Fair or Not Fair? [Archive]

Allison

04-22-2004, 03:02 PM

Eiru

04-22-2004, 03:18 PM

Resepect is a judgement call, Canidae. I think the Pentagon's policy of not allowing media coverage of our fallen is deeply disrespectful. We need to honor those who fall in combat. Not being allowed to cover such a thing smacks of politics and politics has no place when it comes to remembering those who fall in battle.

I think we need to take a lesson from the way the the rest of the world honours their dead. Rememberance Day is still a day of silent memory for those who have died defending their country in the British Commonwealth. I see nothing of that depth of feeling in either of the days America devotes to its veterans.

I strongly encourage everyone to google "In Flander's Field, the Poppies Grow" to get a flavour of how the rest of the world deals with "honouring" their war dead.

Canidae

04-22-2004, 03:33 PM

Fair that she was fired? Yes. She knew the regulations when she took the picture.

Fair that the Pentagon isn't allowing any pictures to be taken of any coffins anywhere? No.

This was not a decision made to spare the grieving families. It was a political decision made to try and downplay the costs of war. The Pentagon knows that Americans will only tolerate so many pictures of flag-draped coffins and wounded soldiers before they start to balk at the idea of war.

Personally, I think the American people need to see those coffins. They need to see, at least in part, the affects of war. And I think it's immeasurably disrespectful to those soldiers who gave their lives. They died for their country. Let's honor them, not sweep them under the rug as if they never existed.

If they were trying to down-play the cost of war they wouldn't allow the media to view the caskets being carried from the planes. They wouldn't allow numbers of deaths to be publizied on the media.

This has nothing to do with honoring them, it has everything to do with people wanting to ogle death and count numbers.

How would you feel if you had to transport your dead family member and people keep snapping pictures of it? Would you like it?

There is no disrespect in letting the transportation of the bodies be a private thing. On the contrary, its very respectful to leave that aspect of it alone. Why is it that people just have to see caskets in large numbers?

Leave the transporting alone. Let the bodies be returned peacefully and respectfully to their homes. You'll get your prescious numbers and sight seeing as soon as they land.

Allison

04-22-2004, 03:52 PM

If they were trying to down-play the cost of war they wouldn't allow the media to view the caskets being carried from the planes.
They do allow the media to "view" the caskets, but the media is not America. America never sees them. The Pentagon doesn't allow any photos, even stateside.

There is no disrespect in letting the transportation of the bodies be a private thing. On the contrary, its very respectful to leave that aspect of it alone. Why is it that people just have to see caskets in large numbers?

We'll have to disagree here. You think taking a picture of a coffin is disrepectful ... that it's a private matter for the families. But, those boys aren't dying just for their families, they're dying for their country, which also makes it a public matter. And I think it shows an incredible amount of disrepect to them for us to pretend they don't exist. They aren't statistics. They deserve the grief of a nation.

I'm not saying there should be a hoard of reporters snapping pictures on every leg of the journey. Proper respect for our fallen should be observed at all times. But I just don't see how it's disrespectful to, at the very least, have one guy with a video camera documenting a return-home ceremony at Dover.

Canidae

04-22-2004, 06:50 PM

We'll have to disagree here. You think taking a picture of a coffin is disrepectful ... that it's a private matter for the families. But, those boys aren't dying just for their families, they're dying for their country, which also makes it a public matter. And I think it shows an incredible amount of disrepect to them for us to pretend they don't exist. They aren't statistics. They deserve the grief of a nation.

I'm not saying there should be a hoard of reporters snapping pictures on every leg of the journey. Proper respect for our fallen should be observed at all times. But I just don't see how it's disrespectful to, at the very least, have one guy with a video camera documenting a return-home ceremony at Dover.
So where does the rights of the family come in? Is it our right to take pictures of our fallen just because they died serving the military? You don't have to take pictures of them strapped down for the plane ride how to know they exsist and show grief for their lose.

The return-home ceremony is allowed to be shown on tv and such and has been. That is when they are carried out of the plane by men and women in full dress uniform. Why isn't that enough??? Why do people have to see all the caskets lined up?

Does it take numbers for this nation to grieve for the lost men and women? Maybe they should have lined up the cofins from 9/11, maybe that would make people support the war more.

Sorry, but this whole "we have a right as a nation" is not a good excuse to take pictures of lines of flag-draped caskets.

PoxTheSmall

04-22-2004, 07:00 PM

I think that if there were names involved, it'd be pretty bad, but seeing as no names are associated with the coffins, I think just displaying the representation of the casualties of war is an interesting thing. Plainly put, that picture is rather sobering.

Rooster

04-22-2004, 07:11 PM

Fair that she was fired? Yes. She knew the regulations when she took the picture. We agreeFair that the Pentagon isn't allowing any pictures to be taken of any coffins anywhere? No.That's your opinion, and not that of those that are closest to the situation.
This was not a decision made to spare the grieving families. It was a political decision made to try and downplay the costs of war. The Pentagon knows that Americans will only tolerate so many pictures of flag-draped coffins and wounded soldiers before they start to balk at the idea of war. Wrong in so many ways. It's been this way for many years (since 1991) and probably would have been before but we didn't have self-centered left wing liberals running the media thinking they can do whatever the hell they please and everyone else be damned.Personally, I think the American people need to see those coffins.Good thing you don't make policy then. They need to see, at least in part, the affects of war. And I think it's immeasurably disrespectful to those soldiers who gave their lives.Actually, it's the other way around. You don't take pictures of POW's, you don't take pictures of coffins before they are ready to be properly displayed to the public. They died for their country. Let's honor them, not sweep them under the rug as if they never existed.No one is trying to sweep them under the rug. Give me a freaking break. The lady knew what she was doing was wrong. It's policy for a reason. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

Rooster

04-22-2004, 07:13 PM

"We'll have to disagree here. You think taking a picture of a coffin is disrepectful ... that it's a private matter for the families. But, those boys aren't dying just for their families, they're dying for their country, which also makes it a public matter."
Wrong. Public "interest" does not trump family values & wishes, nor does it trump matters of the military.

Allison

04-22-2004, 07:35 PM

As I said, Rooster. We'll have to agree to disagree. But, you seem to be arguing points I never made. I don't think that we should "take pictures of coffins before they are ready to be properly displayed to the public."

The return-home ceremony is allowed to be shown on tv and such and has been.
It's my understanding this is not true.

Kegg OBeer

04-22-2004, 07:54 PM

This has military reasons as well I might add. By allowing death counts to be public, it gives morale to your enemy. This is a bad idea when fighting a war. By hiding the death counts, the enemy does not actually know if it's being effective or not, at least not by way of a death count...

Eiru

04-22-2004, 08:11 PM

One thing I have to say. I found the photograph deeply moving.

]LoL[Harm

04-22-2004, 08:23 PM

Though I may not be part of the majority (I already know I'm not) I didn't even once consider counting how many coffins where in there. One is already too many for me, so why even bother. As I said at the top, I found the picture touching.

A single picture of this sort does not give you a count on how many troops have died. Continued reporting might, however firing someone over a single picture seems extreme, and overly damaging. Just relocate the individual and place a reprimand in their work record. I just felt the punishment did not fit the crime...so to speak.

spyder913

04-22-2004, 08:48 PM

but we didn't have self-centered left wing liberals running the media
Hahaha -- have you ever watched fox?

Rooster

04-22-2004, 09:01 PM

1 balanced outfit does not counter my point

Canidae

04-22-2004, 10:50 PM

First off, I have seen many times that they have publized the ceremony involved with removing the coffin from the plane once it has reached the US.

Now... GAH. The woman knowingly broke regulations! This isn't like a normal freaking job where you reprimand someone and let them keep going. This is the freaking military! Even a civilian that works for them is subject to their rules and regulations when on their turf. Deal with it. She got fired and she damn well deserved it.

And her excuse, to comfort the familes. Give me a freaking break. Yeah, seeing your loved ones coffin strapped down in a plane is so so comforting.

These people have lost their loved ones and you want their first image to be the coffin being tied down in a f-ing plane. That's real nice. I would much rather my first sight of their cofin be under full military ceremony, with it being respectfuly caried on the shoulders of dress uniform soldier than see it on the front f-ing page of a damn magazine or newspaper.

If you don't think its disrespect to the dead, think about the damn families for once. How dare anyone think they have the right to view those coffins in that respect just so they can see how many there are.

Its hard enough to face the funeral ahead for them. MY GOD. Do any of you have a clue what that is like??? I have been to a normal funeral, and I have been to my Grandfather's where the flag was draped over his coffin. Then they fold it and present it to the family, in this case it was me. Then this soldier salutes you. All you can do is cry as you clutch the flag to you.

And you want them to publize pictures of the coffins being tied down in a plane to make the trip home?!?!?

I am fully and completely disgusted with this. IT IS NOT RESPECT to view them in that light. If you want your damn numbers, find them somewhere else!

:flame: :mad:

Eiru

04-23-2004, 01:30 AM

http://www.amandashome.com/flanders.html

Allison

04-23-2004, 01:55 AM

That's a nice poem, Eiru. Thanks for that post. :)

Saorise

04-23-2004, 06:16 AM

Only 2 cents I have to add as a Navy wife, is that I wouldnt like to see that picture if my family member had recently been killed and I dont even like to see it if it isnt.

Transport is transport...if thats the way they have to get them home then fine its acceptable, but I wouldnt want my family having that image as our first right after my husbands death. Or god forbid my two son's saw that...

Its just my opinion, but I think the men and women that die in the service of their country have died for all of us, and that does make them deserving of everyones interest and attention. They know this and accept it, but where is crossing the line in respect for their families? I think that would best be answered by their families.. and as for this one..I would want to see him come off the plane, with their fellow service members in full dress honoring them for the sacrifice they made. My little boys really could care less who needs an accurate count of the dead to make the public aware. They would want to remember their Dad as their Dad, as any little kid remembers their father, their hero.

Sorry this is so long..but if you follow more links from the first link in this thread you will find a story on a press freedom activist named Russ Kick..since these pictures were taken he has a right to them under our laws, and hence you wind up with photos like these you will find on his website. Imo....completely harsh and disrespectful to the soldiers families. Sure the public has a right to know....but geez what about the families. Just because we serve doesnt mean the public has a right to every area of our lives. Personally I think its heartbreaking in a way.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0422-11.htm
http://warblogging.com/mirrors/www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/gallery.htm

Hammer

04-23-2004, 10:06 AM

Yes. She knew what was up. I wonder if she asked the family members if it was ok and if they thought it was a good idea? I also wonder how it found it's way to the internet and the general media? Perhaps a few shots from a battlefield morgue would be conforting to the families as well? Doesn't the public have a right to know what an RPG can do one of our finest?

Allison

04-23-2004, 03:11 PM

Thank you for your thoughts, Saorise. As a Navy wife, I'm sure this is an emotional topic for you, so I appreciate you taking the time to give us some insight.

If I understand you correctly, I would agree that there is a line to be drawn here. My own personal opinion is that no one in this country is being asked to make any sacrifice in this war other than our soldiers, civilian contractors, and their families. I believe it is our duty as a nation to, at the very least, observe the return-home ceremonies of our fallen, acknowlege their sacrifice, and join the grieving process in what way we may ... a way, I might add, that is impossible to achieve from a statistic.

People hear that 100 soldiers have been killed this month. They think, what a shame, and turn the channel. But show them a picture of these boys being honored in a ceremony at Dover, and they will be moved to pause and give some thought to the sacrifice. My opinion is that the former is ultimately more disrespectful than the latter.

But, as you and I have both said, there is a line to be drawn. No one wants to add to the burden of an already grieving family. My understanding is that you have said you find the pictures of the coffin preparations disrepectful. Personally, I agree with Harm that it comforts me to see the great care and respect these soldiers are given on their journeys home. I don't think I'd feel differently if I had a close family member who might potentially occupy one of those coffins ... I think it would still comfort me ... but since I don't, this is an area in which I would defer to the wishes of the families who do.

So, where do we draw the line?

I don't pretend to know the wishes of the majority of the families. I've heard differing opinions. But, personally, I'm inclined to say, given the apparant division on this issue, that the Dover ceremonies would be a good place to draw that line. Most family members that I've heard speak on this issue seem to be more concerned with the photos in-transit, but are either OK with, or want to see the photos of the return-home ceremonies.

Canidae

04-23-2004, 04:24 PM

There is a huge difference between viewing the ceremony surrounding their return home and taking pictures of the coffins while they are being strapped down in the plane.

