Reuters pulls obviously doctored photo of Beirut

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
hers another example where an la times guy was fired for doctering Iraq photos.
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082
Seems to be getting to be a common practice?

Yes, three instances...it's a fvcking epidemic!

Yeah, yeah! This is why we should just shut down all independent media agencies (except Fox, of course) and let our federal government provide us with whatever information they see fit to report. After all, if we can't trust them not to skew facts, who can we trust?

I'm glad someone else gets it. I tell you, a handful of bad apples in an American press corps of a few hundred thousand people is simply unacceptable...clearly the entire system needs to be shut down.

However, I would like to point out that when a small number of SOLDIERS misbehave, it's totally wrong to make any comments about the military as a whole. That's a totally different situation, and it would be obvious to everyone if they watched Fox News as much as I have.

Honestly, it's like we've got a stupid fairy running around this country, visiting conservatives in their sleep.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...et_Hreik_Before_After_22_July_2006.png

Thank you for showing how Israel is targeting certain buildings instead of leveling the entire town...something most nations in Israel's position would be wont to do.

Why is it that no matter what Israel does, it's a good thing...it's like they can do no wrong in your mind. Hell, I'm surprised you don't object to those articles about Israel killing 30 civilians (or whatever) by saying the headline should really have read "Israel doesn't kill millions of people today!".

Not that Israel is always wrong either, of course, but you seem to have some sort of complex about them. Without even knowing what those buildings are that were leveled, you conclude that it was a nice gesture on their part since they didn't level the entire city. Who cares if one of those buildings was a children's hospital or an orphanage? Of course I don't know if that's the case, but neither do you, yet you're ready to unconditionally defend them...why is that?

Because I support Israel over Hezbollah. I'm not ashamed to admit it, if it came down to either Israel or the entire Middle East being leveled, I would want Israel to survive.

Israel can do wrong, but the wrong they do is, in my mind, not deliberate. Does it bring back those dead children? No. But doing something deliberately and doing something by accident is the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter.

I just believe that telling Israel off for conducting one of the most restrained invastions probably in human history is a very self-serving thing to do. I'm not saying it's wrong to tell Israel off for killing civilians, but I just wish people would realize the lengths the military goes through to NOT kill civilians when they are firing on military targets. So yes, I praise Israel for actually caring about the Lebanese civilians enough to tell them days ahead of time that there will be bombings in their town. If Hezbollah cared as much about Lebanese civilians as Israel does, then you'd probably see even less civilian casualties.

I guess it's just an issue of perspective. If Israel was in fact targeting civilians, wouldn't you agree many more than than 1000-minus would be dead by now? I believe the invasion was necessary, therefore I do not condemn Israel for every single accident that occurs. Heck, enough people are doing it already.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...et_Hreik_Before_After_22_July_2006.png

Thank you for showing how Israel is targeting certain buildings instead of leveling the entire town...something most nations in Israel's position would be wont to do.

Why is it that no matter what Israel does, it's a good thing...it's like they can do no wrong in your mind. Hell, I'm surprised you don't object to those articles about Israel killing 30 civilians (or whatever) by saying the headline should really have read "Israel doesn't kill millions of people today!".

Not that Israel is always wrong either, of course, but you seem to have some sort of complex about them. Without even knowing what those buildings are that were leveled, you conclude that it was a nice gesture on their part since they didn't level the entire city. Who cares if one of those buildings was a children's hospital or an orphanage? Of course I don't know if that's the case, but neither do you, yet you're ready to unconditionally defend them...why is that?

Because I support Israel over Hezbollah. I'm not ashamed to admit it, if it came down to either Israel or the entire Middle East being leveled, I would want Israel to survive.

Israel can do wrong, but the wrong they do is, in my mind, not deliberate. Does it bring back those dead children? No. But doing something deliberately and doing something by accident is the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter.

