour (9:06 AM) after the building collapse, a Lebanese (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) Red cross member sits with bodies already displaying significant rigor mortis. About.com puts the timing of maximum stiffness at about 12-24 hours after death. These people were supposed to have died within one hour of these photos being taken."
"Whatever else, the event in Qana was a human tragedy," EU Referendum said. "But the photographs do not show it honestly. Rather, they have been staged for effect, exploiting the victims in an unwholesome manner. In so doing, they are no longer news photographs - they are propaganda," the blog concluded.

It also asks whether the workers' "presence at Qana on Sunday, and his central, unchallenged role, cannot have been a coincidence. Is he a senior ranking Hizbullah (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) official? If not, who is he?"


Many other blogs have taken up the task of analyzing the photographs and news headlines from Qana, southern Lebanon, and the Middle East, including: Little Green Footballs (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) , Hotair.com (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) , Ms. Underestimated (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) , American columnist Michelle Malkin (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) , and The Riehl World View (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) .

The Riehl blog compares photographs of bodies of men to those of women and children in Qana and notes: "They certainly seem to be going to a lot of trouble to cover up what looks like a number of adult males, most likely Hizbullah (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ondeactivate=) fighters, while making sure that images of any children or women killed in Qana are fully exposed."

There will be more coming out now that the dogs have a scent. Be prepared.

[Skybird]

Look-look, an old friend with a green helmet! :lol: By now people already should remember him.

And again:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...ilking-it.html (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...ilking-it.html)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...-this-man.html (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-is-this-man.html)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...and-match.html (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/game-set-and-match.html)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...annot-lie.html (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/01/picture-cannot-lie.html)

[scandium]

The article you quote says "altered photo". Singular. Not "doctored photos".
Doctored: To alter or modify for a specific end.

And two is not singular...
Further, Reuters pulled all photos submitted by this photographer and have since found one more photo that was also altered by this same photographer (that was after the Ynet story was printed). Quite a big gap between 2 and 192.
So you're saying the rest are ok then. That's why they pulled them all i guess, because they were fine examples of journalistic integrity.
The altered image that created this controversy, the one with the cloned smoke, was published August 5th and by the next day Reuters had not only reviewed the photo and pulled it, but also terminated their relationship with the photographer - all of this before the story even was even published in Ynet; and by Monday, August 7th, they had begun a review of the 920 photos submitted by this photographer, and finding a second altered photo, decided to pull all of his photos. So yeah I think this is a good example of journalistic integrity given that they acted promptly and thoroughly, and were very open about this rather than attempting any cover up; they also held the photographer accountable for his actions as well rather than try and defend him.

Oops you're right, it's not 192, it's much worse, it's 920!
Again you distort, the irony is priceless. From the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/08/photo-alter-beirut.html

After Reuters published the smoking buildings photo on Saturday, the online community began claiming that the photo was altered. The agency conducted a review and found the image had indeed been changed using Photoshop. Reuters terminated its relationship with Hajj on Sunday.

The agency then began an immediate review of Hajj's other recent work and, on Monday, found that the jet photo taken Aug. 2 had also been doctored. Reuters then withdrew from its database the 920 photos Hajj had taken for the agency over the years.


"This doesn't mean that every one of his 920 photographs in our database was altered. We know that not to be the case from the majority of images we have looked at so far but we need to act swiftly and in a precautionary manner," Szlukovenyi said.
As to the other allegations:

http://news.aol.com/nation/story/_a/news-agencies-stand-by-lebanon-photos/n20060801162709990008?cid=505


The AP said information from its photo editors showed the events were not staged, and that the time stamps could be misleading for several reasons, including that web sites can use such stamps to show when pictures are posted, not taken. An AFP executive said he was stunned to be questioned about it. Reuters, in a statement, said it categorically rejects any such suggestion.

"It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor.

Carroll said in addition to personally speaking with photo editors, "I also know from 30 years of experience in this business that you can't get competitive journalists to participate in the kind of (staging) experience that is being described."

Photographers are experienced in recognizing when someone is trying to stage something for their benefit, she said.

"Do you really think these people would risk their lives under Israeli shelling to set up a digging ceremony for dead Lebanese kids?" asked Patrick Baz, Mideast photo director for AFP. "I'm totally stunned by first the question, and I can't imagine that somebody would think something like that would have happened."

The AP had three different photographers there who weren't always aware of what the others were doing, and filed their images to editors separately, said Santiago Lyon, director of photography.

There are also several reasons not to draw conclusions from time stamps, Lyon said. Following a news event like this, the AP does not distribute pictures sequentially; photos are moved based on news value and how quickly they are available for an editor to transmit.

