The loss of a photo journalist with integrity like Danish Siddiqui is an irreplaceable loss, merely because there really aren't (m)any left.
While this situation in Afghanistan was fraught with danger from the start, his reporting in the Delhi riots and UP (a state in India)'s handling of Covid really changed the dynamics of the public intercourse, and also the urgency of the government. He undertook it at personal cost as a muslim.
In this way, these photographs were as impactful as the napalm girl photo in My Lai, Vietnam.
We like to think of our country as having a free press, but we have one that is completely suborned to a political ideology, etc? Where are the similar photos of the body of the elderly stacked in NJ/NY? Is there a similar level of threat to lives of these reporters?
The lack of a properly functioning 4th estate does not bode well for our country.
> Where are the similar photos of the body of the elderly stacked in NJ/NY?
There were plenty of photos and videos of people wheeling bodies into giant big rigs in NYC. Sometimes using a fork lift. CNN even has articles as recent as May 2021 talking about how those trucks are still full of dead bodies.
This is all just a search away. So I don't know where you got the idea that this stuff is being hidden due to political ideology.
We are talking about 2 events during the pandemic.
bodies in big rigs in NYC -- they were shown to highlight the need for social distancing, masking, induce a sense of panic etc among the public - something that the media and party was game to.
the bodies in elderly homes - a political decision (there were alternatives to sending infected seniors back into these homes), and the media hid it, ostensibly to protect their masters.
That is what I was referring to?
I am wondering if you are even aware of these happening? I would say there was almost a blackout of these news during that time in the mainstream media.
Do you think they actually physically piled up corpses in nursing homes? Do you think a nursing home would allow a photographer inside to take pictures of random individual dead bodies?
Doesn't it seem likely that the piles of bodies outside in refrigerated trucks were way more photographable, and like the nursing home bodies were not all in one place, or were too identifiable as individuals?
> Do you think they actually physically piled up corpses in nursing homes?
It's not my opinion; in one case in Northern NJ, they actually piled them up in some storage room (unrefridgerated of course) till one of the workers revealed it. They tried to get away with it.
> Do you think a nursing home would allow a photographer inside to take pictures of random individual dead bodies?
Do you think in each of these situations we are talking, these photo journalists (or anyone else) are invited to do these investigations? What I started off is even after the news came out of these homes, the media chose to hide it.
You seem to give the media the benefit of doubt, I however accuse them of malice, only because of all the opportunities they had to cover this issue (for months on end). We can chose to disagree ( it boils down to our political biases actually ).
Even after this incident being exposed, the leaders in these states did not make changes to their policies for months on end. It is so surprising to me why there was no outcry about this.
Its interesting that you linked a aarp report about this, and not one from the media.
>You seem to give the media the benefit of doubt, I however accuse them of malice, only because of all the opportunities they had to cover this issue (for months on end).
To add to this, remember that Cuomo was given an award for his handling of the pandemic by the media. I know it has been taken away, but just last year, the media decided to look past his nursing home fiasco and give him an award.
> To add to this, remember that Cuomo was given an award for his handling of the pandemic by the media
The International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is not the same thing as the media in general (of which TV is a subset), and especially not the news media particularly (of which TV is an overlapping set).
"bodies in big rigs in NYC -- they were shown to highlight the need for social distancing, masking, induce a sense of panic etc among the public - something that the media and party was game to."
So you recognize that this was intended to help save further lives but you're unhappy about it?
"the bodies in elderly homes - a political decision (there were alternatives to sending infected seniors back into these homes), and the media hid it, ostensibly to protect their masters."
Who are these masters of the media that were somehow protecting themselves by not covering bodies in elderly homes? Are they the owners of the elderly homes who don't want to get sued into oblivion?
> this was intended to help save further lives but you're unhappy about it?
this was never my point, i just said it is a different event from the one I described.
> Who are these masters of the media
Is'nt it obvious that the mainstream media shill for the Democratic party? They were protecting the leaders of NY, NJ, PA which implemented these policies, and continued these murders even after a large number of deaths were reported.
There weren't literal piles of bodies there, only metaphorical ones, which are difficult to photograph even if you are able to gain access to the site.
