It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US troops upload photos of dead Iraqis for porn

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Those who have seen some of my previous threads will remember the photos i posted that my son took whilst in Iraq.

These were taken by him, and i shared them here on ATS. They did not depict any dead or mutilated bodies, although he did take some like that.
As has already been said, these type of images are now common place on the Web.

Most soldiers i know, have taken literally thousands of photographs. They took them to show us, the people back home what it is really like out there. They are not edited images that our World of media throws in our faces day after day. They are the true images of what has been seen, and has been done.
Basically, it matters not what the content is, it is the depiction of true life through the soldiers eyes as they saw it at the time.

Viewing such images is down to each individual. We can choose what we click on.

My self, nor my son has made any profit from these images, nor would i even dream of it. I have not even uploaded the graphic images to my hosting site.




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
If you insist on personalizing this so be it.

War is not a video game indeed.

Graphic photographs of dead combatants should make this apparent. The US media is banned from publishing their photographic evidence of the horrors of this conflict. The US mainstream population has not seen, nor likely has the stomach to see, the gruesome realities of modern warfare. My general opinion on the matter of uploading anything to the WWW - is that is a personal right and protected under Freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution of these United States. It is not illegal. Degradation of corpses is illegal under the Geneva Convention, but taking photographs is NOT considered degradation to the best of my knowledge.

If my childern where to be murdered in conflict, or otherwise, their bodies photographed and posted on the internet , I would not be happy about it. That being said , personally I would avenge their deaths to the best of my ability, regardless of law , and in the most heinous fashion possible. This is my way, a personal way illegal or not , I would hunt down those responsible, or those affiliated with those responsible and exact revenge in the mose sadistic way I could think of.

However - this conflict is state sponsored . moral or not , legal or not , the truth is still the truth. The dead are still dead, and the agony of loss is still agony - it doesn't matter from which side you are on, war is conflict in it's most animalistic sense, attrition is not a consequence of actions, it is rather the chief tactic of men in suits at desks thousands of miles removed from the smell of the rotting dead.

WAR is war my friend, and nothing about has been or ever will be pleasant

Alias Jones



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alias Jones

If my childern where to be murdered in conflict, or otherwise, their bodies photographed and posted on the internet , I would not be happy about it. That being said , personally I would avenge their deaths to the best of my ability, regardless of law , and in the most heinous fashion possible. This is my way, a personal way illegal or not , I would hunt down those responsible, or those affiliated with those responsible and exact revenge in the mose sadistic way I could think of.

However - this conflict is state sponsored . moral or not , legal or not , the truth is still the truth. The dead are still dead, and the agony of loss is still agony - it doesn't matter from which side you are on, war is conflict in it's most animalistic sense, attrition is not a consequence of actions, it is rather the chief tactic of men in suits at desks thousands of miles removed from the smell of the rotting dead.


Thank you Mr. Jones. I appreciate your honesty. I had no intent of angering you and I hope I did not. My point was to allow you and others to see that death is personal to someone. And the repercussions are possible retaliation.

Now let me further complicate this idea by observing that what is legal and moral are often contrary. For example, it is legal to NOT brush your teeth, comb your hair, go without socks, sweep your steps, even clean your house, etc. Yet the greater majority do these things. And is it not out of some obligation higher than law requires?

Law is written in requirements and allowances according to what men find acceptable and what honorable persons would do under a given circumstance.

Thus law written along these lines does not recognize a moral failure and cannot address that failure. In other words, when honorable men and women would not perform a certain action, we need no law to prohibit it. (This applies to everything, not just the posting of pictures)

It is only when man chooses to live by law alone, performing actions that are not disallowed that new laws become necessary.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
garyo1954, Amen brudda.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
TrueAmerican this is a great topic that has many dynamics working.
Thank you for posting it.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
garyo1954, you are quite welcome! In all honesty I am stunned that some people would try to say that there is no moral issue here, as a justification to do such a thing.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
What should concern us as well is why these individuals are dead, who they were, what they did that warranted their extra judicial executions? The soldiers taking and posting the photo's is not much different than soldiers activities in any war. In WWII our boys often boiled the skulls of Japanese soldiers and sent the cleaned out skull back home to their sweethearts. It's a matter of dehumanizing the opponent so that these atrocities seem somehow palatable. They are "the other" in the LeGuin sense. Once you categorize a species, race or people as evil it is much easier to get the young guys to shoot the hell out of them. Once they're dead taking pictures and sending them around is no biggie. Not having done it, the killing is the hard part IMO.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I think the difference here is that these soldiers took pictures of dead Iraqi's for their own personal gain and enjoyment, while the radical Muslims have taken pictures of dead Americans strictly for their propaganda value. Our soldiers don't go around killing Iraqis (as far as I know) just to get a good video or some good pictures to post on the net. However, we see the insurgency and the terrorists doing this very thing.

