Falluja killings in pictures

by Daithi Thu May 01, 2003 18:29

You took these pictures yourself?

(1) better not to copy pictures from other sites. Waste of space and not very informative

(2) if you have an urge to do so, give a source.

(3) if you give a source, you should also give credit to the photographer. This is their work, never mind copyrights which usually go to their employer, they have a personal and inalienable moral right to be associated with it.

by Dave - Peoples Republic of Cork Thu May 01, 2003 19:19

I have to agree with Daithi. Taking photos from other sites just eats up space and band-width. If the photos are from another site a link would be better.

And as a photographer who has had his photos pinched without credit by some from this site a source and credit should definitely be given to the phtographer.

Dave the Photographer

by Daithi Thu May 01, 2003 19:25

If you are who I think you are email me.

by James McKenna Thu May 01, 2003 20:43

Sorry about that Daithi,

I took those from the daily mirror . Their website didn't credit the photographer either. Isn't that terrible. Wouldn't you think they'd know better? Thanks for puttin us straight.

I appreciate the "spare the bandwidth" argument but find it a bit incongrous with the endless pages of crap photographs that surrounded most of the recent marches that were posted here. "Waste of space" ? "Not very informative"?

Let's spare the band-with and the bullshit lads..... "they 9photographers)have a personal and inalienable moral right to be associated with it.".... Is that from the Constitution of the Photographer? We all know the high morals standards and respect for personal space commercial photographers grant their victims.

If you can't handle the pictures take them down.

by Phuq Hedd Thu May 01, 2003 20:59

maybe you are, I don't know, but your expectation that other people should run around cleaning up after you and you shouldn't make an effort to make the site work certainly points to that.

The photographs of marches in Ireland are local news that won't be printed in the Daily Mail.

You may see yourself as drawing attention to an important issue (and the Daily Mail shares your interest), but the practical effects are that you are helping to suppress and divert attention from the resistance that many of the site users are engaged in.

Is that your intent?

by James McKenna Thu May 01, 2003 22:34

I'm not trying to suppress any of your photographs. I don't care if you have a million photographs. My point was viz a vis "band-width" being quoted against me for not taking up space. I only pointed out the repetative nature of some of the less interesting parade pictures. In fact I only used the approved size picture space.

How am I "helping to suppress and divert attention from the resistance that many of the site users are engaged in."?

What the phuk are you on about? That's a serious charge and you should back it up with some examples of how I have been suppressing and diverting attention from the resistance? What resistance? Are your dreadlocks unmanagable?

by Daithi Thu May 01, 2003 22:57

"If you can't handle the pictures take them down."

You've got me there, obviously I'm intimidated by the content of the pictures but cleverly cloaking it in being concerned about discouraging you from blocking up the site with the stuff you copied from the Mirror. You've seen right through me - must try harder, must try harder.

Seriously - if you want to republish other people's photos then by all means set up a website and do it. Indymedia is not the place for it. If you would like Indymedia to be the place for it then come forward and propose we change the function of the site - maybe Copymedia.ie?

And as for your disdain for moral rights...the phrase I used is my opinion and the opinion of many independent non-commercial photographers, and the term moral rights itself is a term of law in Ireland and under the Berne convention. I have a fairly broad opposition to copyright law as it exists, not shared by some photographers who wish to protect their work, however virtually all sides of the copyright debate, apart from big businesses, support the moral rights of attribution and integrity at the very least. They are inalienable because it is not usually possible to give up (legally, "alienate") moral rights, as opposed to traditional copyrights which are contracted away easier. And this has nothing to do with the actions of any photographer, good or bad. Stating two facts side by side doesn't necessarily establish a logical connection between them.

by Phuq Hedd Thu May 01, 2003 23:28

QUOTE: I'm not trying to suppress any of your photographs.
ANSWER: I'm not really interested in your intent. Let me restate my point to see if it can be a bit clearer: the practical effect is that original photographs of local Irish origin that will not be published in the Daily Capitalist Press are competing for eyespace on the newswire with photos from the Daily Capitalist Press because you are putting them up there.

QUOTE:How am I "helping to suppress and divert attention from the resistance that many of the site users are engaged in."?
ANSWER: By swamping out original content with the memes, images and distortions presented in the mainstream non-indy press.

