[avg_freeper]

These are the same people that decided to never show the people the true horror and devastation wrought upon New York in 2001.

[Renegade]

This kind of action reenforces to me the reason why we are in Iraq and need to kick more a$$.

[Lost Highway]

But once again, broadcasters and news executives were torn between a question of taste and the demand to give viewers and readers information that could affect the course of history.

I think there is a typo. It is supposed to read:

But once again, broadcasters and news executives were torn between a question of taste and the prospect of shaping Americans opinion of the war in Iraq to one they approve of.

[taxcontrol]

I would take this mans comments and expand it in a different direction.

We (meaning the whole collective of the human race) have attempted to "civilize" warfare. There are rules, and laws about what can and can not be done by combatants, civilians, etc.

The problem is that there is nothing "civilized" about war. It is the final form of diplomacy. Beat the snot out of the other side because they will not accept your position or are attempting to push their position onto you, which you can not accept. War is a natural response to this condition.

The problem that we have created is that when a war is fought in a civilized manner, the PERCEPTION of a final victor is never achieved. To win a war, you must hurt the other side so badly that the looser must give up their "unacceptable" position and accept the position of the victor.

Under today's civilized rules, no one side is allowed to exercise that extent of domination. For example, Israel is not allowed to kick Arabs out of the country.

I believe that if the normal rules of warfare were to allow the victor to set the rules (to the victor goes the spoils), if the leaders of countries KNEW that there was a risk that their homes, families, freedoms, their very way of life was at risk -- then they would be much LESS likely to go to war.

Would Egypt go to war against Israel if they KNEW, and I mean really knew, that once Israel defeated them, that they would have full right to do ANYTHING to the surviving population, deportation, execution, even enslavement? I would say not.

War is a terrible thing, and when you try to make it into anything else, you are only lying to yourself.

[trebb]

"If we try to avoid showing pictures of bodies, if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to go to war again."

In other words, "If the enemy is really, really bad, and prone to commit atrocities, we should leave him alone and beg him to not hurt us. However, if the enemy is a pansy, and can be defeated by a sharp NO!, then it is OK to confront him."

[ClearCase_guy]

What the media needs to eventually admit is that EVERYONE has an agenda.

Show the pictures? War is dirty, maybe the US will be more reluctant next time.
Embargo the pictures? War is clean, and the US is fighting the good fight.

Show 9/11 pictures? That would makes Americans angry at terrorsts! Bad idea.
Embargo 9/11 pictures? That would help us forget all our troubles ... then we could be happy.

EVERYONE has an agenda. CNN is biased against wars led by Republican presidents. The fact that they don't admit it just means that they have a Liberal Bias AND they are dishonest.

[The G Man]

That person should be fired. No question about it.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[68skylark]

The libs will surely try to pick a picture of gloom, tragedy and failure to symbolize the war on terrorism. It's up to us to pick other pictures.

I like this one, of a soldier handing a bag of school supplies to a liberated child. This is what America is all about.

[mabelkitty]

He apparently missed Dean running his mouth about blaming Bush for the attacks.

[hunter112]

From Sievers comments, I sense a man looking to justify what he was already wanting to show. Back in Mogadishu days, there was really only one 24/7 news channel, and no Internet to compete with. The "people who know what's best for us" in the news media were able to keep a conspiracy of silence on any images they didn't want us to see. If the first President Bush had been re-elected when this happened (and there's a credible argument to be made that it might not have), and the images flowed across three all-day, all-night news networks and the Internet, there might have been pressure to come back with an overwhelming response.

I've seen the pullout in Somalia compared to Reagan's pullout of Lebanon after the barracks bombing. As I recall, Reagan had the Navy use parts of Beruit for some fairly serious target practice on the way out.

When it comes down to it, the deaths of these civilian contractors were only seen as more horrific than the deaths of our soldiers because of what was done to the bodies after they were killed. Dead is dead, and the Iraqi scum have found a way to compound the tragedy of it by playing on our cultural beliefs about the treatment of lifeless bodies. It is appropriate that the pig fat treatment be used in full retaliation. If it were known that every SUV had a pig fat bomb that would spray in all directions upon impact or destruction, would that make them safer? Its worth a try.

[an amused spectator]

Media Shenanigans ping - Tired Of The Drudgery Of Thinking For Yourself? Don't Worry, The Media Elite Will Do It For You!

On, Off, or grab it for a Media Shenanigans/Schadenfreude ping:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~anamusedspectator/