I want to make it clear that I do not condone soldiers taking pictures of dead Iraqi's so that they can trade them for porn. That is just wrong in so many ways. However, I am not against soldiers taking pictures of Iraqi's/terrorists/insurgents who were killed in combat, provided it is done with some level of taste. This is history in the making. These are life-chaning experiences for our men and women in uniform. If they kill someone who has attacked them then I think they have a right to photographically document the aftermath. Whether they keep the photos for their own personal scrap book, trade them amongst each other, or deliver them to the press, I could care less. But death is part of life. War is part of life. As such, those involved and those reporting on it each have a right to document it as they see fit.

We could certainly do without the disgusting or sarcastic captions, obviously. I also think we need to make it clear that this is just a few soldiers who are taking these photos and trading them for access to a raunchy website. It in no way should change anyone's opinion of the honorable 160,000+ men and women risking their lives in Iraq.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Has anybody actually been to those sites? (Or do we all cast judgment by hear say?)

Yes, I have and they are degrading. The soldiers gloat of their kills, and state things like "A good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi".

They like somebody else stated "dehumanize" the enemy. (Much like "A good Kraut is a dead Kraut". Of the past.) They are trained killers. Trained in the art of War. And War is their passion. They are also usually mere kids out of high school. And all the immaturity that goes with it.

I am too old. When I see the enemy, I start thinking "Does he have kids like me, a wife, etc?" Thus, I humanize the enemy. (And have a hard time dealing with any "pics" of dead people. Especially if there are kids in it.)

The Kid soldiers are full of themselves, out to conquer the world, And the politicians take advantage of that. They fight our wars so that we can be free or enslave others. Depending on your belief system.

Its not a liberal world of Utopia out there. And even the most “Socialist” Nation have Trained killers. Like the French legion.

(BTW- I saw pics of dead people when I was a kid. WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I see dead people all the time in my work profession. I will never be “Used” to it. But I manage. )

By dehumanizing the enemy and gloating over the corpse. Is a way of dealing with “Death”. It is a necessary evil. And all the armchair peace nicks here including me. Need to realize that.

Keep the pics up, But limit it to “Adults” only.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by msnevil
Has anybody actually been to those sites? (Or do we all cast judgment by hear say?)

Yes, I have and they are degrading. The soldiers gloat of their kills, and state things like "A good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi".

They like somebody else stated "dehumanize" the enemy. (Much like "A good Kraut is a dead Kraut". Of the past.) They are trained killers. Trained in the art of War. And War is their passion. They are also usually mere kids out of high school. And all the immaturity that goes with it.

I am too old. When I see the enemy, I start thinking "Does he have kids like me, a wife, etc?" Thus, I humanize the enemy. (And have a hard time dealing with any "pics" of dead people. Especially if there are kids in it.)

The Kid soldiers are full of themselves, out to conquer the world, And the politicians take advantage of that. They fight our wars so that we can be free or enslave others. Depending on your belief system.

Its not a liberal world of Utopia out there. And even the most “Socialist” Nation have Trained killers. Like the French legion.

(BTW- I saw pics of dead people when I was a kid. WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I see dead people all the time in my work profession. I will never be “Used” to it. But I manage. )

By dehumanizing the enemy and gloating over the corpse. Is a way of dealing with “Death”. It is a necessary evil. And all the armchair peace nicks here including me. Need to realize that.

Keep the pics up, But limit it to “Adults” only.



It's a necessary evil? Why? To make it easier for the killers? Why on earth would we want to do that? You demean the soldiers doing the dirty work by identifying them as young and thus immature, yet you condone their mocking the dead as somehow necessary. Necessary to what? Does mocking the dead opposition somehow increase their sense of importance or superiority?

On the contrary, our soldiers should honor those they kill and bury them with the same respect they would demand for their own war dead. This is the same issue as the prison beatings, rapes and killings. It's the reason for the Geneva Convenstions. There's nothing honorable about demeaning the enemy. It demeans the entire project. It encourages similar or worse behavior by the Iraqis against our own troops, dead and alive. And the fault lies with the soldiers and those officers condoning these behaviors, as well as an accepting public back home. I refuse to support our troops to the extent that they abuse prisoners and demean themselves. Just as with our own children we should demand a higher standard from the troops.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Respectfully, You have never "watched" the Video's nor seen the comments have you.

