Horrors of War: All-negative Pic Thread

[Nathan F]

Yet another example of using the dead and injured to push a personal belief. Quite tasteless.

All I'm doing is passing on what many media outlets are hiding. How you interpret it is up to you.

What a bunch of bull. Your stance on this is quite obvious, and you have stated why you do it in other threads. Quit backpedalling over your previous arguments.

[Spyder]

Yet another example of using the dead and injured to push a personal belief. Quite tasteless.

All I'm doing is passing on what many media outlets are hiding. How you interpret it is up to you.

What a bunch of bull. Your stance on this is quite obvious, and you have stated why you do it in other threads. Quit backpedalling over your previous arguments.

If you want to argue with me do it in the thread where I make the argument. I have submitted no arugment to this thread as it is against the purpose of this thread. If you want to argue with me there is the thread for it. This thread is for negative war pics. I provided negative war pics.

[K. A. Pital]

Nathan F and Master of Ossus
You claim:

In other words, you deny that the thread was motivated by a political purpose, despite your statement of purpose in the first post of this thread?

What I said exactly:

The Pic thread seems all to positive. It looks like in the pic thread war is shown like some heroic deed. I grow sick of "welcome Coalition" and "smiling Iraqis".
Let's just show something not everyone likes to see. This is the all-negative Pic thread. Feel free to post and discuss.

This thread is motivated by the will to show BAD things, because I got TIRED of WAR=GOOD, LIBERATION and HERIOISM.
Where is a political purpose? It's more of MORAL purpose to clean some bullshit out of some "go-go-go!" heads.

You're just trying to make a statement that this war is unacceptable

Quote me. Where in this very thread have I made such a statement?

[Queeb Salaron]

In fact, I think this is the first post in this thread (besides the OP) where Stas made any kind of statement at all. ::Checks to make sure:: Yep. He hasn't made any sort of political commentary at all. He's reiterated three times what he said in the OP, but he hasn't made any kind of political statement.

Kudos, Stas, for bringing a bit of balance to our inundation with WAR = GOOD, PATRIOTIC, AND MORAL propoganda. You are to be commended.

[Nathan F]

War is never good, Stas, Queeb. Everyone knows that. You are using THIS to say that war is terrible and never moral.

In this case, war is about liberation and a moral cause to take out Saddam.

[Queeb Salaron]

War is never good, Stas, Queeb. Everyone knows that. You are using THIS to say that war is terrible and never moral.

In this case, war is about liberation and a moral cause to take out Saddam.

Yes, I agree. But neither of us said on this string that everyone should be opposed to war because of these pictures. In fact, when he started the string, Stas specifically said that it was only to balance the positive pro-war images we saw continually in the media. There's nothing wrong with that.

War IS terrible, but I won't say that it's never moral. This, however, is not a moral war. I'm going out on a limb here, because up to this point I have remained relatively silent on this thread. While I will not post pictures on this thread with the explicit purpose of getting people to oppose it, I will say this: If these images don't turn your stomach and make you pray for at LEAST a quick and painless victory, then you probably have already claimed yourself as a sadist, or else you have no heart.

[Master of Ossus]

What I said exactly:

The Pic thread seems all to positive. It looks like in the pic thread war is shown like some heroic deed. I grow sick of "welcome Coalition" and "smiling Iraqis".

In other words, you admit to using the images of Iraqis killed in action in order to make a political statement. Concession accepted.

Let's just show something not everyone likes to see. This is the all-negative Pic thread. Feel free to post and discuss.

This thread is motivated by the will to show BAD things, because I got TIRED of WAR=GOOD, LIBERATION and HERIOISM.

By stating clearly that you grew sick of the "welcome Coalition" and "smiling Iraqis," you ADMITTED that you were using these images for political purposes against the war in Iraq. An apolitical thread would have said something like "here's what you don't see," "these are some of the people killed in the war," however, by making this thread SPECIFICALLY in response to what you considered political biases, you also involved this thread in politics and began exploiting the dead. Your total lack of morals and ethics disgust me.

