Tell me why this is not on CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc

[DKW 86 7,423]

http://www.catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=56655

If the world needs to talk about this, then lets have the discussion...

[Tigermike 3,027]

NOTE: It is becoming apparent that an active campaign of censorship is spreading across the internet in a bid to restrict and stifle these videos and other sources of information. Twitter, YouTube, and Live Leak may be participating in restricting viewing of these videos and images by various means. We feel this only stifles the truth at the expense of the world that remains uninformed about what is happening.

This is a censorship issue, and if they can censor this, what next?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

GRAPHIC photos of ISIS atrocities. You are warned.

http://catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=56481

Among these is a photo of a woman being held down on a table while her throat is being slit that her blood may be poured into a bowl filled with the blood of others who were murdered similarly. Also, a father holding his daughter's headless body. Crucifixions of men.

Thought of posting the other day but considered them too gruesome. The world must know who these murderers are.

[Weegle777 78]

Be careful. Some here will say that this is just untrue about these savages. They want to be truthful.......whatever.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Be careful. Some here will say that this is just untrue about these savages. They want to be truthful.......whatever.

Why would they? This region has been volatile and violent in regards to religion for centuries.

This is a extremist group with militant/political/religious aspirations enhanced by being zealots. Much in the same manner of the SS.

[cptau 169]

I don't think this violence and behavior fits with the notion that all peoples of the world can get along if we just have mutual respect, tolerance, and have discussions. Showing these videos indicates there are evil people in the world that can't be dealt with except with deadly force.

There is an element in the Middle East that wants to live like it is the year 1300 under a certain version of their religion and they want the rest of us to do that as well or die.

[cptau 169]

Be careful. Some here will say that this is just untrue about these savages. They want to be truthful.......whatever.

Why would they? This region has been volatile and violent in regards to religion for centuries.

This is a extremist group with militant/political/religious aspirations enhanced by being zealots. Much in the same manner of the SS.

The SS was state sponsored. We destroyed their state, Nazi Germany and the SS went away, or into South American retirement.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Be careful. Some here will say that this is just untrue about these savages. They want to be truthful.......whatever.

Why would they? This region has been volatile and violent in regards to religion for centuries.

This is a extremist group with militant/political/religious aspirations enhanced by being zealots. Much in the same manner of the SS.

The SS was state sponsored. We destroyed their state, Nazi Germany and the SS went away, or into South American retirement.

It was a very very general comparison.

[Wrights_Mill_Road 2]

nothing we can do will bring back the innocent men, women and children slain by these non-human savages. i pray for those people. with that being said, we should do everything in our power to prevent future attacks.

these aren't just savages; they are savages with rabies. though it is sad that Atticus Finch to put down man's best friend, it is necessary as a diseased animal stands to threaten his family.

[homersapien 11,373]

Be careful. Some here will say that this is just untrue about these savages. They want to be truthful.......whatever.

WTF?

Are you seriously trying to make this a partisan issue?

[quietfan 233]

All major news outlets have reported the brutality and crimes against humanity being committed by ISIS. All rational people know them to be true. I don't have to see the actual footage of such atrocities to know they happened, to be repulsed by them, or to believe they need to be stopped.

Obviously, from this linked source and others, anyone who really wants to watch these acts can do so with a simple internet search. And yes, for the benefit of any doubters, the existence of such footage proves ISIS is committing these atrocities. But I don't interpret it as "censorship" or "denial of fact" if the main stream media chooses not to bring actual images of such horror and gore into our living rooms. I'm actually rather glad not to have such horrific footage on my TV during my dinner hour!

One could even make the claim that by watching such footage, one is supporting ISIS. Why do you think they release such footage? ..to gain attention and propagate their terror! Every click on a link showing this footage is, in their minds, another victory for them.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Meanwhile Obama plays golf and does smiling photo ops. Disgusting leadership.

[autigeremt 6,620]

Be careful. Some here will say that this is just untrue about these savages. They want to be truthful.......whatever.

WTF?

Are you seriously trying to make this a partisan issue?

