What is Digg?200 Comments
- Dralha, on 07/07/2008, -12/+121It's important to keep Americans ignorant of the horrors of war.
- overtoke, on 07/07/2008, -18/+121He was fired because embedded reporters are only supposed to report one side of the story.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -18/+93The US military could stop the public from seeing photos like that by getting out of nations that aren't the USA. That would work for damn sure.
- danfive555, on 07/07/2008, -13/+83The picture is a dignified portrayal of the dead soldier. Nothing to offend anyone; it's just the public affair officers run amok.
- MariusAgricola, on 07/07/2008, -3/+44Direct link to Zoriah's blog: http://zoriah.net/
- SimonTB, on 07/07/2008, -1/+38What the ***** did you just try to say?
- ordig, on 07/07/2008, -11/+44Are they trying to hide the fact that war kills people? How ***** stupid is that?
- dinostabOMG, on 07/08/2008, -2/+31It's not about offending anyone - the US learned (at least one thing) from Vietnam. Don't show the public anything negative happening to our side. It's bad for approval ratings. If they could get any worse...
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -8/+33What an amazing blog!
It will be a travesty to have his reporting silenced.
It has been the complete lack of transparency that has led to so many of the troubles we have here in the States. This war was justified on lies and no transparency, the Housing boom and bust was the result of no transparency. So many more to list... - hawkeye17, on 07/07/2008, -17/+36Fascism..if you don't think it can happen in America then your not paying attention.
- justice7, on 07/08/2008, -4/+20Guantanamo Bay?
- JHB800, on 07/08/2008, -8/+24It is a standing US military policy that no pictures are to be taken of the dead either on the battlefield or when their coffins return home. Regardless of what this reporter may say, he knew the policy and he took the picture anyways. While I don't agree with the policy, it ensures the privacy of the families affected by these deaths and the fact that the pictures of their mangled loved one will not be plastered all over the internet and print papers (I'd also imagine it is to prevent the family from seeing a picture of their dead loved one before they're actually notified of their death)
- Elderon, on 07/08/2008, -2/+17Oh please. This so called war is not pretty and it shouldn't be sugar coated for anyone. People need to see the harsh truth about whats going on over there. I'm sorry to whoever lost loved ones over there, but that's the job they signed up for and were unfortunate enough to be called on to do it. Perhaps if people were to see the grim reality, we wouldn't be so complacent in sending them over to a place that they shouldn't be in the first place.
I do support our troops. I don't support the people that sent them there. I think people are too caught up in their little worlds and when they hear about bombings and fighting it's just a fairy tale in the back of their minds. - evilelf2407, on 07/08/2008, -10/+24o come on. what about the kid's parents or relatives, or parents and relatives of other soldiers that see this picture? i think there should be some courtesy given to a dead soldier. if you're grandma dies from cancer in a hospital bed somewhere, a flock of reporters doesnt come in and snap pictures and then post those pictures in newspapers and on the internet.
- jgzman, on 07/08/2008, -1/+15There is, in fact, little to no dignity involved in being blown to pieces by an IED. (or anything else, for that matter)
Just think: one of our men over there had to clean up one of their fellow soldiers. That is happening almost every day. Our men are dying, and they are dying in a particularly unpleasant way, in a place that they would most likely prefer not to be. If they are going to be there, doing that for us, then we, the people should be allowed to see it. In fact, I feel that we, the people, should be required to see it, every day that our men are in harm's way.
Hypocrite alert: I have not seen these images. I do not wish to see them. I make no excuses; they are decidedly unpleasant images, and I do not wish to view them. However, I stand firmly by my above statements. - Shipyaad, on 07/08/2008, -1/+14Wrong. That is NOT the policy. The policy (DoD Directive 5122.5) is as follows:
(11) Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties provided the following conditions are adhered to:
(a) Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent. If the service member later becomes a KIA, Rule 11(b) applies.
(b) DOD will release names of KIAs. In respect for family members, names or images CLEARLY IDENTIFYING [emphasis added] individuals “killed in action” will not be released prior to notification of next ot kin and in accordance with current legislation. Names of KIAs may be released after the DOD announcement has been made – journalists may check the Defenselink.mil Web site for those announcements."
