CNN putting a face to the dead in Iraq

[TradeOff]

Quote from Nolan-Vinny-Sam:

Well said!!
In the mean time, more media control. Hey we don't want the mushrooms errrr... taxpayers back home getting the news and pics:

U.S. Forces Want Al-Jazeera Out Of Fallujah
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-04/09/article06.shtml

NVS, Thank you.

It's probably similar to how the US may not want media coverage of their surrounding the Mustansiriya University in Iraq that is full of students (armed? unarmed?).

Could you imagine the horror of 3000 students being slaughtered by US forces filmed on video?

Ah! The mere THOUGHT of auctioning that puppy on E-Bay! To die for!

*busts up laughing*

to

 

[candletrader]

Figures of the dead vary from 10,000 to 50,000 dead (the vast majority of whom the USA so sickeningly refers to as 'collateral damage')...

This illegal adventure into Iraq and the ensuing mass murder that we have perpetrated upon the peoples of Iraq, makes 911 look like a minor wasp bite... 'collateral damage' (to borrow the term from our heroic war leaders and 'liberators' of Iraq) on 911 was a mere 3000 or so, as I recall... pretty insignificant compared to the 'collateral damage' in Iraq...

 

[vega]

Quote from candletrader:

I'd do her... but the corpse on the right is an ugly dog...

Candle,

Come on man, have a little respect, that's just wrong.

Vega

 

[Magna]

Quote from candletrader:

'collateral damage' (to borrow the term from our heroic war leaders and 'liberators' of Iraq)

People don't realize how much language affects the way we think, the way we fundamentally view things. For instance, I read the other day that we had massacred 100 freedom-fighters in Fallujah. Oops, said it the wrong way, we had inflicted collateral damage on 100 insurgents. Imagine if all media reports referred to the opposition as freedom-fighters (which is how they see themselves, fighting against the U.S. invaders and occupiers), it would sure change the color of things. Not sure the word was in use then but, if so, I'm sure the British would have labelled the armed colonialists in 1776 as insurgents, while we of course saw ourselves as freedom-fighters. If truth is the first casualty of war then language plays a big part of it, and Hermann Goering et al knew this very well. During the Viet Nam war our soldiers were carefully trained to see the opposition as Charlie, V.C., "gooks" and "slopes". I know because I heard it over 'n over 'n over every single day in basic training. They certainly didn't want us to see these people (who are now our friends by the way) as freedom-fighters defending their country against another invader, but instead wanted to depersonalize them so we could kill them without any moral regret.

And then along with language there's pictures and how important it is to not put faces on people who are killed, especially if it's female (or children) of either side, which is why it was somewhat shocking to see the CNN photo of a female soldier with her family before she was killed. Better to keep the solitary image in the American psyche that it's just a bunch of filthy scruffy bearded fanatical muslim insurgents, as that makes it so much easier to drop the bombs and continue this madness.

 

[candletrader]

It's good to know that we have a common understanding on this issue, Magna...

Quote from Magna:

People don't realize how much language affects the way we think, the way we fundamentally view things. For instance, I read the other day that we had massacred 100 freedom-fighters in Fallujah. Oops, said it the wrong way, we had inflicted collateral damage on 100 insurgents. Imagine if all media reports referred to the opposition as freedom-fighters (which is how they see themselves, fighting against the U.S. invaders and occupiers), it would sure change the color of things. Not sure the word was in use then but, if so, I'm sure the British would have labelled the armed colonialists in 1776 as insurgents, while we of course saw ourselves as freedom-fighters. If truth is the first casualty of war then language plays a big part of it, and Hermann Goering et al knew this very well. During the Viet Nam war our soldiers were carefully trained to see the opposition as Charlie, V.C., "gooks" and "slopes". I know because I heard it over 'n over 'n over every single day in basic training. They certainly didn't want us to see these people (who are now our friends by the way) as freedom-fighters defending their country against another invader, but instead wanted to depersonalize them so we could kill them without any moral regret.

