Whilst watching the BBC news’ report about the horrific terrorist attacks against Shi’ite civilians in Iraq, I was astonished to hear the following uttered:
Ominously, there are increasing calls for locals to take up arms and defend their communities.
Excuse me? These poor people have just had the centre of their community blown out and many people killed but the desire to defend themselves is denounced by the BBC as… ominous? It might tell you something about what is happening in Iraq but it also tells you quite a lot about the mindset at the BBC.
It seems to me that locals taking up arms to defend themselves against terrorism directly are exactly what the USA should be encouraging whole heartedly. The fact is that people will start doing so regardless of the wishes of the USA if the security situation continues to deteriorate, so not only would it be pointless to try and stop them, why not make a virtue of necessity and show that the occupying powers welcome Iraqis becoming more self-reliant and willing to confront these murdering bastards themselves?
Iraqi territorial para-militaries could be quite an asset fighting the insurgency precisely because they are not going to be centrally directed, at least to some extent. Counter-insurgency by its nature relies on more than just firepower, which the US has in abundance. It also relies on local knowledge and a willingness to be ruthless, something pissed-off locals could certainly provide. The idea that Al Qaeda can only be fought in Iraq ‘top down’ (i.e. directed from Washington using US and Iraqi government forces) is probably a mistake, so arming the people who are taking the brunt of the attacks seems a pretty sensible way to go.
We are. All Iraqi households are “permitted” to own an AK-47 or whatever, and when some terrorist nutter gets blwn away by the errrr neighborhood, the U.S. forces turn a blind eye.
Don’t ask me how I know this — I can’t tell you — but let’s just say that my source is at the heart of the action, and an unimpeachable witness.
It would certainly inconvenience the terrorists if, while they are hiding amongst the civilian population, they were also forced to hide their activities from the civilian population or risk a bullet in the back.
Yes, the BBC is British. But if the same shoe fits . . .
It’s ominous you complete idiot because it presages civil war. Can’t you jettison your ridiculous anti-BBC paranoia for a single second?
Phil, it is already a civil war, you jackass, that is not the issue. The issue is how to win it and forming (or more accuratly, don’t try to stop) the locals defending THEMSELVES seems pretty sensible to me.
From the moment the enemy, be they Baathists or Al Qaeda, started attacking Iraqi civilians, it was a civil war. That much is old news, Phil.
Using the terrorism of those people to radicalise Iraqi AGAINTS the Islamic fundimentalists is just playing this smart regardless of how it makes the Guardian reading classes grimace with distaste at the idea of people taking up arms in their own defence.
I’m a paid up Guardianista and I’m all in favour of people defending themselves if they are attacked, you prat. But it’s hardly good news, is it? Hence: O.M.I.N.O.U.SL.Y. Doh.
No? Really? Well I never would have guessed…
Now why don’t I believe you? There is always a “but…” when people like you say something like that.
Being attacked by terrorists: ominous (to put it mildly). Contemplating taking local measures to fight back against terrorists: only ominous to people like you. It is actually the one bit of good news to come out of this horror today and shows what the IRA learned long ago: there comes a point at which terrorism is so brutal that it actually stiffens resolve rather than weakens it. The Jihadis are probably too obsessed with ‘Shaheed’ to ever figure that out (the Provos were much more pragmatic) and that is why local Iraqi para-military militias are both inevitable and might actually be a very good thing indeed.
If you have an argument to make on those points, make it. If all you can do is be insulting however. feel free to sod off. Your call.
You think that local people being driven to arms to defend themselves against murdering swine is good news?! God help us, then, if we ever get some bad news. Now try answering my initial point about the way you conscripted this episode to launch a cheap shot at the BBC.
Simple really: innocent people being attacks is bad. Innocent people resolving to defend themselves is good.
It is not good that they are put in the position of HAVING to defend themselves, it is good that, finding themselves in that position, they seem to be showing signs of wanting to fight back themselves.
And as the BBC is value-judging that response in a negative way, I attacked them. You may not agree with my views but they are not that hard to understand once you realise that not everyone sees the world the way the Guardian/BBC statist center left does.
The really good news is that the Iraqis feel confident enough in their prospects that they believe they can win.O-M-I-N-O-U-S is when people meekly bend the neck for the blade.Iraq is no longer paralysed with fear as it was under Saddam Hussein.
Hardly a cheap shot.
“You think that local people being driven to arms to defend themselves against murdering swine is good news?!”
