The Pictures Of War You're Not Supposed To See

[Hectors House]

I'm quite happy for all troops from all nations to be pulled from Gan, I'm happy for the Taliban to take control, to commit genocide on the Afgahis, to cause a revolution in pakistan, to cause nuclear conflict between India, Pakistan, Iran and Isreal. North Korea and whoever, once these countries are radioactive ashes it will be a much more peaceful world, let them meet their makers that is what they wish.

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Here's my personal favourite

Women and children in My Lai, Vietnam, shortly before US soldiers shot and killed them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

I can't look at this picture anymore as it just sets my mind spinning.

One person was sent to prison for this massacre. Later he was pardoned by Nixon and is still alive to this day

[AThirdWay]

Here's my personal favourite

What kind of mind uses phrases like this to describe human suffering?

I suspect you have only experienced this type of terror in two dimensions. You would not be so flippant otherwise.

However, this only supports my contention. This act was committed by normal people in abnormal situations. This type of behaviour is hard-wired into all of us, with a considerable percentage of the population capable of taking this behaviour to the extremes seen at My Lai. This is why war will always be with us. No matter how many pictures are taken of victims, and no matter which is your favourite....

To argue that everybody should be forced to view horrendous images of war, and that this will then stop war itself, is (sorry, but) ignorant. It is ignorant of the fact that pictures from the cannonball strewn 'valley of death', the aftermath of Gettysburg, the trenches of the first world war, the Spanish civil war, the Japanese atrocities in China, events too numerous to mention during the second world war, Korea and the death throes of the British Empire, Vietnam and every conflict since, pictures from all of these events have been published for all to see. Who hasn't seen Cappa's "Death of a Loyalist Militiaman"? Despite all this, war still goes on.

[Guest GravyTrain]

I find it quite ridiculous for some members to get all high and mighty about the horrors of war, when their own brethren are stoning and behading for the most petty crimes on Earth.

[Guest AuntJess]

Here's my personal favourite

Women and children in My Lai, Vietnam, shortly before US soldiers shot and killed them

http://en.wikipedia....My_Lai_Massacre

I can't look at this picture anymore as it just sets my mind spinning.

One person was sent to prison for this massacre. Later he was pardoned by Nixon and is still alive to this day

Appalling.. truly appalling.

[Guest AuntJess]

What kind of mind uses phrases like this to describe human suffering?

I suspect you have only experienced this type of terror in two dimensions. You would not be so flippant otherwise.

However, this only supports my contention. This act was committed by normal people in abnormal situations. This type of behaviour is hard-wired into all of us, with a considerable percentage of the population capable of taking this behaviour to the extremes seen at My Lai. This is why war will always be with us. No matter how many pictures are taken of victims, and no matter which is your favourite....

To argue that everybody should be forced to view horrendous images of war, and that this will then stop war itself, is (sorry, but) ignorant. It is ignorant of the fact that pictures from the cannonball strewn 'valley of death', the aftermath of Gettysburg, the trenches of the first world war, the Spanish civil war, the Japanese atrocities in China, events too numerous to mention during the second world war, Korea and the death throes of the British Empire, Vietnam and every conflict since, pictures from all of these events have been published for all to see. Who hasn't seen Cappa's "Death of a Loyalist Militiaman"? Despite all this, war still goes on.

I agree it is part of the human heritage to be aggressive, but as you infer, only a very few will go to these dreadful extremes, more will do so under certain types of conditioning. Research shows this to be so.

The thing to guard against is a 'group' mentality. we need to be encouraged to think for ourselves. Political, religious and military regimes seek to remove personal responsibility, and replace it with loyalty to the 'fatherland' or their God or their commander.

The dilemma is that we need to adhere to 'the group', as we are social animals and our survival depends on living in harmonious communities. The preservation of a healthy sense of personal responsibility within that framework is absolutely essential.

