Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinX";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by amepro";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinX";p="
I think photos like the ones in the articles below are much more effective, because you can actually read the stories behind them...
|
Oh yeah nice clean photos....no blood. We wouldn't want a little blood and guts to upset your day.  |
Sorry my links didn't satisfy your cravings for blood and gore. (Uh, have you considered therapy?) 
The point is that the links I posted show pictures (mourning women, baby injured by insurgent bomb, etc...) that one can actually look at while knowing the context - innocent Iraqi lives destroyed by the insurgents.
The pictures to which you linked, were beneath the a claim ("...victims of Anglo-American agression), but there is no context. With perhaps one exception, we do not know where or when the photos were taken, or how the people in them were injured. We're just supposed to take the website owner's word that blood-thirsty Coalition forces were the cause. Weak. Do you see why this poses a credibility problem? |
You can read what you want into it. I don't believe the pictures are "doctored" do you? War isn't nice whether the terrorist did this or whether we did. I happen to think that it's good to see real pictures. I don't like them, it turns my stomach, but I'm a realist.
Pictures tell the truth, and that truth is that war is ugly. Sometime it's necessary
(I don't believe the Iraq war was) but it's ugly. Is the main-steam media trying to protect the American people from pictures like these? Oh yeah, the media doesn't even want to show footage of the Soldier's coffins.