Curious interpretation of the excerpt. The Beeb didn’t say it was ominous that murdering swine are driving locals to defend their communities. The Beeb said it was ominous that local people would even call for arming themselves so they can defend the communities. The only change in the situation from the norm of the past months is the calling to defend one’s community from jihadists and former-regime sympathizers.
As far as to why it could be viewed as good new? Well, how long have we heard the cry that the locals weren’t willing to take of the call to serve and defend their towns and country via service in the police and military. Lately those numbers have been swelling more and more in the face of increasing attacks from the murderous swine. And now calls are coming out that even those who don’t join the police and military should take action too.
Good news? The swing of local opinion away from timid cowering is pretty good news.
You think the Beeb needs help conscripting any tidbit and inject pessimism and defeatism into the reporting? But calling them on it is beyond the pale?
Methinks Monsieur Perry would find bias in an episode of Celebrity Come Dancing. What is objectionable is that he enlists the catastrophe of Iraq to further his own little petty ideological war.
Celebrity Come Dancing? A bit elitist for a Guardianista.What is your point Phil,have you found a job in the Media Guardian pages and are filling out your CV?
Peter: err… and your point is, exactly? I know you’re not that keen on lefties like me, but at least make an effort. It shows a marked callousness to use the suffering of Iraq in order to fight a petty ideological squabble here. Grow up, or even less people will bother about you right-wing dodos than do now.
Methinks Monsieur Perry would find bias in an episode of Celebrity Come Dancing. What is objectionable is that he enlists the catastrophe of Iraq to further his own little petty ideological war.
Methinks we’re all still waiting for you to make your point.
You haven’t explained EXACTLY why it’s “ominous”. Yes, this will require actual articulation of valid reasoning. Are the Iraqi people not to be trusted with defending theirs and their own?
Unless you mean it’s “ominous” that the terrorists are going to end up facing armed civilians?
It seems far from ominous to me to have the terrorists surrounded by the U.S/Iraqi Government on one side and armed Iraqi citizens on the other.
Why exactly is this potential turning point bad news? Exactly?
Phil,
It is left wing hypocrites who have, from the outset used human suffering as a political tool,from the Bolsheviks through to Pol pot,you have never apologised.
Your corruption is evinced by the fact that I did not mention Iraq in the post you responded to.I know the left lives in a Guardian fantasy world where whatever they say is true,but surely the remedial comprehension classes must have rubbed off on you.
But perhaps not ,anyone who can believe an ideology which has failed constantly all over the world,Marxism is so Victorian values isn’t it? is probably ineducable.
Peter: err… and your point is, exactly?—-And don’t mumble!
Bolsheviks?! Pol Pot?! Shome mishtake, surely? Next you’ll be coming out with “This is exactly how Nazi Germany started”, a la Basil Fawlty. I believe the point disappeared sometime ago. Good night, sleep tight, and I’d watch the blood pressure if I were you!
Let me clarify what I think the BBC’s view of this is for all and sundry. The reason it is ominous is that if the Iraqis fight back they are very likely to wipe out the insurgents and all we will have left would be the possibility of a new democratic country, peace, and a moral victory for the USA.
Thats the trouble Philly boy,that is your lineage,just appologise for Stalin,go on you know it will do you good.
What is the matter with your spelling?Oh I know ,it is Grauniadese!
/ sarc on
Here’s a new idea: First, we take away all the firearms from the Iraqi populace. Including shotguns. Then, we make sure they understand that if a suicide bomber shows up in front of their house, they are to take no action which may aggravate the situation, and phone the police . Engage the ‘splodey-dope in dialog and defuse the situation with empathy and anger-management.
They must understand that “self-defense” is just another right-winger propaganda phrase that really means Vigilante-ism.
Self-defense? O-M-I-N-O-U-S.
Peace, Love and Cosmic Granola to All . . . . .
/ sarc off
Phil writes:
“It shows a marked callousness to use the suffering of Iraq in order to fight a petty ideological squabble here.”
I do hope you copied that memo to the ‘Stop The War Coalition’, ‘Respect’ (sic), the entire staff of the BBC, Independent and Guardian.
What humbug!
People, people. Remember : they’re not terrorists. They’re not ‘murderous swine’. They’re ‘bombers’. Or ‘gunmen’.
Your collective lack of a value-neutral references in framing these events is so…..ominous.
Phil says:
I’ve read that every which way and all I can smell is an oxymoron. With the emphasis on moron.
Frogman
Don’t be silly. Surely the key to ending violence is getting the Iraqi people to understand the root causes.
