Another Cropped Reuters Photo Deletes Another Knife – And a Pool of Blood
OK, come on now. I mean, really.
One picture cropped to remove a knife might be explained as incompetence or a simple mistake.
But now we have two pictures from the “peace activists” that were cropped by someone at Reuters to remove knives in the hands of the activists, as they attempted to take soldiers hostage.
Reuters has published this picture from the activists:
The picture is a cropped version of this photo from the IHH website (IHH is the Islamist group whose members rioted aboard the Mavi Marmara):
What did the Reuters photo editor crop out? A big knife and a big pool of blood.
UPDATE at 6/6/10 4:20:27 pm:
And it gets worse. I took the photo into Photoshop and increased the exposure to lighten the dark areas, and discovered that they didn’t just crop out the knife and blood — they also cropped out another badly injured Israeli soldier lying on the floor.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“Gaza convoy tapes edited, Israel acknowledges” CNN.
As if Israel is exempt from propaganda.
Interesting. So you’re admitting that Reuters is anti-Israel and deliberately alters photos for propaganda?
Thanks! I didn’t think you had it in you.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sure, maybe. I don’t exactly think Israel has a shortage of enemies. But Israel having enemies doesn’t exonerate them from similar behavior.
Blind defense of Israel doesn’t help Israel.
In response to another comment. See in context »From a previous comment:
What does that mean, ‘edited’? Were they edited for time? Were they edited for content? Do you know? Do you have evidence the Israelis tampered with and tried to misrepresent the content of the tape?
There was an edited version of audio tapes that were edited, the one where the ‘peace quacktivist’ communicant on the ship tells the Israelis to ‘go back to Auschwitz’ and to remind the Israelis their intent was to ‘help cause another 9/11′.
That tape was edited for time, them released in it’s entirety.
Is that also tape you were referring to as well?
One might argue that the ‘peace quactivists’ and the Israelis might engage in creative editing. After all, they are directly involved.
That said, why would a supposedly neutral news organization engage in that kind of behavior?
In response to another comment. See in context »Let’s pretend Israeli journalists were held and censored for 48 hours when covering Hamas crimes in Gaza. I have a feeling you’d be crying foul.
And if you seriously want to go down the road of propaganda in the middle east, or censored journalism…how about discussing Israel censorship on Israeli human rights groups investigating their own country? They’re calling their own citizens “foreign agents” should they dare point the finger inward.
If you want to defend Israel and ensure its survival, being blind to what it does wrong doesn’t help. Focusing on whether the “media is against Israel” (um,no) doesn’t fix Israel’s real problems.
And some of your readers may have have forgotten, but not all of us, that Israel promoted Hamas’ growth in order to offset the PLO’s power in Palestine. Their mess to clean up, isn’t it? Punishing the Palestinians doesn’t weaken Hamas. Punishing the Lebanese doesn’t weaken Hezbollah. Punishing Afghans doesn’t weaken the Taliban. And so on and so forth forever and ever until there is no end. So some advice to Israel: grow up. At least, if you want to survive.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your analogy is quite faulty.
There are plenty of Israeli journalists who are free to report the most critical of reports as they please, every day, even from Gaza. That applies to journalists from around the world.
I am surprised you focus on how Israel treats journalists. Those based in the Palestinian territories do not have the same freedoms as their colleagues based in Israel. If they are too critical of their Palestinian hosts, they are told to leave at best and subject to beatings at worst.
If Israeli journalists did attempt to violate another nations sovereignty and were intercepted, I would imagine they might be precluded from filing stories for at least 48 hours if not more.
As to your absurd remarks re Hamas, let me put it in simple terms: Israel did support Hamnas to undermine Arafat’s corrupt PLO. The belie3f was that Hamas would clean up the corruption and enter into good faith peace negotiations with Israel. That Hamas chose to use that help and turn around and attack the Israelis is a choice they made.
If I give you a car to go to work and then you decide to drink and drive and end up killing someone, don’t blame me for giving you the car.
You can spin that all you like but you can’t make reality go away.
Are you a supporter of Hamas, or just an ap0logist?
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, come on. “Pool of blood”?
In your experience, do fluids typically “pool” on the 45-degree slant of a stairway handrail?
I mean, sure, it’s probably blood – remember how a dozen people were shot on that ship by Israelis? What did you think was in their veins – Jello?
I must congratulate you Mr Payne. You seem to be an expert at so many things!
Now a close look at the stair rail does show blood had flowed inwards and downwards. In other words there is even more blood that the photo indicates. Perhaps you had best leave blood pool photo analysis off your resume.
Anyway, let’s work on those critical thinking skills.
The issue under discussion is deliberate photo editing.
In response to another comment. See in context »The issue under discussion is making up things that aren’t there – like pools of blood, stab wounds, and being able to tell the occupation and nationality of a person just by seeing his sleeve. (There’s no reason to believe that the individual whose sleeve is visible in the second picture is an injured Israeli soldier.)
Now a close look at the stair rail does show blood had flowed inwards and downwards.
No, a close look shows that the blood was smeared there. You know, by someone’s hand. Like, maybe after they had been shot by an Israeli?
You people are truly ridiculous. It strikes me that if Israel’s conduct were truly defensible, you and Charles wouldn’t have to make things up in order to do so. Why is it every argument by Israel’s knee-jerk defenders falls completely apart on inspection?
In response to another comment. See in context »And you’re a complete moron, spinning and lying and twisting things, repeating untruths over and over. You’ve let your hatred for Israel completely take over your reason, and it’s pitiful.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t hate Israel, but I hate bullies.
Tell me something, Charles. Two quick questions:
1) What was the last thing Israel did that you would describe as a mistaken overreaction?
2) Who was the last critic of Israel you talked to who you didn’t conclude was an anti-semite or “Israel hater”?
Same question for the others. If you answer, as I’m sure Charles must, “nothing” and “no one”, isn’t it pretty clear that it’s Israel’s defenders whose minds are clouded by hatred, not mine? Certainly the spewing torrent of anti-Muslim bigotry expressed by researchok is ample evidence of that.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr Payne-
You really need to work on those critical thinking skills!
Before you question Mr Johnson’s credibility, you need to establish your own. In that regard you have been clearly lacking.
Why should Mr Johnson be compelled to answer your first question? He does not answer to a pipsqueak like you. He has not stated fabrications in the same way you have and unlike you, his credibility is not in question.
Unlike you he discusses the issues he raises- he does not ‘pivot and attack’ in the same way you do (which is something else you do poorly) in the hope that the attention will be be drawn away from the matter in which you a) cannot answer or b) have demonstrated little knowledge or insight.
Further, that you are an anti semite and Israel hater is at this point beyond question or doubt.
While it is one thing to criticize Israel, it is quite another to side with openly racist, bigoted and hateful people and organizations. You have at every opportunity attempted to castigate and excoriate Israel and at the same time mitigate or apologize for everything the Palestinians or ‘peace quacktivists’ do. In your world, Israelis and Jews are the moral equal of the Palestinians- a laughable notion of there ever was one.
When you say you don’t hate Israel and focus entirely on the problem as being one of Israel’s creation and fault and only Israel’s to fix, you demonstrate that you are a liar. When you castigate Israeli policy and express no concern about Palestinian regime racism, bigotry and hate, you demonstrate your comfort with racism, bigotry and hate. That makes you a pig.
There are lots of critics of Israel who are not anti semites ar Israel haters.
Plainly stated, you are not one of them
Critics of some Israeli policy can be found on Mr Johnson’s blog (how the Israelis handled the ‘peace quacktavists’ was debated). Unlike you, while they may criticize Israel they are not shy of calling the Palestinians out for who and what they are.
