43 1 min 7 yrs

The owner of the site has set a rule that there will be NO pictures of Bloody Corpses, and No videos of bloody violence.

Do you feel that this is unreasonable?  Do you feel this is a rule that you can not live by?

All are invited to express their opinion.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

43 thoughts on “Open Question

  1. Troll — Untwist your knickers and take this post down. You’re creating a drama out of nothing.

  2. The owner of the site is entitled to set whatever rules he wishes. If others with editing rights stick strictly to David’s instructions and permissions he gives them then such actions as laid out by David are perfectly appropriate.

  3. Oh for crying out loud, here we go again.

    DV has set no rules about pictures and videos. He’s posted plenty of images of bloody corpses himself! He said he didn’t want links to the Foley video, which the British government and police said the viewing of which might be construed as an act of terror. Linking to it, using this bizarre logic, must be construed as aiding and abetting terror.

    DV once posted this photo and comment, found in two seconds on google:

    This is the body of their brother, lying dead, dumped at the side of the road, the victim of the IRA.

    Quite clearly he has no rules about posting photos of bloody corpses, so stop this self-indulgent, juvenile drivel.

  4. A picture can be worth a thousand words when it brings home to the many the sheer horror of Islamic extremism. To continue to hide these actions from the general public can be counter productive in that the general public never gets to know the harsh reality of these individuals. I have worked for 35 years in Pathology and the video of someone being beheaded still disturbs me.

  5. Does it also include photos of t shirts gloating over the deaths of hundreds of innocents or is that exempt?

  6. He said he didn’t want links to the Foley video, which the British government and police said the viewing of which might be construed as an act of terror.

    Indeed, because anybody who watched the ‘Foley’ video would have seen that it was the fake that it is now acknowledged to be. It looks like the ‘family’ is fake too:

    https://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3D-xJLLTsQZMs

    But –

    The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as being potentially offensive or graphic. Viewer discretion is advised.

    The only ‘graphic’ footage is the fakery of the Foley family.

  7. I don’t know what on earth is going on. The two Foleys’ do indeed look vastly different. Mr Foley appears to grown a massive amount of hair in the interim, when one would have expected him to have thinned considerably.
    But hey! this is planet Hollywood, and if the two real parents are too upset to come on camera, then let’s get a couple of stand-ins to fill-in..
    Or something like that.

  8. Allan@Aberdeen, on August 30th, 2014 at 3:29 PM Said:

    Foley’s ‘parents’ are different:

    They should be nominated for an Oscar 😉

  9. Colm: Troll’s post states: “The owner of the site has set a rule that there will be NO pictures of Bloody Corpses, and No videos of bloody violence. Do you feel that this is unreasonable?”

    My question at 4:11 was aimed at Troll.

    What I mean is: if the owner of a site wants to set down a rule then that’s the way it is; whether or not a rule is perceived to be unreasonable is irrelevant. The website format is not democratic. It’s private ownership and the owner sets the rules (along with host management policies etc.) Troll and other writers and commenters are guests and, in my opinion, should behave accordingly. Does Troll not understand this?

    So, in sum, to Troll: If David said “no pictures of bloody corpses” then: no. pictures. of. bloody. corpses……and
    no. videos. of. bloody. violence .

    Why is this so difficult to understand?

  10. In short, I was agreeing with your 12:26 comment, Colm. Now that I reread the thread, you said it better than I did.

    As a side note, I find this site to be one of the most frustrating experience on earth. I can barely string a written sentence together here, tongue-tied and at a loss as to how to express a simple thought. Nothing here is ever simple or easily understood. If someone writes “the sky is blue” someone out there in Comment Land will interpret this to mean that aliens have landed in Denmark, or something. I don’t write this to you, Colm, you understand perfectly 🙂 albeit a little twisted towards the sexual connotation department (kidding) but I write this to Troll and others who tend to see conspiracy everywhere.

  11. Patty

    We are a disparate group of individuals from around the world with different backgrounds and linguistic cultural awarenesses. There will always be ‘misunderstandings’ between what someone types and what another individuals interprets they meant. Its best to just go with the flow and not get bothered by other peoples interpretations whether malign or just honestly mistaken. I don’t regard Troll as one of those who sees conspiracies everywhere – he just gets angry too easily and isn’t very tolerant of opposition to his views. Allan has his racial obsessions and others have their achiles heels (agit8ed and Israel) but that’s what is good about ATW. The regulars are largely different people and aren’t just, like on some blogs, echo chambers of a single worldview.