What I’d like to see, is for y’all across the pond to tell your MP’s and what-all to bugger off, then arm and defend yourselves against your own increasingly nasty criminal element.
‘Course, I’d like to see us all show a mite more resolve, over here, as well.
Meanwhile, I too, am happy to see the Iraqi sane people defending themselves.
I’m a paid up Guardianista and I’m all in favour of people defending themselves if they are attacked, you prat. But it’s hardly good news, is it? Hence: O.M.I.N.O.U.SL.Y. Doh.
No more ominous than being attacked by a fascist government run by a violent ethnic, minority. The fact is these guys have been slaughtered for decades by the same people.
Hmm. A paid up Guardianista (shiver) who agrees with the right of an individual to defend themselves when attacked.
Phil, what do you make of the Tony Martin affair?
” A paid up Guardianista who agrees with the right of an individual to defend themselves when attacked.”
Is either a very, very confused person, or a liar.
(but admittedly, we primitive colonials view things in very simplistic terms)
What is O.M.I.N.O.U.SL.Y. an acronym for?
Here’s hoping they kill both sets of terrorists.
– Josh
It is ominous, and it is so because it probably is symptomatic of the disintegration of Iraq as a unitary state.
Iraq, as many no doubt know, is an artificial country cobbled together for British ease of administration under a League of Nations mandate to govern three provinces of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire. Thus, the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shia regions. The only thing the regions have in common is geographical propinquity.
Iraq is one of those places where a strong central government is necessary to hold it together. Without such a strong state, the place falls apart. That’s all very well, but the problem with a disintegrating Iraq is that it involves three neighbouring states. Iran will have interests in the Shia region it borders, Saudi Arabia in the Sunni region IT borders, and Turkey in the Kurdish region IT borders. It will be recalled that there was very strong Turkish opposition before the war to an independent Kurdish state carved from the wreckage.
Probable options are:
1. A long term (in decades) American presence as guarantor of the state. This is unlikely, because (a) domestic opposition to the Iraqi entanglement seems to be growing, (b) America cannot afford to garrison a foreign country to such an extent indefinitely, and (c) local opposition will grow and eventually become intolerable.
2. Breakup into three independent (or largely so) states along ethnic/religious lines. This raises significant questions concerning the overall stability and security of the region, and for western energy supply security since two of the dominant local powers are essentially antipathetic to western interests.
3. Emergence of a strong local government, powerful enough to hold the country together. This is very unlikely to be a democratic government, so we are back to status quo ante bellum but with a different face on the banknotes. It could be a fundamentalist government.
This is absolutely nothing to do with rights of personal self-defence. It is about the breakup of a nation and what can and cannot be done to encourage or prevent it (depending on which side you’re on).
Peripherally, one might note that much is made hereabouts of the law of unintended consequences. It is quite possible that the unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq may be a less secure and less stable Middle East with increased power and influence for anti-western interests, with the only feasible response being a ruinously expensive long term garrison of the region by a nation already facing overstretch.
EG
Frogman wrote,
Of course someone like Our Little Tone would prefer that the the Iraqis show, “traditional stoicism” to actual resistance. Hmm, an AK-47 or a stiff upper lip – I think I know which I would prefer.
I just wished we Europeans could arm ourselves against the Eurocrats when then knock on the door to take our money and property away!
I would LOVE to see a civil war in Iraq! If the Shi’ite population would decide to fight with the Americans against the terrorist it would send a signal to the world that the terrorist are just that! Terrorist and not resistance fighters.
So? I’d like tio see the UK’s disintergration as a unitary states, so the long over due partition of Iraq into more viable bits is hardly bad news… but in any case, you are quite wrong that this is what was described as ominous: the BBC reporter did not say “Ominously, there are increasing calls for the partition of Iraq”. He said people calling for self defence measures was ominous. The news reports was quite focused on the areas attacked and it was not a broader piece about Iraq.
It is when you actually stop and think for a moment. The disintegration of Iraq has rather more profound security implications than the disintegration of the UK. If the UK breaks up, no-one is going to take over Scotland or Wales, or heavily influence their politics from abroad. This is not, however, the case with Iraq. The two are not remotely comparable. The breakup of Iraq would have very serious implications for western security, especially over energy supplies. It is naive and foolish to dismiss the possibility with a casual “So?”
I suppose this does illustrate the conventional wisdom that libertarians may have some good ideas here and there, but they are on a different planet when it comes to foreign policy.
I didn’t say it was, did I? I said the matter was ominous and gave the reasons why I think this, which are not those of a simple personal defence question.
