War Correspondent photo.

From The New York Times circa 2006:-



A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.

Michele McNally: "Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage."

THIS IMAGE WAS (APPARENTLY) TAKEN BY A PHOTOGRAPHER WORKING FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, AS THE "SNIPER" WAS FIRING AT
AMERICAN POSITIONS IN NAJAF. A somewhat sickening display of loyalty and allegiance if you ask me......

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/inde...view&contact_id=351&Itemid=140&catids=171,174

 

I suppose you can tell he's a belligerent by the regimental stripe down his tracksuit bottoms. What's the betting some reporter describes him as 'another innocent civilian' and demands an enquiry when he is eventually taken out and his mates spirit away his weapon? Déja vu anyone?

 

By the merely definition (and thus the title of this thread), 'war' is an engagement between two or more occupants, therefore it is right and fair that both sides of the story should be reported, personal politics aside.

This is no doubt one photo from a collection by the photo-journalist, which is likely to contain images of Western forces engaged accordingly. When the media become one-sided or too involved in the story itself, then the battle for hearts and minds is lost.

It should be the reflector, not the director...

It is also probable that the sniper would have taken the shot, regardless of whether the photographer was in the room or not, so their involvement is negligible.

 

If I remember correctly, wars are hostile acts between Governments. Anything else is, arguably, criminal violence.

How acceptable would we have felt a similar photograph of Paddy in the Divis Flats?