Troops Taking Pics With The Dead. So What?

[iamwhatiseem]

Some FORMER Generals say this incident will hurt the never ending war:

Experts: Photos of U.S. soldiers handling corpses very bad for war - CNN.com

My question remains; why did the LA Times publish the photos, and why isn't the newspaper getting any condemnation?

You will not see condemnation by CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, Bloomberg etc. etc. etc.

 

[Peach]

Some FORMER Generals say this incident will hurt the never ending war:

Experts: Photos of U.S. soldiers handling corpses very bad for war - CNN.com

My question remains; why did the LA Times publish the photos, and why isn't the newspaper getting any condemnation?

You will not see condemnation by CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, Bloomberg etc. etc. etc.

CNN has been somewhat negative; you are correct however, overall the LA Times is getting a pass.

 

[Nosmo King]

We are not fighting a war of conquest. We are not fighting a war against a national government. We are fighting a terrorist group operating among indigenous people.

A lot of hard core john Wayne wannabes are champions of cruelty and war crimes all to be forgotten, forgiven and otherwise rationalized as the fog of war. But the reality is, as it has been since the 1950s, we are fighting to win hearts and minds. By doing this, we believe that we might be able to nip the terrorist instinct in the bud. How? By portraying ourselves as civilized, beneficent warriors rather than the barbarians we are fighting.

Incidentally, I find it curious that the Right shows justifiable outrage when one of our heroes is abused or some fourth century bit of 'justice' is meted out for a minor offense. yet when our soldiers show barbarian tendencies as they urinate on corpses or take "souvenirs" the same folks who were outraged are willing to dismiss the vulgarities with something that amounts to "Well, boys will be boys!" That's what sane people call hypocrisy.

so, cutting off someones head, now equates to having a picture taken with bodies?

Don't ask me. Ask an Afghani.

 

[Trajan]

its news, they have a right to post them.

Now, if they are a whole bunch more and they post them just to rev up the angst , like oh the abu ghraib photos that the news org.s wanted to post, which really showed nothing new, I would agree, they need to knock it off, their point has been made.

 

[Trajan]

We are not fighting a war of conquest. We are not fighting a war against a national government. We are fighting a terrorist group operating among indigenous people.

A lot of hard core john Wayne wannabes are champions of cruelty and war crimes all to be forgotten, forgiven and otherwise rationalized as the fog of war. But the reality is, as it has been since the 1950s, we are fighting to win hearts and minds. By doing this, we believe that we might be able to nip the terrorist instinct in the bud. How? By portraying ourselves as civilized, beneficent warriors rather than the barbarians we are fighting.

Incidentally, I find it curious that the Right shows justifiable outrage when one of our heroes is abused or some fourth century bit of 'justice' is meted out for a minor offense. yet when our soldiers show barbarian tendencies as they urinate on corpses or take "souvenirs" the same folks who were outraged are willing to dismiss the vulgarities with something that amounts to "Well, boys will be boys!" That's what sane people call hypocrisy.

so, cutting off someones head, now equates to having a picture taken with bodies?

Don't ask me. Ask an Afghani.

You postulated, so I am asking you...

 

[Peach]

At least the Pentagon has spoken out about the LA Times:

On Wednesday, the Pentagon said it “strongly rejects” the actions depicted in the latest batch of photographs, calling the behavior “inhuman.” It also criticized the Los Angeles Times for publishing them.

Pentagon condemns L.A. Times photos of U.S. troops posing with dead Afghan insurgents - The Washington Post

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Troops Taking Pics With The Dead. So What?

Well, if you have to ask…

This is an unconventional war,and we need to continue this show of force versus the enemy.
Los Angeles Times - California, national and world news - latimes.com
anyone complaining about it supports the enemy in my eyes.

And will let OTHER soldiers may die because of it. The LA Times needs to - - - - - - -.

That’s not the point, as the LA Times is fulfilling its Constitutional mandate. The issue is that the pictures were taken in the first place.

The LA times employees that authorized the printing need to meet with military legal staff also.

Why? For what purpose? The government has no grounds for preemption.

Putting other troops at risk is the issue, PLUS the LA Times printing the photos. I'd like to see some heat on the newspaper.

By whom? By advertisers or the public, if you like; but again, the government has no cause.

My question remains; why did the LA Times publish the photos…

It’s mandated to do so per the First Amendment.

and why isn't the newspaper getting any condemnation?

Because the government lacks grounds to preempt. See: New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).

 

[Peach]

Troops Taking Pics With The Dead. So What?

Well, if you have to ask…

And will let OTHER soldiers may die because of it. The LA Times needs to - - - - - - -.

That’s not the point, as the LA Times is fulfilling its Constitutional mandate. The issue is that the pictures were taken in the first place.


Why? For what purpose? The government has no grounds for preemption.

Putting other troops at risk is the issue, PLUS the LA Times printing the photos. I'd like to see some heat on the newspaper.

By whom? By advertisers or the public, if you like; but again, the government has no cause.

My question remains; why did the LA Times publish the photos…

It’s mandated to do so per the First Amendment.

and why isn't the newspaper getting any condemnation?

Because the government lacks grounds to preempt. See: New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).

No Sh*t. But the paper can STILL be criticized. I thought of the pentagon Papers when I first read about this.............................

 

[kiwiman127]

Obama's getting hammered.

He needs a distraction.

They drudge up 2 year old pics they've been going over for a month.

We're not like this they say (yes we are)

Maybe next they can find a vid of some troop Teabagging an Afghan.

Obama's getting hammer?
With what? Jack Daniels? Absolute? Samuel Adams?

 

[Peach]

the LA Times is fulfilling its Constitutional mandate.

The "mandate" requires careful review in many cases.