Leave the behind the scene stuff out of the pictures. Honor them as they are being carried back onto US soil.

People hear that 100 soldiers have been killed this month. They think, what a shame, and turn the channel. But show them a picture of these boys being honored in a ceremony at Dover, and they will be moved to pause and give some thought to the sacrifice. My opinion is that the former is ultimately more disrespectful than the latter.

Again, the ceremony at Dover is way different than taking pictures of the way they are secured in the plane. And frankly, those same people that watch the news and hear that 100 soldiers just died and turn the channel, are the same ones that would watch the ceremony in Dover and Go" Oh what a shame," and turn the channel.

Hammer said it best.

People think its their right to get to view what the war has done, or what its like. They want to see the death count and the coffins. They sit avidly while pictures of tortures are shown. And ladies like the one that snapped the pic only fuel that thinking.

You want to see what war does? Go sit through a funeral of one of the dead while they do the 21-gun salute and don't flinch. Watch the widow be presented the flag and look her in the eyes while she does it. Listen as they play "Taps".

Trust me, you won't ever want to see them publize pictures like hers again.

Allison

04-23-2004, 04:55 PM

Canidae, for all practical purposes, we agree.

Kegg OBeer

04-23-2004, 06:49 PM

I was trained to do funerals in the military, and have taken part in them. I even had the honor of being the person to hand over the flag after we had folded it.

They are probably one of the most deeply moving things you'll ever see. Noone has respect for the dead like the military.

In regards to what I said earlier about the military reasons for not wanting these photos published...
You need to realize that not only Americans will see these. The enemy will see these as well. Not only will it be the type of photo the enemy will post on the wall for morale purposes, it will also only serve to demoralize our troops and the civilians at home. If you've ever actually been responsible for the very lives of people, you'd understand that morale is 99% of the battle. It's incredibly important for us to keep our moral high and the enemy's low.

None of this, of course, diminishes in any way the lack of respect it shows to not only the fallen soldiers in those caskets, but their families as well. If it were up to me, I'd not only have her fired for this, but deported as well. See how she likes the freedoms she has in say... Turkey?

Allison

04-23-2004, 07:33 PM

You bring up a very valid and practical point, Kegg. There is more to consider than just our emotional responses to these images.

Do these images have the potential to encourage our enemy?
Do they have the potential to decrease support for the war?

I think the answer to these and other similiar questions is yes. And I'm equally sure that these practicalities are a large part of our decision to ban these images ... whether rightly so, is a matter for debate. But there is no doubt that their effects are potentially more far-reaching than just our discomfort at seeing them.

I'd like to see a national debate that includes all of the effects of these images. But, considering political motivations in an election year, and high emotions during wartime, I don't think it's possible to come near to an honest and objective debate on this topic.

Rooster

04-23-2004, 08:18 PM

Did we do the right thing in the Revolutionary War?

Did we do the right thing in the Civil War?

Did we do the right thing in WWI?

Did we do the right thing in WWII?

Did we do the right thing in Korea?

Did we TRY to do the right thing in Vietnam? (yes, that's debatable as to the entire point -- it was really US vs China using the NVA & NRVA as pawns unfortunately).

Would we have done the same having seen the bodies, the funerals and known the body count on an HOURLY basis? I doubt it.

People, not persons don't have the stomach to do the right thing. They don't have the will power to get through it. We're going to let the cowards and peaceniks stop the country from doing what needs to be done to protect itself and it's allies. Especially this generation of instant-gratificationists (my new word for the day).

Allison

04-23-2004, 09:18 PM

This ban has only been in place since 1991, Rooster.

But I see your point. You're saying what I said earlier, that pictures of the fallen have the potential to decrease support for the war. How you feel about that fact will depend largely upon whether or not you support the war in question. And honestly, I don't think most people are capable at this time of separating those two issues.

You said of "people" that they don't have the stomach to do the "right thing." That they don't have the willpower. That they are cowards and peaceniks. I assume you are talking about the people who oppose the war in Iraq.

We can debate about whether or not we should be in Iraq. And we can debate about whether or not the public should ever see flag-draped coffins. But I will not debate one on the premise of the other.

]LoL[Harm

04-23-2004, 10:56 PM

People think its their right to get to view what the war has done, or what its like. They want to see the death count and the coffins. They sit avidly while pictures of tortures are shown. And ladies like the one that snapped the pic only fuel that thinking.
I hope you don't think these things of me, because you'd be projecting your anger in the wrong direction. I've already stated my stance on the picture and it does not reflect the words you've stated in this quote. So, for at least one person in this world, your concepts of why I want to see the pictures, is wrong.

Kegg OBeer

04-26-2004, 09:53 PM

If people feel they must see what the war is like, they should either go help fight it or shut the hell up... it's like seeing an accident on the highway and gawking at it instead of offering to help the person trapped in a burning car.

No this isn't directed at anyone specifically, it's just a broad point of view on my part.

Figtoria

04-26-2004, 10:23 PM

Were you ever in combat Rooster? Or you Kegg?

Just curious.

Rooster

04-26-2004, 10:30 PM

I was in the USAF. Closest I experienced was joint exercises with chem gear doing hot turns in Egypt.

Air Force is usually kept far away and safe. I dedicated my youth to studying aircraft and it was the obvious choice once I found out I couldn't be a fighter pilot due to poor eyesight in one eye.

Kegg OBeer

04-26-2004, 10:44 PM

I was in the Army during Desert Storm. And yes, I was in the infantry.

Honestly though, all I ask is that they volunteer to help, not sit at home bitching that the Simpsons is a rerun. If you served a term in the military that's good enough. You have no say if you actually see combat or not, but by joining you've offered. That's guts enough to have the respect of any veteran.

spyder913

04-26-2004, 10:45 PM

it's like seeing an accident on the highway and gawking at it instead of offering to help the person trapped in a burning car.
Most people run to help when they see the accident happen. Gawking occurs shortly therafter, usually after aid cars have arrived.

At least that's how it tends to be in my experience.

Kegg OBeer

04-26-2004, 10:49 PM

In my experience, a few cars do stop, but 100 more roll right on by just looking at the carnage...

Canidae

04-26-2004, 10:49 PM

spyder913

04-26-2004, 10:53 PM

In my experience, a few cars do stop, but 100 more roll right on by just looking at the carnage...How many people does it take to help?

I know when my friends and I witnessed an accident at a major intersection we ran down from the store parking lot and helped out.. but we couldn't do a whole lot other than send someone to call the police and make sure no one was dying. (Which they weren't, though one guy was quite dazed)

Rooster

04-26-2004, 10:53 PM

And you'd never catch Canidae bitching about a simpson's rerun. We don't like the Simpsons.

(for the most part) ;)

Kegg OBeer

04-26-2004, 10:53 PM

I agree with you there Canidae. That's an understandable reason.

The people who can't but want to also aren't the ones sitting at home bitching about it. It's all about having the desire to do what needs to be done for your country, regardless if you happen to agree or not.

Kegg OBeer

04-26-2004, 10:56 PM

How many people does it take to help?

I know when my friends and I witnessed an accident at a major intersection we ran down from the store parking lot and helped out.. but we couldn't do a whole lot other than send someone to call the police and make sure no one was dying. (Which they weren't, though one guy was quite dazed)

The point here is that while you were willing to help, how many people were actually there that saw it? The ratio of how many people tried to help to how many sat or stood around doing nothing to help is what makes me wanna puke.

spyder913

04-26-2004, 10:57 PM

lots of people helped. then as more people drove by, they saw that there were already people helping out and they kept going.

Rooster

04-26-2004, 10:57 PM

Kegg, I'm sure you're with me when I say:

Basic Training is a life changing event. Once you go through it, it feels as if you actually are better than those that don't. You feel that everyone should go through it once. It would make this country a LOT less stupid (adolecences primarily).

Now, that being said, take it in the light you've just accomplished a six to twelve week highly stressful (anyone NOT in the military has NO clue how much stress there is) and come out on top. So, don't take that as "Soldiers are better people" attitude. That's just what you feel like when you're done.

You also have a profound respect for those that came before and gave their lives. And God willing, you will make the right choices given the same oppurtunity.

Allison

04-26-2004, 10:59 PM

There are other ways of serving your country, Kegg. But, more importantly, what's the point here? You guys seem to be saying that anyone who hasn't served in the military doesn't have the right to have an opinion on military operations.

Have you ever served in local government? If not, do you think that you don't have the right to voice your opinion about the operations of your city? Have you ever served on an economic advisory board? If not, do you think that you don't have the right to vote on economic referendums? Where do you draw the line, exactly?

spyder913

04-26-2004, 11:04 PM

I would do basic if I didn't have to do the 3-4 year tour afterwards. My bro just graduated from basic and is in the 1st armorded division now. Both my parents were in the army. My uncle was in vietnam. My grandpa was in the navy and the coastguard. If things were different in my life I might have signed up, but at this point going into the armed forces would not really mesh well. I have lots of respect for those that are in the armed forces.

Does this mean I have to say 'go team' when we go to war? Not exactly. I don't wish any harm on anyone, and I support them, but I am not 100% in agreement with the war. It's not black and white.

Kegg OBeer

04-26-2004, 11:36 PM

Without trying to take a "holier than thou" attitude about it, you have to admit that if it wasn't for those that gave their lives in battle, we wouldn't have local governments of our own to serve in, we'd be ruled by someone else. We wouldn't even have economic matters as we would be serving a foreign government.

War is never black and white. Nobody ever claimed that. The point is that we're there and we were put there by the government the American people elected. I'm simply trying to make the point that people need to put their petty differences aside and just support their country. Once the war is over, go ahead and lobby to make the changes you feel need to be made. If you win, great. If you lose, well then you need to either try harder, just accept it and move on or go live somewhere you think is better. That's what democracy is all about.

spyder913

04-26-2004, 11:57 PM

Even if we were ruled by someone else, we'd still have some form of goverment. It might be worse than what we've got now, but it'd still have to be there. There would still be an economy of some sorts too.

War is never black and white...people need to put their petty differences aside and just support their country... Once the war is over, go ahead and lobby to make the changes you feel need to be made. That's what democracy is all about.I think democracy is also about being able to disagree with the country, including war, much like we don't have to agree with the people who are in government.

Allison

04-27-2004, 12:09 AM

Well, Kegg. I have to agree with most of your last post, although it sounds much different than your previous ones.

I agree, for the most part, that once a war is begun, the nation should get behind it, and I think we did. The reason you're hearing renewed criticism now is because of the election. Those who oppose the war in Iraq are doing what you said they should do: Lobbying to make the changes they feel need to be made. They want to make those changes by removing the man from office who took us to war. The problem is the timing. The election won't wait until after the war, and they have every right to voice their reasons for wanting Bush gone.

The only alternative for them would be to not participate in the election other than with their personal votes. If Bush is running on the war, which he is, then you can't expect them to sit silently saying, "Well, I don't support Bush for re-election but I can't say why because it would be unpatriotic." Honestly, you may not understand why they don't think we should be in Iraq. But, like you said, this is a Democracy. And whether or not you agree with their position, I don't see how you can want to subvert their participation in the democratic process by demanding their silence.

Rooster

04-27-2004, 12:18 AM

spyder913

04-27-2004, 12:27 AM

Silence from those that would never lift a hand to defend this country, and hate those that do.So what about those who love those that do? Silence as well?

Rooster

04-27-2004, 12:29 AM

If you're not willing to defend this country, that's one step closer to handing it over to those that wish us eliminated. I hope it never comes to it, but I fear we will truly find who the cowards and who the patriots are if the day ever arrives where we actually have to defend our nation.

Allison

04-27-2004, 12:36 AM

not silence in the voting booth, but silence so it does not bolster our enemies. Silence so it does not demoralize our troops. Silence from those that would never lift a hand to defend this country, and hate those that do.
Except when it's a military action you don't support. Then no silence for you, right? Lol, we're going in circles.

And come on... pahleeeeze stop turning people into demons. I say we shouldn't have gone into Iraq the way we did. Suddenly I'm someone who would never lift a hand to defend this country, and I hate our troops? YOu should take that act on the road. You're cracking me up.

Sparky

04-27-2004, 03:29 AM

but I fear we will truly find who the cowards and who the patriots are if the day ever arrives where we actually have to defend our nation.

