At the obvious risk of putting this topic back on track, it does appear to me that publicizing pictures of the dead Hussein sons creates an immense double standard. All they did was show some of our POWs on TV and the whole Bush administration was shouting "Geneva Convention violation!" Any way you look at it they want to put dead war criminals on display using public fear and "cultural differences" as excuses, and I for one don't buy it.
i hate censorship. if they are going to show the pictures and people want to see them, that's their choice. i'm actually glad they're not editing the photos. why would i ever want someone deciding for me what i should and should not see? everyone should decide for themselves. anyway, the reason i started this thread is because many people are being hypocritical about this. if we're (USA) going to show these pictures, then we better not bitch when our enemy shows pictures of our dead guys, like we did not too long ago. our government can make up any excuse it wants, but the bottom line is both sides wanted to display pictures of their dead enemies to prove what they had done.
Heroes and villains? Is a teenager who is indoctrinated into a fanatical cause and essentially brainwashed to believe an act of suicide bombing truly a hero? Well, fortunately, I am in no position to know first hand. But certainly there is a lot of propaganda and information and misinformation to be taken into account. So let me start with one scenario. You have a poor child who sees no bright future. He (or occasionally she) is brought up to hate Israelis. It is part of the official school policies. So yes, when we in America are taught what our history books tell us (it's all good), we believe it. We were brought up on it. But back to reality. These Palestinian children are not only suffering through a live of futile hopes and dreams, but see just across the street (virtually), their sworn enemies. They have a better quality of life, better home, nicer possessions, clean clothes, newer cars, whatever. Now the poor Palestinian kid is told by those he has been taught to admire and respect since birth that if he commits a suicide bombing attack, he will be a martyr, get his 72 virgins (or whatever they promise for female martyrs ...if anything...) and they know their families will be provided with a payment from Hammas (money comes from where?). OK, so he goes into a crowded group of civilians who pose no threat to him or his causes. At least not at that moment. But there is resentment, and that adds to the anger which adds to the ability to blow ones self up. These Israeli teenagers are dancing and laughing and trying to enjoy life (even though life is far form normal under the constant threat of unprovoked suicide bombers. So calling these "martyrs" heroes is an insult to "heroes" IMO. They are more pathetic pawns who are used to instill terror in an enemy that really does want peace. They are encouraged by regimes that do NOT want peace. WAR and TERROR is their business. Are suicide bombers all cowards? Interesting thought. Were Kamikaze pilots "cowards", or did they believe they could really be effective weapons for their causes? (I always wondered why they wore crash helmets, and seat belts, but that's a whole different discussion). Someone posted a list of WWII casualties including military and non-combatant casualties. Do casualties of civilians count the same for the civilians in London and Dresden that were killed by bombs as they do for Jews and others who died in concentration camps because the were "expatriated" from their own countries and were killed for entirely different reasons? In the final analysis, dead is dead. Doesn't matter to the person who dies how they died. Or to their families and loved ones. (with the very twisted exception of suicide bombers whose families are paid). As far as civilian casualties (collateral damage) there is a big difference between being killed because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time & were unable to get to an air raid shelter in London or Dresden and being murdered in a concentration camp because of your heritage. Being murdered by a suicide bomber while dancing in a disco in Tel Aviv seems more like the concentration camp scenario to me. So while it may seem a bit gruesome and uncivilized to me to air the pictures of Saddam's sons, I can see an upside to it. The Germans that sent the Jews and Gypsies and others to their horrible deaths were motivated (brainwashed? Mass hysteria certainly) were following the wishes of their "Fuerer".(Father). The Kamikaze pilots were following the divine leadership of their God/Emperor. The Palestinians and Al Qaeda terrorists have been convinced they are on mission form Allah. Tough to fight an enemy that is led by divine inspiration. Seeing these two brothers as just flesh and blood may indeed remove some of the fear of the Iraqi people. After all, Sadam and his sons were seen as indestructible, and perhaps "godlike" to many Iraqis. Take away all the bull, and it becomes very clear that these Palestinian suicide "soldiers" are not heroes at all. They are merely underpaid fanatics in training. Can they help it? No, they were brought up with these beliefs. Would any of us feel the way we feel now if we were born in Gaza of Palestinian parents in 1975? I doubt it very much. So while they may not be "heroes" calling them "cowards" is equally unsuitable. They are just doing what they were bred to do. Very unfortunately for them. And for the peace process. Which is the obvious intent of those who encourage them and pay their families. They are in the business of was. Peace kills there business. MarcD
WAR IS A RACKET - Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to this case - except where they call for proper burial or cremation of the dead. The question of public displays, humiliation, etc., apply to prisoners, not to casualties. I can understand, as a human being, why the Pentagon, on behalf of its people, complained about the Arab media's and former Iraqi government's use of pictures of dead Americans, but I can also acknowledge there's the apperance of a logical contradiction - but only for those incapable of making a distinction between uniformed soldiers whose individual identities mean nothing to anyone but their friends and family, and two individuals whose names strike fear in the hearts of many thousands. War, as you well know, isn't tiddlywinks, and these two guys were two of the worst people to have walked the planet in recent generations - sociopaths in every way. If the Pentagon, the US, and the US authorities in Iraq leave themselves open to criticism, they've decided its outweighed by the other criticisms they'd be open to if they hadn't done what they believed wouuld help them better protect the living. There is a parallel, but by no means equivalent, theoretical value to a country using pictures of the "normal" war dead for propagandistic purposes, but there's nothing wrong with appealing to other values in arguing that the small, uncertain gain isn't worth it when put up against escalating the de-humanization of armed conflict (which is what the Geneva Conventions are intended to prevent). I think the bottom line is that if one traumatized victim gets a moment's peace out of greater certainty that the two are dead, along with their revoked dynasty, then showing the pictures is a good thing. If one Iraqi unsure of whether or not to cooperate realizes that nothing is bringing the Baathists back, and that the US is truly serious, then showing the pictures is a good thing. I wonder how many of the people who are now complaining bitterly about the "assassination" or about these photos were ever heard from on the subject of real Iraqi war crimes - use of human shields, emplacing arms in schools, hospitals, and mosques, torturing prisoners, and so on - or on the subject of Baathist crimes against humanity.
This whole Sons of Saddam thing is getting out of hand. First they wanted photos...they got photos. Dental records, prints, X-rays and positive ID were thrown in for good measure. Now the Iraqi people want the courts to decide if it is them by taking the bodies there. That is gross. Give me a break. Who the heck else would it be? Santa Claus and Smokey the Bear?