[RichB]

To argue that everybody should be forced to view horrendous images of war, and that this will then stop war itself, is (sorry, but) ignorant. It is ignorant of the fact that pictures from the cannonball strewn 'valley of death', the aftermath of Gettysburg, the trenches of the first world war, the Spanish civil war, the Japanese atrocities in China, events too numerous to mention during the second world war, Korea and the death throes of the British Empire, Vietnam and every conflict since, pictures from all of these events have been published for all to see. Who hasn't seen Cappa's "Death of a Loyalist Militiaman"? Despite all this, war still goes on.

Might not stop it, but it would massively reduce it.

[Guest AuntJess]

Might not stop it, but it would massively reduce it.

I am not so sure. Some of the people doing it, carry on doing it. so why doesn't it sicken them? We have heard of - and in some cases seen - dreadful videos of people having their heads slowly sawn off. I doubt the people doing it have desisted, due to exposure to it. And some are indoctrinated into the 'brotherhood' by watching these videos.

I reckon it is down to - "would you or wouldn't you?" irrespective of whether you have seen it done or not. I did not have to see it, to feel it is the last thing on earth I could do to anyone.

There is much to suggest - in studies of human motivation - that exposure CAN lead to desensitisation. Why else are troops or fighting men trained so rigorously? In order to be able to kill on command.Although many troops who went out to Vietnam and saw the horrors there, were traumatised by what they saw. I feel that one's upbringing might militate against acceptance of this sort of horror, but there is also the influence of the personality.

The Bulger killers were said to have been exposed to nasty videos - violent 'porn' - during their childhood, and it has been shown that after certain films are shown there is often an outbreak of copycat atrocities.

A production of "Equus" was shown and a few days later some 'headbanger' blinded a horse in a field with a scythe...the b*st*rd

So arguing that showing violence will make it diminish, is a bit of a vexed question, especially when research also shows that sexual inadequates can be 'invigorated' - let's say - after deeds of violence - witnessed or experienced.

[Guest X-QUORK]

XQ - I did not know you would harbour such resentment, 'cos I put you on ignore. Also - Please don't send me crawling PMs then attempt to snipe at me, it displays an inconsistency that some might find odd.

You're just making stuff up now AJ, I haven't PM'd you in the last six months. Why not have a real laugh and tell everybody the reason why I PM'd you back then?

I'm seriously quite shocked at your behaviour on this one, you of all people.

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

Who thinks it's about liberation? I think it's about dealing with a threat.

I was against the second Iraq war as I didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat.

That's strange because a good many have been banging on about the treatment of Afghan woman to justify the war.

[athom]

Exactly! and therein you have the whole sorry tale about a bunch of inadequates. If I have someone I don't like, I tend to take it to PM to talk about them. The PM function is there for a purpose. if you want to have a moan about me - use it.

private message?

XQ - I did not know you would harbour such resentment, 'cos I put you on ignore. Also - Please don't send me crawling PMs then attempt to snipe at me, it displays an inconsistency that some might find odd.

Thank you Aunt Jess, i think it's pretty clear what a low creature you must be to invite private messages and then try defame someone with your interpretation of it's content.

Here we see the words of a wise man once told to me " people are always trying to tell us who they are", showing to be true.

Both you and Athom both respond with more vehemence to posts of mine than you do to 'male' posters.

Could it not simply be because no other poster, male or female is as low in our estimation? I bet there are countless cases of you decrying use of the race card and here you are again pulling out the sexism card. Truly pathetic.

[Frank Hovis]

you've seen military training camps. Who told you they were terrorist training camps and their intention was to cause you harm? Important question if this is what your support for the war rests on.

It is much more complicated than that.

We all believe what we want to believe. I go for the US over the Taliban when it comes to who I trust.

That's strange because a good many have been banging on about the treatment of Afghan woman to justify the war.

Aunt Jess has. I couldn't give a monkeys what happens in their society as long as they're not harbouring terrorists.

[okaycuckoo]

The link you removed is exactly how the enemy must be dispatched by Islamic troops as per their holy book, teachings etc.

