October 20, 2005
The Media's New Abu Ghraib (Updated)Topics: War on Terror
It seems that our forces in Afghanistan burned some bodies of the Taliban (at least they were "bodies"), and two left-wing anti-U.S. "embeds" rolled it on film - then wrote their own version of the why. Dan Riehl says, "Oh, Here We Freaking Go, Again!"
And if you aren't really sure whose side one of the two reporters is on(and there may be some serious questions about the other) - wait until you see the journalist's photo from his own bio. Perhaps the report might be just a wee bit slanted, don't you think?
But of course, ABC has their new anchorman to give us the straight scoop on the story.
Here's some background on that second reporter (the first being the one in the photo in Dan's post) from the anti-war website "Unfair Witness":
And there was indeed a second reporter - NEITHER support the U.S. - and are both known for their anti-U.S. positions by the anti-war crowd. Some of this comes from comments in the post.
US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area.Martinkus is a known anti-U.S., "insurgent-type" friend. "Considering the circumstances surrounding the kidnap and release of Australian journalist John Martinkus..." refers to his capture and release by Iraqi insurgents - but then read on...
...he was able to persuade his captors that he was an Australian and a friend to the resistance and not to the Americans.Don't you think these guys just might be a "little bit" agenda-driven?
From the comment section quoting Aljazeera:
From Aljazeera - of course - by Lawrence Smallman - of course - the only friends of the Arabs and Palestineans.
For Australian journalist John Martinkus, seizing foreign nationals is an intelligent way of "fighting a war" when you are outnumbered and outgunned. And unlike Blair, Martinkus has first hand hostage experience.
Released unharmed over the weekend, SBS Television Dateline's Martinkus said his captors freed him after establishing his independence on Iraq coverage.
"These guys [are] not stupid. They're fighting a war but they're not savages. They're not actually just killing people willy-nilly. They talk to you, they think about things," he said at Melbourne airport on Tuesday.
"There was a reason to kill [British captive Kenneth] Bigley, there was a reason to kill the Americans; there was not a reason to kill me - luckily I managed to convince them of that," he said.
SBS executive producer Mike Carey said the journalist was freed after his captors used a popular internet search engine to establish he was an independent reporter who did not support the US presence in Iraq.
Posted by: AM | Oct 21, 2004 3:52:31 AM
Also from the comment section:
I've read Martinkus's book on Iraq, it was quite good. One this is sure, however. John was released, not because he is a journalist, but because he is an asset to the Iraqi nationalists, or ex-Baathists, or whatever you wish to call them. He is perceived to be on their side, and is he is therefore as much as a soldier in this sordid war as any other person picking up a AK 47 or an M16.
Posted by: Harold Smith | Oct 28, 2004 12:03:05 PM
Posted by Richard at October 20, 2005 9:00 AM
Articles Related to War on Terror:
- The Media's New Abu Ghraib (Updated) - Oct 20, 2005