Want to see what war really looks like?

[Ott^]

... and probably not suitable for viewing at work.

Pictures of dead babies and mutilated people brought to you by BushCorp.

Don't forget to read the comments. There is a "Comments" link under each set of pictures.

 

[seuss]

robert fisk's site used to have a large collection of photos depicting the true horror of modern conflict.

there are still some available @ informationclearinghouse:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2604.htm

i think it's important that these photos are available. media outlets in other countries do show them; and we're not talking just al-jazeera, other european media outlets do also.

in an age of ever-increasing disregard for the value of human life, and an era of proliferation of both murderous weapons & the euphemisms that hide their horrific effectiveness, i firmly believe that such images should be shown on the news here...

we can publish shots of uday & qusay hussein, dead and mutilated; but when it comes to INNOCENT children, for example, suddenly it's a bit much... some people - this is especially true of some of the americans i interact with online - really do think war is all about cool explosions and stuff... and many more people are slowly acclimatised to the media's sanitisation of brutality.

even a relatively aware and sensible individual becomes blase as war progresses; the coverage we are spoonfed effectively removes the humanist element of what is essentially as dirty, bloody and injust a war as any other. talk of laser-guided, 'precision', 'specific targets', stories of the amazing micro-tolerance of the pentagon's illegal munitions; after a while, without seeing pictures such as these, people do forget that each 'scrolling news' headline about bomb damage or 'insurgents neutralised' reveals a litter of bodily parts, strewn across the wreckage of our 'moral' intervention.

repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth? not quite; not for most people. it's more like repeat a lie often enough and people forget the truth. if the news stations - and, after all, we can show the bloated corpse of a heroin addict, full sex, the bodies of the hussein brothers, the footage of 9/11, car crashes, etc. etc. - forced people to be exposed to this, perhaps we'd remember just how horrific and massive an undertaking war is.

there's no hope for the US; they learnt their lesson about TV coverage in vietnam, and the mainstream media is so sensitive in the current climate that they can't even show body bags coming home... but i expect more from the channels here.

i fully realise war is a terrible thing. i fully realise that there will always be unnecessary loss of life. i do not, however, accept that the coalition cares; otherwise, we'd stop using illegal cluster munitions that kill so many children, stop using napalmlite-TM, start at least keeping count of the bodies of the iraqis we've liberated, and ffs talk to the american strategists about their paranoid force protection rules of engagement.

these images ARE important. people need to know. imo, they should be broadcast on all the news programs, and published in the paper. sensationalism is not a valid defence; we still publish pictures of piles of corpses in extermination / concentration camps...

'shock'ing and 'awe'some indeed...

 

[albs]

i think it's important that these photos are available. media outlets in other countries do show them; and we're not talking just al-jazeera, other european media outlets do also.

in an age of ever-increasing disregard for the value of human life, and an era of proliferation of both murderous weapons & the euphemisms that hide their horrific effectiveness, i firmly believe that such images should be shown on the news here...

repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth? not quite; not for most people. it's more like repeat a lie often enough and people are brainwashed into believing it IMO


i do not, however, accept that the coalition cares; otherwise, we'd stop using illegal cluster munitions that kill so many children, stop using napalmlite-TM, Totally agree - Blair turns a Blunkett eye to Iraqi civilian casualties IMO

these images ARE important. people need to know. imo, they should be broadcast on all the news programs, and published in the paper. sensationalism is not a valid defence; we still publish pictures of piles of corpses in extermination / concentration camps...

It is a common human trait not to care until something happens to a friend or family. Evermore so in a society where neighbours hardly talk and soap operas are nearer to reality to some than events in Iraq.

:no:

 

[martin_e]

Strangely enough I don't really want to see. That's why I marched through Central London repeatedly, carried banners, wrote to my MP and the press, cried a lot watching the news - and seeing the bullshit on the cover of the Sun ...
"Insurgents" - lovely pretence. The people of Fallujah defending their homes, the Iraqi security guards shot by Americans who couldn't distinguish between the little brown people. Wedding guests, sons avenging their murdered fathers ...
"Collateral Damage" - sounds better than slaughtered women and children, ambulance workers gunned down trying to help the injured, medical staff bombed in their hospitals and clinics. The starving, the children who discover that the shiny toy in the street actually rips their little bodies apart with an impressive bang. Those still dying of depleted Uranium pollution from the first Gulf war.

