Log in

View Full Version : this is really bad


glowbelly
Sep 26th, 2005, 03:15 PM
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/news.html

War Pornography
US soldiers trade grisly photos of dead and mutilated Iraqis for access to amateur porn. The press is strangely silent.
By Chris Thompson

Published: Wednesday, September 21, 2005


If you want to see the true face of war, go to the amateur porn Web site NowThatsFuckedUp.com. For almost a year, American soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been taking photographs of dead bodies, many of them horribly mutilated or blown to pieces, and sending them to Web site administrator Chris Wilson. In return for letting him post these images, Wilson gives the soldiers free access to his site. American soldiers have been using the pictures of disfigured Iraqi corpses as currency to buy pornography.
At Wilson's Web site, you can see an Arab man's face sliced off and placed in a bowl filled with blood. Another man's head, his face crusted with dried blood and powder burns, lies on a bed of gravel. A man in a leather coat who apparently tried to run a military checkpoint lies slumped in the driver's seat of a car, his head obliterated by gunfire, the flaps of skin from his neck blooming open like rose petals. Six men in beige fatigues, identified as US Marines, laugh and smile for the camera while pointing at a burned, charcoal-black corpse lying at their feet.

The captions that accompany these images, which were apparently written by the soldiers who posted them, laugh and gloat over the bodies. The soldier who posted a picture of a corpse lying in a pool of his own brains and entrails wrote, "What every Iraqi should look like." The photograph of a corpse whose jaw has apparently rotted away, leaving a gaping set of upper teeth, bears the caption "bad day for this dude." One soldier posted three photographs of corpses lying in the street and titled his collection "DIE HAJI DIE." The soldiers take pride, even joy, in displaying the dead.

This could become a public-relations catastrophe. The Bush administration claims such sympathy for American war dead that officials have banned the media from photographing flag-draped coffins being carried off cargo planes. Government officials and American media officials have repeatedly denounced the al-Jazeera network for airing grisly footage of Iraqi war casualties and American prisoners of war. The legal fight over whether to release the remaining photographs of atrocities at Abu Ghraib has dragged on for months, with no less a figure than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers arguing that the release of such images will inflame the Muslim world and drive untold numbers to join al-Qaeda. But none of these can compare to the prospect of American troops casually bartering pictures of suffering and death for porn.

"Two years ago, if somebody had said our soldiers would do these things to detainees and take pictures of it, I would have said that's a lie," sighed recently retired General Michael Marchand, who as assistant judge advocate general for the Army was responsible for reforming military training policy to make sure nothing like Abu Ghraib ever happens again. "What soldiers do, I'm not sure I can guess anymore."

But for Chris Wilson, it's all in a day's work. "It's an unedited look at the war from their point of view," he says of the soldiers who contribute the images. "There's always going to be a slant from the news media. ... And this is a photo that comes straight from their camera to the site. To me, it's just a more real look at what's going on."

Wilson, a 27-year-old Web entrepreneur living in Florida, created the Web site a year ago, asked fans to contribute pictures of their wives and girlfriends, and posted footage and photographs bearing titles such as "wife working cock" and "ass fucking my wife on the stairs." The site was a big hit with soldiers stationed overseas; about a third of his customers, or more than fifty thousand people, work in the military. Wilson says soldiers began e-mailing him, thanking him for keeping up their morale and "bringing a little piece of the States to them." But other soldiers complained that they had problems buying memberships to his service. "They wanted to join the site, the amateur wife and girlfriend site," he says. "But they couldn't, because the addresses associated with their credit cards were Quackistan or something; they were in such a high-risk country that the credit card companies wouldn't approve the purchase."

That was when Wilson hit upon the idea of offering free memberships to soldiers. All they had to do was send a picture of life in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they'd get all the free porn they wanted. All sorts of images began appearing over the transom, but he dedicated a special site to view the most "gory" pictures. Asked what he feels upon viewing a new batch, Wilson says: "Personally, I don't look at it one way or another. It's newsworthy, and people can form their own opinions."

One soldier, who would not reveal his name or unit, defended his decision to post pictures of the dead, which he did after returning home. "I had just finished watching the beheading of one of our contractors that was taken hostage over in Iraq," he wrote in an e-mail. "I figured since that was all over the Web, maybe these pictures would make some potential suicide bomber think twice after seeing what happens AFTER you pull the pin.

