Printable View
BBC News
Only seen BBC news report myself who didn't show pictures as too graphic.
Murder like that goes beyond all politics & cannot be excused.
Similar event in Somalia made Clinton pull the troops out & be interesting to see what happens this time.
can't expect to stick their fingers in a fire without getting burnt. terrible to see anyone lose their life, but I find it hard to have any sympathy
in fairness Eanna, these guys were building contractors, they most likely wouldn't have been armed, and they certainly weren't being protected by troops.
i don't know the ins and outs of what provoked the attack, but the results of it were brutal.
it's clear at this stage that in their planning for quickly winning the 'war', the US administration completely missed planning for the peace, and for the slow burning guerilla tactics that (inevitably?) followed. I understand where you're coming form when you talk about the US getting their fingers burned, but i can't help having sympathy for these guys.
True. Still even if they troops no one deserves the description of their death & aftermath.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Will be a hard sell for the Bush Administration to tell voters Iraq all going to plan now.
Not really. The American media, for the most part are compliant with the White House line that everything is going well, democracy has taken root, blah, blah blahQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
Only very serious injuries and deaths are reported, nothing about the nightly attacks on American bases etc. Once they hand over to some sort of Iraqi grouping in June, they can continue to peddle the lie. It's only the East and West coasts that are questioning Fox news and all that sh*te. The vast majority of middle America are behind "our Boys".
Why would you want to see such images?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
[QUOTE=Conor74]I have no interest in such images.
But being opposed to censorship by the government is a totally different argument.
[QUOTE]
Is publication of those images banned? I thought it was just a decision not to show people dying in such a horrible manner, as it's not necessary.
I agree with the general tone that the media do give a very biased view of the Iraqi war. Fox News is pretty bad. However, the British media is almost as bad.
I think part of the reason that the media don't present an unbiased version of any war is the military/government generate an awful lot of data/press releases/interviews/etc and it's just cheap and easy for the press to copy this stuff into their daily broadcasts/news columns. Didn't Gnome Chomsky write a series of books about this?
I doubt if newspapers have sufficient resources to generate their own news these days. Too busy diverting resources into celebrity watching. As we move away from real news coverage and deeper into the realm of The Sun/Hello/big brother, then I would expect this trend to continue. Most people seem to care more about the antics of Jordan in the Jungle than they care about war in the Middle East.
And just to play Devil's advocate, historically, doesn't the media always act as a propoganda tool for the government in most countries during wartime?
There is no government censorship of the images from the WTC. I've seen plenty of footage and pictures of people jumping to their deaths that day, I don't want to see them anymore. As Liamon pointed out, it is a decision by the news media not to show people dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
Sometimes pictures are just too graphic to be shown on Prime Time tv.
Do you have to see somehting to believe it? (Mr Gibson clearly thinks so, but that belongson another topic)
The American public don't want to see gore if there are US citizens involved, so the networks comply. Pictures of Britney are much more popular, to the detriment of real news. :(
The link Conor posted is strange. Why does the writer feel the need to see pictures in relation to Sept 11 memorials. When looking back at Armstice Day, do you expect to see pictures on UK/German TV of torn bodies at the Somme? I don't think anyone shows such images when remembering tragic national events.
As a matter of fact, would such pics not merely add "fuel" to the hatred felt by Americans towards Muslims and further promote the Bush war against Iraq?
Some fairly gruesome, and disgusting pictures were shown on Prime Time last night followed by quite an interesting piece from an Iraqi lawyer. If you could ignore Miriam O'Callaghan's indignation and petulance, what he had to say, while unpalatable to Miriam, (and I suspect, to most of us), is probably the crux of the whole issue.
He said the images and savagery were apparant for all to see, and impossible for us in the West to understand. However, when you have watched your children, family, neighbours, and countrymen/women being torn to pieces, burned and mutilated by cluster bombs, bunker busters, massively powerful explosives, armour piercing bullets and shells, and the kill first, ask questions later attitude of an invading force, you don't really see too much wrong with an incident such as this.
So we in the West can only see the savagery of the Iraqis, (and from a distance), the Iraqis, (and others), live daily in the reality with the savagery resulting from the effectiveness of modern armaments.
And before I'm attacked, I'm simply pointing out that there are at least 2 sides to every story.
Exactly the sentiments of Iraqis, I'd say, in reply to the mutilation and murder of their relatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by liam88
So we (the West) say, shoot them all, they are animals.
Iraqis say, shoot them all, they are animals.
So we shoot them.
They shoot us.
We shoot some more.
They shoot some more.
They are animals.
We are animals.
We shoot.
They shoot.
Getting repetative, isn't it?
(btw, it now seems the people who were killed were "security consultants", otherwise known as mercenaries. Doesn't excuse killing them though)
Sorry-was angry. Get your point.
the building contractors etc who are in Iraq are just as bad. They are vultures who are going over to make money on the back of an illegal war. They are just as much an occupying force as any soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
Would you say the same thing if were irish guys working for an American contractor as i'd guess good chance some irish lads over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
What if some irish engineers or nurses were bombed in Saudi Arabia? Would it be their own fault for propping up the Saudi Royalty regime?
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Or they are there to build schools, hospitials and mosques for the people and to attempt to put right what went on during the illegal war.
This isn't quite the same thing as the Carpetbaggers after the American civil war, Haliburton (Dick Cheney's old employers btw) might well be vultures who are delighted that the 'war' went ahead so that they could get their hands on the 70billion rebuilding fund, but that doesn't make their unarmed employees 'legitimate targets' (and i hate the phrase btw).Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
answer me this then. who in their right mind would go to Iraq right now if they were an american (or from any western country actually) and travel around unarmed. I'm not defending the killing of anyone, but the iraqi people have avery justifiable sense of anger and I can't see how any sane individual would willingly go there right now! And while I don't agree with the phrase legitimate targets, I do think some targets are more legitimate than others. And anyone working for Haliburton is very far from the moral high ground giving the way they are behaving right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiktok
not bloody likely. and even if they were, they must have known they were taking their life in their hand. killing is never right, but its more than understandable in this instanceQuote:
Originally Posted by SÓC