I just believe that telling Israel off for conducting one of the most restrained invastions probably in human history is a very self-serving thing to do. I'm not saying it's wrong to tell Israel off for killing civilians, but I just wish people would realize the lengths the military goes through to NOT kill civilians when they are firing on military targets. So yes, I praise Israel for actually caring about the Lebanese civilians enough to tell them days ahead of time that there will be bombings in their town. If Hezbollah cared as much about Lebanese civilians as Israel does, then you'd probably see even less civilian casualties.

I guess it's just an issue of perspective. If Israel was in fact targeting civilians, wouldn't you agree many more than than 1000-minus would be dead by now? I believe the invasion was necessary, therefore I do not condemn Israel for every single accident that occurs. Heck, enough people are doing it already.

I agree with a lot of that, I suppose, but what it really comes down to is the point I bolded. I've been less than supportive of Israel's current actions simply because I believe the level of invasion they are conducting is NOT necessary, and it's not a good idea. I agree that they don't seem to be deliberately targeting civilians, I guess my objections are more general than the specifics of their invasion...I think the invasion itself is a bad idea that will make the situation worse in the long run.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...et_Hreik_Before_After_22_July_2006.png

Thank you for showing how Israel is targeting certain buildings instead of leveling the entire town...something most nations in Israel's position would be wont to do.

Why is it that no matter what Israel does, it's a good thing...it's like they can do no wrong in your mind. Hell, I'm surprised you don't object to those articles about Israel killing 30 civilians (or whatever) by saying the headline should really have read "Israel doesn't kill millions of people today!".

Not that Israel is always wrong either, of course, but you seem to have some sort of complex about them. Without even knowing what those buildings are that were leveled, you conclude that it was a nice gesture on their part since they didn't level the entire city. Who cares if one of those buildings was a children's hospital or an orphanage? Of course I don't know if that's the case, but neither do you, yet you're ready to unconditionally defend them...why is that?

Because I support Israel over Hezbollah. I'm not ashamed to admit it, if it came down to either Israel or the entire Middle East being leveled, I would want Israel to survive.

Israel can do wrong, but the wrong they do is, in my mind, not deliberate. Does it bring back those dead children? No. But doing something deliberately and doing something by accident is the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter.

I just believe that telling Israel off for conducting one of the most restrained invastions probably in human history is a very self-serving thing to do. I'm not saying it's wrong to tell Israel off for killing civilians, but I just wish people would realize the lengths the military goes through to NOT kill civilians when they are firing on military targets. So yes, I praise Israel for actually caring about the Lebanese civilians enough to tell them days ahead of time that there will be bombings in their town. If Hezbollah cared as much about Lebanese civilians as Israel does, then you'd probably see even less civilian casualties.

I guess it's just an issue of perspective. If Israel was in fact targeting civilians, wouldn't you agree many more than than 1000-minus would be dead by now? I believe the invasion was necessary, therefore I do not condemn Israel for every single accident that occurs. Heck, enough people are doing it already.

I agree with a lot of that, I suppose, but what it really comes down to is the point I bolded. I've been less than supportive of Israel's current actions simply because I believe the level of invasion they are conducting is NOT necessary, and it's not a good idea. I agree that they don't seem to be deliberately targeting civilians, I guess my objections are more general than the specifics of their invasion...I think the invasion itself is a bad idea that will make the situation worse in the long run.

Then we must respectfully disagree. I think that yes, the invasion was a little much. Israel probably should have just stayed near their border, and not bombed any civilian areas, no matter where Hezbollah stationed themselves. But I think that the best way, now, is to get a multinational force in there, not a castrated one like what I saw in that Rwanda movie, but one that can fire back on anyone that dares breach the peace. No more rockets. No more invasion force. A brokered peace that will have to last generations.

Hah, off-topic, but I just remembered the motto of that show Babylon 5. "Our last, best hope for peace."

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

if it came down to either Israel or the entire Middle East being leveled, I would want Israel to survive.

