I believe I saw footage of the rescued hostage on Fox. He had clearly been severely beaten; his back and shoulders were marked by HUGE bruises.

But otherwise, yeah, nothing.

I also remember Fox showing not a “formal” slaughterhouse, but a residence where the terrorists had holed up and then shot the five residents in the head before they bugged out. That video was on their site for a while.

Granted, that’s just a drop in the bucket, and you’re making an excellent point here.

In fact I think these slaughterhouses deserve a special publication by the government, like the mass graves got.

Could anyone please answer this question for me???

I’m sorry everyone, but I still don’t see how possessing weapons of mass destruction justified the war in Iraq. I’m most definitely not on Saddam’s side, but I’m just saying.….……

.….……it doesn’t justify a war! (not in my opinion.)

Russia, Britain, China, France, Pakistan, India, Taiwan, South Africa, North Korea, and Israel all have weapons of mass destruction. And why didn’t they get the same treatment?

Sorry, but I don’t see how the invasion was appropriate.

I mean, it’s like saying that your neighbor owns a gun. He’s a mentally unstable person. He definitely has the potential to harm someone if he wants to.

But that doesn’t justify forcibly attacking him and taking his gun away! You have to wait until he does something before you can take that action, or else it’s illegal.

It’s the intersection of WMD and terrorist support. A state can do one or the other and survive, but not both.

In addition to Chris’s point, Ben, none of the other states you name are in violation of a cease-fire agreement under which they agreed to openly destroy all WMDs and let inspectors verify the destruction. None has, with no provocation, invaded and annexed a neighboring state. None is under UNSC Section 6 resolutions. I could go on for a while here.

Russia, Britain, China, France, Pakistan, India, Taiwan, South Africa, North Korea, and Israel all have weapons of mass destruction. And why didn’t they get the same treatment?

Besides the points mentioned earlier RE the ceasefire, there’s the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

Russia, Britain, China, France, and the US are nuclear states party to the treaty. This places certain obligations upon them, but there is no basis in international law to compel them to give up nuclear weapons.

Pakistan, India, Israel, and Taiwan are not party to the NPT. There is no basis in international law to compel them to give up nuclear weapons.

North Korea has withdrawn from the NPT. While this is questionable, the cost of compelling North Korea to give up it’s nuclear weapons exceeds the benefits of doing so.

South Africa is party to the NPT, but voluntarily surrendered it’s nuclear weapons and ended it’s development programs some years ago. There is no need to compel South Africa to give up it’s nuclear weapons, as it has already done so.

Iraq, however, is party to the NPT, and while it’s nuclear weapons programs were not yet successful, Iraq was clearly in violation of the NPT by having those programs.

Does that help?

Ben,

From President Bush Speech of Sept 21, 2001

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

———

I also suggest you go to opinionjournal.com and read up on the blossoming Oil for Food Scandal> Clauda Rosset has written MANY articles which will explain to you why Russia and France did not vote for the Battle in Iraq. To some up why they did not in one word, MONEY!!! Same with Koffi Anna! Also go to foxnews.com and read articles by Eric Shawn.

If you can not or will not understand after reading the posts above and the places I pointed you to then we can’t help you because you do not want to understand.

One more hint: When you can’t understand what the President is doing, go back and read his speeches! He tells the American People EXACTLY where he is leading us! Despite what the Democrats say Bush has NOT lied to us!

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer showed a video of a slaughterhouse, if I remember correctly.

Hi Ben.

Many capable posters have endeavored to try and answer your questions posed above, and they did great jobs and I won’t try and add to them. However, I also have a few questions about those in the Iraq war opposition camp that I was hoping you could clear up, if you’re still following this thread. I hope so, I am seriously trying to understand these things. Here are my questions:

How did Iraq war opponents reconcile their opposition to the Iraq War with implicit support for Saddam Hussein? While many war opponents tend to argue against this by assertion, for example by prefacing their remarks with “Saddam was a bad guy, but…,” it just doesn’t take away from the logical conclusion that if the war were never launched, Saddam would still be in power today oppressing millions of people in a Stalinist police state and stealing billions in active collusion with the UN, and his sons continuing after him for the forseeable future.

Similarly today, how do war opponents who continue their efforts in the face of American efforts to hold free elections in Iraq avoid logically supporting the Sunni “insurgents” in and around Fallujah? These “insurgents” are people who once held a priveledged position under Saddam, and occupied the strata of Iraqi society that participated directly in the exploitation of their Shi’ite and Kurdish cousins. Indeed, the best historical analogy that I have seen for the Iraqi “insurgent” movement is the Ku Klux Klan, which comprised embittered former priveledged Southern whites during the reconstruction era, and was similarly organized around terrorizing the masses of the formerly exploited. For example, how does Michael Moore, who once described these despicable fascists as “minutemen”, escape becoming labeled a figurative supporter of the Ku Klux Klan? Would he have supported the Klan in 1865? If not, then why does he support the “insurgents” along with many of his admirers?

