NEWS: The Unseen War Seen

EuroNews have a brilliand segment entitled 'no comment' where they show unnarrated pictures of various events around the world, just a camera with the sound left on so that people can experience some of what it must be like to be there. Obviously there is a way to editorialise through politically selecting which clips to broadcast, but it allows the watcher much more scope to come to ones own conclusions rather than accept the word of a 'journalist' who explains things through a filter of his/her own preexisting political views

Because claiming that journalists and photographers - who are risking their lives in a collective attempt to show and tell the world what's really happening in a massive war - are in it for the money is really fucking stupid, at best, and really fucking offensive, at worst?

The Michael Kelly's and Paul Moran's of the world do us a great service by going to a warzone and getting amongst it, so that we can try to piece together what's going on in Iraq. (They're just one writer, and one cameraman... there are more than 60 other media workers who've also lost their lives).

I know that this is exactly what I expected. Well, except for the suicide bomber. Sometimes death does some strange looking shit to people. Once I saw a picture in Newsweek in high school of a man partially run over by a tank...He looked like a person-shaped piece of clothing someone had laid out on the bed. But only from the waist up.

You're in the middle of the shit right now, I reckon, but for many people, the closest they get to glimpsing the situation is watching "Over There" or playing America's Army.

I think these images should be shown because we should never trust politicians to have the appropriate judgment to filter our killing and death for us. It may still be hard, if not impossible, to gain true understanding of a war by simply seeing a brutal image of it, but it's a bit closer the the Situation Room or Sean Hannity can bring us in the short spaces between Natalee Holloway, increasing gas prices, and five-week-long vacations. And hey, I'll take these images over Condi Rice spouting off the word "process" a thousand times in an hour any day.

In terms of morality? I wouldn't think so. While I can't be bothered to give a shit about a dead person-bomber, generally speaking, I find the death of an 8 year old iraqi playing in a yard to be as brutal as the death of an American soldier who, barring the circumstances, could've been at a family barbecue. Morally, both are fucked. Personally however, I get more of a "whoa" reflex when I see anything involving people who could be my neighbors or even former classmates in the shit and suffering the consequences of the shit. I feel more of a connection to the americans in these pictures than the Iraqis, but that's because I'm an American.

But some of us back here see the war as we would a movie, from a seat in a theater. Because our wars are typically so very far away, we distance ourselves from it. And that's true of both the liberals and the conservatives. We see those Army of One commercials, and parades for Jessica Lynch, and that's the closest we get usually.

It's important for people here to realize that the people over there are more than a number; more than resources or assets to be spent for a cause they signed up for. They are our friends, and our flesh and blood.

And this is what war is doing to them.

It's a rather callous attempt to come off as a hipper-than-thou ironist who can feel free to blame the media for all of society's ills while blatantly ignoring the carnage and actual human tragedy that's goes on in wartime every day. I think that may be why people are so irritated by such a flippant remark.

However, I've got money saying that's the last time we'll see him in this thread, so don't expect anything even resembling a cohesive defense from the original poster.

Okay, after reading this post and a few others, I feel like a little bit of an ass. In my original post, I said it was "too late" in war to show those images. I'm still uncomfortable with the timing, but those photos could change one person's views toward the war and that's a great accomplishment by itself.

[Edited on Aug 25, 2005 by gambitnuitamment]

You know sometimes your anologies are kind of bad. You would rather fight fire with water, but have you ever heard of a fire break, or a controled burn? That does more to stop a forest fire then most of the water they put on them.

Similarly your ignorence of the much of the Arab culture, and the belief that ignoreing the problem will make it go away could be very wrong. Both points have been studied exstensively, and its been well documented that sometimes a open hand will get cut off faster then a clenched fist. I wont go into it because both fighting, and ignoreing have merits on both sides. Before you go "its the Right making things up" many of the studies were done during the first war.