And then along with language there's pictures and how important it is to not put faces on people who are killed, especially if it's female (or children) of either side, which is why it was somewhat shocking to see the CNN photo of a female soldier with her family before she was killed. Better to keep the solitary image in the American psyche that it's just a bunch of filthy scruffy bearded fanatical muslim insurgents, as that makes it so much easier to drop the bombs and continue this madness.

 

[Magna]

Quote from candletrader:

It's good to know that we have a common understanding on this issue, Magna...

Candle, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that we are in agreement over U.S. policy since 9/11, but mostly wanted to shine a little light on how language (and photos) are used to manage and massage the American psyche, making people very accepting of killing others. Our country is not unique in that regard as all military and governments are very careful in the words and pictures chosen to further their cause, and most people read/hear "insurgents" 10 times a day and never give it a second thought.

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from Magna:

People don't realize how much language affects the way we think, the way we fundamentally view things.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said "We don't negotiate with terrorists ... that's really it.", when asked about abducted US soldiers and contractors.

I remember lots of stories from WWII when commando forces and resistance/partisans abducted enemy soliders/officers etc. - or perhaps I should say "captured" ?

He also said Iraq was not in chaos: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=492203&section=news.
I guess we all have individual/subjective thresholds for what terms we use to denominate the state of a situation.

Funnily, lots of TV series and films have been cancelled or changed because of "sensitive issues" like resistance forces fighting "imperial forces". I find it refreshing not to only watch or read US media reports, but a wide range of sources. Sometimes I prefer the objectivity of BBC, or live coverage on CNN, and not the garbled/skewed reports repeated after the fact - on CNN or any other media coverage.
Raw/sparingly edited material is best, albeit more time-consuming.

 

[electron]

Quote from Gringinho:

Sometimes I prefer the objectivity of BBC, or live coverage on CNN,

I watch only BBC, at least for the world news, don't have a cable (yes, that's right, watching the tube is not my favorite kind of leasure time) so cannot watch CNN.

 

[candletrader]

Some excellent points have been made...

If there was ever to be another 911 on US soil, Bush and his sycophants would be in no moral position to condemn Al-Jazeera (etc) if it labels the American victims as terrorists / insurgents... to condemn Al-Jazeera for the use of such language would be an exercise in double-standards of the highest order...

 

[rgelite]

Quote from candletrader:

Some excellent points have been made...

If there was ever to be another 911 on US soil, Bush and his sycophants would be in no moral position to condemn Al-Jazeera (etc) if it labels the American victims as terrorists / insurgents... to condemn Al-Jazeera for the use of such language would be an exercise in double-standards of the highest order...

I disagree. The mistake in equating the two is the same one made by those who label heroic the terrorists who blew up the Cole, Oklahoma City, or Flight 103, to name a few. In order to make objective moral judgments, one must step back from the tactics themselves and judge the moral basis for the use of violence, not merely equivocate two people pulling triggers and calling it the same in principle.

On principle, Western values stand for rational self-interest, individual rights and freedom, the defensive and judicious use of force, and Capitalism (perversions by the Religious Right and Religious Left aside). On principle this is Good. We know it is historically Good. An honest person introspecting about how he or she would prefer to live knows this.

On principle, Islamic Fundamentalism stands for altruism, the subjugation of individual thought to barbarism and Faith, the initiation of unbridled force that includes deliberate targeting of innocents, and fascism or dictatorship. On principle this is Evil. We know it is historically Evil. An honest person introspecting about how he or she would prefer to live, including everyone posting on this bulletin board, knows this.

The real "exercise in double-standards (or no standards) of the highest order" is a premise which equates Good defending itself from Evil, to include pre-emption, with Evil initiating force against Good. Then, because their military tactics are sometimes similar, labeling them both identical in principle, one no more moral than the other. And thus attempt to undermine all moral judgment and resolve to uphold our own values in the future.

Don't undermine your values that way. It won't serve you in the end; it doesn't work. To paraphrase Thomas More, "Oh? And when your last value and judgment was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you (and that Devil truly does exist in the guise of barbarism), where would you hide, Roper, all your values and judgment being laid flat?"