Whose side is the NY Times taking anyway?
There are many interesting questions to be raised here, including - was the photographer able to gain the trust of terrorists? But then if not, why didn't he do something to help the army deal with the bastard(s)? And shouldn't even press photogs be armed for self-defense? What next, will the NYT be sending press photogs to Europe to take pictures of gang rapists on a rampage yet not do anything to help the victims?
Silva's also been putting his pictures on display in this online compilation (via Michelle Malkin). Seeing that he's an "award-winning" photog, I'd say there may be grounds on which to revoke them, if the award ceremonies weren't already dominated by other moonbats.
Yes, this does raise important questions, including if the MSM and terrorists have any kind of a partnership with each other. Which would be one more reason to prosecute the NYT.
Until then, if you've got a subscription, do yourself a favor and cancel it. Do not register for full use of their website either. And don't visit their site either, if you can help it.
Update: here's Michelle's Vent on Hot Air.
Others on the subject include Protein Wisdom, Power Line, Real Clear Politics, Patterico, Moonbattery, The Bullwinkle Blog, Right Voices, Hennessey's View, The Anchoress, Infinite Monkeys, Guidons, Fullosseous Flap, Granite Grok, Conservative Cat, Texas Rainmaker, Wide Awake Cafe, Political Party Poop, Paxalles, Max Conservative, 7.62mm Justice, Deep Keel, Conservative Blog Therapy.
Update: also, from the ultra-establishment Haaretz newspaper, we get a whiny article asking us to sympathise with the notion that the Arab population of east Jerusalem would really be "oppressed" by becoming "cut off" from the rest of the Judean area (which this paper, unsurprisingly, would rather refer to by its politiczed name, the "west bank"):
About two months ago, Israelis and Palestinians were shocked to read the news item that said that starting in July, when the separation wall is completed in the area of Qalandiya, East Jerusalemites will have to ask for permits to go to Ramallah. After the initial shock, there were Israelis who began to doubt the veracity of the report. Palestinians, scared of course, were heard to say that "meanwhile, those are only rumors."What they don't say here of course is that this is done not just in order to maintain security, but also in order to protect the lives of east Jerusalem's Arab residents as well: there have been attempts by the PLO to kidnap various residents of Jerusalem in order to try and extort them, force them to carry out orders for all sorts of ludicrious deeds for them, and worse. And since when exactly were Israelis "shocked" about this?
The facts: Two months ago, soldiers indeed prevented East Jerusalemites in their cars from entering Ramallah through the Qalandiya checkpoint, based on an order signed by the major general of the Central Command that prohibits Israelis from entering Palestinian Authority areas. But that phenomenon has ceased.
If anything, this is but one example of how this particular newspaper is much more concerned about what Israel does than about what the PLO, in its supposed attempts to maintain security, does. Why is it so important to them that the Arab residents be able to go everywhere, but not Israelis? And why doesn't the PLO's violations of the rights of Arab citizens matter to them any more than they do for Israelis?