IgnoMax comments

Posted in: AP picture of mortally wounded Marine sparks debate See in context

Exactly but it still isn't the worlds police now is it?

No it is not. Which is exactly the point I was making in response to the SuperLib, who pretended an equivalence between "cops" and the US. I never argued that the US is, or should be, the "world's police". Quite opposite in fact. I pointed out that no one selected the US as the "cop" and thus any argument about "cops" in reference to mayhem that US is responsible for is utterly illogical.

And so what? Nearly half the world has not joined that court anyways. Why does the US have to join that court?

Because every other nation even pretending to any sort of respect for international law did. Notable absences include all nations recently engaged in atrocities and those whose respect for human rights is somewhat lower than that for sewage. Places like China, Russia along a whole list of Middle Eastern dictatorship and the like. By ducking it, the US has simply demonstrated once again that it is in the same category, vast amounts of propaganda and lip-service to "human rights" and "law" notwithstanding.

This family, it isn't about anything else. They are upset with AP for distributing a photo of their son right before he died that they didn't want to be distributed and they made it known to AP before it was distributed and still went on with it.

AP did as they should have done! Which part of not responding to pressure from any quarter to silence the reporting don't you understand?! If AP lets any family control their reporting of photos, based on their arbitrary sensibilities, than anyone with any remotely legitimate stake in the war also could. All the other families, extended families, people with financial interests, girlfriends, boyfriends, old school buddies, Young Republicans (because it "hurts the troops image"), etc and so on. Either everyone with any sort of claim gets to tell AP to hide stuff on command or no one does. Why is it so hard for you to get this simple fact?!

Really there are all sorts of complaints? Can you prove them to me? Do you have evidence of families mad at a newspaper for showing a photo of their son or daughter destroying a vehicle or blowing something up or for shooting at someone?

I clearly stated what I meant, and that was that Obama administration reported that "concern from families" was one of the main reasons for withholding the Abu Graib photos. I am sure there are other instances, but I do not have to provide them to you, because it only takes one case to demonstrate your original assertion false, an assertion that you haven't heard of "a family complaining of photographs being printed of the destruction one of their family members have created". The goings on at Abu-Grahib definitely count as "destruction", in more ways than one.

Are you sure it was one of the reasons why Obama backtracked? So you have evidence of the families involved in that scandal wrote to obama saying don't release them?

I am not privy to letters being written to Obama. But we know what went on indirectly because of these kinds of statements, in addition to the White House staff yapping on TV:

'Military Families United, an advocacy organization, released a statement praising Obama's decision: "The president today chose to put the safety of our troops before the demands of an activist agenda. These photographs serve no purpose other than to embolden the enemy with propaganda to use in their recruitment of future jihadists, hinder our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and risk the lives of our troops."'

These people speak for many of the families and it only stands to reason that they lobbied actively before hand so that the decision would go in the way that they could "praise".

Becaues my understanding was that they didn't want to release the photo because mullen, gates, petraeus were against it because everyone already knows what happend there and have seen the photos, what would be the point again of just releasing more photos which would cause more anger and that anger would be used to create violence that would cause coalition along with iraqi casualties over an issue that has pretty much been settled. The world already knows what happenend, there is already photos showing what happen. What purpose does it serve was there question?

Apparently your understanding was wrong. See above.

Ya car accidents do seem enjoy such level of protection from media outlets we are not talking about the average citizens now are we?

There is no difference anymore, due to this thing called the Internet. Ever hear of it?

Have you ever noticed that on the news or in the newspaper they don't show the bodies of those car accidents they just show the emergency vehciles or the wrecked cars and blood? They don't actually show the body or body parts?

The TV news are usually meant for general audience, this involving children and what not. That is why "graphic" footage is usually reserved for in-depth reports, which are given appropriate parental warnings before broadcast. And you get to see all the gore there. Or at least you used to, before the US news industry became sycophantic "infotainment" industry.