And thus this is why you have zero crediblity. Genocidal maniacs (a lot of Israeli supporters tend to fall into this group) opinion on world events are as insightful as a retard slobbering all over himself. It's sad to see that these people are actually given the ability to vote.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Aisengard

if it came down to either Israel or the entire Middle East being leveled, I would want Israel to survive.

And thus this is why you have zero crediblity. Genocidal maniacs (a lot of Israeli supporters tend to fall into this group) opinion on world events are as insightful as a retard slobbering all over himself. It's sad to see that these people are actually given the ability to vote.

Ooh, sorry buddy, but I'm not saying I want that to happen. Next please.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
hers another example where an la times guy was fired for doctering Iraq photos.
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082
Seems to be getting to be a common practice?

Yes, three instances...it's a fvcking epidemic!

Yeah, yeah! This is why we should just shut down all independent media agencies (except Fox, of course) and let our federal government provide us with whatever information they see fit to report. After all, if we can't trust them not to skew facts, who can we trust?

The New York Times. They seem to have everyone else in the government feeding them facts

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
hers another example where an la times guy was fired for doctering Iraq photos.
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082
Seems to be getting to be a common practice?

Yes, three instances...it's a fvcking epidemic!

once is too many times.

 

[IrateLeaf]

Originally posted by: Gamer X
I can see now, Qana 1 never happened, Qana 2 never happened and so is Al Bekaa massacre. All Israeli masscres were photoshopped propaganda.

EDIT : From Discussion by some professional photographers . . .

The IDF has reduced many parts of Lebanon to smoldering piles or rubble. And then they bomb those piles again. I am having trouble understanding why a photographer would ruin their career over a photo that isn't very good in the first place, especially considering there is no shortage of buildings being consumed by fire and smoke in Lebanon.

My same thoughts.

Just some more trolling. huh?
He was not arguing that Qana or Al Bekaa never occurred!
Just more unprovoked trilling I guess..

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

I know this will mean nothing to 5150joker and his ilk (more Israeli propoganda, yada yada yada...) But I also still hope that there are some straight-thinking people who are capable of seeing things for what they are...

All I see is an overzealous photographer that edited a photo to make it look more dramatic; Reuters did the right thing by sacking him. Does it mean the incident didn't occur or that deaths at Qana never happened? I suppose in your world the entire bombing was doctored and the innocent Israelis never bombed anyone, they've simply been snacking on bagels and lemonade back in Haifa while katushya rockets rain down on their party. The unedited version of the photo is still quite damning: http://images.scotsman.com/2006/08/06/2...RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-MIDEAST-REUTERS.jpg

So I was right in saying that this would mean nothing to you.
If you read what I wrote you'd see that nowhere did I claim that the events did not occur, on the contrary. But you probably knew that and made your baseless attack anyway.
Did you stop to ask yourself, if that is the undoctored photo, what in the world would posses someone to photoshop it? What is the point?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Gamer X

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Gamer X
I can see now, Qana 1 never happened, Qana 2 never happened and so is Al Bekaa massacre. All Israeli masscres were photoshopped propaganda.

You make a horrible argument.
You did not respond to any claim made.

I know this will mean nothing to 5150joker and his ilk (more Israeli propoganda, yada yada yada...) But I also still hope that there are some straight-thinking people who are capable of seeing things for what they are...

What do you mean by this ?

I meant simply that I still hope some people can see this story as truth. Reuters DID pull the photo because it was manipulated. This obviously throws some doubt on all the images this man has submitted, he's shown no hesitation to violate basic journalistic ethics. Nowhere did I say that this means nothing happened in Qana and that the whole thing is a fabrication. What I'm saying is that this man is an obvious fraud. And all his photos have to be looked at in that light now.

you make a horrible argument

Not at all. A single lie damages all credibility. He was not arguing that Qana or Al Bekaa never occurred (which was a ridiculous and unprovoked straw man by Gamer X), simply that the journalist who doctored this photo has damaged its own credibility, and people should be aware of that. That is hardly a horrible argument.

