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.

 

Should the dead be photographed

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
With the current events of people ( evil doers ) being photographed as they lay dead, case in point SH and his two sons. Is this morally accepted now in our way of life?

Arguements may lead to it being a 'burden of proof' issue, but is it just a way of 'showing off' for masses. Letting people know who's in charge?

Yes, it was supposedly handled solely by the Iraqis judicial system, but does the final outcome of the trial somehow reflect back on the US's WOT.

Back in the wild west, pictures were often taken of dead outlaws, even in the gangster era pics were taken. But at some point this became morally unexceptable.

Is showing pictures of the dead now becoming acceptable in our current way of life?

Has society loosened another notch on their belt?





posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Personally, it doesn't bother me as I don't have much reverence for the dead.

I think the need for knowledge and understanding outweigh the need for sensitivity just about any day of the week, so if the pictures serve some purpose (as they do in this case), any purpose really, I see no harm in them.

Maybe I'm jaded?

In any case, the way we treat our dead has always spooked me. It seems too wacky for a modern society, too much of a throwback to darker days.

My town is stuffed to bursting with the dead - I live surrounded by corpses. Wars, sickness, old age, you name it, casualties of life are taking up a whole lot of space in my neck of the woods. We've got more cemeteries than we know what to do with. What's the point of it all? I find myself asking that question every day on the way to work, as I pass multiple cemeteries (mostly war casualties).

I mean, we don't hold the same reverence for fingernail clippings, but they're made of the same stuff as our dead. I think we can pretty much all agree that dead folks aren't the same as living - they lack the spark of life that makes them special. Nobody in their right mind can love a corpse, right? They can love the memory, or the image, or the idea, but once the soul is gone, can you love the vessel? Once that intangible essence has left, what remains that's worth preserving?



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I think we have always had a morbid fascination with the dead.

We haven't always had the means to capture the images so accurately.

Many ancient cultures had deathmasks, to retain the image.
There have been drawings. Heck, even in the old west, if a "wanted" man was captured and hung..His picture was taken after death.

Even a very popular religion has images and statues of a hanging dead person contained inside buildings of worship.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Sure, why not?

There was a higher purpose to be served by showing Saddam and his sons dead. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people over in that region that have suffered because of them. They deserve the peace of mind that comes with knowing for sure that the butcher and his evil sons are dead.

Not just hearing the news but seeing with their own eyes can help them not to be as afraid ... I'm all for that.

Screw Saddam. Help the living.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Why not? They're dead. Without a soul, without being a living entity, you're nothing. If one of my loved ones died, I would hate seeings a dead corpse due to the ONLY fact it would be upsetting for me to have to go through all the pain again. If I was able to touch the corpse, I still wouldn't feel that same heart, because that soul is gone. You're an object now.

That might sound rather contradictory but it's not.

Why shouldn't we be able to capture picture of the dead? Especially Saddams.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
many iraqis NEEDED Proof of their deaths.As for their dignity why should they deserve respect in death they denied hundreds of thousands in life??



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I totally agree that the spreading of picture sof the dead is wrong. What is happening to society. Are we not reverting to revelling in death. Nobody and I mean NOBODY should have their death paraded about in pictures and media, it de-sensitizes and is evil and de-humanizing. We arre becoming like the romans watching people die should not be entertainment



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
A hundred or so years ago, when photography was relatively new, people sometimes had photos taken of their own dead; family and possibly close friends. It was in vogue for a time. It was people's way of keeping something of the person they'd lost. These photos weren't for publication; they were a revered momento. These days, they're an oddity to sometimes be found on Ebay. But they're still macabre.

Photographs taken of public figures to be used for mass publication are at best an appalling laspse in taste.

The fact these photos are shown on tv news, etc. does not alter the fact they are macabre, poor taste.

Without realising it, the masses are being turned into perverted voyeurs. They're being programmed into becoming heartless; sensation seekers. They're being encouraged to ignore the boundaries between decency and primitive blood-lusters. They're dragging their children down with them.

Anyone with half a working brain is well aware that the entire Saddam scam is a shameless construct of morally bankrupt loonies posing as politicians and military.

They know -- in the dying bits of what's left of their brain -- that Saddam didn't ever have weapons of mass destruction. It was all a lie and most people knew it from the start.

They know that Iraq was subjected to over a decade of 'sanctions' engineered to drive a sophisticated, secular nation to its knees and to thus create internal unrest.

They know that ordinary Iraqi citizens were deprived, largely by the US, of essential medicines, foods and other of life's necessities for over ten years.

They know Saddam was provided arms by the US even up to the time Bush sent US troops into Iraq to start murdering Iraqi men, women and children.

They know all of this and more.

Yet they cluster now to look at photos of a man who was NOT Saddam, in his death.

Those who justify the photographing of the dead Phony Saddam and those who attempt to justify their fascination with such photos are fooling no-one.

Instead, they are advertising the moral bankruptcy of a section of the US population.

They are announcing to the world that they are so far from human that they've become worthless ghouls, with nothing better to do. They're saying they've slid to the bottom of the pile.

And in doing that, they're admitting the insane US administration has succeeded beyond it's wildest dreams, in turning a section of the US population into unthinking, non-discriminating zombies.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
Anyone with half a working brain is well aware that the entire Saddam scam is a shameless construct of morally bankrupt loonies posing as politicians and military.

They know -- in the dying bits of what's left of their brain -- that Saddam didn't ever have weapons of mass destruction. It was all a lie and most people knew it from the start.


It's nice to see your compliment to those who serve in the military as morally bankrupt loonies.