I know. However, it does illustrate broader problems in Iraq which need to be understood, whether or not this was the intent of the journalist. The piece is thought-provoking, but not in the knee-jerk anti-BBC way portrayed here.
EG
Cato, Islamic terrorism is by no means an exclusive domain of the Sunnis. Think of the Hizbullah, and they are just the tip of the Iranian iceberg. As far as I can tell, it’s just the other side of the same coin. Also, we have seen Muslims fighting with the Americans before, and we know what happened afterwards.
Perry, you are correct, but EG raises an issue that is larger than the BBC’s views on self-defense (at least in my view), although it is admitedly somewhat OT of the original post. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with his assessment, although I would not entirely rule out long term American military presence in Iraq and the neighborhood. After all it did happen in Germany and the Far East.
Yes of course it has security implications, not all of them good. But then so does trying to hold a unitary Iraq together.
The trouble is that statists like you are so obsessed with the sanctity of nation-states that it blinds you to the bigger (and smaller) picture. Just as in Africa and Asia a whole world of hurt could have been mitigated if the artificial countries there had just be broken up when the colonial system faded away (it would have hurt at first but would be more stable in the long run). I mean the partition of India after independence was very nasty indeed but it was both inevitable and in the long run for the best.
It was never a ‘simple self defence question’. It is about significent numbers of Iraqi people forming local para-military militias to fight the terrorists, which is a strategic, operational and tactical issue and hardly simple at all.
The article was about the BBC’s use of the word ‘ominous’ within that context.
I don’t think it is. I think the reaction to the report – which is to say Perry’s original post – is fundamentally mistaken because it looks at the matter from entirely the wrong point of view. One might ask WHY the BBC considers the matter ominous – is it the perceived BBC opposition to armed citizenry, or is the journalist seeing a deeper problem? Even if it is the former, is the matter no deeper than that? I don’t think so, and I think it is naive to think it is.
However, the economic and political-strategic circumstances are very different now. America is not really in a position, either militarily or economically, to mount a decades-long garrison of Iraq or the Middle East as it could in Germany, Japan and Korea.
EG
But one must take it within the context both the article and the long established nature of the BBC.
That’s got to be the understatement of the week, and it’s only Monday. Different planet for sure, possibly even a parallel universe.
Then one might be inclined to ask why you present it as a simple anti-BBC thing.
Why do you think they are doing this? What do the reasons why they are doing this tell you about the internal stability of the country? What does the internal stability of the country tell you about its future possibilities? What does the history of the region and this nation in particular tell you about the likely outcomes? What do the natures of the surrounding (and potentially successor) states tell you about the likely future stability of the region as a whole?
Can you really not see anything truly ominous in any of this? Can’t you set the Pavlovian anti-state ideology aside for a moment and consider that what is happening here, although a small thing in itself, is symptomatic of very serious problems indeed and is positively dripping with ominosity?
EG
Or possibly ominousness.
EG
I had forgotten what a troll you are and trolls are best ignored. Oh well, one last time: yes, there is a downside (yet more short term instability) but if you think that there is not also a downside to slavishly holding a unitary Iraq together (probably futile in the long run anyway), then you are indeed as blinkered as I think you are.
It was not a simple anti-BBC article, that was one of two components (the other being why local defence in an insurgency makes sense). As for Pavlovian responses, that would be you are your endless reflexive support for the wisdom of the BBC/Guardian statist world view.
It feels so strange to agree with anything the BBC says about Iraq that I feel minded to give it a try.
From a practical point of view, what would be the consequence of having an armed militia in these areas ? If the enemy was approaching in raiding parties or generally acting like real soldiers, then fine, armed locals would be a good idea. But this isn’t that kind of war.
What would a local paramilitary force do in response to this sort of atrocity ? Shoot their weapons in the air and/or shoot anyone they don’t recognise as being from their own neighbourhood, probably – not terribly helpful responses.
What could they do to prevent the next one ? Are they going to be disciplined enough to set up check-points and do vehicle searches properly ? If they want to do something, let them join the uniformed forces and do it right.
Mr du Toit, given his country of origin, and Col. Hogan, given his screen name, have probably served in proper armies and have proper weapons discipline. But, with respect, gentlemen, it does not seem wise to assume the same level of discipline in everyone else, particularly in today’s Iraq.
As a matter of interest, are there any examples of paramilitary forces in recent times that have really been a force for good ?
I was right, that did feel strange. Oh, well.