“Elderly homes” were a source of bodies, not an accumulation point (the big rigs were an accumulation point of bodies, including the ones coming from elderly homes.)
in that particular case, it was shockingly an (illegal) accumulation point of bodies.
and regarding photos and ability to take them, are'nt you being pedantic?
the overall story is journalism... the media chose to bury this incident, gave (and continues to give) a free pass to all who were involved.
And there is a bigger difference:
In both the case where this journalist was killed and in the elderly being killed, mistakes were made, but the intent is important.
One is because some protocols were not followed in the heat of action, the other is because of political considerations, for the state to not use the resources provided by the feds, and hiding this news till later.
Before the bunch of people respond, let us remember our political bias since we all have one, and despite that, try to do the best we can, giving the benefit of doubt.
Note that this policy of shifting elders back to homes was not stopped for months, though makeshift facilities were available, no data was made available, no questions asked.
the only issues that are raised are those the media takes an interest in. Hence my original post.
Of course that would be your result, it is the median use, after the elision
"[sexual] intercourse".
"Intercourse" is not "/sexual/ intercourse": it is just "intercourse". (This should just make it evident, really: if "intercourse" becomes "sexual" after the elision, it is because it is so /only/ after the elision.)
This is speaking the language vs speaking a group's language. If a group bends the language towards some direction, it is that group's business.
When someone uses language, you cannot assume they are speaking the language internal to a group. Do not, because some simply will not. Incidentally, one cannot even guess what kind of branching one's language may get in some region.
And in fact, it is not justifiable that one should use the language of the interlocutor's culture, especially when this is unidentified, instead of just using language.
I maintain that you should consult a dictionary before telling someone what they should have said. Also, we all make mistakes; the thing is to own up rather than doubling down.
Just about no one uses “public intercourse” unless they’re referring to people having sex, in public.
Just because a definition -technically- exists doesn’t mean it’s actually used very much, or is the main definition the word is used for. “Public discourse” is correct, at least for Standard American English.
edit: I am not arguing that this definition doesn't exist. As a native speaker I'm saying that it is very rarely used, if ever. A correction to "public discourse", a statement that actually -is- used by native speakers with frequency, is perfectly reasonable. Communication isn't about being technically correct in order to win arguments.
Where I grew up - public intercourse -- really meant what I meant, and no one in their right mind would equate it to sex in a public place.
> As a native speaker I'm saying
Wow, how presumptous!
What does that even mean? Did you know that the language is spoken across so many continents?
Are you American? British? Australian? Something else?
Do you know the number of Indians who are 'native English speakers' in that English is their #1 go-to language to read/write/think in? (even though they know a few others? )
I figured it would be obvious by my selection of Standard American English, but I am a native speaker of American English.
Native speakers of Indian English or British English have different vernacular, colloquialisms, etc, which is why I specifically commented on Standard American English.
You are, of course, correct, and those objecting to your use of a word in accord with its primary definition are simply undereducated, and being childish. When I read your comment it came across as you intended, and I was not distracted by irrelevant associations.
> Do you know the number of Indians who are 'native English speakers'
Languages are not static, dictionaries are not made of stone. A word's primary usage can definitely change. Many words are like this: "[to] retard" is one such example where the original definition has been superseded by another definition in general usage. One can walk around with a dictionary and a prescriptivist mindset and tell people their language is "wrong", or one can acknowledge that definitions and usages change over time.
The only time I've ever encountered this usage of public intercourse is in older texts. Certainly no one my age would use that instead of "public discourse".
And that has nothing to do with levels of education or "childishness". One can be highly educated and have a diverse vocabulary while acknowledging the fact that certain usages are more popular than other usages, and they can change over time. Languages are illogical and beautiful in that way.
I am not denying the existence of this or any other definition. You're arguing with yourself on that front.
We're stating the fact that that specific usage/definition is not really used at all anymore, to the point that "intercourse" is generally used for the other definition of sexual activity. "Public intercourse" is significantly likely more to be read as "public sex", rather than the intended meaning of "public discourse".