Just so we’re clear, you are a bigot, a racist and a liar. Attempting to draw Mr Johnson into an exchange as if you were his equal (moral and otherwise) is laughable.
Now, give us another dance.
In response to another comment. See in context »Nobody has to answer any of my questions, of course – I’m just a guy on the internet who doesn’t like bullies like Hamas or Israel.
And I don’t need my “credibility” approved by bigots like you and Charles.
While it is one thing to criticize Israel, it is quite another to side with openly racist, bigoted and hateful people and organizations
Good thing I haven’t! On the other hand, you’re clearly a racist:
In your world, Israelis and Jews are the moral equal of the Palestinians- a laughable notion of there ever was one.
A disgusting statement of bigotry if ever I read one. Apparently, all men are created equal – unless they’re Palestinians.
You’re an unrepentant, disgusting racist, “researchok”. It’s clear that everything you’ve accused me of is just projection on your part.
There are lots of critics of Israel who are not anti semites ar Israel haters.
Out of curiosity – who was the last one you talked to?
It’s a curious beast, these “non-anti-semite/self-hating Jew critics of Israel”; Israel’s defenders take great pains to assert that they must exist (somewhere), but just by coincidence, any critic of Israel they’re talking to or responding to just so happens to either be an anti-semite or a self-hating Jew. How convenient for them!
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr Payne, there you go projecting again! Not exactly unexpected but humorous because you don’t even try to conceal it!
Your questions, like you, are irrelevant because they are predicated on the litany of lies you have concocted. I don’t blame you for being so upset. You went to some length to portray yourself as reasonable, cogent and thoughtful and you were busted by Mr Johnson and myself as a lightweight fraud.
I must congratulate on including Hamas on your ‘bully list’. Of course, you aren’t credible in the least. Attempting to portary Israel and Hamas as political and moral equals is the refuge of fools and anti semites such as yourself.
It isn’t enough to remain neutral and silent on Hamas and expect to be credible. That is like saying you are neutral on the KKK. To remaion silent on Hamas is tacit acceptance of their ideology.
As to the charge that I am biased. I concur.
I am revolted by racism, bigotry and hate. I am repulsed by the notion that terror is an acceptable form of political expression and I am even more repulsed that there people such as yourself who do not stand front and center and express their outrage. I am further repulsed by the disreputable fools like you who think nothing of trying to find a moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinian and will take every opportunity to lie and deceive in that effort. I am further repulsed that people like you think nothing of racism and bigotry.
As to your other drivel, let me be clear- all men are creatwed equal. It is in their choices that their morality can be distinguished. Your choices and biases are clear- you are a bigot masquerading as reasonable. You are David Duke and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad.
To be clear- just because you wear pants does not make you or your beliefs credible or equal to those of Mr Johnson or myself.
I consider being disliked by you a badge of honor. When racists and bigots are disturbed by my beliefs, I know I’d doing something right.
Now, give us another dance.
In response to another comment. See in context »Revolted by it? To the contrary – you embrace it, for instance when you offer disgusting racist slurs about Muslim Arabs.
It isn’t enough to remain neutral and silent on Hamas and expect to be credible.
I’m not now, nor have ever been “neutral and silent” on Hamas. Indeed, I’ve made great pains to express just how much I hate Hamas, but you keep pretending like it’s not possible to express the slightest criticism of the policies of the Israeli military without being “on the side of Hamas.”
I hate bullies. Hamas is a bully. The problem is, so is Israel.
I am further repulsed by the disreputable fools like you who think nothing of trying to find a moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinian and will take every opportunity to lie and deceive in that effort.
I don’t need to lie to defend the proposition that all men are created equal, but it’s pretty clear that you have to lie, and lie repeatedly, to attack it.
Disgusting. To assert that Palestinians are inferior to Israelis is disgusting and bigoted. You’re a racist, but it’s nice of you to make that clear.
To be clear- just because you wear pants does not make you or your beliefs credible or equal to those of Mr Johnson or myself.
…what? “Pants”? Who on Earth said anything about how I was dressed?
Not just a racist – you’re a crazy person, as well. First your hilarious inability to identify persons in pictures, now you betray an obsession with my sartorial status. Truly, you’re a crazy person. But, then, you have to be to be more upset about doctored photos than a needless loss of life. (But, hey, they were opposed to Israel’s interests, so they don’t even count as human, right, you bigot?)
In response to another comment. See in context »You make me laugh, Mr Payne. You are like a petulant little girl in the school yard who cannot make a case for herself, she keeps parroting what the smarter girl says!
You have made religion an issue, not I. You are the racist and bigot, not I. It is yo that makes a moral equivalencies between Israeli and Palestinians for whom the slogans of ‘We’ll finish what Hitler started’ and HAMAS! HAMAS! JEWS TO THE GAS! are repeated in state sponsored institutionalized media, in school curriculum and often preached from the pulpit. It is you has seen fit not note with revulsion these beastly behaviors and attitudes. That speaks more about you than you could possibly imagine.
I have no track record of offering racist slurs- just the opposite. It is you that is tegh racist and it is you that is the liar- a truth noted by more than myself.
Your tepid remarks re Hamas are amusing. That you have yet to call them out for their deliberate racism, bigotry and hate speaks volumes. You say you don’t support Hamas as if they were another political party or service organization. I understand why of course. You are kindred spirits. You share their bigotry. You try mightily to make them moral equivalents of the Israelis. In not rejecting them outright you announce your tolerance of bigotry, hate and terror.
It is not enough to say you hate Hamas and then not call them out on it. That is like saying you hate the KKK but can’t quite bring yourself to denounce the violence, racism and terror.
You say ‘Hamas is a bully, but so is Israel’- as if there is moral equivalency! Well pipsqueak, there is none and clicking your heels three time won’t change that reality. The very fact that you acknowledge any kind of equivalency between The State if Israel and Hamas is nauseating. Hamas has nothing in common with Israel or any civilized nation. Their values, politics and moral standing are stone age like.
If Hamas gacve a damn, they would build hospitals, not rockets, if Hamas were civilized they would build schools and not roadside bombs. If Hamas gave a damn about peace they would not teach their children how to hate and how to use weapons in ’summer camps’. If Hamas were civilized they would behave in a way that might prove to the world they actually deserved statehood. They would be very different than the other Arab regimes.
Like you, they could care less about the Palestinians. This is about their stated Jihad.
You are right to say you don’t need to lie. In fact, you choose to lie. I will repeat myself: Like you I believe all men are created equal. It is in their choices that we can distinguish whether or not they are good or evil. Hamas has made deliberate choices to be evil. As I noted earlier, if I give you a car to go to work and you choose to drink and drive and end ud up killing someone,don’t blame me for your bad choices. Hamas made choices. They are not morally equal to those who don’t drink and drive.
As a society, Palestinians are inferior to Israelis. To argue that is to argue the merits of the Flat Earth Society.
Now, let me show you what I really think about Islam.
See this:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2006/03/22/why-i-hate-islam/
I wrote it. As it turns out, your analytical skills are as lacking as your critical thinking skills.
You are a monument to nothingness.
Give us another dance, replete with projection and repetition.
In response to another comment. See in context »It is not enough to say you hate Hamas and then not call them out on it.
“Call them out” where? I mean I’ve told you a dozen times how I don’t support their campaign of terror against Israeli civilians. But I speak only English and Hamas is a Palestinian organization. There’s a bit of a language barrier if you want me to, I don’t know, write them an angry letter or something.
I mean, what have you done to “call them out”? How many members of Hamas do you write letters to regularly? How many newspapers do you contribute anti-Hamas articles to? What do you do, in fact, besides strengthen the hand of Hamas with your idiot racism and call me names?