My assumption was that realistically these people would make infiltration quite a bit harder (much as Bosnian and Croatian local militias largely shut down infiltration by Serbian Cetniks in the Balkans once they got organised). Obviouisly there are limits to what such outfits can do (i.e. defend against an exploding gas tanker). That said, the majority of attacks are NOT suicide bombers, though the most leathal ones seem to be.
I also suspect the militias would also probably form, to put it bluntly, death squads who would take out whoever they think are Al Qaeda supporters directly. Whilst not unconditionally condoning the activities of outfits like the Columbian AUC, by most accounts they are disporoprionatly effective against FARC by virtue of their ‘decentralised ruthlessness’, so I think in such nasty wars it would be wrong to say that sort of thing does not work.
2. Breakup into three independent (or largely so) states along ethnic/religious lines. This raises significant questions concerning the overall stability and security of the region, and for western energy supply security since two of the dominant local powers are essentially antipathetic to western interests.
So we’re happy to give the Iraqis a bit of self-determination, so long as they agree with us?
Also, which two of the three countries are you talking about as being essentially antipathetic to western interests? As far as I can remember both Saudi Arabia and Turkey are allies of the US.
Even if Iraq broke up, do you not think that whomever ended up running the resultant territory wouldn’t be interested in selling us oil? Iran would love to sell us oil, Saudi Arabia already sells us oil and Turkey would sell us oil if they had any to sell us.
It’s not like we’re getting much oil out of Iraq now, with US taxpayers are funding the rebuilding of Iraqi oil infrastructure so that the jihadhists can blow it up again, not to mention line the pockets of corporate welfarists like Halliburton.
I think what the BBC finds truly ominous about the situation is that, if (or when) it works, some of the listeners at home might get the idea that defending one’s self against criminal attack is acceptable behavior, despite what has become the official position. That could make England a very dangerous place, at least for criminals, who of course constitute a protected minority group.
That’s nothing to do with the point I was making, but since you mention it this is generally the way things are done in such circumstances, yes.
Saudi Arabia is not exactly an unqualified cheerleader for Team America, is it? You also need to consider what would be likely to replace the Saudi royal family if/when it is deposed. Further, if Iraq shatters to the net benefit of SA, Iran and Turkey, the regional balance of power will be significantly altered, and it is entirely possible that SA will then no longer see friendship with the US as in its best interest, certainly not in the long term – the more so if Iran becomes more sensible, since the regional threat declines. This is admittedly a gloomy prognostication, but it is generally better to err on the side of caution and not be too optimistic.
Of course they would. But in that scenario America would be dependent on Saudi Arabia and/or Iran, with no significant alternative in the region. Thus the Anglo-American goal of security of energy supply is lost.
EG
Who cares who they sell their oil to? Oil is completely fungible and so it really don’t matter which oil goes where. All that matters is that there is a government in place who wants to sell oil to someone.
One wonders, in that case, why America worries about security of energy supply. Sadly, the world is not as simple as economic principles suggest it should be.
EG
I think what the BBC finds truly ominous about the situation is that, if (or when) it works, some of the listeners at home might get the idea that defending one’s self against criminal attack is acceptable behavior, despite what has become the official position. That could make England a very dangerous place, at least for criminals, who of course constitute a protected minority group.
I also heard this report, and to my mind the ominous thing about it was that it reveals the unconscious mindset of the BBC man, shared no doubt by most if not all others in the organisation. What he finds ominous about local militias carrying out self-defence is precisely the fact that they are local and not under the all-seeing control of whatever the Iraqi requivalent of the gentleman in Whitehall might be. He cannot get his poor little head round the very concept that people might be able to organise for their own local defence, and do a better job than the central government mercenaries, who are basically trying to stay alive long enough to get paid. I would have thought that to survive and prosper at the BBC any concept that local and decentralised activity of any sort can be of any use, anywhere, ever, must be left at the door on day one. He’ll go far.
Nobody’s a mind reader here, as far as I know, so the question of why the Beeb reporter considered the development in question as ‘ominous’ isn’t going to be solved by bickering and name calling. What’s his track record? What has he written before? Where has he been?
TWG
Heh. When I took in the BBC line mentioned first time round, I wondered what all the fuss was about. Call it a Freudian slip – I read it as “Obviously, there are increasing calls for locals to take up arms and defend their communities.”
Let us be honest about what is happening: Iraq is out of control in the “sunni triangle”. The Coalition has partly botched the occupation and has not done enough to seal the borders to prevent every wannabe jihadi from crossing over to cause mayhem.
