Johnson Beheading Now On Video

[Annie]

I guess the terrorists don't understand that we've gotten the idea:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001214.html

Excerpt:

Paul got it right in my opinion:

The terrorists don't understand that beheading people and releasing video of it will not scare us, it will only piss us off.
Nor, apparently do certain control freaks in the United States understand that.

Or perhaps they do. Perhaps they don't want us to be pissed off....

 

[lilcountriegal]

Ugh. I am so, so, so sorry I clicked on that link.

 

[Annie]

Ugh. I am so, so, so sorry I clicked on that link.

You watched?

 

[lilcountriegal]

Unfortunately I did. The other ones that were videotaped I never watched, just saw still shots... If any more of these (God forbid) become public, i definitely will pass on watching again.

 

[Annie]

Unfortunately I did. The other ones that were videotaped I never watched, just saw still shots... If any more of these (God forbid) become public, i definitely will pass on watching again.

I hear you. I watched all of them, not at the same time of course!

 

[lilcountriegal]

I work in a hospital for heart surgeons who let me enter the OR anytime I want with them to observe. I've watched surgeries varying from open heart bypass surgery (which can get very bloody) to autopsies with no problems. I just cant seem to stomach these beheadings.

I wonder if the people screaming the loudest about prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Grahib [sp] have actually watched one of these links. If not, they should be forced to.

 

[Annie]

I work in a hospital for heart surgeons who let me enter the OR anytime I want with them to observe. I've watched surgeries varying from open heart bypass surgery (which can get very bloody) to autopsies with no problems. I just cant seem to stomach these beheadings.

I wonder if the people screaming the loudest about prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Grahib [sp] have actually watched one of these links. If not, they should be forced to.

I agree. I think it's important and the least we can do. But that's me!

 

[lilcountriegal]

/vent on.

The biggest problem today is that the general population has become numb. We are shielded from things such as this. Excuse me, but I'm a 32 year old adult... I can judge what's best for myself to view and what is not. After 9/11 it became politically uncorrect to show actual footage of the planes hitting the towers. How ridiculous. That is when Americans lost the rage, while being babied by politicians wishing to "save us the grief". Personally, I thought that decision was a bullshit one. I think it should have been played a few times a day, every day. It seems "We will never forget!!!" is now being answered with "Forget what?". Pitiful.

/vent off.

 

[Annie]

Lilcountriegal: :clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

I know what you mean. I have a clip I play pretty often, just so I do remember, not that I'd forget.

 

[UsaPride]

/vent on.

The biggest problem today is that the general population has become numb. We are shielded from things such as this. Excuse me, but I'm a 32 year old adult... I can judge what's best for myself to view and what is not. After 9/11 it became politically uncorrect to show actual footage of the planes hitting the towers. How ridiculous. That is when Americans lost the rage, while being babied by politicians wishing to "save us the grief". Personally, I thought that decision was a bullshit one. I think it should have been played a few times a day, every day. It seems "We will never forget!!!" is now being answered with "Forget what?". Pitiful.

/vent off.

 

[TheOne]

I think that repeated exposure to these kind of things can be good and bad. If we could decide to broadcast the gory, shocking images which support our ideology, we must then brace ourselves for images that would go against that view. Say for instance, Iraqi children dismembered by stray cluster munitions or US servicemen killed in combat. I hardly think that any more Abu Ghraib images would serve to prop up the pro-war position either, especially the ones where US soldiers are raping Iraqi boys.

It is for this reason I think censoring the extreme, disturbing images is probably a good thing in the long run for people of all views. I think the ultimate result will be a de-sensitized population. Most people would rather not see a human head sawed off or a dead child or infant. I know I have had a curiosity to view these images and then regretted it shortly afterward as the bile welled in my throat and a pit opened in my stomach.

I suppose for some it is helpful though, just not me.

 

[NewGuy]

I agree with the sentiment entirely. We should be able to remember what is going on and why. Gaining media clips to do so IS supposed to be our right.

The interesting thought is this:

If we are getting access to information restricted, why?

My supposition is this:

For decades this has been going on but continues to grow more pervasive. The American spirit is such that when informed, we revolt. Why would we revolt? We revolt as an action to correct an overwhelming wrong.

If access to information is being capped over decades, that implies an oppression of the masses by both parties. The only answer to why could be to protect themselves so they can become more corrupt.

They don't want a revolt by the few citizens we have left who aren't drugged up, fattened up, dumbed down, and have firearms.

The question is, how long will it be before this category of person doesn't exist anymore?

 

[Annie]

I think that repeated exposure to these kind of things can be good and bad. If we could decide to broadcast the gory, shocking images which support our ideology, we must then brace ourselves for images that would go against that view. Say for instance, Iraqi children dismembered by stray cluster munitions or US servicemen killed in combat. I hardly think that any more Abu Ghraib images would serve to prop up the pro-war position either, especially the ones where US soldiers are raping Iraqi boys.

It is for this reason I think censoring the extreme, disturbing images is probably a good thing in the long run for people of all views. I think the ultimate result will be a de-sensitized population. Most people would rather not see a human head sawed off or a dead child or infant. I know I have had a curiosity to view these images and then regretted it shortly afterward as the bile welled in my throat and a pit opened in my stomach.

