HOW MUCH DO YOU WANNA SEE?

[HairOfTheDog]

Today the NY Post is being condemned for having a photo of James Foley with an IS terrorist holding a knife to his throat on its cover.

Twitter is suspending accounts depicting any graphic imagery associated with Foley's beheading yesterday.

There were also a lot of demands for the video showing Foley and his captor just before and after his beheading to be removed from the youtube site yesterday.

Do you think it's wrong for those images to be shown because only pictures of James in good times should be publicized -- outta respect for him and his family, or because the images are too ugly, or because showing the images only gives terrorists the attention they want, or for any other reason?

Those are common sentiments that I've read this morning.

I have strong opinions about it, but am really curious about how others here feel.

[Maggot]

Like I think that the death penalty should be televised because without the knowledge of what happens to assholes being beamed into peoples brains to discourage acts of unspeakable atrocities, so should this video be left out there for everyone to see the examples of human depravity that roam the earth. A more powerful message of anger towards the terrorists without morality has not been seen since Hitler and his cronies have tried to take the world and all its good people to the showers.
People need to see these things if they chose to want the reality of it all. The mans life should mean something and if his death and the brutality of it all destroys a few hundred of the mongrels its worth it.

[Duchess]

Do you think it's wrong for those images to be shown because only pictures of James in good times should be publicized -- outta respect for him and his family, or because the images are too ugly, or because showing the images only gives terrorists the attention they want, or for any other reason?

I think all the world should see the images. I choose not to view the video, I kept hearing LC in the back of my mind imploring me not to watch the Nick Berg beheading. She watched it & it haunted her. I don't like censorship, if others feel as I do they too can choose not to look.

Everything I've read about James has led me to believe he would want it to be seen. That's why he was over there, he wanted the world to see his photographs, to see the stories he was telling through them.

[Blindgreed1]

It's a good question and one that needs debating because I'm definately on the fence on this. On one hand I agree with Maggs. It could be an effective deterrant if it can be proven as an effective deterrant (not sure there's been a lot of study on whether or not it is effective). On the other side is the family's right to privacy. There are too many ignorant people in this world to trust throwing it up on youtube or twitter for them to make their usual hurtful comments about something they have absolutely zero first hand information on.

[Duchess]

I just listened to Jim's parents speak, it made me cry, the kinda silent cry where a tear slides down your cheek. They are strong & brave. They addressed the terrorists who held their son and begged them for mercy regarding the others they are holding. The Mom said the terrorists knew that Jim was no threat to them, that they (the terrorists) viewed him as a symbol of America. They said their son is their hero.

[sally]

I'm on the side of the family's right to privacy. If that was your loved one would you want the graphic pictures posted all over the internet? Reading about it is good enough for me, I don't need to see the pictures or videos at the family's expense.

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't like censorship either; people can't always avoid seeing things that disturb them, but they can look away.

I also agree that as a photojournalist who wanted to show and tell a first-hand account of war and it's casualties, James Foley likely wouldn't have wanted the images and the story suppressed.

I don't believe that showing the images or telling the story uncensored will deter killers, though it may deter some journalists from choosing to cover the region (understandably).

But, I agree with Maggot that the brutal reality should absolutely be accessible to those who want to be informed and look at it without sugarcoating -- that honest view can lead to stronger united resistance and spur action that will hopefully result in weakening the terrorists.

It's very sad that James Foley was killed in such a terrible way, even though he knew the risks and chose to be there. And, it's equally sad that other adults and children who were there before the terrorists and have survived the civil war or occupation have been executed because they don't embrace the Islamic caliphate.

Carsman says "war is hell" and he's right. It's hard to look at, but I think it's dangerous not to have the opportunity.

[Carsman]

I'm on the fence on this just like BG1. On one hand there's the family's right to privacy that they should have. However, on the other hand it may behoove the world to see the brutal atrocities of those cowardly mother- - - - - - s, murdering a defenseless person simply because he was an American. Damned if you do, & damned if you don't.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I don't they should be censoring the images for that kind of thing. I think they should warn folks, but should show it. People need to see just how bullshit violent these assholes are.

[cruehead]

I am not into watching people die. I wouldn't watch the video. I don't need to "see" it happen to not think it isn't happening. we all know that kind of fucked up shit goes on...kids don't need to be seeing that kind of shit, sorry. I am not down with censorship but it does have its place as far as kids are concerned... and with that being said I do think adults should be able to view it if they choose to. just don't see why anyone would want to watch that kind of sick shit. for some people in here to say that you need to see it in order to believe it and see the brutality of terroist(basically) is just a crock of shit as far as I am concerned...9-11 did that already

[HairOfTheDog]

for some people in here to say that you need to see it in order to believe it and see the brutality of terroist(basically) is just a crock of shit as far as I am concerned...9-11 did that already

Personally, I don't visit gore sights, not my thing. And, I don't gain any insight from seeing victims of car accidents and such, so I choose not to look at them.

