# Support your troops. Just make sure you know who they are....



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2006)

American members and visitors are encouraged to contact the DNC about their page purporting to support thier troops:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006073.htm
http://www.democrats.org/a/communities/veterans_and_military_families/ (note, they might pull and hide this before they are outed by too many people)

Look carefully at the picture and you will see the same team which photoshopped those pictures in Lebanon have come to apply their skills in America! The troop they are supporting is a member of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces!


----------



## Trinity (8 Oct 2006)

Why????

Seriously, why?

Out of all the pictures available they used a Canadian pic?

And they knew it was Canadian otherwise they wouldn't have photo shopped
this capbadge and one collar dog.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2006)

Possible scenario:

Political staffer to web flunkie - "find me a photo of a soldier, any soldier, to put on the front page of our vets and families page"

Is it just me, or is the Photoshopped beret black?  Armoured dude?  Maybe a super-secret armoured unit, where if they wore their cap badge, we'd have to be killed?


----------



## nova_flush (8 Oct 2006)

Can someone explain this to me .. im not sure I get it. whats with the Lebanon thing?


----------



## nova_flush (8 Oct 2006)

well thas the part I dont get :

the same team which photoshopped those pictures in Lebanon have come to apply their skills in America!
what is that bout?


----------



## m410 (8 Oct 2006)

More at this LGF thread, including the original photo.  Unfortunately it appears that this RCR soldier is in fact short one collar dog!


----------



## Krisz (8 Oct 2006)

Well, this appears to be quite a fiasco on the top, but looking into a little deeper, a couple things caught my eye, such as this quote.



			
				Florida Cracker said:
			
		

> Florida Cracker makes a similar observation:
> 
> LGF is claiming a Democratic photoshop on the cap insignia, but iStock’s photo is without it. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence (as I need to keep telling my own self). They went for a free iStock photo of a soldier, and had no clue what an American one looked like.



Hmm. Looks like simple ineptitude on the Democratics' part, here. Annoying that nobody bothered to double-check, though, and realize, "Hey, wait. This isn't an American soldier. Whoops, better fix that." What I want to know, though, is why iStock would be keeping a photoshopped photo of a Canadian soldier lying around? I'm sure there's a valid, simplistic reason for it... anyone have any thoughts on that? It's a bit late at night and my head's not functioning as well as it perhaps could.

Cheers,
Krisz


----------



## old medic (8 Oct 2006)

nova_flush said:
			
		

> well thas the part I dont get :
> 
> the same team which photoshopped those pictures in Lebanon have come to apply their skills in America!
> what is that bout?



It is a reference to the altered photos that Reuters wired out on August 6th 2006. 
http://www.popphoto.com/photographynewswire/2772/reuters-pulls-doctored-photo.html


----------



## ERIK2RCR (8 Oct 2006)

Maybe it's just me, but isn't his one collar dog wrong for being a Royal?


----------



## pronto (8 Oct 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with Lebanon.  Get with the program.



BBJ: he didnt get the Lebanon reference on the first post. Remember the thread last month on how lebanese photoshop experts "added in" some extra destruction to show the world how nasty Israel was? He probably didn't see/remember it


----------



## Spring_bok (8 Oct 2006)

Does this guy look familliar?  I taught this guy AVGP many years ago.  Great Guy, lots of laughs.  Got out a few years back.  I think he went back to Trinidad.


----------



## rmacqueen (8 Oct 2006)

Krisz said:
			
		

> What I want to know, though, is why iStock would be keeping a photoshopped photo of a Canadian soldier lying around? I'm sure there's a valid, simplistic reason for it... anyone have any thoughts on that? It's a bit late at night and my head's not functioning as well as it perhaps could.



iStock is a service that allows amateur photographers to upload photo's for use by other people.  When they are used a fee is paid to the owner of the photo.  One of the criteria, however, is that there not be any identifying signs, etc without written permission, ie. Nike, RBC or, in this case, RCR.  So, whoever took this pic probably photoshopped the cap badge out so that iStock would accept it.  A bit of a side note though, the person in the pic would also have had to sign a release to allow their pic to be uploaded or iStock would not accept it.  It would be interesting to know whether he did, or the photographer faked the release, given the attention this is suddenly getting.  I am not sure I would want my pic posted all over the internet when I was uncaring/dumb enough to go on parade missing a collar dog.  I know if I had gone on parade like that I would be having a conversation with the SSM shortly after and I imagine there are some senior Royals currently trying to figure out who this guy is.


----------



## bilton090 (8 Oct 2006)

WTF is this peace of S--- ! doing there ?
      LOOKS good  !
                            What a photo Op !


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2006)

Spring_Bok - I thought I wasn't hallucinating when I thought I saw a black beret in the photo in question...

Any idea where that shot could have been taken?  The other one on Michelle Malikin's blog looks Toronto-esque, but it could be any major city with a Remembrance Day parade.


----------



## josh (8 Oct 2006)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> Does this guy look familliar?  I taught this guy AVGP many years ago.  Great Guy, lots of laughs.  Got out a few years back.  I think he went back to Trinidad.