And that brings me to my last question. Though our heavily biased media has been focusing recently on the US marine who recently shot and killed a wounded Iraqi “insurgent” fighter, they have been somewhat more reticent on the subject of the summary executions, torture chambers, and repression of women that occured in Fallujah before the assault by US forces. Prominent groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have similarly been relentlessly focused on the former while all but ignoring the latter. How does a supporter of these groups or indeed a bone-fide human rights activist justify this bias in reporting of and fighting of human rights abuses? It sure looks like willful ignorance of abuses committed by groups whose politics they happen to agree with, and that translates into support for the Iraqi “insurgents”, who are really more like the Ku Klux Klan than a valid resistance movement. After all, the marine will be investigated by the armed froces, tried fairly, and sentenced if found guilty. Just like those involved in Abu Ghraib. Are the “insurgents” really beyond the law by virtue of the fact that Human Rights Watch agrees with their political ends?

I was hoping you could clear that up.

Thanks everybody. I think I comprehend a bigger picture now. :-)

We are glad to help!

I’d see the thing from an opposite point of view : why media are telling news without pictures to confirm them . Maybe because those news about slaughterhouses aren’t true totally or just in part …

I’d see the thing from an opposite point of view : why media are telling news without pictures to confirm them . Maybe because those news about slaughterhouses aren’t true totally or just in part …

The reason is that there are no pictures of the slaughterhouses is that there are pictures of Bill Clinton hanging on the wall. The terrorists are doing the dirty work of the Democrats, and the Democrats have been secretly funding the terrorists as a way to make americans hate god. And its working, 49% of americans have admitted the either hate god, or they dont believe in him. We need christ in our schools, and we need to ban the democratic party for continually attacking the true americans. These unpatriotic losers need to be sent to the slaughterhouses they created. I say we track down every person who didnt vote for W and send THEM to the slaughterhouses. Or at least deport them all to france.

NUKE THE DEMOCRATS DEMOCRATS = TRAITORS

Because the photos aren’t compelling. THAT’S WHY.

Please pull your head out of your short sighted ass. Whose are NOT Iraqi’s in the slaughterhouses. Those are insurgents from other countries. They were not torturing there torturing mass civilians before we arrived. We simply took our war to a weak country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and now they get to bear our suffering.

WOW,

That was a little harsh!

I voted for Bush, I believe that Bush has the right answers, I believe Bush has not lied to us, and I do NOT believe in God.

Last time I checked the constitution, as well as the laws of the US, it doesn’t say anything about NEEDING to believe or for that matter LOVE God.

You actually have to ask why?

Because they are nothing compaired to the brutal slaughter the americans have committed.

Stop trying to white wash that by pointing at the terrorists going “see, see! they kill with knives!” You kill with million dollar bombs which not only kill Iraqis, but the future for american children. because you’re not going to have any fucking money left after these wars.

What is your debt at now?

Where are the photos of Guantanamo Bay..

Lets see the marks on their bodies.

American hippocrites.

GO EU! THE WORLDS NEW #1 SUPER POWER! (thanks for giving up to a theocracy america)

• Them torturing and killing people comes as no surprise.
• Us torturing people comes as a surprise.

Hence, one gets photo evidence, one does not.

(as a side note, there are photos shown every time there’s a new hostage, ‘cause they show a frame from the video)

ordi: It was more the fact Iraq (with other opec nations) is changing to the Euro..

If you really want to start the money aspect of the invasion, america has more then enough motive.

“When you can’t understand what the President is doing, go back and read his speeches! He tells the American People EXACTLY where he is leading us! Despite what the Democrats say Bush has NOT lied to us!”

No you sheep, he tells you exactly what you want to hear while mixing it with religious and moral bullshit. Don’t EVER listen to what bush says, bush is a Word President. He says things which are just not connected with reality. The purposfully misinforms people with the intent of pushing forward his ideas. That is a lie.

Don’t listen to what he says, Watch what he does! His words and actions do not match..

“Mission Accomplished” YAY! Major combat operations in iraq are over! Its easy sailing from now on! What a big package you have in that flight suit Mr. President.

Duuuhh.. I watch Fox news! Its fair and Balanced!

And the american torture doesn’t surprise anyone.

We all know that god is on your side and you are always right.

God loves preemptive action.

