Why can't we just create a separate page called (something like) "Images of Iraqi prisoner abuse" or even "Images of Iraqi torture"?
Or if you want to be less partisan about it, how about "Human rights abuses in Iraq" with a warning near the top of the page like "Graphic images below"? Then design the page so that most readers would have to scroll down at least once before seeing any really shocking photos.
The issue is not just that people may be "offended" by seeing nudity or torture. There's also the political aspect: publicizing the images fans the flames. That is, we are not just reporting news; we're making it.
People who don't have a firm handle on mathematics (specifically, probability and statistics) tend to generalize from what they see. Hardly anyone has read about, let alone seen pictures of, the victims of Saddam and his sons. If they see 10 pictures of Iraqi prisoners in Coalition custody, being roughed up, hazed, or possibly even tortured -- they assume:
(a) that the Coalition is doing this on purpose; (b) that the people at the top know about it, maybe even ordered it; (c) that this is just as bad (if not worse) as anything Saddam ever did;
Then it's easy for them to conclude that the Coalition is no improvement over Saddam, which removes the last possible justification for the war/occupation. Therefore, get out now and let al-Sadr and his ilk take over (it's none of our business anyway).
I have tried (but been reverted by user:Rei) to balance the hundreds of thousands of murders under Saddam, and the countless mutilations, tortures and rapes (all kept secret by Iraqi officials) -- with the dozens (at most, hundreds) of similar but usually less serious incidents under Coalition auspices (all being investigated and publicized by American officials and journalists).
Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions, and I'm not trying to change any minds here. But Wikipedia should be NEUTRAL rather than taking either:
1. the side of America-boosters, who want to shrug this whole thing off and say we're still better than those bastards; or,
2. the side that says America is as bad as (or worse than) Saddam's regime, because US forces did things which are just as bad (or worse).
Let's do our best to report how many Iraqis were murdered, tortured, etc. on SADDAM'S watch as well as on Bush's watch. Obviously it's going to be hard to find any pictures of Saddam's victims - one may imagine that possession of a digital camera or CD burner would be difficult for an ordinary Iraqi in the 1990s through March 2003 - and woe to him who says, "Oh, look, I found a CD with a bunch of incriminating pictures".
There hasn't been a single question raised, either by US officials or US journalists, about punishing the people who gave that first disk of photos to CBS. That's a free society in action: find the problems, and fix them.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
People who don't have a firm handle on mathematics (specifically,
probability and statistics) tend to generalize from what they see.
Well, I have a doctorate in mathematics; and I generalise from what I see. I don't accept any 'equation', though, between human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam, and post-Saddam. I wonder why Ed is bringing this up.
Charles
On Thu, 13 May 2004 04:23:29 -0700, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Why can't we just create a separate page called (something like) "Images of Iraqi prisoner abuse" or even "Images of Iraqi torture"?
The legal question: Are you the owner of the pictures that you can publish them on Wikipedia unter GFDL?
My personal question: Why do you need pictures to be shown when writing an entry for an encyclopaedia about torture at all? Is this a picture- book for children? Is Wikipedia in need of getting attention on the cheap way showing pictures that are shocking or erotic to the public?
I have tried (but been reverted by user:Rei) to balance the hundreds of thousands of murders under Saddam, and the countless mutilations, tortures and rapes (all kept secret by Iraqi officials) -- with the dozens (at most, hundreds) of similar but usually less serious incidents under Coalition auspices (all being investigated and publicized by American officials and journalists).
I don't want to start a discussion about the second iraqi war, but just a few points:
- It doesn't matter how many people were tortured by US and british soldiers, the effect on the iraqi public is devastating. After the lie on the weapons of mass destruction the claim of the invasion was the freeing of the people and the end of torture of innocent people. Now it was coming to the public that the soldiers of the US and Britain are doing exactly the same at exactly the same places. - You forgot to count the people that were dying because of the UN-embargo initiated by the US after the first iraqi war. News were talking about more than 100,000 people, mainly children and old people, being dying in lack of medicine and other things.
Let's do our best to report how many Iraqis were murdered, tortured, etc. on SADDAM'S watch as well as on Bush's watch.
That's the neutrality of a moderator of a soccer-game. Doing the same on the number of deaths is a little sarcastic I think.
Obviously it's going to be hard to find any pictures of Saddam's victims - one may imagine that possession of a digital camera or CD burner would be difficult for an ordinary Iraqi in the 1990s through March 2003 - and woe to him who says, "Oh, look, I found a CD with a bunch of incriminating pictures".
What's the purpose of putting a lot of pictures ... oh, I said that already.
There hasn't been a single question raised, either by US officials or US journalists, about punishing the people who gave that first disk of photos to CBS. That's a free society in action: find the problems, and fix them.
Interesting fact is that CBS was not publishing them until they found out that other news-stations are going to do so, because they were asked by the Pentagon to not send them.
Regards, Lothar