"The pictures are to graphic to show you."

[MaiLuk]

On CNN and then again on another big US news channel - MSNBC.

 

A video shows a group of marines going into a building where there are three or four seriously wounded insurgents and two dead insurgents. One of the marines yells something to the effect of "that guy is not dead, he's faking that he's dead." Another says "Yeah, he's breathing."

 

The voice over says that marines have recently been encountering booby trapped bodies, and that this particular marine suffered a gunshot wound to the face the day before. The voice over says that the marine then fired into the head of the insurgent, "but the picture is too graphic to show you". So they stopped the video tape. Same thing on both news channels. They keep talking about the marine who shot the guy on tape but "you can't see it."

 

WTF! In the battle for fallujah marines have killed hundreds of insurgents, but the american public cannot see even one insurgent getting shot. Because killing an insurgent is so horribly reprehensible that the public should not be allowed to watch? Somehow we are dealing with a strange irony here.

 

I noticed that the killing and iraq dead bodies are simply not shown on TV in the US. No exceptions (except for some bodies occassionally shown at a distance). The "self imposed" censorship is more disconcerting than gov't censorship. Its not a real war for americans at home.

 

Are you Brits and Euro guys also fed a watered down and filtered version of what goes on in iraq? Are the thai news stations showing any graphic footage? Please tell me what the fighting is like since I'm american and have no clue.

[Guest]

>>>Please tell me what the fighting is like since I'm american and have no clue. <<<

 

 

just let your imagination run.

the fighting is ugly, nasty, and leaves horrifically mutilated injured, mentally and physically, and corpses on both sides.

showing those things openly will only result in people doubting some of their "patriotism" and simplistic "hero" cults, and the basic "righteousness" in this and any other war.

 

personally, i don't wanna see it. because i have seen too much of it in real life. but i believe people *HAVE* to see the whole reality of it, have to be given the option to see, or to switch off their TV sets (as far as TV pictures can convey the "reality").

[Straycat]

Are you Brits and Euro guys also fed a watered down and filtered version of what goes on in iraq? Please tell me what the fighting is like since I'm american and have no clue.

 

We simply have no idea either. Media is controlled in Iraq as well. Al-Jazeera, for example, is banned from reporting inside the country. That's how it goes when you introduce freedom & democracy, I guess

[iuytrede]

what OP is talking about was pool media

and we dont get anything else than pool media either

 

if u wanna see the other side, u have to look at the other side: islamic web sites, Iraqi websites...

but then u would feel u r only seeing propaganda

whereas when u watch Fox and CNN u feel u get "news"

 

suggested reading: "The manufacturing of consent" (Noam Chomsky)

[ALHOLK]

Hi!

 

I just saw that footage on a Swedish news program (TV4). It was just as you described it so probably the American network that shot the footage hasn't released an uncensored version.

 

Do you remember the whining about som pows that were roughed up during the first Iraqi war. Just imagine if an American pow was murdered, the whining would never stop.

 

regards

 

ALHOLK

[torrenova]

I am a firm believer that the military need to do their job takes precedent over the public's need to see what goes on. Journalists should not be in the front line.

 

Sometimes there may be a need to kill all, to take no prisoners. An operation like that would now be undermined by the CNN camera over the soldier's shoulder.

 

War is dirty, bad things happen and some "rules" get broken - so what.

 

First World War reporting took weeks to come back, less so in every war after that. Now it seems that the public desire to see it as it happens overrides the military.

[iuytrede]

"Now it seems that the public desire to see it as it happens overrides the military."

 

whis a good thing

[torrenova]

I do not agree. So what if a few of the other side get wasted ? You can't pussy foot around in war, worrying too much about whether to shoot or not in case you're held up on some charge.

 

We saw this in the first Gulf War. "Collateral damage" they said. Well Sherlock, stuff like that happens in war.

 

Fuck me, if we had had this in years gone past we'd have been taken over by all kinds, lastly by the Germans on two occasions.

 

No time for prisoners ? then get rid of them. There is a greater objective. And the CNN cameraman can go as well.

[Guest]

Sounds like you are no longer talking about democracy but that of a totaliarian government.

 

Sure war is not nice, but if somebody does something bad, does that mean you are 'allowed' to do something bad? Would you be any better off then the so called bad guy?

 

Look at Vietnam War. US 'fought' to protect the South Vietnamese, but in many cases were killing the very people they were suppose to protect! How would you justify such actions?

 

In Iraq, there is the same possibility that innocent civilians are being killed for the 'betterment' of the country. How can that be justified?

 

As a side note, look up and read about the fire bombs in Germany and Japan during WWII. And then cross reference some of that info with what some people were saying in regards to the Allies committing genocide on whole civilian populations. Some people complained that it was hard to tell the good guys (Allies) from some of the bad guys (Natzis) because both were committing genoicide.

 

A question: Why is the greatest advocate for democracy (US) also the number one country that almost eliminated a race (Native Americans) - via the avenue of genocide?

[Guest]

>>>First World War reporting took weeks to come back, less so in every war after that. Now it seems that the public desire to see it as it happens overrides the military. <<<

 

 

well, do you want a repetition of WW1, where an entire european generation was wasted in the frontlines because they were blinded by patriotism?

 

the needs of the military?

what about the need for a general public to judge if a war is just or not? what about right of information? what about "democracy" and "freedom"?

 

has it really come so far again that two countries can decide to go to war against another, ignoring the protests of the majority of the world, using "intelligence" that has been manufactured, has been exposed as blatant lies, circumventing all international commissions those two countries have been elementary in their build up?

 

and now, as those two countries, the US and britain, are in the shits, they try to keep their war, beneficial only to a few corporations where the members of cabinet of these governments are personally involved, keep their population blinded by a most perfected censorship.

 

the mainstream media has hardly any other chance than folowing the propaganda guidelines of the US. if one network wants to have an "embedded" journalist it better plays by the rules. if they don't they will have a hard time to keep being informed.

 

and the worst thing is that it even works perfectly. in the recent elections the majority of americans have voted for bush again.

the media as watchdog of the demcracy is not existing anymore.

politicians as mediators between the well being of the people and the demands of industry and business are not existing anymore, as our politicians are increasingly indistuigishable from the industry.

 

why are the corpses not shown? because maybe then those warmongers would not get many stupid fools volonteering anymore to die for those corporations money.

 

not 9/11 was the biggest crime of the new century. that was only the second biggest one. the far biggest crime is the US led invasion into irak.