|
Uday & Qusay Hussein killed in attack - FINALLY!!! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
Here's a video of the bodies post autopsy:
http://play.rbn.com/?url=ap/nynyt/g...sp&mode=compact
Good that they're dead and all, but why have the US been showing them off like trophies? In the scheme of things, what difference do their deaths actually make? |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Good that they're dead and all, but why have the US been showing them off like trophies? In the scheme of things, what difference do their deaths actually make? |
It's important for the Americans militarily. Hopefully by showing that the Saddam regime is quickly coming to a close, the factions that survived the war will lose morale and surrender. The Americans want to show the Iraqis that (this time) they will keep their word and rid the country of the Husseins and their suppourters. |
|
|
| Mosaic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
It's important for the Americans militarily. Hopefully by showing that the Saddam regime is quickly coming to a close, the factions that survived the war will lose morale and surrender. The Americans want to show the Iraqis that (this time) they will keep their word and rid the country of the Husseins and their suppourters. |
wasn't the US bitching about pictures of dead US soldiers being released?
"I'm glad the Americans released these photos. It shows they are just as barbaric as the regime they toppled." |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mosaic
wasn't the US bitching about pictures of dead US soldiers being released?
"I'm glad the Americans released these photos. It shows they are just as barbaric as the regime they toppled." |
your stupidity is unbelievable and ineffable. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
your stupidity is unbelievable and ineffable. |
No, he raises an interesting point:
Why is it wrong (and in violation of international law) to broadcast the pictures of dead marines on Arab television, but permissible for the US department to actively distribute images of (admittedly reprehensible) individuals slain in combat? |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
No, he raises an interesting point:
Why is it wrong (and in violation of international law) to broadcast the pictures of dead marines on Arab television, but permissible for the US department to actively distribute images of (admittedly reprehensible) individuals slain in combat? |
Soldiers are GIs. These were war criminals. There's a big difference, acknowledged even by the Geneva Convention, and an international statement was released saying no rights were violated. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
No, he raises an interesting point:
Why is it wrong (and in violation of international law) to broadcast the pictures of dead marines on Arab television, but permissible for the US department to actively distribute images of (admittedly reprehensible) individuals slain in combat? |
They aren't soldiers. Although releasing the photos is against normal practice, I think that given the extenuating circumstances of the need to prove to Iraqis that their former dictators are dead, warrants a departure from standard behaviour. I mean, if you want to follow the exact letter of the law and apply it to every situation then I'm sure you'll find that everyone is a hypocrit.
Edit: oops eugene beat me to it. At any rate, I'm sure you won't see the red cross or any signatories of the geneva convention crying about it :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Renegade |
Don't get me wrong: I'm not crying about it and I'm not suggesting that anyone should be, I'm merely asking why one nation's decision to display images of slain combatants for propoganda purposes is wrong and the same decision made by another nation isn't? I'm not suggesting the decision was illegal, merely that it was hypocritical - I'm asking for a logical basis for the decision, not a basis constituted by a legal technicality.
| quote: | | I think that given the extenuating circumstances of the need to prove to Iraqis that their former dictators are dead, warrants a departure from standard behaviour. |
Whose "need"? On what particular grounds does this need "warrant a departure from standard behaviour"? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Don't get me wrong: I'm not crying about it and I'm not suggesting that anyone should be, I'm merely asking why one nation's decision to display images of slain combatants for propoganda purposes is wrong and the same decision made by another nation isn't? I'm not suggesting the decision was illegal, merely that it was hypocritical - I'm asking for a logical basis for the decision, not a basis constituted by a legal technicality.
Whose "need"? On what particular grounds does this need "warrant a departure from standard behaviour"? |
Well as mentioned before, I wouldn't necessarily label them as combatants so much as they are war criminals. However, the extenuating circumstances I was referring to was the fact that many Iraqis are likely living under the assumption that the US will leave and Saddam and the Baathists will return to power to crack down on all those who didn't support the regime. Therefore, in order to prove to the Iraqis that the regime will not return to power, and that they should embrace a newly formed government of their choosing, there is a "need" to show them proof that the regime will never return to power by establishing the fact that the lead elements of the regime are dead.
