Pictures of a twenty-seven year old atrocity in Iran are infinitely more important than pictures of Americans torturing/killing Iraqis in the present to centrists and the WSJ, the extremist newspaper of American conservatism.

The only way a photographer could get this picture was if he was actually part of the firing squad, so Mr. Razmi obviously must be charged with war crimes immediately.

It's an amazing photo. I do wonder why the WSJ choose to run that story now, though. Lines like, "Governed by the Shah, the nation was at peace" raise suspicion.

Saddam Hussein killed his Kurds in 1982, and stories long forgotten about "gassing his own people" started popping up during the selling of the Iraq war. This photo occurred in 1979 - if you read the article, there doesn't appear to be any news "hook" explaining its appearance now.

And as for the Kurds, when does the invasion of Turkey begin, with its tens of thousands of dead Kurds? We have a base already in country, should be a turnkey operation.

Evil Commie Dictator Little Miss Muffet reportedly ATE Kurds.

When do we get to invade HER?

That picture is old hat, the shah also had a secret police and human rights abuses.

But lets talk about today and what our government does, lets look at the case of Padilla and his treatment in military prison.

Maybe the point is to distract from Padilla.

Is the WSJ article author, Joshua Prager, related to Dennis Prager?

If any photographer in Iraq were to capture a similar moment on film, he or she would probably (a) win a Pulitzer and (b) end the war almost overnight.

If any photographer in Iraq were to capture a similar moment on film, he or she would probably (a) win a Pulitzer and (b) end the war almost overnight.
Posted by: Pocket Rocket on December 4, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Bah.

I watched a YouTube video of a news reporter's cameraman taking a large-caliber round in the chest, while a US helicopter gunship merrily fired into a crowd of civilians because there was "insurgent activity nearby" - this was last year. Listening to this guy crying out to his coworker as he bled to death was pretty heart rending.

But the war goes on.

hostile: 1. have you actually taken the time to read the front page of the wall street journal? 2. what the hell are you talking about? should we not write, talk, think about anything other than the war in iraq?

mudwall jackson, the WSJ most likely ran this article to create FUD and to incite its readers against Iran for possible US invasion. The incident happened 27 years ago during a societal upheavel called a revolution and has no relevance to today's current events.

Good God. I remember seeing this picture in the S.F. Chronicle so many years ago. I must have starred at it for hours. Here we are again. And again. And again.

Ettela'at showed real guts in publishing that photo. They knew they risked being imprisoned and even tortured or killed. In the end their paper was confiscated. But they published the photo anyway. Meanwhile, the US media sucks up to the Bush administration and helped mislead us into war, because they were afraid that if they didn't, they wouldn't be invited to the right parties. The contrast could not be greater.

Of course, if evidence had been presented at these prisoners' trials, the photographs would reveal no horror, at all.

There was a story about this photographer and he's been revealed on npr this past weekend.

Whatever agenda the WSJ may or may not have in running this story, it is a reminder of the often forgotten, but critical role played by photo journalists and cameramen/women. Most of the "journalists" that we the public are familiar with are blowhard pundits and anchormen with 6 and 7-figure contracts who sit in studios in New York and Washington, or in Iraq, correspondents reporting from the relative safety of some place like the Green Zone or wherever they can find a sexy backdrop. Meanwhile, local stringers, photographers and cameramen/women HAVE to be on the scene to record the story, often putting themselves in danger in the process, and 99 times out of a hundred they do it while getting zero or minimal credit or acknowledgement. What is also sad, is that many of the most powerful images - those that truly convey the horror and violence of war - never see the light of day because of censorship and a fear of offending powerful interests and the public.

The incident happened 27 years ago during a societal upheavel called a revolution and has no relevance to today's current events.

Unless, of course, the same people are in charge of Iran now, and are behaving in much the same way. But it's really just an interesting story about a famous photo. If the WSJ really wanted to terrify people with stories of the insane Ayatollah and his merry band of murderering mullahs, there are many better examples to pick from. Like the execution of young women who refused to convert from Baha'i to Islam.

Disclaimer: no, I really don't think we should invade or bomb Iran either, I never voted for Bush, and there are some members of the US military who should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

The WSJ is just lining up for the new hate Iran bandwagon that is going to roll us as soon as the neocons are bored with the mess they made in Iraq.

sorry hostile, while the wsj editorial board certainly has its shares of idiots and war mongers, there's no better example of the separation of news gatherers from opinion people than the journal. if you read the paper, it's clear. a conspiracy to drag us into another war? i don't think so. an interesting story, yeah.

What strikes me about the picture is that we are actively supporting the Shiites in Iraq who are doing comparable acts every day.

The fact the the Sunnis are doing the same does not matter. The fact that Saddam did the same does not matter. Now, we are helping the Shiites do it. We are playing God as enablers. And we don't have the guts to stop ourselves by withdrawing.

Of course, the Wall Street Journal editorial page never publishes photos of American GIs raping Iraqi women or innocent Iraqis being tortured at Abu Ghraib by CIA and mercenaries hired by the U.S. It doesn’t sell too well with their conservative readership, who believe the American military is doing God’s work.

This is nothing more than agitprop from American fascists trying to drum up support for more military aggression against a Muslim nation.

Thanks, Kevin, for the link to this great story.

Those pictures rend the soul. They attest to the evil that comes from one person having total power over another, where hate simlutaneously extinguishes the humanity of another and one's self.

Disclaimer for partisans:
How will my heart survive the Pulitzer that is awarded to the reporter who captures the power drill torture committed regularly in Iraq?

- mere mortal

Gotta hand it to whoever is marketing war with Iran.

What an imaginitive way to remind the world of atrocities committed by the guys running Iran. They really are pretty good.

Funny how they are happy to print a photo of an actual execution, a man about to die from 26 years ago, but most of the stuff happening today is a bit too squeamish for them. Do we have to wait 26 years for Iraq to be covered properly?

Nice websites you cite Conservative Deflator -- somehow I don't think that your credibility is all that great, you smegma-sniffing, santorum-licking douche. The following was on the front page of the site showing the purported rapes:

(Please Note: Many of the photographs showing the rape of Iraqi women and the sodomization of Iraqi POW's at the Abu Ghraib prison are now at USA pornographic websites pointing to the possibility of collusion between the depraved US soldiers in the pictures and US based Jewish pornographers. Many of these photographs were also freely disseminated to US occupation forces, perhaps to inflame their nefarious desires and to motivate them to strike out against the Iraqi populace in these perverse ways.)

pointing to the possibility of collusion between the depraved US soldiers in the pictures and US based Jewish pornographers.

Your uncle Norman highly doubts there is such a thing as a "Jewish Pornographer."

Although Woody Allen did put Scarlett Johanson in a film recently.

Either way, son--what is your beef? You seem articulate. This is what you do with your time? You wander about, spouting nonsense and trying to use the word "smegma" in discussions? Goodness gracious, do you even know what that word is?

I believe you made it up.

I'm with Joel. This is a great story, and a testament to the power of a single image to challenge tyranny and repression.

There's really no need to bring up Iraq in all of this. Just appreciate the picture for what it is, and be glad that there are always people willing to take these pictures and show them to the world.

slightlybad, I am not gleet to meet you.