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest a correction, because communication with people is about understanding... not being technically correct to win an argument.
> The security group [in Reuters] approved the embed plan. “We were talking about the Afghan Special Forces, the elite,” said Rogers [Reuters global pictures editor]. “They had all the hospitals at their disposal, all the equipment needed to evacuate, including air support.” Siddiqui would join their headquarters near Kandahar.
On display here are the deep miscalculation and disbelief over it. It's a pattern that has unfortunately played out innumerable times in the last 20 years as organizations outside of Afghanistan tried to figure the place out and failed miserably.
That's because the article is intended to lay blame at the US exit of Afghanistan and imply that the taliban is executing fighters. In reality, media embedded with soldiers in active combat occasionally die which is a tragedy but less useful for propaganda (hence the title).
I don’t know how you can think that. The July 16 mission was a separate mission. The article goes into detail about that mission and about how he was killed after being left behind when the soldiers retreated during the July 16 mission.
> Major-General Haibatullah Alizai, who was the commander of Afghanistan’s Special Operations Corps when it hosted Siddiqui in Kandahar, told Reuters it was evident now that, in fierce fighting, his soldiers withdrew from Spin Boldak and left behind Siddiqui and two commandos accompanying him, mistakenly thinking they had joined the retreating convoy. His account was corroborated by four soldiers who say they witnessed the attack.
The article uses the word abandoned, but it's not clear based on this account that he and the two soldiers with him were. Abandonment would imply knowingly leaving them behind. This could definitely be a fog of war situation in which they were expected to have moved and did not. No one thinks straight getting shot at unless they are an experienced professional.
I just want to take a moment to honor the courage and sentiments of the man behind these words. RIP, may your family be ever proud.
They echo MLK's Ive been to the mountain top [1]
> That's the question before you tonight. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to my job. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?" The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?" The question is, "If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?" That's the question.
or (attributed) Dietrich Bonhoeffer [2]
> First they came for the Communists,... there was no one left
May we soberly continue to consider these thoughts as we approach world affairs.
What are you talking about? The APs job isn't to make the administration look good. And this group was surrounded because many of the ANA forces did just abandon their positions. Also, the complete collapse that occurred was this month, August. There was still a lot of fighting occuring in June and July.
Of course, there was intense fighting during June and July. At that point, the Afghan military was deprived of U.S. support. The U.S. abandoned key positions and reduced support, signaling whoever remained behind would have to come to terms with dealing with the Taliban on their own.
Given the fact that resisting the Taliban puts entire extended families at risk for reprisals even if one wins a battle or two, the cost-benefit calculus was clear for a lot of people. And, once that process of unwinding begins, it accelerates.
The public in the U.S. were not kept informed of what had been happening in Afghanistan until the disaster unfolded in full.
Then, the administration said no one had could have foreseen this possibility and tried to create the impression that Afghans had given up. A show of "we've got your back" could've gone a long way, but, instead, the administration demonstrated with actions "we are with the Taliban, you're on your own."
> The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States,
its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security
contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within fourteen (14) months following
announcement of this agreement
Perhaps they could have changed their minds and stayed, but then what? Really the evacuation plan should have been clearer from an earlier date.
Did the agreement mentioned that it had to be done in such a disorganized manner? Without informing said allies and coalition members? Without taking the time to evacuate 10s of thousands of foreigners?
There is a difference between agreeing on an outcome and the implentation to get there.
"US left Afghan airfield at night, didn’t tell new commander"[1] comes to mind.
> Before the Afghan army could take control of the airfield about an hour’s drive from the Afghan capital Kabul, it was invaded by a small army of looters, who ransacked barrack after barrack and rummaged through giant storage tents before being evicted, according to Afghan military officials.
Exiting after 20 years in Afghanistan is a good choice; if we couldn't build a strong US-backed government there in two decades, we never could.
The issue that everybody has is the scrambled and disorganized form of the exit, and that's what the administration is receiving bipartisan flak over. Biden said "this is not Saigon, there will be no helicopters evacuating people from the roofs of embassies," and that is exactly what occurred. This should've been higher on the administration's priority list, and evacuations should have begun much sooner.
