Censored CNN - Movies about US soldiers killed by headshots...

[*DAMN Mauti]

I just want to inform you that currently Al Jazirra(spelling?) shows very cruel movies about dead US soldiers. CNN and other US media currently doesn't show them but on europe channels you can see at least 5 dead US soldiers with missing body parts or killed by head shots.

However all in all this war is so full of lies. I am sick of it. An unnecessary war that causes unnecessary blood. Also the totaly censored live reports are presented as it would be a sport game... Sick sick world.

The bloody street wars haven't begun yet but prepare for thousands of death on both sides.

And about the friendly fire - no comment 3 choppers 1 airplane.

This war should have been prevented.

Furthers Where is the promised food for the iraqis? There is none yet! On european channels you can see discussions between iraqis and soldiers where the food is...

Oh I just see they mentioned the dead US soldiers on CNN but no pictures - so you war yes sayers still believe in a clean white precise war...

Bah I am so pissed about this... I can't express my feelings.

Bush and Blair, go Murderers go. Also I find it fun that CNN mentions the human rights and that those pictures against the human rights so they don't show them. ROFL this whole war is against human rights so they should better shut up!

Mauti

[abe]

Mauti,

Im kindof suprised at your attitude towards this. I don't think the families and freinds of our servicemen should find out their loved ones were killed on CNN. We owe our soldiers more respect than that, no matter whether you agree with the war or not. Maybe this is about good taste more than censorship.

also, why do you keep saying "innocent dead"?? most of the targets hit from the air are government installations like the "information" (read propaganda) ministry, the intelligence service headquarters or saddams palace. Believe me, there were no "innocent civilians" in those buildings. in fact, most of them are murdering scumbags, so i dont see why any one would lose sleep about them. The iraqis also have a habit of placing their AAA, SAMs and radars in residential areas.

yes, it sucks that helicopters dont work too well in sandstorms, but thats kinda why they were planning on doing this months ago. but we had to wait for the inspectors to "inspect" and for protestors to "protest.

So Bush and Blair are murderers, but Saddam is just a sweet old dictator who enjoys his appearances on cnn? Why do you refuse to acknowlegde that nothing Bush or Blair could ever do, rivals the human rights abuses and murders of saddams regime. If anything makes me mad about this whole thing is that people are complaining about the US removing our modern-day stalin and to what lengths they are willing to go to to defend an evil murdering despot.

Saddam, go murderer go. I find it funny how iraqi telivision is just as much of a lying POS as saddam (its run by his son uday, so no suprise). Human rights in iraq means that you get humanely blindfolded before you get shot. His whole regime is against human rights so they should just stfu.

Abe

[*DAMN Mauti]

It's so fun, abe, and I don't want to discuss this because I am so fed up with this bs.

This isn't a question of taste - I think everyone should see how bloody and cruel war is. CNN shows war as a game were you earn glory and honor. Abe this view of war only supports it and kills much more people. "Yeah lets kill some iraqis" "It's so fun" "We, americans and britans, can be so proud to bomb and kill humans, no matter if they are soldiers or civilians".  Already to much civilians died in this war - watch news, enough bombs have hit civilian areas. Of course, that's war- war is bloody- and that's what I am saying: You can't present war as  a sport in television. Present war as it is or let it be.

I don't defend Sadaam but Bush and Blair damaged the world's constitution more than Sadaam ever did. All three are murderers and should be punished.

Do you remember why this war was started? - Sadaam owns and will use weapons of massdestructions(WMD), he is a threat to the USA - lol but if you observe the news, you hear in more and more interviews that generals, and even Rumsfeld say that they didn't find anything yet BUT Sadaam will be "removed". It's obvious that this has nothing to do with WMD's - they only started the war for private and business reasons.

Bah I only say no, nO, NO to war but no matter how  many people are against this war the US and UK already passed the point of no return.

If this war would represent the world's interest(with United Nations backup) I would say ok, war is cruel, but if the world leaders think it is necessary to fight let's go.

UN inspectors were in Iraq for years - if the US would have supported them as they support the war- all issues could have been solved peacefully.

Sick, sick world.

PEACE,

Mauti
ps.: do you think iraqi families and friends are happy that they get bombed?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I just want to inform you that currently Al Jazirra(spelling?) shows very cruel movies about dead US soldiers. CNN and other US media currently doesn't show them but on europe channels you can see at least 5 dead US soldiers with missing body parts or killed by head shots.