Yes there is, and you can find all the violence in the mass media, the mass media in america constantly shows videos of gun battles going on in Afghanistan now and as in the past in Iraq, but they don't show the dead bodies from either side of the conflict.

This is markedly different from Vietnam coverage and serves to create an impression of war as a PG-13 "video game", where casualties are bloodless. Which is precisely what "sanitizing" a war is.

I don't believe the family wants to "sanitize" the war I just think they don't want a photograph of their son right before he dies being distributed, they had no objection to all the other photographs of him engaged in combat.

Any reduction in graphic impact is precisely that, an attempt to make the war more palatable to the general public. The personal reasons behind such an action are irrelevant and if allowed would produce a never-ending stream of demands of all kind from all comers.

It doesn't matter if they are different, if US forces kill civilians in Afghanistan that isn't taliban or AQ fault, that is the US. The US isn't responsible for civilians killed by insurgent or terrorist forces in Iraq.

You are wrong. I stated it before in simple terms, because I thought that my line or reasoning was obvious. But it appears that you are having difficulty with this, so I will elaborate further: Responsibility is not a black/white, on/off binary affair, like so many authoritarians would like us to believe. "Good" or "evil", "black hats" or "white hats", nothing in between is the sort of illogic that causes untold harm everywhere. The US and Al Qaeda both bear responsibility in Afghanistan. US to a smaller degree because it is they who shoot cross-eyed with no regard for collateral damage. Al Qaeda's is the lion share because they started the whole mess in the first place by deciding to have their 9/11 spectacle. Al Queda is far the more culpable, their responsibility is the ultimate one because no 9/11 = no justification for Afghanistan invasion to go after them, and thus no trigger-happy US collateral damage.

The reverse is true for Iraq. Final responsibility belongs to the US, they are the ultimately culpable party, while Al Queda bears only partial responsibility for the casualties resulting from their idiotic, non-discriminating tactics.

This is a rather simple, straightforward and patently obvious analysis, no?

Oh give me a break you really believe the Allied forces are not responsible for the civilians they killed?

See above. They bore partial responsibility which was dwarfed by that of the Nazis. No Nazis: no war. No war: no casualties of Allied bombing, many of which were unavoidable given then current state of technology and the logistics of war. I don't know how more obvious and straightforward this can get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: AP picture of mortally wounded Marine sparks debate See in context

I think that one sentence sums up the credibility of your arguments, which are so emotional that you are no longer an effective messenger. Enjoy screaming with the radical right. You guys belong on the fringe.

If you cannot tell a bit of sarcasm from an actual argument, you have no business talking about credibility at all.

I also note that you failed to provide any arguments of your own, other than an attempt to kill the messenger by proclaiming that the message is somehow "ineffective" and "screaming", following which you insinuate yourself as the implicit holder of the balanced, calm and well-reasoned centre opinion, as opposed to the despicable "fringe" to which - naturally - all your opponents must belong by definition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: AP picture of mortally wounded Marine sparks debate See in context

This makes no sense. AlQaeda was drawn to Iraq after US forces entered the country and deposed Saddam Hussein.

Which part does not make sense? Are you trying to count Iraqi casualties as being somehow the fault of Al-Qaeda? If the US did not invade, they would have not been there in the first place, Al-Queda being sworn enemies of Saddam and having no access to Iraq under his control. Taliban is a Pakistani/Afghanistani entity and was never present in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: AP picture of mortally wounded Marine sparks debate See in context

the point was that europeans, south americans, fellow north americans, africans and asians have all complained about how the US doesn't follow the UN because they feel that the UN is international law and thus the international government and as a result they are the worlds cop.

This is only because UN is essentially all we've got that even resembles (however remotely) something like an international law institution, warts and all. Note that the US pointedly decided not to participate in the International Criminal Court, a body specifically designed to address UN's shortcomings regarding enforcement of some most basic rules of civilized behaviour between nations.

