I think its disgusting! with the extensive and some what graphic coverage over the past few months, I feel that very few people would be stupid enough not to know the reality of war.
Many a documentry has been made about signicant events in the worlds history without eploiting death to increase viewing figures and profit, why is there now a need to show our fallen heros with it so fresh in all our hearts and minds...
I for one will not be watching as a mark of respect to the familys of ALL who lost there lives, I will not contribute to the BBC's greed.
Aye,
wilson
The only thing that stops your body before you pass out is your mind. Never give in!
If they do show the two soldiers bodies, then the BBC has sunk to a new low...
I fight for my corner and secondly I leave when the pub closes. - Winston Churchill [img]http://www.world-of-smilies.de/html/images/smilies/teufel/smilie_vampire.gif[/img]
well i saw the documentary and the actual scene lasted all of 4 secs i would say. considering the context it was shown in (lots of maimed and dead Iraqis) i dont really know what all the fuss was about in the first place.
it was a bloody good programme as well, exposed a lot of double standards and hypocrisy. they showed in the film al-Jazeera's producer asking the head of Reuters on the phone if Reuters showing dead and captured Iraqi soldiers was a violation of the Geneva conventions, which the guy admitted it probably was. yet u didnt see Reuters being attacked for it did u? wonder why?
u cant help feeling all the controversy over images of PoWs was more to do with effect on US public opinion and a how-dare-the-wogs-show-our-dead-boys mentality rather than any particular concern for the Geneva convention...
all in all id give the BBC another 10 out of 10 for a brilliant documentary.
I agree with Midshipman786. It was a really good documentary. The scenes of the British soldiers only lasted about four seconds maximum and the faces were well blurred out.
The producer at al-Jazeera did make a good point over how misleading it is to show only Iraqi PoWs and casualties.
The al-Jazeera team in Iraq even got on the Iraqis bad side by contradicted what Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf was saying about coalation forces making good progress towards Baghdad.
- Cobalt
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt - then it's hilarious"
Why all the fuss, look at the pictures from the two World Wars and there are Allied dead all over the place, from floating in the sea, to impaled on the barb wire. The are pictures of dead Irqis all over the place on the news. So what are are saying is we must not see our dead soldiers and Airmen, it is a part of war and it is about time people saw war for what it is. Now I had a young lad from this site write to me and say that he could think of nothing better than going to Gulf and dying in battle, I think that every one should be fully aware of just what war means for the man in uniform in a War zone.
Now I agree that wars need to be fought, but people should Know just what they are sending or forces into, and what they have to do to win
Tab wrote:Why all the fuss, look at the pictures from the two World Wars and there are Allied dead all over the place, from floating in the sea, to impaled on the barb wire. The are pictures of dead Irqis all over the place on the news. So what are are saying is we must not see our dead soldiers and Airmen, it is a part of war and it is about time people saw war for what it is. Now I had a young lad from this site write to me and say that he could think of nothing better than going to Gulf and dying in battle, I think that every one should be fully aware of just what war means for the man in uniform in a War zone.
Now I agree that wars need to be fought, but people should Know just what they are sending or forces into, and what they have to do to win
I was going to quote people, Midshipman initially and then Cobalt but there is too much. I'll content myself with a rant.
The two soldiers Simon Cullingworth and Luke Allsopp, as no one seems to have mentioned that they were actually people, were known, the difference between historical footage and this disgrace from the BBC is while you look at footage of the D Day landings and may know that relatives were there, I'd suggest you'd be hard pushed to ID the families.
Even around the time that this sort of thing may have first been shown many people had lost family and the understanding would have been greater.
I forget the number we'd lost at the time the BBC decided to show this dross, about 45 I think, that’s 45 families who don't need their loss rammed down their throats, no matter the political mileage people like Midshipman wants to gain.
The BBC knew who these men were, they knew that the families did not wish the footage to be shown and they didn't care.
Further to this is the manner in which these men died... They were not killed in an assault on an enemy position, they were not killed in an accident, they were ambushed by Iraqis wearing civilian clothing in a town called Az Zubayr on their way to clear explosives to protect the population. Having been attacked Si and Luke were captured and in the middle of a baying mob executed, their bodies dumped in an unmarked shallow grave.
The BBC knew this and showed this footage purely in the interests of ratings with no regard for families’ feelings, just over two years after bomb disposal teams had been tasked to the BBC in London. I say next time push the car through the BBC front doors.
As for Midshipman suggesting that we are cowards, so speaks someone who I suggest has never been there.
The film shots of the Battles of WW2 may be historical footage now, but they wer'nt when they were first shown in the Cinema's across the country, and many of those killed still have relations alive that knew these men.
As I said, there was a greater number of people losing relatives during the war, maybe the common feeling of loss was more compassionate, certainly the BBC showed no sign of compassion.
Only 45 odd lost in Telic so who cares if families are shown pictures of laughing arabs standing over their husbands corpses.
Sorry, I just dont think it's the same thing.
So your argument is that because so many men died in WWII it was OK to show their bodies? At D-Day the men were on their way to liberate the whole of Europe, so surely the fact that those two should be left because they were going to protect one village should extend to the liberators of an entire continent.
Unless you averted your eyes everytime a dead or captured Iraqi was shown on our TV, why don't you get off your oh so high horse? Also, why should the workers at the BBC be subjected to terrorism if the army that they pay for in their taxes can stop it? Just remeber that those two joined up and knew what the risks are, and that we invaded their country...it was never going to be bloodless. Soldiers throughout the ages have fought for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, what gives you the right to belittle that?
Midshipman786 wrote:why exactly do we shy away from seeing our dead? are we all cowards or are we in some sort of denial? this is what wars all about people, death and blood and gore. i feel for the families but they dont have to watch it. but if i were them id want people to see it so we can all see the results of our politicans actions with our own eyes. i want that tosser blair to watch especially an i hope he feels f****** guilty as well.
You need to shut your mouth you cretin.
Think of the families you twat. idiot. Sorry but the mere suggestion that the BBC are justified pisses me off mightily.
'Are we all cowards he says'. Are you serving? Have you seen YOUR child lying on the street surrounded by a bunch of ragheads laughing at the corpse? Have you? Didnt think so. So shut it. You have the sensitivity of a small mollusc.
with the extensive and some what graphic coverage over the past few months, I feel that very few people would be stupid enough not to know the reality of war. 