"What you interpret [as] maliciousness and bravado may be how [soldiers] react to situations where they almost die or they just saw their buddy get killed," he continued. "I will not defend the people who have posted pictures of dead, innocent Iraqis, but in my opinion, the insurgents/terrorists that try to kill us and end up getting killed in return have absolutely no rights once they are dead.

"Obviously these postings do not help our public image at all," the soldier concluded. "However, I believe the US has been far too concerned about our public image as of late. ... We need to take a much harsher stand against these Islamic fundamentalists and stop giving them the royal American treatment. They need to be taught a lesson, a lesson hard enough that they will think twice before waging a jihad against us."

Wilson's Web site has made the news before – but not for posting pictures of murdered people. Last October, the New York Post reported that the Pentagon was investigating him for posting naked pictures of female soldiers in Iraq. After a few months, the Post reported that the Pentagon had blocked soldiers in Iraq from accessing the Web site, which had posted five more pictures of nude female soldiers, some of whom had posed with machine guns and grenades. After the Post's stories, Wilson says, he was bombarded with requests for interviews from newspapers and radio stations. Even after he began posting photographs of corpses late last year, media inquiries focused exclusively on his nudie pics. It wasn't until reporters from the European press contacted him last week that anyone took notice of Wilson's snuff-for-porn arrangement with American troops.

"The soldiers thing, I think the Italians picked it up first," Wilson says. "I've done interviews with the Italians, the French, Amsterdam. ... They were very critical, saying the US wouldn't pick it up, because it's such a sore spot. ... It raises too many ethical questions. ... I started to laugh, because it's true."

When contacted for this story, a White House spokeswoman said, "If we have a comment, we'll call you back." They never did. But according to Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris Conway, Pentagon policy may be ambivalent when it comes to soldiers posting pictures of mutilated war victims. "There are policies in place that, on the one hand, safeguard sensitive and classified information, and on the other hand protect the First Amendment rights of service members," he says, adding that field commanders may issue additional directives. "In plain English, if you're on the job working for the Department of Defense, you shouldn't be freelancing. You should be doing your duty."

If American soldiers in the field are always considered representatives of their government, international law clearly prohibits publishing and ridiculing images of war dead. The First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions states that "the remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked." The first Geneva Convention also requires that military personnel "shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged."

No one can reasonably expect a war without war crimes. But thanks to modern communications technology, photographic evidence of its brutality will always be with us. Roughly two hundred soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan document their experiences in online "milblogs," and digital cameras are ubiquitous. No one can stop soldiers from posting pictures of eviscerated corpses for all to see, and no one should ever again be able to feign ignorance of war's human cost. Or so you'd think. Yet in the days since the European press uncovered the gore-for-porn story, not a single US print newspaper other than the Express has touched it.

Representatives from Amnesty International and Human Rights First even refused to comment, although both organizations ostensibly exist to condemn just this kind of practice. Perhaps no one wants to give Chris Wilson more publicity, or daily editors are too sensitive about being viewed as unpatriotic. Or perhaps the story is just too ugly to contemplate.

Americans have thousands of media outlets to choose from. But they still have to visit a porn site to see what this war has done to the bodies of the dead and the souls of the living. One of the pictures on Wilson's site depicts a woman whose right leg has been torn off by a land mine, and a medical worker is holding the mangled stump up to the camera. The woman's vagina is visible under the hem of her skirt. The caption for this picture reads: "Nice puss -– bad foot."

We have decided to make available some of the photos originally posted on NowThatsFuckedUp.com, along with the soldiers' original subject headings. This decision was not made lightly, but we concluded that the graphic nature of the photos, juxtaposed with their flippant treatment by members of the US military, is newsworthy. WARNING: These are brutally graphic war images that many readers will find disturbing. They should NOT be viewed by children or the faint of heart. That said, you may find them here. Click on the small photos to view the larger photos with captions.

Chojin
Sep 26th, 2005, 04:22 PM
I saved everything on the first page and am going to show it to my girlfriend's cousin that just signed up for the reserves :o

With any luck, McClain will be by shortly to yell at me.

kellychaos
Sep 26th, 2005, 04:52 PM
LINKY (http://abum.com/download/7839/things_for_sale.jpg)

kahljorn
Sep 26th, 2005, 05:19 PM
It's sad, but that's what happens when you send a bunch of idiots off to war. Sending anyone off to war can do that to you, killing people has a way of desensitization. Probably some kind of psychological defense mechanism.

mburbank
Sep 26th, 2005, 05:23 PM
Here's what I find most interesting about that story.