You say ‘Hamas is a bully, but so is Israel’- as if there is moral equivalency!
Because there is. They’re the same. Hamas takes hostages, Israel takes hostages. (Nearly 11,000, as a matter of fact.) Hamas uses children as human shields, Israel uses children as human shields (and sniper targets.) Hamas wants to destroy Israel, Israel wants to destroy Palestine.
Hamas flouts international law, Israel flaunts international law. Hamas inflicts needless civilian casualties to compel political change, Israel inflicts needless civilian casualties to compel political change.
It’s literally the case that the only difference is that, due to Israel’s disproportionate military strength, when they decide to commit military terrorism against Palestinians, they’re able to kill hundreds, while Hamas is capable only of a few dozen deaths a month, at best.
. It is in their choices that their morality can be distinguished.
For instance, in the case of the Palestinians who made the choice to live on Israel’s land for generations before the Israelis could be bothered to move there.
Also, you know, if you’d calm down a little bit, your posts would be more intelligible and less spittle-flecked. Might improve your spelling, too.
As a society, Palestinians are inferior to Israelis.
Of course you think that, you disgusting bigot. Jesus I’m surprised you didn’t call them “sand-n*ggers.” Isn’t that what your kind calls people of Arab descent?
You are the racist and bigot, not I.
I asked you a question, before. Maybe you’d like to answer it: when was the last time you spoke to an Israel critic that you didn’t call a “racist”, “bigot”, “anti-semite”, or “self-hating Jew”?
In response to another comment. See in context »This really is getting to be fun- you are a real piece of work!
So why no apology, prick? You accused me (via that brilliant insight of yours) of deliberately maligning Muslims. When shown otherwise, you pretend that didn’t happen.
It is interesting how you keep (magically) escalating your excoriation of Hamas- and not once refer to their racism and bigotry. The best you can bring yourself to do is to pretend you ahave always excoriated Hamas terror. How many time EXACTLY have you done that? EXACTLY where have you made that claim?
Of course, we really do know why that it. Still it is amusing to watch you dance and pretend you are morally equal.
As for the beasts that run Hamas (you know, the group you abhor), I do more than write letters. Don’t make me embarrass you again (I know you won’t be able to help yourself. The pathology is well defined), though I’d be delighted to once more.
Also, to be clear, I’m not calling you names. I am accurately describing your bigotry, deceit and not so well camouflaged obsessions.
There is no moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas.
Israel is a modern, progressive society. The Palestinians are backward and failed. This has nothing to do with economies or even politics. It has to do with values.
Civilized societies eschew violence. Devolved societies worship and extol violence. This is not unique to the Palestinians. The Arab regimes and others are examples of dysfunctional and devolved societies. These societies create nothing. The contribute nothing, save for violence, to the world at large.
There is a difference between failed states and backwards states. A backward state is one that is yet unaware of advancement and has yet has yet to experience modernity.
A failed state is one that is aware of advancement and understands modernity and deliberately chooses to reject civilized nation status, instead preferring violence and extolling violence (you remember, ‘We’ll finish what Hitler started!)
Sorry old boy, but there is no moral equivalency. Palestinians, like other Arab states have chosen failure.
Further, make no mistake, Israel does not want to destroy Palestine. I’ll let you in on a secret: They could care less about the Palestinians. If the Hamas beasts are ever overthrown and a peace treaty emerges, the Palestinians will either engage with Israel or they won’t. It isn’t as if Israel’s successes will hinge on a backward and failed Palestine.
Now, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, learn the difference between Series Six and Series Seven UN Resolutions. Spouting off about ‘International Law’ is another area in which you have embarrassed yourself.
The same applies to your other5 idiotic remarks.
Understand there is no such thing as ‘disproportionate response’ to calls for genocide. As a matter of fact, conflicts are ended with disproportionate response.Peace among nations is arrived at when the cost of war becomes overwhelming. Racism, bigotry and hate are overcome when the cost of racism, bigotry and hate becomes too great for society to bear. As long as nations and peoples perceive the cost of war as acceptable, then we will have war.
When the cost of slaughtering Jews as ‘business as usual’ becomes to high for the Palestinians to bear, they will respond appropriately. The will find that civilized behavior has it’s own rewards.
Why would you think I’d call Arabs names? I’m not the racist here- you are. Not only are you a bigot and a racist but you are a liar as well.
Perhaps you need to read this again:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2006/03/22/why-i-hate-islam/
I have disagreements all the time with critics of Israel. Sometimes I am more critical, sometimes they are more critical.
The difference is that unlike you, they aren’t bigots. Check out LGF and learn a little.
In response to another comment. See in context »@researchok,
In response to another comment. See in context »I am somewhat sympathetic to Israel in this flotilla affair, and yes, I think your interactions with Justin show you to be a grade A bully and bigot. So please don’t assume all the “non-anti-semite/self-hating Jew critics of Israel” are on your side.
No, Mr Payne.
What is under discussion here is the photo manipulation by Reuters.
You have no evidence the blood in the photo was anyone’s but the soldiers. He is the only person in the image. Again, the application of critical thinking skills (which with every response becomes clear you lack) would have precluded you from making a most unsubstantiated allegation.
I note you are back to projection again. With your rather silly and unsubstantiated allegation it is very clear who is making things up. Attempting to foist your own intellectual shortcomings on Mr Johnson and myself only serves to highlight your character.
Now, give us another dance.
In response to another comment. See in context »He is the only person in the image.
Amazing. Again your reflexive, knee-jerk support of Israel has blinded you to what is plain in front of your face.
There are a total of five people in the photo – the soldier, Charles’s “hidden soldier” (who may in fact not be a soldier at all, impossible to tell from just a sleeve), the guy holding the knife, the bald guy in the life preserver, and the owner of the hand visible on the soldier’s leg on the left.
You have no evidence the blood in the photo was anyone’s but the soldiers.
Sure I do – those soldiers shot a dozen people on that boat, nine of them to death. None of the soldiers lost enough blood to die.
Simple statistics suggests that any particular volume of blood on that ship is far more likely to be from the individuals who lost so much of it as to die.
In response to another comment. See in context »He was the only person bleeding in the image.
I should have realized you needed a simpler explanation.
As for the rest, all drivel we’ve been over.
In response to another comment. See in context »From where is he bleeding in the image?
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Johnson,
The knife in question is indeed cropped out of the picture. However you will not that it has no blood on it, nor does the hand holding the knife. More to the point, if you look carefully, you can see that the IDF commando is being bound by strap of some sort, possibly nylon. His hands are above his head and are being bound. The cropped hand with the knife is cutting the nylon strap. A second hand, possibly of the same individual, is holding the end of the strap to make cutting it easier.
Sure, that’s it. They were setting him free. After beating him savagely and tying him up, they were trying to help the poor guy. Of course, why didn’t I see it?
You cannot be serious. But unfortunately, you apparently are.
By the way, I never claimed there was blood on the knife, but go ahead and keep refuting points that aren’t being made. Meanwhile you just completely ignore the big puddle of blood on the railing.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Johnson,
I did not say that they were cutting him free. What I said was that they cutting the strap to shorten it, they did not need the full length of strapping hold him. They were cutting the excess away.
I have to say, your responses on this and other threads are not really helpful to the reader. You do not respond to the content of the posting and simply throw out attacks up on the character of the people posting. It does not help your case at all and does not provide the reader any useful information for them to assess the relative merits of the arguments being made.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr David,
You miss the point entirely. You may be right; they may be cutting the strap to shorten it.
It matters not.
