Showing Death in Iraq -- Insensitive or Necessary?

If it were pictures of dead Canadians in Afghanistan, he would not be in jail. Not political, just fact.

Yes, Canadians die in Afghanistan. We are at war. Many countries are as has been pointed out. Let's keep the optics clear here...

cosworth wrote in post #6054117
If it were pictures of dead Canadians in Afghanistan, he would not be in jail. Not political, just fact.

Yes, Canadians die in Afghanistan. We are at war. Many countries are as has been pointed out. Let's keep the optics clear here...

He's not in jail and does not face any criminal charges. I believe he is in Greece or Turkey making images of Iraqi refugees.?
http://www.zoriah.net …8/07/iraqi-war-refug.html

Then who is the guy I read about recently that was in jail for showing pictures....same thing. Dead soldiers.

cosworth wrote in post #6054208
Then who is the guy I read about recently that was in jail for showing pictures....same thing. Dead soldiers.

I have no idea, but trust me, it isn't Miller. I'm pretty sure he would have mentioned it on his website.

It might be the Korean documentary filmmaker that Miller mentions at the top of his homepage. It is not the US that is charging her with anything either, it is the South Korean government.
http://zoriah.net/

Come to think about it...

I am not in Iraq and I'm definitely not shooting at either one of the sides. So personally, the more pictures there are floating around, the merrier.

Historians never look at one account - they look at all sides. If you just look at one side, it's might be exaggerated, and that's normal.

While there is considerable discussion about the efforts of Washington and the Pentagon to sanitize the war, in part, by suppressing photos of fallen soldiers, it should be noted that in the United States, some of the most widely circulated photos from the Iraqi conflict were those of the abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. These photos alone were far more damaging to Washington's military endeavor and America's overall credibility. They inspired existing militants and served as an effective recruiting tool. The fault, of course, lies on the US soldiers involved in the abuse, not the press. Even if the mainstream media did not get hold of these, the insurgents might have, and they are very adept at using the Internet.

So any blanket statements about Washington's absolute control of the US media warrant further reconsideration. Moreover, at roughly the same time of the scandal, videos or images of insurgents slowly, and I mean excruciatingly slowly, sawing off the heads of hostages were relegated to the Internet. To be sure, numerous Westerners, let alone Islamic extremists, would have sympathized with the beheadings, at least if they involved an American, but the victims were European, Korean, and Nepalese immigrant workers as well. Yet, international outcry was relatively mute in the shadow of Abu Ghraib (Yes, I realize that this issue is complex, but I am trying my best to refrain from proscribed political commentary; my sincerest apologies if I have failed).

My point is that the attempt to objectively disseminate graphic and sensitive photos is incredibly difficult, particularly since the response is going to be highly subjective and likely politicized. Where one person might be repulsed, another might be celebratory, or simply indifferent. Drawing the line between respect for the victim's family (wherever they may reside) and respect for presenting the truth (which is going to get raped anyway) is one I would not like to have to make.

Additionally, just showing the world photos of the war dead, soldiers and civilians alike, will not automatically inject the world with pacifist desires. In fact, excessive coverage of the brutality could backfire, causing desensitization. Additionally, the effect would have to be 100 percent in coverage for world peace to manifest. But beyond this, there are already a number of people on this planet who know war firsthand, no photos necessary, but conflict among their own folks still continues in their respective regions.

ipschoser1 wrote in post #6053051
So it's ok to show American war dead that fought for our country and paid the ultimate price for our freedom, in complete indifference to their mourning families and friends? I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

But only wrong from an American centric point of view.

neil_r wrote in post #6055697
But only wrong from an American centric point of view.

So you have no issues about British war dead being openly displayed? These soldiers are heros of freedom and deserve better. So do their families.

As a Officer in the British Army serving in N Ireland and the war in the Falklands I do not have an issue with the true horror of what war means being shown to the people for whom soldiers risk their lives. It sickens me when I see the Nintendo generation with a jingoistic sanitised view of what war means. CBS showing smart-bombs finding their impersonal black and white targets hides the true personal horrors what explosive trauma is.

I have every sympathy with the families of dead servicemen and I understand that there are many complicated issues surrounding this subject.

By far the most striking image of Gulf War I was the image of the charred head of an Iraqi Soldier sticking out of his armoured car cupola (warning graphic LINK) There were many other images used in the US media of this event where the dead people were not terrorists or insurgents they were soldiers in the Iraqi Army and the majority of them were conscripted rather than professional soldiers.

I am sure that these images had the same effect on their families as they would have done in the US or UK or anywhere else in the world had the dead been their own countrymen.

People who have not been in these situations need to see the reality of what is happening in their name, objective PJ work can help facilitate that.

ipschoser1 wrote in post #6055837
So you have no issues about British war dead being openly displayed? These soldiers are heros of freedom and deserve better. So do their families.

I think Neil was alluding to the other side of the conflict, not the US allies. Is it wrong to show images of the brave dead of the insurgency who fought for their country and paid the ultimate price for their freedom? Remember, whatever you think, these people feel their cause is just.

I can't believe people are more angry that this photographer took these shots and posted them on the net than the reasoning and motives behind this (or indeed any) war. There's something seriously wrong here. If those who sent the sons and daughters of terrified parents off to war had an ounce of conscience, we wouldn't be discussing this at all.

Edit: To the mod; with all due respect to each posters feelings and opinions on the matter, a thread like this will almost certainly (if it already hasn't) become a political discussion due to the subject matter being one that people, naturally, have strong feelings about and a need to try and make sense of a situation that makes no sense. And as POTN doesn't allow these kind of political discussions (and rightly so), the thread should be locked.

ipschoser1 wrote in post #6055837
So you have no issues about British war dead being openly displayed? These soldiers are heros of freedom and deserve better. So do their families.

The point isn't to show some deads bodies for the fun of it, but to show the effects of modern warfare to a popluation that has very little understanding of warfare and to provide a historical record of what happened. It is not pleasent for anyone involved, but it is necessary. 75 years from now, we will have no eye witnesses to speak to, no one with a 1st hand experience of what it was like. All that will be left will be the video, the photographs, the written statements.

Is there a difference in showing dead soldiers and dead Iraqi children then? Maybe dead soldier pics will kick the knuckle heads who are screaming for more War in the pants some and they will see its not worth it.

hitmanh wrote in post #6056119
75 years from now, we will have no eye witnesses to speak to, no one with a 1st hand experience of what it was like. All that will be left will be the video, the photographs, the written statements.

yeah and without Photos like these all our children will be told in school and TV and movies just how "Cool" it was being in a war, fighting.. we didnt have stuff like this in school, it was sorta made out to be glamorous and fun, no one died except the enemy, the "Bad" guys, We won (like it was a game, like the way we WON in kick ball) just like we werent told of our taking the Indians land, killing their Buffalo, treating them like animals.. oh we were told they were the enemy, savages who raped, killed, scalped the white men for the fun of it..

Jamie Holladay wrote in post #6054048
I'll remind everyone here that POTN has a truly global base. Arguments as to whether something is acceptable based on one's country of birth/adoption are inherently political. Political discussions are not acceptable here. If you can't discuss whether something should/should not be photographed in time of conflict without bringing in national interests, please refrain from attempting to discuss it at all. If you are concerned about the impact of photographs on the families of the dead/injured, please consider all the families of all the fallen. Regardless of what they may have believed in, they are mourned somewhere.

If you can't discuss this without bringing in national interests, this thread will be closed.

A few of you have insisted in continuing to bring national interests into the topic without regard for the above posting, thereby spoiling the underlying issues. As you appear to be unable to see this, the thread is now closed.