Here's just a couple of the blaring issues:
- US forces should have protected Bagram air base from being surrendered to the Taliban, as it was much more defensible and capable of this scale of evacuations, and we would not be running so close to the August 31st deadline while also failing to evacuate Afghan nationals.
- General McKenzie should have stayed in Afghanistan to manage the operations rather than exiting early to CENTCOM in Tampa; our presence completely deteriorated without an effective chain of command.
- Maybe we could have spent the past few months working harder to give the Afghans better intelligence capabilities (intel and air support mattered more than our troops on the ground), and ensuring our own intelligence was accurate, as we failed to detect the Taliban's offensive plans.
> - Maybe we could have spent the past few months working harder to give the Afghans better intelligence capabilities (intel and air support mattered more than our troops on the ground), and ensuring our own intelligence was accurate, as we failed to detect the Taliban's offensive plans.
Versus the past 20? It’s pretty amazing to me how quickly they’ve been defeated. It’s not clear there ever was a solid ground for them if it crumbled so easily.
I completely agree, a large part of the issue was the ANA's unwillingness to fight, whether out of Taliban sympathies and sabotage or a desire to just go home.
The other two choices are ones I firmly believe were misguided, but it's tough to argue this one as we don't know what the US was unable to provide or why.
You can get out without it being a complete mess. You can do it by working with allied Western countries, ensure there is a path to get to the airport, ensure the airport and surrounding area is secure, etc. Leaving millions in weaponry is unforgivable. How about actually take our helicopters and guns with us? Trying to blame Trump when Biden failed at the implementation is ridiculous.
I mean, people think what they're going to think. But the number of arm-chair logistics experts who have been telling us endlessly how easy this is always retreat to hand-wavey vagueness about how they aren't the experts, but clearly somebody could have done better.
I understand that from folks who want the political attack, or from folks who are personally invested in either the US military or intelligence.
I don't understand it from intelligent folks who can spend a minute or two thinking through the situation.
I don't understand how you can not list six ways it could have been done better. The US runs it's own visa program. There is nobody except the US to blame for the existence of a single Afghan who worked with them and did not have a permanent US visa for their family before the deadline to leave. And if internal American incompetence prevented that, then every one of them should have had an emergency visa that allowed them to fly out on American planes to America and be processed there.
> then every one of them should have had an emergency visa that allowed them to fly out on American planes to America and be processed there
This is fantasy. Even if you could get divided government on board, how are you going to convince the Taliban to let them out? If you think it should have been done in "secret" beforehand, please explain how you get literally thousands of people, many in visible positions, out without being noticed.
This is just one example of a demand for something that could not happen.
They've evac'ed over 100K people so far. It is the largest such operation in history, and it is actually going relatively well.
It is amusing, but not surprising, to see all the 'savvy' media consumers here get rolled.
You don't need the 'divided government' on board. Immigration is entirely within the control of the executive. That's why they are now able to let people in directly without a visa once it got urgent enough to give a shit - because it is at the discretion of the department.
As for this specific situation: The Taliban didn't control the country until very recently. Thousands of people have been at the airport, waiting for planes - you may have seen pictures of them crowding the airstrip. The Taliban has not been preventing them from flying out, the lack of planes and lack of letting them on the planes has been preventing them. People have been applying for visas for months, in public, and not getting them. Some of these people have been waiting for years. There is no universe in which any of what you just said is a valid reason for letting everything turn into a dumpster fire in the first place, and there is no way to excuse the existence of this dumpster fire by praising how well they're handling the massive dumpster fire they created.
> Immigration is entirely within the control of the executive.
No, its not; immigration control is a power Constitutionally assigned to Congress and which Congress has extensively prescribed rules on. Courts have repeatedly in recent years invalidated executive immigration actions as violation of legislative rules, both substantive and procedural.
So perhaps I should have said 'the implementation of immigration is entirely within the control of the executive'. There are extensive rules with discretionary holes large enough to admit or deny the entire population of Afghanistan.