What matters is that the “activists” were armed well enough to severely injure several soldiers who, on every other ship boarded, caused no harm. The photos which would corroborate Israel’s assertion that the “activists” were armed with dangerous weapons were altered in a highly suspicious manner.
I share Mr. Johnson’s frustration. If there is difficulty in assessing the relative merits of the arguments being made, it is because there is little merit to counter the point that Reuters’ photos were either incompetently or maliciously edited.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello aceofwhat,
You wrote:”What matters is that the “activists” were armed well enough to severely injure several soldiers who, on every other ship boarded, caused no harm. The photos which would corroborate Israel’s assertion that the “activists” were armed with dangerous weapons were altered in a highly suspicious manner.”
Be all of that as it may, it is all irrelevant to the topic at hand. The ship was in international waters in time of peace. The IDF had no right to board that ship and the people on board had every right to defend themselves. Now if the ship and entered the “territorial seas” of Israel (which includes Gaza), the IDF would have had every right to stop and search those ships. However outside of those territorial seas the legal principle of “mare liberum” applies.
In response to another comment. See in context »I should note that while the facts you revealed indeed look bad for Reuters, this information should be balanced against the fact that Reuters also publishes articles like this one: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602
So the charge that Reuters is anti-Israel is doubtful.
In the article you note, Reuters is presenting well established legal opinions.
You are attempting to assert a moral equivalency here, that somehow Reuters is a neutral player. That is akin to saying there is no difference between Israel and the Palestinians when it comes to indiscriminate acts terror.
Decades of state sponsored Palestinian terror against civilians is not made equivalent because of the ugly and horrible acts one Baruch Goldstein no matter how much one may wish it so.
The Palestinian regimes have made crystal clear who and what they are. The Palestinian people have made crystal clear they will support their regimes.
Over the years, Reuters has consistently displayed a particular bias, one they only seem to correct when caught.
In response to another comment. See in context »You went on a rant, not sure how it is connected to my point. My point is that if Reuters was biased against Israel, they would be unlikely to publish such an article, which legally justifies the raid and basically undercuts (if it is correct, that is) the most often used argument of the far left that the raid was not legal.
A case for a single biased image editor looks much stronger.
In response to another comment. See in context »My point is not complex.
Over the decades Reuters has proved to a less than neutral bias when it comes to Israel. That by all accounts (save perhaps yours) is not in dispute.
In response to another comment. See in context »“That by all accounts (save perhaps yours) is not in dispute.”
Since Reuters would disagree, it’s already not “by all accounts (save perhaps yours)”.
Nitpicking aside, you may be right and I don’t claim I have the full facts on this issue. But of course, I’m not going to accept the claims of bias *just because* numerous biased sources claim such a bias.
Perhaps there is a non-partisan scholarly study establishing a stable anti-Israel bias in Reuters materials in general?
PS: Note that lists of snippets/headlines supposedly hostile to Israel don’t (by themselves) establish the *general* bias of Reuters. One also has to show the general lack or scarcity of Israel-friendly items, like the one I linked to. And to show that the bias is not slight, but overwhelming, one also has to show the scarcity of neutral items.
In response to another comment. See in context »Reuters has a history of ‘altering’ images to present an anti Israel bias that goes back for years- and a history of ‘correcting’ the images when caught.
In response to another comment. See in context »What is “pro-Israel” about pointing out simple facts? Facts are neither pro- nor anti-Israel. That Reuters article simply notes that according to international law of the sea, Israel’s blockade of Gaza is completely legal.
It’s absurd to claim that this refutes charges of bias.
In response to another comment. See in context »There are many pro and con opinions on the issue from misc. scholars, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid
If Reuters was biased against Israel they would simple choose the scholars who would condemn the raid as illegal.
In response to another comment. See in context »The same site that you link to with the cropped photo also displays (on the same page) two versions of the photo *not* cropped (showing the knife and blood), also credited to Reuters. Here is one:
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0bDS9Pw8nmbin
That uncropped picture was released four hours ago. In other words, after they were caught.
In response to another comment. See in context »WOW! You must be in high demand with police departments all over the world as you can tell who’s blood it is from a photo!
Then why edit it out?
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for pointing this out, Charles. I agree that Reuters should not be cropping out knives in its photos.
Wanted to point out an even more extreme example of “cropping” to create misinformation. The IDF claim that someone on the Mavi Marmara radioed “Go back to Auschwitz” turns out to be a fabrication. Check out the journalist Max Blumenthal’s expose of this fabrication – clearly meant to inflame Israelis against the Turks – here:
http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/idf-admits-it-doctored-flotilla-audio-clip-washington-posts-kessler-must-retract/
And here’s the IDF retracting its earlier claim, too late as the claim that folks on the Mavi Marmara made this horrific anti-Semitic remark has echoed around the world:
http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/05/clarificationcorrection-regarding-audio-transmission-between-israeli-navy-and-flotilla-on-31-may-2010-posted-on-5-june-2010/
What are you talking about?
The IDF said they edited the transcript to remove noise and dead air. Then they released the entire unedited audiotape.
There’s nothing “extreme” about this at all, and nothing was misrepresented. Someone in the flotilla DID radio “Go back to Auschwitz.”
You are misrepresenting the facts. Again.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why on earth would you believe Huwaida Arraf is more credible than the IDF??
She is a co founder of the notorious International Solidarity Movement.
‘ISM training manuals teach volunteers, in language cleared by Arraf personally, how to lie and deceive most effectively: “Instead of HUMAN SHIELDS, we refer to ourselves as INTERNATIONAL PEACE ACTIVISTS or PEACE ACTIVISTS/WORKERS…When possible say ETHNIC CLEANSING. This can be used to refer to the expulsion of Palestinians from historic Palestine in 1948 as well as the current situation”
Arraf has stated the idea of non violence is a ruse.Those who maintain nonviolence and exploit the use of violence by the oppressor maintain control and power…which is something that can be manipulated to present a story, a case or an image”.
She believes the suicide bombers are ‘noble’ and she as publicly state that she world with Hamas, Isamic Jihad and the PFLP. Besides being terror organizations, they are publicly and unabashedly anti semitic. That she supports these organizations speaks volumes as to her character.
That you support her as credible speaks volumes as yours.
In response to another comment. See in context »By the way Ms Read, the criticism against the Israelis as it related to the edited tape was the fear than in editing for time, content may have been compromised.
After posting the4 entire unedited tape, it is clear there can be no misuunderstanding aws to what was said- including the references to Auschwitz and 9/11.
I’m sure that must have upset you greatly.
Right?
In response to another comment. See in context »I hope you dont even compare with 2 caes:
In response to another comment. See in context »reutures CHANGE the picture/TRUE TO removes, not in one picuture, a very important pieces is LIES WITHOUT ANY INTEGRITY!!!!
Israel as i heard the 2 recording, did a sumerize recordind. Anyone can understand that is not all the recording, as i understand they didnt hide nothing!
[...] http://trueslant.com/charlesjohnson/…pool-of-blood/ http://trueslant.com/charlesjohnson/…ivists-weapon/ http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures…USRTR2EV0A#a=2 __________________ "Wer bremst hat Angst" "They say that we want renewable energy, but we don't want you to put it anywhere," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a speech at Yale University last year. "I mean, if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it." Last edited by NdnMbLova; Today at 11:50 AM. [...]
Shorter Charles Johnson:
Yes several dozen people were shot and horribly wounded, and several others lost their lives, but the really outrageous human tragedy is that Reuters doctored a photograph.
No, the real outrage is that these ‘peace quacktivists;, by their own admission could care less about helping the Palestinians in Gaza.
