__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

I found the link you posted to be rather weak. It shows gruesome photos for what appears to be simple shock value, then claims these are all the unfortunate victims of "Anglo-American Aggression".

Yet for some reason, after looking through the photo sources (I mean, honestly, aljazeera?) the website listed, I could only find one photo where it actually said the person was injured by American or British forces (accidentally). The rest of the photos, I guess we're just supposed to "assume" that Coalition forces are responsible.

Posting pictures without telling us the story behind them is simply misleading. Without verifiable sources, how do we know these are not victims of suicide bombings or other insurgent attacks? How do we truly know blood-thirsty American or British soldiers are responsible, as the web page tries to imply?

I think photos like the ones in the articles below are much more effective, because you can actually read the stories behind them...

Iraq suicide bombings kill 99
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/17/iraq.main/

Car bombs kill 14 in Baghdad
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Bomber Kills 18 Kids, Teens in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162356,00.html

Pics... It is what it is, ugly...that's all.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

Oh yeah nice clean photos....no blood. We wouldn't want a little blood and guts to upset your day.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

What merlin actually SAID:

Posting pictures without telling us the story behind them is simply misleading. Without verifiable sources, how do we know these are not victims of suicide bombings or other insurgent attacks? How do we truly know blood-thirsty American or British soldiers are responsible, as the web page tries to imply?



Merlin makes an entirely legitimate point, which you ignore because you know (*)(*)(*)(*) well it is, and it undermines your lack of critical thinking skills in posting this thread.

Catz

__________________
I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls.

I have nothing to say to you. Sorry, but I've told you this once before.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

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?

They date from the war months - you remember, the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Mission accomplished, and all that? Seem to be sourced from Fisk's website. I dont think anyone seriously disputes that that is precisely what that 'accomplished mission' looked like? I recall seeing a few of these images at that time.

It is a bit 'dated' by now, though. Anyone who has not seen them yet clearly just does not want to. Why bother?

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

If there's no serious dispute, shouldn't it be relatively easy for the webmaster to provide some facts about the photos? I checked the sources on Fisk's site (including Al-jazeera), and found almost no information from these as well.

Understand: I am not saying that Coalition forces in Iraq have caused no civilian casualties - this is war, and it is an ugly truth that civilians die. However, to post a bunch of gruesome photos and make an unverified claim that they depict "victims of Anglo-American aggression" is misleading and irresponsible.

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.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control