# Photos of dead Hussain sons



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

What do you all think?

Should America release these pictures?

Is it too shocking or are we all just used to being in a nanny state and being protected from unpleasantness?

If papers print a part of the picture should they just print all of it and be done with it?

Is America being hypocritical given the fuss they kicked up when dead Americans were shown on Iraq TV and also the whole Mogadishu issue?

Does the fact they were vicious murdering dictators make it less of a problem to show their corpses?

Given the fact we can probably all find these - and similar - pictures online if we want to, is debating whether the newspapers should print the photos pointless? What if papers provided a link therby offering a choice?

Hmmmm.... :-/


----------



## Gren (Jul 25, 2002)

Would normally say no. Too near the knuckle and disrespective no matter who it was and what they had done

BUT

some people juts would not have believed it otherwise. I guess what I'm saying is I think they were right this time.

Gren


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

> Is America being hypocritical given the fuss they kicked up when dead Americans were shown on Iraq TV and also the whole Mogadishu issue?


Yes they are being hypocritical imho. Most of us were taught as kids that we should not stoop to the level of others who might be calling us names or whatever. Shame world leaders were not taught this.

The more of this kind of thing that happens the more people get desensitised to it all. Pretty soon it will be acceptable.

It is just marketing - nothing more. They should not do it.

W.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Yes they are being hypocritical imho. Â Most of us were taught as kids that we should not stoop to the level of others who might be calling us names or whatever. Â Shame world leaders were not taught this. Â
> 
> The more of this kind of thing that happens the more people get desensitised to it all. Â Pretty soon it will be acceptable.
> 
> ...


I agree with this, although they were backed into a corner. People were asking for proof, & whilst I am not convinced this was irrefutable evidence. However, I guess it goes part of the way to convincing people, & if our good friend Saddam sees the pictures (& it is indeed them), it has got to affect him pretty badly.

Personally, I think they were in a no-win situation. I am just glad I didnt have to make the decision


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

But did they have to print full colour pictures in the newpapers today?
Had to turn page quickly to make sure kids didnt see them!!


----------



## vernan (May 27, 2002)

The Sun - outraged at pictures of dead British soldiers. A few weeks later full colour front page of Foe dying on the pitch.

US killing and torturing prisoners in Cuba, following war to "stop Iraqis living under oppression in a police state"

The whole Kelly/Gilligan affair - Blair saying "what a tragedy" and laughing at resignation calls.

The BBC toting "asylum day"........and showing a film about economic migrants

Disgusting, self-serving, slack, pathetic

We live in a hypocritical world, and I'm surprised there's even any shock at this kind of thing


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

shock and awe
dessert storm
hearts and minds
blah blah bloody blah.
ALL marketing.

Not shocking for the reasons you say Vernan. However it is still a terrible way to behave.


----------



## Gren (Jul 25, 2002)

US right to release picture to convince Iraqis - people needed to be convinced.

But no need for UK media to show them.

Gren


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

> US right to release picture to convince Iraqis - people needed to be convinced.
> 
> But no need for UK media to show them.
> 
> Gren


hear ! hear!!


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> US right to release picture to convince Iraqis - people needed to be convinced.
> 
> But no need for UK media to show them.
> 
> Gren


Fair enough, but I am sure many people would like to see them, for the 'casualty' factor...


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

I can understand if the Iraqis wanted to see them for proof, and that pictures of dead people are not necessarily offensive to them.

Can't see why they are in the papers over here though.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

> ... and that pictures of dead people are not necessarily offensive to them ...


On the basis that Iraqis are human beings with feelings I am going to go out on a REAAALLLLYYYYY big limb here and bet that graphic pictures of dead people have the same effect on Iraqis as people in this country ???


----------



## NicholasButt1 (Feb 1, 2003)

What is 'offensive' about a picture of a dead person?

Are we offended by Egyptian mummies?

Are people offended by the practise, at wakes, of having open coffins?

Are we offended when we see pictures of dying people, cue any Bob Geldof self-aggrandisement?

I think too many people are affecting the Daily Mail type of shock horror.

People die that's it, what happens afterwards is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Rhod_TT (May 7, 2002)

I think the Irai people needed to see them for two reaons.

1. To show all those who believe that Sadam will come back if they continue their guerilla war that it's not gonna happen. That might go some way to dissuade them.

2. To show all those who were oppressed by Sadam's family and clan that they will not be coming back out of the woodwork to rule the country in 10 yrs time when the dust settles.