CNN & MSNBC both showed those live from the Al Jazirra (I don't know the spelling either) feed Mauti.  The Secretary of Defense, who was on CNN this morning, then asked them not to show the faces until the families were notified first.  I don't think that's uncalled for, as it would be the worst possible way to discover your loved one had been killed.  He also mentions how it's against the Geneva Conventions to show it.

BTW, MSNBC has shown it a few more times.

Also the totaly censored live reports are presented as it would be a sport game... Sick sick world.

I'm not real happy with the coverage either.  I think just because we can get news instantly, is no reason we should.  It has made for some very shoddy reporting, along with plenty of inaccurate information.  There would be nothing at all wrong with getting the news a day after it happened.  Learning of anything but the end can wait.  That would curb the need for any censorship, and also give them a chance to get the story right.

However, don't blame the glorification of war on CNN.  War has been glorified in writing and story as long as there has been writing and story, Mauti.  All the way back to Homer, and beyond.

Furthers Where is the promised food for the iraqis? There is none yet! On european channels you can see discussions between iraqis and soldiers where the food is...

From the news I see, they haven't secured the ports where they will bring the food in from.  Talk about your instant gratification!  72 hours into the conflict and already asking where the food is?  I'm sure the US don't just want to air drop it in, they'd be likely to feed the soldiers fighting against them too.  In the mean time, I did see pictures of US and British soldiers giving their MRE's and water to Iraqis (sure, this could just be one isolated case getting attention, but we don't know, do we).

And, like you said, all the news lies, that would include the European channels, showing more of their point of view.

One last point.  I respect your right to your opinion.  But do you really think Saddam was ever going to be stopped without war?  The UN had over 10 years to do something about him, and all their real progress came about after the USA was threatening war.  Do you think less Iraqi would die in the long run if he was left in power?

One last note on the UN inspectors.  The USA offered assets to them for years, that the UN thought were uncalled for (spy sattalite use, spy plane use, etc).  The real problem was that the UN let Saddam stop the inspections in the first place.  He should never have been allowed to say where they could or could not go.  At the first sign of resistance, UN forces should have been back in there to enforce it.  But, these world leaders were too much the pussies about it in the first place.  There is no excuse for the UN letting it go on that long.  They fucked it up in the first place.  So why listen to them now?

[cookie]

Bush just said they'll be giving humanitarian aid in 36 hours, approximately.

[*DAMN Mauti]

I only heard they don't show it, not that they don't show it anymore. But you know it better, Bucc, since I only have access to CNN.

But do you really think Saddam was ever going to be stopped without war?? The UN had over 10 years to do something about him, and all their real progress came about after the USA was threatening war.? Do you think less Iraqi would die in the long run if he was left in power?

Sadly, I always knew that war will come. The USA and UK is also a part of the UN. And indeed their real progress came about after the USA was threatening war but I still don't see the reason why they aborted this development and started war. Err I know why but that doesn't make it better because it's obviously that the USA and UK aren't attacking to free Iraq or to make the USA a safer place. That's the real sad thing about this. And yes I believe that 100% less Iraqi and Allies would die in the long run. Nevertheless I hope that in the long run the Allies improve the situation and really help to build up a new Iraq. If they fail Iraq will bear thousands and millions of AntiAmericans! Iraq must become an example of a working democracy and not like the USA which ignored the democracy(UN) to start this war. Furthers I am a bit nervous about turkey's behaviour in this conflict - could become a real problem.

The thing that makes me so angry is this gigantic lie "We do it for Iraq" - I can't listen to this bs.

Thousands of lies on all sides, on all news. Currently I am viewing Euro News  most of the time. They only show pictures without any comments. Soldiers that share their food, discussions between soldiers and the population about their future...

The news about the harbour are also changing every minute - harbour is secured - isn't secured...

I don't want to discuss this anymore it's only sad that a handful of people have so much power(on both sides) and only use it for their advantage.

Mauti

[tasty]

I think what Mauti was saying is that war is ugly, and for it to be portrayed in any way other than its natural state is wrong. Glorifying war is wrong in my opinion; fine, don't let dead people's faces be shown on CNN but let's not trivialize deaths or injuries either by simply reporting numbers. Let's see the side of war that isn't commonly shown.

It really seems like a lot of the war news that's getting reported now is inaccurate. I keep hearing that Saddam's armies are collapsing all over the place, but when it comes down to the actual numbers of surrendering soldiers they seem pretty trivial. I saw a video of a soldier detaining a surrendering soldier, and in my unqualified layman's opinion it looked like the fakest thing I've ever seen. It was out in the middle of the open desert, and two Iraqis wearing street clothes without any weapons approached this massive battery of US soldiers that patted them down and handcuffed them. I really have serious doubts as to the accuracy of most of what is being reported now.