Wilson did not speciffically ask for dead body shots to get a free membership. He asked for photos of 'life in Iraq'. This is what soldiers chose to send.

I've said it before. The things people are asked to do in war will make them crazy.

For the record, I don't really care about the porn part. People under no stress whatsoever look at all kinds of porn all the time. I've no doubt people seperated from their partners and under unimaginable stress want to look at it even more.

It's the using photos of mutilated corpses as currency that's insane. I'd think it was just as nuts if they were trading them for gum or cigarettes (and I'd put money on the table they do) .

If this story finally gets some US press (and I hadn't heard anything about it), you can our government will take action. They'll cut off soldiers access to the internet, take away their digital cameras. But the mutilated bodies will still be there, even if no one trades pictures of them for porn.

kahljorn
Sep 26th, 2005, 05:31 PM
Wouldn't that be interfeering with the first amendment in alot of ways..? I mean, all they did was take some pictures of something that actually happened to earn a buck or two. CNN has done that for worse reasons, and for more money.

Geggy
Sep 26th, 2005, 07:15 PM
Multiple possible reasons the press is keeping it on the down low. One is they want to prevent people from gaining access to the site while it's up and running. You'd be surprised how easy it is to search and find the link to the site. They'd wait until the webpage has been stripped off the internet. But that won't be definite until the goverment can convince Wilson to take it down. There's going to be an ongoing debate with wilson backing the first amendment rights in his arguments. If and when the government succeed after pulling the trigger to wilson's head and close the site, the press can announce the public of the situation and how wilson died of accidental death.

Number two, how would you feel if you've found out your son/daughter serving the war in iraq doing things like that? I'd be shocked and devastated. I'd feel like a failure. It's like what bill hicks says "my biggest fear is dying a tragic death and my parents are going to raid my apartment and find a stack of my porno collection." Except that it isn't PORNO, it's something even worse, they're DEATH PICTURES.

Three, America has a reputuation to protect. They want to be viewed by the world as good. Yet they're STILL too blind to see that the reputuation has already been ruined.

El Blanco
Sep 26th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Wilson did not speciffically ask for dead body shots to get a free membership. He asked for photos of 'life in Iraq'. This is what soldiers chose to send.

Could it be that they realized that these gory pictures would get more attention (and probably a faster response with free pr0n) than a bunch of dudes in fatigues changing a tire on a hummer?

Sethomas
Sep 26th, 2005, 08:50 PM
Good point. Now I see where there coming from.

ziggytrix
Sep 27th, 2005, 11:04 AM
Wouldn't that be interfeering with the first amendment in alot of ways..? I mean, all they did was take some pictures of something that actually happened to earn a buck or two. CNN has done that for worse reasons, and for more money.

Soldiers are not press. Unless I'm mistaken, they do not have any guarunteed right to have cameras or internet access. Those are priviledges the Pentagon can revoke at any time.

mburbank
Sep 27th, 2005, 12:51 PM
I think anyone who believes in this war should have those pictrures as required viewing.

Not because I don't think there's an argument to ber made for the Iraq war, but because I think a real view of the actual toll of war should be part and parcel of waging war.

War is serious business. It should always be the very last resort, avoided at all costs, not a team sport or as our president presents it, a cowboy movie.

kahljorn
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:10 PM
"America has a reputuation to protect"

Only an american would think that.

"Soldiers are not press. Unless I'm mistaken, they do not have any guarunteed right to have cameras or internet access. Those are priviledges the Pentagon can revoke at any time."

Do you have to get some kind of license to be a journalist? I mean, I couldn't just write a story right now and submit it if i wanted? Also, I can't own a personal journal? Gauranteed rights to have a camera? Best buy.

