For a start, posting his "art on a site called "Images AGAINST War" is a pretty big indicator to me.
I don't take the posting of his photos at Imagesagainstwar to be definitive of anything. It might be a political statement or simply a practical decision. He's a free-lance photographer and basically anyone who has a position on war is a potential market. There was certainly nothing incendiary about the Sites' photos that are posted there.
So, you are giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, Good for you! I'm not, so we'll have to agree to disagree, unless of course you are actually trolling, which your argument switching looks very much like.
Did i say the pics on the site were incendiary? No. (Although most probably illegal under the Geneva Convention)
Did i say the tape that he gave to the media was? Yes.
Did i say that the release of this tape will put Allied troops in danger? Yes.
I stand by my assertions, i stand by the anti-war activist comment and that i think this is a set up.
As i said, the tape may have been editied, there is now a military investigation, so i suggest you wait and see.
You say he's targeting a particular market? Well there's good money in slamming the US military, just ask Michael Moore.