“Really Not Appropriate .. For 13-Year-Olds”

June 8, 2005

Dr. Imad Khadduri posted ‘Operation Iraqi Oil’ related pictures at his Free Iraq blog. Some of the pictures were hosted on Flickr, an U.S. Internet picture storage site.

Flickr now seems to have contacted Imad:

"If you could please make private all photos that you have not received explicit permission to post, plus the photos of corpses, whether or not they are U.S. soldiers. War time images of corpses, although a reality, are really not appropriate at all for 13-year-olds, which is the youngest one can be to have a Flickr account."

Some of the pics Imad posted:

—

“War time images .. are really not appropriate at all for 13-year-olds.”

Posted by b on June 8, 2005 at 23:26 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The arrogant, immoral, self-righteous, self-censoring, hypocrisy …
No, the actual sight of corpses, although a reality, are really not appropriate at all for 13-year-olds, thier relatives, the general community, police, soldiers, who are forced to see and experience that reality with thier own eyes … let alone these TAME pictures which bare open window ‘a crack’ to the reality of the horrors of war.

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 8 2005 23:45 utc | 1

We don’t need less pictures, we need MORE.
Perhaps then more people may start to understand that wars have consequences beyond the sanititized, abstract verbage of the self censored media and begin to discuss and question the horribly true cost of Bushes projects to spread ‘Democracy and Freedom. !

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 8 2005 23:52 utc | 2

It’s all about context really. I have had other parents show me some horrible exploitative web sites that they have found their 12 and 13 yo kids on, usually after the site has clogged their puta up with diallers and spyware.
Some early adolescent boys are fascinated by gruesome and foulness beyond the pale. What do parents do? I’m lucky cause my young fella, despite the other difficuties he faces, wouldn’t consider a slink around one of those places the least bit of fun.
Similarly if something awful happened to a child I loved I wouldn’t want some sleazoid trying to milk a cent a clickthru outta displaying a picture of the horror on his site.
Yes it is censorship and we shouldn’t try and hide the real world from our children but not many of us would argue that child sex pornography should be displayed across the net so our kids know what is really going on.
When an iraqui village has just had the shit blown out of it by a cluster bomb do you really think the survivors appreciate cameras being thrust in their faces asking them “how they feel?”
Isn’t our prurient curiosity sometimes just another form of imperialism?
If that vietnamese girl who had her skin peeled off with napalm is still around how does she feel about her misery providing the background for a thousand asinine talking heads?

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 9 2005 0:26 utc | 3

If that vietnamese girl who had her skin peeled off with napalm is still around how does she feel about her misery providing the background for a thousand asinine talking heads?
Phan Thi Kim Phuc – The Human Suffering

The Vietnamese-born peace activitst Kim Phuc Phan Thi is the living symbol of the suffering of innocent war victims. Her image of being burned by napalm during the Vietnam war raised worldwide awareness of the horrors of the war and made her the bearer of the message of forgiveness, reconciliation and tolerance.
She has forgiven, but has not forgotten, and in a commemorative ceremony to the Vietnam War she publicly pardoned the person who had launched the napalm bombing in her village in Vietman. Ever since, she has dedicated her life to promoting peace, and to this end she founded the “Kim Phuc Phan Thi Foundation” (kimfoundmull@sprint.ca). This foundation helps children who are victims of war everywhere by providing medical and psychological help to surmount their traumatic experiences …

Her website and her story is here

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 9 2005 0:46 utc | 4

I don’t want to labour this point and I am pleased that Phan Thi Kim Phuc has managed to turn her horror into something good but many will not be able to do this. We should never try and hide the horror of war but similarly any human being should be entitled to know that their personal tragedy won’t become titillation for the bored.
There is no easy answer to this and there is far too much censorship now. However some of the Abu Graib photos, for example have caused a great deal of humiliation for the subjects. Yet we can’t even argue that their publication has stopped the routine humiliation and torture of Iraqis.
I worked with a mob of people once for whom the mention of their name in front of a 3rd party was humiliation and loss of power. Their name could only be spoken directly to them because knowing someone’s name was to have power over that person.
Yes that was an extreme example but I really do despair that we have all become overwhelmed with horror stories and yet we won’t believe that war is always about pain, disfigurement and destruction unless it is served up in color with stereo sound night after night.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 9 2005 1:26 utc | 5

How do you get people to care?????
They do care JUST for their own…and even that for a short time…others are “collateral damage”…Consequences of behavior like this are probably somewhere in ever rising and growing number of depressed and anxious “wealthy western men” and their daily misery that they have to endure living with depression and anxiety…
I don’t like what I see of human race today…not at all…

Posted by: vbo | Jun 9 2005 2:46 utc | 6

That’s really odd because I know I have come across pictures on Flickr that are of nudity and what would otherwise be considered obscene.
Yahoo! just bought Flickr, does anyone know how much they paid to Republican campaigns?