This is possibly the stupidest thing to worry about in the world. "People died and somebody took a picture of it, I hope we can see more about this story on the news! MAYBE THEYLL SHOW THOSE HORRIBLE PICTURES!"
Who cares. It's a dead fucking body. There's dead body's all over the world. America IS living up to it's reputation as a bunch of assholes, but i don't really see how taking pictures of dead bodies is a bad thing. At least they weren't having sex with them, although I'm sure that happens too.
Welcome to the world of war. Bad shit happens. Anyone who's acting surprised and outraged is stupid, and anybody who blames someone who's been killing people possibly for months for doing something immoral is being rather ignorant of the fact that they've been killing people for a few months.
Don't want people taking pictures of dead bodies? Don't go to war. Unless you want your cake and to eat it too! "We'll kill thousands of people but we'll still be nice, kind hearted meek people who follow all of the ten commandments". yesh, yesh.

mburbank
Sep 28th, 2005, 10:30 AM
I think you underestimate the naivete of the American Public. I think most people believe you can throw young men and women (practically children if you ask me) into the meat grinder of war and not just expect, but assume they are abiding by a set of rules and won't get driven crazy.

ziggytrix
Sep 28th, 2005, 10:41 AM
Do you have to get some kind of license to be a journalist? I mean, I couldn't just write a story right now and submit it if i wanted? Also, I can't own a personal journal? Gauranteed rights to have a camera? Best buy.

You miss my point. You aren't a soldier. US military personnel do not have the same set of rights as US citizens. They aren't supposed to be goofing off with corpses and cameras in a fucking warzone, and if the Pentagon adopted a no-camera policy for the troops to deal with this, it would violate no law of which I'm aware.

glowbelly
Sep 28th, 2005, 11:40 AM
i don't really care about the porn, either...but our "enemy" might. i mean this is just fuel for islamist radicals to hate western society even more.

plus, it's just plain wrong.

KevinTheOmnivore
Sep 28th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Oh jeez, that's the least of it!

Don't get me wrong, this thing with the corpse photos is fucking horrible, and it should be stopped (it's in this area that I would be more concerned about insulting religious tradition-- be it Islamic, Jewish, or Christian, for that matter). There's nothing respectful about that, and all the hardships of Iraq aside, we needto demand more than that of our troops.

As for offending radicals with porn-- I have a pretty strict policy about ignoring the concerns of head-chopper offers'.

glowbelly
Sep 28th, 2005, 11:51 AM
what did texas do to you? ;)

KevinTheOmnivore
Sep 28th, 2005, 11:53 AM
It made me a man.......and by that, I mean it had its way with me. :(

ItalianStereotype
Sep 28th, 2005, 01:24 PM
I remember that night. everyone in Texas lined up for it.

kahljorn
Sep 28th, 2005, 01:33 PM
"They aren't supposed to be goofing off with corpses and cameras in a fucking warzone, and if the Pentagon adopted a no-camera policy for the troops to deal with this, it would violate no law of which I'm aware."

Wow. I didn't know that. You know, I also didn't know this matter concerned you. Are you one of those sharp court lawyers? You wear a suit while you're posting online to represent your position... your position of sharpness.
Is there a no-camera rule? That's kind of stupid. If someone wants to take a picture of something and sell it, even if it's for porn, that's their right. And fuck military laws, those are filled with ideas of "Honor" and shit(dont cheat on your wife! In a nasaly tone). Something about honor and killing thousands of people don't mix too well, especially on the basis of what this war is exactly.
Don't want them trading pictures of dead bodies for porn? Pay them some more fucking money. I dont see other members of our society risking their lives(Which although have absolutely no value to us, has plenty of value to most of them).

"i don't really care about the porn, either...but our "enemy" might."

I doubt israeli's would really get more pissed. They have this thing called a God-rage. Believe me, it's not going to be subsided if every american quits masturbating. In all honesty, they don't care what we do. They don't hate us for something we did in the past century or two, they hate us for everything we've done for the past, i don't know, 2 and a half millenia?



"I think most people believe you can throw young men and women (practically children if you ask me) into the meat grinder of war and not just expect, but assume they are abiding by a set of rules and won't get driven crazy."

Yes, and here we are on a message board, "Not filled with the naivete American Public". The outrage based on this subject should be small and unsurprised. I mean, it's commonly known that men who go to war wear clunky armor and carry around original porn pictures, the very first kind from the early 1900's, of women fucking pony's. That's a common thing! :)

mburbank
Sep 28th, 2005, 03:38 PM
I am far more outraged at the american press for basically refusing to cover this.

mburbank
Sep 28th, 2005, 03:53 PM
I take it back. As of 2 hours ago, CNN started reporting on this story. In the way of the American press, now that one major outlet has reported it, other major outlets will report that it's being reported.