War is Barbaric, and those who play the game know it well. Perhaps you are "Trained" by the media to believe war can be played with certain rules.

But I tell you the truth. If a Torture interrogation can lead about the saving of Soldiers. The respective country will try it.

If shooting a enemy soldier in the back. And Possibly "save'" their life. They will do it. (Dead enemy soldiers can't use explosives) (As shown by the recent video capture of a American GI shooting a enemy freedom fighter or terrorist in the back.)

There is no "equal" value of life. When it is the enemy. The Allied armies didn’t care if German civilians were killed by Bombing. For them, the means justified the Need. The Japanese didn’t care when they raped and pillaged the Chinese. America didn’t care when it dropped the “Bomb”. etc.

Yes, I would love the world to have the Geneva convention enforced. On All participants. But the Victor enforces the Geneva convention on others, yet the Victor. Is innocent of the same crimes.

Read about the Bosnian war, and see how a populace can become barbaric by constant War. And notice that it can happen to All Countries. When your Family is threatened and killed. You will do like wise. To your “enemy”. And in Bosnia, Your neighbor was your “enemy”.

The saying, “those who live by the sword, die by the sword” Needs to be realized in this world. And then perhaps the sword can become a plow?


""""""""
"t's a necessary evil? Why? To make it easier for the killers? Why on earth would we want to do that? You demean the soldiers doing the dirty work by identifying them as young and thus immature, yet you condone their mocking the dead as somehow necessary. Necessary to what? Does mocking the dead opposition somehow increase their sense of importance or superiority?

On the contrary, our soldiers should honor those they kill and bury them with the same respect they would demand for their own war dead. This is the same issue as the prison beatings, rapes and killings. It's the reason for the Geneva Convenstions. There's nothing honorable about demeaning the enemy. It demeans the entire project. It encourages similar or worse behavior by the Iraqis against our own troops, dead and alive. And the fault lies with the soldiers and those officers condoning these behaviors, as well as an accepting public back home. I refuse to support our troops to the extent that they abuse prisoners and demean themselves. Just as with our own children we should demand a higher standard from the troops."""""



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

There is no excuse for this; no excuse at all. These people have lost their souls to the point where they give photos of destroyed physical bodies for photos of girls who are destroying their souls so that others can pursue lewd thoughts.


TC not sure if this was mentioned on the third page, but the subject title is a little misleading. These pictures are not used for porn. What the soldiers did was trade these pictures for free access to pay-perview a porn site. Still doesn't make anything right, just thought I'd clear that up.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by silentlonewolf
TC not sure if this was mentioned on the third page, but the subject title is a little misleading. These pictures are not used for porn. What the soldiers did was trade these pictures for free access to pay-perview a porn site. Still doesn't make anything right, just thought I'd clear that up.


Ahhh, no. The subject title is not misleading and states exactly what is happening. The soldiers uploaded pics of dead Iraqis in exchange for free access to porn. And condensed down, the title still accurately reflects what is happening. You haven't cleared anything up. It was already clear.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by msnevil

Respectfully, You have never "watched" the Video's nor seen the comments have you.

War is Barbaric, and those who play the game know it well. Perhaps you are "Trained" by the media to believe war can be played with certain rules.

But I tell you the truth. If a Torture interrogation can lead about the saving of Soldiers. The respective country will try it.""""


Yes, and executing all convicted rapists and thugs generally might reduce crime. We had the same policy in Vietnam of killing the civilians fairly randomly. But if you're a soldier fighting in an illegal and unjustified operation (like Iraq and Vietnam) you're still responsible for the killing you do. The point is that these soldiers should not allow themselves to be placed in such a position in Iraq. We aren't ants in a colony, we are human beings. As such we have a moral obligation to determine what we are willing to kill for. As civilians we have a duty to decide what govt. policies we are willing to support. Or should we as civilians and soldiers simply bow down to Washington and support the war for oil, the war designed to transfer the public treasury to the pockets of Bush's corporate supporters? Sure they're trying to kill our soldiers. You'd be trying to kill them if a bunch of gun toting Iraqis were marching down your street as well. They're doing exactly what we would be doing if circumstances were reversed. In other words, I understand why our guys are motivated to torture and murder, I'm just not as willing as you to give them (or the Brit and US govts) a pass.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
1st- The US along with Vietnam both committed atrocities. When you have politicians put unrealistic expectations on US Soldiers. And the Viet-cong Have no such restrictions. Then add to the equation Drugged out soldiers, Suicide kid bombs, Insane Soldiers, Mass killing from both sides, etc. Then you start to understand the Calamity of War. (Which is a excellent exp. Of why we need “trained” killers.)

