Jye

Jerome, anyone with a brain knows you are talking from experience, unlike some....

ProperCharlie

Mitchy - i agree with you about the injured iraqi guy. it's a war, he got shot, let's move on. i don't think that i agree with you about anything else. you have a choice. you aren't conscripted. if you don't like your job - find another one.

Taff - you now think we should pull out and "let them murder each other". fair comment, but do you not therefore think that we shoudl never have gone there in the first place?

ProperCharlie

hang on - IMO Brendan has made some pretty intelligent comments. i don't go with the hypothesis that you have to reply to *every* reactive comment that you may pick up on a bbs.

Jye

Well why not PC, if not I can just spout sh*te ad Infinitum and no one need reply ever. In fact, this 'IS' SN, LOL

Yeah, reactive, whats the result, action...............

SomeDude

Jye, do you really think Brendan is the "biggest problem" on this thread ?

If so, may I kindly ask you to read the posts again, in the spirit they were meant.

Even though his comments are pretty much out of line with his usual posting, they do make quite a bit of sense.

And no, I didn't click on the link, so therefor I'm of course not qualified to comment ... ach, maybe I've seen enough atrocities.

No, I didn't report it to mods etc (we are adults here, right ?) but I think we at least should question our own moral POV when we do (or do not) click.

"Homo homini lupus" and all that.

ProperCharlie

jye - i would *never* accuse you of spouting sh*te

Jye

NO, SD, I posted my relpy to Brendans 'I'm just as bad as them comment', and I await his reply. If he canny be festered to, then **** it........

Jye

LOL @ PC, OK, OK, BUT, why do I bother putting BRENDAN in my posts if he wont reply, I may as well not bother, sheeesh

ProperCharlie

yeah, it's sh*te isn't it? the way people can come on here and talk out of their ****, and then not respond to a single constructive criticism that may be offered.

oh the b*stards. my blood's boiling just to think of it.

ProperCharlie

btw - pms @ the google ads on this thread: "american made flags"

do they come with a sachet of petrol included?

Jye

OK, Never stooped this low, but 2 pages back, this is what I said in response to SOME of Brendans comments Charlie:

Hardly too much to expect some response FFS, eh

ProperCharlie

Jye - no need to repost it - i read it first time around, like the studious chap that i am (if only i was studying something vaguely constructive )

as it happens - the reason that brendan can't reply is cos he is in my garden shed - one of my mates has a boot on his chest and is taking a slash on his sacked up head. Piers Morgan is gonna love these babies!

Jye

Ah, oh well I'll just have to rest my weary head thinking I'm as bad as the people who commited the atrocity mentioned just because I viewed the link. I'm so sorry like a few others I disagree with Brendan and you on this ONE point Charlie, ffs..............

Jye

BTW Brendan, no offence against u btw as an individual, just think your wrong about tarring everyone with the same brush on that ONE point, agree with most of what you post anyhow, just not that particular bit m8. NN all anyhow, fecked off with this war and most of humanity atm tbo

unclebuck

I don't know why people are beating up on Jye. Brendan has asserted something sweeping and clearly inaccurate, and has failed to back up his comments in an adequate way.

Jye, like myself, is simply interested in getting at the *truth*. Something we should all be interested in.

Maybe I'm wrong, just like I may have been wrong about the fake pictures. It's starting to look like I may be right. Perhaps Jye is right on this subject too.

UB

gsm1

I've read that article and nowhere does it say British troops are being killed.

Al-Sadr has very little support in Iraq amongst Shias. One of his aides makes a speech and 5 guys in masks kill an American contractor and suddenly all Iraqis are responsible for killing British troops?

Jerome

Where did anyone say British troops are being killed? The article says that British troops are being targetted. In other words it's a matter of time before a British soldier is captured and/or killed. $150 is a heck of a lot of money to someone who earns around $3 a month, let alone $350.