Do onto thy neighbour so he does not do onto you!

They do not show the photos, primarily for two reasons that I see:

Reason number 1:

The MSM (Mainstream Media) does not believe in the war at all, and will not show a justification of it. I posture that in the beginning of the second world war, the news reel was made by the government, not by the media at large. So, because of this “justification”, they will not be evenly weighted in their coverage. They didn’t in Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda (until the end), and they are also not doing it in Sudan. Why should they cover the war in Iraq the same way? I point out This entry on my own blog in which Mark Halperin (sp?) of ABC saying that he won’t cover the election fairly. It proves there is a bias and a thinly veiled conspiracy.

Reason Number 2:

I really don’t know why these haven’t hit the internet as of yet, that’s still perplexing me. However, I believe the Foxnews, newsmax and other places will not put them up because they don’t want to drive away their loyal viewrs / visitors.

Its more intresting to watch those who claim to be so morally superior do things so unmoral.

america is the antilogic.

I think a few hundred thousand Kurdish people genocidally murdered by Hussein’s government count for something.

Dire: Should have thought of that before selling him the weapons.

Plus, the USA greenlighted the killing by showing no opposition to it before it occured and as it occured.

And you can invade countries twice using the same reason? Word up! I guess its time in invade the USA for uh, being traitors to britian. BASTARDS! HANG THEM ALL!

Pfft. Saddam was not a threat.

We’re not seeing any photos because these slaughterhouses are largely empty. There’s no torture actually occurring to be captured on film. What’s left is a house with blood on the floors which is the case with most houses in the area, not to mention streets, public buildings, etc.

We have a sensationalist media, and some blood on the floor just won’t cut it.

Not that there has been any lacking of disturbing footage to prove how evil the insurgents are. How many beheading videos have I seen on the news now? Five? Eight? It’s a widely known fact that the insurgents are brutal and have no qualms about torturing and killing. There’s already plenty of footage to back that up. This instance just isn’t sensationalist enough for today’s media… dried blood doesn’t bring ratings like it used to.

Maybe you americans are too blinded by your own media to see…AMERICA IS A THEOCRACY NOW. Sorry, but i lived in saudi arabia for almost 3 years & i saw how a theocracy works, and i used to live in america before 911 and saw how a democracy works, but now america has squandered all the credit it earned for ww2 and is now the most hated land in the world and America has in the past 5 years been turned into a Theocracy. Hate to tell you americans, but, the terrorists won. You have started religious wars for territory and control of dwindling resources. I felt bad for america after 911, but you let one small group of theocrats take your country. Welcome to the first of your many religious wars. America showed so much promise as a great nation for the world to look up to, now, they are they are begging the world for a pre-emptive strike on america’s newfound imperialist ideals. People sided with america after 911 because we knew that the terrorists were wrong and were merely attacking innocent americans. Americans have proven, the terrorists were right and that america truly did deserve 911 and the many more 911’s that will follow. No more sympathy for americans now than i had for the terrorists. Hopefully, the americans and the terrorists will just kill each other off and leave the rest of the world to move on.

Yes, Virginia, there’s a vast conspiracy to influence public opinion to side with Fallujah terrorist by not showing pictures of slaugherhouses.

“We need to see why the Marines needed to be sent into that hellhole.”

I’m sorry, but the beheadings weren’t enough? Oh, right, a bloodstained mattress and a wheelchair are far more chilling than a video of someone’s last moments, begging for their life, in front of a line of religious nut bags holding guns and knives.

Yes, I’d have nightmares about those straw mats. Good thing someone at the media decided to hide them.

That would be pretty juicy footage. Hard for competitive American media to pass up. Perhaps the reports are false. Oh wait, I know what it is. The American media,(the same media that pushed for war in the first place), are “Liberally biased”.

That would be pretty juicy footage. Hard for competitive American media to pass up. Perhaps the reports are false. Oh wait, I know what it is. The American media,(the same media that pushed for war in the first place), are “Liberally biased”.

I saw one brief shot of footage of an apparent “slaughterhouse” running under a report on the Battle of Falluja. If I remember correctly the videographer panned the room which appeared to be in shambles and drenched in blood. On the floor appeared to be two lifeless bodies. One was definitely the body of a woman in print skirt and light colored hajib. My perception was that both bodies were women. This was on one of the alphabet broadcast networks and I believe it was the second day of the assault. I don’t think there was specific comment on the scene shown. I have since searched for images of this or others to no avail. It appears that the media is sanitizing their presentation (or misrepresentation) of the crimes of the insurgency.

