Topic awaiting preservation: Irony? (Page 1 of 3)

Both of these photos were taken off an internet-based newspaper on the same day. One from iraq, another from the U.S.

any thoughts?




[This message has been edited by asptamer (edited 04-26-2003).]

Do you *actually* believe Rumsfeld derives pleasure from civilian casualties?

Perhaps it is worse for the Iraqis now that they don't have this to look forward to anymore. The decision to go in just isn't as simple as you seem to suggest. We go in and some people will die in the process, this is true and it sucks! But if we don't go in, stuff like the article would have continued and far more people would be dying. Why do you champion the decision with more blood? Do you know that Hussein's regime killed more Muslims than anyone else in history? These are things I think about that just boggle my mind when I see a post like this, asptamer.

I assume Asptamer wanted to denounce what the American governement called "The cleanest war of History". If the intention is good, the form is not as good.

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

Irony?

No...I'd call it your own sickness to equate the two.

And once again, there's no such thing as clean war, but there is no denying this has been a whole lot cleaner than any of the major wars (mainly because this hasn't been a major war...), so I really don't get the point....?

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-26-2003).]

Irony? Here are some examples:

Military Intelligence

Political Ethics

Pretty Ugly

Brilliant Moron (i.e.Bush)

Microsoft Works

They are oxymorons whilst GW Bush is just a......

ahhhh the irony

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

"Microsoft Works" , he he, I never realised it but its funny on so many levels.
Does me writing he he, make me evil too. thats just a picture of him smiling.

DL-44 said: "And once again, there's no such thing as clean war, but there is no denying this has been a whole lot cleaner than any of the major wars"
I'd have to agree.

That photo on the top left has obviously been manipulated.

What clues allow you to say that ? The only thing I can notice is a small difference between the foreground and the background, but I think it's mainly dued to a zoom.

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

the lighting and blur inconsistancies are due to a camera shift, not a photoshop... though i'm curious as to whats on the boys face

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

Irony? That's like woody and bronzy, except it's made out of iron...



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

[Edit: Made my point, no need to keep making people download images]

Man, he is cold...



[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 04-29-2003).]

lol
I love Wangentein's post... I thought I'd avoide such comments by saying that the pictures I posted were taken the same day.

And as far as equating goes, I just remember that news broadcast which said that they found a tape of osama bin laden rejoicing after the 9/11. Their mission was accomplished too... very clean mission. And perhaps, OBL never took "personal Pleasure" in killing innocent people either.

So is it my sickness to equate the two? maybe... maybe we all are just too biased. I'm to make a post like this, and you're to criticize it as a complete COINCIDENCE.

It has nothing to do with sickness. You choose to equate the two. I am questioning your choice and your reasoning.

I seriously doubt it was Rumsfeld's goal to hurt innocent Iraqis to topple Hussein. It was, however, OBL's deliberate intention to kill as many US citizens he could to achieve his greater goals. Do you see the difference at all between the two? Even just a little?

quote:

---

What clues allow you to say that ?

---

1. Blood is NOT that color.
2. You can clearly tell that someone has poorly attempted to add a flake of skin peelin from the boys face.

My guess is, that photo was originally a photo of a kid covered in a lot of dirt and rubble. Notice there is no blood on either of the people carrying the little boy. Notice that the kid is wiping something out of his eye instead of wencing in pain from bleeding.

It's clearly obvious. I don't know how you can think it's real MS.

What does Osama bin Laden have to do with anything?

I doubt asptamer posted the two photos to show Rumsfield was happy about the child being in pain. I think its to show the various viewpoints of the war. Here Rumsfield is obviously joyous over the success of the war but not everyone feels his joy. While plenty of administration officials benefited from the war, very few of them were put in any harms way, as opposed to the many Iraqi citizens who died.