Dr. Boogie
Sep 28th, 2005, 03:54 PM
I actually saw an AP story about how the army is starting to investigate the matter. It mentioned a website, but didn't give the address, or any real details of the matter.

kahljorn
Sep 28th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Well, that's good. I wonder if they'll call the people doing it "Bad soldiers" or if it will actually be attributed to the war.

kellychaos
Sep 28th, 2005, 04:02 PM
depends on the press who's covering it

mburbank
Sep 29th, 2005, 09:48 AM
It's just a few thousand bad apples.

ziggytrix
Sep 29th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Wow. I didn't know that. You know, I also didn't know this matter concerned you. Are you one of those sharp court lawyers? You wear a suit while you're posting online to represent your position... your position of sharpness.

What? This concerns me because I'm a US citizen, and these soldiers represent my country.


Is there a no-camera rule? That's kind of stupid. If someone wants to take a picture of something and sell it, even if it's for porn, that's their right. And fuck military laws, those are filled with ideas of "Honor" and shit(dont cheat on your wife! In a nasaly tone). Something about honor and killing thousands of people don't mix too well, especially on the basis of what this war is exactly.
Don't want them trading pictures of dead bodies for porn? Pay them some more fucking money. I dont see other members of our society risking their lives(Which although have absolutely no value to us, has plenty of value to most of them).


OK, lemme put it this way. If a soldier puts down his gun to get out his camera, he's not doing his fucking job. Is that clear enough for you? Unless he's doin recon an on-duty soldier doesn't need a fucking camera! He is not a reporter, he is not a pornographer, he's a fucking soldier, and he needs to be doing his god-damned job, not jacking off on dead enemies.

kahljorn
Sep 29th, 2005, 04:48 PM
"OK, lemme put it this way. If a soldier puts down his gun to get out his camera, he's not doing his fucking job. Is that clear enough for you?"

Yea, cause you know, they never get breaks and stuff. Did you know when they sleep they also cuddle with their guns? I mean, sure, there's been a few rough cuddling incidents where someone twitched a bit in their sleep and blew off some body parts, but other than that they are absolutely enamered.
Also all bodies are picked up immediately by a representive of God's Mortuary service. Where you don't just die, you get a free photo of you sitting on god's lap. Won't your friends be jealous.


"What? This concerns me because I'm a US citizen, and these soldiers represent my country. "

lol. Yes, they represent you and your interests. The fact that they "Represent your country" means you should shut your trap and let them trade pictures of dead bodies for porno. Not like they are living it up there. Nothing like an ice cold glass of bullets flying at you.

Chojin
Sep 29th, 2005, 05:07 PM
I personally don't have a problem with it at all, if this is really what it takes to get some footage out of Iraq.

Dupes
Sep 29th, 2005, 10:11 PM
I don't see why any pressure is coming down on these particular soldiers. Regardless if pictures are taken or not, these people are dead and that's that. If anyone is going to start to protest, don't be protesting at a bunch of soldiers who are doing their jobs. The reason those people are dead and mutilated is because our president started a war in that country, and shit like that tends to happen in war. This whole thing is being overlooked because a bunch of soldiers just wanted to get a commodity for free that I'm sure they don't tend to get frequently. I'm not saying that it's normal to take pictures of mutilated corpses for free pornography purposes, but I don't think this should be blown into a big deal that could possibly get any soldier involved in trouble. In my opinion, these people displayed in the photographs are dead, and whether or not their image is found on tv or the internet or whatever makes no difference, because the simple fact remains that they are dead. That's my opinion.

ziggytrix
Sep 29th, 2005, 10:13 PM
Yea, cause you know, they never get breaks and stuff.


Silly me, I forgot after blowing someones face off they get a smoke break.


lol. Yes, they represent you and your interests. The fact that they "Represent your country" means you should shut your trap and let them trade pictures of dead bodies for porno. Not like they are living it up there. Nothing like an ice cold glass of bullets flying at you.

I never actually said I had a problem with them taking pictures of dead bodies, tho going that extra mile to dress em up and make it "funny" is pretty damn sick. I'm just saying part of being in the service means following orders, and if you're ordered not to take pics, then that's that.

kahljorn
Sep 29th, 2005, 10:29 PM
"Silly me, I forgot after blowing someones face off they get a smoke break. "

I suppose the posibility that they had been dead longer than 30 seconds is a bit of a stretch...

"I'm just saying part of being in the service means following orders, and if you're ordered not to take pics, then that's that."