This was really about supporting the agenda of some of the most racist, bigoted and openly hateful organizations on the planet who make no secret of their genocidal intent. To be fair, they are open and upfront about their bigotry.
More than than, this story is about you and your racism and bigotry. In supporting Hamas- recall their marching slogan, HAMAS! HAMAS! JEWS TO THE GAS!- you have made clear exactly who and what you are.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Researchok”, could you please name the last Israel critic you spoke to who you didn’t label a “racist”, “bigot”, “anti-semite”, or “self-hating Jew”?
In response to another comment. See in context »I get into all kinds of debates all the time on LGF. Lots of people I disagree with.
Bigots like you are not tolerated there, so there is no need to call anyone out.
In response to another comment. See in context »Shorter Mark Adomanis:
That about right, Mark?
In response to another comment. See in context »Charles,
Murderous antisemitism is an incredibly grave and serious charge, one of the more serious that can be leveled at another human being, and should be made only in the presence of robust supporting evidence. Can you point to a single piece of evidence that I “hate” “Jews?” Is blind, reflexive, hysterical, and unflinching support for Israeli in all of its most murderous and self-defeating policies required so as to avoid anti-Semitism? I mean come on dude, I’m antisemitic for having some reservations about the killing of a dozen people and the serious wounding of dozens more? Are you even trying anymore?
In response to another comment. See in context »To criticize Israeli policies is one thing. I for one have been critical of some Israeli policies.
To support Hamas outright is quite another. They are actively engaged in religious incitement, overt anti semitism, racism and bigotry on a daily basis. Every day, Palestinian media, school curriculum and even religious instruction all reflect that reality.
Support of Hamas speaks volumes as to ones morality.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh look out. You’re a victim now.
Of course, you can accuse me of enabling murderers and not caring about human lives, and that’s just fine and dandy.
You’re a whining hypocrite.
In response to another comment. See in context »How quickly do you change topics? You accused me of being a Jew-hater and when I asked you to provide one scintilla of evidence that I am, in fact, a Jew-hater you start shrieking about hypocrisy.
So, again, I challenge you to provide me with any shred of proof, anything beyond your assertion, that I hate Jews.
And you are, of course, perfectly comfortable with murder as your total lack of outrage about the Israeli raid demonstrates. Almost a dozen people a dead and several dozen more are in hospitals. I think this is really bad and even outrageous. You think it’s far worse and far more outrageous that Reuters doctored a photograph.
In response to another comment. See in context »Even shorter Mark Adomanis:
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes, i’ll say it. If you deny Israelis, uniquely, the right to defend themselves from deadly force, then you are uniquely sanctioning their murder. That is an antisemitic position.
They boarded with paintguns. On every other ship, no violence ensued. On this ship, a mob attacked the first soldier before he could even let go of the line, and they proceeded to attack and attempt to kidnap many more. Only in the face of deadly force did the IDF open fire, as clearly shown in the videos.
If you rush a cop with a knife, you will be shot. Holding Israelis, and only Israelis, to a different standard is antisemitism. Period.
In response to another comment. See in context »That’s not the issue. The big elephant in the room that everyone is avoiding is the fact the raid took place in international waters. The commandos are not the ones at fault, it is the idiot Israeli bureaucrats who sanctioned this operation.
In response to another comment. See in context »If you rush a cop with a knife, you will be shot.
And if an American cop breaks and enters a home in Mexico, he might get shot. That’s the difference between operating with legitimate authority within ones lawful jurisdiction, and thinking your badge and gun allow you to enforce whatever laws you like anywhere you see fit to enforce them.
The difference between Israel enforcing their blockade and Israel committing piracy on the high seas was a little matter of 72 miles. Nobody’s denying the right of Israel to defend itself and its citizens. But persons at sea, in international waters, have a right to use force to repel boarders.
But the idea that Israel had to use lethal force to “defend themselves” from wheelchairs and used clothing is an absurdity, and anyone who would suggest that is nothing more than a useful idiot playing into the hands of Hamas.
In response to another comment. See in context »The tragedy is that this circus is distracting time and attention from bringing Hamas and Israel to the table to discuss how to move forward. The hardening of positions helps how?
Hamas can only feel empowered, more likely to focus its energy on confrontation and less likely to soften their positions against Israel. Israel is now quite convinced they can’t win in the court of public opinion and will have to go it alone.
Blood creates barriers and words precede blood. By invoking the Battle of Kybar prior to setting sail, the “humanitarians” clearly defined the terms of engagement. The Israelis happily obliged.
The tragedy is that people who should know better given their education and professions jump into the weeds (of photo interpretation and blockade breaching righteousness) before they know if they’re in a swamp or on a cliff.
Why is it so difficult to focus on the long-game and provide some constructive input on how to address it?
In response to another comment. See in context »Now that Reuters has admitted they made a mistake cropping the pictures, I wonder if any of you who’ve been spinning like crazy trying to make excuses and say there was nothing wrong, the cropping was perfectly normal, everybody does it, will now apologize for being such clueless pigheaded buffoons?
Doubtful.
So what if they had a knife? The Israelis brought automatic weapons. Maybe you should post those pics, too–uncropped. I’ll tell you what, let’s take the case to the International Court and Israel can present their side.
BTW, what’s your position on the make-my-day laws?
The four soldiers who were beaten savagely and dragged belowdecks had no automatic weapons. They were armed with paintball guns and pistols that were holstered in a way that made them hard to reach. There’s quite a controversy within the IDF right now over this decision.
Please try to inform yourself about the facts of this case. You’re repeating false propaganda.
In response to another comment. See in context »And the four “peace” soldiers were there to trade baseball cards? Talk about propaganda. It’s been in high gear–aided by Israeli apologist like yourself– since this bungled atrocity happened.
Try to inform yourself.
“Israeli authorities have now admitted to firing bullets at the deck of the Mavi Marmara before the commandos landed.”
And talk about cropping:
“There is now good evidence that the Israelis systematically erased much of the photographic evidence of their aggressive assault on the ship after they confiscated it from the passengers and journalists.”
Why is Israel rejecting an independent commission to investigate the atrocity?
In response to another comment. See in context »Peace activists don’t bring knives. They act peacefully. Notice that on the other ships, where the activists did not assault and attempt to kidnap Israeli soldiers, no violence occurred.
Your bias is as clear as it is simplistic. Reuters has an article demonstrating why Israel’s blockade and boarding was legal. Yes, the same Reuters. Go, read, and discover what we already know.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ships frequently have knives for any number of legitimate reasons. Israeli commandos have knives, as well, such as the one being removed from the soldier in the previous “cropped photo”.
In response to another comment. See in context »Didn’t you say the knife was an Israeli issued knife?
Wasn’t that your expert opinion?
In response to another comment. See in context »Charles is absolutely right to point out the photos were altered for publication. Reuters at best practiced shoddy journalism and at worst, is actively hiding the truth. Maybe the truth is somewhere between. What’s weird is the slobbering love affair some of his supporters have for him. I don’t think Charles Johnson needs anyone to defend his honor. Licking his boots instead of staying on topic is lame. This topic is too important.
Excuse me? Which comments are “bootlicking,” in your opinion?
Because I see a lot of comments employing facts, logic, and reason to refute a tide of ignorance and irrationality.
In response to another comment. See in context »Uh-huh. Speaking of off-topic…thanks for setting a classy example.
Incompetence at best, distortion at worst. I agree. So why are you insulting me?
In response to another comment. See in context »You have exposed me, Charles Johnson! I am in fact, and have always been, a vicious anti-semite! It was your striking logic and manifest intellect that made me realize it was futile to try to hide my Jew-hatred any longer. Thank you for setting me free!