    There is already disagreement about what David meant by his ‘No jihadist murder videos’ – did he mean all videos relating to strong violence or just those with a certain ideological aim. It’s up to David to clarify, and I do think if Troll was honest he removed Noel’s link comment mainly because he didn’t like Noel’s views on the matter and it annoyed him, in which case he should have rebutted Noel rather than censored him but what’s done is done.

    Finally, I must take issue with your claim that I see sexual connotations everywhere. I have a mind of celestial purity. I wouldn’t recognise a sexual connotation if one came up right behind me 😉

  12. This post is a bold type large font attempt to domineer and to act as though he was the owner of the site and to pretend that he is the owner’s designated enforcer.

  13. I haven’t seen a rule from DV about posting graphic images or videos. (That’s not to say there isn’t one, I haven’t read the sites posting rules, if they exist.)
    However, if DV objects to these postings, he should say so himself.

    My own views on censorship are well known and I think the fact that this site is one of the least restrictive around is a good thing. Even if I have to ignore Allan’s repetitive posts.

    I think there might be some double standards going on here by yourself Troll. Plenty of other people have posted far more graphic videos and images and I don’t recall you complaining.
    The video Daphne linked to is not graphic at all, and doesn’t show the firing range instructor being shot, so I can’t see the problem with her posting it.

  14. Even if I have to ignore Allan’s repetitive posts.

    No Dave – it’s about me putting a question to you, your refusal to answer so I put the question to you again. Here is the question:

    You stated that when an aircraft crashes into a field that it “atomises” and you provided a link to a test which showed a fighter aircraft mounted on rails being smashed into a concrete wall (Note – concrete), and the material of the aircraft was irrecoverable post-crash. The FBI released a statement that they had recovered 95% of flight 93 from its supposed crash site in Pennsylvania. This does not fit with your ‘theory’ – why not?

  15. Ahh that’s the ATW I know and have come to love.

    Number 1: It is Davids site, and if he wants to put William Wallace’s entrails on it he’s entitled. So saying he’s done this or he’s done that is irrelevant.

    Number 2: Like it or not I am a writer and an editor of my Posts. I know that bothers some, tooo bad!

    Number 3: I don’t speak for David. I never have, and unlike half of you would never deem to try.

    Number 4: The Beheading Video fake or real caused the site a problem.

    Number 5: To ask that gratuitous blood and gore NOT to be posted is called Common Decency.

    If you are not intelligent enough to have your words or a non-bloody picture make the point you are trying to achieve. Then what you have to say is probably not worth reading.

    We are trying for a tone of civility and an atmosphere conducive to strong views and debate without sensationalism, or hostility.

    What’s the matter, are you admitting that such a goal is beyond your ability? Truly you’re not that inept, or maybe you sadly are.

    because that’s all any of you are saying.

  16. F**king hell Allan, I’m trying to watch the bond film!

    Allan, I can’t go down this route again with you. I’ve explained MANY times about my comments on flight 93. This is the last time.

    I never said flight 93 atomised. In another post you ask a question along the lines of ‘shouldn’t there be more wreckage?’. and posted a picture of the crash site, (with comparisons to other airline crashes), saying something like; ‘does this look like a crash site.’ I (regrettably now), answered you, pointing out that a high impact crash (say, almost nose first at high speed), like flight 93 wouldn’t leave mucg large scare wreckage. To give a SIMILAR

  17. (whoops, accidental early post)…
    Cont….

    SIMILAR example I posted the video of the plane being crashed into a concrete wall, showing at that speed, there isn’t much large scale recognisable wreckage. For the last time I never said flight 93 atomised.
    As for the FBI recovering 95% of the aircraft, I haven’t read-up on this so I can’t really comment. I assume that they have recovered a great many small pieces.

  18. Patty, Dave Alton –

    DV hasn’t laid down any rules on photos and videos. As the link at 12.39pm demonstrates, DV has posted photos of dead bodies himself.

    Troll has got his knickers in a twist over nothing. He went mental at Noel Cunningham’s opinion and deleted Noel’s comment. I’ve come to see that despite banging the drum for perpetual war, he’s either squeamish about the sight of blood or cannot face what war does to human beings.

  19. I actually don’t care what DV bans or does not ban. It’s DV’s site and he can do what he wants with it.

    I think Troll’s post here is Troll’s typical “cri de guerre.” It gives Troll an outlet for shouting. Troll likes to shout on the internet. A lot.

    It’s akin to going into a bar and shoving the poor innocent shlub perched on the barstool next to you.

  20. As for the FBI recovering 95% of the aircraft, I haven’t read-up on this so I can’t really comment. I assume that they have recovered a great many small pieces.