Where is a political purpose? It's more of MORAL purpose to clean some bullshit out of some "go-go-go!" heads.

Bullshit. By making this thread in RESPONSE TO political considerations, you also involve the thread in politics. Concession accepted.

[Master of Ossus]

In fact, when he started the string, Stas specifically said that it was only to balance the positive pro-war images we saw continually in the media. There's nothing wrong with that.

In other words, he wouldn't have done it if it hadn't been for politics. Concession accepted.

I'm sick of Stas' blatant exploitation of the dead and his bullshit regarding why it's okay.

[Queeb Salaron]

You're confusing media with politics. There is certainly a bias in the MEDIA, and Stas was simply posting to counter that bias. Not to make a political statement. If anything, he was making a contra-media statement.

[Master of Ossus]

You're confusing media with politics. There is certainly a bias in the MEDIA, and Stas was simply posting to counter that bias. Not to make a political statement. If anything, he was making a contra-media statement.

Wrong. His statements that he grew sick of "welcome Coalition" and "smiling Iraqi's" is OBVIOUSLY a political statement. You can deny your exploitation of the dead all you want, but it's obvious that had it not been for politics he wouldn't have posted these images of the dead to further his political agenda. Sorry, but you lose. His own statements worked to trap him here.

[Queeb Salaron]

In fact, when he started the string, Stas specifically said that it was only to balance the positive pro-war images we saw continually in the media. There's nothing wrong with that.

In other words, he wouldn't have done it if it hadn't been for politics. Concession accepted.

...How did you come to that conclusion? Stas is not showing these images because he's anti-war. He's showing them because the media doesn't. That's all. He's making unportrayed media available to the masses. There's nothing political about that. Hell, I showed a picture of dead Americans. Obviously there isn't a political bias there. Concession accepted.

And MoO, this WAR wouldn't exist without politics.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And MoO, this WAR wouldn't exist without politics.

Find me any war that would.

[MKSheppard]

Hell, I showed a picture of dead Americans. Obviously there isn't a political bias there. Concession accepted.

Hey fuck you, cuntstain. In every picture I've seen of dead iraqis,
the American media has taken great pains NOT to show their faces,
by shooting from special angles, and US troops have covered the
dead Iraqis' heads with white sheets etc etc, as opposed to the Al-Jazeera
"lets drag the infidels thru the street and then hang their corpses!"
slant on dead bodies

[Queeb Salaron]

Wrong. His statements that he grew sick of "welcome Coalition" and "smiling Iraqi's" is OBVIOUSLY a political statement. You can deny your exploitation of the dead all you want, but it's obvious that had it not been for politics he wouldn't have posted these images of the dead to further his political agenda. Sorry, but you lose. His own statements worked to trap him here.

You can't prove his intent in creating this thread. The best you can do is point to what he specifically said, namely that this thread is NOT politically motivated. He would know better than anyone, wouldn't he?

(At the risk of putting words in Stas's mouth, I continue:) What Stas was trying to say by the "growing sick" phrase is that, like myself, it is difficult to see all the positive pro-war imagery when so much negative imagery exists as well. This thread acts as a balance between the two. If more pictures existed of American troops with bulletholes in their heads, I would post those as well. Unfortunately, the only such images we have are those from the captured POWs on Iraqi television, and those have already been posted. This thread was created to show the horrors of war on BOTH sides, without political bias. You can concede your strawman points all you'd like. The fact is, we have both come out and said that this thread is not politically motivated. And until we state otherwise, that is the only point to which you can concede.

[Master of Ossus]

...How did you come to that conclusion? Stas is not showing these images because he's anti-war. He's showing them because the media doesn't. That's all. He's making unportrayed media available to the masses. There's nothing political about that. Hell, I showed a picture of dead Americans. Obviously there isn't a political bias there. Concession accepted.