"Liberation" - from their mortal bodies. "Freedom" - from existance. "Democracy" - no heartbeat, no vote...

I'm not clicking on the link - because I already know what's there. I have done from the first time the war drums began ...

 

[Taika-Kim]

Pictures of dead babies and mutilated people brought to you by BushCorp.

Altough it's true that Americans have caused immense suffering in Iraq, I still hate to see the kind of fundamentalist anti-Americanism that's currently sweeping all over Europe, or at least the political left (where I for myself also firmly stand!).

All the bodies are not brought "to us" by BushCorp, innocent Iraq civilians get killed all the time in the bomb strikes of the radical anti-occupationist forces, too.

If we want to be honest with ourselves, we'll have to accept the thought that the occupation forces and the people (doctors, etc) who are there to sincerely help, don't have it easy with the violent resistance of some Iraq people.
I guess it's a bit like the situation in Israeli/Palestinian land. Most people would like to see the violence end, but some heroes just have to go on...

There just IS no easy & clean way out of the situation, now.

Many people went through hell under Saddam's regime also, and I think that his displacement was a good thing.

I hope people haven't forgotten Rwanda yet? 800 000 people were brutally massacred only because the international community was paralyzed and unable to act because of being afraid that what happened in Somalia would be repeated.

I hate to see people take sides in issues like this, since this ultimately often leads to a certain kind of black and white view of the issue when you just can't accept that any aspect of your beliefs might be wrong.

I was also there, when people marched against USA attacking Iraq again. But not because I thought nothing should be done, but because of the way USA did it without listening to anybody else.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that there just ARE no right answers to some questions. Just choices that will hurt many people, that have to be made.

Ask many people who are dogmatically against the occupation in Iraq about what should the international community now do, and they probably don't have very good answers.

Sorry if this feels like I'm defending the US government. I'm NOT! I just would love people to start to think more of facts instead of just opinions based on what feels nice and makes them feel easy.

And about the pictures: yes, I think it's important people see just how horrible war is. that's one of the reasons why USA had to back up in Vietnam.
It's sad how these days war is made to look like a videogame in the media. But that's been said here already so I won't go into that again

 

[Ott^]

Pictures of dead babies and mutilated people brought to you by BushCorp.

Altough it's true that Americans have caused immense suffering in Iraq, I still hate to see the kind of fundamentalist anti-Americanism that's currently sweeping all over Europe...

I think it is inevitable. When a country unleashes suffering on this kind of scale against any other nation, they are bound to attract the derision and opprobrium of those who find it objectionable. I'd be interested to know why you describe it as "fundamentalist".

All the bodies are not brought "to us" by BushCorp, innocent Iraq civilians get killed all the time in the bomb strikes of the radical anti-occupationist forces, too.

What point are you trying to make? What makes you describe the people resisting invasion as "radical"? What particular series of events do you think it was that "radicalised" them?

If we want to be honest with ourselves, we'll have to accept the thought that the occupation forces and the people (doctors, etc) who are there to sincerely help, don't have it easy with the violent resistance of some Iraq people.

If you want to shore up your denial you'll have to continue to convince yourself that "the occupation forces [...] are there to sincerely help...".

I would suggest that dropping 650 gallon napalm bombs on towns and cities is one of the least helpful gestures imaginable.

I guess it's a bit like the situation in Israeli/Palestinian land. Most people would like to see the violence end, but some heroes just have to go on...

So how would you react if a well-armed external force invaded your country, dropped bombs on your towns and cities and killed your civillian population in their hundreds of thousands?

There just IS no easy & clean way out of the situation, now.

Ok. So lets just keep on killing them until there is nobody left to complain.

Many people went through hell under Saddam's regime also, and I think that his displacement was a good thing.

So will you be supporting the invasion of Zimbabwe and North Korea and all the other tinpot dictatorships we haven't got round to "liberating" yet?