The AP indicates to its members when they are sent on the wire, and member Web sites sometimes use a different time stamp to show when they are posted.

The only "news" here is how so many blogs, all of them of the extreme right-wing variety, seem to be falling all over themselves to parrot the same crap in attempt to obscure the bigger picture. Anyway have at it, whatever soothes that thing you call a conscience.

The hypocracy here is truly stunning. So many people with their panties in a wad over two altered photographs that the news agency almost immediately pulled, along with every other photo ever submitted by this pgotographer - just in case - while from the same lot nothing but excuses for the military that for 6 hours shells a clearly marked U.N. outpost before bombing it, killing all 4 U.N. observers within, then merely shrugs and says 'oops, sorry'. :dead:

The larger picture you attempt to obscure is that the IDF really is killing innocent civilians over there, many of them women and children, and if it is not doing so deliberately then it is doing it so recklessly and indifferently as to blur the line.

Are these props?
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m230/jeckyll7/canadian20relative.jpg


Those were innocent Canadians whose only crime was to be on vacation in a place that Israel decided to destroy, and in the process trapping that family there and then killing them. There are your "props" and human "sandbags".

[waste gate]

The larger picture you attempt to obscure is that the IDF really is killing innocent civilians over there, many of them women and children, and if it is not doing so deliberately then it is doing it so recklessly and indifferently as to blur the line.

The Lebonese Gov't doesn't seem to care all that much about innocent civilians because they will not accept a cease fire with a robust UN force. What's that about? Soverengty? If they are so concerned about lost lives lets stop the shooting. Work out the details later. The Lebonese don't care much for UN resolutions in any case (resolution 1559). Seems to me if you want the civilians to stop dying, at this point, accept the cease fire!

[scandium]

The larger picture you attempt to obscure is that the IDF really is killing innocent civilians over there, many of them women and children, and if it is not doing so deliberately then it is doing it so recklessly and indifferently as to blur the line.
The Lebonese Gov't doesn't seem to care all that much about innocent civilians because they will not accept a cease fire with a robust UN force. What's that about? Soverengty? If they are so concerned about lost lives lets stop the shooting. Work out the details later. The Lebonese don't care much for UN resolutions in any case (resolution 1559). Seems to me if you want the civilians to stop dying, at this point, accept the cease fire!

You are rewriting history. The Lebanese government began pleading for an immediate ceasefire right from day 1 while it was Israel who rejected, repeatedly, these petitions stating they needed 'just another week or two'... and that was 4 weeks ago.

[waste gate]

I'm not re-writing anything. A cease fire was put on the table and Lebonon rejected it.

It's the cease fire that you claim Lebonon has been asking for since day one. At this point the Leboneze Gov't is just as culpable in innocent civilian deaths as Isreal.

[scandium]

At this point the Leboneze Gov't is just as culpable in innocent civilian deaths as Isreal.
Hmm... consider this photograph, which was taken in Lithuania circa 1941:

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m230/jeckyll7/einsatz2.jpg


Depicted on the left, the guys with the guns, are four members of the SS Einsatzgruppen Group A whose task it was to follow behind the advancing German army and liquidate any Jews living in these territories. The people in the center, kneeling over the freshly dug graves, are four Jewish civilians about to executed for the crime of being Jewish and in Lithuania after the Germans had just invaded it, while on the far right spectators (presumably Lithuanian civilians) look on. But Before I ask you my question, a note on Lithuania itself:

From 1918-1939 it had been a sovereign, independent state, but was annexed and occupied by the Soviets as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 23, 1939 (it is less formally known as the German-Soviet Nonaggression Treaty) which secretly carved up the Baltic countries between the Soviets and the Germans; however that agreements was not to last very long, as by June 22, 1941, Germany was to break it and invade the Soviet Union..

Now then, my question: where do you place responsibility for the bullets that are about to shatter the 4 Jewish skulls depicted above? Do you place responsibility on the 4 members of Einsatzgruppen Group A, the SS they were run by, the Nazi government that had implemented the pogrom they were carrying out, or do you instead place it on our Soviet Allies for not immediately surrendering to the Germans? Or do you place it on the unarmed spectators? Or perhaps on the deposed Lithuanian government? Or maybe you blame these 4 Jews themselves, for not leaving their homes in what had only a year ago been peaceful, sovereign Lithuania before being annexed by the Soviet Union and then invaded by Nazi Germany?

Or perhaps you'd simply dismiss it as being staged as part of the allied propaganda efforts against Germany, and given the way this thread has gone I suspect a lot of others would too (the fascist Nazi government being only a little further to the right in its ideology than the blogs making these spurious charges, these people would probably fit right in with Goebbels and his lot).