I saw one brief shot of footage of an apparent “slaughterhouse” running under a report on the Battle of Falluja. If I remember correctly the videographer panned the room which appeared to be in shambles and drenched in blood. On the floor appeared to be two lifeless bodies. One was definitely the body of a woman in print skirt and light colored hajib. My perception was that both bodies were women. This was on one of the alphabet broadcast networks and I believe it was the second day of the assault. I don’t think there was specific comment on the scene shown. I have since searched for images of this or others to no avail. It appears that the media is sanitizing their presentation (or misrepresentation) of the crimes of the insurgency.

I saw one brief shot of footage of an apparent “slaughterhouse” running under a report on the Battle of Falluja. If I remember correctly the videographer panned the room which appeared to be in shambles and drenched in blood. On the floor appeared to be two lifeless bodies. One was definitely the body of a woman in print skirt and light colored hajib. My perception was that both bodies were women. This was on one of the alphabet broadcast networks and I believe it was the second day of the assault. I don’t think there was specific comment on the scene shown. I have since searched for images of this or others to no avail. It appears that the media is sanitizing their presentation (or misrepresentation) of the crimes of the insurgency.

I have two years left before I have the necessary skills to work anywhere in the world I choose. It will be far from my US birthplace. We Americans read our Bibles and pretend our land is the only Chrstian land on the face of the earth. As long as we continue down this unbridled, greed based , capitalist path, we cannot be a Christian nation. We are now the manipulated evil empire and I want my family out. I server in our military, but will not allow my children to fight a corporate war for world market control. Can’t wait to see this place in my rear view.

what if they don’t really exist?

Nitroburn,

You must be watching the Beeb and reading Euro Trash News! I thought I heard you baaaaaaaa! You’re the SHEEP! You are following the zeitgeist of Europe.

I would discuss this further with you but we are on opposite sides here and would only talk past each other. It would be a waste of our time.

Perception is Reality! You perceive the world one-way and I perceive the world another!

You need to review the history of Neville Chamberlain and the zeitgeist that overtook Europe in the early 1930’s. The zeitgeist of Europe was wrong than and it is wrong now.

PS You need to work on your Bigotry against people of faith.

Knuffsaid,

If it is as bad as you state then YOU will be renouncing your American Citizenship when you leave, Right?

You Say:We Americans read our Bibles and pretend our land is the only Chrstian land on the face of the earth.

Boy, have you been brainwashed by your professors! I do not recall anyone saying America was the ONLY Christian land on earth. Personally, I have not read a Bible in at least 2 Years! I have only attended Church once in the past 5 years so DON’T give me your BS! You need to work on your bigotry against Christians!

hmmm..where should i start. for one it is pretty common knowledge that terrorists are sick and twisted assholes, with that being said i dont remember seeing that idiot who went to iraq on his own who got his head cut off on tv either, but if you wanted to see it you could on mans greatest creation, the internet. personally i wish they had a channel on tv that showed everything from american soldiers getting there heads blown off to the terroist slaughter house’s so that maybe all you war drum beating, bible thumping, close minded, government manipulated, so called patriots can see first hand what you are acually supporting. dont get me wrong i support our troops, i just think their king…i mean commander and chief is hell bent on starting the apocalypse so all you right wing wack jobs can dissapear when “the rapture” happens.

your worst nightmare, jason

What about picutres of our soldiers shooting unarmed and injured “insurgents” in the head and then laughing about it. (btw, love the use of the word “insurgent”, tries to disguise that 90% of the fighters are Iraqis, not foreign terrorists. Orwell would love it.)

Oh wait, we can do no wrong while all those dirty brown people need to be killed.

The USA - killing brown people since the first explorer landed on our shores.

“The MSM (Mainstream Media) does not believe in the war at all, and will not show a justification of it.”

You’ll have to include Fox News in that group; no pictures there, either.

“I believe the Foxnews, newsmax and other places will not put them up because they don’t want to drive away their loyal viewrs / visitors.”

Then that statement would also apply to any mainstream media outlet, Even moreso than for newsmax, since the mainstream media news outlets will not do anything which would cost them points in the ratings. The mainstream media have to sell the commercial time on their programs, sell ad space on their websites and newspapers. If it drives away viewers/readers/visitors, they lose revenue, and that is what the mainstream media values more than anything at all. Revenue.

NewsMax and Fox are really separate issues. NewsMax has no field reporters and no way to direct wire reporters to do anything. NewsMax is a glorified blog with a few columnists on contract, really. Fox does have reporters in the field and may have had the capability of getting footage, but apparently hasn’t.

