Article

2005-01-26 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-01-26 12:10:47 PM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'd like the DoD to investigate all the jihadi websites posting pictures of dead americans.

Posted by Seafarious 2005-01-26 12:21:56 PM|| 2005-01-26 12:21:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 link should read:
http://www.undermars.com/

Posted by tipper 2005-01-26 12:34:56 PM|| 2005-01-26 12:34:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Just US tax dollars at work is all. I want to know my money is being spent wisely and now I know that they are.

Thanks, US Military for your efforts and for showing the world the pictures of your handiwork.

Posted by badanov 2005-01-26 12:38:26 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2005-01-26 12:38:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I wish the website would give estimates on the total number of insurgents killed. I'm still looking for any knid of info or the sort. Maybe if we broadcast to the Muj recruiters just what the life expectancy of their volunteers would be their sales pitch would be a little watered down.
The MSM is hurting us by only showing Coalition fatalities by showing the enemy they can hurt us.

Posted by Rightwing 2005-01-26 12:43:35 PM|| 2005-01-26 12:43:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 There is a different website that routinely posts gruesome photos of American dead, as well as of Iraqis and anyone else who has fallen victim to violence.
Many of the pictures of dead Americans appear to have been taken by Americans, including a set that appears to show the preparation of dead bodies in a military morgue.
This is an egregious violation of military regulations, which absolutely forbids anything but authorized forensic images to be taken in these facilities.
I have reported this to the Quartermaster Corps and they are investigating. Unbelievably, some of the bodies are recognizable from the pictures. This may allow the exact source and the culprit to be identified, in which case he or she needs a long stay in Fort Leavenworth.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-26 1:27:09 PM|| 2005-01-26 1:27:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Odd. I remember, as a kid, seeing pictures of WWII dead in a Life magazine "Best Of" book. I remember one that WOULD have been a recognizable Japanese soldier, had his tank not caught fire, reducing his head to a lump of charcoal frozen in a scream.

Excepting the captions, how is that different?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-01-26 2:23:20 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-01-26 2:23:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Bob,

It's different because the left loves dead Americans more than living Americnas, especially America military

Posted by badanov 2005-01-26 2:30:19 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2005-01-26 2:30:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Robert-

During the war you never saw pictures or footage of Allied soldiers dead. Some newsreel showed burned up tanks and injured soldiers, but there was strict censorship of the press during this time. Enemy soldiers were always a different matter.

The difference now is that we have the easy mobility of information. It is a virtual impossibility to censor either individuals or the media (who would scream like little girls at the mere mention).

Posted by Jame Retief 2005-01-26 2:45:44 PM|| 2005-01-26 2:45:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Jame, Life did publish photos of allied war dead during the conflict. The first being an American GI face down on a New Guinea beach, circa 1943. Showing faces or dismemberment may have been taboo tho.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-26 3:14:50 PM|| 2005-01-26 3:14:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Actually you did. There is a famous Life magazine picture of a dead American marine lying face down in the sand Difference is you couldn't tell who it was.

Posted by Weird Al 2005-01-26 3:19:07 PM|| 2005-01-26 3:19:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 To reiterate my earlier point, Robert, it is against the law for American soldiers to take or distribute images of their dead comrades.

As a retired officer, I have mixed feelings about the images of enemy dead. On the one hand, it is an obvious affront to human dignity, especially when accompanied by humorous captions. When you're actually there, you are trying to deal with all kinds of emotional trauma, and some degree of levity is appropriate or at least excusable. In the public domain, accessible from the safety of a home computer, it is something else again and reflects very badly on those involved and on the service in general.

On the other hand, I think it is fair for people to see what actually happens and how ugly a business this really is. The pro-terror peace movement would obviously use this to support their demands for surrender and totalitarian rule, but if the real nature of war undermines support, then the support is probably not worth having.

I have seen the image you describe in Life (and worse in person).
Excuse me for getting clinically gruesome, but this is an important point: The "frozen scream" effect is probably the result of tissue contraction and not literally of a scream at the time of death. How do I know this? Because we see it on burned bodies that were obviously dismembered by impact.
It is interesting to me that the Iraqi group complaining about this contrasts it with US complaints about the official conduct of the Iraqi government, and not with the truly analogous situation, the many gruesome photos taken by jihadists and their sympathizers and plastered all ober the web.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-26 3:25:24 PM|| 2005-01-26 3:25:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I believe it was after '68 that the U.S. Military banned taking pictures of dead Viet Cong. If any were found in your stuff while you were processing out they were confiscated. I never heard of fellow soldiers taking pictures of their dead comrades although I can't say it didn't happen.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-01-26 3:46:53 PM|| 2005-01-26 3:46:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I bet the MSM are envious. WaPo could run the pics for days.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-26 7:32:20 PM|| 2005-01-26 7:32:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm pretty sure that the WWII picture of the dead Marine in the sand was at Tarawa. The photos from that hellish battle were the first to show American dead sent back home and they did have an impact on the civilians from what I've read. I think the censorship was ratcheted back up after that.

Posted by Remoteman 2005-01-26 7:46:49 PM|| 2005-01-26 7:46:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I believe this post has the famous photograph taken at the invasion at Buna Beach in 1942 by George Strock and published by Life in 1943. Not quite the same as the pornographic images of the dead to which we are now immune.

It is difficult for us to imagine what consternation this photograph caused to Americans on the home front. In two years, we were liberating Bergen Belsen. This war will last much longer. And I believe that we cannot now imagine how far we will descend before it is over any more than could the Americans looking at Life in 1943.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-26 8:17:00 PM|| 2005-01-26 8:17:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 To quote the article from Mrs D:

In September 1943, the military released the first photographs of dead American soldiers. George Strock's images of corpses on Buna Beach, New Guinea, appeared in Life, the largest- circulation picture magazine. The powerful pictures shocked some readers, but a greater number approved of the policy. The Washington Post argued that the pictures "can help us to understand something of what has been sacrificed for the victories we have won." Images of dead soldiers appeared regularly after that. All were as anonymous as they could be made to be. Efforts were made to crop the photos or obscure the victims' faces, name tags and unit insignia. The caption to Strock's Buna Beach photoâ¹"Three dead Americans lie on the beach at Buna"â¹told Life's readers that they did not need to know the names of the dead in order to appreciate what they had done.

So they appeared after this point in time, but not before. Thanks, Mrs. D

Posted by Jame Retief 2005-01-26 11:02:54 PM|| 2005-01-26 11:02:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 hmmmm - did they clamor to find a GI funeral to show opposite FDR's inaugural? Soooooo close to Fifth column traitors

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-26 11:07:02 PM|| 2005-01-26 11:07:02 PM|| Front Page Top

00:11 2xstandard
23:56 trailing wife
23:51 Frank G
23:47 GK
23:18 Frank G
23:16 Sobiesky
23:12 Frank G
23:12 Seafarious
23:07 Frank G
23:07 Frank G
23:06 Old Patriot
23:02 Jame Retief
22:59 Sobiesky
22:57 Old Patriot
22:54 Raj
22:53 Dishman
22:50 Frank G
22:48 Frank G
22:43 Raj
22:41 whitecollar redneck
22:37 Bomb-a-rama
22:29 Phil Fraering
22:28 John Q. Citizen
22:27 Robert Crawford