Actually, I never called you an “antisemite.” What you certainly are, however, is someone who can dish it out but can’t take it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Someone who can dish it out but can’t take it? Like the Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara? Too soon???
In response to another comment. See in context »I can tell that you got off on the looks of terror on their faces. Tell me more about how it made you feel.
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow.
Just, wow.
I really thought you were a conservative whose intellect and clarity I could come to respect, but in this comment alone you’ve revealed that you’re just another disgusting slime. You’re nothing but Ace of Spades with better spelling.
I can’t believe that anybody ever considered you “the reasonable one.”
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re right. It’s a tragedy that people died. Several threads have addressed the tragedy. This thread is to discuss Reuters’ incompetence, or bias (take your pick, but don’t forget Lebanon in ‘06) in reporting the tragedy.
To which you so adroitly replied “but people died!!” as if that’s an excuse for Reuters’ actions.
‘Dish it out’ indeed. Feel free to dish out actual facts…
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow. I feel like I just saw the entire Israeli Palestinian conflict played out in the comments on this article. Anger, emotion, more than a little bit of cruel and unnecessary over reaction on both sides.
So much for the claim that true/slant comment discussions are more civil than other sites.
Seriously, claiming that a fellow contributor doesn’t like Jews, then alleging thin skin? This whole comment section, on all sides, is a disgrace.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Mr. Adomis just proved Charles correct in that last comment of his.
In response to another comment. See in context »Apparently, you missed that Mr. Adomanis began that little exchange by accusing me of not caring about human lives and supporting murder. Or doesn’t that count as a disgrace?
You can’t come in ranting that someone is an enabler of murder with no concern for human life and expect no push-back.
In response to another comment. See in context »Maybe I missed your outraged response to the murder of the people on board the Mavi Marmara? That was the subject of your previous post, right? You are plainly and undeniably indifferent to the victims of the Israeli raid as well as to the victims of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. I am, just as plainly and just as undeniably, NOT a Jew-hater. There are plenty of things you can accuse me of being without having to recourse to liars and slander.
Have a little intellectual honesty and own up to your own positions, dude. Someone here is excusing and condoning state violence and the collective punishment of civilians, and it sure as hell isn’t me.
In response to another comment. See in context »It wasn’t a raid, useless. It was a perfectly legal blockade enforcement…during which, just as would occur in the US if you resisted arrest with a weapon, people were shot AS A RESULT OF THEIR OWN VIOLENCE. Period.
Have the intellectual honesty to own up to your own positions. Someone here is excusing and condoning the activities of a terrorist government whose charter spells out genocidal aims, and it sure as hell isn’t me.
Oh, and removing weapons and weapons components from aid shipments isn’t “collective punishment”.
In response to another comment. See in context »With every comment you post you make it clearer that you do have an unhealthy obsession with Israel.
This post is about Reuters altering photographs. But you continue to rant about “state violence” and “collective punishment,” even though it’s completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Oh, and the bit about me being “indifferent to murder victims?” I invite you to have carnal knowledge with yourself.
In response to another comment. See in context »Again, Charles Johnson, you have outed me as an Israel-obsessed anti-semite. Boy are you just the most perspicacious little guy in the entire internet! How do you do it? Is it just a natural talent? Or was it a skill you acquired along the way?
Seriously though, keep studiously refraining from saying anything at all about the victims of the Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara or the many victims of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. It’s the pro-freedom thing to do!
(Also, and just for kicks, you do realize that your position on this whole issue is pretty much 100% the same as Sarah Palin’s, right? As Glenn Reynolds would say: heh.)
In response to another comment. See in context »@Mark Adomanis
“(Also, and just for kicks, you do realize that your position on this whole issue is pretty much 100% the same as Sarah Palin’s, right? As Glenn Reynolds would say: heh.)”
Even a broken sundial tells the correct noon hour once a day.
I’m left of center on most issues but I agree with Charles on this as well. Sorry, but those “activists” were violent thugs who took soldiers hostage who had every right to board their ship according to international law. They acted as a mob, they took hostages the same way that terrorists do. They got what they deserved. It’s a shame some of them had to die, but that was by their own actions. Other ships were stopped and nobody was recklessly shot at and/or beaten up, which only goes to prove that Israel wasn’t set on just hurting people at all. Only the ship that acted like violent moronic idiots was dealt with in a typically military response – a response which any other country would have used in the same situation. Their soldiers had been stabbed, beaten, and taken hostage. Tell me of a single country in the world which would have tolerated that when they were simply observing an international treaty.
I’m sorry, but when it comes to the left, a lot of them have to wake up and live in the real world. Israel isn’t the enemy of the left. It’s quite the opposite. And because of their squeamishness, many on the left find themselves supporting extremist causes which are right-wing and dangerous in nature, simply because they’d rather shout slogans about “anti-imperialism” and “indigenous populations” rather than think about them in a rational way.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Johnson, it is quite ironic, given the subject of your article, that you did a little crop job of your own on my comment. Read the sentence after the one you excerpted. I clearly said it has gone too far. The point of my comment is that this comment section has not been civil, pertinant, or particularly enlightening. That is certaintly true of other’s comments, but you have come down with the same cruel over reactions as some have towards you. I was not making a singular comment about you, I was commenting on the life that this entire thread has taken, you included.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t say anything about the “victims” because I don’t consider them “victims.” They viciously attacked the boarding party, and inflicted serious injuries on the first four Israeli marines, who were armed with paintball guns and holstered sidearms. Then they dragged them belowdecks and tried to take them hostage. At that point my sympathy well starts to dry up.
There were five other ships in the flotilla. Nobody was harmed on the other five ships. Why? Because they acknowledged Israel’s legal right to stop them from running the blockade of a terrorist group’s seaport, and did not attack the boarding parties.
These facts have been hammered home over and over, but people like you continue ranting about “murder.”
Nobody’s been able to explain why Israeli commandos had “paintball guns” if they abandoned them at the first sign of resistance.
What were they for, Charles? Who were they going to shoot with paintballs, if not resisting activists?
In response to another comment. See in context »They had paintball guns because they didn’t expect peace activists to be armed. You know, because they were supposedly PEACE ACTIVISTS.
And they were abandoned once the PEACE ACTIVISTS started kidnapping and stabbing Israelis. Just like a cop would abandon their baton and shoot you if you tried to kidnap them or stab them.
Do you also need me to explain why the sky is blue, or have we quite finished with the infantile questions?
In response to another comment. See in context »I was hoping a few days hiatus would would change things.
You are still an idiot of the highest order.
The Israelis ditched their paint guns (deterrent) for real weapons when the ‘peace quactivists’ decide to use deadly force.
If the Israelis really wanted to kill these Jew hating beasts, they would have come down shooting and asked questions later (pesky videos!)
Now, give us another dance.
In response to another comment. See in context »See, that wasn’t so hard was it? Just as I originally said, you couldn’t care less about the people that died on the Mavi Marmara. You are, by your own admission, utterly indiffernt to and uninterested in their fate because “they deserved it.”
Please just rememeber that when I first said that you didn’t care at all about the victims of the Israeli raid, you reacted by calling me a vicious jew-hating anti-semite and insinuating that I had some sort of mental illness.
In response to another comment. See in context »And I’ve seen nothing to make me reassess that conclusion.
In response to another comment. See in context »The attacked the Israelis with deadly force. They deserved exactly what they got.
You know which Turkish group they belonged to, right? Sure you do.
Or do I have to explain it to you here, in front of everybody?