I think this applies to hacks in the media more than those in the forum. At least for me it does. i hope no one here can give "refuge" to this group of maniacs.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Meanwhile Obama plays golf and does smiling photo ops. Disgusting leadership.

And nearly 1000 people in the state of Alabama will die unnecessarily this year because Bentley won't expand medicare because his soul purpose is to defeat Obamacare.

Politicians are self centered puppets that serve their own needs and those of their masters. You know how the game is played.

[japantiger 4,051]

All major news outlets have reported the brutality and crimes against humanity being committed by ISIS. All rational people know them to be true. I don't have to see the actual footage of such atrocities to know they happened, to be repulsed by them, or to believe they need to be stopped.

Obviously, from this linked source and others, anyone who really wants to watch these acts can do so with a simple internet search. And yes, for the benefit of any doubters, the existence of such footage proves ISIS is committing these atrocities. But I don't interpret it as "censorship" or "denial of fact" if the main stream media chooses not to bring actual images of such horror and gore into our living rooms. I'm actually rather glad not to have such horrific footage on my TV during my dinner hour!

One could even make the claim that by watching such footage, one is supporting ISIS. Why do you think they release such footage? ..to gain attention and propagate their terror! Every click on a link showing this footage is, in their minds, another victory for them.

I will address two points raised in this overall topic:

The SS was a state group - the SS was originally a para-military group of the National Socialist political party. They were founded in 1933 with 120 members...quickly expanded to 800 and helped put Hitler in power by murdering most of the military leadership during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. They remained a private or extra-military force until 1939 when they were eventually placed under the control of the German Army hi command. So in this case; the private army was used to gain power; and ultimately became a significant part of the state army.

ISIS is a political movement; that has an army ranging in size from 20k fighters to 50k fighters (Rand Study); that now controls more land than Syria and controls 1/3 of Iraq; and has stolen at least ~$400m in cash from the banks it has plundered. They have captured a steady oil supply generating revenues. It is estimated they make at least $8m a month from extortion and taxes they levy within their occupied territories. They have created 1.5m refugees and murdered thousands. And, needless to say; they have a pretty savvy media machine. My favorite comment on social media was after they captured 5 US helicopters; they said they assumed the US govt would honor the warranties on the birds...

Do we have to see all the ISIS butchery footage - I actually think we do. Since the SS has been brought up here; I liken this to the Holocaust. Rumors of the Holocaust were spread during the 1930's and in WW2; but most of the allied hi command dismissed them; they simply could not believe the scale or the horror being wrought. It wasn't until we actually started to liberate camps that our field commanders understood what was happening; and it wasn't until these images streamed back in newsreels that the Allied populations understood the Nazi horror machine. You see, it was really hard to believe that humans could do that to other humans. This is why field commanders paraded good Nazi party members thru the camps and made them work to clean them up; and why Holocaust films were a post war staple. The Holocaust had to be seen to be believed. I think the same is true with ISIS. Abstract brutality is easy to ignore and distance yourself from. Seeing the image makes it hard for someone to rationalize that they have no interest in it; and that it should not be dealt with. The Holocaust started with the first death camps being erected as early as 1933; most built between 1936 and 1941...the holocaust predated our entry into WW2 by years. Had the American people seen images in the late 1930's; do you think it would have changed US policy toward the Allies prior to our entry in WW2? Do you think the Congress would have passed legislation preventing us from providing munitions, arms, support to England and France like they did (the 1930's Neutrality Acts made no distinction between friend and enemy; or belligerent vs the attacked)? Do you think our policies would have been different?

News organizations should report the news. I don't like censorship...we shouldn't be afraid of the facts (John 8: "and the truth will set you free".).

[homersapien 11,373]

I don't think censorship is an issue here. Exercising editorial judgment to not broadcast these videos is not censorship, especially considering they are freely available for anyone who wants to see it. I think most of the news outlets mentioned have made that clear.

Regarding the Isis media machine, they are relatively sophisticated, but IMO, they have made a real strategic blunder here in terms of PR. For whatever tactical advantage they have gained through their terror, they have succeeded in uniting virtually the entire world against them. They have sown the seeds of their own demise.