I hope people haven't forgotten Rwanda yet? 800 000 people were brutally massacred only because the international community was paralyzed and unable to act because of being afraid that what happened in Somalia would be repeated.

The international community didn't act in Rwanda because it wasn't in their direct economic interest to do so. By suggesting that as a comparison you only highlight further the hypocrisy of the situation in Iraq.

I hate to see people take sides in issues like this, since this ultimately often leads to a certain kind of black and white view of the issue when you just can't accept that any aspect of your beliefs might be wrong.

Speak for yourself. I am constantly re-evaluating my opinions.

I was also there, when people marched against USA attacking Iraq again. But not because I thought nothing should be done, but because of the way USA did it without listening to anybody else.

What did you think should be done? And for what reasons? I'd really love to know.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that there just ARE no right answers to some questions. Just choices that will hurt many people, that have to be made.

Which is all fine until it is your children that are being bombed and shot. I suspect your opinion would change slightly under those circumstances.

When the question is;

"Should a well-armed nation attack a small impoverished 3rd-world country, causing upward of 100,000 civilian deaths, under entirely false pretences for reasons which have been shown to be entirely fallacious?"

my answer will always be "No."

How about you?

Ask many people who are dogmatically against the occupation in Iraq about what should the international community now do, and they probably don't have very good answers.

Your use of hyperbole suggests a lack of confidence in your stance. Being opposed to the dropping of napalm on civilian populations does not make one "dogmatic".

Put simply, the international community have very little say in what happens to Iraq. The US has unilaterally imposed its will upon the situation and nobody else is getting a look in. What do YOU suggest we do? Carry on maiming children because a few more won't make any difference? The point being that what you or I think is entirely immaterial. They will continue to serve their own interests at the expense of people who have never raised a hand against them.

Sorry if this feels like I'm defending the US government. I'm NOT! I just would love people to start to think more of facts instead of just opinions based on what feels nice and makes them feel easy.

So thats everyone but you I suppose? Where do you get your "facts" from? What is it that convinces you? I only ask because your viewpoint sounds remarably consistent with that of the US State Dept.

I'm waiting for you to assert that Iraq is getting its come-uppance for attacking the World Trade Centre in 2001.

And about the pictures: yes, I think it's important people see just how horrible war is. that's one of the reasons why USA had to back up in Vietnam.
It's sad how these days war is made to look like a videogame in the media. But that's been said here already so I won't go into that again

And I would add that you seem entirely desensitized to the horrors of it all - preferring to cheer it on because "Well - you know - we're there now. They'll all be liberated soon..."

With apologists like you on the team, the march to invade Iran will be a cinch.

 

[Technognome]

Ask many people who are dogmatically against the occupation in Iraq about what should the international community now do, and they probably don't have very good answers.

I have an excellent idea - Troops out now!

The only slightly sane and legal reason to attack another country is when they start attacking another country.

PHLUR :sun:

 

[Drat Mafia]

I agree with Taika Kim.......Ott you may be able to pick holes in how he presents his view, but I think he's right. Thereare a lot of people trying to do good in Iraq, and I think your refusal to accept that soldiers/politicians can possibly be good people says a lot about your views, and their cynicality. While I share your reservations about the reasons for going there, and America in general, to say that everyone out there is a cold blooded murderer of women and childeren is cynical and wrong.

PS No i wouldnt like it if an army invaded my country, but if I lived under Saddam I would...........not many free parties in Baathist Iraq im told.

And slug moustaches........so unfashionable

 

[Ott^]

to say that everyone out there is a cold blooded murderer of women and childeren is cynical and wrong.

Care to show me where I said that?

PS No i wouldnt like it if an army invaded my country, but if I lived under Saddam I would...

How do you know?

I'll say it again - I'm pretty sure you'd change your mind once the cluster bombs started falling.

not many free parties in Baathist Iraq im told.

We're talking about 100,000 dead people here. Or don't "sand niggers" count? Do you not feel even a shred of empathy?

Its really easy to be an armchair liberator from 3000 miles away, but if it was your kids being hit by depleted uranium weapons you'd be screaming for the exits - I guarantee it.

Take a look for yourself. *link* warning - not nice.

Got any more moustache jokes?