Also Id like to point out all the photographs of dead people probably intrigue you more then a whole bunch of kids standing around smiling. I think the war you see is the one you want to. Maybe you should buy a plane ticket and do some traveling over there. It may or may not be what you think.

what is accomplished by revealing the true nature of war at this stage in the game, is that bible belters aren't confronted with the reality of what their chosen leader is planning until it is far, far too late. i imagine the media wishes to retain the shreds of credibility it has left (i say 'shred' but i could also say 'illusion of') by advertising one of the most spectacular events in the history of reporting on news: war&glory.



[Edited on Aug 25, 2005 by shownomercy]

fire breaks are only used in very specific circumstances, but the bush administration have an ideological attachment to revenge and violence above the water hose of diplomacy.


Iraq wasnt a forest fire. Saddam was at his most brutal and murderous while he was an ally of america, and fighting 'terrorsm with sieges of cities and ariel bombardment is like pouring water onto a burning oil well.

I never suggested that the alternative to war was to ignore Saddam Hussein, there were plenty of alternatives and only a false and deceitful sense of urgency based on LIES (not mistakes) about WMD

Well, it's safe to say that the entire fire/water/forests analogy should be never used again.

So you tell me how we get a brutal dictator to place nice after he proved he wouldnt by one war, UN sanctions.

Also no one has ever PROVEN your "lies." At worst the CIA did what it always does, and dug up everything they could on Iraq. Unfortuantly when you have a orgnization working like that and no HUMINT you get some bad bad info.

Although I am sure saddam stockpiled all the projectiles to shoot off chemical and biologics just for fun right?

I dont want to get off the topic of the thread so I wont get into a discussion of whether the war is right or wrong. Anyone who wants to share in a such a discussion is welcome to Im me or email me on my contact info.

But the other question I want to ask is if people think these photos help or hurt the "war effort" and whether that effects thier veiws on if it's right to show them or not?

As a Soldier I visit Under Mars on a Simi regular basis. Just to insure that I'm not too far removed from what my brothers and sisters that are over there are going through.

War is and always has been a horrible thing. From the time of the Greek Phalanx we have glorified the act of war.

Oh, and yeah, I'm a paying customer of Salon and have been for a couple of years now.

In my opinion, neither. We have heard a lot of crazy shit coming from Iraq. From prison scandals to dead journalists and none of that shit has hurt the war. These photos won't even be a speedbump, except for people who can't do anything one way or the other about the war other than discuss it on forums.

I don't think that makes them worthless, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

People are gonna wage war. But hopefully, when they do, they'll be forever mindful of the cost and the consequences. For most people to learn these things, they have to either be engaged on the front lines, or lose a friend or family member to it. That's kinda a high cost, obviously. I may be an idealistic sum'bitch, but if even one person learns from these pictures and internalizes what they've learned, it's worth showing them.

Before the war, Saddam offered to step down in exchange for immunity from prosecution. He even said he would go On TV before his resignation urging everyone in Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors and international agencies. That's one very fuckin realistic way to avoid war and end Saddam's reign of terror. Bush rejected the offer without even discussing it.
That is just one option of many. Another would have been to deploy a U.N. Human rights inspection team to Iraq, the lifting of the sanctions that sapped the strength of any potential Iraqi Resistance whilst re-enforcing the grip Saddam had over his people, Human rights inspections would have reduced the human cost of Saddam's continuing rule and have an immediate positive impact on the lives of the Iraqi people..
As for your claims that It is unproven that the Bush Administration and CIA lied about WMD, That is a meaningless claim, The CIA Are experts at plausible deniability. It is almost impossible to prove anything beyond any possible contention, but the overwhelming evidence points to a policy of deliberately lying about WMD. We Know that the British Government colluded with the CIA in 'Fixing' the evidence to make a legal case for war surrounding WMD. That is Proof. If you continue to believe that it was a genuine mistake or failure of intelligence, then you are very naive or dishonest with yourself.

No matter how much you "understand" and try to reason with terrorists, they will see is as weakness, and exploit it.

Like stock said, you are on our side whether you like it or not, because it's near impossible to be on their side.

Ah...thread drift...