Bajur, PAKISTAN: Pakistani tribesmen stand by a unexploded ordinance at their house which was damaged in an alleged US air strike the day before in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border, 14 January 2005. Thousands of tribesmen protested against an alleged US air strike targeting Al-Qaeda's second in command that killed 18 people near the Afghan border, witnesses said. AFP PHOTO/Thir KHAN (Photo credit should read THIR KHAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Now. Getty Images says "unexploded ordinance" in the while the NYTimes says "remains of a missile" in its caption.
Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.
"Remains of a missile" and "unexploded ordinance" are entirely two different things. Now, is this unexploded ordinance that was found among the ruins or it was it exposed from the ground as it lay hidden for years but was recently uncovered as a result of a drone missile exploding near it? Now, if the unexploded ordinance was dug up or found among the ruins, does that mean that somebody tried to hide this very old unexploded ordinance where there might possibly be more in the area? Possibly use them as IEDs later on or are the Afghanis the typical pack rat picking up unexploded ordinances back from the days when Russia was hitting Afghanistan? That's a death wish trying to pick up unexploded ordinances with the fuse cap still on.
The NYTimes bought the photo from Getty Images and I'm sure if they had taken their time they would have seen the caption info in Getty Images about the image and would see the words plain as day "unexploded ordinance." The NYTimes' "professional journalism" failed to do their job. Maybe not failed but instead perhaps, without a doubt, attempted to purposely mislead readers in order to get their sympathy through false information.
Michelle Malkin and others, be sure to check out Getty Images.
UPDATE: Thomas Lifson makes an update on The American Thinker about the unexploded ordinance and makes a point about that Getty Images or the reporter who took the picture may have inadvertently shown the world that the village was keeping these things around to be used as possible IED.
Doug Hanson, our security affairs correspondent writes:
Not only did the NYT get caught in another lie, but they may have unintentionally revealed the village’s cache of IED ordnance. During the Intifada against Israel that started in September of 2000, terrorists in Gaza used unexploded artillery projectiles wired as command detonated landmines. Even the heaviest Merkava main battle tanks could be taken out with these devices. Of course, command detonated artillery projectiles are one of the preferred types of IEDs used in Iraq by enemy forces. And, in 2004, troopers from the US 1st Cavalry Division encountered an IED made with a binary Sarin nerve agent 155mm artillery chemical round.
This begs the question; did the NYT publish a photo of a villager showing off his latest acquisition to make an IED? Of course, it’s entirely possible that the round is simply part of his collection on the mantle, or is used for bartering purposes. Mr. Krulac notes that the blue color generally notes a training practice round, and it may very well be an inert projectile. But NATO markings do not apply to many other makers of 155mm ammunition including the French, who have been known to paint high explosive rounds of some of their ordnance blue.
Others speculate that the round is Russian, left over from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Hmm, what did that photo uncover about that artillery shell?
UPDATE II: NYTimes issues a correction. Read the caption. I think that was the fastest correction ever.