Now, showing these photos at 6 pm news was not on as kids are around.

But I do wonder if it was necessary to show them at all. It would have been much better to allow serveral Doctors who knew him to identify him and confirm that it was.

it probably should have been shown, but definatly not at 6pm when people are eating their meals or children are around

Gotta agree with RPG - it should have been on the 10:00 news instead, and a warning should have been given before the report.

Having said that, what's the point of showing the pictures anyway? They don't prove anything to people watching.

Was there a warning? If so then I think it was fine to show it at 6PM. Can we have that option on the poll?

Originally posted by chill
Was there a warning? If so then I think it was fine to show it at 6PM. Can we have that option on the poll?

done :)

Do kids watch the news at 6pm?

Don't you just love the hipocrisy.
It was wrong for Aljazeera to show pictures of dead US and UK soldiers but it's ok for every media company in the west to show these pictures.
I voted no for that reason as it's purely for political gain.

The difference being that Uday and Qusay were murderers, rapists, that helped torture people and had people killed for no reason, whereas our soldiers were fighting to liberate the Iraqi people which they are now thankful for. I now look forwards to seeing Saddams bruised and battered dead body.

So do I actually.
Don't get me wrong here, just smacks of double standards.
the Us and Uk have been under fire for not finding the WMD. To me they have used this to divert peoples attention away from that, again.

Originally posted by RPG
done :)
Cheers, I went for that option.

I have no sympathy for likes of them neither do the Iraqi people and they both got whats been coming to them.
Put yourself in the shoes of the parents who's son was shot by them for accidently kicking his leg playing football.
About warnings, well i saw the pictures on Sky news about 2.30pm and there were warnings that the pictures could be distressing so no problems there.
Can't wait to see Sadams mug shot on T.V in the same condition.
Good luck to the cousin that shopped them and i,m sure he will prosper with all that reward money.
Lets hope he will put some of it towards looking after there victims familys.

Originally posted by t020
The difference being that Uday and Qusay were murderers, rapists, that helped torture people and had people killed for no reason, whereas our soldiers were fighting to liberate the Iraqi people which they are now thankful for. I now look forwards to seeing Saddams bruised and battered dead body.

Something that will be interesting will be the illegitimate children, that will be born from women being raped by soldiers. Time and time again it happens in every war....I'm not denying that Uday and Qusay were monsters but I think that there are many blokes who are very "trigger happy" and during war, lose their morals.

I want to vote "none of the above". It is probably necessary to publish the images in Iraq because there is so much fear that the Baathists may regain power and this is a way to reduce that fear. But do you and I need to see them? I think not, but responsibility for showing them here once released is down to our press/broadcasters, I think they need to exercise restraint. These images add nothing to our understanding of the situation and are simply offered for some kind of sick "entertainment" value (all be it, defended in other terms by the media).

If US released the images just to the regional media good, if they released them to the global media, a bit more questionable (but one needs to acknowledge that the Iraquis will be getting some of their news coverage from global satellite broadcasters).

Hipocrisy because of our criticism of them showing dead US/UK soldiers? I think there are differences.
*These were political leaders whereas the soldiers were just guys doing a job, perhaps one they weren't too happy about
*The intention behind showing these was to reassure the population that things are getting safer, the intention behind showing the soldiers was to gloat (I know that's my subjective opinion but I think it is one a majority would share).
*These two faces are well known, the soldiers were only known to friends and family.
*In anyone's book these guys were seriously bad, killing, torturing and raping tens of thousands on a whim is not the same as the job of a soldier - and yes I know there are rogue elements in any army, if anyone wants to use that arguement then my response is - tell me how many the US/UK army have killed (non-combatants), raped, tortured. Don't know? Give me a generous estimate, these two guys between them did more and worse. Justice must not just be done but must be seen to be done.

Anyone know what the Geneva Convention position is? (but not on a selective reading please).