Let me get this straight, Queeb, you don't think that growing "sick of 'welcome Coalition' and 'smiling Iraqis'" represents a political motivation? An apolitical introduction for this thread would have been something like, "These are some of the images we haven't been seeing." By personalizing the thread's origins, he ALSO brings his political motivations into the thread as a basis for it, and by extension created this thread for the political reason of exploiting the dead. How is this difficult to understand?

And MoO, this WAR wouldn't exist without politics.

Who gives a fuck? You've gone from arguing that this thread wasn't political, to excusing it because the WAR is political. Nice maneuver. Too bad it doesn't morally justify Stas' actions AT ALL.

[Queeb Salaron]

Hey fuck you, cuntstain. In every picture I've seen of dead iraqis,
the American media has taken great pains NOT to show their faces,
by shooting from special angles, and US troops have covered the
dead Iraqis' heads with white sheets etc etc, as opposed to the Al-Jazeera
"lets drag the infidels thru the street and then hang their corpses!"
slant on dead bodies

Yes, I realize this. And those pictures have all been posted here, on both sides. What's your point? Look at the name of this thread. We're not saying that either side is more wrong, or that either photographical method is wrong. We (or at least I... I've spoken too much for Stas recently, and he will undoubtedly say I spoke falsely on some point or other) are just posting the pieces of media that you don't see on TV or in the papers, with as little a bias as we can muster, to show the horrors of war.

[Queeb Salaron]

Let me get this straight, Queeb, you don't think that growing "sick of 'welcome Coalition' and 'smiling Iraqis'" represents a political motivation? An apolitical introduction for this thread would have been something like, "These are some of the images we haven't been seeing." By personalizing the thread's origins, he ALSO brings his political motivations into the thread as a basis for it, and by extension created this thread for the political reason of exploiting the dead. How is this difficult to understand?

Maybe he could have been a bit more apolitical with that one sentence. But it's one sentence that only roughly implies his political agenda. Besides that, he's said numerous times that his motivation was not political. Granted, maybe it was his political bias that got him thinking of a way to portray the negative side of war to begin with, but you'll have to ask him that. The point is this: The portrayal of "smiling Iraqis" is misleading and candy-coats the true horrors that exist. This thread was an attempt to show something OTHER than the positive imagery we've all seen and grown used to. As for what he could have said, well yes. He could have said "Here's some stuff you haven't seen yet,"... But didn't he essentially do so? He's essentially said, "We've all seen the 'welcome Coalition' and 'smiling Iraqis,' but here's the OTHER side."

::Shrugs:: Again, we'll have to hear from him on this one. I've spoken too much for him.

[Master of Ossus]

Wrong. His statements that he grew sick of "welcome Coalition" and "smiling Iraqi's" is OBVIOUSLY a political statement. You can deny your exploitation of the dead all you want, but it's obvious that had it not been for politics he wouldn't have posted these images of the dead to further his political agenda. Sorry, but you lose. His own statements worked to trap him here.

You can't prove his intent in creating this thread. The best you can do is point to what he specifically said, namely that this thread is NOT politically motivated. He would know better than anyone, wouldn't he?

What do you mean? He TOLD ME that his motivations were political when he explained that this was motivated because he grew "sick of 'welcome Coalition' and 'smiling Iraqis.'" That IS a political statement, because it brings in a specific political agenda.

Besides which, had it been merely an effort to bring "balance" into the reporting, he could have easily just continued on the ORIGINAL thread. By shifting to ANOTHER thread, he admitted that he had not interest in actually "balancing" that thread, but wished to start another for the purposes of exploiting the deaths of the Iraqis and Americans whose images he has used on this one.

(At the risk of putting words in Stas's mouth, I continue:) What Stas was trying to say by the "growing sick" phrase is that, like myself, it is difficult to see all the positive pro-war imagery when so much negative imagery exists as well. This thread acts as a balance between the two.

Then he should have simply continued on the other thread, rather than starting a second one for political purposes.

If more pictures existed of American troops with bulletholes in their heads, I would post those as well. Unfortunately, the only such images we have are those from the captured POWs on Iraqi television, and those have already been posted. This thread was created to show the horrors of war on BOTH sides, without political bias.