 

[Technognome]

No i wouldnt like it if an army invaded my country, but if I lived under Saddam I would

What on earth gives you/us the right to decide which countries have bad leaders and invade them?

No Dictatorship in the history of mankind has ever survived that long historically.

Monachies survive longer (longer than Democracies historicaly) but dictatorships are inherently unstable.

The fuckups start when an outside country intervenes. IMHO the 'societal & political development' of a nation state is buggered when occupied to change the ruling system.

Use of 'effective' sanctions on there own is IMHO the best solution to a country with a dictatorship (see South Africa). It may be uncomfortable to watch on the nightly news but getting angry and dropping bombs on civilians is the most profoundly imbecilic action I can imagine.

PHLUR :sun:

Troops out now and force the 'Coilition of the Willing' to pay massive reparations!

 

[Warwick Bassmonkey]

There are a lot of people trying to do good in Iraq

I fail to see how a tank makes a positive contribution to any society, being that its sole purpose is to blow shit up.

 

[seuss]

humanitarianism is NOT what the iraq war was about...

otherwise, we would have done something about the DRC.

2 million people died in the war there..... two million.

that's a sept 11th, every single day, for two whole years...

 

[Warwick Bassmonkey]

Use of 'effective' sanctions on there own is IMHO the best solution to a country with a dictatorship (see South Africa). It may be uncomfortable to watch on the nightly news but getting angry and dropping bombs on civilians is the most profoundly imbecilic action I can imagine.

Not disagreeing with you at all, but pointing out that "best" is an unfortunate word to have to use. The lesser of many evils might be a better description, since it is always the innocent that suffer first.

A serious adjustment in mankind's definition of "wealth" is what's needed. Saddam was never going to suffer under sanctions so long as a half-ton of cash dollars was worth something to somebody.

Piles of cash and gold-tapped marble bathrooms become worthless when all you actually need is something to eat and no-one wants your money/oil. He never had a problem with people wanting both.

 

[Technognome]

Fair play I'll go with the 'lesser of many evils'.

In my own defence I'd did say 'effective' sanctions as opposed to ineffective sanctions where bribes etc reduce the effect. I'd be looking for a relatively quick solution as opposed to an opportunity for scumbags to make a quick buck.

Perhaps if gold taps and marble were placed on the don't sell list (along with weapons) and food & medicine was on the ok list?

PHLUR :sun:

 

[JPsychodelicacy]

I agree with Taika Kim.......Ott you may be able to pick holes in how he presents his view, but I think he's right. Thereare a lot of people trying to do good in Iraq,

But the majority of the US military, and the politicians the Bush Administration sent over there to 'democratize' the Iraqi government are not among them.

In the case of the US military, you've got a lot of scared 19 year old kids going over there who were effectively conned into believing that this war was 'payback' for September 11th. They were told that they'd be greeted as liberators, yet what they found was that after deposing Saddam Hussein, the people just wanted them gone. So many of these kids are developing the attitude 'They hate us, so I'm gonna hate 'em right back' - hence they feel justified in opening fire on anyone who does not appear to be 'on their side', which includes just about everyone with dark skin not wearing a US Army uniform.

PS No i wouldnt like it if an army invaded my country, but if I lived under Saddam I would...........not many free parties in Baathist Iraq im told.

As for the politicians... Do you know who Iyad Allawi is? He was a top lieutenant in Hussein's Ba'athist regime, sent to Europe to gather intelligence. After a while he found out that feeding information to Western intelligence services was a lucrative sideline, and when discovered Hussein declared him persona non grata and tried to have him killed. What this means is that up until the '80s he took part in everything that we supposedly deposed Saddam Hussein for, yet the Americans are handing him the reins of the new government. They're not calling him "Saddam without the moustache" for nothing!

In essence, the US have deposed a brutal dictator who stood up to them after 20 years of compliance, and are replacing him with an equally brutal dictator who will comply with their wishes, just as they did with Hussein in the first place (and the Shah in Iran, Noriega in Panama, Pinochet in Argentina, and Marcos in the Philippines... the list goes on).

While I share your reservations about the reasons for going there, and America in general, to say that everyone out there is a cold blooded murderer of women and childeren is cynical and wrong.