[Cobra]

Mauti,

Yes, war sucks.  Hard.  Death is an inevitable and inherent part of it.  And we all know this.  But why should CNN show pictures of dead soldiers (with missing limbs, etc.)?  Must we be shown the gory details we know all know exist, and certainly wish could be avoided, but would rather not actually see?

You say CNN depicts war as a game...because they don't show things such as this?  I think, as Abe said, it's more a matter of good taste.  We don't need to be subjected to gory pictures and movies in order to take war seriously, instead of as a "sports game".  I, for one, appreciate being able to obtain information about the situation in Iraq without having to view a barrage of gruesome images.

That said, I think I do understand where you're coming from.  There are people that treat the situation as some sort of game or recreational event, and it is sickening.  I don't, however, think that is the fault of CNN for choosing not to include gory images in their reports, but rather the fault of those ignorant fucks who blindly spew, "WHOOO WE'S GONNA KILL THEM ALL!1!!".  Perhaps you're right that those types of people need to be exposed to the scope of what's going on here.  I'm not sure if they would react as you or I would to pictures like that, though, so I wonder if it would do any good...I realize there are some really sick people who revel in seeing things like that.

Yes, there are plenty of ignorant fucks who do need to STFU and learn that war is not something to be taken lightly, but I think that most of us are above such things.  Again, I think it's less the fault of CNN than it is those people who choose to make a game out of the war.

Do you think the Iraqi media presents the information in a less biased fashion, more truthful fashion than, say, CNN?  Highly doubtful...they seem to jump on every possible opportunity to show coalition losses, in what appears to be desperation to convince the Iraqi people that they're winning.  Iraqi leadership is in denial about the fate of their regime.

As much as I'm tempted to refute your claims that the war is completely unjustified, I think that topic's been so beaten to death that I'll refrain for the time being.

Cobra

[alaric]

However all in all this war is so full of lies. I am sick of it. An unnecessary war that causes unnecessary blood.

This war should have been prevented.

I don't defend Sadaam but Bush and Blair damaged the world's constitution more than Sadaam ever did. All three are murderers and should be punished.

Bah I only say no, nO, NO to war but no matter how  many people are against this war the US and UK already passed the point of no return.

UN inspectors were in Iraq for years - if the US would have supported them as they support the war- all issues could have been solved peacefully.

Sick, sick world.

Unnecessary? Yep, sure is. This war could easily have been prevented. Saddam could simply have done what he promised. No more, no less.

The UN made itself irrelevant by not taking action to stop Saddam from violating his agreements. If the UN had supported it's own resolutions, we would not be in this mess.

Okay, try to figure this out: The UN is perfectly ok with allowing evil to continue, but the minute good tries to stop evil, good gets in trouble? It's one thing to not take action to help people in trouble, it's completely another to attempt to stop others from helping. Where I come from, that's called being an accessory to the crime.

"We must all fear evil men, but there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

It is indeed a Sick Sick World Mauti. Sick when evil happens, Sicker when evil is allowed to continue unchecked.

"The only thing evil needs to triumph is for good to do nothing."

[*DAMN Mauti]

Indeed Cobra you don't have to show all gory - the reason why I started this article is that while european channels reported about the Iraqi's movies I didn't hear one word about it on CNN. Contrary I saw how troops attacked a building(presented as a game). Only at the end of my posting CNN mentioned it.

All in all the "presenting as a game" part of my post had nothing to do with the gory part. But I disagree that most of you can imagine war. I think also such pics should be shown from time to time to remind people about the ugly faces of war.

Yeah we discussed the "Iraq and war" debate to death and I can remember that few people of this forum came to the conclusion that war should be the last possibility. Obviously
the US and UK couldn't wait that long...

Mauti

[kami]

I hate when people describe things as 'evil'.

Bucc is right about the footage, they're just wrong to show anywhere, goes against the Geneva convention. This would be a much better war if it had been approved by the UN, I'm against the war ONLY because it's going outside of the UN. Undermining the UNs authority just to be able to remove a dictator is... ugh, you get the point, I'm too tired, can't find words.

I'll leave it at that.

[*DAMN Elandrion]

(Presumably) Blogger inside Baghdad: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
Iraqi Peace Team: http://iraqpeaceteam.org/
Independent Media Center: http://www.indymedia.org/
http://electroniciraq.net/news/index.shtml
Al-Jazeera screen captures: http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-22-26.htm

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Well, I see a lot of misconceptions in this thread, so let me clear some things up...