But it isn't, the only thing that isn't published is the pictures of a soldier that is dead in a coffin coming off of an airplane when the family disapproves of it, and several families have allowed that. Plus I have yet to hear of a single family complain of the media printing a photograph of one of their relatives with injuries, I have yet to hear the pentagon complain of it. Or a family complaining of photographs being printed of the destruction one of their family members have created.

Err, this very family is complaining about the pictures of war carnage involving their son, long before the coffin made it back. In fact there are all sorts of "complaints" from families about all of the other things, particularly including the photos of the destruction caused by their boys and girls. Publishing which is apparently a give-away sign of "not supporting the troops". The wishes of the families of US troops were given as the chief reason for Obama's administration backtracking on the release of the rest of Abu Graib photos...

Wow you really are starting to get off topic dude, we are talking about the family wishes here and nothing else

In the context of the war in Afghanistan! There is no such thing as "just the family wishes" in that context! Even photos of car accidents shot by passers by do not enjoy that sort of level of protection, never you mind war footage!

I don't believe the family who son has died wants people to not know of the place he died in so that they can find some justification for their manipulations. Do you get it now man we are talking about the family here and its wishes and nothing else.

There is a profound difference between graphic visuals and a dry 2-line note in the obituaries. Those who wish to "sanitize" the war are quite happy with the 2-line version, preferably in small print, on page 11, next to the classifieds.

I understand your point but I disagree with it because you could argue that all those killed in the afghanistan war are of AQ/Taliban responsibility because all those that died would have died a different way at a different time in a different place.

The situation is different between Iraq and Afghanistan. Taliban-supported Al-Queda attacked the US on 9/11 and therefore the Afghanistan war is the direct responsibility of Taliban and Al-Queda. The controversy about Afghanistan is all in the nature of Taliban, which was not capable of running a legitimate national government and only total dysfunction of that country allowed such a group to pretend to be one.

No such claim can be made for Iraq, where the entire responsibility for the rush to war, the WMD fabrications and associated hysteria, the failed attempts to "legitimize" the thing in UN, and all the responsibility for everything associated with the war belongs squarely to the US, whose ideologues had an appetite for Iraq for a very long time and persisted in attempting to harass and bully the tin-pot dictatorship of Saddam into conflict which they could use to "justify" the invasion, up to and including proposals for false-flag operations involving "UN" planes.

This crucial difference is why many countries originally supported the US in Afghanistan, even its "enemies" such as Iran which closed its borders with it and hunted down Al-Queda and Taliban members trying to escape the international forces.

And yes, the ultimate responsibility for the dead French in WWII all belonged to the Nazis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: AP picture of mortally wounded Marine sparks debate See in context


Was in very bad taste for AP to go against the families wishes concerning their son. 

As opposed to wishes of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis who lost their kids, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters and any other loved ones you can think of to American bombs and bullets who wished for their loved ones not to die or be maimed ...

Not to mention families of all those being "interrogated" in Abu Graib and Bagram who, I am quite sure, wished for their loved ones not to stand on boxes with wires attached to their testicles.

But their wishes are worth apparently squat because they are not American.

I would think that DOD would consider pulling all AP embedded reporters as an appropriate response.

Why stop there? Total blackout on inconvenient news from the war! The public needs not to worry their collective pretty heads about these awful things! Just trust that Daddy Government is doing The Right Thing, and everything will turn out just peachy! Oh and don't forget to shop, cheer at sports games and follow the latest celebrity scandal! Nothing can possibly go wrong in the world if you just make sure you are sufficiently ignorant about it!

And all those "war journalists" and "war reporters"? Enemies all! Just shoot them. Because every Good American knows that a "journalist" is a fashionably dressed person sitting in a trendy, posh studio while pontificating about the "legacy" of Michael Jackson and there is just no way that such a "journalist" would have ever ended up in a war zone, even totally "embedded" in the US troops so that he or she can be "protected" from all the harmful information! Why, if the US would finally put end to that menace of "war journalism", no one would have ever found out about Abu Gharib. Aren't those damn "war journalists" and their damn photos just a menace to Beautiful American Minds?