I suppose for some it is helpful though, just not me.

I am so sick of the moral equivalency argument! What happened at that prison was a crime. The perps are being dealt with, they were before the pictures became known.

Beheadings are a different matter altogether, especially when they are organized. To equate 9/11, which according to most on the left, had NOTHING to do with IRAQ, with the prison atrocities is a diversion.

 

[DKSuddeth]

the reason we have to deal with images being censored is that your government fears the public backlash. The press corps in vietnam showed the ugly brutality of war to the american public which was a major factor in the publics disinclination to the continuance of the vietnam conflict. The government, in order to continue their policies, is doing what it can to prevent these things from becoming mainstream, and advocating those images that they hope will infuriate the people into unabashedly supporting their policies.

 

[TheOne]

the reason we have to deal with images being censored is that your government fears the public backlash. The press corps in vietnam showed the ugly brutality of war to the american public which was a major factor in the publics disinclination to the continuance of the vietnam conflict. The government, in order to continue their policies, is doing what it can to prevent these things from becoming mainstream, and advocating those images that they hope will infuriate the people into unabashedly supporting their policies.

Good point DK. I would think you either should be in favor of releasing all images that are disturbing, regardless of which perspective it supports, or against all images be released. Any other way is supporting propaganda to compel others to share your views while supressing any visual evidence which would undermine them. I really don't see how a reasonable person could support one over the other.

 

[freeandfun1]

Good point DK. I would think you either should be in favor of releasing all images that are disturbing, regardless of which perspective it supports, or against all images be released. Any other way is supporting propaganda to compel others to share your views while supressing any visual evidence which would undermine them. I really don't see how a reasonable person could support one over the other.

the problem is that when you show images to people that are sitting in a bar watching the news or sitting on their couch, they are totally removed from the whys and why nots of the reasons for the war and for the need to fight it. You are asking people that are totally uninformed to make judgements based on images not on any facts or substance.

if CNN et al are going to show videos of dead Iraqis, should they not also show the videos of Berg, Pearl, etc.? They won't though, as they know that those videos will enrage Americans and push them toward supporting Bush even more. Therefore, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC choose only to show the videos that support their anti-Bush agenda.

 

[DKSuddeth]

if CNN et al are going to show videos of dead Iraqis, should they not also show the videos of Berg, Pearl, etc.? They won't though, as they know that those videos will enrage Americans and push them toward supporting Bush even more. Therefore, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC choose only to show the videos that support their anti-Bush agenda.

Thats not whats happening. The major media outlets are not showing the berg, pearl, and johnson videos for about the same reason as the government. They are afraid of the public backlash. If theres another beheading and CNN or MSNBC were to air it then around half the population would be in an uproar about having such gruesome displays on public television. It would be as bad as a wardrobe malfunction. The other half that would support bush because of it already do, so theres no benefit and all the risk of financial penalties

 

[freeandfun1]

Thats not whats happening. The major media outlets are not showing the berg, pearl, and johnson videos for about the same reason as the government. They are afraid of the public backlash. If theres another beheading and CNN or MSNBC were to air it then around half the population would be in an uproar about having such gruesome displays on public television. It would be as bad as a wardrobe malfunction. The other half that would support bush because of it already do, so theres no benefit and all the risk of financial penalties

your argument makes little sense. normally, i would agree with you. but at the same time they won't show the Berg, Pearl, etc. videos, they will show videos of dead and dieing Iraqis. How do you explain the disparity in coverage? The argument you presented is not supported by the facts of what is being shown on TV.

 

[DKSuddeth]

your argument makes little sense. normally, i would agree with you. but at the same time they won't show the Berg, Pearl, etc. videos, they will show videos of dead and dieing Iraqis. How do you explain the disparity in coverage? The argument you presented is not supported by the facts of what is being shown on TV.

eau contraire, you said that showing these videos would enrage america into supporting bush, I said they would not. The media outlets show the dead iraqis because it does indeed hurt the administration, but I did not touch upon that in my previous post. I was not attempting to explain the disparity in coverage, its obviously there, I was simply stating that the financial risks involved in showing the beheading videos is greater than rallying support for bush.

 

[freeandfun1]

eau contraire, you said that showing these videos would enrage america into supporting bush, I said they would not. The media outlets show the dead iraqis because it does indeed hurt the administration, but I did not touch upon that in my previous post. I was not attempting to explain the disparity in coverage, its obviously there, I was simply stating that the financial risks involved in showing the beheading videos is greater than rallying support for bush.

you still don't make sense. if showing those videos would hurt them financially, why don't the videos of dead Iraqis? Again, your argument holds no water as far as I am concerned. The government doesn't show the videos as that is not their job. If the government were to show them, even I would scream foul as it would be a blatant act of propaganda as far as I am concerned. You are hiding under the umbrella of capitalism in saying that the showing of the videos would hurt the NEWS broadcasters financially. Anyway, I thought CNN cared about showing the truth and not just money. What happened to your favorite liberal news network?

It is a blatant example of MEDIA censorship.