Are you saying that at no point(not just at the time of the invasion), that Saddam had WMD? The Kurds and Iranians would beg to differ.



They know that ordinary Iraqi citizens were deprived, largely by the US, of essential medicines, foods and other of life's necessities for over ten years.


So let's hear your rancor towards Bill Clinton then, if this is the way you feel. The Iraqi citizens were deprived while Saddam and his cronies were living high on the hog, while Kofi Annan, the Russians, French, etc..were busy in the oil scandals(and selling Saddam weapons despite the embargo- any wonder why they were so opposed to the war, when they had billions of dollars of weapons/oil deals at stake?)



They know Saddam was provided arms by the US even up to the time Bush sent US troops into Iraq to start murdering Iraqi men, women and children.


What is your source that we supplied weapons right up until DS?



They know all of this and more.

Yet they cluster now to look at photos of a man who was NOT Saddam, in his death.

Those who justify the photographing of the dead Phony Saddam and those who attempt to justify their fascination with such photos are fooling no-one.



You have proof of this how?



Instead, they are advertising the moral bankruptcy of a section of the US population.

They are announcing to the world that they are so far from human that they've become worthless ghouls, with nothing better to do. They're saying they've slid to the bottom of the pile.

And in doing that, they're admitting the insane US administration has succeeded beyond it's wildest dreams, in turning a section of the US population into unthinking, non-discriminating zombies.


Nice sweeping generalization. It's good to see any lack of stereotyping in your arguments.



[edit on 2-1-2007 by GT100FV]

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3-1-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
You've clearly taken things very personally.

Maybe you need to ask yourself why.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I was following what you said... up until this.



Originally posted by Dock6


Yet they cluster now to look at photos of a man who was NOT Saddam, in his death.

Those who justify the photographing of the dead Phony Saddam and those who attempt to justify their fascination with such photos are fooling no-one.


Any proof or even what the speculation might be to arrive at this?


/Back on topic

Can pics and vids of the dead be contributing to the current 'de-sensatizing' going on in the world ? ( of course, not excluding video games
)



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Some people WANT to be photographed when they are dead ... did any of you see James Brown's open casket photos that were plastered all over the place? And supposedly it was his wishes for Michael Jackson to be at his funeral ... seems as if James Brown wanted to make darn sure that even in death he was getting top publicity!

Photographs of a hung Saddam are publicized for many reasons, one of which is to try to keep people like many of us on this board from coming up with theories that the hanging didn't really happen....
Not that it helps ... I see threads about it being Saddam's lookalike that was hung and how Saddam was killed in a bunker buster in '03, etc. I guess you can't blame them for trying to keep the conspiracy theories to a minimum.

Jemison



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6


You've clearly taken things very personally.

Maybe you need to ask yourself why.


Sweeping generalizations tend to bother me, especially if I am in a group that is being stereotyped(inaccurately).

Historical inaccuracies tend to irk me as well. If you present something as fact that is simply not true, I'm going to respond. You're willing to believe all of the worst about the US, yet not apply your microscope of justice on Saddam and the UN, to see what they might have been up to. This calls your motives into suspicion.

Since I disagree with you, I'm the one who has the problem and needs to do self reflection?



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
If the dead can't stop you from photographing, that's their problem.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
We have always photographed the dead. People use to line up to see the dead in coffins. Not only that look at the crowds a public execution use to draw. You want proof, google the gun slingers from the old west or public executions. For what ever reason people not all obviouly desire to view the dead. I personally dont care either way nor am I offended. I wouldnt care if I were photographed after I'm dead, what would it matter I'm dead.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Post-mortem portraits use to be very common in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The deceased was dressed up and then photographed in their bed or in a coffin. Do a google search for "Post-mortem portraits" and you can probably find a lot of examples.

Here is a link: WARNING. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE DEAD PEOPLE or PEOPLE POSING WITH DEAD PEOPLE THE DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK!

ame2.asu.edu

[edit on 2-1-2007 by zerotime]

mod edit: bold text added and link shortened

[edit on 3-1-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Its not a new thing taking pictures of the dead. If you look back in History, Billy the Kid, Jessie james as well as other Wild Wild West bad guys had pictures of them taken in wooden caskets or in other ways. In the 1800's people used to take portrait pictures of dead family members and relatives and keep them. As morbid as it seems I always found those old portraits of dead people of the past to be quite intriguing. The different clothes, and even the facial expressions left frozen on their faces when they died.

A picture is worth a thousand words



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
In regard to the profiling of information on a person, then I think that photographs of themselves, living and dead, serve an important purpose. However, a degree of formal respect would be necessary I feel. The photography of mutilated or decaying corpses being readily available and unlinked to anything in particular, serves little purpose other than to shock and offend. This in turn only causes desensitization and that can only be harmful.

Still, such a risk is small. In a world where people still refer to other human beings as "evil", there is enough naivety for photographs of the dead to shock.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocky6
Why not? They're dead. Without a soul, without being a living entity, you're nothing. If one of my loved ones died, I would hate seeings a dead corpse due to the ONLY fact it would be upsetting for me to have to go through all the pain again. If I was able to touch the corpse, I still wouldn't feel that same heart, because that soul is gone. You're an object now.

That might sound rather contradictory but it's not.

Why shouldn't we be able to capture picture of the dead? Especially Saddams.



I dont think Saddam had a soul to be honest with you.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Oh the hypocrisy!


you cant take pictures of a dead war criminals, yet people want to take pictures of flag drapped coffins.

OhhhhhKayyyyyy! can you say.... HYPOCRISY!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join