Okay. You know, I heard this story once that was I think is relevant to this topic. You see, there was this young boy, 17 years old or so... and he wanted to join the army. His family said no, but he did it anyway. He went through vigorous training, and went to fight in the war. He was incredibly heroic, and stuff happened. Well, anyway, it ended up that when he joined he signed with blood, so he had apparantly made a deal with the devil! And I'll be damned, he never had freewill again.
Shame, poor lad.

I don't think most of those soldiers really care about being there or "In the service"

davinxtk
Sep 30th, 2005, 01:40 PM
kahl, stick to causing headaches in philosophy discussions.

kahljorn
Sep 30th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Davintx stick to being outraged for popular support on more familiar issues, like why women don't like your smelly armpits. "It's natural," You'd say, "I just don't understand why they don't want to stand within a 4 foot radius."

You're only getting a headache because you can't think of anything to say to me. You're duped, funked out, hopeless, deranged. You can't think of any one single reason why taking pictures of dead bodies is a bad thing other than by saying it's a moral outrage(which you can't describe). Of course the media is evil, you might say, it takes pictures of bad things that usually only hide in my closet.
It breaks the rules man. Which rule? Gravity. Oh man, that's a sure crime! People in the service don't care about the rules, they are most likely there because they are poor and can't get another job, although I'm sure a few joined for the noble purpose of it all. I wonder which one of those two categories are taking pictures of the dead people? Probably the later.

Up next on news at 9, "Boogieman caught by mysterious supermoralistichero davintx and ziggytrix.. what a fighting team. Although delighted they had finally caught the closet hoping menace that had kept many children awake-- wide-eyed-- at night they have refused to allow pictures to be taken of the boogieman for fear it might cause political tension between our world and the Monsterswholovetokillandeateverythingandeveryone. Also, it goes against the monster-hunters code of honor."

GAsux
Sep 30th, 2005, 03:56 PM
I dig the "military is full of poor people" argument. It's entertaining.

They don't care about the rules, they're just poor. What choice did they have?

kahljorn
Sep 30th, 2005, 04:12 PM
I said the later group was more likely to break the rules, you poor illiterate sap. Now look, I'm saying poor people are illiterate saps. Jesus. Where will my prejudice end.

CLICK9
Sep 30th, 2005, 06:20 PM
I don't get why the military is strict about not letting you send pornography in care packages to soldiers (or anything that is contrary to Islam), but they let this go. Because it's not tangible pornography?

GAsux
Sep 30th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Kahl,
No need to get butt hurt, I wasn't specifically calling you out. Just noting that it seems to be a common stereotype.

As for the military not allowing porn in care packages, it has to do with customs in the host nation. Packages, baggage, etc is subject to search. In the ME porn is not real high on the happy list.

Internet porn is different because they have no real way to monitor it.

CLICK9
Sep 30th, 2005, 06:30 PM
ah. yo comprendo.

kahljorn
Sep 30th, 2005, 07:14 PM
It is a common stereotype, probably because it's true. Alot of people join the military for money, not to go to war or for the 'lifestyle'.

davinxtk
Oct 1st, 2005, 03:44 AM
bullshit bullshit bullshit . . . You're only getting a headache because you can't think of anything to say to me. You're duped, funked out, hopeless, deranged. You can't think of any one single reason why taking pictures of dead bodies is a bad thing other than by saying it's a moral outrage(which you can't describe). . . . more bullshit bullshit bullshit ad nauseam

The best part about your verbal diarrhea is that it's completely misdirected. I wasn't even taking a side in the argument. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a flying fuck in a rolling doughnut wether our soldiers are jumping rope with insurgent intestines and making trophies out of skulls. It's going to piss off the locals, sure, but other than that they could fuck a corpse and see if I give a shit. I agree (with Ziggy) that they're misrepresenting the whole of America by doing these things, but at the same time the whole goddamn war misrepresents America.
I was, however, specifically referring to your short-bus worthy analogy in the post immediately prior to mine. You don't even look like a douchebag, you're the used juice flowing out of a dirty twat. If you're ordered not to take pictures, you're ordered not to take pictures. Just like most employers don't allow cell phones, the military doesn't, generally, allow photogaphs of corpses to be taken (and if they were aware that they're being used as currency, those orders would carry even more weight). You don't need some farcical contract-with-Satan analogy, you're just being a fucking tool.

Dole
Oct 1st, 2005, 10:21 AM
Fucking hell. What a world.

kahljorn
Oct 1st, 2005, 08:01 PM
You could almost think I was making a "Short-bus" analogy to mock your intelligence level. I thought it had a nice moral to it. Join the army you sell your soul to obey all rules and lose your free-will. I heard they replace their brains with cybernetic ones.