[japantiger 4,051]

I don't think censorship is an issue here. Exercising editorial judgment to not broadcast these videos is not censorship, especially considering they are freely available for anyone who wants to see it. I think most of the news outlets mentioned have made that clear.

Regarding the Isis media machine, they are relatively sophisticated, but IMO, they have made a real strategic blunder here in terms of PR. For whatever tactical advantage they have gained through their terror, they have succeeded in uniting virtually the entire world against them. They have sown the seeds of their own demise.

I think calling it editorial license is a great euphemism for censorship...or just bad editorial judgement. That's sort of like the difference between describing Obama as detached in words vs showing the s*** eating grin on his face on the golf course minutes after he made his heartfelt (not) speech on Foley's head being sawed off while he wriggled and screamed. There's nothing like a picture to tell a story.

As to sowing the seeds of their demise; who is going to cause their demise?

[autigeremt 6,620]

Meanwhile Obama plays golf and does smiling photo ops. Disgusting leadership.

And nearly 1000 people in the state of Alabama will die unnecessarily this year because Bentley won't expand medicare because his soul purpose is to defeat Obamacare.

Politicians are self centered puppets that serve their own needs and those of their masters. You know how the game is played.

Yeah, but every one of those 1,000 would live forever with ObamaCrater. jk

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Meanwhile Obama plays golf and does smiling photo ops. Disgusting leadership.

And nearly 1000 people in the state of Alabama will die unnecessarily this year because Bentley won't expand medicare because his soul purpose is to defeat Obamacare.

Politicians are self centered puppets that serve their own needs and those of their masters. You know how the game is played.

Yeah, but every one of those 1,000 would live forever with ObamaCrater. jk

No way.. death panel would get them eventually.

For the footage. Not sure if it should be shown or not. I think in this day and age a majority of America is quite aware of the brutality, so I am not sure it is necessary. The country as a whole is nowhere near in the dark that it was about events in the 30's and 40's.

I understand the purpose of showing the scenes. Though I hate it cause like the woman, that is someone's daughter, wife, possibly mother. We are then using her image to stir the people of our own country for our own needs. So I just really can't decide.

[quietfan 233]

All major news outlets have reported the brutality and crimes against humanity being committed by ISIS. All rational people know them to be true. I don't have to see the actual footage of such atrocities to know they happened, to be repulsed by them, or to believe they need to be stopped.

Do we have to see all the ISIS butchery footage - I actually think we do. Since the SS has been brought up here; I liken this to the Holocaust. Rumors of the Holocaust were spread during the 1930's and in WW2; but most of the allied hi command dismissed them; they simply could not believe the scale or the horror being wrought. It wasn't until we actually started to liberate camps that our field commanders understood what was happening; and it wasn't until these images streamed back in newsreels that the Allied populations understood the Nazi horror machine. You see, it was really hard to believe that humans could do that to other humans. This is why field commanders paraded good Nazi party members thru the camps and made them work to clean them up; and why Holocaust films were a post war staple. The Holocaust had to be seen to be believed. I think the same is true with ISIS. Abstract brutality is easy to ignore and distance yourself from. Seeing the image makes it hard for someone to rationalize that they have no interest in it; and that it should not be dealt with. The Holocaust started with the first death camps being erected as early as 1933; most built between 1936 and 1941...the holocaust predated our entry into WW2 by years. Had the American people seen images in the late 1930's; do you think it would have changed US policy toward the Allies prior to our entry in WW2? Do you think the Congress would have passed legislation preventing us from providing munitions, arms, support to England and France like they did (the 1930's Neutrality Acts made no distinction between friend and enemy; or belligerent vs the attacked)? Do you think our policies would have been different?

You make a valid point that I considered myself before my post.