But, for me, when it comes to what's really going on and who's who in war zones and conflict areas where the US is directly or indirectly involved, I know there's a lot of confusion, spin, propaganda and agenda-based reporting. Sometimes seeing the true colors of a person or group doing what they do reveals more of the story and can affect perceptions. It can also change the course of events. That's not only true with acts of extreme violence, it's true in general. That's one of the reasons that I appreciate photojournalists like James Foley.

I think it's important for people to see what's happening, IF they so choose. Seeing that video yesterday made it even more clear to me what the people terrorized in Iraq and Syria are dealing with on a daily basis. It made me glad that the US had not (to the best of my knowledge) armed the Syrian rebels last year; IS is the leading rebel faction in the country. Hearing and seeing James Foley read the scripted message he delivered gave me a little clearer view as to the American stake in Iraq and Syria. Reading another person's second hand account of it in writing would not have had the same effect on me.

The video jolted action from German and French leaders to commit support to the Kurdish community fighting against IS in Iraq. It prompted British PM Cameron to return from vacation to address the Iraq/Syria crisis more urgently and start the investigation into whether it was a British jihadist who carried out the beheading. It prompted headline stories about the number of western fighters now physically fighting for IS forces and how different countries are monitoring that activity as a part of their homeland security. It got some people who haven't been following the news to take interest in what the US is doing in Iraq and weigh in. These are not the same terrorists as ⁹⁄₁₁ and many of the factors in play are different, as I see it.

Seeing it may not have have affected your thinking as it did mine and others, though, and I understand why you heeded the warnings of graphic content and chose not to look. I don't think all people who choose to look are sick, just like I don't think all people who choose not to look are weak.

As for kids seeing such images, it wasn't stated in the OP that the question was specific to adult viewing, but that's what I intended. It's up to parents to determine what their kids can access, IMO.

[Donovan]

I viewed the Daniel Pearl video.

I wish I hadn't.

That is never coming out of my head.

The purpose of terrorism is widespread dissemination so people can be shocked and frightened. The ISIS people, maybe underestimating the anger of this county when it gets annoyed, will probably regret their acts in a short while. We have lots and lots of ways to blow up lots and lots of brown people from far away.

[Cutz]

Not when the images are on Youtube. I agree with crue. It's great to think that adults can access stuff that they protect their kids from seeing, but Youtube is teenager feeding grounds and kids know it better than 90% of adults. When you make graphic images available for the world to see, you make them available to children. Even if parents could censor their kids properly, there's millions of adults that aren't that good at parenting.

I think it's on media outlets to censor themselves tho. The family's right to privacy ends at them not being bombarded with images of their son's death. Having the video available for people that look for it is not the same thing. I doubt his parents are scouring the net looking for it. The Twitter tidbit is weird to me, but tbh I don't know their graphic images policy. There's some truth to the "don't watch it because you're giving the terrorists what they want" argument... but not watching it wouldn't stop them.

At the same time, I object to using it as motivation to hate terrorists. I'm not some pacifist, but the same way I think the guy administering a lethal injection shouldn't hate the criminal he's killing... I don't think soldiers should hate the people they're fighting. Stopping terrorist organizations is an important duty for the world to undertake, but when you hate the people you're fighting, that's when soldiers start raping women and children and bombing civilian's homes.

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't disagree with you, Cutz.

Parents can't control everything that their kids access -- that's not limited to terrorist acts and other acts of extreme violence. I know it's a challenge for a lot of families.

When I was linked to the video from a news site yesterday, I had to log in to verify my age. That won't keep all kids out, of course, but you can only do so much and it's up to parents to do their best. I don't think the internet should be void of adult content because kids have access to the internet.

Igniting hate is not something that I advocate. Knowledge and a view of what people who are in the war/conflict zones are facing is something that I don't think should be suppressed. IMO, it should be each adult's choice and people have very different reasons for wanting to view or not to view all different types of content.

[blueberryhill]

The public has traditionally been protected from graphic images. I have never agreed with that. We (all of us) need to know how evil this world can be. I have always believed knowledge is power and we need to see these atrocities to fully understand what goes on in this world. We can't bear to look at what other human beings actually go through. It is time to take our heads out of the sand and take a good look at what is going on. Don't know the answer to protect kids from this, but probably showing graphic pictures would not be appropriate for TV viewers.
It is difficult for me to believe that the IS member in black who beheaded Reporter is British and that they have cells all over the World. This is scary and this organization is much more sophisticated and has more money than previous terrorists (did I read that on here; probably Hair posted this). Heck, they are probably dressing like Mexicans and crawling over the Southern borders as we speak....I had relative say she was more worried about Ebola than terrorists. I told her to quit exchanging bodily fluids and she should be o.k. ⁹⁄₁₁ didn't make us safer but did increase our awareness. Witness the numerous breaches of security. I saw the aftermath of destruction and falling bodies (so horrific), but I was not up close and personal as some poor souls.