A) The dead soldiers appeared to have been executed, not killed in combat. The reason for the tapes not showing is exactly what Bucc said. The Iraqi Government has shown once again that it has no regard for human life, and it has once again flouted the Geneva Conventions (yes, they also did it in 1991).

B) The number of Iraqi's surrendering. Not many Iraqi's are "surrendering" as they did in the Gulf War in 1991 because they are simply giving up and going home. The Coalition forces have come across a large number of abandoned Iraqi tanks, vehicles, and weaponry where they expected Iraqi troop divisions to be deployed.

C) Umm Qasr is "secure" but it isn't "safe." I don't know how many of you picked it up, but the British feed late shown last night on the Pacific Coast (actually it was carried by many news networks globally) showed a live firefight and M1A1 Abrams tanks subsequently routing the Republican Guard at Umm Qasr. It will take time to make a location safe AND secure...I was hoping you would know that from your days in the military Mauti.

D) There has been extensive coverage of the choppers going down and the British Tornado getting hit by friendly fire in the United States. Just because it is not reported extensively in Europe, doesn't mean that you have to assume that it isn't being reported at all. Just so you know, it was a British Tornado.GR4 that got accidently blown out of the sky by a Patriot missile battery. The speculation is that its IFF (Friend or Foe) beacon or something of the sort malfunctioned and it was targeted.

E) Food and aid wil be coming to the Iraqi's as soon as the port is safe and the mines (which are illegal) are cleared from the waterways that are in the area.

As for Civilians being targeted...even the Iraqi Government, who inflates their numbers all the time, has said that only 3 civilians have died. While this is unfortunate, they were probably standing on their roof tops or by a Government or Military office. (For those of you who don't follow much news, several Iraqi civilians have been blown off of their rooftops while watching guided munitions hit targets because of the force of the blast.

Mauti, honestly...you call Bush and Blair murderers, but you haven't realized that only a few innocent people have died. In comparison to Saddam (who has probably killed more Muslims than anyone currently alive) that is ziltch, nada, nothing. Put things into perspective and you will see that in the long run, this conflict will do the people of Iraq good. (I will get flak for this, and if I do, I am open to debate and bring in evidence).

Last and not least, don't take this personally Cossack, but Russian equipment has failed once again...the Jammers and other high tech equipment they sold to Iraq recently didn't stop our guided munitions from hitting their targets.

Before you people jump on me, yes I know this isn't a game, and it isn't fun. One of my friends was wounded in the fake surrender attack by the Iraqi army at Al-Nasiriyah (probably mis-spelled, not bothering to look it up). I am probably more connected to this war and more informed than most of you, so if you want to debate, I am good for it.

[jn.loudnotes]

One take I keep seeing - everyone talks about "stopping Saddam" and whether the UN could "stop" him.  This makes him sound awfully determined and active at doing something.

But what exactly is/was he doing that was so bad to warrant all this war?  Sure, he was unkind to his own people, and he has had limited weapons development.  The UN and the US have kept him pretty well in check the last 12 years - but his existence depends on the maintenance of some power.  The streitpunkt of this war - his weapons - hardly seems like a really good reason to fight as we have.  My point is that inspections won't rid him of dangerous weapons completely - no dictator in their right mind would allow that - but they do limit them enough to keep him from being a major threat.  I frankly don't understand why people thought Saddam would go rogue - especially after what happened the last time he invaded a country.  When you look all around the world, simply being inhumane to your people and/or having banned or powerful weapons - isn't enough to warrant war and eviction.  Otherwise the US would currently be fully engaged in at least half a dozen other nations at the moment.

And as for CNN - war is horrible.  Unlike Cobra, I think most Americans probably don't realize that firsthand.  The news, while it could avoid showing faces and exact identities (for all the mothers out there) needs to display horror in its most horrifying way.  Otherwise, people who haven't been there or know what it's like really won't think it's so bad.  Iraq is already so far removed - it should be the responsibility of journalists to show exactly what's going on.  Do you honestly think 70% of Americans would support the war if they knew more what it was like?  Many would, but I'm certain a number of those are so removed from the fighting that they are ignorant.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Mauti, the only big thing you and I seem to disagree on is that I don't think less people would die in the long run if it had gone on longer.  I think that eventually, the UN would have been forced to go to war, and Iraq would have just been better prepared, and more would have died on both sides because of it.  Or, Saddam would just be left alone, and would add to the millions of muslims he's already killed.

Yes, it would have been nice for this to have been a united action, by the UN.  But I also don't think the UN was judging it well either.  Looking more to Bush's motives, and not putting that aside and just looking at Iraq and Saddam.