Posted by: Desert Island Boy | Jun 9 2005 4:38 utc | 7

Point is, the pictures Imad has posted I have seen elsewhere (I can’t swear to this, but I think I recognized them all); they are heart-wrenching pix, but in no way like obscene (except in what they imply, more than they show).
Soooo, like Outraged, I figure it is censorship — Imad has (I suppose) has attracted somebody’s attention…

Posted by: BarfHead | Jun 9 2005 5:01 utc | 8

Any loss of life is tragic, but the most tragic is to see children drawn into the madness of the adults.
Fortunately with today’s “internets” sucxh attrempt at covering the truth are likely futile.

Posted by: Lupin | Jun 9 2005 6:41 utc | 9

The truth is out there…but is ignored largely …except from us who are already outraged because of these crimes…
Others … they don’t want to know…and bombarded with trillions of information daily they have short memory and no conscious… except subconscious and it works against them in a long run…
But children of Iraq and others who are victims, suffer anyway…truth today is not a reason good enough for action of any kind in this ” Americanize world of sleepy conscious “…truth is irrelevant and they (Bushco) don’t even try to hide it any more…they are cynically laughing to all of us while terrible truth is exposed…it makes me seek.

Posted by: vbo | Jun 9 2005 12:51 utc | 10

Dr. Khadduri’s first image reminded me of this but with a difference, of course.
Are we so hard hearted that we can’t weep for any child? Thank our corporate owned and politically controlled media that the whole world can see this but us.

Posted by: beq | Jun 9 2005 14:19 utc | 11

@beq
You’re spot on.
Such photos are approved as fine for our consumption, at any age, but there’s an entirely other motive involved when such photography may lead to identifying with the inhumane suffering of whoever we choose to label as ‘them’ … oh no, that could lead to undermining our projects for the high ideals of ‘Freedom and Democracy’ abroad …

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 9 2005 14:49 utc | 12

It seems to me that the US hesitates between Glorification of war and Normalisation or sanitisation (is that a word?) of war.
On the one hand, one sees ‘support the troops’ (etc.) and many images and icons (particularly moving images) of soldierly glamour and valour, as well as in-your-face nationalism. These last are very prevalent but they mostly stop short of directly suggesting violence towards others. I’m referring to mainstream stuff and it is just my impression.
Photographs of real people and real events are perhaps an exception, as good photographers can say much with simple pictures, editors publish them, knowing no one will be able to object provided the content is PC and G-rated, and some viewers at least will grasp the message or at least appreciate the picture (sales.)
On the other hand, sanitising (that is a word!) statistics, news, and images – censorship – is incredibly strong. Low American death / wounded counts, no pictures of mangled Americans, no coffins, no war images figuring people (Baghdad exploding is another matter) beyond grinning soldiers, etc.
Pictures of tortured, mangle, dead and fly-covered Iraqis do make the grade, are acceptable, at least occasionally. The pictures posted are circulating all over the net, and some of them have appeared in the MSM (maybe not in the US, I don’t know.) They are considered horrible or sickening but they are available (cf. barfhead). One may also note that such pictures are mostly depictions of ‘innocent victims’ – they often figure children – and do NOT show the horror of war as it affects the fighting parties. They present content that is vital, but tangential, a by-product, collateral damage (cf. vbo) if you will.
Americans have to be shielded at all costs from the effect of the war on their own people.
Anecdote. I was once temporarily thrown off a large international and ‘liberal’ board for posting a picture – I added no comments and let the picture speak for itself. It was a head shot of a man, an American soldier. Clean, intact, good looking. Tears were pouring down his face and his expression was that of eternal human grief. That says it all…The mods, after their conclave, decided it was acceptable. But the emotional firestorm and flames were something to behold…
I suppose the glorification images and the censorship are a case of ‘a little something for everyone’. War is glorious and does not harm us.

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 9 2005 16:00 utc | 13

@ Desert Isalnd Boy: BuyBlue rates Yahoo!Inc. [I don’t know how current the rating is]

Posted by: beq | Jun 9 2005 16:50 utc | 14

I can too spell Island.

Posted by: beq | Jun 9 2005 16:50 utc | 15

The most likely result of showing the consequences of war to 13 year old children is that they’d question the war — and their war-applauding elders.

Posted by: gylangirl | Jun 9 2005 19:54 utc | 16

I can never forget the popular game in the 50s of Cowboyznindians – us kids made a game out of war long before it was available on a CD. Yes there were movies and TV to help us hone our skills.

