[Newsbot]

Title: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive
Category: World
Posted By: commanderkai
Date: 2010-06-09 20:45:26

[Unicornlord]

International Priracy.
The people on the ship were being boarded, they have a right to defend themselves and fight off the boarders. Wait till the priates off Africa start suiing companies because the crew did not just turn over the ship instead of fighting them off.

[Khar]

The situation with the Mavi Mamara is not clear cut, man -- there's a lot of questions and inconsistencies with eyewitness accounts and what actually happened.

To be honest, I don't know why an internationally recognized group which has a lot of experience could make such a big mistake as to drop a fairly crucial piece of the picture from it altogether, given that, as the article says in their quote of "Little Green Footballs," whether the activists were armed or not is a major part of the story, and the controversy. Especially since this is becoming a pattern on the part of Reuters.

[angler57]

Unicornlord Unicornlord:

International Priracy.
The people on the ship were being boarded, they have a right to defend themselves and fight off the boarders. Wait till the priates off Africa start suiing
companies because the crew did not just turn over the ship instead of fighting them off.

Thank you for a new word. "suiing".

[BartSimpson]

Unicornlord Unicornlord:

International Priracy.
The people on the ship were being boarded, they have a right to defend themselves and fight off the boarders. Wait till the priates off Africa start suiing companies because the crew did not just turn over the ship instead of fighting them off.

Entering a properly declared blockade area and then expecting to get away with stabbing soldiers who are essentially acting as law enforcement is never a good idea.

[Proculation]

Reuters, again ?????

[BartSimpson]

Proculation Proculation:

Reuters, again ?????

Yep. If they can't report the news they like they just make sh*t up.

[Zipperfish]

The knife wasn't "edited out", the picture was zoomed. Nice try. It's a little rich when FAUX News is complaining about bias. I like etheir source: "the blog." It looks like they did blur out the guy's face though.

Again, if the Palestinians and Israelis put half the effort into trying to live in peace that they put in to their various media manipulation tactics, they'd have had this problem licked long ago.

[Benn]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Entering a properly declared blockade area and then expecting to get away with stabbing soldiers who are essentially acting as law enforcement is never a good idea.

"Properly Declared?" I'm not sure what that means. Anyone who decides to take ownership of some part of international waters just has to write a notice and send it to the right people and as long as its properly declared then its ok?

International waters I would think would require the international community to give a majority ok of the action. Did the UN give this? The majority of the nations who have a coast on this water mass?

I honestly am a bit confused about who, under international law, has the right to sanction blockades? I also don't know why they could not have just boarded the ship when it reached domestic waters.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The knife wasn't "edited out", the picture was zoomed.

'Zooming' is one of those things done whilst editing.

In this case the 'zoomed' pictures (plural) coincidentally edited out the juiciest parts of the pictures...the parts with the weapons.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The knife wasn't "edited out", the picture was zoomed.

'Zooming' is one of those things done whilst editing.

In this case the 'zoomed' pictures (plural) coincidentally edited out the juiciest parts of the pictures...the parts with the weapons.

Well, had they actually digitally removed the knife from the hand, there might be a case there. Otherwise, it's just an overactive persecution complex.

[BartSimpson]

Benn Benn:

"Properly Declared?" I'm not sure what that means. Anyone who decides to take ownership of some part of international waters just has to write a notice and send it to the right people and as long as its properly declared then its ok?

International waters I would think would require the international community to give a majority ok of the action. Did the UN give this? The majority of the nations who have a coast on this water mass?

I honestly am a bit confused about who, under international law, has the right to sanction blockades? I also don't know why they could not have just boarded the ship when it reached domestic waters.

The precedent is when nations declare zones of hostilities and publish those zones to international shipping. South Korea, for instance, has restricted access to international shipping lanes that lead to ports in North Korea and Canada has long restricted fishing in international waters that are well outside Canada's territorial waters.

Israel, in this case, has declared a blockade on ports in Gaza and they are enforcing it. Considering that Gaza is not recognized as a sovereign country by *anyone* then Israel has every right in the world to control this access.

Just the same as Egypt is blockading access to Gaza.

[Thanos]

FUX News referred to it at "a blog" because they're at war with Charles Johnson of LGF. Charles isn't a conservative (at least not the fucked-up and insane version of conservative that FUX prefers) and is at odds with the conservative establishment over his views on climate change and on the way the war on terror has been delegitimized by too much racist hatred aimed at all Muslims by far too many on the right wing. He's still virulently anti-terrorist and pro-Israeli, but he holds the TeaParty/Birther/Death-to-Obama/Arizona white supremacist part of the right wing in total contempt. All in all he's a fairly nuanced guy who doesn't mold his belief system to match the official talking points that come from shithead central at FUX or from evil scum like Rush Limbaugh. Hence the refusal of FUX to even mention Charles or LGF by name, even though he's the one who should be creditted with breaking the story about Reuters malfesanse.

If he's got the righties and the lefties all hating him at the same time he must be doing something right.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

FUX News referred to it at "a blog" because they're at war with Charles Johnson of LGF. Charles isn't a conservative (at least not the fucked-up and insane version of conservative that FUX prefers) and is at odds with the conservative establishment over his views on climate change and on the way the war on terror has been delegitimized by too much racist hatred aimed at all Muslims by far too many on the right wing. He's still virulently anti-terrorist and pro-Israeli, but he holds the TeaParty/Birther/Death-to-Obama/Arizona white supremacist part of the right wing in total contempt. All in all he's a fairly nuanced guy who doesn't mold his belief system to match the official talking points that come from shithead central at FUX or from evil scum like Rush Limbaugh. Hence the refusal of FUX to even mention Charles or LGF by name, even though he's the one who should be creditted with breaking the story about Reuters malfesanse.

If he's got the righties and the lefties all hating him at the same time he must be doing something right.

"Shithead central"--I'm using that one!

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

"Shithead central"--I'm using that one!

And the best part of it is that it can be used practically anywhere.