And yes, I agree with Kami, they could show the images of the horror of war, without showing the prisoners .  That would be more fair reporting and more educational.  I saw one thing on MSNBC that disturbed me tonight.  They were live, showing marines taking a building.  It looked like someone came out of the building, ablaze, a few marines ran over and started beating the flames.  It was all in night-vision, so it was hard to tell much, and I couldn't tell if it was American, Iraqi, soldier or civilian.  But it wasn't on the screen for 5 seconds before MSNBC cut to a different shot (one of downtown Baghdad with nothing happening) without comment.  If they are going to show it, they should show the good and the bad of it.

Sure, he was unkind to his own people, and he has had limited weapons development.  

Unkind?  That's like saying Jack the Ripper was just performing some "not very successful operations".  Or that Jeffry Dahlmer was just hungry.

Saddam has murdered plenty of his own people, both before and after the Gulf War.  He's let his people starve to death while building palaces.  Unkind is just not a word that fits here.

And you continue to overlook little things like the tons of chemical and biological weapons stockpiles he was supposed to destroy and never did, as a condition of the Gulf War.  

And yes, those weapons can be used directly against America, not just Iran, Isreal or Kuwait.

I frankly don't understand why people thought Saddam would go rogue - especially after what happened the last time he invaded a country.  When you look all around the world, simply being inhumane to your people and/or having banned or powerful weapons - isn't enough to warrant war and eviction.  

Yeah, no reason to be afraid of someone that has terrorist ties, and stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, along with production facilities to make more.  He's proven he's not afraid to use them.  And he could get them in our country, without getting caught.  That's a threat that keeps being ignored by too many.

Do you honestly think 70% of Americans would support the war if they knew more what it was like?  Many would, but I'm certain a number of those are so removed from the fighting that they are ignorant.

Yes, I think most would still support it, especially since most of the VFW support it.  And who has seen it more then them?

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

The media doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what's right and wrong.

[cookie]

I fully support censorship in this situation. Who wants the entire nation to see their sons, daughters, or fathers dying? Who wants their kids to see gore, blood, and war on tv before they go to school? We all know what's going on there, is there really a need to watch people die with all the detail? It's sick to expose sensitive people to this, they know what's happening, they know people are dying... if they wanted all the detail they'd sign up and go over themselves to witness firsthand. Plus, i'd find it incredibly traumatic if the way I found out someone close to me is dead was by turning on the TV.

[Mr. Lothario]

     I'm with the anti-censorship folks on this one. Hide the identities of the dead, absolutely. But show exactly, precisely, what war means. The American view of war since the first American Gulf War is that it's a bloodless affair mainly consisting of missles shooting other missiles down, and bombs blowing up empty buildings, broken up by the "bad guys" surrendering. EVERYONE should know EXACTLY what war entails, so that the costs and benefits may be gauged accurately. Americans who are in support of war because they think that it is, in effect, all made-for-TV fakery, are incapable of deciding for themselves whether to support the war or not, because they do not see anything even approaching the whole picture. Show the blood, show the bodies, show the incredible pain of the wounded and the partially-dead. Let people see.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Cookie, I've agreed with you on most things till now.

If it's so important for the media to report on this war, with the images they do, it's just as important for them to show all of it, without censorship (other then the afore mentioned protection of identities for the parents and loved ones).  

I remember TV coverage of Vietnam, seeing it on film and in books.  The TV coverage there would show them moving the dead and wounded sometimes.  The media worked hard to show just the bad side of that war all too often.  Their faces showing.  The shock value seemed to be the goal in too many cases.

I don't want them to go to that extreme either.  But, if people are going to talk about it, they should have the complete, unedited truth.

[[V] Silverblade]

the us doesnt show the pics of the killed us soldiers bc they believe its iraqi propaganda. on american tv u can see people blow their faces away every month, i dont think they have any concerns about the cruelty of these pics.

what most people dont see is that most news we get from american success is also propaganda and unlikely the truth.

noone can clearly tell what is going on there, except the military itself, but if u think u can believe what they want to make us believe ur dumber than i thought.

war is ugly, and shouldnt be censored at all. war isnt great, and it can never be the right solution. this war is illegal and focused on profit, and i think its going to be longer and with more casualties than the media tried to make us believe prior to the attacks fromt the us.

right now there is no eveidence of any weapons of mass destruction. isnt it US law too that ur only guilty when there is proof?

there is nothing bush and blair could have done to be as bad as saddam? LOL, watch bowling for columbine mb... open ur eyes man, sigh...

mauti is damn right on this...

Silver