"If you're ordered not to take pictures, you're ordered not to take pictures. Just like most employers don't allow cell phones, the military doesn't, generally, allow photogaphs of corpses to be taken (and if they were aware that they're being used as currency, those orders would carry even more weight)."

You know, the funny thing about that is it's true, just in a completely unrelevant way. Do people still talk on their cellphones at work? Yes... my point was that they do, your point was they're not supposed to? Last I checked we were talking about human beings, they have this free-will that's generally self orientated. Have you ever taken a job for the rules? No. You took it for the money or some other self-interest. That's what they do, too.
Casting blame on them for using a "Currency" is kind of weak.

davinxtk
Oct 2nd, 2005, 12:32 AM
Alright, Kahl, the overall point I'm making is that I agree with you, but your points are weak. The employer/army analogy was weak, admittedly, but not because of the rule-breaking involved on both sides. It was weak because one is TGI fucking Friday's and the other is THE UNITED STATES ARMY. Who should be enforcing their rules more strictly? Which one can levee a court martial if their rules aren't followed? What's in your head?

And no, it's not the slightest bit off to blame them for using pictures of war casualties as currency. In fact, that's what the entire thread is about, you useless twat. I can't believe I really have to quote the Geneva Convention to get the point accross, but "the remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked."

I, personally, don't give a rat's ass; but the outrage is justifiable and to argue that it's not is just plain stupid.

kahljorn
Oct 2nd, 2005, 01:07 AM
"It was weak because one is TGI fucking Friday's and the other is THE UNITED STATES ARMY. Who should be enforcing their rules more strictly? Which one can levee a court martial if their rules aren't followed? What's in your head? "

I didn't make the statement that, "People who go to work have to obey rules just like the army does, they say not to talk on your cellphone... etc." Kayo? Notice the playfulness?

"If you're ordered not to take pictures, you're ordered not to take pictures. Just like most employers don't allow cell phones, the military doesn't, generally, allow photogaphs of corpses to be taken (and if they were aware that they're being used as currency, those orders would carry even more weight)."

That was the quote, which i quoted right above it... who are you arguing with, honestly. I hate people who can't decifer simple things like quotation marks... and what other people in the thread have said. A little obsessed with me, maybe?


Yea, well, like i said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a rule. I was saying who cares if there's a rule for it, it's a stupid thing to be outraged about. That's the nature of war. Haven't you seen hollywood movies about Vietnam? Raping villagers, injecting soldiers with lsd?
You can't blame them for breaking under the pressure. Most of the people there probably didn't expect to be there. It's so pointless to even wonder about, there's always prisoners being tortured and ridiculed.
Regardless, what outrage can any of you afford, you're not even in iraq. Fighting in some corrupt army that doesn't really give a shit about you. Do you think it was somebody who did it to undermine the entire functionality of the world? No. Do you think he did it to cause moral decline? No. What bad thing occured? Because he traded for porn? Who cares, better than him lusting after women and raping them, or buying cheap iraqian hookers.
Your outrage is only there because they traded it for pornography. If it had been for food to feed starving iraqians it would've been okay.. or if it was for money to send home.. but because it's pornography? I don't see you giving that 5 dollars to march of dimes. You're just ashamed of your lustful nature and want to see it banished from anywhere in your mind.

:lol2

davinxtk
Oct 2nd, 2005, 01:46 AM
I'm clearly outgunned here.

kahljorn
Oct 2nd, 2005, 02:58 AM
Clearly sir. I brought my gloves and my ak47's >:

ziggytrix
Oct 3rd, 2005, 12:09 PM
The captions that accompany these images, which were apparently written by the soldiers who posted them, laugh and gloat over the bodies. The soldier who posted a picture of a corpse lying in a pool of his own brains and entrails wrote, "What every Iraqi should look like." The photograph of a corpse whose jaw has apparently rotted away, leaving a gaping set of upper teeth, bears the caption "bad day for this dude." One soldier posted three photographs of corpses lying in the street and titled his collection "DIE HAJI DIE." The soldiers take pride, even joy, in displaying the dead.


I honestly wouldn't give a fuck, were it not for these idiots making themselves out to be gleeful crusader/murderers with these stupid fucking captions. Wouldn't the pic be good enough without putting "OMG I totally pwned this towelhead!" underneath it?