I agree that, had the world--not just America--seen similar images of Nazi atrocities in the mid-'30's, history may have been much different. But I think the analogy breaks down for several reasons:

Were such images and footage even available in the mid-'30's? How tightly were the Nazis able to protect the secret of their "Final Solution" in those early days? Certainly there were fewer cameras around in those days, and presumably those within the camps themselves (or the Einsatzgruppen) were in the hands of the SS. Also, the Nazis wanted to hide their atrocities from the world, rather than advertise their barbarity for terrorist effect. Much of the footage coming from Iraq/Syria has been released by ISIS itself.

Secondly, even if photographic evidence was available, in what quantity? Could it be passed off as isolated events rather than state policy? Media, in those days, was much more confined than with today's internet which makes it arguably impossible to hide any story, regardless of what the MSM does.

And you are correct in saying people of the 1930's did not want to believe such things were actually possible. Unfortunately, after 9/11, Saddam Hussein, Boko Haram, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and countless others--including Holocaust footage that came to light after the seizure of the camps and the mountains of evidence presented at the Nuremberg Trials--I don't think anyone in today's world has any illusions that it's just not possible.

So again, speaking for myself, I don't have to witness actual footage of ISIS atrocities to know they are happening, and I think most people today feel the same way.

(Incidentally Nazi officials were not the only ones forced to witness and clean up the camps. Within Germany borders at least, ordinary townspeople were also forced to confront the consequences of what they had allowed to happen outside their town, including local civilians who no doubt benefited financially from the presence of the camp and its SS personnel.)

[homersapien 11,373]

I don't think censorship is an issue here. Exercising editorial judgment to not broadcast these videos is not censorship, especially considering they are freely available for anyone who wants to see it. I think most of the news outlets mentioned have made that clear.

Regarding the Isis media machine, they are relatively sophisticated, but IMO, they have made a real strategic blunder here in terms of PR. For whatever tactical advantage they have gained through their terror, they have succeeded in uniting virtually the entire world against them. They have sown the seeds of their own demise.

I think calling it editorial license is a great euphemism for censorship...or just bad editorial judgement. That's sort of like the difference between describing Obama as detached in words vs showing the s*** eating grin on his face on the golf course minutes after he made his heartfelt (not) speech on Foley's head being sawed off while he wriggled and screamed. There's nothing like a picture to tell a story.

As to sowing the seeds of their demise; who is going to cause their demise?

Sounds to me like you are just looking for a fight.

If you want to call it "self-censorhip" fine. But to suggest that exercising editorial license is censorship is just nonsense. No one is forcing them one way or the other. You are trying to imply some nefarious motivation when it's probably just a decision not to expose their audience to such content, especially during the day - or as someone said the dinner hour.

The people who will ultimately cause the demise of Issis are the local and surrounding tribes and populations. So far, Issis haven't really shown the ability to expand from Sunni areas into surrounding Shia areas, and these beheadings are certainly not going to help their cause when you consider that most of their victims are non-Sunni Arabs. This was discussed on several of the news shows this weekend.

Does that help at all?

(Oh, nice segue into the Obama rant. And I sure the rant itself was very impressive to at least several people on the forum. )

Good grief.

[japantiger 4,051]

Homey, if MSNBC, ABC, etc., thought they could promote a liberal agenda; every image would be writ large across the screens. They never fail to put shocking images on screen that supports their editorial position (Darfurn, etc.). So, do I believe they are exercising censorship to promote an agenda...of course I do. It is naive to think otherwise....it also flies in the face of 230 years of US journalists taking sides; particularly since Vietnam.

As to who will stop ISIS; it's a nice theory. What historical fact would lead you to think this a logical conclusion? Please provide one example of an Arab coalition that resulted in anything constructive; that wasn't lead by either the US or Britain. To be a major force, ISIS doesn't need the Shia...a ton of money, oil, terror; and a ton of land; that's a pretty powerful formula for damage.

As to your objection of using Obama's obvious "optical" screwup as an example of how images are more powerful than words; I could have used other examples....but apparently this one hit home. I think my point is proved. It's one thing to say his is disinterested and un-engaged; it's another to paint the picture so vividly. It has to hurt an acolyte like you.