I'm certain you'd be wrong. You'd probably be suprised at the surge of patriotism and nationalism that would be created if we were ever attacked... hell, just look at the aftermath from the September 11th attacks. NO, i'm not talking about what Bush is doing now, i'm talking about the public's reaction.

Rooster

04-27-2004, 09:01 AM

Except when it's a military action you don't support. Then no silence for you, right? Lol, we're going in circles.

And come on... pahleeeeze stop turning people into demons. I say we shouldn't have gone into Iraq the way we did. Suddenly I'm someone who would never lift a hand to defend this country, and I hate our troops? YOu should take that act on the road. You're cracking me up.I didn't say there was any corrollary, I wasn't even implying that. I was very specific in my statements.

And as for your first comment, that's not accurate. when the president doesn't do ENOUGH... doesn't COMMIT enough, then the public should be up in arms. But once troops are committed, do not give aid to our enemies. There's a big difference between calling Clinton a wuss because he shot a Tomahawk missile at some camps and a supposed (which is fine, it's all about intelligence) chemical factory and left it at that. What did he think Al Qaeda was going to do? Mourn the loss of their tent strewn, dirt filled training camps and stop blowing us up? Yeah, that solved nothing, obviously. That's when public outcry is needed - to tell the President he's not doing enough.

Allison

04-27-2004, 01:33 PM

Well Rooster. Again, agree to disagree. I think that ultimately, another 4 years of GWB will do more harm to our country than I would by speaking against him. I'll just say I'm glad we live in a place where you don't get to tell me what I can and can't say.

Kegg OBeer

04-30-2004, 08:39 PM

No, but we're free to "shush" you all we want! ;)

Noleader

05-02-2004, 05:29 AM

Noleader

05-02-2004, 05:37 AM

Rooster,

Going to keep this short so we do nto go off on one more 10 page debate.

You just strike me as the person that checks the Republican box on the ballot. Mr. Washington made note on leaving office of the President that the party politics system was going to be one of the downfalls of this country. I guess I am just saying take some time and give all the people running a fair shot. I am damn sure you wanted Clintion out of office when he was busted lieing on the stand yet Bush lied to the American public and the rest of the world and you still support him.

Rooster

05-02-2004, 12:34 PM

Here's the thing.. Bush didn't LIE. To lie, you have to know the truth, then say a contridictory statement. Using information, as accurate as you can expect, and making a decision on such statements is not lying. It's called relying on bad information. Do not try to equate Clinton deliberately trying to dupe the public with Bush's reliance on bad information.

And the party system would have occured regardless. It's an easy way for people with similar foundation of principles to work together.

Canidae

05-02-2004, 12:38 PM

Two things...

First: It is not disrespectful to take a picture of a flag drapped casket because for all we know it could be empty. It would be disrespectful to open the casket and take a picture of the body or make note of who is inside the casket.

Second: Why does the US Government feel it is better for us not to see it? I am an adult and can censor myself. This is just a way to make sure people do not take notice the number of deaths that our occuring in the battle.

So in short it is not disrespectful though it is just a way for anti-war protesters to make a cause so the government tries to hide it.

There must be war to maintain the peace...
Its disrespectful to the familys to plaster those pictures over the newspapers for everyone to see.

It is no-ones right to take away the family's right to privacy just so we can see how well they tie-down the coffins for transportation back to the US.

Taking a picture of a flag draped coffin while it is being ceremoniously returned to US soil is respectful, yet still shouldn't be using for any type of publicity for either side of the war.

People need to stop thinking about what they think their rights are and take into consideration the rights and feelings of the familys that are waiting for those planes to bring their loved ones home.

Rooster

05-02-2004, 12:41 PM

Two things...

First: It is not disrespectful to take a picture of a flag drapped casket because for all we know it could be empty. It would be disrespectful to open the casket and take a picture of the body or make note of who is inside the casket.

Second: Why does the US Government feel it is better for us not to see it? I am an adult and can censor myself. This is just a way to make sure people do not take notice the number of deaths that our occuring in the battle.

So in short it is not disrespectful though it is just a way for anti-war protesters to make a cause so the government tries to hide it.

There must be war to maintain the peace...Good thing you're so intent on disrespecting the privacy of the families whose loved one gave their lives and that everyone else's trump the families. Alrighty!!

There is no public good nor public service served by showing Family XYZ's son or daughter's flag draped coffin in transport.

Remember, it's not your family member in that coffin, so honestly, your opinion doesn't really hold much water in this matter.

Military member's bodies are ultimately the responsibility of the branch of service they served in. Not the public. If you get a sunburn and it hinders your ability to work, you can be brought up on charged of damage to government property. So no, the public does NOT have a right.

Allison

05-02-2004, 06:52 PM

It's obvious we'll never agree on whether or not these pictures should be shown. We here, like the rest of the country, have differing opinions. Some think it's disrespectful not to show these pictures, and\or that the public has a "right to know." Others think that it's disrespectful to show these pictures, and\or that the public's "right to know" ends where the grieving families begin.

So, how do we set aside our personal feelings so that we can come to some resolution here? By what basis do we judge, not what is right or wrong, because clearly that is a subjective conclusion, but how do we judge what is to be done?

I have heard some family members, along with active and retired military personnel, publicly say that they want these pictures shown, and that they found comfort in seeing the care that is taken with their loved ones. Howver, I don't pretend to know what the majority of the family members of our service men and women would want. I have no objective way of judging this. But it seems clear that disagreement does exist, even among military personnel and their families.

So again, how does anyone decide what should be done? Do we rely soley on the wishes of the families? If so, do we rely on the majority, disregarding the minority's wishes? And how do we determine the majority? Do we listen to political proponents of the war who say that these pictures unfairly sway public opinion? Do we listen to political opponents of the war who say that the public deserves to have their opinions swayed? How do we decide?

Is there a compromise to be reached here?

Rooster

05-02-2004, 08:04 PM

Personally, whether I think they should be shown or not doesn't really matter.

I think it's up to

A) the military

B) the families of the fallen
b) but then you have the issue of some families may be okay with it, others may not. If I were making policy, I'd lean in favor of those that wish it private.

Obviously once it's time to move the coffin in full military honors, photos should be allowed.

Allison

05-02-2004, 08:18 PM

Obviously once it's time to move the coffin in full military honors, photos should be allowed.
I agree.

Although I personally lean in favor of a broader policy, I think it's a good compromise to allow pictures of those return-home ceremonies.

Canidae

05-03-2004, 12:26 AM

As the daugher of a long time Air Force man, and the ex-wife of military as well, I have to say that I would be offened by seeing the pictures of the coffins being transported all over tv, news, and such. Thats just not the picture I would want to see as the first picture of, lets say, my father's body being returned home.

I think most military familes know that the military is not going to treat them with anything less than total respect and honor.

This should not be resolved by the majority of the general public because, while yes they do have involvement because its a war, frankly its none of their business how the military does anything. If anybody should have any opinion and vote on what pictures are shown, it should be the military and the familes of the soldiers.

Freedom of speech was never intended to go so far as to infringe on someone elses rights.

Pictures of the ceremony should be enough to satisfy on-lookers curiosity. Leave it at that and let the military do their jobs and the families have some privacy.

Noleader

05-04-2004, 03:59 PM

Good thing you're so intent on disrespecting the privacy of the families whose loved one gave their lives and that everyone else's trump the families. Alrighty!!

There is no public good nor public service served by showing Family XYZ's son or daughter's flag draped coffin in transport.

Remember, it's not your family member in that coffin, so honestly, your opinion doesn't really hold much water in this matter.

Military member's bodies are ultimately the responsibility of the branch of service they served in. Not the public. If you get a sunburn and it hinders your ability to work, you can be brought up on charged of damage to government property. So no, the public does NOT have a right.
Funny it was not your father being deported yet you seemed to think your opinion held water in that debate...

Other thing the public does have the right. It is called the Freedom of Information Act.

It also serves the public good because when election time comes they can decide if the cost of the war is to great and cast an intelligent vote. It is easy to dismiss a number. Harder to dismiss all those coffins... I know it hit me a bit harder to see a plane full of dead then just '700ish soldiers dead in combat'

Swifty_Johnson

05-04-2004, 05:14 PM

Which will hit you harder, the pictures of the soldier's coffins, or the one women plunging to her death after leaping from the burning WTC?

Other thing the public does have the right. It is called the Freedom of Information Act.

The public's rights do not over-ride the rights of the deceased nor their families.

Swifty

Canidae

05-04-2004, 05:52 PM

Other thing the public does have the right. It is called the Freedom of Information Act
Which is why you get to see the numbers.

Your Freedom of Infomation does not over-ride their Freedom of PRIVACY.

Noleader

05-04-2004, 06:08 PM

Which is why you get to see the numbers.

You make it sound like I should be greatful they are sharing this information with me.

I am an American and thus have a responsibility to take part in government. If I do not know this information I would be an uninformed voter. Since my vote helps dictate the direction our country goes there is no reason why I should not get all information that would not threaten National Security.

Uninformed Voter = Bush Re-Elected (Sorry had to take a dig)

Your Freedom of Infomation does not over-ride their Freedom of PRIVACY

Your statment lacks one item. At what point is taking a picture of a box with a flag on it invading someones privacy? No names are listed. No addresses are published.

These peices of data are protected as is a picture of the corpse (High Court just ruled on this).

Swifty_Johnson

05-04-2004, 08:11 PM

If it wasn't for uninformed-voters, no democrat would ever get elected.

Swifty

Allison

05-04-2004, 08:28 PM

Lol, Swifty. I feel the same way about Bush. :p
But, in reality, both parties get huge numbers of votes from uninformed voters. I often wonder what a campaign would look like, and who people would elect, if everyone were informed.

Rooster

05-04-2004, 08:50 PM

Your statment lacks one item. At what point is taking a picture of a box with a flag on it invading someones privacy? No names are listed. No addresses are published.

These peices of data are protected as is a picture of the corpse (High Court just ruled on this).Because a family member MIGHT be in there. Even a good chance knowing when it happened to thanks to the media/military we have over there. It's not personal to you, it is to those who just lost a loved one. The wondering it would create.. is that my son in that coffin? Will I ever know?

Patience... again. There's no need for this instant gratification (can't wait till the coffins are brought off the plane... that's pretty whiney if you ask me) when it comes to a soldier's death. He's not goin' anywhere. :(

Canidae

05-04-2004, 10:41 PM

Your statment lacks one item. At what point is taking a picture of a box with a flag on it invading someones privacy? No names are listed. No addresses are published.
You seem to forget dates. Dates of it landing, or leaving would be enough to tell families that it is more than likely their son, daughter, husband, wife in one of those coffins.

You make it sound like I should be greatful they are sharing this information with me.

I am an American and thus have a responsibility to take part in government. If I do not know this information I would be an uninformed voter. Since my vote helps dictate the direction our country goes there is no reason why I should not get all information that would not threaten National Security.Those coffins are filled with men and woman that are American's too. Their loved ones are Americans. Are your rights so much more important then theirs? Why do you have to see coffins to have numbers effect you? I see "700 soldiers dead so far" and my heart grieves for every single one of them and every single family member that has lost them. I don't need to see the flag-draped coffins being tied down in a plane to grasp that.

Everyone is so ready to yell "What about my rights to see the numbers? What about my rights to know?" Maybe ya'll should slow down for a few beats and think about the rights of those families who are waiting for their loved ones to return home in those coffins so that they can be buried.

Saorise

05-04-2004, 11:14 PM

It is easy to dismiss a number. Harder to dismiss all those coffins... I know it hit me a bit harder to see a plane full of dead then just '700ish soldiers dead in combat'

That statement right there maybe a key reason as to why ppl are differing in this thread. For most anyone who has served in the military or had a family member serve (I admit there is always exceptions thou) its hard to dismiss a number. Yes I said HARD to dismiss a number....we dont NEED to SEE a room full of coffins or a plane full of dead. We know that ever single number is a name, is a person and we dont have to constantly be reminded with pictures all over the newspapers, the 11:00 news or the internet to be fully aware of the casualties of war. We dont NEED these visual displays to be an "informed voter" a number is enough. Its sad...very very sad, that someone would NEED this to be informed. We think of the families first...but maybe thats cause noone else is.

Your statment lacks one item. At what point is taking a picture of a box with a flag on it invading someones privacy? No names are listed. No addresses are published.