Jye, you're right. Several people posting here have actually been there, but that doesn't seem to count for much to some...

jasey

Bravo - My comment was directed more at MarkO than you - anyone who has watched the video will not doubt it's authenticity. Unless they believe that Elvis is Alive and working as a stable lad to Shergar etc etc etc...


Jye - I think I've scared Brendan off with my death threats

Jye

I would say to doubt the authenticity of the footage is perhaps worse than not to view it. I doubt Nick Berg's family doubt it's authenticity.

MarkO

I'm not denying the video is real, just saying that it's *possible* it could be a fake....

As for why people watch it, well, morbid fascination mixed with some horror and a sense of disbelief, I suppose. Same reason that people enjoy watching You've Been Framed clips and Police Camera Action programs (and all the other miriad of 'reality' TV shows in the last 5-10 years). Not to mention all the numerous horror films released at the cinema.

I find the comments of those who condemn people for viewing such footage very patronising; can anyone say that watching the Nick Berg video really implies that the viewer is any more 'sick' than somebody who watches, say, Schindler's List, the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, or any other film containing accurately-portrayed violence based on non-fictional events?!?

jasey

Hey MarkO - I'm not saying that you are talking ****e - just that it might be possible

Brendan Hughes

DAMN.

Just spent ages typing a carefully worded reply, flicked back a page to see if there was another point, and lost the lot . Here it is again but a bit terser.

Jye - I left work 18.20 last night and didn't have internet access at home, sorry. No offence taken, I wanted intelligent debate and got it. Disagree with answering everyone's comments though, I don't waste time with timewasters.

I spent more time yesterday afternoon and evening thinking about Faire d'Income's point about rubberneckers on the motorway. I do see a difference between the moving of the eyes (try to stop yourself, almost impossible) in order to see what is probably an injured person, and moving a mouse and clicking to start a video in which you know someone will be gruesomely killed. As for his people in Spain that apparently pull over desperate to get a look inside the meat wagon, yes I think they're quite sick as well.

But it looks like very few people have read carefully what I posted. What I really object to is the hypocrites that say it's disgusting, click on it to watch it, and then come back and say it's really disgusting. No, YOU are disgusting, for reasons I'll explain. If you want to watch it for investigative purposes to see if it's fake, fine. I don't buy the "public service" argument about educating people; what about my child rape analogy, above? Should we put a link on the BBC website (preceded by warnings) to show graphic videos of child rape, SO THAT we can justify banning it? What would you think of anyone who watched such a video? I reckon you'd think they were a paedo. Would YOU watch such a video? And if not, why not? If you would, at least you're consistent, but I think most people wouldn't. I view the two (and the voluntary viewers) as equally bad, others here obviously don't. And this is what I want to work out - why choosing to watch one act is disgusting but the other isn't. In summary, if I haven't spelled it out, I suspect a number of people who watched the video did it just for a kick, and don't dare admit it for fear of censure.

My "not far away" (NOT equal) comment came, as explained earlier, from that fact that one's interest in watching an event overrides one's horror at it when one already knows what's going to happen. I see it that the viewer is given a choice, interest or horror - and they opt for interest. What does that say about them? Maybe you think the two aren't mutually exclusive, you can have both. I dunno, I've never understood people who happily pay to see films which scare them sh!tless. But jeez, at least have the guts to admit it was interesting, rather than saying you were horrified before you watched it and you wanted to be more horrified so you watched it. D'uh.

I don't understand your "how else can we justify carnage" comment, above, which seems to be the main basis of your argument. Surely "how else can we object against carnage"? This video was filmed BECAUSE of the war, not as a prelude to it. If you want to find an event like that which took place before the war and show it in order to justify the invasion, erm, possibly, but a 5 minute event involving one civilian (rather than, say, an ArchDuke) is not a reason to invade a country. Could you explain? Thanks.