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[August]

Or perhaps you'd simply dismiss it as being staged as part of the allied propaganda efforts against Germany, and given the way this thread has gone I suspect a lot of others would too (the fascist Nazi government being only a little further to the right in its ideology than the blogs making these spurious charges, these people would probably fit right in with Goebbels and his lot).

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Wicked bad analogy dude! :lol:

The Germans in that picture are definitely not returning the fire of allied soldiers hiding behind those civilians. As a matter of fact it is a much closer analogy to the type of fighting that groups like Hezbollah and Hamas prefer with their rocket attacks against suburbs devoid of IDF troops and their bloody raids where they capture, torture, murder and set fire to the bodies of Isreali civilians or shoot up commuter busses.

So try again. But here's a tip, comparing your forum opponents to nazis rarely works. It normally is a sign of a loosing argument.

[waste gate]

OK, that happened 65 years ago. Lets try to stay in the here and now shall we?

You stated the Leboneze Gov't was asking for a cease fire from day one . If they were really concerned with the loss of lives among their innocent citizens, why would they reject a cease fire now?

If you'd like to change the argument then start a new thread. I'm of the mind that you misinterpreted the way the Lebononeze feel about their people. There is no shame in that admission. Perhaps you will re-assess your conceptions.

P.S. Your arguments depend too greatly on the internet. You're a bright fella, but you need to choose your battles.

[scandium]

Or perhaps you'd simply dismiss it as being staged as part of the allied propaganda efforts against Germany, and given the way this thread has gone I suspect a lot of others would too (the fascist Nazi government being only a little further to the right in its ideology than the blogs making these spurious charges, these people would probably fit right in with Goebbels and his lot).

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Wicked bad analogy dude! :lol:

The Germans in that picture are definitely not returning the fire of allied soldiers hiding behind those civilians. As a matter of fact it is a much closer analogy to the type of fighting that groups like Hezbollah and Hamas prefer with their rocket attacks against suburbs devoid of IDF troops and their bloody raids where they capture, torture, murder and set fire to the bodies of Isreali civilians or shoot up commuter busses.

So try again. But here's a tip, comparing your forum opponents to nazis rarely works. It normally is a sign of a loosing argument.
Really?

"I spoke with the head military lawyer for the IDF, Yoel Zinger, and I said 'you know I spent two weeks here and its clear you people are inflicting Nuremburg crimes on the Palestinians, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews. What's your explanation?' He said 'military necessity', notice he didn't disagree with me. I said 'that arguement was rejected at Nuremburg when the lawyer's for the Nazis made it.' So then he said 'well we have public relations people in the United States and they handle these matters for us.'" -- Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law

But that's a separate conflict, isn't it? So back to Lebanon, and the lie so often repeated that civilians in Lebanon are being killed, and in such numbers, because Hezbollah is using them as human shields and "human sandbags":

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/2.htm#_Toc142299220

This report documents serious violations of international humanitarian law (the laws of war) by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Lebanon between July 12 and July 27, 2006, as well as the July 30 attack in Qana. During this period, the IDF killed an estimated 400 people, the vast majority of them civilians, and that number climbed to over 500 by the time this report went to print. The Israeli government claims it is taking all possible measures to minimize civilian harm, but the cases documented here reveal a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

Since the start of the conflict, Israeli forces have consistently launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost. In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.

The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack.

By consistently failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, Israel has violated one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws of war: the duty to carry out attacks on only military targets. The pattern of attacks during the Israeli offensive in Lebanon suggests that the failures cannot be explained or dismissed as mere accidents; the extent of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the commission of war crimes.
Clear enough? Or do you still want to go on believing and repeating the lie? If so, then at least watch these 4 short videos to see that which we never see here in North America. It will likely not shake your convictions, but it should clearly illustrate some of the absurdity in the lies we keep hearing:

http://brasscheck.com/videos/middleeast/me5.html

Lastly, one last thing for you to consider, from Ynet:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283720,00.html

The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that "according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy."

All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians," the statement said.
That last quote there best explains everything to me. Its not that there are no civilians being killed in Lebanon, whether Christian or Muslim civilians, whether old, sick, young, or female, but that because this war is with Lebanon then none of the Lebanese are innocents but all are the enemy, and all are fair game and no different from the Hezbollah terrorist.

Now tell me again how absurd the comparison to Nazi Germany is, because this kind of racial supremacist ends justifies the means garbage is what Hitler preached in Mein Kampf.