Posted by: rapt | Jun 9 2005 20:17 utc | 17

I was brought up in a pretty pacifist household, but what really, really made me internalize the “peace message” and make it my own was finding a book in my junior-high library (grades 7 & 8; so only 13 and 14 year olds used this library.) This book followed the victims of the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima with extremely graphic pictures and descriptions. It lead me to search out, from the same library, other books on WWII, and so next I was reading about – and seeing very graphic pictures – of the death-camps in Europe. Obviously the librarians thought these were appropriate books for 13 and 14 year olds. From my 40+ year vantage point, I can only agree. Of course it was disturbing. But it was history, and had to be dealt with sometime. If countries want to ship their young off to kill and die at 18, I don’t think 4 years earlier is any too soon to give them some idea what it is all about.
The thing is; seeing pictures of what is going on may not galvanize people into protesting. But people will never protest what they can’t see.

Posted by: Ferdzy | Jun 9 2005 20:22 utc | 18

Can nobody else see the connections between the threads we have running here?
Billmon has created two strings on the Downing Street Minutes. The general tone is that Americans are unconcerned about the legallity associated with taking out Saddam. The “Do you want Saddam back in power” line is considered a killer, with any response as from a “Saddam apologist”.
Frankly, the ONLY answer is these pictures. They make the true cost manifest. And then the illegality WILL matter to Americans.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN MAKING DECENT AMERICANS FACE UP TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. (imho)

Posted by: John | Jun 9 2005 20:43 utc | 19

For several months I have followed Free Iraq maintained by Imad Khadduri. This thought provoking, informative blog is a great antidote to sterile mainstream media propaganda served up in support of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq.
While the language of Flickr’s notice to Dr. Khadduri is nonsensical, their intent is clear.
Perhaps some of you who have commented on the action against Dr. Khadduri would like to share your thoughts directly with Flickr. Below is the summary of my own “highly informative” exchange with them.
Q: Who specifically must be 13 or over?
A: Anyone using the site: viewing/uploading/downloading photos, registering an account
Q: What is the mechanism for ensuring compliance?
A: All persons registering for an account are required to abide by Terms of Use
Q: How does an account holder know whether those viewing photos are 13 or over?
A: An Account holder doesn’t know. We protect each user’s privacy.
Q: Then WHO monitors the 13-year age restriction?
A: There is no way to assess a viewer’s actual age on the Internet. To create a Flickr account you must be over 13 years of age.
Q: Policy & enforcement: It is done on an ad hoc basis?
A: (n/a)

Posted by: Evelyn | Jun 9 2005 22:11 utc | 20

THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN MAKING DECENT AMERICANS FACE UP TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE
I agree.

Posted by: b | Jun 9 2005 22:39 utc | 21

@ John & Bernhard: In defense of DECENT AMERICANS, have you noticed how many whistleblowers have committed “suicide”? There are other factors here, but I would direct you to the recent reference on this site to a 1988 piece which points to the “spectacle” method of controlling thought. I feel it. It is here. It works. It isn’t permanent as I understand it but it is working now to render impotent any threat to the established govt.
If you DON’T agree that this mass mind-control mechanism is in place and working, I am all ears, listening for another more credible explanation for how a criminal regime proceeds unhindered.
This is a big question. I certainly understand your urge to blame ordinary Americans for what we allow our bosses to do, and it is hard to say, whimpily, “we can’t help it” but look deeper and see that something sinister is going on. Or, demonstrate to me that it isn’t, that we the populace is at fault. I don’t think so.

Posted by: rapt | Jun 10 2005 1:42 utc | 22

Desert island Boy:
Yahoo.com:
2003-2004 Election Cycle Contribution Statistics
Total Spent: $256,125.00
46.55% to Democratic Party candidates
53.45% to Republican Party candidates
http://www.buyblue.org/detail.php?corpId=25
Cheers,
Martha E. Ture
Research Director
http://www.buyblue.org

Posted by: Martha Ture | Jun 10 2005 5:45 utc | 23

Rapt…ALL Serbs were and still are DEMONIZED through out the west world “for what we allow our bosses to do”… Few days ago there was news from Srebrenica and again they repeated numerous times “Serbs” only to explain later that those were “Scorpions” special forces under Milosevic command. Do I feel oooooh so bad as a Serb because of what “Scorpions” and other bandits have done in my name…of course. And I even never voted for Milosevic as well as half of my nation…and they (that half) were BOMBARDED too. I even put my life in jeopardy to fight Milosevic and couldn’t do anything about it…I am watching now similar thing but on a grand scale…Milosevic used propaganda to promote malignant kind of “patriotism” as Bush did after 9/11 and he used ideology (communism) while he looted national wealth and treasury and made a new capitalistic class in Serbia of his family and friends) instead of religion that Bush uses to rob Americans and their treasury…same old story…

Posted by: vbo | Jun 10 2005 5:53 utc | 24

Back to Main