[japantiger 4,051]

All major news outlets have reported the brutality and crimes against humanity being committed by ISIS. All rational people know them to be true. I don't have to see the actual footage of such atrocities to know they happened, to be repulsed by them, or to believe they need to be stopped.

Do we have to see all the ISIS butchery footage - I actually think we do. Since the SS has been brought up here; I liken this to the Holocaust. Rumors of the Holocaust were spread during the 1930's and in WW2; but most of the allied hi command dismissed them; they simply could not believe the scale or the horror being wrought. It wasn't until we actually started to liberate camps that our field commanders understood what was happening; and it wasn't until these images streamed back in newsreels that the Allied populations understood the Nazi horror machine. You see, it was really hard to believe that humans could do that to other humans. This is why field commanders paraded good Nazi party members thru the camps and made them work to clean them up; and why Holocaust films were a post war staple. The Holocaust had to be seen to be believed. I think the same is true with ISIS. Abstract brutality is easy to ignore and distance yourself from. Seeing the image makes it hard for someone to rationalize that they have no interest in it; and that it should not be dealt with. The Holocaust started with the first death camps being erected as early as 1933; most built between 1936 and 1941...the holocaust predated our entry into WW2 by years. Had the American people seen images in the late 1930's; do you think it would have changed US policy toward the Allies prior to our entry in WW2? Do you think the Congress would have passed legislation preventing us from providing munitions, arms, support to England and France like they did (the 1930's Neutrality Acts made no distinction between friend and enemy; or belligerent vs the attacked)? Do you think our policies would have been different?

You make a valid point that I considered myself before my post.

I agree that, had the world--not just America--seen similar images of Nazi atrocities in the mid-'30's, history may have been much different. But I think the analogy breaks down for several reasons:

Were such images and footage even available in the mid-'30's? How tightly were the Nazis able to protect the secret of their "Final Solution" in those early days? Certainly there were fewer cameras around in those days, and presumably those within the camps themselves (or the Einsatzgruppen) were in the hands of the SS. Also, the Nazis wanted to hide their atrocities from the world, rather than advertise their barbarity for terrorist effect. Much of the footage coming from Iraq/Syria has been released by ISIS itself.

Secondly, even if photographic evidence was available, in what quantity? Could it be passed off as isolated events rather than state policy? Media, in those days, was much more confined than with today's internet which makes it arguably impossible to hide any story, regardless of what the MSM does.

And you are correct in saying people of the 1930's did not want to believe such things were actually possible. Unfortunately, after 9/11, Saddam Hussein, Boko Haram, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and countless others--including Holocaust footage that came to light after the seizure of the camps and the mountains of evidence presented at the Nuremberg Trials--I don't think anyone in today's world has any illusions that it's just not possible.

So again, speaking for myself, I don't have to witness actual footage of ISIS atrocities to know they are happening, and I think most people today feel the same way.

(Incidentally Nazi officials were not the only ones forced to witness and clean up the camps. Within Germany borders at least, ordinary townspeople were also forced to confront the consequences of what they had allowed to happen outside their town, including local civilians who no doubt benefited financially from the presence of the camp and its SS personnel.)

Oh,I agree that there was limited info available outside Germany...not really proposing that...I am trying to contrast the words of the Holocaust with the power of one single image...there were widespread news reports of Nazi deportations, concentration camps, extermination and annihilation (words used in news reports). In 1938, the NY Times ran stories for weeks on Jewish murders that simply did not get peoples attention. What they needed to get peoples attention was an image.

Your third point; you have more faith in the knowledge of the American people than me. I saw a survey a couple of years ago that asked people under 30 what the Holocaust was; less than half correctly described it. The American people are fickle and they don't want to know unpleasant things. To most Americans , Mao Zedong is just an image on a Tshirt; in China he is the greatest leader of all time...not the greatest mass murderer of all time...

[AURaptor 1,123]

We should blame Bush and Cheney, for they alone are the reasons all this is happening.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

We should blame Bush and Cheney, for they alone are the reasons all this is happening.

Technically shouldn't we blame it all on Reagan/Bush