Yeah, Salazin or Salazar, something like that?  Think there were a couple of brothers.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2006)

GUNNER2RCR said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but isn't his one collar dog wrong for being a Royal?



That one collar dog doesn't look quite right to me either.  Some of you must be colour blind in thinking that that is a Black Beret.  However, what I am wondering about the most, is how and why he is wearing the French Commando badge under his medals?


----------



## josh (8 Oct 2006)

Maybe the picture was taken in Germany when we were allowed to wear it on our uniforms - though my badge looks a little different from his.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2006)

Perhaps it was in Germany.....but why the SSM ribbons behind the badge?

Actually if you look at his Command Badge and Medals, we had long been out of Germany in order for him to be wearing them.


----------



## Pearson (8 Oct 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> I imagine there are some senior Royals currently trying to figure out who this guy is.





			
				bilton090 said:
			
		

> WTF is this peace of S--- ! doing there ?



Sounds like some one knows.


----------



## josh (8 Oct 2006)

Yeah,

The French Commando badge we were allowed to wear was attached to the button on the left side of the tunic.  Mine's in the basement somewhere.


----------



## Blakey (8 Oct 2006)

It has been a while but, any of you guys with 3 RCR around the 87 to 92 time frame re member a guy named "_Slick_" (a nickname).
This guybkind of looks like him.


----------



## josh (8 Oct 2006)

That's the guy - Sallick.


----------



## rmacqueen (8 Oct 2006)

Something else to help date the photo is the poppy.  First, what year did they change from green to black centre and second, when did they move it from the beret to the collar?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Oct 2006)

He's wearing a Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal...that's a subtle hint. ;D

I can't for the life of me figure out why the SSM ribbon behind the Commando Badge...  Any ideas?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2006)

Regardless of the provinence of the picture, how is it that after five years of war and literally millions of pictures of American servicemembers in action being taken and displayed by the media, blogs and web sites, the DNC has no clue as to what an American soldier looks like?

Imagine if you pulled up the Liberal or NDP website and a (say) British Royal Marine or Israeli Paratrooper was depicted as one of us with his unit identifiers Photoshopped out? First of all, would you believe that a picuture which is _clearly_ Photoshopped is there by accident? Would you be inclined to give any credibility to an orgqanization which does not take the time and effort to post one correct photograph of a very visible and well known subject matter?

It isn't even that difficult. The Pentagon is just down the road from DNC HQ, or they could send a photographer to Arlington. Lots of military installations are a short drive from Washington DC, so I can 't think of any reason whatsoever that the DNC could not have a valid photograph on thier web page.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Oct 2006)

LGF is all over this. Its sad really that our dem's do stupid stuff like this. Proof again that they cant be trusted.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22868_Democratic_Party_Fauxtoshops_Veteran&only


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Oct 2006)

I suspect, as someone else has said, that this is merely ignorance and a lack of proofreading on the part of the contractor who made up the website.  Google search for a free stock photo of a generic soldier et voila...

Before we get too sanctimonious, there was a recruiting ad here in Edmonton about a month ago in one of those community guide-type publications (I can't remember which).  It featured naval types on a bridge of a ship and seemed innocent enough until one realized that the photo was of _Royal Navy_ sailors, rather than Canadians.  And this was in an official CFRC ad, Government of Canada logo and all.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Oct 2006)

I can understand the confusion.  Here is Reuters photo listed as being from the Toronto Remberance Day parade from 2004.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Oct 2006)

No body really needs me to say I'm kidding, do they?   ^-^


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Oct 2006)

Photo was taken Remembrance Day 2005.


----------



## Big Red (8 Oct 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I can understand the confusion.  Here is Reuters photo listed as being from the Toronto Remberance Day parade from 2004.



Someone just came to my room to figure out what I was laughing my ass off about...


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Oct 2006)

Also being discussed here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/07/fauxtography-dnc-caught-redhanded-edition/



> Fauxtography: DNC-caught-redhanded edition
> Update: DNC innocent!


----------



## Blakey (8 Oct 2006)

Well, the photographer speaks.


> *OK. I received word back from the photographer. Here is his explanation:*
> _Hi,
> 
> Some of you asked me about the photo in question. I am the one who took these pictures. So to clarify some things:
> ...


From http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/07/fauxtography-dnc-caught-redhanded-edition/


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2006)

As of 1454 EDT, the site has changed the photo to a flag:

http://www.democrats.org/a/communities/veterans_and_military_families/

Good digging PB&J


----------



## rmacqueen (8 Oct 2006)

Interesting that the photographer does not mention getting the soldier to sign a release, without which it is illegal to sell his image.


----------



## Blakey (8 Oct 2006)

Other than blogs, has this made the MSM yet?
 It's probably a non issue here in Canada but, I can see the media pouncing on this in the states.


----------



## m410 (9 Oct 2006)

PB&J said:
			
		

> Other than blogs, has this made the MSM yet?
> It's probably a non issue here in Canada but, I can see the media pouncing on this in the states.


Except its the Democrats, during an election.  This will be buried while the MSM roots through Republican garbage.


----------

