US civillian contractors in Iraq

[Illinoisblue]

Temptation got the better of me...

The news reports of an American contractor being captured and then beheaded by terrorists in Iraq roused my morbid curiousity and, a quick surf later (you may know where to look) the movie clip is revealed in all its colourful horror.

It's awful, shocking and quite stomach churning.

But how much sympathy do people have for US civillian contractors in Iraq?

Are they simply 'getting on their bike', looking for work and trying to provide for their families?

Or are they just eyeing up a quick buck and, quite literally, making a profit out of another country's misery? And, as we've seen today, paying the ultimate price.

Thomas Hamilton, the Haliburton worker who escaped from his Iraqi captors has been promised a ticker tape welcome home parade in the small American town where he lives. Him being treated on a par with military personnel doesn't seem quite right. does it?

[Pervert]

Given that some innocent civilian had his head cut off by some evil bastard, you still felt you had to watch the clip? When I hear of a beheading, I assume it's going to be awful, shocking and stomach-churning, and have more than enough trouble stopping my imagination from creating images. Going to see it? Sorry, I don't understand you.

Whether the contractors are looking out for their families or just trying to squeeze a few bucks out of someone else's misery, they don't deserve to be executed by some sick bastards. And I'm sure the murdered man's family will be pleased to know that the world can witness his last moments.

This world sickens me.

[Illinoisblue]

LIke I said, I have a morbid fascination with these things.

I live in Chicago, a few weeks back the local paper printed pictures of the four US civillian workers who were executed and then hung from a bridge. There was uproar that they printed the photos, the Editor had to print a personal message explaining why they did so.

Er, it's a newspaper, its very existence depends on reporting the truth.

People on both sides die horrible deaths in war, perhaps we need to be reminded of that from time to time instead of gorging on the usual 'support OUR brave boys' line that British tabloids spew out.

I can't understand the outrage when papers, websites or Arabic TV stations print or show the TRUTH.

What is the point of a media if not to tell the truth?

[Pervert]

I have problems with using pictures of people being put to death, or dying horribly. One of our lovely tabloids carried a multitude of pictures on September 12, 2001 of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, taking special pleasure in printing enlarged photos of people hurling themselves from the World Trade Center rather thean be consumed by flames. Then it did it the following day; and at the weekend, it carried a special supplement showing the pics all over again. You can do a search on the subject here, I've mentioned it more than once. Knowing that those people had to jump to their certain death was bad enough for me; my imagination could giev me a hint of the terror they'd feel, the awful knowledge of what they were doing. I didn't need a ghoul of a newspaper editor forcing me to watch; and again; and again. I have something called empathy, which means I don't need someone to tell me that the people in those buildings, or on those planes, were terrified.

You're right about the British tabloids and the "our brave boys stuff." The trouble is, the editors assume their readers are morons and speak to them in simple language. The politicians assume the electorate are morons and do exactly the same. And the sad thing is, they may both be right.

Oh, and on the subject of the media, it's nice to know that the American press isn't frightened to show photographs of dead people, or people being killed. A pop star's breast, though----oooh, much too shocking.

I'm not getting at you, IB, just hitting out at the world in general. Don't mind me---nobody else does.

[DavidS]

Your two postings on this topic, Caractacus, are excellent. I have nothing to add.

[jj]

The 'truth' is never simple, and rarely absolute.
The publication of such lurid photographs seldom adds anything to the 'truth': they usually generate more heat than light in the public's mind. It's nothing new- witness the 'baby-killing' propaganda from WW1- one German soldier kills a baby (under very ill-reported and dubious circs), and ALL Germans are therefore baby-killers.
It's only too easy to whip up a frenzy, to demonise and to jingoise.
No news reportage is completely without bias, but there's no need therefore to, um, throw the baby out with the bath-water.

[Illinoisblue]

Of course it doesn't make it alright.

The question I was raising was whether or not people have as much sympathy for civillian contractors who go to Iraq and get caught up in the trouble. Obviously military personnel have no choice but to follow orders, but civillians who choose to go and work in Iraq are, as is horribly clear, taking a big risk.


JJ, you're right about the truth not always being what it appears. Witness the Evening Standard getting in trouble last year for doctoring a front page photo (of a crowd scene gathered to watch Saddam's statue fall, I think) to make it 'look more realistic'. And the paper actually tried to defend themselves. The camera doesn't lie but Photoshop makes it very easy for newspaper editors to!

But in this awful case, the truth is there for all to see.