 

[Nosmo King]

so, cutting off someones head, now equates to having a picture taken with bodies?

Don't ask me. Ask an Afghani.

You postulated, so I am asking you...

If an Afghani sees no difference between taking photos of bodies and decapitation, that's the opinion that matters. Why else are we using this hearts and minds strategy?

I think they're both barbaric. But not equal in their barbarism.

 

[Peach]

Don't ask me. Ask an Afghani.

You postulated, so I am asking you...

If an Afghani sees no difference between taking photos of bodies and decapitation, that's the opinion that matters. Why else are we using this hearts and minds strategy?

I think they're both barbaric. But not equal in their barbarism.

The HEARTS & MINDS strategy didn't work in Vietnam either....................

 

[g5000]

We are in unchartered waters in this conflict, this is the first war in recent memory where Americans are deploying to war zones 5, 6, even 7 times,

Exactly. This has been on my mind for a long time.

 

[g5000]

I bet your dads and granddads all had similar pics from Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

It's morbid, ugly, and indecent. But they were placed in morbid, ugly, and indecent situations for long periods of time. This stuff is a twisted kind of outlet. Gruesome therapy.

No one likes it, but there it is.

 

[Peach]

I bet your dads and granddads all had similar pics from Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

It's morbid, ugly, and indecent. But they were placed in morbid, ugly, and indecent situations for long periods of time. This stuff is a twisted kind of outlet. Gruesome therapy.

No one likes it, but there it is.

NATO also "condemned" this, but what is NATO doing to END this conflict?

 

[9thIDdoc]

OWN their ass. Their hearts and minds will follow.
Kittens. Children at play. Puppies. Dead and mangled enemies. All are warm and fuzzy pics to someone.

 

[g5000]

I bet your dads and granddads all had similar pics from Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

It's morbid, ugly, and indecent. But they were placed in morbid, ugly, and indecent situations for long periods of time. This stuff is a twisted kind of outlet. Gruesome therapy.

No one likes it, but there it is.

NATO also "condemned" this, but what is NATO doing to END this conflict?

Here's the thing that bothers me. Media outlets display their biases by choosing not only what to print, but what not to print. In this manner, they determine how the public conversation will be steered. If they decide not to tell you about something, you don't know what you don't know.

You can only talk about what they choose to tell you about. So if they have a liberal bias, they will only tell you things which fit the liberal narrative. If they have a conservative bias, they will only tell you things which fit the conservative narrative.

What's more, there are times when just because you CAN do something that does not mean you SHOULD. There are a lot of really horrible modern movies based on 70s TV shows, and music remixes and mashups, which are evidence of this law.

Just because the press CAN tell us about these photos, that does not mean they should have, especially when they know it will inflame the passions of our enemies.

So why did they do it then?

It is my belief they did this because they want to get people angry in order to undermine the war effort. So this is a case of choosing to print something which aligns with their bias. They will not tell you what to conclude, but they sure work hard to lead you to a specific conclusion about our troops. How much longer before the "baby killer" mantra is revived?

I'm sure the media during WWII had information about all kinds of atrocities being committed by US troops, but they understood the importance of the war effort overrode any sensationalist reporting they would achieve by making these things public knowledge. They understood the propaganda value such reporting would have provided to the enemy.

This was an incredibly irresponsible action on the part of the newspaper. They do not have any room to hide behind the lofty claim of "transparency" in light of the fact the media chooses to conceal or downplay other stories. The only thing that is transparent in the media is their bias.

 

[Peach]

I bet your dads and granddads all had similar pics from Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

It's morbid, ugly, and indecent. But they were placed in morbid, ugly, and indecent situations for long periods of time. This stuff is a twisted kind of outlet. Gruesome therapy.

No one likes it, but there it is.

NATO also "condemned" this, but what is NATO doing to END this conflict?

Here's the thing that bothers me. Media outlets display their biases by choosing not only what to print, but what not to print. In this manner, they determine how the public conversation will be steered. If they decide not to tell you about something, you don't know what you don't know.

You can only talk about what they choose to tell you about. So if they have a liberal bias, they will only tell you things which fit the liberal narrative. If they have a conservative bias, they will only tell you things which fit the conservative narrative.

What's more, there are times when just because you CAN do something that does not mean you SHOULD. There are a lot of really horrible modern movies based on 70s TV shows, and music remixes and mashups, which are evidence of this law.

Just because the press CAN tell us about these photos, that does not mean they should have, especially when they know it will inflame the passions of our enemies.

So why did they do it then?

It is my belief they did this because they want to get people angry in order to undermine the war effort. So this is a case of choosing to print something which aligns with their bias. They will not tell you what to conclude, but they sure work hard to lead you to a specific conclusion about our troops. How much longer before the "baby killer" mantra is revived?

I'm sure the media during WWII had information about all kinds of atrocities being committed by US troops, but they understood the importance of the war effort overrode any sensationalist reporting they would achieve by making these things public knowledge. They understood the propaganda value such reporting would have provided to the enemy.

This was an incredibly irresponsible action on the part of the newspaper. They do not have any room to hide behind the lofty claim of "transparency" in light of the fact the media chooses to conceal or downplay other stories. The only thing that is transparent in the media is their bias.

Excellent points, though I see media as more concerned with profits than politics, the end result is the same. SENSATIONAL sells.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Since none of you cheerleaders are THERE, it is easy to forget this may cause loss of MORE troops lives!

Wouldn't be a problem if we weren't there. Why are we still there?

 

[g5000]

Since none of you cheerleaders are THERE, it is easy to forget this may cause loss of MORE troops lives!

Wouldn't be a problem if we weren't there. Why are we still there?

You two have been led to exactly where the newspaper wanted you to go.