But most of you are missing a vital part of the original post, which is that most of the on the scene reporting is coming from wire sources—just a handful of reporters with photog crews. If they don’t take and distribute the pictures, then news outlets that subscribe to their employers’ services won’t have the pictures to run along with their stories, will they? Further, much of the reporting coming out of Fallujah is done by a collection of pool reporters who accompany units to get their stories and then turn over their materials to outlets that are participating in the pool. If the pool crews don’t take the photos or get the video, there isn’t any to distribute, is there?

So it may be that Fox journos aren’t in the pools that have gone into the slaughterhouses, and that’s why they don’t seem to have any footage or photos. But some reporters have been into those slaughterhouses, yet have returned either without pictures or didn’t bother to distibute any pictures they did get.

Which brings us all back to the original question: Why?

There’s been far too mcuh use of the word zeitgeist in this thread.

I’m tossing in my blackball on that one for all further posts.

Continue.

I was just wondering but werent the pictures from Abu Ghraib taken by someone else? It was my understanding that these pictures were obtained by the media, but they were not actually taken by them. So the arguement of no Fallujh pictures is moot because the media did not actually take any at Abh Ghraib.

More proof that liberals can’t process facts.

The AG pics were taken by the offending participants, who were prison guards. Prison guards have lots of time to take pictures, m’kay. Another guard leaked them to the press even though the military was already well into its investigation of the crimes. The pics got to the press because of a leak, and the press plastered them up wall to wall so that they could not be avoided.

The slaughterhouse stories have been filed by reporters, whose job it is to take pictures and file reports. But they apparently didn’t take—or at least haven’t released—any pictures of the slaughterhouses.

You’re making an apples and oranges comparison, anon, that should have been so obvious you needn’t post it at all.

Well, if you want a debate on the pictures, and want to ridicule those who say they don’t exist, why not start by posting one or two???

bp, I just wanted to ask a question and had hoped for a helpful response, not a personnal attack. I would have been more open to your answer had you not insulted me. I consider myself neither Democrat or Republican. In the future if you want people to listen to you, you might want to be a little more open and not start off by insulting them. Thanks.

I am just going to go out on a limb here and use Ocham’s Razor (sp).

No journalists have been allowed into the slaughterhouses because the military is investigating them. Hence, no photos.

Read those stories…they are not first hand accounts. No conspiracy. Don’t worry, your zeitgeist to see such filth will be fulfilled soon.

“The slaughterhouse stories have been filed by reporters, whose job it is to take pictures and file reports.”

that’s true, but it appears that in this case, the reporters have not yet had access to the slaughterhouses:

“Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Natonski, who is commanding the offensive to retake the insurgent-held city, gave grim details of the “slaughterhouse” Thursday after paying a visit there.”

“Major-General Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassem Mohan said his men had found makeshift prisons in the northern part of Fallujah.”

as you can see in these quotes, the authors are relaying information given to them by soldiers, not other reporters. that’s just my theory, though, and i don’t claim to be correct.

Liberals, Can one of you explain to me why it was ok for the U.S. to go into the Balkans in the mid to late 90’s and liberate peoples, many of which were muslim, from Slovodan Milosovic (sp?), but it is not ok to do the same thing in Iraq 5-10 years later? Is it because when action was taken on in the Balkans, it was ordered by a Democratic President, or is it only ok to do so when almost no Americans are killed. You people talk of how Bush has betrayed our soldiers in Iraq, well, guess what: every single one of them joined the military of their own free will with knowledge that they may be ordered to give their life for their country of the safety of an oppressed individual.

I’m a vet of the First Gulf War, and I consider myself to be left of center, but I have got to agree with this. I can video of a Marine shooting a (possibly) unarmed insurgent, I can see picks of US Army prison abuse in Iraq all day long, but I can’t see my fellow vets coming home in boxes or the evidence of terrorist butchery. Maybe the media should remember to stop listening to White House Press people or Leftist Crybabies and try reporting/showing the news for once.

Before you Europeans begin attacking America about their dirty laundry why not clean out your own first?

Matt,

You wrote: There’s been far too mcuh use of the word zeitgeist in this thread.

I’m tossing in my blackball on that one for all further posts.

What do you find offensive about the word. No offense was intended. I used the word AS defined on Dictionary.com

Zeit·geist (tstgst, zt-) n.

The taste, outlook, and spirit characteristic of a period or generation.