In fact, what are you doing here? Isn't the latest "reality" TV show on? Aren't you overdue to check who is being voted off the island and who slept with whom?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: AP picture of mortally wounded Marine sparks debate See in context

UN to be the global gov. that the US has to follow.

The US has never followed the UN. The US has always merely used the UN. The UN is a tool established by the greatest powers at the end of WWII in order to impose their will on all the rest of nations, while trying to create a veneer of legitimacy to their rule (that is why the utterly undemocratic "security council" cabal is the driving force in the UN). Thus the US invokes the UN as an "authority" only when it suits the US agenda, and ignores (and generally holds in deep disdain) the UN at all other times. Case in point, up to year 2000 the UN has issued 69 resolutions dealing with Iraq (the US: "The most profound issue of international justice in our time! Everyone listen to UN!") and 138 dealing with Israel, nearly all by the General Assembly, thus bypassing the "security council" (the US: "Phhht! A bunch of Arab-loving losers! Who do they think they are? World government?! No one tells US and Israel what to do! We are the Masters of The Universe. Ignore those UN clowns!").

Needles to say, this attitude did not exactly go unnoticed around the world.

The debate is whether or not the AP should have followed the families wishes nothing more. It has nothing to do with denial.

Yes it has everything to do with denial. If all war footage were to be subject to "family wishes", nothing would ever get published. Those who wish to hide the war do not simply come out and say "we want keep everyone ignorant", they search for excuses to "justify" their manipulations. "Family wishes", "national security", "protecting our troops", etc etc are excuses to stop war coverage, to stem the flow of inconvenient and damning information. It was the primary lesson that the US establishment (and others as well) learnt from the Vietnam war.

And how many people have been killed by US forces in Iraq alone? Are you just going to throw the lancet study out as evidence and claim everyone of those was killed by a US munition?

Even the most conservative estimate computed based on individual news reports of casualties (we have "estimates" incidentally because, as part of the very same denial manufacturing tactic I just mentioned, the US forces made sure that no truly accurate tally can be computed by purposefully forbidding the troops from keeping and publishing numbers of their killed adversaries) are still into 90+ thousand people, all a direct result of the invasion (i.e. these people would not have died in the same way at the same time if it were not for the invasion).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: AP picture of mortally wounded Marine sparks debate See in context

Sure, and cops shoot people too, just like murderers. The end result is the same, right? ;)

Except no one has appointed the US as the "global cop". In fact the US is acting very much in the same way every wacko mass murderer ever did: as a self-appointed "crusader" to impose self-concocted "values" on the rest of the planet, "values" which just so happen, purely "accidentally", to impart vast power and wealth to some US-based business and military elites. A completely disingenuous and duplicitous attitude, which a majority of the planet's population finds entirely transparent. And which comes as a surprise to many Americans who cannot understand how come all the hostility. The "Why are they attacking us?! (Gasp! Shock!)" shtick is only likely to work on another deeply self-obsessed and coddled American.

Incidentally, the same mentality is exhibited by the members of the Al-Queda, who wish their self-centred "values" imposed on everyone else. The main difference is the logistical abilities to make it happen.

But to be entirely objective, Al-Queda and Taliban combined, throughout their entire history in the whole Middle East, killed far less people (including 9/11) than US in Iraq alone. This alone should be a hint.

This very "debate" about the AP reporting war footage is the perfect example of the deep desire of Americans to live in utter denial. They wish all the mayhem, killing, pillaging, rape, torture and what not done in their name to others, for power and wealth, as well as the resulting cost in human life and treasure to the US mercenary forces incurred when the "ungrateful natives" fight back, to be completely hidden from their tender sensibilities. In the immortal words of Barbara Bush: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Beautiful American minds indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Dita Von Teese See in context

"Burlesque"? Err, she is a porn star. A rather very kinky one into BDSM and the like. I know because I was informed of this trivia fact by a friend of mine, whose cousin's friend's nephew had looked into this for purely scientific research reasons. Entirely academic, you understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.