From: Twibil on
On Sep 7, 9:49 pm, "steph...(a)yahoo.com" <steph...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...And if the picture was of you --> and the last memory your children
> > would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?
>
> Of course I would. Since when is dying for your country something to
> hide or be ashamed of?

Not that I've died for my country yet, but as an ex infantryman thanx
for that anyway.

The wrenching photographs that have come out of wars ever since the
camera became portable enough to make them possible have let the
public see what war is really about, and right up until the end of
Viet Nam such photo-journalism was simply considered to be an
important -if risky for the photographer- part of history. (See Ken
Burns' Civil War documentary for a striking example.)

Then after Viet Nam the US military decided that it would be better if
the US public was not allowed to see such photos, as it might
prejudice them against supporting a future war -as the military felt
had happened in Viet Nam.

Ever since then, the military -and the rest of the US government as
well- have frequently tried to make it difficult to take such photos,
or to allow them to be seen by the public if they *are* taken.

Call it "editing history in advance", and you won't be too far wrong.

~Pete
From: Ray Fischer on
Me <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
>Doug McDonald wrote:
>> Igetrightwingersangry(a)nospan.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ...And if the picture was of you --> and the last memory your children
>>> would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, absolutely. But I would like for the people showing it to note
>> that I died to prevent the atrocities perpetrated on the
>> innocent 9/11 victims from happening again. Absent that,
>> I would expect my family to point out to my children
>> how the left wing scum had used my image for their purposes.
>>
>What's "left wing" about showing war as it is?

When rightard wingnuts want to kill people, any criticism makes one a
"left wing scum". Too bad that there were not more "left wing scum"
living in Germany 70 years ago.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Me on
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Me <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
>> Doug McDonald wrote:
>>> Igetrightwingersangry(a)nospan.com wrote:
>>>> ...And if the picture was of you --> and the last memory your children
>>>> would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, absolutely. But I would like for the people showing it to note
>>> that I died to prevent the atrocities perpetrated on the
>>> innocent 9/11 victims from happening again. Absent that,
>>> I would expect my family to point out to my children
>>> how the left wing scum had used my image for their purposes.
>>>
>> What's "left wing" about showing war as it is?
>
> When rightard wingnuts want to kill people, any criticism makes one a
> "left wing scum". Too bad that there were not more "left wing scum"
> living in Germany 70 years ago.
>
Ahhhhh. Godwins. But what the hell...
"Left wing scum" and accusations of "evil" from "commies" or
"socialists" is just normal reaction from cult evangelists for the Ayn
Rand philosophy of economic rationalism, and they've been very active in
forums and blogs for years. Worse than (but not so different from)
scientologists.
Here's one of Britain's leading "libertarians" behaving as a Nazi
apologist, only mildly condemning fascism because they were "socialist"
nationalists after all, but comparing them to the (undeniable evil) of
Stalinist Russia, in a manner that suggests that Nazis weren't so bad,
and Britain declaring war and fighting them wasn't a good idea for
Britain's long term interests.
Here's the link:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc099.htm
This clearly shows that if you want, then you can rationalise pretty
anything using individualist "rationalist" philosophy, including making
excuses for one of the worst tyrants the world has known.
Sometimes war is (always undesirable but) morally correct as a last
resort. Bush's crusade wasn't.
Libertarians aren't inherently left or right wing. That axis is one
dimensional, and it's just not that simple. Libertarians strongly
influence the US conservative movement especially WRT constitutional
rights on gun control, anti-social welfare, anti regulation etc.
The ideology is a cult - they have no answers (that fit their
philosophy) to simple and real practical problems, like how to fund and
run a fire department, deal with public health issues, or argue
rationally why it's okay for anyone to own a handgun to use to shoot to
kill to protect property, but can't answer if you should you be able to
own a nuclear weapon to protect yourself (against socialist invasion
perhaps?) and if not, then why not, as exactly the same argument
applies, and pragmatism (one of several evils to them) would be needed
to find an answer.



From: Giftzwerg on
In article <g5oaa5dod6i4k5nfou0ikibsemv74pdqpd(a)4ax.com>, real-address-
in-sig(a)lineone.net says...

> Came across this article about AP publishing a photo of a dying US
> marine and the controversy surrounding it. There hasn't been much
> news here in the UK about it but I expect that it's big news in the
> US.
>
> <http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53173,news,photograph-of-dying-marine-joshua-bernard-was-it-right-for-the-associated-press-to-publish>
>
> I'm all up for showing how things are and the press have done so on
> may occasions, but at the same time the family must be very upset. So
> I'm in two minds about this. Storm in a tea cup? Or genuine concern
> on showing dead or dying NATO/ISAF soldiers?

I think the photographer is lucky to be alive. If you were trying to
snap a photo of *my* dying buddy, I'd blow your head off on the spot.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"Forty-two percent (42%) of U.S. voters say a group of people randomly
selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current
Congress."
- Rassmussen Reports
From: Giftzwerg on
In article <4aa5b6e7$0$1650$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, rfischer(a)sonic.net
says...

> >The picture itself is no news. The scum left-wing media use these
> >to try to make people feel sick and therefore want to lose a war.
> >Its standard stuff and long since the whole affair is well known.
>
> And after all, telling the taxpayers how their money is being spent
> cannot have any relevance. When neocons and rightards want to kill
> people there can be no criticism tolerated.

<laughter>

I dunno if you keep up on current events, but the "neocon rightard" who
just vastly increased troop strength in Afghanistan is named Barack
Hussein Obama.

You might have heard of him. He's been in all the papers. Seen him on
TV a couple times, too.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Forty-two percent (42%) of U.S. voters say a group of people randomly
selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current
Congress."
- Rassmussen Reports