[Very OT] Saddam Hanging Video -- Some comments

[Paul King]

On 1 Jan 2007 at 12:33, Madison Kelly wrote:

> Stephen Allen wrote:
> > Madison Kelly wrote:
> > 
> >> Fark took the stance that even though groups like CNN and Fox want to
> >> share it, fine for them, but they wouldn't. For that, I give them huge
> >> props. As they said, it's a snuff film. To me, watching it is akin to
> >> getting everyone out for a good 'ol public hanging. Something that
> >> should have stayed done away with.
> > 
> > I can't agree with this -- It's important for people to see reality from
> > time to time, especially in the western world, where we are so pampered,
> > and often don't realize what's important in life, other than material
> > things.
> 
> I agree that our society (western) is far too detached from reality. The 
> litigious society south of the border is an example of this taken to the 
> extreme. We raise kids in bubbles, shielding them from their own 
> mistakes. The result is a society who can't grasp the simple concept of 
> self-reliance, self-responsibility and that their actions can have 
> consequences.
> 

and I might add to the list, insensitive to the suffering of people in other 
nations as a direct result of American foreign policy.

> Perhaps we should mandate that high-school kids should volunteer at 
> hospitals, prisons, rehab facilities and such. I think that might go a 
> long way in helping turn this around.
> 

That might help with their sense of empathy (we can't have enough of that these 
days), but how do we fix the problem of suffering in other countries if we 
restrict access to frank and open information, which should have been available 
if the "free press" were actually "free"? It is quite a sad commentary these 
days that we have to go to an obscure website if we want a view of the world 
that has not been filtered through government officials, focus groups, and 
other stakeholders in the public relations industry.

> but
> 
> Do you think many people, if anyone, changed one bit because they saw 
> that film?
> 

It certainly would. The vietnam war was relatively un-censored by today's 
standards, and an informed public (thanks to a media that did its job) got 
angry at what was being done in their name and put a stop to it. No one had any 
love lost over Ho Che Minh, either. But the Americans got out, anyway, because 
the war was unjust. 

Similarly, no one is disputing that Saddam is a rotten guy. But if Saddam is 
put on trial, so must the Americal support of Saddam before the first Gulf War 
be put on trial.

> 
> > It should be watched with repulsion, not with enjoyment. It's important
> > for people to see what other people can do to others, and what
> > retribution is all about, whether one believes in it or not. The
> > important thing is that the majority of the world does, when one lives
> > outside of the liberal democracies.
> 
> Wars should be fought with a sense of regret, not excitement. I am a 
> pacifist and do not even kill bugs when I can avoid it. However, if a 
> war broke out, and it was a just war (ie: WWII defending against Hitler) 
> then I would fight. Not with pride, but with regret that it came this far.

Most people would agree with that. But to know that it is just, our media has 
to tell us the truth. This last "Gulf War", now going on longer than the 
American involvement in WWII, should be called the "Gulf Invasion", with 
America and Britain as the main invaders. 

> 
> Most people in our society have never seen death. They have not seen 
> broken bodies. These things are hidden away with surprising efficiency. 
> This is largely why people get excited about war. You see soldiers 
> whooping and hollering as they kill enemy soldiers. Movies glorify and 
> romanticize this. People don't understand what it means though, to see a 
> life end.
> 

I don't think so. It depends on how it is presented. I believe that so long as 
we deny Iraquis a human identity, then it is easy not to feel for them. Once it 
sinks in to our consciousness that at the other end of the crosshairs was once 
a living human being who has a mother, father, and likely sisters and brothers; 
then it is possible to feel for them. But our media has made it easy not to 
feel anything for them, because we never know anything about Iraquis who die; 
we don't even care enough to find out how many Iraquis are dead. If you hear 
from any major media outlet what the numbers are, let me know. On the other 
hand, how easy is it to know how many American soldiers are dead?

> That is why this video is useless in the public, at least in our 
> society. Most people watching this will have no frame of reference more 
> valid than pop-media.
> 

The danger is the that people would know they were being lied to. This had to 
panic Big Media, since the prescence of the video forced both American and 
British media to radically change their official story (BBC seemed to have 
covered it better; not so sure about CNN). As for a frame of reference, people 
in the know saw for certain the "official" story of the quietness and 
cooperation of Saddam was shown to be a farce: he was anything but quiet or 
complacent -- he was clearly rebellious right to the bitter end. And because 
the video was freely available, the media could not be shown up by some wanker 
holding up a cell phone, so they had to report on it also.

<snip -- more valid remarks followed, but I reached my "limit">

Regards

Paul King
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists