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.

 

AP Photo of Marine Sparks Controversy

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
To be honest, the picture isn't that graphic.

Also, just because the parents didn't want the picture shown, it doesn't mean it shouldn't. They don't own the picture.

There was a photo from 9/11 that shows a man leaping to his death from the 100th odd floor of the WTC, but that's ok, is it? Did anybody consult his family?

This is War, people. As Slayer said, there are no respawns, you cannot reload the map. Maybe if more young folk saw this, they wouldn't be going into the Military with starry eyes and bloodlust for brown people.




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


whilst we seldom agree on much , for this i star you - war is not a game , you dont get ` anotehr life` , and you do not respawn.

yet the media portray it as ` counterstrike:iraq` but a picture like does show the reality of getting shot or blown up.

it hurts and you can die.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepred

AP Photo of Marine Sparks Controversy



NEW YORK (Sept. 4) -- The Associated Press is distributing a photo of a Marine fatally wounded in battle, choosing after a period of reflection to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.
(visit the link for the full news article)



It is so easy to forget the reality of war, coffins draped with a flag stir feelings of patriotism, honor and sacrifice. The reality is another sovereign land far away is a horrible place to die.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by deepred
 


reply to post by spellbound
 


My time in the service ended a little over 20 years ago.


Censorship?

No.


However they could have blurred out his face and left him nameless. They did what they did for the shock value and ratings and above the protest of the family. The family has just taken a damned hard knock on top of all that they have their sons face plastered all over TV and the internet in his dying minutes. It's harder when you're a parent of a soldier than when you are one. It's hard not to place your child's face on the soldier who died. The families wishes should have been respected.

Embedded reporters are what we use to call excess baggage. Soldiers have a hard enough time trying to focus on the situation at hand instead of worrying about some damned photographer snapping images while they are in a firefight. Sometimes they may cause a lapse in attention and that can cause casualties.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
To be honest, the picture isn't that graphic.

Also, just because the parents didn't want the picture shown, it doesn't mean it shouldn't. They don't own the picture.

There was a photo from 9/11 that shows a man leaping to his death from the 100th odd floor of the WTC, but that's ok, is it? Did anybody consult his family?

This is War, people. As Slayer said, there are no respawns, you cannot reload the map. Maybe if more young folk saw this, they wouldn't be going into the Military with starry eyes and bloodlust for brown people.


For one thing, stumason, most people don't join the military for a bloodlust for 'brown people'. Many usually just don't know what the hell to do with their life.

And I don't think this picture deterred anyone. If the thousands of crippled and thousands of deaths didn't deter them, then this picture won't. If my kid was blown up, I wouldn't want everyone to be able to click on a website and see the picture.

What next stumason, if a reporter takes a picture of a teenager whose lower half of their body is crushed in a car accident and is dead, should they be able to post it in the New York Times to demonstrate the dangers of cars? Even if the parents don't want their mutilated kid to be front page news?

Have some sympathy and respect.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by RetinoidReceptor]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


you want a bloody advert about car crashes and texting whilst driving?

www.break.com...


as featured around the world (fox , cnn) and showing in the UK.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
whilst i have every sympathy for his family, i feel that everybody has a right to see the picture as he was acting as a representitive of america in a foreign country taking the lives of other people, it is with great sadness that he has lost his life, but we must never forget the lives of the taliban or any of the the other people who have died trying to repel the american invaders from their lands, lest we forget america is the agressors and i bet you wouldnt feel so offended if it were a picture of your "enemy" dying on the floor after a glorious cavalry charge by "patriotic" american soldiers, fighting for their corporations and oil and gas



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I salute you for fighting for your country.

I am at a loss to figure out why this world fights.

My father was a decorated war hero .

Why? He was total crap to his family.


CX

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I think it should be up to the family if the pictures are displayed or not.

As for pictures of fatily wounded troopd are concerned, i don't see what the problem is when our news networks regularly show the aftermath of enemy fatalities.

All they do is give you a quick warning about graphic images, and then report it, showing a lot more than the picture in discussion.

Like many have said, this happens all the time, yet the public rarely hears about it. You wouldn't support the government war effort if you knew what it was really like.