SUMMARY: write your own stuff James. I've seen you do it before and it's been interesting. Don't just reproduce material from somewhere else. All that does is make you into the carrier of a meme, an empty vessel disgorging the mental infection that you were seeded with. That's what the phuk I'm on about.

by redjade Fri May 02, 2003 00:27

The photos are from AP Photog, Hussein Malla.

He's been one of the better photogs on the ground during the whole invasion, now occupation.

You can check his work regularly by saving this link...

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=news_photos&p=hussein+malla

by James McKenna Fri May 02, 2003 08:06

You seem to have overlooked the fact that Indymedia SF ran this article on the Falluja Killings. They obviously think it is newsworthy and not taking up the space of more inportant material.

You charge me that "the practical effect is that original photographs of local Irish origin that will not be published in the Daily Capitalist Press are competing for eyespace on the newswire with photos from the Daily Capitalist Press because you are putting them up there."

What crap Daithi. These pictures originated on Yahoo. Are you still pissed I called Pearse a paedophile or what ? What is it? I mean SF Indymedia run this story with so much more bandwidth . What's up with that? Are they not tryng to suppress pictures of massacres in Iraq? Why are you? What more interesting pictures were there from Ireland that I depreived of space?

You also charge me that I am ,"swamping out original content with the memes, images and distortions presented in the mainstream non-indy press."

I must point out that these are the first pictures I have put up here in a long time. In fact I think I may have only used two photographs previously. Is that Swamping? Also my previous atricle about the first Falluja killings was moved under a story about Baghdad. Why? That was a separate massacre Daithi but if you want to suppress news abour US massacres in Iraq to bring us some really interesting Irish stuff well I wish you would do so. It would make a welcome change . Maybe you could leave a little space for people who are being shot dead on the streets of Iraq by soldiers we transport through Ireland.
Otherwise you might sound like , "an empty vessel disgorging the mental infection that you were seeded with"!!! I don't know what a "mental infection" is Daithi , I guess it's a Catholic thing?

So now you have had a real good go at me you will go and check out this page from Indymedia SF

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1606113.php

and see how they cover very relevant story. See how much bandwidth they give it. Big photographs but no mention of AP Photog, Hussein Malla either. All they say is "These are from Yahoo, News photos."

by Daithi Fri May 02, 2003 09:35

First of all I would lay off on the 'suppression' nonsense, if you just think about it for a moment I'm sure you will realise that you sound at best confused and at worst irrational.

Secondly, it can also not have escaped your notice that the things you quote me as having written WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ME! Which would make your screed above infactual. You wouldn't want it to be deleted now would you? That would be a shame. Perhaps you would like to reread and clarify your words?

And finally, I don't care if San Francisco want to fill their site with pictures of someone's pet rooster. We don't tell them what to do, and they don't tell us what to do, so if you think you're going to get a better reception for your unique combination of space-wasting and abuse of those who disagree with you (and amazingly you still manage to direct your venom at the wrong person. Impressive.), by all means make use of other sites.

PS In the midst of your mutterings, you accuse the person you are quoting (who, at risk of labouring the point, I will point out again is not me, and I await your apology) essentially of not being concerned about what's going on in Iraq and trying to suppress it. Based on her contributions to the site over a long period of time, I'm shocked that even you would stoop so low, and I would be interested to hear your reasons for this unnecessary attack, directed towards one of the few people to defend your previous articles.

by kokomero Fri May 02, 2003 09:59

Far more bandwidth and energy has been expended discussing this post than the post initially required. A huge amount of energy seems to have put into policing posts over the past few weeks without any visible reduction in the number of articles.

This is also borne out by the continuing complaints about local news being pushed off the site. It seems to me that this will continue until the software is overhauled, and policing will dilute the meagre IMC resource pushing that date further and further into the future.

One step that could be taken is to filter articles when posted automatically/manually or at least have the poster fill in a form which causes them to evaluate the relevance, originality etc. of their post as part of the posting process.

by James McKenna Fri May 02, 2003 10:15

I show you the Indymedia SF site just so you know that the Falluja massacres are in fact a relevant story.

You should apologise to me you ass instead of trying to impress us all. If you choose to continue this attack on me while there are a number a blatant propaganda and cut-and-paste articles putting out a Zionist and US message on this site right now then you lay yourself open to the charge of displaying propaganda and misrepresentations

For Example:
(1)a ticket master ad for the rolling stones. Is this a worthy article or do you have an interest in this gig?

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=46213

(2)Right-wing cut and paste article on Colombia. Once it's anti-FARC it's OK , is that it?