Next time, make sure you know what you're talking about before you start making specious claims. - SpectreFire, on 07/08/2008, -2/+14Well you obviously don't know much about history do you.
During WWII, the Army's public affairs department was constantly showing the brutal struggles and horrors suffered by servicemen abroad in-order to drum up more support and anger from the public. There was no hiding that the US was losing hundreds of men every day.
It was even more so during Vietnam, which is one of the most publicized war in history. There was constantly pictures and even videos of combat, men being killed, blow up, and of the pure horror of jungle combat. - sparsely, on 07/08/2008, -1/+12According to the story (and the photographer), he checked the policy and found no conflict.
- martoq, on 07/08/2008, -7/+17There's a level of respect to be shown for the fallen who have made the ultimate sacrifice for us. That respect is apparently a lost concept to many people unfortunately.
- fpaudon, on 07/08/2008, -2/+11Maybe we haven't reached the level of fascism yet, but the point is that we need to stop it before it occurs rather than stating that Bush isn't as bad as Hitler
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -8/+17We deserve the right to see both sides of the war.
- santaliqueur, on 07/08/2008, -0/+9The sad thing is, he's probably a high school graduate.
- charmaniac, on 07/08/2008, -2/+10The U.S. media conglomerates appear to have blacked out almost all stories coming out of Iraq. Occasionally we hear of a car bomb when there is a particularly high body count, but other than that - not a peep.
Its pretty clear that the U.S. media MUST be broken up. No longer should 5 large companies own 90% of the media outlets. The Fairness Doctrine must return.
This will be considered a lost decade for journalism. I am glad this guy is at least attempting to tell the story in Iraq. - ericjohnson0, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8The military didn't decide to go there.
- jgzman, on 07/08/2008, -6/+13There is a way to respect the fallen soldier.
Hiding the fact that they have made that sacrifice is not the way.
Hiding the reality of war is not the way.
Hiding the blood is not the way.
Hiding the sweat is not the way.
Hiding the tears is not the way.
The way to respect the fallen is Peace. Hiding the truth of war makes it too easy to wage war, and war is the ultimate lack of respect to the fallen soldier. - dinostabOMG, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7You guys are saying exactly the same thing.
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/08/2008, -6/+13The only thing the U.S. military learned from Vietnam was that if you allow images of dead American soldiers to get out in the press, people will be disgusted into action marching, picketing and demanding an end to the war. What we have now in terms of anti war activism is NOTHING compared to the 60's. This is why the Pentagon does not allow images of soldiers, or caskets to be taken. They realize how much power information has, especially images. Its the deadliest weapon the public has and can seriously cripple a government.
While we're discussing Vietnam, They should have learned that its not possible for a large, slow military to defeat a nameless, faceless guerrilla style insurgency on their own turf.....we'd just rather repeat our mistakes. - publiclurker, on 07/08/2008, -1/+7I don't know how to break it to you, but there are these things called maps that would allow anyone with even room temperature intelligence (obviously you don't make the cut) to find us any time they wish. And now, thanks to chicken hawk cowards like you, they have more than enough reason to pay us a visit.
- alkajazz, on 07/08/2008, -5/+11God forbid we try to put a face on this war. All it is now is just statistics. Without this kind of exposure we don't realize how hellish war is. We become numb to it and approve of any military action because all we see are the casualty reports.
- rz8472, on 07/08/2008, -1/+7I don't think that's true; I've seen pictures of dead US soldiers in WWII-
http://www.dwightdeisenhower.com/ddayphotos/71x116 ...
We've also seen numerous pictures of dead soldiers even during the Civil War even when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. - jgzman, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6What 'cause' precisely? The war in Iraq? Doesn't need much undermining, I don't think.
Possibly you refer to the willingness of people to remain in Iraq while our men are killed almost every day? Undermine that *****.
Very seriously consider the morality of any cause that is defeated by the truth. - InfiniteNothing, on 07/08/2008, -2/+7Everyone keeps mentioning the family. Who's going to make them see the pictures? Also, if the pictures are delayed so the family can be notified, does that make it less objectionable. Lastly, I don't think "inconsiderate" is really a good argument to censor or suppress the media coverage of the war that we're all paying for.
