I haven't seen the pics and from the descriptions, do not want to - and do not need to, since I alrady have the views they would help encourage as described.
Unlike some here.
There people in the 1960's who liked to ignore the injustices against blacks - but when confronted with photos of Sheriff 'Bull' Connor scaring black kids with police dogs and fire hoses, couldn't ignore the issue so easily, and recognized that wasn't the country they were proud to be in, and such shifts led to support for ending segregation after 100 years.
We have just the same - and worse - types in this forum today, posting 'F the terrorists/muslims'.
Except they're not defending not letting them eat at 'white' restaurants, they're defending far worse human atrocities, but have the same bigotry.
Such photos are useful for decent people. Not for some here, who still don't care, as the bad people they are.
There used to be people who could go to an Indian/Native American village and burn it and the men, women and children, and not see anything bad about it. Clearly the Germans had people who could tolerate operating the machinery of the holocaust. There are many such examples of bad people who dehumanize others and defend evil.
I haven't seen one person address the OP's topic of the media censorship of such photos and the propagandistic issue of doing so.
A big factor of our going to war one time, the first Iraq war, was the national publication of the story of Iraqis stealing incubators, killing infants, to manipulate the American voter into sympathy for Kuwait and hatred for Iraq - stories wholly lies for just that purpose, told by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US to Congress, in a campaign organized by a US advertising firm, hired by the Kuwaiti government, working with the agency's office headed by the former chief of staff to the then-President Bush.
Where was the accountability for that propaganda? There was none - the powers that be wanted it, to let them go to war by getting support from the public with propaganda.
In WWI, there was legitimate outrage over the German sinking of the Lusitania - despite the German government warning they'd sink it if they sailed it into the blockade zone, taking out big newspaper ads next to the ads advertising the voyage warning people not to sail it because the German government would sink it if it sailed.
But was wasn't legitimate was the British government spreading the story later to whip up support for the war that the Germans had printed commemaritive medallions praising the sinking, and having the German children celebrate the anniversay of the sinking - lies to stir up outrage, hate, for war.
Stories of propaganda - in particular propaganda to build support for war - are very important. Including the propaganda of repressing atrocities your side commits.
When Stalin massacres thousands of captive Polish military officers, he blamed the Nazis - to hide his own crime and build support for war.
If the truths of AbuGhraib have been suppressed, that's a big problem in our 'free information society'.
But not one response about the issue.
Some people are so brainwashed they'll defend the action just because of which side it helps - all of the ok examples are 'ok' because they agree with the side it helps to lie.
Some of those supporters of lies and proaganda are posting here, not offering any more than a confession nothing done to Muslims can be wrong in their opinion.
They're the monsters, as bad as or worse than the committers of atrocities they rightly or wrongly claim to be against. They're the immoral enemies of the human race.
Give them the power of the world's most powerful nation protecting them, the safety, and they'll use it to only get even more extreme in their defense of lies and atrocities.
Anyone who wonders how a Holocaust could happen can look to them for the answer. They are guilty of the same type of defense of wrongs, even if the wrongs are different.
The only thing they pay attention to is did the atrocity get done by 'their side', and if so it's ok, period. They might condemn some - but there will be a 'but' on it.
Ya, we did something wrong BUT here's an excuse why it's ok to ignore it/minimize it.
Unlike some here.
There people in the 1960's who liked to ignore the injustices against blacks - but when confronted with photos of Sheriff 'Bull' Connor scaring black kids with police dogs and fire hoses, couldn't ignore the issue so easily, and recognized that wasn't the country they were proud to be in, and such shifts led to support for ending segregation after 100 years.
We have just the same - and worse - types in this forum today, posting 'F the terrorists/muslims'.
Except they're not defending not letting them eat at 'white' restaurants, they're defending far worse human atrocities, but have the same bigotry.
Such photos are useful for decent people. Not for some here, who still don't care, as the bad people they are.
There used to be people who could go to an Indian/Native American village and burn it and the men, women and children, and not see anything bad about it. Clearly the Germans had people who could tolerate operating the machinery of the holocaust. There are many such examples of bad people who dehumanize others and defend evil.
I haven't seen one person address the OP's topic of the media censorship of such photos and the propagandistic issue of doing so.
A big factor of our going to war one time, the first Iraq war, was the national publication of the story of Iraqis stealing incubators, killing infants, to manipulate the American voter into sympathy for Kuwait and hatred for Iraq - stories wholly lies for just that purpose, told by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US to Congress, in a campaign organized by a US advertising firm, hired by the Kuwaiti government, working with the agency's office headed by the former chief of staff to the then-President Bush.
Where was the accountability for that propaganda? There was none - the powers that be wanted it, to let them go to war by getting support from the public with propaganda.
In WWI, there was legitimate outrage over the German sinking of the Lusitania - despite the German government warning they'd sink it if they sailed it into the blockade zone, taking out big newspaper ads next to the ads advertising the voyage warning people not to sail it because the German government would sink it if it sailed.
But was wasn't legitimate was the British government spreading the story later to whip up support for the war that the Germans had printed commemaritive medallions praising the sinking, and having the German children celebrate the anniversay of the sinking - lies to stir up outrage, hate, for war.
Stories of propaganda - in particular propaganda to build support for war - are very important. Including the propaganda of repressing atrocities your side commits.
When Stalin massacres thousands of captive Polish military officers, he blamed the Nazis - to hide his own crime and build support for war.
If the truths of AbuGhraib have been suppressed, that's a big problem in our 'free information society'.
But not one response about the issue.
Some people are so brainwashed they'll defend the action just because of which side it helps - all of the ok examples are 'ok' because they agree with the side it helps to lie.
Some of those supporters of lies and proaganda are posting here, not offering any more than a confession nothing done to Muslims can be wrong in their opinion.
They're the monsters, as bad as or worse than the committers of atrocities they rightly or wrongly claim to be against. They're the immoral enemies of the human race.
Give them the power of the world's most powerful nation protecting them, the safety, and they'll use it to only get even more extreme in their defense of lies and atrocities.
Anyone who wonders how a Holocaust could happen can look to them for the answer. They are guilty of the same type of defense of wrongs, even if the wrongs are different.
The only thing they pay attention to is did the atrocity get done by 'their side', and if so it's ok, period. They might condemn some - but there will be a 'but' on it.
Ya, we did something wrong BUT here's an excuse why it's ok to ignore it/minimize it.
Facebook
Twitter