“Can one of you explain to me why it was ok for the U.S. to go into the Balkans in the mid to late 90’s and liberate peoples, many of which were muslim, from Slovodan Milosovic (sp?), but it is not ok to do the same thing in Iraq 5-10 years later?”

i’m against the war in iraq because i don’t think we can win it; when i look at the problems the israelis have been having with palestinians for the past 50 years, and the problems we had in vietnam with the vietcong, and then i look at the problems we’re having in iraq, i can’t help but think that we can’t win the peace.

all of that is besides the whole issue of whether it was worth the money and lives lost to take saddam out of power; while it is true saddam’s regime was brutal beyond imagination, the fact is that there are a lot of countries that have this kind of despicable violence going on daily. an unfortunate truth.

therefore, before we’re going to try to change one of these nations, it is imperative to determine whether or not they present a threat to us. the fact is, iraq did not pose a significant threat; the 9/11 commission determined that saddam had no significant connection to al qaeda, and we have learned firsthand that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

As to the question of why the photos are not being used or shown. Mort on FNC’s Special Report made note of this and also is asking why.

Why we are at it why don’t they show the planes slamming into the WTC on TV anymore? FNC comes the closet by showing about 2 seconds and goes onto other footage.

HAHAHA LOL LEFTIES CANT READ HAHA OMG PARTISAN HACKERY HAHAHA politics =/= sports, jackass. brb, going to kill babies.

Wow, wow, a LOT of posts in less than three hours!!!! :-)

Wow wow!!!!

Liberals, Can one of you explain to me why it was ok for the U.S. to go into the Balkans in the mid to late 90’s and liberate peoples, many of which were muslim, from Slovodan Milosovic (sp?), but it is not ok to do the same thing in Iraq 5-10 years later? Is it because when action was taken on in the Balkans, it was ordered by a Democratic President, or is it only ok to do so when almost no Americans are killed. You people talk of how Bush has betrayed our soldiers in Iraq, well, guess what: every single one of them joined the military of their own free will with knowledge that they may be ordered to give their life for their country of the safety of an oppressed individual.

Get your facts straight. That was action by NATO. Iraq was a action by the U.S. Don’t give me this “30 nations supported us” bullshit. The PM of Poland stated himself he they were decieved by the U.S. and Great Britain. The World agreed with the Balkans, the world didn’t agree with Iraq, therefor, the Balkin War had more credibility while the Iraq war really doesn’t have much.

The “slaughterhouses” do not exist. The blood and dead bodies you saw were there because the city HAS NO HOSPITALS. Iraqis were left with using thier homes to treat the (badly) wounded citizens of Fallujah that had not fled pre-attack. The blood/wheelchairs were there because they were HELPING thier countrymen.

Oh, and those banners that supposedly identify these places as gathering grounds for “terrorists?” Put up by Marines and CIA ops.

Sorry. Truth sux.

Social psychologists would probably argue (and without going into all the details) the difference between the prison and the slaughterhouses are in/out group bias. Even the diehardest of lefties still sees themselves as a non-Iraqi and still identifies as an american. Seeing the prison photos, even when they are ANGRY about it still put them as a different group of people from those in the prison. The slaughterhouses, where americans are killed, would be much more likely to cause people to become more personally attacked. Like 9/11 and the beatings and the fires of muslim and Sikh temples. Even though many of us weren’t physically hurt (or even knew someone who was), someone of our group was killed which caused mass retaliation (and a war or two).

Personally I think too many innocent people would be harmed if they did mass release the slaughterhouse photos.

First time here, you made an excellent point. It is interesting to note that a typical leftist reaction is to scream “Liar! It’s a conspiracy!” when they’re confronted with the truth. Seen it thousands of times before- so before I even checked out your comment section I knew what their responses were going to be.

Yep. I was right.

News orgs report on slauterhouses and refuse to show photos, yet report on Abu Ghriab and we get photos aplenty (even going so far as to hunt them down and acquire them). So OBVIOUSLY it’s a conspiracy created to make them look dumb. OBVIOUSLY those slaughterhouses must just not exist- forget all the evidence otherwise. The evidence doesn’t fit with their agendas. So it MUST be fake.

Obviously.

And lest we forget, the news media was so quick on the trigger to publish Abu Ghraib photos that one major outlet—the Boston Globe—actually published faked Abu Ghraib porn photos as though they could possibly have been real.

Thebabe, please elaborate. Are you saying the release of slaughterhouse photos would cause some kind of anti-Muslim pogrom here? I doubt you’re right about that, given the fact that no such hysteria erupted here even after 9-11, but I’m interested in your argument. And anyway, should the media really make that call? Isn’t that more than a bit patronizing? If the media should withhold images that could start mass violence against Muslims, shouldn’t it also not release pictures that will endanger American troops—such as the video of the Marine’s kill shot, which included his name on his uniform? That endangered him and everyone who happens to share his name, whether they’re related to him or not.

Hot damn, congrats! Someone else is catching to this country’s bullshit media!