And on a side note, that lucky bastard:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3162082 |
|
|
| Mosaic |
so, I am stupid because I question your country's credability?
I'm not crying about the pictures being released. Okay, so it doesn't violate International Law "because they are war criminals", but is it really in good taste? If they just want to shouw Iraq that Saddam's regime won't return, why broadcast on CNN? Why does American need to see it?
Maybe cuz its just a new wave of "Look at us, we're so noble" propaganda bull.
Let's think back to when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember that story the Kuwaiti girl told about Iraq troops coming into a hospital and leaving babies on the floor to die?
Well, in the end, the story was just concocted by Kuwait + USA. That girl was the daughter (or niece, can't remember) of the Kuwait ambassador to the US, who hadn't been to Kuwait in years.
This is just my opinion folks, I don't give a if you agree or not. I don't have time to go looking for supporting evidence and such. I just watch/red news from a variety of sources and formulate my own opinions. Well, if you call me "stupid" for that, then you should pull your head out of your ass. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mosaic
so, I am stupid because I question your country's credability?
I'm not crying about the pictures being released. Okay, so it doesn't violate International Law "because they are war criminals", but is it really in good taste? If they just want to shouw Iraq that Saddam's regime won't return, why broadcast on CNN? Why does American need to see it?
Maybe cuz its just a new wave of "Look at us, we're so noble" propaganda bull.
Let's think back to when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember that story the Kuwaiti girl told about Iraq troops coming into a hospital and leaving babies on the floor to die?
Well, in the end, the story was just concocted by Kuwait + USA. That girl was the daughter (or niece, can't remember) of the Kuwait ambassador to the US, who hadn't been to Kuwait in years.
This is just my opinion folks, I don't give a if you agree or not. I don't have time to go looking for supporting evidence and such. I just watch/red news from a variety of sources and formulate my own opinions. Well, if you call me "stupid" for that, then you should pull your head out of your ass. |
Don't worry, Eugene calls everyone stupid cause he's one of these :thepirate , a butt-pirate.
But, I can see why the U.S. was justified in releasing the photos to the press. The fact of the matter is that they would have been released at any rate, whether over the televised news or in a periodical or newspaper. |
|
|
| daffodil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mosaic
Let's think back to when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember that story the Kuwaiti girl told about Iraq troops coming into a hospital and leaving babies on the floor to die?
Well, in the end, the story was just concocted by Kuwait + USA. That girl was the daughter (or niece, can't remember) of the Kuwait ambassador to the US, who hadn't been to Kuwait in years. |
The U.S. involvement was limited (I think) to the Kuwaiti group hiring an American PR firm called Hill & Knowlton to push Kuwait's cause -- I don't think the government was involved.
Hill & Knowlton had a pretty questionable past. They're a very old, very powerful firm that was responsible for a lot of smoking campaigns going back as far as the 1920s where they encourage women to smoke to show their independence and call cigarettes "liberty torches." Also, they had a famous opera singer endore Lucky Strikes, saying they were good for her voice. More recently, during the 90s they created "astroturf" advocacy groups -- fake grassroots movements like smokers' rights groups that were funded by tobacco companies.
| quote: | Originally posted by Mosaic
I'm not crying about the pictures being released. Okay, so it doesn't violate International Law "because they are war criminals", but is it really in good taste? If they just want to shouw Iraq that Saddam's regime won't return, why broadcast on CNN? Why does American need to see it? |
Because it's America involved in the war and to keep support up for the war, the government needs to show it's making progress. As for CNN, they are (supposedly) independent of the government and they know that if they don't broadcast the photos, another network will in a heartbeat. CNN makes its living on being the first with breaking stories. It's an issue of journalistic integrity in television news, which I think is entirely gone. |
|
|
|
|