Advance warning - if I haven't answered EVERY point fully, clearly, lucidly, inarguably and comprehensively, then please consider that I REALLY have to get some work done today, please ask SaxoBoy and scooby96

Brit_in_Japan

I saw the link and maybe 30% of me wanted to click it, but I had no reason to doubt it was authentic and I didn't want those images in my head forever. I saw the footage of the Apache helicopter firing on the Iraqi soldiers and even though it was a infra red image, it disturbed me. I remember years ago the footage from a helicopter of those two British soldiers in civvies being dragged out of a car in Northern Ireland, beaten, stripped and shot. I can't get rid of those images out of my head either.

MarkO, don't you recognise that there is a big difference between film and real events? When watching war movies you know that no-one died in the making of it. Watching someone actually get murdered in full technicolour... if anyone finds it more "interesting" than "disturbing" then I'd say they're probably sick.

jasey

Brendan - I'll explain slowly so you might grasp.


I thought the guy had his head chopped of with a big **** off sword until I saw the video. EVERYONE i have spoken to thought the same and I have put them right. I have no doubt what is involved in a child rape and don't need to know what is going on to know it is wrong.

The BBC again showed the Iraqi Prisoner being "Abused" this morning with the guy stood on the box - this is still most peoples opinion on the level of abuse being suffered as it is all they have to go on. Someone mentioned earlier on here about a dog being set on prisoners and someones nose being pulled off (or something similar) - this could be BS or it could (and is likely to be) true.

This has changed the way I think about both sides in this conflict - and as I said before this is no bad thing.

Keep you head in sand and one eye on the guys outside - it will keep your world safe .

Faire D'Income

[QUOTE=Brendan Hughes]
But it looks like very few people have read carefully what I posted. What I really object to is the hypocrites that say it's disgusting, click on it to watch it, and then come back and say it's really disgusting. No, YOU are disgusting, for reasons I'll explain. If you want to watch it for investigative purposes to see if it's fake, fine. I don't buy the "public service" argument about educating people; what about my child rape analogy, above? Should we put a link on the BBC website (preceded by warnings) to show graphic videos of child rape, SO THAT we can justify banning it? What would you think of anyone who watched such a video? I reckon you'd think they were a paedo. Would YOU watch such a video? And if not, why not? If you would, at least you're consistent, but I think most people wouldn't. I view the two (and the voluntary viewers) as equally bad, others here obviously don't. And this is what I want to work out - why choosing to watch one act is disgusting but the other isn't. In summary, if I haven't spelled it out, I suspect a number of people who watched the video did it just for a kick, and don't dare admit it for fear of censure.
/QUOTE]

You keep mentioning people who express disgust and then clicked on the link which I don't understand as the disgust element has been expressed by people after watching the video, not before.


Can you not understand the difference between actively being present at the proceedings whereby you had the opportunity to alter events but not doing so and watching the video in disgust and revulsion?

Or

Watching the video and celebrating the beheading and generally pronouncing it to be a good thing?

Compared to

Watching the video passively out of a sense of curiousity or whatever and being genuinely disgusted by what you saw whether you had fair warning of the content or not?

There is a mile of difference between the three actions in terms of morality and what each level of 'participation' says about you as an individual. Presumably, Brendan you've never watched any **** movies knowing that there will be immoral and possibly depraved acts being depicted in the video? I say presumably becuase now you've taken the moral high ground, you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to do something like that, would you?

MarkO

ROFL. Clearly you didn't read the post properly. The intro sequence of SPR is, according to most people (including my grandfather, who dropped into Normandy the night before D-day) an extremely realistic vision of what the D-day landings were actually like. Sure, nobody dies in the filming, but it's representing (very accurately) exactly what it was like on the day. Similarly, Schindler's List has some extremely accurate reproductions of the deaths of non-fictional characters based on real or anecdotal evidence of actual events.

So, whilst you're not seeing actual people dying, you might as well be. Yet presumably, you wouldn't call people sick for watching those two films?

