Fish Wrap Forgets To Inform That Killed Photographer Was Hanging With Insurgents
Have you heard about the video that was released that showed the killing of a Reuters photographer back in 2007 by American military helicopters? The Times makes sure that you don’t miss it: Video Shows American Killing of Photographer
The Web site WikiLeaks.org released a graphic video on Monday showing an American helicopter shooting and killing a Reuters photographer and driver in a July 2007 attack in Baghdad.
A senior American military official confirmed that the video was authentic.
Reuters had long pressed for the release of the video, which consists of 38 minutes of black-and-white aerial video and conversations between pilots in two Apache helicopters as they open fire on people on a street in Baghdad. The attack killed 12, among them the Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and the driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.
At a news conference at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. WikiLeaks edited the video to 17 minutes.
Everything above, including the headline, is meant to insinuate that the two were killed for no reason. After all, the helicopter pilots simply opened up on people on a Baghdad street. And the pilots laughed about it. The Times does get around to telling readers that the Apaches had been called in because of small arms fire and RPG’s used against American troops, but then
But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to WikiLeaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen’s camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills.
Au contraire, Fish Wrap! The Jawa Report and Hot Air, among others, do a fantastic job in tearing apart the video, showing that the “people on the street of Baghdad” had AK-47’s and at least one RPG, and a convoy of America troops were approaching. So, the Apache pilots asked for permission to fire, and did just that. It was a war zone, and, as Cassy Fiano points out, if media folks embed themselves with insurgents, aka scumbag Islamist extremists, if they get killed, they shouldn’t be surprised. The Jawa Report has much more along those lines, such as “This wouldn’t be the first time Reuters had sent off it’s “crack team” of locals to give the terrorists’ “point of view”.”
The Fish Wrap finally gets around to some actual meat in the last paragraph
The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”
Ah. So, weapons and the Reuters dudes were hanging and having fun with terrorists. In a war zone.
I do find it interesting that this supposedly huge!!!!! story only made it to page A13 of the Tuesday print edition, while it is front page on the web. The Times knows that this story is really no big deal, but, they could get lots of hits on the web if people saw the story easily.
Unshockingly, the unhinged on the left are going unhinged about the original release from Wikileaks, which calls this “Collateral Murder.” In fact, that is what the website is called. The Weekly Standard points out that this was anything but, that doesn’t stop the kooks at the Democratic Underground, Boing Boing (which offers the Al Jazeera view), Little Green Goofballs, and the Rachael Maddow Show blog, among others, doing their typical hate America and support Islamist extremists schtick.
Voters do not like taxes. So, National Public Radio in New Hampshire seems to have thought it would be nice
If you want to see how the left skews the narrative using untrue claims and false imagery to sell a
President Obama’s new healthcare website is so bad that even the famed consumer advocate magazine Consumer Reports is warning thatAmericans