Posted by Curt on 19 October, 2005 at 9:26 am. 5 comments already!

UPDATE 10/20 1330hrs

Spent pretty much all of last night and this morning setting up my new surround sound system so I missed the new facts coming out about this incident. First, an interview with Stephen Dupont was aired last night, check it out here, transcript here.

Dan over at Riehl World found that Stephen Dupont has a website with a picture of the photographer himself dressed like an Arab:

That in itself is not enough yet to call Shananigans, but added with his portfolio of work including Children of the Wall in Palestine – boxers in Cuba – Inside Jihad – The Lions Last Roar in Afghanistan and you get the feeling that he’s a flaming moonbat.

Jason Coleman has the goods on his partner in crime, John Martinkus:

Thanks toTim Blair, I learned a little more about Martinkus which I think also points to bias in the reporting of this incident. Martinkus himself has participated in anti-war events and has spoken out against the War on Terror and the American presence in Iraq.

Martinkus was afeatured speaker at an event organized by the "Stop the War Coalition" and has authored a book, Travels in American Iraq, which is apparently very critical of the American efforts in Iraq and the War on Terror.

Martinkus has also drawn fire from Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer:

Kidnapped Australian journalist John Martinkus was attacked today by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and former hostage Steve Pratt for appearing to say that Iraqi terrorists had a reason to kill some hostages.

Mr Martinkus, who was kidnapped and interrogated for more than 20 hours in Baghdad before being freed last weekend, sparked outrage when he said of his captors:"(From their perspective) there was a reason to kill (British hostage Ken) Bigley, there was a reason to kill the Americans; there was not a reason to kill me (and) luckily I managed to convince them of that."

Mr Downer said today it was pretty much the most appalling thing any Australian had said about the Iraq war.

He accused Mr Martinkus of giving comfort to terrorists by saying that their actions were understandable.

So, not only are Stephen Dupont’s "objective journalist" credentials suspect, it appears that "co-reporter" John Martinkus is an anti-war activist and quite possibly a sympathizer with the very enemies that the forces he was embedded with are fighting.

Taken together these two appear to be just as I expected when I posted this story yesterday, moonbat queens.

Now take a look at this part of the interview:

GEORGE NEGUS: Do you think they understood the ramifications of what they’re doing? The burning of the bodies, pointing towards Mecca and going to the trouble of reading to you in English the deliberately provocative stuff that they were shouting across the valley to the Taliban?

STEPHEN DUPONT: Look, I think the airborne unit that were responsible with the burning of the two Taliban soldiers weren’t really thinking in that way. I think the psychological operations unit, who were responsible for the broadcast along with some other broadcasts to the Taliban, they’re quite well aware of it. They’re older guys. That’s their job. They’re PsyOps. They use it as a weapon. And the Americans are so frustrated. They’re frustrated because they can’t find the enemy. They’re chasing shadows all the time.

GEORGE NEGUS: The guys burning the bodies probably did they think were doing it for reasons of hygiene that were mentioned in the story?

STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe that. That was the feeling I got as I climbed up the hill. As I got to the crest of the hill, they started burning the bodies. My initial reaction was, “My God, I’ve got to film this. This is really important stuff. It’s my responsibility as a journalist to –

GEORGE NEGUS: The PsyOps had a different purpose?

STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe so. Niece guys – they said to me, “We’ve been told to burn the bodies, the bodies are have been here for 24 hours and they’re starting to stink so, for hygiene purposes, this is what we’ve got to do.”
Later on, when I was down with the PsyOps operations people, they used that as a psychological warfare I guess you’d call it. They used the fact that the Taliban were burned facing west –

GEORGE NEGUS: They were deliberately setting out to humiliate the Taliban?

STEPHEN DUPONT: They deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them.

GEORGE NEGUS: Smoke them out.

Ok, so what the hell is the problem here? Even the lib believes the burning was done with no ill intention, but for hygiene purposes. Then PsychOps came in and used the burning to their advantage, which is to smoke the enemy out. Wtf is the purpose of PsychOps? Um, like maybe using psychological means to beat your enemy?

It appears the PsychOps unit was doing a great job by getting the enemy angry enough to attack the troops, instead of them having to go into these caves and risk more casualities. Surprise, surprise the MSM doesn’t agree.

GEORGE NEGUS: That being the case, do you think that the psychological war is working?

STEPHEN DUPONT: Look, I think it’s having some success. I do believe – I think it’s very, very slow. I think there is a certain amount of success because they are engaging with the enemy, as in the Taliban. The Americans are using this, you know, psychological warfare to announce – to make announcements to get the enemy to fight them. It is working on that level. And they are being attacked and so they are responding and they are taking prisoners of war and so forth.

So, in the eyes of the Americans and the coalition, there is a sense that things are working, but it’s very, very slow.

This is just another example of the MSM attempting to make our Country and our Military look bad. They are, as Jason stated, connecting the dots on two seperate incidents to make a hit piece, plain and simple.

The first image from the burning has popped up:

And so the MSM bias rolls on.

Other’s blogging about this are Hyscience, In The Bullpen, Moonbat Monitor, Sister Toldjah, Weapons Of Mass Discussion, & My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,

END UPDATE.

Some more bias in the media has reared it’s ugly head:

US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions.

An investigation by SBS’s Dateline program, to be aired tonight, filmed the burning of the bodies.

It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban.

According to an SBS translation of the message, delivered in the local language, the soldiers accused Taliban fighters near Kandahar of being “cowardly dogs”. “You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be,” the message reportedly said.

“You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are.”

The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims. Islam requires burial within 24 hours.

Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead “should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged”.

US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area.

SBS said Australian special forces in Afghanistan were operating from the same base as the US soldiers involved in the incident, although no Australians took part in the action.

The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

First, if this video existed I have a sneaky feeling it would be all over the news right now. Second, the Geneva Convention does not apply to unlawful combatants, such as the Taliban who do now wear a uniform. Third, burning dead bodies (cremation) is not unusual, it is a proven way of preventing disease. Fourth, why is it so hard for the media and the liberals to understand that PsychOp’s are a very useful tool?

But let’s say the Taliban were a legal combatant, where in the Geneva Convention does it say that bodies shall not be cremated?

This sounds like another liberal media organization trying to make their name with a “big scandal”.

Oh, btw, I find this offensive:

>