At what point can the military families say leave us the hell alone? Or did we completely give our rights up when our soldier decided to defend everyone else's? To you its a box.....thats says it right there.... :eh:

Noleader

05-05-2004, 01:49 AM

That statement right there maybe a key reason as to why ppl are differing in this thread. For most anyone who has served in the military or had a family member serve (I admit there is always exceptions thou) its hard to dismiss a number. Yes I said HARD to dismiss a number....we dont NEED to SEE a room full of coffins or a plane full of dead. We know that ever single number is a name, is a person and we dont have to constantly be reminded with pictures all over the newspapers, the 11:00 news or the internet to be fully aware of the casualties of war. We dont NEED these visual displays to be an "informed voter" a number is enough. Its sad...very very sad, that someone would NEED this to be informed. We think of the families first...but maybe thats cause noone else is.

Assuming everyone is a military family and your statment works. Problem is the normal joe is not. He reads the papers everyday and watchs the news every night. After awhile his eyes just start to pass over the death toll in Iraq. Then the news/Media get bord with it and the stories start showing up in the 10th page of the newpaper and a small segment right before break on TV news.

Time passes and everyone starts to move on as nothing is going on. Come election time the normal joe would have forgot about all the men/women dieing for this cause.

Problem is when it is not hitting home people tend to forget about it. Seeing all those coffins is very sobering. Reminds everyone that yes there is a person associated to those numbers.

If that makes me sick so be it, but I will not support the fact that others want to so easily forget.

At what point can the military families say leave us the hell alone? Or did we completely give our rights up when our soldier decided to defend everyone else's? To you its a box.....thats says it right there.... :eh:

First off this war had nothing to do with 'defending our rights'. Bush had a bug up his ass because someone shot at daddy when he was in the middle east so he went and bombed the shit out of them. I respect the fact that they gave thier lives for our country but do not say they were defending my rights.

It is a box... I doubt you go to see the object the body is in before burial, you go see the person...

The military families can say leave us the hell alone when a camara shows up on their porch or when a newpaper is interviewing everyone and the dog about the death.

This is the way I look at it. You want John Smith to be one more number and I want him to be a person.

Everytime someone pushs the bountries and tests the limits they are protecting your rights. They might be weilding a pen or a camera but it is just as good as a gun.

In closing here is a good quote for you to look at.

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363)

Noleader

05-05-2004, 02:00 AM

If it wasn't for uninformed-voters, no democrat would ever get elected.

Swifty
OK, were to start...

This is what I was talking about when I said shooting from the hip in the other tread. I made it clear I was joking, I added (Sorry had to take a dig) to express that, when I said uninformed voters would elect Bush. Then here you come with your nobel wisdom on the subject and let me know it is infact the other way around. Thank you swifty you are a beacon of light in my dark dark ignorant world.

Noleader

05-05-2004, 02:01 AM

Rooster

05-05-2004, 09:09 AM

Okay NL...

For every picture they show of a military coffin, they need to show the pictures of 4 of those murdered on 9/11. Let's keep it in perspective eh?

Canidae

05-05-2004, 10:03 AM

Assuming everyone is a military family and your statment works. Problem is the normal joe is not. He reads the papers everyday and watchs the news every night. After awhile his eyes just start to pass over the death toll in Iraq. Then the news/Media get bord with it and the stories start showing up in the 10th page of the newpaper and a small segment right before break on TV news.

Time passes and everyone starts to move on as nothing is going on. Come election time the normal joe would have forgot about all the men/women dieing for this cause.

Problem is when it is not hitting home people tend to forget about it. Seeing all those coffins is very sobering. Reminds everyone that yes there is a person associated to those numbers.

If that makes me sick so be it, but I will not support the fact that others want to so easily forget
TOO DAMN BAD.

Your rights to be shocked are not more important than the families rights to PRIVACY.

The military families can say leave us the hell alone when a camara shows up on their porch or when a newpaper is interviewing everyone and the dog about the death.

This is the way I look at it. You want John Smith to be one more number and I want him to be a person.

He IS a person to the family. And that family has a right to have him returned home in peace and buried without a freaking audience.

Swifty_Johnson

05-05-2004, 11:48 AM

Then here you come with your nobel wisdom on the subject and let me know it is infact the other way around. Thank you swifty you are a beacon of light in my dark dark ignorant world.

Sorry, but you tend to make allot of mistake when you post, so I have to correct them. But hey, when Republicans drive around the town offering cigerettes to peope so they'll vote for their party like the democrats do, than you'll have a right to say that.

First off this war had nothing to do with 'defending our rights'. Bush had a bug up his ass because someone shot at daddy when he was in the middle east so he went and bombed the shit out of them.

This is so way off base it's not even funny. Yes, the soldiers over there defended our rights and died for our rights.

The right to work in a high rise without worring about some airplane slamming into it.
The right to walk down the street without having to worry about breathing in posion gas.
The right to speak out without have some Mulla comdemm you to death for it.

And before you whine about no WMD found in Iraq, it turns out they were found. Insecticides share many of the same materials as nerve gas. Lots of "insecticide" barrels are being found stored in Iraqi ammo dumps.

Now, either the Iraqi army had the job of insect removal, or those were there for other reasons.

Now my GF is heading off to the Persian Gulf. If the unthinkable happens and she is killed, her FAMILY will decided if they want you to see her flag draped coffin being returned, not the media.

Swifty

Allison

05-05-2004, 12:12 PM

Okay NL...

For every picture they show of a military coffin, they need to show the pictures of 4 of those murdered on 9/11. Let's keep it in perspective eh?Bush takes care of that in his political ads.

j/k! j/k! I couldn't resist! :D

Noleader

05-05-2004, 01:32 PM

Okay NL...

For every picture they show of a military coffin, they need to show the pictures of 4 of those murdered on 9/11. Let's keep it in perspective eh?
Why does everything revert back to protecting the guy we want to vote for. I could give a rats ass if it supported or underminded Bush.

First I would like to see you produce something that shows a link between Iraq and Bin Ladin. If you can you might want to send it to Bush because he has been busy trying to find it. Second if you can not produce the link then using the 9/11 attacks to back the war is incorrect.

We have a responsiblity not only to ourselves but to Iraq to weigh the war and decide if moving forward is correct and the direction we want the government to go. Without reminders for the normal joe the war is soon forgotten.

Noleader

05-05-2004, 01:48 PM

TOO DAMN BAD.

Your rights to be shocked are not more important than the families rights to PRIVACY.
Everyone seems to be using the word Rights a bit to liberial here. Please tell me what right protects the dead from being photographed.

I can tell you what gives the media the right to photograph the dead. Freedom of Press...

Bottom line is our grand government learned from their last mistake. When we were in Vietnam the media showed hours and hours of flim of our soldiers getting killed. The response to the photo's/film was America wanting out of the war. Now we try to hide the dead so the public does not get concerned.

I think I just came up with the best Bush campain tag line.
Vote Bush: For a more censored America!

He IS a person to the family. And that family has a right to have him returned home in peace and buried without a freaking audience.
But the american public needs to be made aware that these numbers are actully people. I find it funny that one person could make the ultimate sacrifice for our country and when it comes time for him to be remembered or mourned by the public the family of this nobel soul becomes selfish. The dead need to be remembered not buried and forgotten.

Rooster

05-05-2004, 01:58 PM

Noleader

05-05-2004, 02:01 PM

And the same is true for the forgotten fallen on 9/11. Let's remind everyone about that daily since it's the same morons that can't figure out that 700 dead soldiers = 700 dead soldiers. Obviously they can't read, so they must be shown pictures.

You want to forget about the ones murdered 3 years ago, but want daily reminders of the cost of a war you don't agree with.
Personally I think they should have shown pictures. I am 100% for no censorship.

Roo it is not so much that they 'can not read' as you put it. Just easier to explain my views with this old saying.

'A picture is worth a thousand words.'

Canidae

05-05-2004, 02:36 PM

Everyone seems to be using the word Rights a bit to liberial here. Please tell me what right protects the dead from being photographed.

I can tell you what gives the media the right to photograph the dead. Freedom of Press...

The right to privacy. Its the families right to have it private. The Freedom of Press does not and should not have the right to over-shadow the families right to have their privacy.

Swifty_Johnson

05-05-2004, 02:59 PM

I find it funny that one person could make the ultimate sacrifice for our country and when it comes time for him to be remembered or mourned by the public the family of this nobel soul becomes selfish. The dead need to be remembered not buried and forgotten.

The dead need to be remembered by their family and friends, not praded around on political attack ads. If the public wants to remember the dead, there are many military cemetaries they can go to.

Swifty

Allison

05-05-2004, 03:07 PM

The dead need to be remembered by their family and friends, not praded around on political attack ads.
I can absolutely agree with this statement. But, in all fairness, the only one who's used a flag-draped coffin in a political ad this election is GWB.

Boom

05-05-2004, 03:18 PM

Ouch, Ailia with a stinging left hook!

I haven't posted in this thread yet. I need to think about it more.

Swifty_Johnson

05-05-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swifty_Johnson
The dead need to be remembered by their family and friends, not praded around on political attack ads.

I can absolutely agree with this statement. But, in all fairness, the only one who's used a flag-draped coffin in a political ad this election is GWB.

1. It wasn't a coffin, but a body on a streacher. ;)

2. It wasn't a political attack ad.

3. I've already stated I found that tacky.

Swifty

Allison

05-05-2004, 03:45 PM

Lol, Swifty. OK. I stand corrected. ;)

Boom

05-05-2004, 04:05 PM

Ok, I just read the first page. I still need to think more about the pictures thing (can't criticize me for wanting to think through my feelings before speaking).

But I had to respond to the "left controlled media" deal.

Even Rush Limbaugh concedes that the media is no longer controlled by the left. As he puts it, "we won." Fox may be an extreme example of right wing media, but it ain't the only example.

As yall know, Rush Limbaugh will never give the liberals in inch in an argument or conceed any point. If HE admits that the media isn't liberal controlled anymore, its time for yall to admit it too.

Now yall will tell me I am wrong, and that since neither of us have any facts and are just going on our own perception, that we should assume you are right because it sounds good. Then I will do a few hours research and show you the statistics regarding the numbers of TV shows, Newspapers, Radio shows, Magazines that show a conservative viewpoint vs those that have a liberal slant. And then noone will acknowledge it. Yall will pretend this conversation never happened, which means my time will have been totally wasted.

Noleader

05-05-2004, 04:09 PM

The right to privacy. Its the families right to have it private. The Freedom of Press does not and should not have the right to over-shadow the families right to have their privacy.
Yes it should... Every item you see in the news is invading someones privacy. Privacy is not the blanket protection you are trying to make it into.

Court Rooms are open to the public let some guy is in there having all his history aired.

Noleader

05-05-2004, 04:18 PM

Now yall will tell me I am wrong, and that since neither of us have any facts and are just going on our own perception, that we should assume you are right because it sounds good. Then I will do a few hours research and show you the statistics regarding the numbers of TV shows, Newspapers, Radio shows, Magazines that show a conservative viewpoint vs those that have a liberal slant. And then noone will acknowledge it. Yall will pretend this conversation never happened, which means my time will have been totally wasted.
Do it booms!!!!! Even if they just ignore it the point has been made and can be used in later posts to shutdown anything about how the media spins everthing

Boom

05-05-2004, 04:25 PM

I still have to read pages 2-4 but I have to comment on something said in this page. Forget about the picture of the coffins on the plane, lets just assume that was wrong for now. We all agree it was against the law and stuff, but for now (for the purpose of my question) lets just assume it was 100% wrong on all levels.

My understanding is that the media isn't being allowed to photograph the coffins at all, like not even in the formal ceremony when they are being honored after they are taken off the plane. I could be wrong, but I know I haven't seen any pictures like that.

Now here is my question. Why is it when a liberal wants to show pictures of flag covered coffins being honored in a totally respectful and dignified context they are sick, disgusting, disrespectful, scumbags... Yet when GWB shows a picture of a charred human corpse on a stretcher for pure political gain, in a campaign add no less, its merely "tacky."

Tacky!? How about fucking disgusting and pathetically shameful. What about the family of that poor soul. I've been to funerals of family members. My Grandfather fought in Europe in WWII and he had a flag over his coffin. It made me proud to see it. My heart was breaking, but I was proud to see him honored like that. If I ever had to see a family member on a stretcher with smoke coming off the body, like in that Bush ad, I think I would have nightmares for the rest of my life. He exploited that dead American to boost his polls. Did he think about that person's family?