2nd- The US justifies its Wars by the Communist domino theory-Vietnam and Terrorist Domino theory-Iraq.

So while you might call it a “unjust” war. Others would tend to differ with you.. Yes, I know we have a oil pipeline through Iraq-Jordan-Isreal. And then its imported to the US. So yes, I know Iraq is partially about Oil. But its also about fighting terrorists from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Along with a “friendly” base of operations in the middle East. Plus ridding the world of a insane dictator who gasses his own people. etc.

3rd-“the war designed to transfer the public treasury to the pockets of Bush's corporate supporters?” I will let the conservative "Bush" party members answer this one.

4th- Most Iraqis would prefer limited US occupation over Saddam’s regime. (If you ignore the Media’s lies, and read\listen to the Iraqi. You would see this. Or have actually talked to American\Britian soldiers.) Also you have the Kurds wanting their own government, and turkey threatening to Invade. If this happens. The Local Shiites preoccupation in starting a “puppet regime” for Iran. The Sunni’s either want a “independent” Iraq outside of Shiite control. Or worse a return of the Ba’ath regime. A Bush foreign policy of Permanent local occupation zones or Bases. Etc. Then you can see the powder Keg. That is Iraq.

5th- Until Humans are able to control his base desires. Then there will be no peace. The pictures, porn, etc. Are ways to channel those desires.The French Brothel's of wwII had a purpose. The internet now is a versian of that French Brothel. To Censor such avenue's of escape. Would be detrimental for society's well being and personal Freedom. (BTW- I'm libertarian.)

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""

Yes, and executing all convicted rapists and thugs generally might reduce crime. We had the same policy in Vietnam of killing the civilians fairly randomly. But if you're a soldier fighting in an illegal and unjustified operation (like Iraq and Vietnam) you're still responsible for the killing you do. The point is that these soldiers should not allow themselves to be placed in such a position in Iraq. We aren't ants in a colony, we are human beings. As such we have a moral obligation to determine what we are willing to kill for. As civilians we have a duty to decide what govt. policies we are willing to support. Or should we as civilians and soldiers simply bow down to Washington and support the war for oil, the war designed to transfer the public treasury to the pockets of Bush's corporate supporters? Sure they're trying to kill our soldiers. You'd be trying to kill them if a bunch of gun toting Iraqis were marching down your street as well. They're doing exactly what we would be doing if circumstances were reversed. In other words, I understand why our guys are motivated to torture and murder, I'm just not as willing as you to give them (or the Brit and US govts) a pass.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by msnevil
1st- The US along with Vietnam both committed atrocities.

Yes, but the difference is we were in their country and they were defending their soil. Similar to our American Revolution in that sense.

2nd- The US justifies its Wars by the Communist domino theory-Vietnam and Terrorist Domino theory-Iraq.

Yes and communism is so very scary isn't it? Let me ask you, when did a communist ever harm you or even the U.S.? It's just another bogeyman for the elite to work up the masses with to justify spending 56% of our undesignated budget on military industrial complex crap. This, rather than provide for national health care (God forbid) or invest the money into our national infrastructure such as increasing public transportation, etc., etc., etc.

So while you might call it a “unjust” war. Others would tend to differ with you.. Plus ridding the world of a insane dictator who gasses his own people. etc.

Very nice. But he was our dictator just like the Shah of Iran was our dictator for many years. We armed him. We didn't care about his gassing of Kurds until 10 or so years after the fact when we decided he would be the next bogeyman. We've supported henchmen for decades from Pinochet on down the line.

3rd-“the war designed to transfer the public treasury to the pockets of Bush's corporate supporters?”

Why? The proof is in the no bid contracts. I thought we were a free market economy? There's nothing free marked about no bid contracts for cronies.

4th- Most Iraqis would prefer limited US occupation over Saddam’s regime. Then you can see the powder Keg. That is Iraq.

Saddam is in captivity and his regime is gone. No Iraqi wants US occupation. The Iraqis want the US out now. And in any event, it is not up to the Iraqi citizens to determine US foreign policy. Unless the name is Chalabi of course. Even Republicans are now calling for a pullout.

5th- To Censor such avenue's of escape. Would be detrimental for society's well being and personal Freedom. (BTW- I'm libertarian.)

I am not advocating for censorship. I am advocating for humanity. There is nothing humane about the photo's or their posting. It is demeaning to us all. It mocks the project and the participants. It has no purpose other than that. It is juvenile. For this reason alone the military should prohibit it.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""


Here's what Bush I said about why going into Iraq would be a mistake. He was prophetic on this one.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

Barren indeed.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join