Jestah

yes I definitely see the difference. and much of a greater difference than what you've said.

and my choice? well, like I said, my choice was very biased. I'm tired of reading how you all think that it was such a great thing that people dont have to be tortured anymore. What about all those people who fought for saddam? they were just fanatics? that's a lot of fanatics.
And of course, all wars have civilian casualties, or should I say Invasions - not just wars. So yes, I understand that Rumsfeild is saying "YES! We got em!" about the regime, oil, etc; and not about little children dying. Duh. That's why I call it "irony" and not "look how bad americans are"

Saddam is gone - that's a good thing perhaps. Dictatorship is an effective way to rule the country, but judging from history, all of them (dictators) have blood on their hands. So does bush (law lets the president act as a dictator in case of war). That is an example of the blood stains on his shirt.

In even other words, the purpose of the post is to contrast the ideals, and perhaps open people's eyes at what ALSO going on, besides liberation, change of torture to democracy (and perhaps a court of law), shitload of free oil, world's awe at our immense military power, and other goodies.

Insider.. .one thing totally revealed the fraud to me... and you missed it

look at the boys arms.. esp the left.... there is no shadow cast.... i think the whole image itself is a PS...

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

Insider, Sanzen: Why the hell should somebody fake a picture of a wounded child? It´s not like there aren´t enough real ones.

and what does osama bin laden have to do with it?

American media (and gov't) used the fact that he rejoiced at our trajedy as the proof of him making it possible.
So any 'good' reporter could've made an article with two pictures, one of with OBL dancing, and the other with people covered in blood running away from the crashing towers, or corpses being dug out of the rubble.

I used the same analogy. it's called BIAS. it's meant to make you brainstorm on the issue, and gives u a headstart as to in which direction you should be thinking : )

When you shoot with flash - there IS NO shadow. And the blood looks decent to me. Stop saying it's photoshop. Even if this particular image is edited, I can give u 10 more (or just go browse some news websites) with other kids dead or covered in blood.

Just a quick question:

How do we know who is responsible for hurting the child in that picture?

:::krets.net:::

you're right krets... the boy could have probabbly come from one of Saddam's torture chambers. Or his father got drunk and beat the living shit out of him. So the locals decided to put all the blame on the war, and United States...
Same thing probably happened to 1000s of other people. In fact, the war was so clean, that all iraqis just surrendered, and noone died... hmmmm

I don't think that was the point at all. I don't think anyone here knows how that particular boy was injured.

And I don't think anyone here is saying that our bombs and weapons didn't kill innocent civilians. Only a complete fool could think that so it is hardly worth mentioning. War *always* kills innocents, that is a given.

The point is that I don't think we should be drawing a moral equivalence between what the US has done and what OBL did on 9/11. The only way you could do that is if you can see no moral difference between the Islamist agenda and the US agenda. I'm sure plenty don't see any difference but it is hard for me to understand how one can believe that.

U.S. agenda??? What do you know a bout U.S. agenda?

Keep one thing in mind: What kind of cause do people need to hijack planes and smash em into buildings of the biggest city in the country? Do you honestly not understand that their message was "OPEN YOUR EYES" ???
So do you think U.S. agenda is so much different from OBL's in it's cruelty if OBL picked THIS KIND of revenge? Or wait, I'm not sure everyone understand that that was a revenge, NOT AN ATTACK. IT's a bloody revenge, but very effective. Got everyone's attention. Too bad not many people know what U.S. did to get this kind of hostility. Is it just the israel? I dont know. I just know that the cause was great. Just like ours.

So is it much different? Only in the way that OBL used "terrorism" and U.S. used it's army.

You don't know why OBL attacked? Why don't you take him at his word? I actually believe he did it for the reasons he has stated.

...which were?
I must've overlooked that

I knew you were going to ask me what his words were. He has written several letters since this all began. Here is the text from just one of them: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30999

This excerpt, especially the bold face, really is the crux of his agenda.

quote:

---

We also stress to honest Muslims that they should move, incite, and mobilize the [Islamic] nation, amid such grave events and hot atmosphere so as to liberate themselves from those unjust and renegade ruling regimes, which are enslaved by the United States.

They should also do so to establish the rule of God on earth.

The most qualified regions for liberation are Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, the land of the two holy mosques [Saudi Arabia], and Yemen.

