Freedom of the Press. Unless it hurts our poll numbers.Follow

What? What the hell does that have to do with anyhting, is there a point in my future?


Yes, they want to...objectively report the facts. BASTARDS!


Yeah, I don't want to confuse you or anything, as you're clearly using words you don't fully comprehend, BUT, a government trying to censor the images that get reported during a war is propaganda. Reporting the images isn't. It's just reporting.


No, it's cowards that don't want people to see them because they are afraid (key word there, relates to the cowardice) that people won't have the stomach for war if they're reminded of the human costs.

Nothing could be more cowardly than sending other people's children to die and then not acknowledging that they do.

Nothing.

No one's been paid for any of thepictures in question. Most of them were taken by the USAF and obtained through the freedom of information act.

The bulk of the photos were taken by the USAF and were released through the Freedom of Information Act (after a fight) and placed, for free viewing, on a website. The ones in the Seattle paper were taken by a civilian employee who agreed to let the paper print them without compensation. No one has directly profited from any of the photos.

Edit: Removed link because it was to the wrong article and the lame computer I'm on won't display the PDF of the real page.

Edited, Fri Apr 23 21:54:41 2004 by Jophiel

I still stand to believe that it's propoganda. I think people are too easily programmed these days. If someone has their arm blown off it's all over the place. Sadly the people with the best PR campaigns are against the war in Iraq. When I see people dancing in the streets dragging bodies and hanging them on bridges the only thing Im looking for is the F-18 coming to drop bombs on them but it never happens..... damn! Now thats a PR campaign =)

You're still wrong, but ok.


Yeah, it's really not. The non death US casualties in Iraq (which are in the five digits by the way) are almost never mentioned. Most people if asked how many here have been guess under 1000.


F-15 or A-10 more likely. The USAF wouldn't let some silly two engined Navy plane do something that important. Navy pilots get confused if they can't see the ocean.

To be fair that would preclude him posting at all, which while probably a relief most of the time would leave the board free of a village idiot. We'd have to audition new ones I imagine.

The Thorazine suddenly wear off?


Well, welcome to the land of OOT, where mob mentalities don't prevent people from expressing their oppinions.


You know, this pre-amble is fascinating, but is there some reason you decided to post here?


No ****. This is your contribution? "both sides allways have an agenda"? That's it?


Yeah, that one sentance was enough to express your point quite efectively.


Facts can't be slanted, by definition. They can be presented in difering manners, but then it's the presentations that are slanted, not the facts.


Yada yada yada, We get it, you think there's an equal likelyhood that anything is presented with bias. If someone asked you if the world was round you'd answer "oppinions vary, there's evidence on both sides"

You're ******* useless in a debate because you can't take a position.

Move on.


Sure, but it's slightly harder to have all the facts when people are ACTIVELY PREVENTING YOU FROM HAVING ACCESS TO THEM.


Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're the only one who's come to thie enlightened conclusion that there's no objectivity in the world. You and Socrates three thousand years ago.

Congradulations, you've figured out a concept that was known to man before the flush toiltet, you're a genius.



Your post said nothing.

What was the point of it?

The only point was that facts can be slanted by presentation(Alright, PRESENTATIONS are slanted). By including some facts and ignoring others... I can easily paint a picture that isn't the truth. By saying "Copernicus claims the world to be round, not flat. This view was immediately with photographic evidence showing a flat horizon. Copernicus gave no comment to this, except some vague reference to optical illusion." I can give the view he's a nut, and the world is flat. The example may be flawed simply due to the ingrained idea of how the Earth is round... a more grayed area may be better to visualize.

Facts are indeed being kept from you by both the white house and by newspapers. I refuse to take a position because I feel both sides have more then adequate representation here. My only point was some posters refuse to acknowledge this. Some say "My side is telling the truth".

I'm not claiming to be a genius and to have come up with some idea that isn't common sense. Just I find too many people ignore this because of their own biast. These photographs are "fact", but fact of what, exactly? That boxes with flags on them exist? As many have said, we've seen no bodies... I don't really want to argue about the photographs, since they're obviously true.. it's just death tolls in the hundreds seem a lot more factual to me then a photograph with not nearly a tenth of the real numbers.