The purpose of the media is no longer to present factual news, but to entertain. That's how they sell commercial advertising and maintain the world's consistently highest profit margins. As usual, fitzov, you defend the wealthy and their servants.

you make a horrible argument too.

:roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
hers another example where an la times guy was fired for doctering Iraq photos.
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082
Seems to be getting to be a common practice?

Yes, three instances...it's a fvcking epidemic!

once is too many times.

Agreed...I was simply disagreeing with the assertion that it's becoming a "common practice". These few instances, while certainly regrettable and certainly something that shouldn't have happened, don't really seem to be indicative of the media as a whole.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

I know this will mean nothing to 5150joker and his ilk (more Israeli propoganda, yada yada yada...) But I also still hope that there are some straight-thinking people who are capable of seeing things for what they are...

All I see is an overzealous photographer that edited a photo to make it look more dramatic; Reuters did the right thing by sacking him. Does it mean the incident didn't occur or that deaths at Qana never happened? I suppose in your world the entire bombing was doctored and the innocent Israelis never bombed anyone, they've simply been snacking on bagels and lemonade back in Haifa while katushya rockets rain down on their party. The unedited version of the photo is still quite damning: http://images.scotsman.com/2006/08/06/2...RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-MIDEAST-REUTERS.jpg

So I was right in saying that this would mean nothing to you.
If you read what I wrote you'd see that nowhere did I claim that the events did not occur, on the contrary. But you probably knew that and made your baseless attack anyway.
Did you stop to ask yourself, if that is the undoctored photo, what in the world would posses someone to photoshop it? What is the point?

Of course it meant something to me--that the reporter got overzealous and decided to enhance the photo for sensationalist purposes, that's nothing new. Nothing to see here.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

I know this will mean nothing to 5150joker and his ilk (more Israeli propoganda, yada yada yada...) But I also still hope that there are some straight-thinking people who are capable of seeing things for what they are...

All I see is an overzealous photographer that edited a photo to make it look more dramatic; Reuters did the right thing by sacking him. Does it mean the incident didn't occur or that deaths at Qana never happened? I suppose in your world the entire bombing was doctored and the innocent Israelis never bombed anyone, they've simply been snacking on bagels and lemonade back in Haifa while katushya rockets rain down on their party. The unedited version of the photo is still quite damning: http://images.scotsman.com/2006/08/06/2...RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-MIDEAST-REUTERS.jpg

So I was right in saying that this would mean nothing to you.
If you read what I wrote you'd see that nowhere did I claim that the events did not occur, on the contrary. But you probably knew that and made your baseless attack anyway.
Did you stop to ask yourself, if that is the undoctored photo, what in the world would posses someone to photoshop it? What is the point?

Of course it meant something to me--that the reporter got overzealous and decided to enhance the photo for sensationalist purposes, that's nothing new. Nothing to see here.

Nothing to see here?

I think it means a lot to know the fabricating done to spin half truths which people tout to demonize others while protecting the ?Freedom Fighter? terrorists.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49
hers another example where an la times guy was fired for doctering Iraq photos.
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082
Seems to be getting to be a common practice?

Yes, three instances...it's a fvcking epidemic!

How many would it take for you?

 

[TGregg]

Woah, guess which little loser has been caught in yet another fake photo? Yes, it's al-Reuters favorite little snapper, Adnan Hajj with more photoshopping.

Now the libtards will be along shortly to argue against nuking every muslim or some other nonsense. Not that I am proposing such a thing, but since they cannot argue against the obvious fraud, they must construct strawmen to destroy. To those of us who expect it, it is no surprise.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

I know this will mean nothing to 5150joker and his ilk (more Israeli propoganda, yada yada yada...) But I also still hope that there are some straight-thinking people who are capable of seeing things for what they are...

