Replies

Yesterday liveleak had a video of part of the wreckage bodies and all. The media has a duty to show the public such things so that we will know the full impact of such events. The suppression of the images of 9-11 has lead to it being mostly forgotten.

Thank you for that comment.I felt extreme anger at the decision to not to publish the picture, although subsequently, I discovered that the New York Times had published the "offending" image, which was universally criticized, by among others, the Mexican public and its press, which did also publish it, with a prior accompanying caution.

Why my anger? Because the Mexican press published images in 2001 that the American public was prevented from seeing by its nanny government and its mainstream media. To this day. Because they were too "gruesome and disturbing."

I have not met nor known of anyone more squeamish than myself, and yet I wanted to release any reluctance at justification for maximum hate and revulsion at the perpetrators.

Humanity has produced many historical mass murders beyond comprehension, most of them the result of political ideology, including during the 20th century. Some however the result of religious fanaticism.

The baby image in question is respectful and in no way catering to idle curiosity, and it underscores the usually unseen and unknown agony of others. The dead baby is not in any way recognizable by anyone.

But above all else, it reminds us of the daily inhumanity in the world seemingly everywhere, and the inability of the rest of us to produce the outrage necessary, someday to rise up and put a stop to it, by whatever means are necessary.

Yes I was compelled to find the image, view it and not simply dismiss it as another senseless but too common statistic. I felt I owed that much to the unknown child.

If the crash is the result of someone knowingly targeting a civilian passenger plane then sure.

But in this case there is some evidence the shooters thought they were hitting a military transport plane in a warzone.

So if hitting an civilian airliner was accident, then publishing gory pics might only serve to increase tension and escalate conflict. Or is that the goal?

Ukraine accidentally shot down a passenger plane in 2001. Should gore pics of babies been published there?

I looked at the Liveleak video and have seen some pictures in foreign media.

I can understand that in a fire, clothes will be burned off, but I don’t understand how the clothes are off on some people here and the body isn’t burned. Also, some people have some clothes on, but not the whole outfit.

Also, at 30,000’, would people pass out once the fuselage is breached or is there air at that level? I can only hope that people were unconscious when they hit the ground.

Thank you for that comment.I felt extreme anger at the decision to not to publish the picture, although subsequently, I discovered that the New York Times had published the "offending" image, which was universally criticized, by among others, the Mexican public and its press, which did also publish it, with a prior accompanying caution.

Today; there will be about 3,300 unknown unborn American babies that will DIE in a horrible manner because Choosy mothers(?) have decided their birth would inconvience them.

The NYC will NOT publish any of THOSE pictures!