Of course, it may have been inevitable that Iraq was going to implode anyway, even if Saddam had tried to cling to power for a few more years. The least-bad option must be some sort of loose(ish) federal structure which would give the Kurds in the north, for example, a high level of local autonomy.
rgds
Johnathan – I blogged about this phenomenon recently. It’s very easy for the Average Joe to think that Iraq is utterly stuffed due to all the dramatic fireworks to be found on the news. That kind of thing makes great copy and TV. The boring stuff that is necessary for the construction of a functioning civil society like the drafting of the constitution, auctioning mobile phone licences, the commencement of transmission at the first independent Iraqi media broadcaster etc. etc. suggest that Iraq’s coming along quite nicely. Most punters will only realise this when the jihadis start hitting targets with decreasing frequently.
James Waterton, I agree. It continues to mystify me that people thought we were going to pop in, capture Saddam, quell a revolution, introduce democracy, put an entire civil infrastructure in place and be home in time for tea.
It wouldn’t astound me if the last Coalition forces on the ground didn’t leave Iraq for about three more years.
That’s not the point. The palpable benefit of an armed populace overcomes, quite easily, any fears of “indiscipline” (ie. firearms accidents).
If the population of Iraq were completely armed, the numbers of accidental firearms deaths would have to number more than 50,000 per annum before it became meaningful.
With over 80 million gun owners, the USA suffers only a couple thousand accidental gun-related deaths each year.
Each accidental death is horrible, regrettable and if I could make them all go away, I would. But in the cold, hard logic of freedom vs. oppression, the small number of accidental deaths is an easy burden for a free society to bear, compared to the alternative (eg. Saddamite Iraq, Hitler’s Poland, Stalin’s USSR, and so on).
So let’s not go down the road of “disciplined” or “trained” citizens being the only ones “worthy” of being allowed to defend themselves.
Because then we open up the question of “who decides what constitutes worthy” — and our experience has shown that officialdom is more likely to decide “nobody” rather than “almost everyone”.
Kim;
Last time I checked, the number of fatal gun-related accidents in the U.S. had fallen well below 1,000 several years ago.
This following a steady decline in both number and rate since data on such accidents began to be collected in the early 1930s.
James Waterton,
I would add,that much of the mayhem is created purely for the media.Journalists and photographers turn up at these atrocities will suspicious regularity.Many seem to be uncannily positioned to take the most dramatic pictures.
We also have a media with the maxim “If it bleeds it leads”
[T]he BBC guidelines do not authorise staff to say that ‘the enemies of all mankind’ have massacred commuters in London or children in Baghdad. Instead, the censors instruct: ‘We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator, such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent” and “militant”. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audience to make their own assessment about who is doing what to whom.’
In which case ominous is a value laden word.
Gods, do you know you sound like the people who claim 9/11 was staged for Bush’s benefit? And, do you know how photography works? Those were only the best out of many, many pictures that never made it. That’s how good photography works, one takes far more pictures than one will actually use and then select the best. That’s why you see so many dramatic pictures. You aren’t seeing the countless less interesting rejects.
There’re numerous dramatic photos of natural disaster. Are you going to argue that’s suspiciously staged? It’s skill and the ability to select the wheat from the chaff, not whatever conspiracy you’re implying.
Neessha,
There was the notorious case of the AP picture of the execution of the Iraqi election workers,how did they know to be there?
Attacks are usually of shot duration and bombs explode in fractions of seconds,photographers seem to be there in time for the event.
I am perfectly aware of how photographers work,anything for a picture,whether it is keeping company with a terrorist group using a SAM on a transport plane as the French did,or photographers who are actually part of the “insurgency” acting as stringers.
Ar for the puerile remark about “natural disasters”these are not the same thing as events created by the will of man, which are often, in my view,staged purely because a photographer is there.
Photographers are no more a neutral conduit of information than are journalists,they too have a moral responsibility
From the moment the enemy, be they Baathists or Al Qaeda, started attacking Iraqi civilians, it was a civil war.
Er, I don’t want to interrupt, but doesn’t “civil war” usually mean “war within a state”? How is it “civil war” for Saudi and Yemeni jihadis to attack Iraqis, much less for Iraqis to defend themselves against same? (The Ba’athists generally didn’t attack civilians so far as I can tell – they went after primarily American soldiers.)
I know the media refer to every foreign jihadi in Iraq as an “Iraqi” “insurgent”, and they have their reasons for muddying the identities of the combatants, but surely we don’t need to follow their lead in this.
its wack
its wack