Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

31 Killed in Iraq, 200 injured - Iraqi lives not worth reporting eh? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Bombings have become even more constant and terrifying in Iraq since the Americans came in. The country is in an even worse state.
    Rubbish. Modern bombings didn't even exist until the Americans got involved in the Middle East. Coincidence? I think not. Consider the first case of bombing in the Middle East: the King David Hotel bombing, where Zionist Israelis bombed a hotel full of British diplomats whilst disguised as Arabs.

    The only threat for citizens in the West are their own governments.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could not agree more with you, OP.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandy95)
    Boring you say? So were you entertained when you heard about the boston bombing then?
    It would be wrong to assume that it is a form of positive entertainment. I'd say the poster was referring to the interest it sparked due to it being such a developed country, and it led to connotations of his/her city being attacked by a Terrorist. Realistically, it doesn't interest him/her as much as the way of life is totally different, and they don't think it could happen to them.

    That's human nature really, people only really take notice if it affects them somehow. Just look at the education system, if something isn't on the specification or they won't get graded on it, then they won't learn it.

    I was entertained by my History lessons at High School on Nazi Germany, but that doesn't make me a bad person, it's mere interest. The above poster may have been entertained, but in a negative way. The logic you imply seems to suggest that anyone interested in some sort of military history is entertained, and therefore a bad person.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChampEon)
    Rubbish. Modern bombings didn't even exist until the Americans got involved in the Middle East. Coincidence? I think not. Consider the first case of bombing in the Middle East: the King David Hotel bombing, where Zionist Israelis bombed a hotel full of British diplomats whilst disguised as Arabs.

    The only threat for citizens in the West are their own governments.
    The US brought it on themselves. They invaded Iraq for oil, and there is evidence to suggest the threat was very small, and Bush was told this.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordVoldemort1)
    Reporting every single one of them would be ''boring'' you say? Whether it is in Iraq, or the US they are bomb blasts. PEOPLE ARE DYING.

    You, are an idiot to the very highest degree.

    Go back to reading your fashion magazines.
    That's not really what they said though, they didn't say they didn't care about Iraq. The media chooses what to report and what not to report so they're more likely to cover the stories that attract the most attention and will cause the public to have a reaction. As Iraq's in the news so often,of course it's still horrible but we tend to become immune to the things that happen there as they happen quite a lot. But in this case, a place where there is no known conflict, like America and at a large gathering, like the marathon it is more likely to get widespread coverage.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    The US brought it on themselves. They invaded Iraq for oil, and there is evidence to suggest the threat was very small, and Bush was told this.
    I agree wholeheartedly. It was, and always is, all for the US government's greed and love of oil. It just kills me to know that it's always the innocent who suffer and die as a result of these actions, be it in the Middle East or the West.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandy95)
    No but before the US invaded, there was a government that prevented those so-called 'religious loonies' from wrecking the country
    Yes there was, a government that was hugely opressive and engaged regularly in genocide. To be honest, I fall on the side of the 'devil you know' argument, but most don't, so I don't bother arguing it when it's not already the subject of the argument.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    The US brought it on themselves. They invaded Iraq for oil, and there is evidence to suggest the threat was very small, and Bush was told this.
    Herp Derp. 'It was for teh oilz!'

    Oh wait, the US import a tiny amount from Iraq, net imports have fallen and cost the US more since the invasion and US companies were frozen out of biding for new oil contracts.

    But yeah, they totally did it to get all the oil, don't let facts and figures get in your way.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This is something I abhor, but it's not as easy as Iraqi/Muslim leaves being less valuable than Western lives. Well, it is in a sense, but not in an inhumane way. A bombing in the States or UK evokes empathy from the Western audience, which is a stronger emotion than the sympathy we may feel when an Iraqi person is dead. Generally, we know little about their lives: they are cultural strangers and have an associated (negative) stigma. We know how people in the West live, they are supposed to to be shielded from bombings. The feelings we have towards the Middle East is diluted from all of the conflict in the last few years.

    It's worse in Africa given that many more people die daily from disease but do not get reported. We know this is happening so there is little point in conveying daily death figures.