Just so I can reiterate my point:

There are no photos on the news or in papers because the media doesn’t have any photos. Read those stories…they are not first hand accounts. Don’t worry, your zeitgeist to see such filth will be fulfilled soon.

And, damn, J, your post was the height of hypocrisy. To rant about liberals saying they call everything a “conspiracy” when commenting on a story about some “great media conspiracy” makes me hope you were being sarcastic. Unfortunately, I doubt you were.

Update: CNN finally got a reporter into Falluja (they couldn’t before because it was a battle zone, dipshit) and they showed the Zarqawi “slaughterhouse”. Take that Biatch.

Just so I can reiterate my point:

There are no photos on the news or in papers because the media doesn’t have any photos. Read those stories…they are not first hand accounts. Don’t worry, your zeitgeist to see such filth will be fulfilled soon.

And, damn, J, your post was the height of hypocrisy. To rant about liberals saying they call everything a “conspiracy” when commenting on a story about some “great media conspiracy” makes me hope you were being sarcastic. Unfortunately, I doubt you were.

Update: CNN finally got a reporter into Falluja (they couldn’t before because it was a battle zone, dipshit) and they showed the Zarqawi “slaughterhouse”. Take that Biatch.

Take what? Where are the pictures? I just went to the CNN site—no pics. And a wire or pool reporter went into those slaughterhouses right after the Marines found them. They filed reports shortly thereafter. No pictures.

Back to the original question: Why?

What’s funny to me is that you’ve accepted the new rationale for going into Iraq, humanitarian reasons, so wholeheartedly that you’re angry when you perceive the media to be underplaying the disgusting actions of terrorists and thus the rationale for the war itself.

Remember the good ol’ days when we went into Iraq because they were seeking nuclear weapons? Or, as still too many Americans believe, because it was implied that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Or that they had WMDs, not the later revision, “WMD-related programs”?

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2002/0917/p02s01-uspo.html

If humanitarian reasons were a significant concern for the U.S., we’d have 10,000 troops in Darfour now. But they aren’t. We went into Iraq under the pretext of WMDs so we could install a democracy in Iraq and thus revolutionize the politics of the region. It was a grand idea with high risks and payoffs. It may have been worth it if done the right way, but the war was so badly mismanaged that we’ve sullied our reputation and are now aiming for stability, not democracy.

If you think that the U.S. media overplayed images of Abu Grahib and the marine killing the wounded insurgent, keep in mind that the Arab media showed these images 10 times as much as the U.S. media, and whether you think this is unfair is besides the point. The end result is that these moments in the Iraq war has become an international terrorist recruitment campaign. We had enough people wanting to attack us for irrational reasons before the Iraq war. What do you think is going to happen now? Killing one terrorist is great as long as you don’t do it in a way that you incite two people to take his place.

And that’s something that’s the responsibility of the U.S. military and civilian leadership, not CBS News or whoever is the head honcho in this week’s “left-wing media cabal”.

How’s this - maybe there aren’t any photos!! Hopefully it was controlled. All you crazy guys talking about a liberal conspiracy - do you know how nuts you are? Americans should try to stick together. I lean to the left, but I’m not what the right-wingers here describe. On the Abu Ghraib photos - my thought is WHY THE HELL DID THEY LET PHOTOS BE TAKEN THERE? Now that was stupid. From everything I saw, treatment is much worse in most U.S. (for the non-rich) prisons than in Abu Ghraib.

Could it be possible that the reason why we haven’t seen pictures is because they are to be evidence for the trial of Saddam and they cannot not be publicized? (not a lawyer) Just throwing that out there a possiblity.

Ben, people like you feed on the abu-g stories and turn your nose to anyting that goes aginst the terrorists. If you don’t like it, get out of my phucking country.

P.S. you can block my ip, cause i don’t usually post stuff, i’ve just been drinking tonight and felt like talkin . . . typing.

Ben even answers his own question:

“I mean, it’s like saying that your neighbor owns a gun. He’s a mentally unstable person. He definitely has the potential to harm someone if he wants to.

But that doesn’t justify forcibly attacking him and taking his gun away! You have to wait until he does something before you can take that action, or else it’s illegal.”

Do you want to really Support Our Troops™?

Grab a pen, go down to the nearest enlistment office, and have at it! Otherwise please STFU. And take that retarded magnet off your car.