All I see is an overzealous photographer that edited a photo to make it look more dramatic; Reuters did the right thing by sacking him. Does it mean the incident didn't occur or that deaths at Qana never happened? I suppose in your world the entire bombing was doctored and the innocent Israelis never bombed anyone, they've simply been snacking on bagels and lemonade back in Haifa while katushya rockets rain down on their party. The unedited version of the photo is still quite damning: http://images.scotsman.com/2006/08/06/2...RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-MIDEAST-REUTERS.jpg

So I was right in saying that this would mean nothing to you.
If you read what I wrote you'd see that nowhere did I claim that the events did not occur, on the contrary. But you probably knew that and made your baseless attack anyway.
Did you stop to ask yourself, if that is the undoctored photo, what in the world would posses someone to photoshop it? What is the point?

Of course it meant something to me--that the reporter got overzealous and decided to enhance the photo for sensationalist purposes, that's nothing new. Nothing to see here.

Nothing to see here?

I think it means a lot to know the fabricating done to spin half truths which people tout to demonize others while protecting the ?Freedom Fighter? terrorists.

You act like every single piece of media coming out of lebanon is fake just because one guy has been caught enhancing (not even faking) a few smoke plooms--OH NOS ALERT THE MEDIA, ISRAEL NEVER BOMBED THE CRAP OUT OF LEBANON AND KILLED CIVILIANS, IT WAS ALL LIES FROM THOSE EVIL MOOSLIMS! :roll:

 

[MadRat]

These terrorists are no freedom fighters. They are Shia, and freedom to them is blasphemy.

 

[TGregg]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

I know this will mean nothing to 5150joker and his ilk (more Israeli propoganda, yada yada yada...) But I also still hope that there are some straight-thinking people who are capable of seeing things for what they are...

All I see is an overzealous photographer that edited a photo to make it look more dramatic; Reuters did the right thing by sacking him. Does it mean the incident didn't occur or that deaths at Qana never happened? I suppose in your world the entire bombing was doctored and the innocent Israelis never bombed anyone, they've simply been snacking on bagels and lemonade back in Haifa while katushya rockets rain down on their party. The unedited version of the photo is still quite damning: http://images.scotsman.com/2006/08/06/2...RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-MIDEAST-REUTERS.jpg

So I was right in saying that this would mean nothing to you.
If you read what I wrote you'd see that nowhere did I claim that the events did not occur, on the contrary. But you probably knew that and made your baseless attack anyway.
Did you stop to ask yourself, if that is the undoctored photo, what in the world would posses someone to photoshop it? What is the point?

Of course it meant something to me--that the reporter got overzealous and decided to enhance the photo for sensationalist purposes, that's nothing new. Nothing to see here.

Nothing to see here?

I think it means a lot to know the fabricating done to spin half truths which people tout to demonize others while protecting the ?Freedom Fighter? terrorists.

You act like every single piece of media coming out of lebanon is fake just because one guy has been caught enhancing (not even faking) a few smoke plooms--OH NOS ALERT THE MEDIA, ISRAEL NEVER BOMBED THE CRAP OUT OF LEBANON AND KILLED CIVILIANS, IT WAS ALL LIES FROM THOSE EVIL MOOSLIMS! :roll:

And the obvious reply is you act like every single piece of media coming out of al-jazeera is honest truth just because they are not in the USA. ON NOS ALERT THE MEDIA, HEZBOES NEVER BOMBED THE CRAP OUT OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS (AND 241 MARINES)! :roll:

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: TGregg

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ThePresence

I know this will mean nothing to 5150joker and his ilk (more Israeli propoganda, yada yada yada...) But I also still hope that there are some straight-thinking people who are capable of seeing things for what they are...