[Edit] if nothing else look at the last clip, it was one that was aired on CBC - but never in the US - and was never supposed to have been aired anywhere; the video, shot by an embedded Israeli film crew, shows the IDF blowing the door off a home they are raiding and mortally wounding the Palestinian woman on the other side of it. Then you see her husband, who at that point thought his wife would live, begging the IDF to allow an ambulance through, but they delay it, and the woman dies. Afterward one of the soldier says "I don't know what we're doing here, purification maybe. Its dirty here and I don't know why a good Hebrew boy should be here so far from his home." And then, finally, after the tape sees the light of day it was never supposed to, an IDF spokesman says, regarding the delay evacuating the dying woman, "it was a mistake". Gee where have I heard those words before? And how many times now?

[August]

What a load of politically motivated horse hockey. Show me the ovens, show me the death camps, show me the mass executions, then we'll talk about Nuremburg type crimes.

"Limited or dubious military gain" is an opinion made by who? HRW? I was not aware they were also military experts, but in any case, your knights in Islamic armor Hezbollah recently kidnapped a Jewish civilian, tortrured him, killed him, then burned his body. Where is the military gain in that?

Scandium seriously, how do you sleep at night so strongly defending people who deliberately attack civilians for absolutely NO military gain at all?

[scandium]

What a load of politically motivated horse hockey. Show me the ovens, show me the death camps, show me the mass executions, then we'll talk about Nuremburg type crimes.

"Limited or dubious military gain" is an opinion made by who? HRW? I was not aware they were also military experts, but in any case, your knights in Islamic armor Hezbollah recently kidnapped a Jewish civilian, tortrured him, killed him, then burned his body. Where is the military gain in that?

Scandium seriously, how do you sleep at night so strongly defending people who deliberately attack civilians for absolutely NO military gain at all?
Still mischaracterizing my position and insisting on taking the blue pill eh? I gather you looked at none of those short clips I provided the link to here http://brasscheck.com/videos/middleeast/me5.html

What are you afraid you might see? Well I'll give you a heads up to try and remove some of your fear (though of course I can't make you watch them - after all you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink):

#1 clip is a 4 minute interview between a British journalist and an Israeli ambassador. The journalist grills him while the ambassador squirms and answers with the same talking points you and others repeat here. The contrast between the questions and the answers provided are still striking, however, and you will never see this on American TV.

#2 clip is another 4 minute interview, this time between a British journalist (a very good looking one too, as an aside) and an IDF spokeswoman. She too is grilled with tough questions that she only repeats the same talking points to that you parrot here. But again, the contrast between questions and answers is striking and you won't see this on American TV either.

#3 clip is 5 minutes and is mostly various US politicians, former politicians, former ambassadors, foreign policy experts, and such going on record with statements you have likely never seen or read before.

#4 clip I've already summarized, it is 3 minutes.

If any of that should arouse your intellectual curiousity - assuming you have any - then this will provide many answers to it http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&hl=en

That is a documentary called Peace, Prosperity, & The Promised Land and it is a bit longer - 1 hour, 20 minutes. Among the interviewed are Rabbi Lerner, an IDF Major, Professor of Journalism, and several other experts - in one manner or another - on Israeli policy and/or how it is depicted in the U.S versus other parts of the world. And again, you will see footage, and hear thing, that you've never been exposed to before and never knew existed.

You have been indoctrinated from birth, like all Americans (and Canadians as well, since we are exposed to so much of your media), to have a very biased, one sided view of Israel that completely lacks the necessary context and the other dimension that has been systematically censored such that you never see it, and naturally don't even know what it is you've never been exposed to.

I offer the other dimension, and unless and until you open your eyes and take a good long look at it, then further debate with you is pointless and can lead nowhere as you'll only be able to repeat the same empty talking points.

[Skybird]

News from the Twilight Zone:

http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/extreme-makeover-beirut-edition.html

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-york-times-busted-in-hezbollah.html

[waste gate]

News from the Twilight Zone:

Its not the Twilight Zone, its the naive, silly, uninitiated zone.

I'm begining to think that the illusion of a perfect world has been perpetuated on these sorry lots by their dodding parents. Its not their fault. Having never made their way in the world, they just don't know which end is up.

Never having to make a living, raise children, pay for others lack of ambition, or protected their country, have resulted in the liberal, proggresive ideology which we see on this forum. We must remember they are young and impressionable. With mommy and daddy protecting them it is easy to have such views.

[Yahoshua]

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/lebanonFlash.asp

[waste gate]

There is that war crimes statement again. Be it from Isreal or any other party.
The winners say what is a war crime. No one else. Its like the UN saying cease fire. Who listens? Without the power to back it up the statement is of no value.

Don't think I don't appreciate the rest of the video Yahoshua. I am aligned with the message. Its just the war crimes bit that takes me back a bit.

[Yahoshua]

I'm just posting the material. I didn't say it was aimed at you or anyone else.

I'm just throwing it out there.