I didn’t say “photos of grinning soldiers posing over enemy dead” didn’t exist. I said I never saw photos were the prisoners where being abused of or pictures of the war being traded for porn. This Abu Ghraib business is different in that for the first time the general public is introduced to the subhuman behavior of U.S. soldiers and knowing the “regular” kind of pictures posed with the dead are being traded for porn is only adding fuel to the fire, a fire that is probably violating laws that didn’t exist back then.
Weirddave: No, you misunderstood me. I said that your post is dismissive, not condoning. And your post damned well is dismissive, even in the snipped form you quoted at me.
It’s a bad idea to misinterpret posts to claim that people are misinterpreting you.
Did I interpret this wrong? I read it as the soldiers giving the pictures to some necrophiliac porn site to be used as part of the content. I wouldn’t say the fact that it’s used for porn is irrelevant, releasing pictures of dead people to the general public to show what’s going on and giving them to a website for people to jerk off to them are totally different.
I’m surprised that people aren’t as creeped out as I am about that.
I don’t think it was being used necessarily for “necrophiliac porn”. Certainly morbid curiosity. I’m fairly pessimistic about humanity, but I still think probably very few people find that type of pic sexually arousing. My guess is the web site visitors went to the regular porn for jacking, and the gore pics for morbid curiosity.