    Dave – That non-answer astonishes me as I had posted the FBI’s announcement several times specifically in response to you. Here it is again, and the question remains as to how the FBI could, within a matter of days, recover 95% of an ‘atomised’ plane:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site/index.html

    FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe

    September 24, 2001 Posted: 3:14 PM EDT (1914 GMT)

    SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) — The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.

  21. Allan. I, like most on here usually don’t read your links or posts. So you shouldn’t be surprised that I haven’t followed-up your FBI announcement. I would be prepared to have a look at this and debate it with you, but the fact that you can’t grasp the simple point, that I never said the plane was ‘atomised’, and keep repeatedly stating I said it was, makes me unprepared to enter further debate with you. I think we’re done.

  22. Dave – I asked you what happened to flight 93 and you provided ‘evidence’ to the effect that it was ‘atomised’ when it hit a field in Pennsylvania. Not only did I provide the FBI’s report but I also provided the quotations from the report which claimed the “95% recovery of wreckage” so your denial of this doesn’t sit well. I think that I’m done with you on flight 93 for the moment.

  23. Troll

    On her majesties secret service. It’s one of my favourites. It’s got Diana Rigg in and I love her. Must be ten years since I saw it last.

  24. Allan.

    In answer to a question you asked about flight 93 and a lack of wreckage I posted this:

    I could point out that flight 93, (unlike other flights that crashed or where blown up mid-air such as Pan Am 103 or MH-17) was rammed into the ground at high speed, and that would explain the lack of visible, large scale plane wreckage.
    This YouTube video shows how a plane was literally atomised in a high speed collision:

    Where in the above did I say flight 93 was atomised?

    The video of the plane hitting the concrete wall on a rocket sled was to show how a high impact crash could shred the plane into extremely small pieces.
    Again. Where in the above did I say flight 93 was atomised?

  25. Yep, I loved her in the Avengers too. her and Patrick Macnee made a great team.
    I heard a rumour that George Lazenby wanted too much money to do more bond films, but it’s probably untrue. Hey, I can check this on the web now!

  26. Dave – I wrote at 10.33pm:

    Dave – I asked you what happened to flight 93 and you provided ‘evidence’ to the effect that it was ‘atomised’ when it hit a field in Pennsylvania.

    You wrote at 11.06pm:

    I could point out that flight 93, (unlike other flights that crashed or where blown up mid-air such as Pan Am 103 or MH-17) was rammed into the ground at high speed, and that would explain the lack of visible, large scale plane wreckage.
    This YouTube video shows how a plane was literally atomised in a high speed collision:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

    Your post at 11.06pm matches mine of 10.33pm. You provided that original post to explain the absence of wreckage at the site of the supposed crash of flight 93 – and then I provided the FBI’s report claiming recovery of 95% of the wreckage. How did the FBI manage to recover 95% of a plane which, from your evidence, should have been “literally atomised”?

  27. Yep. I believe he landed it safely in a field in Cleveland and all the passengers got new identities.

  28. Dave – you’re attempting to evade in the manner of Phantom. The question is:

    How did the FBI manage to recover 95% of a plane which, from your evidence, should have been “literally atomised”?

  29. There has been an awful lot of gore and death in the past couple of months. Everyone has their threshold and cannot face some of the truly deplorable acts that are committed by, what we perceive to be, fellow humans.

    I tend to try and follow my own self-censorship rules. I have gone to various websites and seen pictures, quite unexpectedly, of severed mens heads. The site owner quite justifying it, by claiming that these things go on and it is nothing new, so we should just shut up and deal with it.

    I complained that there is a difference between showing graphic images of what he termed, “war porn” that had little to do with the story of the day, and things that are done by my government, in my name.

    If my government involves itself in death and destruction, then it is up to me to bear witness to it. But seeing acts that have nothing to do with me for the sake of some perverse thrill, is just plain sick !

    This is indeed DV’s site, and yes he makes the rules. But it is his readership that make’s his site, and it up to all of us to contribute.

    I think links to graphic video’s and images should be preceded with a warning. This was done on another site I follow and, those that wish to view such images did so, and others did not. But ALL were warned rather than be subjected to it.

    The picture of the dead woman in the shop in a previous post was both shocking and tragic. Even so, I felt it was right to show it. Why ? Because whether I like it or not, and I do not, this was in someway done in my name. My government supports a regime that actively targets civilians. Without this knowledge, I cannot hold my government to account for its support it has shown, and how wrong it is to do so.

    During the Vietnam war, there was a complaint made that US Citizens did not like seeing graphic images of dead people on their screens. But the dead people were a result of actions by their government. The answer to complaint came back like; “they should be show these images morning, noon and night.” And indeed we should.

Comments are closed.