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=46135

(3)Pro Israeli propaganda. Calling the murders in Sabra and Shatilla "a counter-terrism operation"

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=46150

(4)A vital story (if you are stuck for space as you suggest)

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=46184

(4) George Bush speech

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=46192

(5) George Bush speech , again

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=46191

If you intend to keep up pressuring me when I try to mention or worse still put up pictures of dead Iraqis then I must seriously question you motives and you agenda.

You ,along with others decided to attack me like a pack of terriers so don't be too annoyed if you got a kick in the jaw meant for another bighting terrier. I don't apologise for defending myself and if you attack in a pack then don't expect precision retaliation. If you had any class you would have initially used my e-mail address to help me understand better the rules of the site instead on commencing a snide attack on me. Or perhaps you intention is to instigate conflict and bad feeling?

"You took these pictures yourself?".
"Waste of space and not very informative."
"In the midst of your mutterings"
"I'm shocked that even you would stoop so low"
"I await your apology"

You carry out your threat of pulling down my notices if you feel that is your job and then I will do what I feel is my job. Perhaps we can discuss this further Sunday night.

by jemmie Fri May 02, 2003 11:59

go back and '''READ'''the "israeli propaganda article" you twat.
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=46150
And lighten up.

by / Fri May 02, 2003 12:02

And see if you can work out the difference between Daithi and Phuk Hedd. THAT'S why he's asking for a correction, you're saying he said what PH said - your innate stupidity doesn't need to be explained away.

by James McKenna Fri May 02, 2003 13:00

Yeah, read it again. No irony, no sarcamy, no hidden meaning, just blatent justification for massacre in Shabra and Shatila and more in the future.

I can't really see much difference between Daithi and Phuk Head, that's true.

I can't even see much difference anymore between Phuk, Daithi, Davy or David of the six pointed star.

by as do many other basketcases Fri May 02, 2003 13:40

Take a chill pill Y'all

by Simpson eh? Fri May 02, 2003 17:37

I'll stand up for our prolific friend, Mr McKenna. One of the IMC staff/ volunteers/ editors could have, and should have, taken the time to e-mail him and engage in dialogue on use of bandwidth and the plagiarising of photos. I have no doubt the SF Indymedia site has considerably more bandwidth than this one, but would it have been tricky for someone to advise him that the article could be taken down and replaced with one minus the photos?

He seems to have been harried (not without justification in one case - James the IDF post is written with a Sharon-lashing tongue in cheek) in several posts on the site today. Of course he is going to feel attacked on all sides on the site.

I have the utmost respect for him as one of the few people who posts under his own name and provides his e-mail address, even if I often disagree with his views.

by NcetryLAfirst - www.yup'daithi'sacensorer.com Sat May 03, 2003 03:54

"Wake up, James
by Daithi Fri, May 2 2003, 8:35am

First of all I would lay off on the 'suppression' nonsense, if you just think about it for a moment I'm sure you will realise that you sound at best confused and at worst irrational....."

James is very much awake to your covert zionism 'Daithi' (an'irish'indimediocrity sockpuppet).

We are all aware, that you don't want Israel's biggest International ally to be known for committee the same atrocities that Israel commits with even less Israeli Press spin to try to find excuses for it. This could reflect right back on the USrael - Israel swine alliance, couldn't it?

Look this phony name sockpuppet 'Daithi' - has been so afraid to debate me about 'irish'indizzionism that he has deleted me at any time he can - on any flimsy excuse he can muster.

It's in the IMC users and readers public interest to allow charges and evidence of their israeli bias to be SEEN by all. And it won't take up much band-with. Let them agree to me posting just one starting article on this and then agreeing not to delete it whatever the 'comment' content of the comments are. But to let the debate run. And see if they can handle the truth about themselves.

1.Allow me to post one article under title as I choose about their bias.

2.Pledge not to delete the article or any number of comments following it.(The reader interest in irish imc bias is so keen that within several hours of any article this 'Daithi' or 'aidan' has deleted - up to 20 comment replies post.)

3. Pledge not to tamper with or corrupt email addresses in the article or the comments or any Links within in them - and to permit links to the article along with one 10 word sentence in any other post on irish indi - so that people may be made aware of the debate.

They won't dare to do this simple honest democratic airing of what Many people are charging. They don't because they Dominate this newswire as their Own private preserve.