In response to another comment. See in context »And I’ve seen nothing that suggests you ever “left” the “right.” There’s still the same rank tribilism, the same gleeful ignorance and illogic, the same irrelevant ad-hominum nonsense, the same reflexive defense of Israeli actions, and the same demonization of Muslims as terrifying, beastly, and sub-human others who richly deserve whatever treatment they get.
You don’t seem like a particularly reflective type, but you should stop and think for just a minute that your position on this whole tragic farce (“the scary Muslims got what was coming to them! Go Israel!”) is 100% the same as the people (I believe you called them “fascists”) with whom you so publicly, and insincerely, “broke” several months back.
What a load of tripe. The only gleeful ignorance here is your dangerous, bigoted assertion that Israelis and only Israelis are not allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves when attacked with deadly weapons.
This isn’t about Muslims, child. Was every single person who died a Muslim?
I love it when reflexive Putin supporters call Chechen rebels “about a violent, sadistic, and depraved a bunch of killers as one can possibly imagine” but when a sadistic mob of thugs attacks a single Israeli armed with a paintball gun and end up being shot for their trouble, Charles and anyone else who dares discuss the facts are labeled “tribal”, “reflexive”, and “demonizers”.
Good grief
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m still interested in how it made you feel to see those Israeli soldiers’ terrified faces. You seemed to have quite a bit of glee over that, but you just ignored my request to share more of your feelings, and moved the goal posts again.
Quote:
Seeing IDF soldiers beaten and afraid for their lives really got you off, didn’t it?
In response to another comment. See in context »Once again, Charles Johnson has revealed me. I am actually BOTH a violent anti-semite and a sadomasachist. I routinely paper the walls of my apartment with photographs of terrified IDF soldiers being beaten mercilessly: it makes conducting Jihad much easier.
Where would the internet be without penetrating and agile minds like Charles Johnson’s? How would Western civilization survive without so stalwart and uncompromising a guardian?
In response to another comment. See in context »They’re your words. Own them.
In response to another comment. See in context »Does taking yourself that seriously require active effort on your part or, like you ability to discern the barest traces of Jihadism, anti-semitism, and sadomasochism, is it just a natural gift? I’m genuinley curious!
Your ability to see through people (you are literally the very FIRST person to ever call me an Islamist sadomasachist Jew-hater!) is most impressive, and I feel we could all learn a valuable lesson if you would share some of your secrets.
In response to another comment. See in context »Apparently, it needs to be said over and over. Using Mark’s words. Here’s Mark from a few days ago in one of his posts…
“Israel…[is apparently] fully justified in using lethal force against any jackass carrying a socket wrench. Good luck with that.”
Antisemitism: the belief that any small police or military unit is permitted to defend their lives (with firearms, if necessary) against a large mob of attacking thugs wielding “wrenches”, batons, knives, etc…unless the unit in question is Israeli.
I don’t believe that Charles is right about everything. But he’s right about Mark.
In response to another comment. See in context »You are right.
It is the Palestinians who the picture of morality and ethical behavior.
Mr Johnson is a fool to be offended by state sponsored and institutionalized racism, hate and bigotry.
Unlike you.
//
In response to another comment. See in context »Takes no effort at all, Mr. Adomanis. These are your words. I’m just echoing them back to you.
On the other hand, you began this whole exchange by putting outrageous, offensive words in my mouth that I neither wrote nor intended, and you haven’t stopped yet.
Whether the words I put in your mouth were “outrageous” or “offensive” is completely beide the point if they were true. And they are. You went into a virtuous little tizzy was when I said you didn’t care about the people that were killed on the Mavi Marmara. After a great deal of juvenile name calling, you explicitly and openly admitted that don’t consider them victims and couldn’t care less about their fate. “They deserved it.”
So, in Charles Johnson land, saying something that is clearly and undeniably accurate (you don’t care at all about the people that were killed by the Israeli raid, you dont’ consider them vicitms, and you consider Reuters’ doctoring of a photograph to be far more outrageous than the death of a dozen human beings) is just the same as saying something that has no basis whatsoever in objective reality (that I am a violently anti-semitic sadomasochist Jihadist monster). Very impressive logic!
In response to another comment. See in context »Please don’t put quotes around words I did not write. That’s a creepy thing to do.
And again, you’re building one of the stupidest, most obvious examples of a straw man argument I have ever seen. It’s quite impressive, and I don’t mean that in a positive way.
In response to another comment. See in context »Right. So you care about those killed on board, despite their affinity to terror an hate and teir willingness to kill others (only Jews, I know- no big deal).
There are a few difference between Mr Johnson and Reuters.
Mr Johnson publishes his opinion. Reuters published deliberate deceit.
Mr Johnson does not pretend to be a neutral purveyor of News. Reuters does.
Mr Johnson accurately portrays you for what you are- a bigot (when you don’t hold everyone to the same standards, you are a bigot. Among other things.).
I understand your defense of Reuters- you and they have a lot in common. That said, at least Reuters will admit their errors.
You will not.
In response to another comment. See in context »“you explicitly and openly admitted that don’t consider them victims and couldn’t care less about their fate. ‘They deserved it’.”
That is every bit as shoddy as the rest of the logic you employ here.
If you decide to attack a policeman with a knife, and are shot as a result, you deserved it.
That is not to say i don’t mourn your loss of life. It’s simply an acknowledgment of the truth: that either you or the policeman was going to die, and your having been the aggressor, better you than he.
I also believe that they deserved it. I mourn the loss of life. But better they than the Israelis who intended them no harm until they were savagely attacked.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I don’t say anything about the “victims” because I don’t consider them “victims.” They viciously attacked the boarding party, and inflicted serious injuries on the first four Israeli marines, who were armed with paintball guns and holstered sidearms. Then they dragged them belowdecks and tried to take them hostage. At that point my sympathy well starts to dry up.”
How was my characterization of your opinion the slightest bit inaccurate? I said you don’t care about the victims of the Israeli raid. YOU ALSO SAID you dont’ care about the people who were killed during the Israeli raid (you completely refuse to even call them “victims”). Is there some detail I’m missing because of my murderous Jew-hatred and enraged sadomasochism?
Only in Mark’s world is a savage, attacking mob the “victims”.
I can’t believe you have the nerve to dispute your antisemitism. It’s as clear as day.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do not care about the terrorists on board that ship any more than I care about terrorists who attempt to cross into Israel to commit acts of terror.
By not allowing the ship to be inspected for contraband, one has to assume they had something to hide. Given their affinity to and allegiance to organizations and regimes for whom racism, bigotry and hate are as natural as breathing, forgive me if I and many others don’t mourn their loss.
To be a victim is to be blameless. These racists and bigots were not blameless. They stoked the fires.
If there were innocents aboard who were indeed victims, the blame falls on those who really victimized them, not the Israelis.
If the Palestinians hide weapons and launch missiles from hospitals and schools, don’t blame the Israelis for doing what needs to be done.
In response to another comment. See in context »That’s what I wrote, and I stand by every word.
I’m sure this is how you’ve convinced people that you’re a smart guy over the years, Mr. Adomanis — by making outrageous straw man arguments, bullying, and accusing your opponents of despicable feelings and motives. Probably a lot of people back down when you start throwing out the bullshit.
But it’s obvious that the reason you’re so insistent on the word “victims” to describe the activists on the Mavi Marmara is because if they’re victims, then the Jews are murderers. That’s why you’re using your very limited set of argument tools in such a transparently silly way — because it’s very important to you that the IDF be seen as murderers.
I actually feel a little pity for you, because it’s clear no one ever actually taught you to think critically for yourself; you’ve gotten by with elementary logical fallacies and bluster for so long it’s become who you are.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I’m sure this is how you’ve convinced people that you’re a smart guy over the years, Mr. Adomanis — by making outrageous straw man arguments, bullying, and accusing your opponents of despicable feelings and motives. Probably a lot of people back down when you start throwing out the bullshit.”