Bullshit. This thread is meant to "balance" the original thread by.... beginning another thread that is almost completely tangential to the original, rather than continuing on that thread. The original thread was designed for images of the war. These are images of the war. By creating a SECOND thread, specifically for these images, Stas made a political statement by admitting that his actual purpose was not to balance the original thread, but instead was to exploit the deaths of the Americans and Iraqis whose images he now shamelessly parrots.

All that was required for "balance" was to continue on the original thread. By not only beginning this thread but also in beginning it by bringing in personal political opinions, Stas ADMITTED that this was a politically motivated thread. Moreover, the admission was made all the more glaring by stating that he was sick and tired of the images he had been getting. This goes beyond attempting to create a "balanced" perspective on the war. This is shameless exploitation of the pain and suffering of others in an effort to further one's own political agenda.

You can concede your strawman points all you'd like. The fact is, we have both come out and said that this thread is not politically motivated. And until we state otherwise, that is the only point to which you can concede.

What the fuck are you talking about? Stas admitted that this WAS politically motivated. He further obviously lied about his attempts to "balance" the original thread by STARTING THIS ONE.

[Master of Ossus]

Let me get this straight, Queeb, you don't think that growing "sick of 'welcome Coalition' and 'smiling Iraqis'" represents a political motivation? An apolitical introduction for this thread would have been something like, "These are some of the images we haven't been seeing." By personalizing the thread's origins, he ALSO brings his political motivations into the thread as a basis for it, and by extension created this thread for the political reason of exploiting the dead. How is this difficult to understand?

Maybe he could have been a bit more apolitical with that one sentence. But it's one sentence that only roughly implies his political agenda.

Wrong. It's the ONLY relevant sentence, for the purposes of determining his motivations, because it was the FIRST STATEMENT IN THE THREAD. In other words, it is the one most likely to show his motivations. The others may simply have been changing his premise after the fact, but the very existence of this thread as separate from the original one negates his bullshit "balance" excuse. It would have been substantially more effective in terms of "balance" to simply post these images on the original thread. His refusal to do so indicates a great deal about his true motives, and the sentence he CHOSE to open this thread with only confirms his morally reprehensible basis, which he has now lied about.

Besides that, he's said numerous times that his motivation was not political. Granted, maybe it was his political bias that got him thinking of a way to portray the negative side of war to begin with, but you'll have to ask him that. The point is this: The portrayal of "smiling Iraqis" is misleading and candy-coats the true horrors that exist. This thread was an attempt to show something OTHER than the positive imagery we've all seen and grown used to. As for what he could have said, well yes. He could have said "Here's some stuff you haven't seen yet,"... But didn't he essentially do so? He's essentially said, "We've all seen the 'welcome Coalition' and 'smiling Iraqis,' but here's the OTHER side."

So, why didn't he choose to post these images on the original thread, rather than starting another thread? Wouldn't that have done an even better job of "balancing" the original? Of course it would have. The fact that he chose to create another thread is indicative of a deeper motivation.

::Shrugs:: Again, we'll have to hear from him on this one. I've spoken too much for him.

I agree. I'd be most interested in seeing what excuses he cooks up for this behavior of his.

[Queeb Salaron]

1) You're splitting hairs. You're picking at his diction. Look at that one sentence (which you illogically conclude is the most important) in the context of everything else he's written about his intent in the thread, and THEN tell me what his motivations are.

2) IT IS THE MEDIA THAT PORTRAYS PICTURES, NOT A POLITICAL AGENT! Get that idea through your head. For the thousandth time, this thread was created as a commentary on the media, not on politics. Yes, Stas and I do have political agendas. Yes, these pictures fit into at least MY agenda (I'll say nothing more for Stas). But our views are not limited to politics alone. Of course we have a stance on the effectiveness and biases of the media. Why is it so hard for you to believe that this was solely a critque of the media and not a representation of our politics.