With that said... you have to consider why were the photos included? What purpose did they serve? Were they meant to indicate less loss in our forces? Obviously not. It's more likely they were shown to show men and women treated like supplies being stock piled. Though that view may be incorrect as well.

Then there's the commercials... mostly the military(National Guard) commercials are what I'll touch on. Yes, they're slanted. They make the military life seem easier then it is. They want you to join. Yet, if what I'm saying is so damned obvious and I'm adding nothing to anyone's thoughts... then why are so many fooled by such an obvious ploy? Why do people not examine the source and why they're saying what they are? It's a fact that you get money for college. It's a fact you only serve one weekend a month, two weeks a year. But it's also a fact that you can be activated and will have to quit school andnot even gain the benefits of being full active duty. It's the information they don't tell that gets you.

This issue is no different. What I don't know, aside from quantum physics and the exact value of pi, is what facts this article is hiding. Namely, who this woman is, what she believes in, what her motivations were, etc... No one can know everything, but it'd be nice if everyone could try and take information in with the proper manner.

Anyway, last thing, I don't believe it's "mob mentality" that rules other forums... mostly it's common decency. Calling people idiots accomplishes nothing. If you think someone is wrong, why must you flat out say it when your argument should be enough to prove your point? I just don't see the sense in it. Insulting people doesn't help change their minds, and if that's not your intention why do you argue points at all?

So.. I'll just leave it at that. Enjoy picking it apart.

I didn't say the people in Afghanistan are worth less than the people in Iraq. Please show me where I claimed that.

Human life has intrinsic value simply because it's human life. If you believe Afghani's lives are worth more or less than Iraqi's lives then be happy you live in a country where your opinion won't get you killed for thinking that. I'm also happy that I live in a country where I can believe lives of innocent people from both countries are equally valuable.


Was in response to:

I'm asking what criteria Smash would like to use in determining what, if any country we should or should not invade.

The past can't be changed but we can do things differently in the present and future. Which of these five things would the war haters like to see happen today, tomorrow, so on and so forth? The only things I can come up with are:
1. Clear out of all countries.
2. Go back to Afghanistan and fight the oppressors while keeping our forces in Iraq.
3. Clear out of Iraq and go fight only in Afghanistan.
4. Remain in Iraq while ignoring Afghanistan.
5. Same thing(s) for other countries (ie. Lybia, North Korea, etc.)



Go ask G.W. and his staff. http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ should get you started. Asking anybody to interpret somebody else's motives is absurd. Ask somebody a question they can answer.


Do you think it might also be so the leaders of all the people fighting us in Iraq don't get a hold of the pictures to show their troops? Is it possible that if somebody thinks they're making a difference that they'll give just a little bit more effort?
Terrorist cell leader: Hey guys, come and look at this picture. We're really hurting those American pigs, see all the soliders we're killing?
Terrorist brainwashee: Wow boss, that's great. We're really going to win this war aren't we?
Terrorist group: *shouting* We're going to win this, we're going to win this.

Perception and morale can do amazing things to people. If somebody is convinced they're going to loose regardless of the odds then that person (or those people) will find a way to make it happen. If somebody is convinced they're going to win then (regardless if they actually can or not) they'll give a little extra effort.


And Clinton never lied either......




Hopefully I'm interpreting the sentence in bold incorrectly here, please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that as long as a newspsper indirectly gains (ie. profits (through selling more copies of that newspaper, more subscriptions and hence more advertising)) from pictures of fallen hero's that it's ok? However if Bush and Company use images of one of the worst tragedy's to hit this nation in the last 100 years that it's wrong? Two groups advanced their agenda's through images of death however one is ok and the other is bad? Ummmmm......

Mostly it's "Lord of the Flies" but all of you bastards are Piggy.

I'm happy that I live in a country where your and my beliefes are utterly meaningless.