Tell me this. If somebody filmed a realistic mock-up of the Nick Berg killing (which, with special effects it would be possible to make 100% indistinguishable from the real thing) and posted the footage on a website, would people who watched it be sick, or not?!?

I think you're getting confused with who to aim your pious moralistic high-ground comments at, Mrs Whitehouse-style. If you've not actually seen the footage, how can you claim people who watch it are sick? And similarly, if news editors/intelligence staff have to watch the footage so they can accurately report its contents, are they sick?!

I suggest people reconsider exactly what makes an event morally wrong. IMO, those who participate in the event are the 'bad guys'; people who witness the event (whether by actively choosing to or by simply being present) are merely bystanders - who may be shocked into actively attempting to stop a repitition of such incidents....

Jye

Brendan, first thanks for the full and frank reply. Your analogy re child rape, while not without some merit does not quite fit in this case, in my opinion anyhow, and thats al this is, my opinion. Some of the others have made a few points I would have, so I wont duplicate them.

While child rape videos are surely out there in large numbers, they are there for the gratification of a group of very sick, perhaps clinically ill people. There can be no reason for anyone, any normal person to watch these videos, even for a second. Research is not a reason to view these sorts of videos, and would not normally be seen as an excuse. They are illegal, we know they are illegal and we know why. There is no reason whatsoever apart from law enforcement or prosecution to view such material.

The video and more importantly the act we are discussing here though was not produced for gratification, is was made to scare us, to terrify us, to show us what will happen in future, to show us how these men view retribution. In my mind, this act, this video, it is unique, I have never heard of or seen such acts, perhaps I may have lived a sheltered life but this was a first for me.

With all the media publicity over the torture of prisoners, the photos, how do we know it is true? How would you know that this video was not a fake, would you just believe one way or the other? Would you believe the media, the army, the politicians, and the spin-doctors? Would you believe that a knife was used rather than a sword? I would not have believed it possible. I know that very ill, crazed humans are certainly capable of such acts, but to do this as a form or retaliation, a punishment, some sort of political statement, surely not. Are these people so barbaric; is this how they believe they can influence the opinion of the west? Is this the way in which this conflict has deteriorated? These are the reasons I viewed this video. Now I know, I really know.

So, I already now they exist, these sorts of barbaric and fanatical terrorists, I now know what they are ultimately capable of, I know because I have seen this video with my own eyes and I believe that this video is not a fake. I’m not going to just say it’s a fake, I’m either going to say yes I’ve seen it and it looks fake, or I’m not going to say It does not look fake. If I wish to comment or the barbarism and inhumanity of man, I wish to be as qualified as anyone is. The media around the world have seen the video, reporters, politicians, generals and army personnel will all have seen the video. Why should the average person who ultimately sanctions these wars, wars that lead directly to and cause such atrocities, why should I not be deemed fit to view the ultimate outcome of my democratic actions?

I do not think viewing this video has made me as bad as the perpetrators, I think it gives me the resolve to say, yes this is terrorism at its worse, designed to repel us, to makes us all cower before terror, to weaken our determination in the fight against terrorism. I will not watch it again, I have seen it and I know the people who made it have no place in our society, ever.

Do I now need to view further videos of this nature? No, this has been a wake up call, for me and hopefully for those who have the power to resolve this conflict and conflicts like it around the world. Terrorism, this the new world war and its happening now, and not at a picture house near you.

This is my last post on this subject. I have viewed the video and nothing will change that.

jasey

MarkO - Go tell your Grandad that The Normandy landings were a put up by the Yanks and that it might all be a big hoax - and that no Jews were killed and the French fought hard to win the war for the Allies. This was all propoganda to get the young brits to go and die on French beaches


Then run like **** cos he'll try to kill you !

MarkO

LOL. Funny post, but what's your point jasey?

gsm1

In other words? You mean your changing your statement. Okay, not killed but targetted, but you made a generalisation about all Iraqis because of what one Iraqi (who has little support) said and what 5 guys did to an American contractor.