3) The reason this thread was moved was because it was too graphic to display alongside non-graphic pictures. By creating a separate thread, posters at SD.net can choose to either see or not see those graphic pictures without having to sift through one thread with both intermingled. Imagine a 14-year old browsing the other thread, looking for a cool picture of a tank, and coming across the bloody, swollen face of an Iraqi child casualty. With a title like this thread has, the reader can take steps to avoid such horror if they so desire. My thread came under the same fire before it died in flames. ::Looks at certain people::

I refuse to talk about this anymore until Stas comes back. It's his turn to say something. Until then, adieu.

[Master of Ossus]

1) You're splitting hairs. You're picking at his diction. Look at that one sentence (which you illogically conclude is the most important) in the context of everything else he's written about his intent in the thread, and THEN tell me what his motivations are.

LOL. Which is more indicative of the actual intent of someone? The first sentence, or another sentence he said WELL after the original one, and AFTER people had attacked what they perceived as his motivations for that first sentence? Moreover, he told me to quote him on where he had a political bias in that thread. I have now done so, demonstrating that he MUST either concede the point or attempt to justify his actions.

2) IT IS THE MEDIA THAT PORTRAYS PICTURES, NOT A POLITICAL AGENT! Get that idea through your head. For the thousandth time, this thread was created as a commentary on the media, not on politics. Yes, Stas and I do have political agendas. Yes, these pictures fit into at least MY agenda (I'll say nothing more for Stas). But our views are not limited to politics alone. Of course we have a stance on the effectiveness and biases of the media. Why is it so hard for you to believe that this was solely a critque of the media and not a representation of our politics.

In other words, the media is apolitical, so it's okay to DELIBERATELY TAKE only SOME of the images that the media is showing by introducing a biasing filter, and then pass those SELECTED IMAGES as being non-biased because they came from an unbiased source? That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read. Whenever you go about picking and choosing what to pass on on the basis of a particular desire to portray something a certain way, you create a bias. Obviously, in this case, that bias was deliberately created for the purpose of making a political statement.

3) The reason this thread was moved was because it was too graphic to display alongside non-graphic pictures. By creating a separate thread, posters at SD.net can choose to either see or not see those graphic pictures without having to sift through one thread with both intermingled. Imagine a 14-year old browsing the other thread, looking for a cool picture of a tank, and coming across the bloody, swollen face of an Iraqi child casualty. With a title like this thread has, the reader can take steps to avoid such horror if they so desire. My thread came under the same fire before it died in flames. ::Looks at certain people::

Sure. So it's better to balance a particular thread's perspective not by posting on THAT thread, but by starting a completely separate one? The original one was supposed to regard images from the war. Last time I checked, these are images from the war. I don't know what happened to your other thread, but I don't think that you can properly defend this thread's existence as a separate entity simply by explaining that it was trying to balance another pre-existing thread that could easily have accomodated everything that now appears in this one.

This isn't just splitting hairs. This is an important distinction. In my line of work, people have been fired over MUCH less than this. If SD.net were actually a press agency, the lawsuits would be piling up because Stas clearly did NOT create an apolitical climate, nor did he appear interested in reporting a balanced set of facts. Instead, he INTENTIONALLY reported from only one side of the issue. Should FOX be allowed to say "it's okay we portray democrats as being gay, because CNN always portrays them as being straight?" Of course not. The same thing's going on here. Even if there is an existing bias, you cannot combat that by creating another bias to "counter" the original. You're still supposed to show both sides of an issue. In this case, Stas clearly intended to ignore this principal in his use of the images of dead humans to further his political agenda, in a gross crime against morality and ethics.

I refuse to talk about this anymore until Stas comes back. It's his turn to say something. Until then, adieu.

See ya.

[Queeb Salaron]

Ok, you raised some interesting points that I want to counter. So I retract my last statement of my last post.

LOL. Which is more indicative of the actual intent of someone? The first sentence, or another sentence he said WELL after the original one, and AFTER people had attacked what they perceived as his motivations for that first sentence?