But since your boy GWB did it, we will just say it was "tacky." I would hate to see what you would have said if an ad like that came from the other side. I bet you would use words slightly stronger than "tacky."

Noleader

05-05-2004, 04:31 PM

But since your boy GWB did it, we will just say it was "tacky." I would hate to see what you would have said if an ad like that came from the other side. I bet you would use words slightly stronger than "tacky."
Booms that sums up this whole thread. The sole reason they do not want the pictures out is all about GWB not the people. They know pictures of our war dead would hurt him in the polls.

I do not want the pictures released for political gain. I want them because it is a sobering reminder to every american what those young men and women did for this country.

Allison

05-05-2004, 04:50 PM

My understanding is that the media isn't being allowed to photograph the coffins at all, like not even in the formal ceremony when they are being honored after they are taken off the plane. I could be wrong, but I know I haven't seen any pictures like that.

Your understanding is correct, Boom.

Swifty_Johnson

05-06-2004, 12:03 AM

Allison

05-06-2004, 12:10 AM

Showing pictures of flag drapped coffins of soldiers and trying to drum up anti-war feeling with it is extreamly disrespectful.
I think everyone agrees that using those pictures for political gain is disrespectful. I don't think there's any disagreement there. Have you seen anyone using those pictures for political purposes?

Noleader

05-06-2004, 02:24 AM

I think everyone agrees that using those pictures for political gain is disrespectful. I don't think there's any disagreement there. Have you seen anyone using those pictures for political purposes?
I never said they should. Problem is with this whole debate is that all the Bush supporters know if the pictures are even shown in the news it will get people wondering why we are still there.

I find it disrespectful to try to hide this kind of thing for political gain. The public must be infromed by all means possible.

Allison

05-06-2004, 03:56 AM

Hehe ... you must be confused, Noleader. I agree with you. :)

Canidae

05-06-2004, 09:58 AM

Booms that sums up this whole thread. The sole reason they do not want the pictures out is all about GWB not the people. They know pictures of our war dead would hurt him in the polls.

I do not want the pictures released for political gain. I want them because it is a sobering reminder to every american what those young men and women did for this country.
Bullshit.

Absolute bullshit.

Now I am pissed.

My grandfather was a vet. At his funeral, his coffin was draped with the American flag. I WAS PRESENTED THE FLAG. And I would be damn well pissed off if someone came and took a picture of his coffin and plastered it on the media for their freaking means.

Get a grip.

This has nothing to do with not showing the freaking numbers. This has everything to do with people not giving a rats ass about what seeing those pictures would do to the families.

You are so ready to jump down our throats when you think GWB is taking away your rights or the rights of your family, but you sure as hell are ready to forget the rights of the soldiers family to have some freaking privacy.

THEY ARE GREAVING for pete's sack! Can't you leave them the f alone???

This completely pisses me off. How dare you try and turn this into a "They don't want us to see the numbers so that GWB isn't hurt." I could give a shit less if it would hurt his campaign or not.

I just can not believe this. Also, you all seemed to just forget the fact that most of us aggreed that pictures of the ceremony would be respectful, that it was pictures of the actualy transportation (ie how they are tied down and the like) that we had issues with.

Would you be so ready to jump on the "show the pics its our right" if it was one of your family members in the coffin? How about if it was one of the LoL family members?

Let's say for example that Roo had re-inlisted and gone over there and died. Then some holler-than-thou took a picture of his coffin in the plane and plastered it all over the media where anyone including my kids could see it? Sure they wouldn't know it was his, but they would know that he had died serving his country and was being braught home. How do you think that would make our 9,7or 5 year old feel eh? (Left the two year old out cause she would have less chance of seeing it) How do you think it would make my mother and father-in-law feel? How about my sister-in-law? What about me?

But you don't care because you want to see the numbers so that you can be reminded of what a war can do.

Yeah, to me thats wrong and sick and it doesn't matter who the hell you are voting for.

Canidae

05-06-2004, 10:38 AM

Boom, I just read through this whole thread again and not once did anyone say liberals are all "sick, disgusting, disrespectful, scumbags".

And frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about with GWB and some corpse.

Stop putting words in our (at least my) mouths.

I don't care who you vote for, invading the greaving families privacy is wrong. Plain and simple.

Swifty_Johnson

05-06-2004, 10:43 AM

I never said they should. Problem is with this whole debate is that all the Bush supporters know if the pictures are even shown in the news it will get people wondering why we are still there.

I find it disrespectful to try to hide this kind of thing for political gain. The public must be infromed by all means possible.

What thread have you been reading? Noone has ever said that.

This is a privacy issue with the families and the troops, nowhere has anyone who wants the families RIGHTS maintained ever mentioned GWB. Remeber, some of us have people over there, you don't. Is it that hard to request that you respect our rights?

Appearently all the liberals want to do is plaster pictures of our war dead all over the media in an attempt to unseat GWB.

Swifty

Allison

05-06-2004, 02:34 PM

OK, guys, calm down. Some of you have assumed that people who want these pictures shown are either motivated by anti-war sentiment, or by a morbid fascination, despite assertions to the contrary. So, please don't get so upset if someone assumes your motives are political, also. (And in all fairness, I don't think Noleader was talking about anyone in particular in this thread.)

It's obvious we can't fully understand each other's perspectives. But just because someone's perspective doesn't make sense to me, that doesn't mean they're motivations are false. I don't need to try and find some alterior motive I can apply to your position so it makes more sense to me.

I'm sure there are tons of people out there who have purely political motivations on both sides of this issue. But in this forum, let's try to take people at their words.

If you say your motivation isn't political, even if am unable to conceive that it's not, I take you at your word. If I say my motivation isn't political, even though you're unable to conceive that it's not, I expect you to take me at my word, too. Let's just try to remember that these are subjective opinions we're giving here, opinions will differ, and we should all respect that.

Noleader

05-06-2004, 03:17 PM

What thread have you been reading? Noone has ever said that.

This is a privacy issue with the families and the troops, nowhere has anyone who wants the families RIGHTS maintained ever mentioned GWB. Remeber, some of us have people over there, you don't. Is it that hard to request that you respect our rights?

Why don't you go read the posts you and roo made before. You guys were the first ones to bring up the issue that they could be used to unseat Bush. Being that you brought that into light first it shows where some of your concern actully is.

I made it clear from the start that I wanted the pictures released as a way to keep america informed on actions of our government. You guys are the ones that keep pulling this back to the 'They coming after our guy'.

Appearently all the liberals want to do is plaster pictures of our war dead all over the media in an attempt to unseat GWB.

Swifty
All I said is it would hurt Bush. I never said that was my intent or my goal in getting the pictures released. The fact you are fixed on this one issue shows you do not give to shits less about our men and women over seas. You just want to make sure your boy is re-elected at all costs.

Lets bring this debate into the open. No more hiding behind the family of our fallen heros.

Boom

05-06-2004, 03:55 PM

Also, you all seemed to just forget the fact that most of us aggreed that pictures of the ceremony would be respectful, that it was pictures of the actualy transportation (ie how they are tied down and the like) that we had issues with.

Yes, we do all agree on that. So why won't Bush let me see pictures of the ceremony?

Stop putting words in our (at least my) mouths.

I was talking about conservatives supporting Bush in not allowing any pictures of any kind to be taken. The ones you disagree with since you think pictures of the ceremony should be allowed. Although you have said some things along those lines...

Boom, I just read through this whole thread again and not once did anyone say liberals are all "sick, disgusting, disrespectful, scumbags".

I am fully and completely disgusted with this.

Yeah, to me thats wrong and sick

And the word "disrespectful" was thrown around so much in this thread that I don't think I need to list quotes. "Scumbag" was my own embellishment. Conservatives have no problem saying that all liberals hate America and don't support the troops even when we scream at you that we support Bush's intervention in Iraq. I don't think I was totally out of line adding the word scumbag to disrespectful, sick, and disgusting. However I will try to refrain from embellishing in the future. There really is no need to.

And frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about with GWB and some corpse.

Bush has a campaign television advertisment. On the left side of the screen is his face, on the right side there are fireman carrying a stretcher from the WTC ruins with a dead body on it. Somehow Swifty doesn't see this as disrespectful to that person and his surviving family. Its merely "tacky." People who want to show the pics of the coffins (at the ceremony, the pics you said are ok) want to show the American people the costs of war, Bush wasn't showing anyone anything, we all have seen tons of photos of WTC death and distruction, he was exploiting a dead American for a campaign ad.

javascript:vlaunch('clip=/media/2004/03/05/video604197.rm&sec=201&vidId=201&title=Bush$@$911$@$Ads$@$Anger&hitboxMLC=national')

Not sure if that link will work, but its a video clip of CBS news story about the ad. A woman who lost her husband on 9/11 said that watching Bush's campaign ad was like "having the scab ripped off a wound." You have made a very strong case for family privacy rights, and saving family members from unneccessary pain. Bush just caused a bunch of WTC survivors and families to relive 9/11 and start the nightmares again in order to boost his stupid campaign. Does this outrage you, or is it ok because its your candidate who is doing it?

spyder913

05-06-2004, 05:24 PM

boom even if the javascript for that link worked, it's a relative URL anyways

Swifty_Johnson

05-06-2004, 05:26 PM

Actually Noleader, it was YOU that first made mention of the Political uses of the pictures with this statement

It also serves the public good because when election time comes they can decide if the cost of the war is to great and cast an intelligent vote. It is easy to dismiss a number. Harder to dismiss all those coffins...

To which I responded

Which will hit you harder, the pictures of the soldier's coffins, or the one women plunging to her death after leaping from the burning WTC?
Quote:

Other thing the public does have the right. It is called the Freedom of Information Act.

The public's rights do not over-ride the rights of the deceased nor their families.

Swifty

You mentioned Bush in post #68.

Until than, it was politics free.

The fact you are fixed on this one issue shows you do not give to shits less about our men and women over seas. You just want to make sure your boy is re-elected at all costs.

Lets bring this debate into the open. No more hiding behind the family of our fallen heros.

Are you just trying to jerk a reaction of out me asshole, becasue you just did. My girlfriend is getting shipped to the Persian Gulf and the last time I may ever see her in person will be this Sunday when I take her to the airport. So listen to me carefully don't you EVER say "you do not give to shits less about our men and women over seas." again. Unlike you, I have a personal stake with what goes on over there. That is the most ignorant insensative thing I have EVER had anyone say to me.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

05-06-2004, 05:35 PM

Bush just caused a bunch of WTC survivors and families to relive 9/11 and start the nightmares again in order to boost his stupid campaign. Does this outrage you, or is it ok because its your candidate who is doing it?

There are also plenty of 9/11 people who fully supported the use of the footage too. There are plently of firefighters who also fully supported the use of the footage and encouraged it as a way to remember 9/11.

Now I personally felt it was tackey, but some survivors felt it was good.

On the other hand, the military and military families have said NO! to the other photographs. So you are pretty much willing to trump the wants/desires of all of us?
If the 9/11 families had said "No, please don't show that" and Bush than did it, I'd feel much stronger. BUT there are just as many who supported the ad, than didn't.

Swifty

Allison

05-06-2004, 05:42 PM

In all fairness, Swifty, you have said that the 9/11 families had mixed reactions to Bush's use of a flag-draped stretcher in one of his political ads. This is true. But this is also true of military personnel and their families in relation to flag-draped coffins. I don't pretend to know the majority, but there certainly isn't absolute agreement on the issue.

Swifty_Johnson

05-06-2004, 05:52 PM

But this is also true of military personnel and their families in relation to flag-draped coffins. I don't pretend to know the majority, but there certainly isn't absolute agreement on the issue

I have seen the offical military policy, which I admit is set by the brass. I have yet to see any military families comming forwards and saying "Hey, it's okay."

Now I don't live on a base, nor near one. My GF is in the reserves and there are no bases near here, so my exposure to other military families is limited to the ones that are local.

Swifty

Rooster

05-06-2004, 06:47 PM

Bush has a campaignto show the American peopleAilia with a stinging left hook!
Boom, don't take stuff out of context and snip it together to try and prove your point. I can do the same thing.

Rooster

05-06-2004, 06:49 PM

One major thing to consider. Shouldn't the President be allowed to use images of things that happen during his campaign? Things he had influence on?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. It's a reminder to people WHAT happened then. These were victims. Victims to be remembered and greived for.

Soldiers are not victims. Soldiers are to be honored.

