Monday, July 31, 2006

Incriminating Photos

Kudos to Drudge for providing a link; cheers to Australia's Herald Sun for publishing photos that show how Hizballah wages war. The weapon that appears in two of the photos is a ZU-23 anti-aircraft gun, mounted on a truck. You'll note that the "crew" is attired in civilian clothing. The photographs were in a suburban area, where (presumably) the weapon had been firing at Israeli aircraft and/or UAVs.

The first rule of air defense is that weaponry is deployed around equipment, installations or other high-value targets that may be susceptible to air attack. So, it stands to reason that the terrorists have something of value in that neighborhood--perhaps weapons stored in ordinary homes, schools or mosques, similar to what the IDF has encountered in south Lebanon. The pictures in the Australian paper were apparently taken in a Christian area east of Beirut. Needless to say, there aren't very many Lebanese Christians who belong to Hizballah, but that wouldn't stop the terrorist group from appropriating homes and businesses in Christian areas, with no concern for the suffering their takeover will inevitably produce.

The only other possibility is that Hizballah put its anti-aircraft gun in a civilian area to protect it, believing that the IAF wouldn't risk collateral damage by attacking the weapon in a crowded residential area. And, if the IAF did launch a strike, Hizballah could always trumpter the "deliberate targeting of civilians" and point out that the "victims" were wearing civilian attire. Never mind that the deceased might have been firing at IAF jets a few minutes earlier. This is a perception war; Hizballah is doing its best to control the images, and the western media are willing accomplices.

These photographs had to be smuggled out of Hizballah-controlled areas, according to the paper. But the real question isn't why Hizballah is trying to manipulate media coverage, using fear and intimidation tactics when necessary--that's hardly a surprise. The real question is why other western press outlets refuse to run photos that reval Hizballah for what it is, and how it operates.


Mike H. said...

One of the things that I have against Greta van Susteren and the Lebanese Daily reporter that she has on her program, is that Greta mounts no challenge to the reporter's propaganda. If the M$M challenged the productions that are staged for their benefit I would have no problem but it seems that the M$M are constantly being plagued by Eason Jordan syndrome. To wit, if we don't say anything they'll let us stay and report.

Papa Ray said...

The editors and producers have their jobs at stake, they are not going against the bosses.

The field "journalists" have the same worries, they need those paychecks and those juicy assignments.

So don't expect them to buck the system.

The talking heads....? Well, they have their script also, but most of them are too stupid to know that they are being fed a script, or what it really means.

Mark Twain said something, I don't remember the exact wording but it was something like this. That he had met many a reporter and none of them were worth a twit, but when they wrote something and it was printed and published, their no account words took on the power of the newspaper and its credibility.

And he thought that was a crime of the first order.

Papa Ray
West Texas