- charmaniac, on 07/08/2008, -4/+9Your name is fitting, Naieve.
- vwvan, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6it happened eight years ago.
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5@nigh7dagger
No, what's disrespectful is sweeping that dead marine under the rug so you don't have to address his death.
What's disrespectful is NOT giving these men and women the ceremony they deserve because it "looks bad" for the warmongers. - inactive, on 07/07/2008, -3/+8The best blog I have come across in years. Thanks.
- hmunkey, on 07/08/2008, -2/+7@Stubear
The US military isn't doing anything in either of those countries. We're ***** ourselves up in Iraq while places who would actually endorse and appreciate our help are left alone.
And you don't give Europe enough credit. In the next decade the EU will become much more powerful than America ever was. - mikelieman, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Don't have the stomach to actually see the results of your policies?
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4RTFA.
- unkyduck, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4You won't have to go that far. There'll be plenty of detention centers onshore thanks to our good friends at Halliburton/KBR.
- havokzero, on 07/08/2008, -2/+6The post that started it all: http://www.zoriah.net/blog/2008/06/anbar-province. ...
The entire piece is worth reading. - vwvan, on 07/08/2008, -2/+6"Fighting for peace is like ***** for virginity".
Priceless.
I want a picture of every dead person tattooed on the leaders who made this happen.
Perhaps that would help them remember. - charmaniac, on 07/08/2008, -3/+7Because the U.S. Media is a pathetic shell of its former self. It has been taken over by corporate interests. I cannot believe how quickly this occurred, but it did.
- chrissku, on 07/08/2008, -4/+8We can't have the people seeing the truth now can we? That would quality as freedom of speech which is clearly defined in the constitution as only acceptable when the govt. approves. Oh wait.....that's not what it says. WTF?
- potterboy, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Wow, what an emotionally moving blog. Powerful images.
- Shipyaad, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5I've seen a few claims made that photos cannot be taken of causalities. This is incorrect. DoD policy (DoD Directive 5122.5) for embedded journalists is as follows:
(11) Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties provided the following conditions are adhered to:
(a) Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent. If the service member later becomes a KIA, Rule 11(b) applies.
(b) DOD will release names of KIAs. In respect for family members, names or images CLEARLY IDENTIFYING [emphasis added] individuals “killed in action” will not be released prior to notification of next ot kin and in accordance with current legislation. Names of KIAs may be released after the DOD announcement has been made – journalists may check the Defenselink.mil Web site for those announcements." - SpacePoet, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3It's not stupid, it's pure evil genius. They know if even half of Americans knew the daily carnage going on there would be no war. And people ask me why i can't celebrate 4th of July until this war is over...
- jgzman, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3I happen to be prior military. I never got sent anywhere dangerous, by sheer luck. Right out of basic, I drew a base that never deploys, and at the end of my first tour, I drew the short straw, and got out.
My best friend in the world is still enlisted. He spent a good long time in Iraq, doing dangerous things. He spent a good long time in Afghanistan doing less dangerous things. For myself, I am glad that he has returned to the 'safety' of Korea.
Don't talk to me about 'respect.' The way to respect the troops is to stopp getting them killed for no damn reason. Even if you are unwilling to consider the idea that we should never have entered Iraq in the first place, surely you cannot support the continued death of our troops to prop up a 'government' that can't seem to stop spitting in each other's face long enough to stop their own people from blowing each other up?
Is that respect for our troops? - justice7, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Naieve - Not all concentration camps have Gas chambers. The USA had concentration camps; and so did Canada during WW2. We rounded up all the Japanese and put them in one area; aka.. concentrated.
- AlanLivingston, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4You know, you're kind of half right. I fully believe this is the USMC standing military policy and it was the first reason they gave for firing him.
Then after following his blog and realizing that he followed the official policy, they made up the offense that he had posted images that could help the enemy. The latest reason for his removal is that he posted the images prior to family notification and the images contained a legible name tag. The journalist says he has proof that all these claims are false.
The Multi-National Force in Iraq supports his efforts to keep press credentials.
As Justice Brandeis said, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." -
Show 51 - 100 of 201 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 