All I see is an overzealous photographer that edited a photo to make it look more dramatic; Reuters did the right thing by sacking him. Does it mean the incident didn't occur or that deaths at Qana never happened? I suppose in your world the entire bombing was doctored and the innocent Israelis never bombed anyone, they've simply been snacking on bagels and lemonade back in Haifa while katushya rockets rain down on their party. The unedited version of the photo is still quite damning: http://images.scotsman.com/2006/08/06/2...RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-MIDEAST-REUTERS.jpg

So I was right in saying that this would mean nothing to you.
If you read what I wrote you'd see that nowhere did I claim that the events did not occur, on the contrary. But you probably knew that and made your baseless attack anyway.
Did you stop to ask yourself, if that is the undoctored photo, what in the world would posses someone to photoshop it? What is the point?

Of course it meant something to me--that the reporter got overzealous and decided to enhance the photo for sensationalist purposes, that's nothing new. Nothing to see here.

Nothing to see here?

I think it means a lot to know the fabricating done to spin half truths which people tout to demonize others while protecting the ?Freedom Fighter? terrorists.

You act like every single piece of media coming out of lebanon is fake just because one guy has been caught enhancing (not even faking) a few smoke plooms--OH NOS ALERT THE MEDIA, ISRAEL NEVER BOMBED THE CRAP OUT OF LEBANON AND KILLED CIVILIANS, IT WAS ALL LIES FROM THOSE EVIL MOOSLIMS! :roll:

And the obvious reply is you act like every single piece of media coming out of al-jazeera is honest truth just because they are not in the USA. ON NOS ALERT THE MEDIA, HEZBOES NEVER BOMBED THE CRAP OUT OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS (AND 241 MARINES)! :roll:

LOL what are you babbling on about? I don't even watch Al-Jazeera nor do I get my information from any source in the mideast, including Israeli ones though some smpletons around here swallow everything places like Ynet.com and honestreporting.com put out as gospel.

 

[BoberFett]

I can't understand why someone would bother to doctor that photo. It already seems to display what the photographer intended - the damage done to Beirut.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
It's sad when you build your existence on lies and lies...

As any politician can tell you...

 

[StepUp]

I suppose all these photos are doctored too. (Not for the weak of stomach)

Scroll down 10-15%

More doctored propaganda

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: StepUp
I suppose all these photos are doctored too. (Not for the weak of stomach)

Scroll down 10-15%

More doctored propaganda

No one has suggested they are, but thats a nice try at deflecting from the topic.

 

[imported_Martyr]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: StepUp
I suppose all these photos are doctored too. (Not for the weak of stomach)

Scroll down 10-15%

More doctored propaganda

No one has suggested they are, but thats a nice try at deflecting from the topic.

Seeing quite a bit of that, actually, and it's sad.

Yes, the photograph of the smoke is a horrible attempt at a photoshop job. Yes, that would make any logically thinking person wonder about the legitimacy of any of his other photographs. Perhaps he has photoshopped them all, and this is just simply the worst job he's ever done with it.

Granted, it's not a huge deal when you compare it to what's actually happening in those areas. People are dying, so what's it matter if the picture is of a little smoke or a lot of smoke? Well, the point is, with arguments as heated as this one, and the issue of human life and ethics as to whether or not we should be supporting any of the action in the region, you have to consider that this man has an agenda, and while he may just be a drop in the bucket, it's still a fake drop that he lied about.

So yes, people are killing each other, and he's probably just a terrible photographer that had to cheat to compete with the big boys for press. But he's also a liar and should be held accountable for it.

Nobody's saying that Israel isn't killing people. Yes, they're bombing Lebanon right now. There has been turmoil in that area for as long as anyone can remember. It just so happens that Israel is on top right now. Siding with the "underdog" seems to be a religion in this country for some reason. Just because someone is getting the tar kicked out of them doesn't mean they didn't deserve it.

The "give peace a chance" crowd is getting a little tired in its argument. It has been shown that Israel's neighbors only want enough peace to prevent Israel from retaliating when they send bombers in to take out people-laden buses. How many hundreds of buses in the US would someone need to blow up before you'd want to declare war on the group of people that were doing it?