Posted on 07/14/2008 3:25:52 PM PDT by mojito
AP photographer Rahmatullah Naikzad was a witness to a Taliban murder. The two women were alleged to have been prostitutes who served Western clientèle.
Two unidentified Afghan Women chat with each other a few minutes before they were executed by Taliban in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, on late Saturday, July 12, 2008. (AP Photo/Rahmatullah Naikzad) [original here]
Local people watch two Afghan women shot and killed by Taliban in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, on Sunday, July 13, 2008. (AP Photo/Rahmatullah Naikzad) (original here)
This page from the AP seems to suggest that Rahmatullah Naikzad also took a snuff video of the two women being murdered. [UPDATE: Yes, he did. Video added at end of post]
We would remind the AP that the act of the Taliban inviting a reporter to the murder means they wanted this news out there. The AP was clearly being used as a propaganda outlet for the Taliban.
Does this make him an accomplice or only a witness to the crime? When you know a crime is about to be committed, do you not have a moral and ethical obligation to try to prevent that crime? Even if you're a journalist? Even if all you do is try to call the authorities, in this case someone in the Afghani government or NATO?
A quick Yahoo News photo search of Rahmatullah Naikzad seems to indicate that he's very friendly with the Taliban. Many of the pictures show Taliban fighters posing for the AP photographer. For instance:
(AP Photo/Rahmatullah Naikzad) [original here]
Naikzad appears to have been embedded with the Taliban during the daylight hours before the two were murdered. The image below, taken by Naikzad, has this caption:
Face covered Taliban militants exercise before they executed two Afghan women in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, on Saturday, July 12, 2008. [original here]
You'll notice that the caption on the first photo at the top of this page is clearly taken at night a few minutes before the two women were murdered. The second photo above, showing the bodies of the two women, was clearly taken the next day after the women were murdered. This means that Rahmatullah Naikzad was with the Taliban for at least 24 hours!
What, if anything, did Rahmatullah Naikzad do to either prevent the murder of two women? Or what is he doing now to help find those who murdered them? If the answer is anything other than nothing I would be more than a little surprised.
Once again the AP is aiding and abetting the enemy. This time with a group listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. and which several U.N. Security Council Resolutions forbid giving any assistance to.
Will the AP be given a Pulitzer this time?
Thanks to Phyllis Chessler for first noticing the photo.
*All emphasis in quotes mine.
UPDATE: If you'll remember the AP tried to excuse Bilal Hussein's photos that he took of two 'insurgents' posing over the body of murdered hostage Salvatore Santoro by claiming that he was forcibly taken there by the terrorists and shown the body after Santoro was killed. This time, the AP has no such excuse.
If we accept the AP's version of Bilal Hussein's photos of Santoro, then Rahmatullah Naikzad's photos are clearly worse than those of Hussein! He stood by while two women were murdered!!
UPDATE II: It gets worse. A snuff video was made by Naikzad. It's horrible. The murder of the two women is at night, so it's not visually graphic, but the audio is awful. You can hear at least one of the women screaming after the first shots are fired.
It's official: the AP has now replaced al Jazeera as the official outlet for terrorist snuff videos. You'll have to scroll all the way down for video. I'll put additional updates before it with relevant bail out warnings.
UPDATE III: AllahP makes a great point about the AP violating their own ethical standards. Also note his point about the difference between anti-jihad websites showing these images and the *neutral* territory provided by the AP.
The key point here is the context in which the photos/videos are shown.
In the context of this blog it is clear that the photos are meant to show what horrible evil we are fighting. But when the the AP chooses to use value neutral terms to provide context for the photos they cross a line into a moral relativism which is more than just unpatriotic, it's downright disgusting!
Instead of calling the Taliban what they are--primae faciea war criminals & illegal combatants--they simply label them militants. Worse, they allow the Taliban to choose the words to describe the horrible murders of two women calling it an execution.
