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.

 

Military Caskets Arriving at Dover -- What Bush Doesn't Want Reported

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Any one here think that maybe this is done out of respect for the dead and there loved ones? Think about it, most people don't want a picture of mangled bodies of their son/dad/brother/uncle on TV and in the newspapers. This isn't a conspiracy - it is a matter of respect.


And Santa Clause told me he's coming to pick you up for a free tour of the North Pole come Christmas eve.




posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Any one here think that maybe this is done out of respect for the dead and there loved ones? Think about it, most people don't want a picture of mangled bodies of their son/dad/brother/uncle on TV and in the newspapers. This isn't a conspiracy - it is a matter of respect.


And Santa Clause told me he's coming to pick you up for a free tour of the North Pole come Christmas eve.


Respect? Respect would have been attending a funeral or 10. respect would have been acknowledging that mistakes were made. Respect would have been never sending them to Iraq in the first place.
Now, as always, it's re-election bid CYA.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Yeah...but those stories only show up in the hometowns of the soldiers. So when you hear of 2-3 local deaths (in all of Dallas) it doesn't have the same impact as realizing that thousands of soldiers have been wounded (and this is being kept rather quiet) and well over 100 have died just this month.

What about the coverage that each death gets on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc.. I doubt that the deaths from Vietnam got as much mention as these do.

Think of the impact of seeing not just one coffin but of 100 of them lined up. Or of 20, knowing that these were from the news report you saw last week. We're visual animals and it's one thing to say the number 20 and quite another to look at the line of coffins.


So what? I think that it should be the families choice as to whether or not a pic of the casket can be shown. Right now it is being done for purely political reasons. Notice how all of the critics are laying the blame for the deaths on Bush. It is pathetic.

[Edited on 23/4/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Byrd


What about the coverage that each death gets on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc.. I doubt that the deaths from Vietnam got as much mention as these do.



Yet again, you've proven how utterly clueless you are. What are are you 14 years-old?
Journalists covered Vietnam freely. NO CONTROL. It was on TV every single night. THAT is why Americans, combined with massive protests, demanded we get out of Vietnam. Stick to subjects you know something about. You're an insult to all who have ever served.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid What are are you 14 years-old?
And you are? No need for implied derogatory references like this.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid And Santa Clause told me he's coming to pick you up for a free tour of the North Pole come Christmas eve.
Is there a reason you favor attacking with sarcasm rather than on-topic commentary?



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
What are are you 14 years-old?

And you are?

No need for implied derogatory references like this.


Originally posted by EastCoastKid
And Santa Clause told me he's coming to pick you up for a free tour of the North Pole come Christmas eve.

Is there a reason you favor attacking with sarcasm rather than on-topic commentary?

Read what he said. It's self-explanatory.





posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Byrd


I doubt that the deaths from Vietnam got as much mention as these do.





HELLO?



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I doubt that the deaths from Vietnam got as much mention as these do.





HELLO?


Then please point me to where I can find a daily list of names of who died. Where was that during Vietnam, all they posted was numbers.

It is a much different thing to report each one by name, which is what all of the major news outlets are doing.

Rather than think about that you go for the underage comments again. Are you ever going to learn?



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
You're an insult to all who have ever served.


Not as much as you are, till I met you I never met an Army guy I did not like.

You don't know anything about me or what I do and yet all you do is insult me. Are you like this to every member of the military, past and present?

It is people like you that give us problems, and not solutions.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Being old enough to recall coverage of the Vietnam war, information was a slow trickle dedicated to three news networks, major news papers, and major magazines. It was clear there was strict control over the amount, and content of what was said. Conspiracy theories of the time were much more intense over war-time information than they are now. Spin always occurs, and spin is always attempted. But in this era, with the Internet and multiple 24-hour news networks, it's much more difficult to maintain the "approved line".



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
As we used to say in the Army, "Waaahh." Go cry to someone else, Cool Hand. So, you don't like me. I could care less.