CX.

[edit on 5/9/09 by CX]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I grew up a few years to young to fight in the Vietnam war and somehow

felt cheated that the older boys in the nieborhood got to go fight for thier

country and I didn't. Then I saw a newsreel from the war that was only

15-20 seconds long showing a young man/boy/soldier that didn't look old

enough to drive laying in the mud clutching to his chest a boot with a

bloody stump sticking out as two other soldiers/medics tried to wrestle it

away from him and the whole time this boy was screaming for his mother

actualy he was screaming "mommy, mommy, mommy" over and over

and begging eveyone around him to let him go home. I suddenly felt

lucky that I was to young to go to war.

I can say that while the footage was disturbing, it had a profound effect on

my perception of war.

I can only imagine what effect this footage had on his mother as she

watched him scream for her.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


I hope you're as vociferous in your defence of the countless images that have already been shown of dead enemy combatants, civilians and children that have made it onto the various media outlets? It's a two way street.

And while I acknowledge that many don't join to shoot "brown people", some do.

This is not the only example I could provide of the vicious right-wing, racist way that many act and behave.

One interview from the beggining of the Iraq war in 2003 sticks in my mind to this day. When the BBC interviewed US Marines about their mission, the response from several of them was "We're here to shoot A-rabs and blow things up", with a chorus of Yee-haw from some.

Besides all that, there is freedom of the press, is there not? If a newspaper wanted to show images of kiddies crushed by cars, they could, it's their decision. Whether anyone buys that paper or not is down to the market.

I've seen pics in the media showing all manner of gruesomness, but usually they are of "brown" people that have been killed in either natural disasters or by Western weaponry. I suppose that's fine though, isn't it, as it isn't Johnny Trailerpark lying on the ground with his guts out in a foreign land?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I hate war - and I hate that the dead are shown -and I hate that nobody cares about these dead children and mothers.

It is totally disgusting.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


well said,

sorry second line



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by stumason
 


I hate war - and I hate that the dead are shown -and I hate that nobody cares about these dead children and mothers.

It is totally disgusting.


I think that saying nobody cares about dead children and mothers is an overstatement but, I understand what you are saying.

War is a strange thing, some countries go to war to protect themselves and others go to war to get what they want.

Would you support the viewing of graphic war images if it gave people a more realistic understanding of war?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


I don't recall ever saying I didn't care about the "dead children and mothers", I am just bemused by the double standards some seem to want to impose.

Dead US soldier : "Don't show the pic!" "Think of his mother!"

Dead Afghan children: "Oh well, casualties happen in War." "He would probably grow up to be a terrorist anyway." (



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by deepred
 


Actually, no-one cares about dead mothers, dead fathers, dead children, - no-one cares about war when it does not affect them.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
It is often said that Americans are pro war mainly because they've never actually had the honour of having one fought on their front porch, while the Europeans are much more pragmatic and reserved when it comes to War because they have had them fought on their front porch.



You forget the Revolution and our civil war.

But of course that's in the past just like WWII. So unless you lived through the blitz or the battle of the Somme, Let's not try to take the moral high ground. Most of the men I served with didn't have a stereo typical persona like many like to portray us as having.

Stereo typing on all sides seems to be a site past time here at ATS.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by deepred
 


Actually, no-one cares about dead mothers, dead fathers, dead children, - no-one cares about war when it does not affect them.



I care!

Sometimes I wish I didn't but, I do.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
RIP Brother...
To be honest I prefer it over the sanitisation version. Just showing marines helping civilians, tribe leaders and commanders sharing tea, everyone all smiles...

It really is propaganda reminded of 1984 all over again showing what they want you to see. I mean I remember they even fought to not-show the picture of all the coffins draped with American flags!! Not even gruesome, just showing reality!


Originally posted by spellbound
The media is insensitive and is only after a buck.

Same deal with those that DONT want to show, only after a buck (or 100 million bucks in contract). Want to make war look like a game as has been said.

As shown here:

"Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me," Gates wrote.

Does he really care about familys wishes, or just how his failing war is portrayed..?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by deepred
 


Hey, Deep, you are a bleeding heart like me.

It is hard to be like that.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join