[blueberryhill]

By the way, I did not watch video, although family said their son died to show just how evil these guys are. Sorry I did a double-post.

[Carsman]

for some people in here to say that you need to see it in order to believe it and see the brutality of terroist(basically) is just a crock of shit as far as I am concerned...9-11 did that already

Personally, I don't visit gore sights, not my thing. And, I don't gain any insight from seeing victims of car accidents and such, so I choose not to look at them.

But, for me, when it comes to what's really going on and who's who in war zones and conflict areas where the US is directly or indirectly involved, I know there's a lot of confusion, spin, propaganda and agenda-based reporting. Sometimes seeing the true colors of a person or group doing what they do reveals more of the story and can affect perceptions. It can also change the course of events. That's not only true with acts of extreme violence, it's true in general. That's one of the reasons that I appreciate photojournalists like James Foley.

I think it's important for people to see what's happening, IF they so choose. Seeing that video yesterday made it even more clear to me what the people terrorized in Iraq and Syria are dealing with on a daily basis. It made me glad that the US had not (to the best of my knowledge) armed the Syrian rebels last year; IS is the leading rebel faction in the country. Hearing and seeing James Foley read the scripted message he delivered gave me a little clearer view as to the American stake in Iraq and Syria. Reading another person's second hand account of it in writing would not have had the same effect on me.

The video jolted action from German and French leaders to commit support to the Kurdish community fighting against IS in Iraq. It prompted British PM Cameron to return from vacation to address the Iraq/Syria crisis more urgently and start the investigation into whether it was a British jihadist who carried out the beheading. It prompted headline stories about the number of western fighters now physically fighting for IS forces and how different countries are monitoring that activity as a part of their homeland security. It got some people who haven't been following the news to take interest in what the US is doing in Iraq and weigh in. These are not the same terrorists as ⁹⁄₁₁ and many of the factors in play are different, as I see it.

Seeing it may not have have affected your thinking as it did mine and others, though, and I understand why you heeded the warnings of graphic content and chose not to look. I don't think all people who choose to look are sick, just like I don't think all people who choose not to look are weak.

As for kids seeing such images, it wasn't stated in the OP that the question was specific to adult viewing, but that's what I intended. It's up to parents to determine what their kids can access, IMO.

I have said it before and I'll say it again.

HotD is one wise woman, she articulates sentiments precisely!

She is spot on!

[HairOfTheDog]

I viewed the Daniel Pearl video.

I wish I hadn't.

That is never coming out of my head.

The purpose of terrorism is widespread dissemination so people can be shocked and frightened. The ISIS people, maybe underestimating the anger of this county when it gets annoyed, will probably regret their acts in a short while.

The Pearl decapitation video was difficult for me to watch as well, Donovan -- heartbreaking. So was the Foley video.

The full Foley video adheres to the same sorta propaganda strategy in attempt to instill terror -- condemning American intervention in the Middle East, exploiting the hostages' family connections (for Pearl it was his Israeli Jewish heritage; for Foley the fact that his brother is an American serviceman), and making demands of the American govt and threats against American citizens.

But, the Foley video is much more professionally produced. Neither one terrified me; both made me more confident that caving into the terrorists behind them would be rewarding them for murder and would encourage more such savage acts and blackmail attempts.

The airstrikes in Iraq were not stopped or scaled back after the video was distributed and I think you're right that American military action will likely be stepped up, not down, in response to the Foley video. If so, I hope it's well thought-out action with clear goals, rather than an opportunistic reaction that winds up backfiring and leading to more civilian casualties without much gain in eradicating terrorist activity.

The public has traditionally been protected from graphic images. I have never agreed with that. We (all of us) need to know how evil this world can be. I have always believed knowledge is power and we need to see these atrocities to fully understand what goes on in this world. ...It is difficult for me to believe that the IS member in black who beheaded Reporter is British and that they have cells all over the World.I had relative say she was more worried about Ebola than terrorists. I told her to quit exchanging bodily fluids and she should be o.k.

While I understand the arguments on both sides, I feel the same way as you do about it, in regards to myself as a concerned observer with a stake in what's happening around the world.

Anyway, I don't think anyone should be made to look at things that disturb them. Likewise, I don't want anyone to prohibit me from looking at news because that news disturbs them (and disturbs me).

Interestingly enough, the al-Qaeda member who was convicted and sentenced to death in Pakistan for the beheading of Daniel Pearl was also a British national (of Pakistani descent) -- he's appealed the death sentence.

Your advice to your relative made me laugh.


P.s. thank you, Cars.

[HairOfTheDog]

Scotland Yard has warned people in the UK that watching, downloading or disseminating the video purporting to show the beheading of American journalist James Foley could be treated as a criminal offence.

The Metropolitan police said on Wednesday that it is investigating the contents of the video under its counter terrorism command, indicating that its public use or its being shared online could be seen as a criminal offence under the UK’s terrorism legislation, the Guardian reported.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/...cial-media

Absurd, IMO.