Why the British people needed to see the pictures I do not understand. For one I don't know any british people who would recognise them when they saw them, so it's pointless as proof to us.
But you can't blame the US or British governmnets for that. They had to release the pictures to convince the Iraqis. As there is a thing called freedom of the press here, the newspapers had to decide what to do. What they did, as always, is what they believed would sell most copies.

Nicholas2,

I agree that pictures of dead people per se are not offensive. I think the "rules of war" are that you don't show pictures of your dead enemies, and the US and Britain have signed up to those rules. The questions was should the US have released those pictures after complaining about the pictures Iraq released. As I said I believe they should have. Other people may disagree.

I think the more pertinent question is should the british press have printed the photos after complaining about Al Jassera showing the dead british soldiers.


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

You're making me want to go out and buy an newspaper just to see what all the fuss is about.

Having read the odd addition of FHM I think I could stomach it.

The most shocking picture I have seen recently is that of Foe dying on the pitch which was totally unnecessary and showed no respect to his family.( It even looked to me as though the photo editor had "touched up" the photo to emphasise the whites of his eyes).

The Hussains are not part of the "human" race and if this is disrepectful to them and their families, then so what?

I haven't seen the photos, but I have seen the photos of Kurdish and Iraqi mothers who died with their babies in their arms after the nerve gas attacks ordered by Hussain, and nothing can be as shocking or distresssing as that, can it?. Â


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Such pictures are shocking and upsetting. Â 
They upset people around me. Â They shocked people around me. Â You can ask all the 'why why why' questions you want - it ain't gonna change fact. Many people are offended at coming across such pictures in their newspaper.


----------



## NicholasButt1 (Feb 1, 2003)

Are people offended? They might be shocked, but offended??

I think a harsh dose of reality is required, everybody dies and some will die more horribly than others. What does it matter if you see the end product?

It seems to be accepted that its OK for 'the bad guys' to be shown, but not for good guys. Shades of Shaw's Major Barbara here; whio can tell right from wrong?

I was actually disappointed that someone appears to have done a patch-up job on at least one of them; those bullets must have really rippped him apart - good and let the whole world see it.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

USA is trying to stop the daily attacks that they suffer in Iraq. And this is one way that they believe that this can be achieved.

I would rather see two dead dictators in a picture than read every day that more and more US soldiers are dying from attacks.


----------



## racer (Feb 3, 2003)

It's going to cost the Yanks $30m they've got to get their moneys worth. :-/


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

I'm personally more shocked that the US along with the UK governments consider that killing political leaders is any way to show an example about the "correct way" to govern a nation. If the Americans, with all their military muscle, were unable to apprehend these individuals without blowing them to smithereens and then giving them proper trials, then who can saythat democracy is better than what they already had. If the military intelligence that accuses these people of attrocities comes from the same source as that which said that they had weapons of mass destruction able to be launched within 45 minutes then there must be a large question mark against its accuracy.

I am in no way a supporter of Saddam Hussain or his regime. But I believe that people are innocent until proven otherwise and that everyone has a right to defend themselves. Saddam's ALLEDGED victims obviously didn't have a chance to defend themselves, but by killing the ALLEDGED perpetrators we are acting in an similar fashion. As a British subject I would not want to see it happen here and therefore would not expect my government to condone these actions elsewhere.

Rant over, thanks for reading this far.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

100% agree with ag. These are just state sponsored assasinations.


----------



## bash-the-monkey (Jun 5, 2002)

its also comes across as gloating.......

Bash
www.bashthemonkey.com


----------



## vernan (May 27, 2002)

It also continues the theme of "We can't catch Bin Laden, we can't stop terrorism here or abroad, but hey, we killed these guys, and they're really bad too", which is the point of the Iraq war, as far as I can tell


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

> It also continues the theme of "We can't catch Bin Laden, we can't stop terrorism here or abroad, but hey, we killed these guys, and they're really bad too", which is the point of the Iraq war, as far as I can tell


Close. The point of the Iraq war was to enable the US to monopolise the Iraqi crude oil output, thereby allowing themselves another 15 years before being obliged to take the measures being taken in the rest of the world to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Any link between the attacking of the twin towers and the Iraqi regime is pure fiction created by US intelligence(?). It just represented a good excuse to "go get the bad guys". Bush assumes that the majority of his fellow Americans are as geographically inept as he is and don't realise that Iraq and Afganistan are not the same country.

Bush himself had never left the US prior to becoming president and thought that Africa was a country!


----------



## vernan (May 27, 2002)

Agreed entirely ag, though I suspect that while Bush is dense, it's the people that surround him (who aren't so thick) that we have to keep an eye on.......


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

vernan - i think you have hit the nail on the head. It's the so called right wing 'hawks' who are running things.


----------