1. There is a compelling and urgent need to utilize military force on the ground to protect US intrests.

2. All diplomatic options have been exhausted in an attempt to mitigate the urgent threat to US intrests.

It's not complicated.


No one's a war hater, you ******* simpleton. If the US invaded Canada and started making the Canadians cut their genitals off and sew them into the rectums of their children and I said I thought that was a bad idea does that make me a "war hater"?

All wars are not equal, there, Sun Tzu.


Assanine to even present that as an option anyone's advocating. Not worth reponding to.


Can't be done unless you're going to Draft troops. Let me know if you think that's a keen idea.


No one.
Is.
Advocating.
Pulling.
Out.
Of.
Iraq.
You limp ****** fool.


This wouldn't be signifigantly diffrent than our current policy.


What?


No, it's NOT absurd to ask someone to justify why they SENT PEOPLE TO DIE. Do you get that?

People are dead, directly because of this decision.

They're not coming back. They didn't go to heaven. They're just ******* Theyre familes get a few thousand dollars a year and folded up flag. Tens of thousands of lives have been ruined by this war here in the US. Tens of thousands.

It's not ******* ABSURD to ask for a REASON they had to die.

If you can't answer the question of why they had to die and why thousands had to be disabled for life, then you should consider carefully why you support this war blindly.

Because, were I to find myslef in a position of blindly supporting somehting I had no rationale for that lead to people dying I'd reconsider.

That's just me, though, I have this funny thing called INTERGITY. The current administration isn't too familiar with it.


No, I don't think it might be that considering Al Jezera shows US troops shooting children every fifteen minutes. They hav video of US corpses being TORN APART by angry mobs.

What possible good would respectful flag drapped coffins do them?



No, it's impossible.

Hey guys, I know I showed you the pictures of dead americans and downed helicopters and that Blackhawk Down is our favorite movie because of all the dead Americans, but come look at these boxes with flags on them.

Who's pumped up now!

Get a ******* clue.


No, there's no "extra effort" either required by people wiling to blow themselves up or provided by tame pictures of flag draped coffins when you have hours of video of American corpses and American's committing war crimes.

None.

You're an idiot for even attempting to justify this with that elaborate fantasy.


CLINTON is not involved in geopolitics in any way shape or form.

This is as good as Godwins in any argument concerning the policies of Republicans today. If the best thing you can do is cry "Clinton was no better!" you lose the argument.

Hence, you lose.

You know what? Nixon was the only President to resign for lying because he would likely have gone to jail. Let's just refrence him in any debate about a Democratic issue.

Kerry flip floped about somethihg? Yeah, yeah, well NIXON resigned in disgrace!!

See how moronic that is? That's what you're doing with Clinton.


[quote]
Hopefully I'm interpreting the sentence in bold incorrectly here, please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that as long as a newspsper indirectly gains (ie. profits (through selling more copies of that newspaper, more subscriptions and hence more advertising)) from pictures of fallen hero's that it's ok?
[/quote]
Show me the statistic that they sold more papers with the pictures than they did with other pictures.

What if they lose money?

I guess that means they used them of dignity and charity.

Boy, those people who published the pictures are Saints!

Pick an arugment that makes sense, you're wasting everyone's time here.

[quote]
However if Bush and Company use images of one of the worst tragedy's to hit this nation in the last 100 years that it's wrong? Two groups advanced their agenda's through images of death however one is ok and the other is bad? Ummmmm......
[/quote]
The PAPER HAS NO ******* AGENDA.

BUSH ran a CAMPAIGN add. There's no comparison. It's not even the same ballpark. It's not the same sport. It's comparing Apples and Elephant Penises.

I can't believe you're are this amazingly desperate to somehow hammer the square peg of your belief system into the round hole of reality.

Seek profesional help, you're delusional, freind.

/the throbbing vein-- in my forehead, Skeeter, my forehead --subsides and the migraine passes

Whew. Thank you, Rylek.

Totem

When the americans invade canada we all know it will be for our water, the genitalia thing will just be the smoke screen.