I'd go by what he said more frequently in explaination of that first sentence. I'd go by what he said after he had a chance to think about it for a bit. I'd go with the MOST RECENT statement that he said in explaination of his original intent. I'd go by the statement that he's beaten us over the head with. That's what I'D go with. But we differ there. Agree to disagree.

In other words, the media is apolitical, so it's okay to DELIBERATELY TAKE only SOME of the images that the media is showing by introducing a biasing filter, and then pass those SELECTED IMAGES as being non-biased because they came from an unbiased source? That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read.

No no no. We're displaying the images that the media DOESN'T show: the images that are CAUGHT in that filter (not of bias, but of decency). And they're not politically motivated. We've shown dead soldiers from BOTH sides. That ELIMINATES bias. Contrastingly, the original thread shows mostly pro-American images, showing a great bias.

Whenever you go about picking and choosing what to pass on on the basis of a particular desire to portray something a certain way, you create a bias. Obviously, in this case, that bias was deliberately created for the purpose of making a political statement.

Well fine, but if you're going to say that, then you have to say the same for the other thread. After all, that's using imagery to support a political bias as well, isn't it? It's just that the bias fits YOUR political agenda, so it's not so bad. The coin has two sides.

Sure. So it's better to balance a particular thread's perspective not by posting on THAT thread, but by starting a completely separate one? The original one was supposed to regard images from the war. Last time I checked, these are images from the war. I don't know what happened to your other thread, but I don't think that you can properly defend this thread's existence as a separate entity simply by explaining that it was trying to balance another pre-existing thread that could easily have accomodated everything that now appears in this one.

No, you're not LISTENING. The thread was moved for DECENCY'S sake, not because of a grand political motivation. The thread's LOCATION has nothing to do with balance. It just keeps little kids and sensitive posters from stumbling across imagery they didn't know was there. The only thing that has to do with balance is the motivation behind posting those pictures ANYwhere. The media refrains from showing these images, so we show them instead. It's not political bias, it's picking up the scraps that the media leaves behind.

This isn't just splitting hairs. This is an important distinction. In my line of work, people have been fired over MUCH less than this. If SD.net were actually a press agency, the lawsuits would be piling up because Stas clearly did NOT create an apolitical climate, nor did he appear interested in reporting a balanced set of facts. Instead, he INTENTIONALLY reported from only one side of the issue. Should FOX be allowed to say "it's okay we portray democrats as being gay, because CNN always portrays them as being straight?" Of course not. The same thing's going on here. Even if there is an existing bias, you cannot combat that by creating another bias to "counter" the original. You're still supposed to show both sides of an issue. In this case, Stas clearly intended to ignore this principal in his use of the images of dead humans to further his political agenda, in a gross crime against morality and ethics.

Again, by the same logic, the original thread refused to show the gruesomness of war and therefore was not showing both sides. So the creators of both threads are to blame. That's logical, is it not?

And now, friends, I head off to bed. It's been a real kicker of a night. Peace.

[Hathor]

Let's this thread be sticking! Let people learn that they shouldn't do it again ever..

[Sam Or I]

I do believe this war is a "just" war. I have looked at all the pictures and watched the videos, which makes me believe even more so that it is a just war. I have also looked at the pictures of what chemical and biological weapons can do, and have done to the kurdish people. I have also seen pictures of what happened to the Kuwaiti civilians.

And just a quick question, who determines what "balanced" is? My view and your view of what balanced is can be totally different.

On a lighter note on the same subject, anyone care to see my ex roommate in Bahrain, not really pictures of war, but the life of a civilian American contractor.

http://homepage.mac.com/h4x0rsk1llz/PhotoAlbum1.html

[Master of Ossus]

And just a quick question, who determines what "balanced" is? My view and your view of what balanced is can be totally different.

Apparently, Stas Bush.

On a lighter note on the same subject, anyone care to see my ex roommate in Bahrain, not really pictures of war, but the life of a civilian American contractor.

http://homepage.mac.com/h4x0rsk1llz/PhotoAlbum1.html

That's cool. Bahrain's a nice country. I visited there a few times when I was living in Saudi Arabia.