“Bullying and accusing your opponents of despicable feelings and motives.” Hey, wait a minute, is that sort of like calling someone with whom you disagree a murderous, anti-semitic, mentally ill, sexual deviant? Who was it that did that during the course of this “argument.” Was it me? No wait a minute it was…oh right, it was you. I mean, when you wrote that comment did you even stop to think for a moment how palpably ridiculous it would look? You literally just got through a two minute hate directed at me but you’re already the one castigating others for their lack of manners? Is it possible to be any less self aware?
Meanwhile the vicious ad-hominum attack that started your rant was my statement that your position on the Gaza flotilla fiasco amounted to: “Yes several dozen people were shot and horribly wounded, and several others lost their lives, but the really outrageous human tragedy is that Reuters doctored a photograph.”
As near as I can tell this is actually your position. You refuse to call the people who died victims, you have no concern at all about their death, and you are very, very, worked up that Reuters doctored a photograph.
In response to another comment. See in context »And of course, you come right back and whip out the same blustering straw man arguments and false attributions yet again, as expected. Pathetic.
In response to another comment. See in context »Here, in no particular order, are some of the more lunatic ad-hominum comments you’ve sent my way:
Charles Johnson 4:12 pm on 06/08/10:
“Even shorter Mark Adomanis:
I really really don’t hate Jews. How dare you accuse me of hating the murderous evil Jews?!”
Charles Johnson 12:10 pm on 06/09/10:
“Seeing IDF soldiers beaten and afraid for their lives really got you off, didn’t it?”
Charles Johnson 12:07 am on 06/09/10:
“‘you reacted by calling me a vicious jew-hating anti-semite and insinuating that I had some sort of mental illness.’ And I’ve seen nothing to make me reassess that conclusion.”
Charles Johnson 9:17 pm on 06/08/10
“With every comment you post you make it clearer that you do have an unhealthy obsession with Israel.”
Are those “false attributions” Charles? I’m quoting your own words. But despite the fact that you, with the basis of literally no evidence whatsoever, have labeled me a sexual degenerate and murderous anti-semite I am, according to you, the one who is guilty of “bullying, and accusing your opponents of despicable feelings and motives.”
Shortest Mark Adomanis of all:
In response to another comment. See in context »Seriously dude, are you 5? You said that I was guilty of “bullying and accusing your opponents of despicable feelings and motives” while SIMULTANEOUSLY calling me: mentally ill, a sexual deviant, and an anti-semite. And I’m not “whining,” I hate to burst your bubble but I really could care less what you think about me, just trying to get you to take some sort of position more logically advanced then “I rule you drool you Islamist scum!”.
I actually think this is by far one of the most hilarious “conversations” I’ve ever had because of your nearly-perfect lack of self awareness. I mean seriously guy, you self righteously castigated me for ad-hominum arguments the very same day you suggest that I am sexually aroused by violence against Jews…that’s got to be one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard of.
In response to another comment. See in context »Whole lotta projection going on here.
I’m pretty much finished; I’ll let you have the last whine.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Otro trabajito de Reuters (fuente) [...]
Wow! This is getting realy intresting.
Chris, would you answer me a couple of questions please?
1. Did Israel break any maritime laws, storming the ship sailing under Turkish flag in the international water?
2. I’m sitting in my inflatable boat in a lake amidst Russia. Suddenly, I’m beginning to have a strong desire to sail for Gaza to bring them some supplies. Do Israil have a right to immediately storm my boat? Can they kill me with an automatic weapon if I try to break off the attack with a Swiss knife? Will it matter whether I’m a anti-semite or not?
Thanks in advance for the answers.
Sorry, of course Charles, not Chris.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your questions have been answered for quite some time.
Here’s an analysis by a noted pro-Israel propaganda group, Reuters:
Is Israel’s Blockade of Gaza Legal?
The answer is yes – by internationally recognized law, the blockade is legal. And Israel has the legal right to board ships running the blockade in international waters.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, according to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, the answer is “no:”
SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
Further, as Gaza is not a state, a state of international war cannot exist between Gaza and the rest of Israel. Since Gaza and the rest of Israel are not at war, they cannot enforce their blockade in international waters.
In response to another comment. See in context »All respected legal experts and the Reuters news service disagree with your analysis, and say the actions taken by Israel were legal according to existing law.
I know this hurts you badly to have to admit this, but facts are facts. I feel your pain.
In response to another comment. See in context »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Arguments_opposing_legality_of_high_seas_enforcement
As you can see, the matter is not so clear. Are there any facts that allow us to consider those experts “not respected”? As to the Reuters, is the the point of this article to show their somewhat uncertain credibility?
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course you are right and the legal experts are wrong.
That must explain the hundreds of lawsuits filed in the Hague by the individuals on the boats, the governments of the nations that had citizens on the boats and by governments everywhere that oppose the Israelis.
Since that hasn’t happened, I suggest you immediately contact them immediately to offer your services as legal counsel who is expert in treaties, naval law and international relations.
Your breathtaking mediocrity as a thinker is exceeded only by your low morality, bigotry and lack of shame.
Now, project and give us another dance.
In response to another comment. See in context »Fortunately, the population is fat and bored. In other words, not damaged. Ergo, the blockade is legal, as has been pointed out by even the news service who cropped the photos above.
In response to another comment. See in context »“1. Did Israel break any maritime laws, storming the ship sailing under Turkish flag in the international water?”
Gray area, despite the extreme rhetoric from both sides.
“2. I’m sitting in my inflatable boat in a lake amidst Russia. Suddenly, I’m beginning to have a strong desire to sail for Gaza to bring them some supplies. Do Israil have a right to immediately storm my boat? Can they kill me with an automatic weapon if I try to break off the attack with a Swiss knife? Will it matter whether I’m a anti-semite or not?”
Russia is a sovereign territory and a blockade can only be mounted within your own and international waters. So no, no, no.
In response to another comment. See in context »I can easily post five sources making strong cases that the blockade is legal. Of course there are counter arguments; there are always counter arguments.
But the San Remo document is widely accepted as applying to Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Simple fact.
Hardly a simple “fact.” The U.N. has said the blockade is illegal. The blockade itself has nothing to do with Israeli security–it is a punitive economic measure and illegal.
The Israeli boarding and subsequent massacre of civilians had nothing to do with the security of Israel.
In fact, under international law, the Israeli commandos must be sent to Turkey for trial.
I think we can all agree that Charles Johnson is the LAST person to go to for the truth, but in this case he didn’t do anything wrong apart from trying to steal credit.
The photos and audio recordings speak for themselves. Reuters is no more a news agency than Al-Qaeda is a media outlet.
Charlie, looking at the diffs between photo 1 and photo 2, it looks like the same area is covered in both.
That is, the photo Reuters ran was not “cropped” but “retouched” or, as we now say, PhotosHopped. (That’s when you use software to make the pixels in one photo “hop” into another photo in another form, hence, PhotosHopped, not cropped.
(and as you describe using PhotosHop to lighten the shadows and darken the highlights (which iPhoto now incorporates–MUCH easier to use than the adjusters in the older versions), you, Shirley, should know the difference. (Sorry, Charlie–I was thinking of Shirley, Goodness & Mercy following me all the rest of my days. Probably ain’t gonna happen. Can’t get a Shielah to folo me longer than 25 years at a clip).
retouched, retouched, retouched.
NOT cropped.
(or PhotosHopped, if you must be more “modren” about it (sic, ever so sic).