I think it's probably a mistake to discuss the wording of the caption in relation to the picture itself.... "Severely wounded" could mean a lot of real things -- severe leg wounds, for example, which wouldn't be visible in this picture. Or "severely wounded" could be an exaggeration on the part of Mr. Hajj.
But either way, I don't think we can assess the picture from the caption.
"What SEVERLY wounded oersob has his head "raised up" and looking at the camera???"
"I think it's probably a mistake to discuss the wording of the caption in relation to the picture itself.... "Severely wounded" could mean a lot of real things -- severe leg wounds, for example, which wouldn't be visible in this picture. Or "severely wounded" could be an exaggeration on the part of Mr. Hajj."
I suspect, if the shot is real, the wierd angles are a result of the man fighting being on the stretcher, and being lifter over a wall - if he was a victim of the blast, then he's probably more than a little scatterbrained, and and CMT can tell you have the job is keeping people ON a stretcher and not doing further damage from thrashing around and trying to get off the stretcher.
However, it's clear what the usgae of the photo is supposed to do, make us feel sorry for the civilians, and make us hate Isreal.
I'm sorry civilians get involved, but seeing these shots does not effect my support of Isreal, what they're doing, and WHY.
As for Photoshopping, I'm a pro-level Photoshop user. I've done composites professionally where nobody could tell I was in there editing. If this was edited, it's a VERY good job, and says to me be very wary of any shots coming out of that part of teh world (I'm already cynical about our press, if you knew how much manipulation is done just for celebrity photos...)
But, i don't see any of the tell-tales - edge pixels (the pixels along a cropped or maked edge often have a different "noise", and don't quit sit well, one way to combat this is to give the final composited image a pass of grain to blend it all in. The lighting is consistent throughout, and the angles all match up reasonably. Like i said, if it was a photoshop of a different background and foreground elements, it's very good.
It's hard to say without the original, highres image, but from what i can see from the lo-res jpeg, it's probably not Photoshopped.
Staged? Good question.
A ploy? Guaranteed.