Not nice, but hey what do you expect?

I assumed it was a bunch of Chechen hillfarmers forced in to fighting the Russians and they simply killed that soldier like they would a goat.

Got any links to the ritual dispatch method?

[jonewer]

Personally, I think the best defence against pointless wars is having a citzens army made up of conscripts. It was the draft not the nasty pictures of dead. maimed or suffering civilians which really did for the US in Vietnam. Similarly World War 1 made an indelible mark on British consciousness because by 1917 everyone of service age was being called up. Once your own a*se us on the line then people are inclined to weigh up the costs of conflict much more carefully. This is one of the the reason why politicians in the US and the UK prefer to rely on volunteer armies. All the time there is a plentiful supply of country bumpkins, town scruff and various other denizens of chavdom who can be persuaded to take the metaphorical Kings Shilling then the politicians know that they are not going to have to hard a job getting at least tacit acquiesence to wars. Once every family faces the prospect of their nearest and dearest being killed or disfigured it becomes a much harder sell.

Actually, most of the British soldiers who served in WWI were volunteers and conscription failed to have any noticable effect on the recruitment rate. Put simply, virtually anyone who could fight would have joined up anyway. The army that fought on the Somme in 1916 was almost entirely volunteer

The "indeible mark on British consciousness" was purely because of the unusually high casualty rates as a result of enemy action. Nothing like that had ever been seen before. That and pratling twits like Lloyd-George who went on about how awful it was, and how it was all other people's fault, to assuage his own conscience years after the fact.

Its worth remembering that all the other belligerents had massive conscript armies in WWI and even we did in WWII but it didnt stop anyone from fighting.

Proffesional armies exist because they arent to be used to fight grand wars against invasion by a bordering power but to fight for commercial interests on the other side of the world.

Either way, governments havent had too much difficulty in persuading their populations to put down their books and pick up their guns regardless of the conscript or professional nature of their armies.

[athom]

We all believe what we want to believe. I go for the US over the Taliban when it comes to who I trust.

Aunt Jess has. I couldn't give a monkeys what happens in their society as long as they're not harbouring terrorists.

Seriously what proof have the USA given that there were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan for the purpose of "exporting terror" to USA/UK? All i've seen are some pictures of men learning how to shoot AK47s. Are no countries apart from us allowed to have any weapons? Is everyone who learns how to fight assumed to be a threat to us? To the point of invading them just because they have some weapons? Try to be sure you know what date the pictures you're looking at or statements you are reading relate to. It is extremely easy for the USA to paint a picture but if that's what you are basing your support for a war on it would be a reasonable suggestion to check the background where possible. They have been exposed in misinformation many times in the past.

[The Pale Rider]

Something that was mentioned earlier in this thread was the effect of violent films/games on children.

What I would like to ask is

1. Is this theory credible?

and

2. Do any of the anti war posters on this site play the likes of Tour of Duty Modern Warfare 2?

[Guest AuntJess]

You're just making stuff up now AJ, I haven't PM'd you in the last six months. Why not have a real laugh and tell everybody the reason why I PM'd you back then?

I'm seriously quite shocked at your behaviour on this one, you of all people.

Snap! Your removed post prevents me from quoting it, but a PM offering support and friendship is at odds with the post you made here - even tho' it WAS 6 months ago - and some previous posts too, but at least they were to my face, as it were.

Any other comments take to PM, please. I have asked that personal stuff should stay in the PM area.

[Guest AuntJess]

Something that was mentioned earlier in this thread was the effect of violent films/games on children.

What I would like to ask is

1. Is this theory credible?

and

2. Do any of the anti war posters on this site play the likes of Tour of Duty Modern Warfare 2?

Well according to Bandura it is. He and his 'mate' Berkowitz studied this area, and made their names in this field.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/bandura.htm

http://www.pamf.org/preteen/parents/violentvideogames.html

[RichB]

Something that was mentioned earlier in this thread was the effect of violent films/games on children.