They run it for them - not us.

by James McKenna Sat May 03, 2003 10:52 jimmymac61 at hotmail dot com

So you have noticed this a long time ago? I must admit I have been contributing here a long while and never noticed the manipulation game being played by editors for the exclusive purpose of stifling any stories that show Israel , Britain or the US in a bad light.

If a story cannot be removed it is "heckled" by a "mob". It is pretty classic media manipulation and is surely worth a story in Phoenix or Magill.

Drop me an e-mail and we'll have a root around this nest lice and see if we can't limit their influence in Ireland.

Was Indymedia ireland always like this or has ownership/control changed recently? Who calls the shots? Anyone know.

Editors?

by Aidan Sat May 03, 2003 13:04

The gentleman in question runs by the name Lance Luther.

Lance had a hissy fit when we removed his article on Rachel Corrie.

Because at the time there were already three other articles on her death on the newswire.

He took this to mean that we're a bunch a rabid pro zionist censors, and has proceeded to copy that article again and again onto comments on the same article over and over.

James seriously look at the wire, look at previous features, and tell us we're pro zionist, c'mon snap out of it.

Yourself and luther can feed your rabid fantasys, or you could actually try and talk to us, instead of screaming shrilly on the wire.

Come allong to the Ha'penny Inn tomorrow at 2, or if you can't join the mailing lists and get involved before you start rabbiting on.

Alternatively start your own media collective.

by James McKenna Sun May 04, 2003 02:33

Yeah, go on try and wriggle out of it. I used to see that guys complaints appear briefly before you would deleted them and I too thought he was flaky. Then I noticed anything and everything that I put up to do with Israel especially is deleted or stuffed in under some other posting on the same excuse you just used for him, "It was already posted". Any escuse will do and if there isn't one roll in the rent-a-heckle.

Take this example

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=46150

A couple of weeks ago I posted a story showing in Reuters phographs how the famous liberation scenes in Baghdad were faked and straight away a load of bogus articles went up and ran the story off the wire. So I put it back up and boom... "oh, sorry we already ran that".

Be as subtle as you like by at every turn you are pro israel and the selection of offensive an foul mouthed hecklers you allow to post messages unhindered is a credit to another tactic of yours. Rush any cerditable article and make a melee of insults around it to muddy the initial point.

I won't be in Dublin myself tomorrow but there will be plenty of people there to sign up and see exactly who the fuck you sham artists are. I will send someone specifically to look for you "Aidan". I hope you are there and not just some cyber Zionist character in a Parisienne office !

by L.Luthereno Sun May 04, 2003 16:41

James - in addition to their deleting any articles relating to Israeli assassination of journalists and Palestinians - 'Daithi' 'Aidan' and the crew spent their time primarily on deleting any commentary of mine that documented their Censorship actions.

I have had about 5 or 6 commentaries deleted that had nothing to do with Rachel. I will send them to you as proof. None of these were shifted to the hidden section as claimed by them. These Zionists also Censor what goes into the Censored hidden section!! How is that for censoring?

I would say the most dishonest thing that they do of all is that they intentionally corrupt the EMAIL addresses of those who have their articles that they don't like shifted to the 'Hidden' section, with DASHES for letters - SO, just in case anyone might be interested in these people's opinions - they will be unable to contact them.

Take a look at the Hidden section and you will see the EMAIL addresses corrupted with DASHES.

Also they delete the REsponses to many of the articles they shift to the hidden section.

I have given so much damaging information about them in THIS response to you here - that they may delete it. If they do I will send it to you and then you can know even more certainly that I speak the truth.

And for instance? Do you see any EASILY found Address LINK on this page to the 'Hidden' section? Is there even a reference here so that the new reader may know that their IS a 'hidden' Censored section that he can see?

And by the way - it is untrue that I 'repeatedly ' reposted the Article on the murder of Rachel Corrie. NO. I repeatedly reposted a commentary of mine [that was repeatedly deleted] that asserted journalistic protocals as to why that article should have been on the Featured Article page.

That was my whole contention about that article. I never complained that the article wasn't buried in their 'newswire' somewhere in the past. And this whole Deleted dabate with them took place just a day or two after Rachel's crushing-murder.

So you see how they lie.

by WantContact? Sun May 04, 2003 16:49

my address is [email protected] addresses later to those who wish to contact me on these points. I only open that address at a professor's college computer - as he has agreed to look into any intentional hacking by these people through that email. L ance

by pirates Fri Apr 30, 2004 15:59

one year on.