And, the more I think about it, this suggests the AP is worse than al Jazeera. Remember when we all were outraged about al Jazeera showing snuff videos produced by terrorists? This terrorist snuff video was filmed by the AP.
UPDATE IV: Drew M:
No word yet if the AP will be charging the Taliban if they use the photos or excerpts of the story on their jihadi recruitment sites. Heh.
UPDATE V:Pirate's Cove asks this exit question:
will all those liberal women’s groups who we never hear from about the plight of women under Islam decry what the AP has done? Barring any unforeseen circumstances, I'll be on the Rusty Humphries Radio Show tonight discussing this and other whatnots at 10:35 Eastern.
WARNING: Graphic AP video of the Taliban murdering two women below. Do not click play if you do not wish to see it.
Rahmatullah Naikzad —> Taliban supporter
“The AP should be banned permanently from FR, even if they change their fair use policy.”
But what the heck, CNN paid a terrorist sniper to murder one of our GIs a couple years ago, and then they aired the footage.
AP and CNN are scum. I’ve removed CNN from my remote so that I don’t accidentally ever see that station.
The Afghan government should charge him with accessory to murder. I am pretty sure there is no first amendment in Afghanistan to protect the press.
He participated and assented to the murders. He could have refused to film it and could have left the area at a minimum. He should have reported the plan to authorities.
The Taliban arent the only ones we are at war with.
LOL!
The only prostitutes in this staged monstrocity is Rahmatullah Naikzad and his pimp Talibaner handlers.
Also photographs U.S. military, up close. (Several links in a front page LGF thread)
I wonder if the bosses at the Pentagon know about this guy?
Tail him with an armed Predator. Next time he visits his buddies for a photo op take them all out.
CNN paid a terrorist sniper to murder one of our GIs a couple years ago,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you serious? I don’t remember hearing this before.
I like that thinking.
“CNN paid a terrorist sniper to murder one of our GIs a couple years ago” According to the various conservative sites that day, CNN arranged for and paid for this footage:
CNN airs sniper footage
By DAVID BAUDER
AP television writer Saturday, October 21, 2006
NEW YORK - A CNN executive said Thursday the network’s effort to present the “unvarnished truth” about the Iraq war led it to televise portions of a video that shows insurgent snipers targeting U.S. military personnel.
The tape, which came to the network unexpectedly through contact with an insurgent leader, was aired Wednesday night on “Anderson Cooper 360” and repeated on Thursday.
In one instance, the tape shows a uniformed member of the U.S. military milling in a public area with Iraqis. A shot rings out. CNN fades the screen to black before the result - described as a victim falling forward - is visible.
It’s one of 10 sniper attacks on Americans documented on the tape, which CNN technicians concluded was authentic, said David Doss, executive producer of Cooper’s show, in a Web log entry describing the network’s decision.
CNN could not determine the identity of any of the sniper victims, spokeswoman Christa Robinson said.
Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware had been in contact through intermediaries with Ibrahim al-Shammari, a leader for the rebel group Islamic Army. Ware had sent al-Shammari questions about the insurgency in Iraq, Doss said.
In reply, al-Shammari sent two tapes. One reportedly showed him, with face concealed, responding to the questions. The other showed the sniper incidents, seemingly taken by the insurgents themselves, CNN said.
CNN understood that some critics might find that the tape had public relations benefits for the insurgency, Doss wrote.
“We also understood that this kind of footage is upsetting and disturbing for many viewers,” he said. “But after getting beyond the emotional debate, we concluded the tape meets our criteria for newsworthiness.”
Doss said he had received several angry responses from viewers of Wednesday’s five-minute report. “Whether or not you agree with us in this case,” he said, “our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can.”
“CNN paid a terrorist sniper to murder one of our GIs a couple years ago” According to the various conservative sites that day, CNN arranged for and paid for this footage:
CNN airs sniper footage
Sorry, wrong site:
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-59029.html
What I am looking for is specifically why did you say that “CNN paid a sniper”? Filming ths killing of an American soldier is bad enough but it is not the same as “paying” the sniper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.