Pro-US, pro-military bias on ATS?, page 1

I've been posting on this board for a little while now, long enough to have my own opinions on, for example, whether ATS is run by The Secret Government to keep an eye on the conspiracy theorists - a topic that surfaces with tedious regularity on the forums.

Until now I've never really noticed anything that made me think there was real bias going on - and even now I doubt it's more than an unconscious bias on the part of some of the mods... but I have noticed one instance of what does appear to be bias and/or selective enforcement of the T&C.

One of the rules round here is, "thou shalt not post links to pictures which might offend and disturb". Fair enough, you might think. I certainly have no wish to offend... although, for reasons which will become clear, there are circumstances I think disturbing some people might be just the right thing to do.

One topic which comes up not infrequently on the board is the use of Depleted Uranium weapons and their effects. Despite the predictable denials from military sources that they are harmful, the evidence is mounting that DU is responsible for terrible genetic damage that manifests as serious birth defects and foetal deformities.

I think that I ought to be able to link to pictures that show the nature of this damage, and I think that the people who argue in favour of the continued use of these munitions should be forced to look at them. However, I defer to the T&C on this and have never linked to any such photos myself in my discussions on this topic. I've also noted that posters who have felt strongly enough to link to such pictures have had their posts edited accordingly.

Today, however, I note that on the thread Easy Question: Who's Responsible for the 9/11 Plot?, there are links to pictures of Pentagon victims which are easily as disturbing as any of the images I've mentioned above. Yet, somehow, though this post has been up for around 18 hours or so, no mod has stepped in - even though I drew attention to it on the thread itself.

So I'm just asking, are we looking at a double standard here? Are we in an area of (as Chomsky would put it) "worthy" verus "unworthy" victims? Would anyone like to see a more nuanced T&C to deal with this kind of link? Personally, I think if it's not gratuitous, one should be able to link to it, but I recognise that this view is not necessarily shared by the owners of the forum.

However, I definitely think that if there is a T&C that applies to these images, and there is, it should not be enforced selectively. At the moment, that seems to be the case.

What are others' views on this? Does anyone else have examples of this kind of selective or partial enforcement of the T&C?