It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:03 PM
ineteresting change of tone from all you warmongers and survivalists.
dont feel b ad for people who sign up to go inoto foreing counties and kill other people. if they end up on teh business end of a roadside bomb or a bullet, its jsut the universes way of evening itself out.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:52 PM

Originally posted by stumason

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.

I am. I don't want to see any blown up people 'brown' or white. ESPECIALLY if their family really objects to their kid being shown dying for all to see. And those that say the picture demonstrates doesn't. All it does is desensitizes people. It isn't the same as being there. Far from it. Pictures don't instill the reality of war. Hollywood has kind of taken away that power of movies and pictures to show us anything since we are so used to violence already in movies and pictures to such a degree that REAL movies and pictures don't phase us.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by RetinoidReceptor]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by spellbound

So how do you propose to stop an evil, like Hitler?

Are good people to "do nothing"?

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by spellbound

So how do you propose to stop an evil, like Hitler?

Are good people to "do nothing"?

if "good people" did nothing, there would be no war. when you start killing other innocent people in big piles, you can no longer be considered "good".
i know, "that's the reality of war".
and the logic loop continues.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:06 PM
Honestly, I think the only people that should have any right to say anything on the issue are that man's squad/platoon/bn, and his family. The decision was ultimately his, but he couldn't make it. We know when we go into combat that we're going to be around reporters, that there is a chance our final moment will be caught on film or tape. But we don't think about it. We do our job and survive.

If the American people could see what soldiers go through, could see the torment and pain, could see the rage and defiance... THE PURPOSE of what we do, it would probably change things. Knowing that there are large groups protesting a war that our friends have died in, defying a purpose that we have fought for, while we are trying to stay alive... Most of us believe in what we're doing. Believe that we are doing the right thing. And our families, the anti-war movement are telling us that the sacrifice we make on a daily basis, the good we beleive we're doing in the world, the ONLY thing that pulls us through every day... is wrong. It's a crushing revelation.

If the American people could see through our eyes, not the interpretation of a reporter, they would understand. If they could see, unfiltered, what we see, then their rage might match our own and they would let the government let us do what we are trained to do and finish the damned job. Then... we could come home.

Before you flame me for my opinion, remember: They are opinions. I try to take the time to structure my posts in a logical fashion, to think about what I'm going to say and I rarely jump in with my emotions in the fore. But this brought back memories. The man made his choice. We all know that this end is a possibility. His families wishes should have been respected, but in the end, the decision was his and we all know, somewhere in teh back of our minds, that something like this could happen to us. That reporter was embedded with those soldiers. I'm not sure how long he was with them. But I'm sure it was long enough to get a feel of the squad. A person does not share such intensity with others without developing a respect and understanding of them. A unit learns to trust each other. IF there were no outcry from this man's unit, I believe the reporter did what he thought was right. These men allowed further pictures to be taken of them honoring their fallen. In this situation, I think the wishes of the unit would supersede the wishes of the family.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:07 PM

Originally posted by billybob
if "good people" did nothing, there would be no war.

"Peace in our time"
This is the real REAL world.

It's in human nature to destroy ourselves. Crack open any history book. Like it or not Good people throughout history have had to defend themselves against others. I think Iraq was a mistake but that's over now. We are leaving. That was a war of choice.

While Afghanistan on the other hand there is a lot more at stake than simply loosing in some opinion pole.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:14 PM
Yup, been there done that, I believe that people need to see and understand the realities of war. With that said, I also do NOT see the need for a soldiers name and personal information to be posted for all to see against his families wishes..

As some have stated, maybe if everyone knew the actual horrors of war, we may not be so gungho to to be in them.. but knowing human nature that is a big if..

I have served, and been wounded in action twice, not in this war, but boots on the ground is all the same.. I am relieved though, that there were not any "imbedded reporters" with my unit. Death on either side in combat is not "glorious" just usually gruesome...

My heart goes out to that Marines' familly not just because he has died but because against thier wishes he will now be a pawn for all types of propaganda. not all against the war, but also for whatever can be thought of to advance any type of agenda...

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:58 PM
I somehow wonder how an animal would react to seeing roadkill.

Hawks feed off it. If they've got the courage to see animals disembowled, then we should be able to, also. It's not a pretty sight at all, but it has to be faced. Better to be desensitised to stuff like that because one day, bodies could be strewn all over the place.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:06 PM
Soldiers fighting and dying. Roadkill.

Young Marine, dead before the prime of life. Dead possum.

I'm not seeing the connection.

Animals don't have the sense of awareness we do. Animals also don't run each other down in large 4x4's. They also don't fight for a cause. They don't rally around each other for courage and leadership. The don't champion a single virtue. They don't fight for the rights of their enslaved brothers.

We do.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:16 PM
Oh yeah, we fight for our enslaved brothers...

...Dunno if you've realised yet but the people fighting are enslaved brothers.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:18 PM
Well, I've been going over this with friends of mine, all either on Active Duty or prior service.

LCpl Bernard's father asked the AP not to run the photo.

The AP pretty much blew the man off and ran the pictures anyway. Why? It's not to "show the true face of war" or any bulls**t like that. It was for ratings.

The media makes a living off the blood of others.

Julie Jacobson and "Thomas Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer" both did a reprehensible thing. The only thing that went thru both of their tiny, pea-sized brains were their own self-serving interests.