For any single individual, the choice on whether to let them in or not is up to the executive branch. It is far more common for them to use their discretionary options to deny people entry, but this is a magical case where they are actually doing the opposite - "DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is using his humanitarian parole authority to allow at-risk Afghans without visas to enter the U.S"
https://twitter.com/camiloreports/status/1430198432434737153...
>how are you going to convince the Taliban to let them out
Easy. Don't let the country fall into the hands of the Taliban before getting people out. That would prevent negotiations with some of the worst people in the world.
And it is neither amusing or surprising to see another 'too smart for u' commentator choose cynical apathy and misinformation over the challenge of dealing with reality: this didn't have to happen.
This is the depths to which American credibility has sunk. We have to convince them because we have left ourselves no options[1]. Except that they have no interest in being "convinced", but every interest in demonstrating to friend and foe alike that the U.S. has capitulated[2].
There are a variety of experts who are saying the same thing as me. While I am not an expert it doesn't mean my view is not based on what experts say.
If you want to blame some one for not listening to experts then blame Biden. He did not listen to his experts who said Afghanistan would fall quickly. [1] If he had maybe he would have evacuated people and weapons earlier.
If anybody is playing politics it is you. This is a complete disaster. Maybe you should take a minute or two a think through the situation. Anybody who thinks not even being able to get our own people out, let alone those who aided us, is not a disaster is ignoring the facts. If this happened under Trump would you be making the same argument? I know I would.
Your "whoooosh" here is a clear violation of the guidelines.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
It's worse than that. The US taught the Afgan military how to fight the US way with US air support. Then they not only withdraw that support, but also all support for the Afgan air force, including contractors. The Afgan's were trying to do maintenance on their aircraft via Zoom calls with US contractors. There was no transition period, this is the equivalent of teaching some swim classes on the blackboard and then throwing the kids into the ocean and walking away.
There's no other way to describe this debacle except as a complete and utter fuckup by the current administration, specifically Joe Biden, because he made the call.
> It's worse than that. The US taught the Afgan military how to fight the US way with US air support.
That sounds like the US taught the Afghan military how to fight assuming the US would stay there forever. Seems like a either a shortsighted decision or a deliberately political one - "We can't possibly leave! Their military will collapse without US air support."
Either way, it's hard to describe anything about a 20 year occupation as "sudden" and having "no transition period". If the US was not able to establish a functional Afghan military after 20 years, what difference would a few weeks/months really make?
Edit:
> this is the equivalent of teaching some swim classes on the blackboard and then throwing the kids into the ocean and walking away.
If you've been teaching swimming exclusively on the blackboard for 20 years it's probably time to retire as a teacher - your students are never going to learn how to swim from you.
> Either way, it's hard to describe anything about a 20 year occupation as "sudden" and having "no transition period". If the US was not able to establish a functional Afghan military after 20 years, what difference would a few weeks/months really make?
It doesn't matter how long you're there for, it matters how gradually you hand over to the locals, and that it be done in a way that supports their success.
This was an abrupt exit after 20 years of carrying the load. Of course it's going to get dropped.
> If you've been teaching swimming exclusively on the blackboard for 20 years it's probably time to retire as a teacher - your students are never going to learn how to swim from you.
Yes, but sticking to the analogy it says more about you as a teacher than about your students. I think we can agree the US failed pretty badly here to get the Afgans into shape to defend themselves.
They shouldn't have left until they achieved that goal. They were down to just 3500 soldiers. Hell they have a bigger troop presence in Germany, and dozens of other countries around the world. The death rate is comparable too, believe it or not. The last soldier to die there was back in 2020. There was no need for this rushed disaster.
While this situation in Afghanistan was fraught with danger from the start, his reporting in the Delhi riots and UP (a state in India)'s handling of Covid really changed the dynamics of the public intercourse, and also the urgency of the government. He undertook it at personal cost as a muslim.
In this way, these photographs were as impactful as the napalm girl photo in My Lai, Vietnam.
We like to think of our country as having a free press, but we have one that is completely suborned to a political ideology, etc? Where are the similar photos of the body of the elderly stacked in NJ/NY? Is there a similar level of threat to lives of these reporters?
The lack of a properly functioning 4th estate does not bode well for our country.