Canidae

05-06-2004, 06:56 PM

Boom, you arranged your quotes from my posts and cut off some of the sentences so that it made it sound exactly like you wanted. Gee thanks.

Try going back and reading what I put. You quoted this: I am fully and completely disgusted with this.

So what? Did I come out and say all liberals are disgusting? Nope. Go read the post again. Not once did I bring up liberals. NOT ONCE.

You quoted this:
Yeah, to me thats wrong and sick
But didn't bother to put in the rest of the setence. (and the post its from is AFTER you accused us all of calling liberals sick etc) Here it is again for you.

Yeah, to me thats wrong and sick and it doesn't matter who the hell you are voting for.
Again, I am not specifying liberals or conservatives. In fact, as far as I am concerned, is wrong no matter who's mouth it comes out of.

You quoted this:

Boom, I just read through this whole thread again and not once did anyone say liberals are all "sick, disgusting, disrespectful, scumbags".
Since you are pulling all mine, do go back and read them and tell me where I came out and said liberals are sick or dusgusting. NOT ONCE.

If you want to flame my ass, at least have a damn better reason to freaking do it.

Canidae

05-06-2004, 06:59 PM

Oh, and just cause its on the same lines, I disagree with Roo. I don't think the President should have the right to use any of those images without the express permission of the surviving family.

Allison

05-06-2004, 07:02 PM

Lol, Rooster. Nice snipping. :)

Let me ask you this, if we were to concede that the President should be allowed, as you say, to use images of things that he had influence on during his term. Then, wouldn't we also have to say that other people should be able to use similiar images to refute whatever it is he's using those images to say about himself?

Personally, I find both distasteful. But I don't see how you can support one without the other. Both are images of the dead. Both have grieving families. And both can be used for political gain.

Boom

05-06-2004, 07:18 PM

Wow, so you really are ok with it. :o The woman talking about her deceased husband and saying that she felt like Bush ripped a scab off a wound doesn't bother you? You have no problem at all with him doing that to her? Do you think her pain isn't valid, or that she is just another anti-Bush liberal hamming it up? Or do you believe her but just think its worth her suffering so that Bush can have a good campaign ad?

You have absolute no problem with it, even though he used it 100% purely for his own political gain. Amazing.

You say that people who want to show the coffins lined up (not talking about transport, talking about pictures of a dignified ceremony) aren't trying to honor the fallen soldiers, or give the American people photograhic accounts of the cost of war, they are just trying to slam Bush. You honestly believe that.

And then you can turn around and say that when Bush shows a corpse on a stretcher he is just giving a people a reminder of the victims to be greived for, and you have no problem with it at all. Even though its IN A CAMPAIGN AD, you don't see that he is exploiting these people for his political gain.

Why do the privacy rights of the WTC victims and their families not concern you at all, when the privacy rights of our fallen soldiers and their families are so clearly important to you?

Why do the broken hearts and the sufferings of the WTC victims' families not concern you when the feelings of the fallen soldiers' families are so clearly important to you?

Its ok for Bush to set aside the rights of the WTC families, just so that he can boost his campaign, but the rights of the soldiers families trump the american people's right to see the true costs of war (again, I'm not talking about transport, I'm talking about in a respectful dignified ceremony honoring them as the heros we all know them to be).

Wow.

You know, even though I know Canidae is annoyed with me. I actually agree with her. I don't think its right to show the transport pictures. These fallen heros should be presented to the American people with the greatest of honor and respect. And they should never, ever, ever be used for political gain by any political party. These same feeling apply to photos or videos of WTC victims. If a non-partisan TV show does a documentary about the tragedy, honoring the victims, I think it would be ok to show the images. But to use the images in a campaign ad is exploitive and insensitive. If a Democrat was to do something like this you would be howling. But since its Bush you either have absolutely no problem with it, or at the worst think its "tacky." (obviously not talking about Canidae here. I knew she wouldn't think the Bush ad was ok even before she posted her last post above this one).

Try to forget about which side its coming from for a minute and look at it objectively, and keep the victims' families in mind.

Rooster

05-06-2004, 07:28 PM

Alrighty, view it from this angle.

If it's used in a light to show how horrible it is what we're doing, it's casting the deceased in a negative light.

If it's used in a light to show that we're doing all we can BECAUSE of those images...

There's a difference, I feel.

I mean, if I were to show images of the iraqi prisoner issue then putting them in an ad attacking Bush... that's WRONG.

If I use the images to show what some VERY bad Americans did, fine. Punish those that did it. Personally, I don't get why this situation isn't being taken more seriously. The soldiers that did this should not just be dishonorably discharged, but court martialed and sentenced to YEARS in Levenworth Federal Penetintiary.

It does depend on WHY they're being shown.

spyder913

05-06-2004, 07:35 PM

so if someone uses the coffin pic in an ad/article about why we need to keep going in iraq (because they don't respect americans or something) then it would be a-okay?

Rooster

05-06-2004, 07:37 PM

I'm not sure how that could be construed that way... but honestly, it's a military decision, not ours.

Boom

05-06-2004, 07:40 PM

Oh, if being misquoted is such a big issue. Please tell me where I said that ANYONE said that "all liberals" are anything? Several times now you have yelled at me for accusing you of saying "all liberals" are sick and etc, etc, etc. I never said anything like that.

Its kind of ironic that you are so offended about being misquoted and in the same sentence doing it to me. Over and over and over again.

I asked why the liberals showing the pictures are sick and etc etc etc, when its ok for Bush to do it. Nothing about "all" liberals. I was just asking if the anger applied to the evil anti-bush forces trying to make him look bad with this pictures applies to the good pro-bush forces trying to make him look good with similar pictures.

So in that context did I misquote you? When you said it made you sick what where you talking about? The people showing the pictures. When you said it was disgusting what were you talking about? The people showing the pictures. And I already conceded that "scumbag" was an embellishment.

And I think my point is still valid.

Reread this thread. Read your tone when you talk about the people trying to show the pictures of the coffins, the anti-bush liberals trying to make him look bad. You are enraged, you are furious. You use words like sick and disgusted. Now read your comment about when Bush did the same exact thing. You calmly say he should have gotten permission. You aren't outraged by it. You aren't sickened by it. Where did your indignation go?

My point still stands. When its the "other guys" doing it (liberals, anti-bush, whatever) its sick, disgusting, etc, etc, etc. When it's your boy doing it, its either A: I have no problem with it. B: Its tacky. C: He should have gotten their permission.

I think my position is a little more consistent. Anyone (liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, anyone) using any of these kinds of photos for partisan politics is insensitive and exploitive. Images of this sort should only be taken, and displayed with the greatest of respect for the sole purpose of honoring the victims and heros.

Swifty_Johnson

05-06-2004, 09:11 PM

so if someone uses the coffin pic in an ad/article about why we need to keep going in iraq (because they don't respect americans or something) then it would be a-okay?

Depends on who it is. If it's the family who writes an article for a paper and uses the images it's okay. If it's some war hark using some random images, than no.

My point still stands. When its the "other guys" doing it (liberals, anti-bush, whatever) its sick, disgusting, etc, etc, etc. When it's your boy doing it, its either A: I have no problem with it. B: Its tacky. C: He should have gotten their permission.

A few things, there is no policy vs using 9/11 images like there is aginst military coffins. Everyone will agree if the military images are used with the families permission it's okay. We've argued on the grounds the families have the rights to the images, if they give consent, than it's okay.

What was the theme of the Bush ad? All it did was go over 3 years of his Presidency with the high/lows and you cannot avoid 9/11. If it was an ad that said "See what years of democratic neglect of this country did under Clinton." than I would totally agree with you.

I asked why the liberals showing the pictures are sick and etc etc etc,

It's not just liberals showing those pictures are sick, anyone showing those coffins are sick reguardless of party affilation.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

05-06-2004, 09:14 PM

For those of you who claim it's their "right" to see pictures of military coffins.

Do you ever think about those of us with loved ones in harms way?

Do you realise that when I see these pictures I have to wounder if my girlfriend will be returning home in one of those, and I'm betting that I am not the only one to think that.

Do you realise all the extra suffering we have to go through, do you not care one bit about us?

Swifty

Rooster

05-06-2004, 11:44 PM

/me hugs Swifty

Allison

05-06-2004, 11:53 PM

Ugh. Can we please let this thread die? This issue is way too emotional for some. It's obvious no one is going to give an inch that hasn't already been given. And after 124 replies, is there really anything left to say that hasn't already been said?

Canidae

05-07-2004, 12:00 AM

Now here is my question. Why is it when a liberal wants to show pictures of flag covered coffins being honored in a totally respectful and dignified context they are sick, disgusting, disrespectful, scumbags... Yet when GWB shows a picture of a charred human corpse on a stretcher for pure political gain, in a campaign add no less, its merely "tacky."
Boom, it really really sounds as if you are referring to people in this forum. If you meant in in general than I do apologize.

My issue is this. People want to show the pictures of the coffins for shock value so that people can see what a war does. I would chance to guess that if you put this to a vote in Congress, the Democrates would vote for it, because they think it would help get Bush out of office. The Republican's would likely vote against it because they think that they Democrates want to use it to get Bush out of office.

You know what, I could care less. I don't want them up cause it will hurt the families.

Now, what Bush did with his ad, well, just from what I have heard of it, I would have to say it was wrong and distasteful.

But here is the major difference.... IF he got permission from the families of the dead, then I can't really say he was wrong to use it in his add. At that point, the family thought it was a good idea.

The thing that started this all was a woman that KNEW that is was against regulations and did it anyways.

The questions was is it fair to fire her... Yes. She knew the regulations, she broke them.

The military is not likely to change this regulation any time soon either. They obviously feel that it will hurt moral and will hurt the families. They are not going to care if Joe Blow wants to see the coffins so that he can remember that 700 soldiers are real people.

Is it fair that Bush used the image in his ad? Only if he had permission.

Do I like the ad? Haven't seen it, but probably not.

I don't think anyones death should be used for politcal gain.

Boom

05-07-2004, 12:38 AM

Do you realise that when I see these pictures I have to wounder if my girlfriend will be returning home in one of those, and I'm betting that I am not the only one to think that.

Do you realise all the extra suffering we have to go through, do you not care one bit about us?

Of course I understand that. That's why I think it was wrong. But I think the argument applies equally to the Bush ad. It caused a lot of extra suffering and was wrong too. I don't see why you can't understand that. Their feelings are just as important as yours. I am 100% with you Swifty that causing people in your situation unnecessary suffering is wrong. But that applies to the WTC families too. What Bush did was not just "tacky." It was incredibly insensitive and self-centered. He put his own personal political career ahead of the feelings of thousands of people who lost family members.

But here is the major difference.... IF he got permission from the families of the dead, then I can't really say he was wrong to use it in his add. At that point, the family thought it was a good idea.

It was an unidentifiable body covered by a flag. So just like the flag covered coffins it would cause suffering to anyone who had a family member involved. I am positive that Bush did not get the permission from the tens of thousands of people who lost family members at the WTC. In fact, many of them have spoken out against the ad saying that it hurt them.

Rooster

05-07-2004, 08:30 AM

Canidae brought up a point last night about this (because she disagrees with my statements above).

Here's the thing... we all agree that the ceremony of the soldiers being brought off the plane SHOULD be allowed to be shown.

That's effectively the images that were used of 9/11. The ceremony of the bodies being removed (flags over them) from the rubble. He didn't show people jumping, he didn't show a charred body. He showed the "ceremony" of the removal of the fallen.

Therefore, we should be okay with those images since we're okay with ceremonial images.

Rooster

05-07-2004, 08:31 AM

In fact, many of them have spoken out against the ad saying that it hurt them.A "FEW" vocal families have. And more had actually come out supporting him.

Swifty_Johnson

05-07-2004, 09:57 AM

What Bush did was not just "tacky." It was incredibly insensitive and self-centered.

I disagree, as many families wanted the ad as a reminder about 9/11 feeling many have started to forget that horrible day. Certaintly other images could have been used, but some felt it was a very powerful reminder.

In fact, many of them have spoken out against the ad saying that it hurt them.

The most vocal critics of the ad are also very vocal supporters of John Kerry. The first people to raise complaints about the ad was the N.Y. Firemans Union becasue some firefighters saw the ad BEFORE the public. This union also uses 9/11 images when it solicits support for John Kerry. The cry was than picked up by a 9/11 families organization that I believe has donated money to moveon.org. Are you just as upset with these people for further politizing 9/11 to attack G.W.B.?