    Personally, I'm Iraqi so I can relate to this a whole lot more, but I can understand why the reporting isn't as prevalent. It makes more sense to focus far more on the Boston bombings.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Herp Derp. 'It was for teh oilz!'

    Oh wait, the US import a tiny amount from Iraq, net imports have fallen and cost the US more since the invasion and US companies were frozen out of biding for new oil contracts.

    But yeah, they totally did it to get all the oil, don't let facts and figures get in your way.
    So why do you think America went to war with Iraq?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    This is something I abhor, but it's not as easy as Iraqi/Muslim leaves being less valuable than Western lives. Well, it is in a sense, but not in an inhumane way. A bombing in the States or UK evokes empathy from the Western audience, which is a stronger emotion than the sympathy we may feel when an Iraqi person is dead. Generally, we know little about their lives: they are cultural strangers and have an associated (negative) stigma. We know how people in the West live, they are supposed to to be shielded from bombings. The feelings we have towards the Middle East is diluted from all of the conflict in the last few years.

    It's worse in Africa given that many more people die daily from disease but do not get reported. We know this is happening so there is little point in conveying daily death figures.

    Personally, I'm Iraqi so I can relate to this a whole lot more, but I can understand why the reporting isn't as prevalent. It makes more sense to focus far more on the Boston bombings.
    There is more done in the West for charity causes abroad then charities at home. Most money given to charity goes to third world country's.

    We have poor people on the street here yet they're given nothing whilst immigrants are granted asylum and homes. Homes are not being built to house homeless people, but immigrants.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandy95)
    Boring you say? So were you entertained when you heard about the boston bombing then?
    Sadly, lass, this is the case. Humans are drawn to action, loud sounds and all sorts, especially modern humans in this day and age of tech and movies and whatnot.

    The fact is, many people's lives are so boring that they're entertained - excited, even - by shocking events and the media capitalises on this with their constant coverage and near-excitedness when reporting.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    This is something I abhor, but it's not as easy as Iraqi/Muslim leaves being less valuable than Western lives. Well, it is in a sense, but not in an inhumane way. A bombing in the States or UK evokes empathy from the Western audience, which is a stronger emotion than the sympathy we may feel when an Iraqi person is dead. Generally, we know little about their lives: they are cultural strangers and have an associated (negative) stigma. We know how people in the West live, they are supposed to to be shielded from bombings. The feelings we have towards the Middle East is diluted from all of the conflict in the last few years.

    It's worse in Africa given that many more people die daily from disease but do not get reported. We know this is happening so there is little point in conveying daily death figures.

    Personally, I'm Iraqi so I can relate to this a whole lot more, but I can understand why the reporting isn't as prevalent. It makes more sense to focus far more on the Boston bombings.
    On the day that the Boston explosions occurred, 30,000 children died. And that's a constant things. I pass over the additional thousands of deaths that also occurred today from human-related actions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    It would be wrong to assume that it is a form of positive entertainment. I'd say the poster was referring to the interest it sparked due to it being such a developed country, and it led to connotations of his/her city being attacked by a Terrorist. Realistically, it doesn't interest him/her as much as the way of life is totally different, and they don't think it could happen to them.

    That's human nature really, people only really take notice if it affects them somehow. Just look at the education system, if something isn't on the specification or they won't get graded on it, then they won't learn it.

    I was entertained by my History lessons at High School on Nazi Germany, but that doesn't make me a bad person, it's mere interest. The above poster may have been entertained, but in a negative way. The logic you imply seems to suggest that anyone interested in some sort of military history is entertained, and therefore a bad person.
    I wasn't suggesting that the poster really found entertaining. What I was trying to get to is that news isn't there to be either boring or entertaining - it should be there just for the sake of knowing what's happening in the world.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    On the day that the Boston explosions occurred, 30,000 children died. And that's a constant things. I pass over the additional thousands of deaths that also occurred today from human-related actions.
    Yes, the point is that it's a constant thing. As I said, when certain incidents are reported and repeatedly happen, the emotion elicited is diluted. I'm not saying that's how I want it to be, or how things should be, but it's the way it is. People are more shocked or horrified that a bomb went off in a marathon than thousands of children dying from HIV in Africa today. Is there morally more value to the lives of the three dead? No.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Yes there was, a government that was hugely opressive and engaged regularly in genocide. To be honest, I fall on the side of the 'devil you know' argument, but most don't, so I don't bother arguing it when it's not already the subject of the argument.
    that 'opressive' government may have killed a few groups - a couple hundred at most but it built hospitals and schools and universities and in the 80s the Iraqi Dinar was worth $3.30. Now, thanks to the americans, all iraqi proffessionals are out of Iraq (working abroad in positions such as proffessors of physics at UCL) there's no health care system and the US has placed corrupt 'politicians' in power who steal all the country's money and keep quiet about what's going on. So i guess i don't buy it when you insinuate that the US is the sweet angel that only tried to make things better.

