Post editors DECIDE (FOR YOU) that most of the images were too graphic to publish in the newspaper.

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/global-evidence-hunt-uncovers-horrific-images/2007/01/07/1168104865104.html

Among the images, there is a young boy with a helicopter on the front of his pyjamas, slumped over, his face and head covered in blood. There is a mother lying on a bed, arms splayed, the bodies of three young children huddled against her right side.

There are men with gaping head wounds, and a woman and a child hunkered down on their knees, their hands frozen around their faces as if permanently bracing for an attack.

The images are contained in thousands of pages of NCIS investigative documents obtained by The Washington Post.

Post editors decided that most of the images were too graphic to publish in the newspaper.







WHO ARE YOU TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?


IT'S A GOOD THING WE WERE NEVER SUBJECTED TO THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST

:shrug:


edit for emphasis in headline

[leftchick]

1. excellent comparison

except when we do it. :puke:

[seemslikeadream]

3. you know I always read everything you post

:hi: ;)

[leftchick]

9. you too sweetie!

:hi:

:loveya:

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Amy Goodman asked Aaron Brown

"Where are the images from Iraq?" Aaron said they didn't show them because it was a matter of taste. Amy said "WAR IS WHAT IS TASTELESS".

[napi21]

4. I agree with the Post, but that shouldn't stop them from describing

the horrors of war in their text! I honestly thing most of the American people don't realize anything close to what it's like, or what we're doing there. Maybe if they did, that remaining 11% would drop to -1%.

[seemslikeadream]

6. Then the Holocaust shouldn't have been shown either?

[napi21]

16. I admit to being a non war person. I don't watch war movies, and

although I realize the horrors that occur, I don't ever intentionally look. Having said that, I don't ever remember seeing victims of the holocaust with their brains exposed either. I say let people read about the atrocities and they willbe able to mentally see what it looks like.

[seemslikeadream]

18. I believe that is very naive of you

napi21 said
"I don't ever remember seeing victims of the holocaust with their brains exposed either"


maybe you should google holocaust sometime


You can't be serious. You may not like to see what is being done in your name. Maybe we all should be made to go to Iraq to view and bury the bodies like the Americans made the German citizens do at the concentration camps. You do know that they said they had no idea what was being done in their name. They said they didn't know about the atrocities. I guess they didn't have pictures.

[napi21]

19. I don't see a problemin putting the pics on the net, just not in the NP.

I DOknow what's being done in our name, and I despise Shrub for ordering it. I watched the beheading of the reporter on the net, but I wouldn't have wanted it to be in the NP either. I'm not avoiding knowlege, just don't think it should bein the NPwhere kids find it laying around.

[RiverStone]

5. The Truth may hurt like hell to see....

But I say to the Post, war itself is graphic and tragic and real.

And with due warning, maybe if more folks could see a real glimpse of this horrendous, immoral war of aggression in Iraq, instead of the filtered version via the MSM; maybe then the level of outcry would reach such the volume that regardless of political persuasion, the collective will of the people would bring an end to the BushCo regime.

They would be more apt to hold Shrub accountable for the lies that led us to such a terrible place.

[happydreams]

7. Into the Censorship file this one goes. Recommended.

[seemslikeadream]

8. How can we say we didn't smell the burning flesh?

if we don't have the Post to protect us?

[Journeyman]

10. So publish what you feel you can in the paper, the rest on the Internet. . .

Let the public be the ones who determine what they can and won't view and read.

Alternately, if they don't want to publish certain materials in the front section of the paper, print an addendum, a special magazine format photo spread, in which all "objectionable" photos can be inserted and again, those who choose to can open it or leave it as they please.

And if the Post won't publish, they should turn it over to someone else who will.

My god, these are the same journalistic arguments of propriety that were fresh at Antietam and in the Crimea -- when will the dithering hens in the editorial chairs at last take a stand?

[tnlefty]

11. the incident wasn't investigated for 4 months - because marine officers

didn't think the shootings were out of the norm-

That was really painful for me to read.

None of these images are published because the people would have turned against this fiasco a loooong time ago. Can't have 'the mythical little people' aware of the horrors and carnage because then they might not be in the mood to shop.

[Bjornsdotter]

12. When I was a child and teenager

...images of Vietnam filled our nightly news. If effected me to the point that I could never (and to this day) watch a war movie. It effected me to the point that I knew war was not the answer.

Bottom line...it EFFECTED me. That's what the pictures are supposed to do; they show what mere words can not.

Some in this country need to be effected by the images of this war...to do less is criminal. The image of war needs to be shown everyday until the hawks finally get it.

Cheers

[Tuesday_Morning]

13. The Massacre at Haditha

Richard Blair:

<snip>

During a week when George Bush is preparing to announce his strategery for escalation of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and on a day when five more servicemen were killed, the Post editors made a decision that they wouldn’t publish graphic images of the war, either in their newspaper or online.

Post editors decided that most of the images are too graphic to publish.

There should be red flags flying everywhere. Why is the WaPo holding back graphic images of a civilian massacre in Iraq? Could it be that they’re trying to avoid controversy and outrage from the neocon howler monkeys if the images were to be made available?

In documenting the tragedy of war, historically, images have been the most visual way to communicate the horror (and triumph) of battle. Since at least the time that the Magdalenian started etching images of the hunt on cave walls, mankind has been visually documenting battle, whether the battle was with with their food or their human enemies. A picture is truly worth a thousand words, particularly when it comes to documenting the horror of war.

<snip>

http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/01/08/when-the-media-gags-itself/

Blair suggest writing or calling the ombudsman at the Washington Post:

Deborah Howell
202-334-7582
[email protected]

[seemslikeadream]

15. Thanks

I hadn't seen that. I guess I'm not the only one that was outraged immediately after reading the article

[robertpaulsen]

14. Just like we never burned little Vietnamese girls with napalm.

After all, if we can't see it, it must not exist! :sarcasm:

So sad that even after we've taken back Congress, the attitude of MSM is still to cower in their embedded-only subservience to the will of the military. What are they afraid of?

[porphyrian]

17. Fuck the corporate media.

Why do you expect anything but disappointment from them?