Swifty

]LoL[Harm

05-07-2004, 11:27 AM

Can we please let this thread die?
I'd lock the thread but I can't find out how to administrate my own thread.

Boom

05-07-2004, 01:06 PM

A "FEW" vocal families have. And more had actually come out supporting him.

Please document this. You have asked me to back up many things that I have said on this forum and I have. I would like to see the stats saying that more families of victims supported that ad then condemned it. I don't think a poll was ever taken, I think you are making this up.

And that was no ceremony. That was removing a body from the still burning rubble. The photo that started this whole thread was a LOT more ceremonial. Their were soldiers at attention surrounding the coffins, honoring them. A body on a stretcher loosely covered by a flag being carried out of a burning hell by struggling firemen is not a ceremony. A ceremony is where you have soldiers in uniform at attention for the purpose of honoring someone. That wasn't a ceremony about honoring the victim, it was about clearing the bodies out of the rubble.

I still don't think the photo on the airplane was right. I agree it shouldn't have been taken, and shouldn't be shown. But it was an incredibly dignified ceremonial poignant scene. Which is why the lady took the photo, because she was impressed by the honor and care in which our fallen heros were treated, even in transport. She was still wrong though. Even though it was a dignified scene, the victims families don't need to see it and shouldn't be forced to. It may have been ceremonial, but those heros are entitled to have the pictures taken at a full blown ceremony on American soil.

On the other hand, Bush used his image, not to honor the fallen, or to help the victims families to remember (like they need or want help) but to get votes. It was a campaign ad. Calling that WTC image a "ceremony" just shows how far you are willing to go in order to support GWB no matter what he does. Saying that Bush did it to help victims remember is... come on now... you really think he was trying to help anyone other than his campaign?

Are you just as upset with these people for further politizing 9/11 to attack G.W.B.?

Yes, I find it disgusting. The only time any of these images should be use (WTC or Iraq fallen soldiers) are on Documentaries shown on channels like the History Channel for the sole purpose of honoring the fallen. Anyone who uses these images for partisan politics, to boost or attack a candidate, is exploiting the fallen and that is wrong.

That's the difference between me and you, when I say something is wrong, I mean it is wrong no matter who does it. I'm not so blinded by partisan bias that I will just condemn my opponents for anything and make excuses and forgive the people I support for anything. I don't say its disgusting when your side does it, then turn around and say its "tacky" when my side does it.

Jobius

05-07-2004, 01:21 PM

/em claps for Boomy

Allison

05-07-2004, 02:31 PM

I disagree, as many families wanted the ad as a reminder about 9/11 feeling many have started to forget that horrible day. Certaintly other images could have been used, but some felt it was a very powerful reminder.
I disagree, as many families wanted the pictures as a reminder about the costs of warfeeling many have started to forget that horrible cost. Certainly other images could have been used, but some felt it was a very powerful reminder.

The most vocal critics of the ad are also very vocal supporters of John Kerry.
The most vocal critics of the pictures are also very vocal supporters of George Bush.

Sorry, I couldn't resist pointing out the obvious.

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:05 PM

Actually Noleader, it was YOU that first made mention of the Political uses of the pictures with this statement

My statement was in the context of informing the public so they can be well informed for voting.. You are the one that kept talking about how the pictures would be used to attack your boy.

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:09 PM

Are you just trying to jerk a reaction of out me asshole, becasue you just did. My girlfriend is getting shipped to the Persian Gulf and the last time I may ever see her in person will be this Sunday when I take her to the airport. So listen to me carefully don't you EVER say "you do not give to shits less about our men and women over seas." again. Unlike you, I have a personal stake with what goes on over there. That is the most ignorant insensative thing I have EVER had anyone say to me.
Then I am completely stunned. Your blind faith in our leader then you have someone that could die because of his wishs...

You should be trying to keep the free flow of information so when it comes time to vote you could do so in the best intersts of your girlfriend, but no you are out to surpress it because it might hurt GWB's chances of getting re-elected.

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:13 PM

I have seen the offical military policy, which I admit is set by the brass. I have yet to see any military families comming forwards and saying "Hey, it's okay."

Yea they train folks to disobey policy in the military. Just as much as Bush asks the privates serving under him if he is doing a good job...

I am sure there are plenty out there that would not mind the pictures if they were not used for the wrong reasons.

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:20 PM

Soldiers are not victims. Soldiers are to be honored.Honored is not the opposite of Victim. This statement looks like a lot of straw reaching to justify GWB's ad.

The people who died in WTC were innocent victims of war.

The soldiers that died in the same war were equally victims of the conflict.

The value of life is equal across all levels. I value the life of the bum sleeping in the parking structure under WTC as much as the man that died while invading Iraq. I guess some of us think our life is worth more then someone elses.

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:30 PM

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:34 PM

I'm not sure how that could be construed that way... but honestly, it's a military decision, not ours.
sounds like a shaky statment

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:45 PM

A few things, there is no policy vs using 9/11 images like there is aginst military coffins.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH OMG HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHA <catchs breath> HAHAHAHAHAHHAA

Policy in place makes it 'sick' to show those images?

Everyone will agree if the military images are used with the families permission it's okay. We've argued on the grounds the families have the rights to the images, if they give consent, than it's okay.

Ahh ok now I see your point. Our military is nobility! They demand more respect and better treatment then the normal American.

Only problem Swifty is U.S government can not grant titles of nobility nor treat any american different based on class.

What was the theme of the Bush ad? All it did was go over 3 years of his Presidency with the high/lows and you cannot avoid 9/11. If it was an ad that said "See what years of democratic neglect of this country did under Clinton." than I would totally agree with you.

You can not avoid 9/11 but he used a body to shock the american public into supporting him. Then you get pist because I want to see some kind of photo account of our fallen heros.

Like I said before lets debate the real issue here... How does it effect our man and can we find a good reason to stop it if it is bad for him.

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:50 PM

Yes, I find it disgusting. The only time any of these images should be use (WTC or Iraq fallen soldiers) are on Documentaries shown on channels like the History Channel for the sole purpose of honoring the fallen. Anyone who uses these images for partisan politics, to boost or attack a candidate, is exploiting the fallen and that is wrong.

That's the difference between me and you, when I say something is wrong, I mean it is wrong no matter who does it. I'm not so blinded by partisan bias that I will just condemn my opponents for anything and make excuses and forgive the people I support for anything. I don't say its disgusting when your side does it, then turn around and say its "tacky" when my side does it.
/em pats boom on the back.....side, good job!

I think boom hit the nail on the head. This the basicly the way I feel about this issue.

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:55 PM

Do you realise all the extra suffering we have to go through, do you not care one bit about us?

Swifty
You know I would like to see a Kerry ad on TV showing a dead american being pulled off the battle field on a flag drapped strecher.

It is highlighting one of the things that is currently occuring in this country and it is damn near as close as you can get to the WTC ad by Bush.

Oh yea Swifty, When you complain about the suffering you are going though I will just reply with the ad was 'tacky' at best.

Noleader

05-07-2004, 05:58 PM

Noleader

05-07-2004, 06:01 PM

Ok I have posted 1 page of replies. Start the flames.

Rooster

05-07-2004, 07:29 PM

They demand more respect and better treatment then the normal American.They have given more. They deserve more respect. They are willing to sacrifice everything, yes they deserve better treatment.

Boom

05-07-2004, 10:51 PM

I agree, and the victims of 9/11 died just because they were Americans, they deserve extra special honor and respect too. I know you can't compare the 9/11 victims to the Iraq heros, they are apples and oranges, but they both have earned my highest respect and honor.

Exploiting either of them for personal political gain is not acceptable (unless you are pro-bush, then its ok to exploit them for his campaign). Of course, that doesn't apply to all pro-bush people, some like Canidae have the integrity to see that its wrong despite who does it.

Rooster

05-08-2004, 12:19 AM

Nice jab there Boom, but you know I'm not gonna think seriously that my integrity is at stake here.

I really do feel that it depends on what the images are "having the deceased say". I don't think I can apply any hard and fast rule to it. It's a very touchy subject (<--- vote for Rooster as Captain Obvious :rolleyes: )

Boom

05-08-2004, 02:54 AM

I can apply a hard and fast rule to it.

Images used to honor the fallen are acceptable.

Images used for partisan politics are unacceptable.

You seem to have a rule too, images used that help Bush acceptable, images that hurt him unacceptable. :p

Boom

05-08-2004, 02:56 AM

That last sentence was tongue in cheek. I don't really think that is literally your rule, but I was serious about my rule.

Noleader

05-08-2004, 04:51 AM

They have given more. They deserve more respect. They are willing to sacrifice everything, yes they deserve better treatment.I will make sure to ask King Bush to make that offical... Since if it is policy it is all good. Right?

Swifty_Johnson

05-09-2004, 08:32 PM

That's the difference between me and you, when I say something is wrong, I mean it is wrong no matter who does it. I'm not so blinded by partisan bias that I will just condemn my opponents for anything and make excuses and forgive the people I support for anything. I don't say its disgusting when your side does it, then turn around and say its "tacky" when my side does it.

Wrong.

As I said, there are differances between the 9/11 and military photos. There are 9/11 families that SUPPORT the use of the footage, while *I* personally don't.

Please show me ONE place where military families come out and show support for showing if the military images, than I'll change my point of view. Partisan bias has nothing to do with it.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

05-09-2004, 08:35 PM

The most vocal critics of the pictures are also very vocal supporters of George Bush.

The military is the most vocal critic and they do not have a preferance on President.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

05-09-2004, 08:46 PM

Ahh ok now I see your point. Our military is nobility! They demand more respect and better treatment then the normal American.

Yes, the people who served in the armed forces and gave their lifes for us do deserve more repect. If it wasn't for them we wouldn't have these freedoms we have.

Like I said before lets debate the real issue here... How does it effect our man and can we find a good reason to stop it if it is bad for him.

You are assuming the reactions will always be negative. It can also galvanize the Republican base into voting if people feel that Kerry will wuss out and squander all the lifes lost so far. Using the pictures to try and sway the vote either way is just wrong.

Oh yea Swifty, When you complain about the suffering you are going though I will just reply with the ad was 'tacky' at best.

You really are a retarded fucking asshole. Opps, I just insulted retarded people by comparing you to them.

Swifty

Boom

05-10-2004, 12:54 PM

As I said, there are differances between the 9/11 and military photos. There are 9/11 families that SUPPORT the use of the footage, while *I* personally don't.

Please show me ONE place where military families come out and show support for showing if the military images, than I'll change my point of view. Partisan bias has nothing to do with it.

So the fact that some families said they didn't have a problem with the Bush ad makes it ok? Their opinion overrides the feelings of the people who are hurt by the ad? That doesn't make sense to me. The ad is causing suffering to families who have suffered enough. Its wrong. You seem to be saying that if some families are ok with it, then it becomes merely "tacky" and not nearly so offensive. I disagree. I won't be so rude as to just say "Wrong." in a blanket statement like that. I will just say I disagree and explain why.

If I find a military family who thinks the photo of the coffins in transport was ok you would change your opinion? That makes absolutely no sense to me. You said that the picture hurt you, you said it makes you suffer. I agree with you. I think that picture would make lots of people suffer and its not necessary. So I think the picture is wrong. If some people are ok with it, that doesn't change the fact that it hurts you and many others.

You really think no military families thought that picture was ok? I'm sure that some people look at that picture and think its fine. Hell, it almost brought a tear to my eye to see the honor and dignity that our fallen heros are treated with, even in transport. I was proud as hell to be an American when I looked at that picture. But people have spoken out and said it causes them unnecessary suffering, so I think its wrong.

I really don't understand your point. Your opinion of the photo would change if some families said it was ok, but how exactly would it change? Would you then say it was "tacky" like the Bush ad? Would you then say the photo wouldn't cause you suffering?

I think I made a pretty simple point. Using these images to honor the fallen is good. Using these images for campaign ads or any partisan politics is wrong. You say I am "Wrong." Apparently your view is lot more complicated then mine. You don't seem to care what the images are being used for. Your focus seems to be on whether anyone effected by the photos are ok with them. You seem to think that using the images for partisan politics and causing unnecessary suffering to thousands of families is merely "tacky" as long as some families don't have a problem with it. You seem to be saying that showing a photo, even for a non-partisan reason, is wrong if it causes people suffering, but if I can show you a family who says they think the picture is ok then you will change your opinion about it?