    One more thing, I'm not going to list all the casualty figures that the US is responsible for in Japan, Korea, Yugslavia, Pakistan and Afganistan because i'd be typing on here forever, but The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad state that 655,000 Iraqis had been killed since the conflict began. Those were killed by the US troops. So, why don't I hear anyone calling the US government opressive?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandy95)
    that 'opressive' government may have killed a few groups - a couple hundred at most but it built hospitals and schools and universities and in the 80s the Iraqi Dinar was worth $3.30. Now, thanks to the americans, all iraqi proffessionals are out of Iraq (working abroad in positions such as proffessors of physics at UCL) there's no health care system and the US has placed corrupt 'politicians' in power who steal all the country's money and keep quiet about what's going on. So i guess i don't buy it when you insinuate that the US is the sweet angel that only tried to make things better.

    One more thing, I'm not going to list all the casualty figures that the US is responsible for in Japan, Korea, Yugslavia, Pakistan and Afganistan because i'd be typing on here forever, but The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad state that 655,000 Iraqis had been killed since the conflict began. Those were killed by the US troops. So, why don't I hear anyone calling the US government opressive?
    I've not said that the US are an angel only trying to make things better, leave your prejudice at the door please lass.

    I'd love to see the study and methodology for those figures, because they're total BS. The number of civilians killed may be up around 200,000 by now, it's difficult to get an accurate number, but what we can be sure of is that the majority of them are killed by the insurjent fighters, although sadly quite a few are accidentally killed by the new Iraqi Army and Police.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm fed up of this forum going through collective growing pains on understanding why a shrapnel bomb, in a peaceful country, going off at the apex of joy in an international sporting event, draws more media coverage than larger scale incidents in countries which are impoverished, war-torn, and where such events happen with much greater frequency. It's incredibly clear cut. Why is there this pointless identity crisis about it? Are we worried about seeming callous about events which have little direct effect on us? Give me a break.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I'm fed up of this forum going through collective growing pains on understanding why a shrapnel bomb, in a peaceful country, going off at the apex of joy in an international sporting event, draws more media coverage than larger scale incidents in countries which are impoverished, war-torn, and where such events happen with much greater frequency. It's incredibly clear cut. Why is there this pointless identity crisis about it? Are we worried about seeming callous about events which have little direct effect on us? Give me a break.
    Couldn't of put it better myself. The amount of chinless wonders on here is amusing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    This is something I abhor, but it's not as easy as Iraqi/Muslim leaves being less valuable than Western lives. Well, it is in a sense, but not in an inhumane way. A bombing in the States or UK evokes empathy from the Western audience, which is a stronger emotion than the sympathy we may feel when an Iraqi person is dead. Generally, we know little about their lives: they are cultural strangers and have an associated (negative) stigma. We know how people in the West live, they are supposed to to be shielded from bombings. The feelings we have towards the Middle East is diluted from all of the conflict in the last few years.

    It's worse in Africa given that many more people die daily from disease but do not get reported. We know this is happening so there is little point in conveying daily death figures.

    Personally, I'm Iraqi so I can relate to this a whole lot more, but I can understand why the reporting isn't as prevalent. It makes more sense to focus far more on the Boston bombings.
    You know what? I agree with you. An Iraqi blood is worth less because we in england and the Us/canada relate less to that culture, and the media jumps on this. What a bitter reality. In addition , 31 people being blown up is not daily or even weekly. It is periodical but not as frequent as you make out.

    I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?

    By the way, can i quote you in my OP? (you bring a new dimension to this, and echoe what some people briefly mentioned earlier)

    Thanks

 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.