---

How much history of that region have you read? How familiar are you with Islam? Let me know so I don't have to waste time covering stuff we both already know.

MW, its call propaganda/media...

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

~looks up these new words in a dictionary~... aah, hmm, I see...

AGAIN: There are lots and lots and lots of authentic pictures of Iraqi children injured in this war. And if there were not, one could use a picture of an Iraqi child hurt in an accident years ago. Or of a child that isn´t Iraqi at all.
So WHY would someone make the effort to actually manipulate a photo to show things that can be seen on lots of real photos? Makes about as much sense to me as faking a picture of bush standing in front of a crowd of rednecks waving US flags. Sure I could fake it, but why not just go to the Republican homepage and download it? Dig?

quote:

---

We are following up with great interest and extreme concern the crusaders' preparations for war to occupy a former capital of Islam, loot Muslims' wealth, and install an agent government, which would be a satellite for its masters in Washington and Tel Aviv, just like all the other treasonous and agent Arab governments.

This would be in preparation for establishing the Greater Israel.

Allah is sufficient for us and He is the best disposer of affairs.

---

... ok, so he (OBL) is a religious fanatic, like many others.
But the bottom line is, not all arabs want U.S. to intervene. That's understandable.

Is it possible to completely eliminate terrorism by destroying the current govermnent in Middle East? I doubt it... I think it will just bring more bloodshed. I hope I'm wrong - and once the u.s. is done invading - arabs will become a truly peaceful nation.

asptamer:

You know, I was against this whole war thing from the very beginning and I'm not one of Rumsfeld's biggest fans, but I have to say your post has me a bit worried....
**************************************************************************************
".... if this particular image is edited, I can give u 10 more (or just go browse some news websites) with other kids dead or covered in blood. "
**************************************************************************************
Are you trying to tell us that you have a collection of these type of pictures? If so, please do us all a favor and try not to post all of them. Thanks.

One more question. Do you have any photos of what you were doing that day?

MW can you honestly look at that photo and say that it is authentic. there are many reasons why someone might PS an image when you can get something similar somewhere else...

maybe they did it for fun
maybe for practice

but that image just doesn't look right

{edit - wow, i'm like ... dyslexic today}

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

[This message has been edited by Sanzen (edited 04-27-2003).]

I'm still really confused as to what point you might possibly have asp...

Yep, I can find you all kinds of tragic photos.

I can find all kinds of pictures of joy and celebration.

I'm absolutely *positive* I can find them from the same news source on the same day.

Will they mean anything? No. And neither do your set...I'm at a complete loss as to how this says anything one way or the other about anything whatsoever.

Yep, war is messy, people get hurt. Even innocent ones. Funny thing about bombs and bullets and flying debris - they can't tell the difference.
Is that terrible? Yes. Is Rumsfeld an evil bastard? Yes. so........????????

ok... so I'm sick, biased, ignorant bastard who makes pointless posts... that's the impression I'm getting from some of the opinions...

But am I the only one who actually sees the irony in that pair? Or acknowledges that they are indeed related, as in not completely random? That's too bad.

related? no. besides the fact that they're in the same newspaper in the same day... and an internet paper at that. any person could go through a paper and copy 2 pictures from any random place in the paper and make the SAME correlation you made.. and it will still make no sense.

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

ok... last reply. Here's the correlation:

1) Pictures taken on the same day
2) United States was bombing Iraq at that time (April 11, 2003)
3) Iraqis receive heavy civilian casualties
4) U.S. Secretery Of Defence rejoices at the progress the United States troops have made so far.
5) The left picture depicts that progress.
6) Mind you, that by april 11 it was far from over.

I guess for some of you that is still "no relation whatsoever." I cannot argue that, and dont want to. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, or perspective when presented with something controvercial (?)

So Bugs you sound so certain about the Bin Laden letters.. I wonder.. did you see him write them?

quote:

"I don't think anyone here knows how that particular boy was injured."

you dismiss that scenario but all yours are facts and reliable truth ... tell me please how do you differentiate?


...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-27-2003).]