Any comments about the subject at hand? Doubtful.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Actually, SkepticOverlord, It wasn't until George H. W. Bush was in office and the Gulf War came around that control over the media regarding what was covered came into effect. The suits in Washington learned a big-time lesson in Vietnam that they could not allow journalists running freely through a war zone. The images they were bringing back constantly was utterly disturbing to our citizens and ultimately led to Americans demanding the return of our soldiers.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Why do we need to see the pics of the caskets landing at Dover if the newspapers are placing photos of the deceased in the papers?

I fail to see the difference between seeing a picture of a flag draped casket and the picture of a person that accompanies the article about how they were killed.

Don't they both show the same thing, that another service member has died for his or her country?



Now see, I tried to make a very similar point in another thread, as was told to "piss off" and not to make postings personal

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Actually, SkepticOverlord, It wasn't until George H. W. Bush was in office and the Gulf War came around that control over the media regarding what was covered came into effect.


That's correct, according to what I've read and what I remember.


The suits in Washington learned a big-time lesson in Vietnam that they could not allow journalists running freely through a war zone. The images they were bringing back constantly was utterly disturbing to our citizens and ultimately led to Americans demanding the return of our soldiers.
[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Which is why I was so puzzled to find journalists "embedded" with troops this time... although I suppose they probably had restrictions about their reporting (or do they? I don't recall any flap about this.)

The odd "media" aspect of the war bothered me. In some ways it felt like they were going in to shoot some sort of Hollywood type movie with news people giving "gritty realism" so the folks at home would support Bush's effort. I wonder now if the journalists were pretty much hand-picked. Anybody know?



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid Actually, SkepticOverlord, It wasn't until George H. W. Bush was in office and the Gulf War came around that control over the media regarding what was covered came into effect.
I suggest you make an effort to discuss this point with others who were paying attention to political conspiracies during the Vietnam war era. You may be surprised.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The embedded reporters were under complete control of the unit they were with. The reporter gave his story to the commander for the once-over and then the reporter filed his story. The receiving editor then perused the story for all things sensitive. There was complete, Orwellian control over content. That was the bottom line. The reporters became cheerleaders. It's disgusting. Modern Journalism is a joke. And yeah, there was a disturbing Hollywood-ishness to it.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Actually, SkepticOverlord, It wasn't until George H. W. Bush was in office and the Gulf War came around that control over the media regarding what was covered came into effect.

I suggest you make an effort to discuss this point with others who were paying attention to political conspiracies during the Vietnam war era. You may be surprised.


Some of my best friends are Vietnam veterans. They will tell you exactly what I told you.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The embedded reporters were under complete control of the unit they were with. The reporter gave his story to the commander for the once-over and then the reporter filed his story. The receiving editor then perused the story for all things sensitive. There was complete, Orwellian control over content. That was the bottom line. The reporters became cheerleaders. It's disgusting. Modern Journalism is a joke. And yeah, there was a disturbing Hollywood-ishness to it.




So are you trying to say that you would have supported the news media reporting anything that they want?

There is a reason to limit what they report, ever hear of "loose lips sink ships?"

Would you have wanted reporters telling everyone exactly where you were and what you were doing when you were "in" Iraq?


BTW journalistic censorship started long before DS, way to show how little you know.


[Edited on 23/4/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Semper fi EastCoastkid, My husband is a die hard Marine he will defend the actions in iraq to death, we disagree on that but last night he knew the reason why they do not show the caskets arriving to the airport and he also knows that pictures in the name of history are always released for the archives by the navy but someone made a bubu and they released them to earlier, is not the same when you see funeral service with only one casket and a loving grieving family, that is humane but is not good for the governmet to see as many of them together as in those pictures. My point is this are american childrens, husband, wife and friends they are our heros the governmet does not have the right to bring them in the country like some shameful fatality, because that does not look good for elections.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
www.thememoryhole.org...

www.thememoryhole.org...

www.thememoryhole.org...



The links are dead... Either they've already been hit, or there's a simpler explanation.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join