Embedded AP types are in for some ugly times ahead. They earned it.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Whine Flu
Oh yeah, we fight for our enslaved brothers...

...Dunno if you've realised yet but the people fighting are enslaved brothers.

The warmongers don't consider the "enemy" on the same level as themselves. They don't see them as human beings with the same value and ability to suffer. I cannot wrap my brain around the idea that people still think that the USA is doing anything other than evil in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Floating thru Reality
I cannot wrap my brain around the idea that people still think that the USA is doing anything other than evil in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Right. I guess that the Taliban aren't doing anything evil in A-stan and P-stan, huh, Craftsman???

And besides, what does that have to do with the OP? That's about the AP running a picture of a dying Marine after his father told them not to.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by deepred


I would feel more than violated.

I would never get over that image.

The media is insensitive and is only after a buck.

I didn't actually check out the pic, but if that was the case, that is beyond forgiveness.

Yeah, because it's a crime to show a picture of a mortally wounded marine, yet I've seen hundreds of pictures of dead or dying insurgents that the Marines themselves hunted down, in the same accessible media

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:34 PM
That is the nature of war. It is not pretty or sanitized. The reason for not showing such pictures, are to keep up public support for the action at time, the same goes for showing such, as it means that the realization of what the cost is in human life. By showing those pictures, it means that more people will begin to demand a resolution to the conflict.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:52 PM
I'm going to just throw this in for all you cop haters. I don;t know who, or even if any of you are in here, but you know who you are.

You would post a video or a picture of a policeman doing something you perceive to be over the top, on the internet yes? What if he asked you not to, I suspect you would do it anyway because he has no legal grounds to stop you.

Well then why does this man get any better, there is no legal reason anyone can stop the papers publishing the pictures. (Is there??)

I watched the Ross Kemp series in Afghanistan, and in one episode they showed the helmet cam footage of one of the soldiers being shot and killed... it was some of the most shocking television I have ever seen. The man was shot but still alive, and pretty much every damned soldier forgot where they were and started dragging him away from 'the enemy'.

These are trained professionals and they seemed to lose it abit, not entirely of course, but they wern't the tight nit fighting machine they had been seconds earlier. And when they got him out to a safer area, they realised he had died on the way... and you got to see the harsh reality you hate to go through yourself when someone dies but you have to get on with it anyway.

If you think its wrong to see our guys dieing, then we shouldn't be there....if you can't look at a picture of the man dieing, he shouldn't have been there. I saw that footage, and it digusted me because I don't think that man needed to die.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by StevenDye

No one really needs to die. Most of the time death is idiotic and avoidable. But it wasn't that Marine's decision to go to war. It was his leaders whom he trusted. Once that line is signed, your personal decisions in the matters of war are over. After it's signed, it is no longer about you, but about the men around you. Do everything you can to protect them and trust them to protect you. Quit blaming the soldiers. They are doing what they must.

Next... as far as the posting of the picture. Death is the reality of war. There is no war where the loss of life is zero. As a Marine, while I was in combat, my family ceased to exist and the guardian inside me took over. My family, every thing I loved was within a quarter mile. The men with me were no longer buddies, they were brothers. My life belonged to them, and theirs belonged to me. We couldn't save everyone, and sometimes, we gave ourselves for each other. The mission was in the back of our minds, ingrained. The family. That was first and foremost. I was accused, even then, of being overly sentimental, but any soldier who's seen combat knows what I'm talking about. We don't know the story of this soldier's death. But his unit didn't make a move to stop the publishing of the photo. That reporter was part of the unit and they WOULD have stopped him if they believed it was against this Marine's wishes. Any other branch, I would HOPE that the story would be the same, but for the Marines, I'm certain of it.


For those of you concerned about the wishes of this Marine's family... think for a moment how the family would react if they read THIS thread. I try to speak with respect, but I'm not sure some of these posts would meet with the agreement of that Marine's family.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Arrowmancer]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:17 PM
reply to post by Arrowmancer

Woah, no... I don't blame the marine at all, whether he believed in his reasons for being there or not he was a brave man to go through with it.

I simply chose an example where I know members on here would go against the wishes of an individual, and used that to say, why should anyone else have the choice to remove this picture then.

The comments about, if you can not look at the picture, he should not be there...were not directed towards hating the soldiers, but the governments that sent them there.

I apologise greatly if I put across that I had any personal grudge against the soldiers.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:34 PM
No problem, Steven, I didn't get that from your post, but from those previous. Yours came through fine, lol! The point was that the soldier died a Marine, and a son. I would like the members who've posted here to think of the impact this thread would have on the Marine's family. How are we any different talking about him as opposed to the media publishing pictures of what we're discussing? In the end, free press won out over the wishes of the family and they will pay the price for it.

I should have been more specific as to which part of my reply was directed to your post.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Arrowmancer]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by Arrowmancer

This isn't an argument really about whether the kid was a dead Marine or if they should show dead GIs as apposed to dead Iraqis/Afghans.

As much as some ignorant few here would like people to believe and they blow this all out of proportion and skew this into a platform for their Anti-American bullhocky rhetoric. They take this kids death as an opportunity to stand on their soapbox and spew their versions of morality...

It's about the privacy of the family. Nothing is sacred anymore. The media made it's big splash and got what it wanted more publicity and the family had their sons death shown to millions.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in