What I would like to ask is

1. Is this theory credible?

and

2. Do any of the anti war posters on this site play the likes of Tour of Duty Modern Warfare 2?

1. No. If it was, then all racing games and tv coverage of eg formula1 or rally would be outlawed. More people are killed due to slightly over enthusiastic driving than cold blooded murder. After all if it can cause violent behaviour it can sure as hell cause a heavy right foot. Not that I have any experience of that after 4 days solid gtaiv over christmas with swineflu.

2. Not CODMW2, but its predecessor. Mostly DOD:S or CS:S - old skool... The new ones add shinies but lose out on gameplay, gtaiv gives you more freedom to be a **** too...

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

Seriously what proof have the USA given that there were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan for the purpose of "exporting terror" to USA/UK? All i've seen are some pictures of men learning how to shoot AK47s. Are no countries apart from us allowed to have any weapons? Is everyone who learns how to fight assumed to be a threat to us? To the point of invading them just because they have some weapons? Try to be sure you know what date the pictures you're looking at or statements you are reading relate to. It is extremely easy for the USA to paint a picture but if that's what you are basing your support for a war on it would be a reasonable suggestion to check the background where possible. They have been exposed in misinformation many times in the past.

It's not called psyc-ops for no reason. Even against their own people.

[1929crash]

Something that was mentioned earlier in this thread was the effect of violent films/games on children.

What I would like to ask is

1. Is this theory credible?

and

2. Do any of the anti war posters on this site play the likes of Tour of Duty Modern Warfare 2?

I've never played any such video games.

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

Something that was mentioned earlier in this thread was the effect of violent films/games on children.

What I would like to ask is

1. Is this theory credible?

and

2. Do any of the anti war posters on this site play the likes of Tour of Duty Modern Warfare 2?

Yes the anti-war fraternity often whack off to digitalised images of massacre whilst not preaching peace to the bloodlusting scum. What FCKING planet are you on???

[Guest AuntJess]

Yes the anti-war fraternity often whack off to digitalised images of massacre whilst not preaching peace to the bloodlusting scum. What FCKING planet are you on???

A planet where ideas formed by Freud were found to have some validity. It is possible for people to advocate/manifest a certain position whilst harbouring opposite tendencies.

Things are rarely clear cut in this life, especially when it comes to human motivations. If it were all just straightforward and common sense, most psychologists would be out of a job.

[Frank Hovis]

Seriously what proof have the USA given that there were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan for the purpose of "exporting terror" to USA/UK? All i've seen are some pictures of men learning how to shoot AK47s. Are no countries apart from us allowed to have any weapons? Is everyone who learns how to fight assumed to be a threat to us? To the point of invading them just because they have some weapons? Try to be sure you know what date the pictures you're looking at or statements you are reading relate to. It is extremely easy for the USA to paint a picture but if that's what you are basing your support for a war on it would be a reasonable suggestion to check the background where possible. They have been exposed in misinformation many times in the past.

Simply athom, you believe what you want to believe. If certain regiemes go around presenting themselves the scourge of the west then there is a high likelihood that they will be believed.

I would contrast Afghanistan with Pakistan. In both there are active anti-western terrorist groups. The Taliban supported / tolerated them and got whacked for it. General Musharraf, before he stepped down, was active in fighting these groups and so received substantial aid in this.

[1929crash]

Simply athom, you believe what you want to believe. If certain regiemes go around presenting themselves the scourge of the west then there is a high likelihood that they will be believed.

I would contrast Afghanistan with Pakistan. In both there are active anti-western terrorist groups. The Taliban supported / tolerated them and got whacked for it. General Musharraf, before he stepped down, was active in fighting these groups and so received substantial aid in this.

But Pakistan is being bombed, despite still having a pro-western regime. How mad is that?

700 civilians died in drone attacks last year.

Do you suppose if that number of Brits were dying regularly that even a few diehard Tories might get radicalised and militant?