Boom

05-10-2004, 01:00 PM

Using the pictures to try and sway the vote either way is just wrong.

That is my point exactly. Well, its half my point. The other half is that its wrong to show photos that will cause people suffering unnecesarily. But even though I am quoting you here, you don't seem to stand by this statement consistently. When Bush used this pictures to try and sway the vote you just said it was "tacky." But when that lady took the pictures of the coffins you seem to feel much more strongly about it. What she did was way worse then "tacky." And she wasn't being political at all. She was merely impressed with how awesome our soldiers are and how great they take care of our fallen. Yet her photo you find completely unacceptable and Bush's ad is just tacky? And why? Because a few pro-bush 9/11 families have said they think the ad is ok.

Swifty_Johnson

05-10-2004, 02:10 PM

The other half is that its wrong to show photos that will cause people suffering unnecesarily. But even though I am quoting you here, you don't seem to stand by this statement consistently. When Bush used this pictures to try and sway the vote you just said it was "tacky." But when that lady took the pictures of the coffins you seem to feel much more strongly about it. What she did was way worse then "tacky." And she wasn't being political at all. She was merely impressed with how awesome our soldiers are and how great they take care of our fallen. Yet her photo you find completely unacceptable and Bush's ad is just tacky? And why? Because a few pro-bush 9/11 families have said they think the ad is ok.

It wasn't wrong for her to take the photo's, the photo's aren't even wrong. What is wring is they were published without the consent of those involved.

IF she had taken those photos and given them to the realitives of those who were in the coffins, and they than asked them to be published to commemorate the trip home, than it's fine. Yes, while the photo's will still cause others pain, the family of those who died are making the choices, if that is their wish, than I will support it.

More than a "few" families have spoken for the campaign ad. Prob just as many have spuuorted it as "hated" it. I personally would have choosen other images, like the American Flag flying over the rubble (but I'm shure that those who found fault with the orgional ad would have also found fault with that.)

Swifty

Canidae

05-10-2004, 02:58 PM

Actually Swifty, it was wrong for her to take the pictures. It's against regulations. Regulations she was well aware of.

Rooster

05-10-2004, 03:05 PM

Regulations she agreed to when taking that assignment.

Swifty_Johnson

05-10-2004, 03:40 PM

I should have said, IMHO It wasn't wrong for her to take the photo's.

I know what she was doing, but instead of getting them published she should have sent them to the families invovled with that transport. I wounder what all the other people were doing as she stood there with the camera?

Swifty

Rooster

05-10-2004, 03:51 PM

Not their job to stop her, or, she was sneaking a pic (which is more likely).

It puts soldiers in unusual positions when they see someone taking pictures of things they may or may not have permission to (I've been there).

Noleader

05-13-2004, 02:36 PM

You really are a retarded fucking asshole. Opps, I just insulted retarded people by comparing you to them.
Although this thread was on its way to the grave yard I could not let this go...

Swifty you should watch your words... I merely took the stance on the military photos that you did on the 9/11 photos...

So that would make you a retarded fucken asshole too.

Welcome to the group of retarded fucken assholes swifty!

Swifty_Johnson

05-13-2004, 02:59 PM

You're an asshole not becasue of your stance, but the way you conducted yourself and the personal insults you launched aginst me. You were way out of line.

Swifty

Noleader

05-13-2004, 08:13 PM

They were not personal attacks... I just had to find a way to get through your pro-bush speech and get your true feeling out.

I think we all know your real stance on the issue...

Swifty debating is a skill. I am not just chatting here I am using a learned skill to probe for information you might not be forward with.

Again if you took anything personal please don't. I am not here to cause you greif or hurt your feelings, I am here to debate topics about issues in an adult manner as we all are.

Swifty_Johnson

05-14-2004, 10:43 AM

They were not personal attacks... I just had to find a way to get through your pro-bush speech and get your true feeling out.Really, than explain this.

The fact you are fixed on this one issue shows you do not give two shits less about our men and women over seas. This isn't a personal attack? This is an EXTREMELY personal attack. Than, after I explain how I feel about this pictures and what they do to me, you mocked me. I'm sorry, that's it. There is no redemption for what you did. You drove a lance of pain right into my soul, and I am not a forgiving person. Debating an issue is one thing, an assult aginst someone's soul is uncalled for.

Swifty

Rooster

05-14-2004, 11:09 AM

Swift, if it's wrong, which we all really know it is... don't take it so personally. Basically, it was a lie, and he knows it.

You would not be incorrect to let that intentional deception modify the way you take his posts. If you come back harshly at things he writes, you'd certainly be entitled. Once intellectual honesty is thrown out the window, there's not much use in taking things he says to heart.

We all know your feelings on the troops, don't think for one moment anyone believes him.

Swifty_Johnson

05-14-2004, 11:21 AM

Ya, but he contiunes, his latest outrage was comparing us to the arab terrorists.

Swifty

Allison

05-14-2004, 02:30 PM

Let's lighten up a bit, guys. Who here hasn't gotten carried away and said, or implied something negative or offensive about another poster? If you haven't, raise your hand so you can officially claim the moral high ground. :laugh: (Don't make me go digging up old posts. :p )

Figtoria

05-14-2004, 03:42 PM

This is an EXTREMELY personal attack. Than, after I explain how I feel about this pictures and what they do to me, you mocked me. I'm sorry, that's it. There is no redemption for what you did. You drove a lance of pain right into my soul,

Sorry Swifty, but if a stranger on a BBS can "drive a lance of pain into your soul" you may need to consider toughening up your soul a bit.

I've been called all manner of things on this board, but only by people who don't know me, and aren't qualified to comment on my character. And the only people who can hurt me are people I know and whose opinions I respect.

and I am not a forgiving person.

I guess I was mistaken, I thought you considered yourself a Christian - isn't that one of their big tenets? Turn the other cheek?

I was confused by the way you called NL a "retarded fucking asshole" for expressing his opinion on this topic, when I really hadn't seen anything he'd written to so upset you.

Noleader

05-14-2004, 03:58 PM

Ya, but he contiunes, his latest outrage was comparing us to the arab terrorists.

SwiftyI call them as I see them.
If the shoe fits...

Allison

05-14-2004, 04:20 PM

Oh, geez. I'm out. :p

Noleader

05-14-2004, 04:40 PM

Some times the only way to show people that they are wrong is to take an extreme... I might risk making a few people upset but my intentions are noble.

Noleader

05-14-2004, 04:47 PM

Really, than explain this.
The item that excited you was when I made the comparison between 9/11 and military... The fact you got so upset and aggressive on that item expresses that you think the Bush 9/11 ad was more then tacky as you noted... If you did think it was just 'tacky' my comment would have never excited you to much.

This isn't a personal attack? This is an EXTREMELY personal attack. Than, after I explain how I feel about this pictures and what they do to me, you mocked me. I'm sorry, that's it. There is no redemption for what you did. You drove a lance of pain right into my soul, and I am not a forgiving person. Debating an issue is one thing, an assult aginst someone's soul is uncalled for.

SwiftyI to can take things out of context to enhance my stance but I choose not to. You consider it a personal attack only because you also agree with my stance. If you did not agree with me on the hurt the 9/11 photos caused the family members, and that hiding the military photos serves a greater good you would have dismissed my statement knowing fully that you are right and I am wrong.

Noleader

05-14-2004, 04:58 PM

Swift, if it's wrong, which we all really know it is... don't take it so personally. Basically, it was a lie, and he knows it.

You have a loved one over seas serving this country. I know you care about the outcome and the people serving. In debate one tactic is to upset the other person so they expose their raw feeling. It helps clear out the pro-bush stuff and get to what really makes Swifty tick.

Was I wrong for making the statment? No. This is a board reserved to debating hot topics in the world. If at some point you can not stand the heat it is time to leave the thread.

Eiru

05-14-2004, 09:25 PM

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=22165

Quote:

[Stg.] Casanova knew several soldiers killed in April, and said he thought their memorials should be off-limits to media to protect the privacy of grieving comrades paying last respects. But he also said he thought pictures, once soldiers’ remains are brought to Dover, should be allowed.

“They’re finally home.”

Command Sgt. Maj. Neil L. Ciotola of the 1st Cav’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team in Baghdad, however, believes the public needs to see the truth.

His sister-in-law’s 21-year-old son is in the National Guard.

“She asked me, ‘Is it bad?’ I said, ‘I won’t sugarcoat it for you. People get killed here every day.’ As long as Americans are here, people are going to die every day. Why would we want to hide it?

“If it’s my time to go, why does it infringe on my wife’s privacy if someone sees my flag-draped casket? Now, the public has no right to view my remains. That’s an issue for my wife to decide. But that plane we take that last ride home on belongs to the American people.”

Noleader

05-15-2004, 05:42 AM

Noleader

05-15-2004, 06:12 AM

Ya, but he contiunes, his latest outrage was comparing us to the arab terrorists.

SwiftyBTW Swifty read the saying in my sig. The one thing you should notice in it is everything is preception.

How will history judge your views?

Also is an Arab Terrorist worse then the other ones? If so why?

The fact that you described it as 'Arab Terrorist' shows an underlining theme to your stance. Most people would have just said Terrorist and left it at that.

You talk about bias is everyone elses posts yet in your posts I tend to see a strong underlined hate of arabs.

Swifty_Johnson

05-15-2004, 10:15 AM

You compared us to who we are fighting, last time I checked, we weren't fighting the IRA.

Who's attacking the USA.

Last time I checked, it wasn't the IRA.

Swifty

Rooster

05-15-2004, 12:19 PM

Nor was it the Aryan nation.

Other than Ireland, and I'm still not sure what the hell is going on there:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/threat/groups/

TWENTY FIVE groups, primarily ARAB. (+ 14 different Irish groups from previous lists - but I would say an Irish group probably consists of half the numbers the arab groups, but that's just an approximation based on population).

Here's the US list:

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm#2001

I think you'll find the vast majority are ARAB terrorist groups.

So don't go defending Arabs like they're the worlds most peace loving people. I'm not saying they are ALL terrorists by any means, but they are the worlds most rambunctious race.

Allison

05-15-2004, 04:04 PM

So don't go defending Arabs like they're the worlds most peace loving people. I'm not saying they are ALL terrorists by any means, but they are the worlds most rambunctious race.
Perhaps they are. But let's at least acknowlege that it's not their race or their religion that is to blame. It's their circumstances, their culture, and their politics. These are distinctions that have to be made. You can't say "Arabs are this .." or "Muslims are that." There is a ton of political and cultural diversity within those two groupings.

Rooster

05-15-2004, 07:59 PM

Okay Alli, fair enough - but ... how does one go about making excuses for a race? I mean, yeah, it IS their society, situation, politics, relgion, all mixed together that makes for a volatile society. But, am I supposed to go out of my way to EXCLUDE the good Arabs every time we're talking about Arabs in general? I mean, I think it's common knowledge when you're talking about a group, in a negative light, most of us are referring to the troublemakers in that race.

Is there a word that encompasses those distinctions you're trying to make? Do we need a disclaimer on everything we write now so as not to appear a bigot?

Allison

05-15-2004, 09:58 PM

But, am I supposed to go out of my way to EXCLUDE the good Arabs every time we're talking about Arabs in general? I mean, I think it's common knowledge when you're talking about a group, in a negative light, most of us are referring to the troublemakers in that race.

That's the thing. It's not common knowlege. There are a lot of people out there who really do hate entire races of people. And if you're one of those people who do, (I mean the general "you" and not you personally, Roo. I feel fairly confident you're not.) then saying things like, "Arabs are ..." instead of "Some Arabs are ..." is a perfectly legitimate expression of your feelings. But, if you're not one of those people, then I think you'd want to avoid being mistaken for one by choosing your words a little more carefully.

Of course, you're entitled to choose your words any way you want. It's just a little friendly advice. :)

Noleader

05-16-2004, 04:27 PM

But, am I supposed to go out of my way to EXCLUDE the good Arabs every time we're talking about Arabs in general? I mean, I think it's common knowledge when you're talking about a group, in a negative light, most of us are referring to the troublemakers in that race.

Is there a word that encompasses those distinctions you're trying to make? Do we need a disclaimer on everything we write now so as not to appear a bigot?
Roo,

The issue is not when someone is using the trem to describe a the 'bad' part of the group, the issue is I think some someone does not think to exclude anyone when using his 'I Hate' brush. Also it is all in context... Some people were quick to us the 'all' word.