But even if only 30% (a very conservative estimate) of the US forces out there had degenerated emotionally to the point where the 'shoot anything that moves, and if it doesn't shoot it till it does' mentality takes over, that's still 30,000 troops out there with itchy trigger fingers, going postal on a daily basis.

How do you turn an Iraqi civilian into a willing 'insurgent'? It's dead simple (excuse the black-humoured pun). All it takes is for one of those troops to kill someone's father/brother/uncle/aunt/sister/mother/son/daughter, and you've created someone willing to take the fight to the occupying army.

Conservative estimates of the number killed in US military (including cluster bomb/napalm) operations are somewhere near 100,000. The confirmed kills (i.e. the ones that actually made it to a hospital) are sitting at nearly 17,000 - which is why the first thing the US did in Fallujah was shut down the hospital.

Sick, isn't it?

We're all going to have to get past our disbelief and liberal happy-go-lucky sensibilities here and understand that our government is involved in an operation that has killed a hundred thousand and counting, all for the sake of George Bush's Oedipal complex, Tony Blair's political chicanery, Dick Cheney's insatiable lust for lucre and Wolfowitz and Perle's 'Israel uber alles' mentality.

J.

 

[albs]

Ok what if the Arab League were to get together, send troops to Iraq to maintain law and order while Iraq decides on a new government of their own choice.

Coalition forces pull out and we leave the Arab League to maintain the peace with UN monitor forces from neutral countries.

All contracts for rebuilding the country are renegotiated without any possible coalition bias.

A fund is setup to ensure Iraqi oil revenue actually goes to the superstructure of Iraq rather than to any group. I.e nationalised electricity, water entities etc.

I would think that a lot of so called insurgents would agree to this and that would leave them to root out the few real terrorists remaining. I doubt that many Muslims would really kill other Muslim who are there in a peace keeping capacity.

Of course the US would have to relinquish their hold on Iraq but it would actually show that they are not trying to get a strangle hold on the Middle East.

Possible in theory?

 

[JPsychodelicacy]

...snip...
Of course the US would have to relinquish their hold on Iraq but it would actually show that they are not trying to get a strangle hold on the Middle East.

Possible in theory?

In theory, yes - in reality no... because the dominant faction within the US government *is* trying to get a stranglehold on the Middle East, both for the sake of Israel (their largest foreign arms customer), and to leverage oil production and storage against the Saudis, who currently have them by the balls.

J.

 

[Ott^]

Of course the US would have to relinquish their hold on Iraq...

Bugger - I knew there had to be a catch..

but it would actually show that they are not trying to get a strangle hold on the Middle East.

But that is exactly what they are doing and they know there isn't a fucking thing anyone is going to do about it.

This is not about liberation or deposing evil dictators or any of that other nonsense they've been trying to sell us for the last 3 years. What we are witnessing is the initial stages of the enactment of the "Project for the New American Century".

This is what its really about. *Link*

And this *link*

 

[Meijin]

Drat Mafia suggested:
'not many free parties in Baathist Iraq im told.'

Errr - I can lend you my copy of the '1968 Revolution in Iraq' admittedly written in '72 by the Baath party (I picked up in oxfam a good few years back) but they WERE a sophisticated political party who had very clear views on other regimes in the middle east and the whole Pan-Arab 'problem'. And they certainly weren't adverse to working with communists, and other socialist groupings - they were socialists themselves - you know, education, hospitals, that sort of thing, and they started trade unions, womens groups, newspapers etc. They also had to deal with feudal and monarchist interests too.

One of the first things they did was nationalise oil. They were also acutely aware of conspiracy against them, citing the US as chief aggressor. But they and Iraq, post 1968, were vilified by the West, particularly the US, and hey look! they end up with a dictator.

The book also discusses the years leading up to the overthrow of the occupying imperialists in 1968, who were France, the UK, and the US - I would suggest that some people have VERY long memories regarding Iraq. I don't know about 'project for a NEW american century', more like return to business as usual 35 years ago...

 

[Ott^]

No - Meijin - I think he was making a joke as to the paucity of free trance parties in Iraq under the Baathist regime - as some kind of justification for dropping bombs on people.

How we laughed.