Hey, Columbo, what you claim is a picture taken by an AP photographer “inserted in a terrorist unit” is actually footage that a Lebanese TV station (LBC) sold to Reuters (not AP). How do I know? Because it says so underneath the photo on the link provided in you blog. Do you even bother to read what you link to or do you just make it up as you go along?

not all of us believe everything we read just because it fits with what we want to believe.

its call critical thinking.

you have to look at this bullshit from every angle.

im not crediting or discrediting you, because both sides to this story have their points of view, and each make sense in a way.

and then once youre done thinking about it, you wonder why you bothered thinking so hard, cuz it still doesnt make any fucking sense.

forgive the typos, ive been awake around 36 hours. kthx.

I work at one of the major new services. Believe me, we have been trying like hell to get a hold of some visuals from the Fallujah slaughterhouse, and we’re not the only ones. The fact is that neither the U.S. military nor the Iraqi authorities have released any, and Fallujah is still too messy to go wandering around looking for this place unless a photographer is traveling with military escort.

If “liberal media” is the problem, why hasn’t Fox News blown the lid off of this story? According to the SignOnSanDiego article, Fox News was there… where’s their pictures?

This isn’t a partisan issue. If the pictures were pubically available, the right-wing would say, “See, our marines are there to stop these monsters from killing more innocents!” Then the left-wing would say, “These monsters weren’t there until the US created a power vacuum by toppling Saddam!”

I think there’s another explanation at work here. Either the Iraqi security forces are preventing reporters from taking photos, or they’re waiting until more details are uncovered such as how many people were killed there, what nationalities they were, or what their identities were.

If it were just “liberal media” bias, the pictures would be all over Fox News.

We know they are slaughtering hostages because they release partial videos on the “liberal” news organizations. That said, it is not surprising and not very newsworthy to find slaughterhouses in Falluja. The whole fuckin city is a slaughterhouse. What is surprising is that the purveyors of democracy, the seed sowers of freedom and one of the writers of the Geneva convention were running torture chambers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, pictures and stories of American youth torturing other humans is very newsworthy. There is your explanation. There is no mass conspiracy of Liberal media. The media conglomerates are owned by some of the richest republicans in the country, do you really think there could be a liberal propaganda machine working right under their noses? The shit they sell us on the news is ruled by the law of supply and demand. They tell us what we want to hear. Anything dramatic, sells. Dead civilians who shouldn’t fuckin be in Iraq in the first place is old news. Take your peanut-sized christian mind and think about this: A ten million dollar missle launched by a religious fanatic that kills children is no different than a religious fanatic beheading a civilian. Fuck you if you don’t like the truth

[q]The “slaughterhouses” do not exist. The blood and dead bodies you saw were there because the city HAS NO HOSPITALS. Iraqis were left with using thier homes to treat the (badly) wounded citizens of Fallujah that had not fled pre-attack. The blood/wheelchairs were there because they were HELPING thier countrymen.

Oh, and those banners that supposedly identify these places as gathering grounds for “terrorists?” Put up by Marines and CIA ops.

Sorry. Truth sux.

Posted by schpank at November 18, 2004 09:30 PM[/q]

I don’t know where you get your info- There is a hospital right by the euphraties river-It was one of the first buildings that MY SON (A U.S. Marine) took control of b4 the takeover of insurgent held fallujah started.The reason they took it was so the terrorists couldn’t use it saying we were killing innocent civilians as propoganda against the USA. Pictures- well the sites are under investigation - The Iraqi military were the ones who found it-The Iraqi military don’t have imbedded reporters attached to them like some of the US troops do. I do believe the media is very biased against the USA-I think more Americans and maybe even some of you others would understand this war better if ALL these aweful pictures were on the air like they do to the USA. Proud mom of a Marine fighting in Fallujah

“I do believe the media is very biased against the USA-I think more Americans and maybe even some of you others would understand this war better if ALL these aweful pictures were on the air like they do to the USA.” American media is biased against America? You’ve been watching too much Fox news. The American press is censored. Let them show all the dead bodies: the dead americans, the dead children, the dead women. Then you will see a change in support for war. It’s easy to vote for a war-profiteer when you don’t see the bloody images of innocent people bombed in their homes everyday, or my peers being blown up by car bombs while “serving their country”. Why do you think Rumsfeld banned service-people from taking pictures right after the Abu Gharib torture”incident”. The idea that the media is controlled by a liberal agenda is absurd. To call the watchdog of our freedoms slanted or untruthful is obviously a trick to hide the administration’s lies. The best defence is offence applies to spin as well as war: When faced with the truth a liar always shifts the blame to the accuser. It’s the only defence when a liar is lacking proof of good intention. The images from Iraq have been “softened” by the media conglomerates so as not to alarm Americans about the ugliness of Bush’s war. If there is a bias it’s leaning to the right, not the left. The question should be: Who owns the major-market television stations and who’s campaigns do they contribute to?

FYI, this was the top story on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle today.