Conservs. Blocking Media Dead Soldiers' Arrival

[Moonlight_Graham]

What do you people think of this? The Conservative Party barring media from attending the arrival/ceremony of fallen soldiers from overseas?

 

To me, i can see it both ways. It really all depends on the motives of the decision. On one hand i think the media shouldn't be there, i think it is a private time for the families of the victims to grieve.

 

But then, i ask why did the Cons do this? Is it because they believe in the privacy rights of the families, or do they just not want more media attention put on the war in Afghanistan?

 

Ultimately, i think a compromise should be met. The families should have their time alone with the bodies when they get off the plane, but then later as the bodies are moved on and transported away, the media should get some shots/pics of the coffins etc.

[Ravenous itchy]

Why does there need to be a secret agenda in this? Just so that you have something to shit on them about?

 

Comon, this is plain silly.

[Matt]

Shouldn't the public have the right to know how many soldiers are dying and who? The public should know about something like this, especially from a government promising to do things differently by being open and honest...

[Ravenous itchy]

Shouldn't the public have the right to know how many soldiers are dying and who? The public should know about something like this, especially from a government promising to do things differently by being open and honest...

Last time I checked, the deaths of soldiers was not being hidden by anybody. This is about the families having the right to do what they want without tv cameras in their face.

 

Edit: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanis...lties/2006.html

Edited April 29, 2006 by Ravenous itchy

[Matt]

Please, this is covering it up though, people have the right to know about this. These people put their lifes on the line for our nation, so the nation should have the opportunity to mourn their loss, with a media black out that's rather tricky.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Why does there need to be a secret agenda in this? Just so that you have something to shit on them about?

 

Comon, this is plain silly.

not understanding what you're saying. I voted for the Conservatives for fuck sakes, im not finding something 2 diss them about.

 

why is this silly i dont get it, this is an issue worth discussing. Holy fuck theres hardly any new posts on this forum in a month or 2.

[heyrabbit]

I think this is only a controversy because there's not much else in the news. 4 soldiers died so left media successfully stirred up some shit.

 

I couldn't believe how much controversy there was over the non-lowering of the flag at parliament hill. All the left lib media had to do was bring up the issue and they had all these dumb liberal automatons echoing this. it's all over t.v. and radio. "soldiers died and you didn't lower the flag? that's BAD!" Well no, it's not.

if the flag was lowered every time a soldier died, it would take away from the significance of the gesture. imagine if the U.S. did the same, their flag would never fly at full staff. soldiers are given military funerals and if you've ever seen one, you'd know that the government pays it's due repsect.

 

there's a reason why there's a protocol.A liberty majority government would have lowered the flag, just as david miller did. what a bunch of boobs.

 

 

ridiculous argument.

[Matt]

It's not like Canada is at war all the time, so it wouldn't be at half staff all the time, and if we are in a situation where soldiers are constantly dying perhaps it is a good idea to pull out of Afghanistan.

[Moonlight_Graham]

I think its disgraceful that Canada doesn't lower the flag. Haven't they been doing this for a long time? Again, it raises a point of the exact reason why the Conservatives are doing this? Is it to draw attention away from the fact people are dying, or for reasons 'heyrabbit' said?

 

Its not like we have a lot of soldiers over in Afghanistan, or as if soldiers die every day. C'mon lower the flag i say.

 

Matt - are wars only worth fighting for when people aren't dying? I like that we are in Afghanistan, i dont like the fact that we wont send any UN troops to the Congo.

[heyrabbit]

what happens if, hypothetically, soliders do start to die everyday? What do you say to the families of those victims when it's no longer sensible to ignore policies in the guise of national pride, just to gain public approval? That's the kind of whimsical move I'd expect from the Liberals. They would exploit death of soldiers to boost support for their party. They're doing it right now by slanting the media to make the Conservatives look heartless and calculating.

[Matt]

This isn't about the families either, this is about making the party look good, if it's about the families, the government can acknowledge their sacrifice.

[glo]

i believe this issue is more about the media looking for news and bashing than anything. It seem like they're grasping at straws.

It's the media's job to exploit

[Matt]

The media can find more than enough stories as is, I think that this is newsworthy though because come on, we should know about who's dying. We should know who these people are who risk their lives for our country every day.

[Ravenous itchy]

attn blind guy:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanis...lties/2006.html

[ecnarf]

The not lowering the flag I think is justifiable. The last time I checked, this was a combat mission, not a peacekeeping mission. When a soldier dies on a peacekeeping mission, it is particularly tragic because they are on that mission to help, and generally not in a combat role. That means the individual died because they were murdered by some extremist, or were killed by landmines, or something like that.

 

But this is a combat mission. You don't go into a combat mission not expecting deaths. We didn't lower the flag during WWII, because it would never have gone up to full staff. By lowering the flag every time a soldier dies in a combat mission, it cheapens the meaning of the gesture.

 

But not allowing people to see the dead soldiers' bodies returning home? That's exactly what they're doing in the U.S. right now. That just doesn't fly with me, no pun intended.

[Guest jsunC]

i think it was a great decision by steven harper to bar media from this. Personally i just think this was done out of respect to the families, and i completely understand that, i don't get what all the hoopla is about.

Edited May 4, 2006 by jsunC

[Matt]

attn blind guy:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanis...lties/2006.html

Yes, and everyone goes to the CBC website to find this out? No, most read their papers or watch the newscasts. It should be out there for everyone to see, so that everyone can judge. If we have nothing to hide there's no reason not to be accountable.

[glo]

Yes, and everyone goes to the CBC website to find this out? No, most read their papers or watch the newscasts. It should be out there for everyone to see, so that everyone can judge. If we have nothing to hide there's no reason not to be accountable.

I think it's your own responsibility to be informed.

Don't expect to be handed information on a silver platter for you to made your judgements about the world. Plus if your formulate your opinions on what the media feeds you, you're better off not informed at all.

[Monochrome Rainbow]

It's just a ceremony. They joined the military and essentially pledged their life to the country and lost their lives fighting for the country. The country should be able to mourn their death.

 

Personally it doesn't sit with me. He's essentially barred the media completely from the fallen soldiers. Isn't there a ceremony before the actual funeral? Why not allow media access during the ceremony to give all Canadians the chance to mourn Canada's loss?

[glo]

You can morn the loss. Everybody knows about it anyway.

[Matt]

Why not make it public? I'm sorry but being "forced fed" by the media is not a bad thing unless you believe everything they say.

[glo]

I didn't say 'forced fed' I said 'on a silver platter'

It was public knowlege that the comrades had fallen, it's just the persessional for them that wasn't allowed to be filmed, and the media made a big deal about it 'not being public'.

[heyrabbit]

The problem is that the media creates these fallacious two sided arguments and everyone subsequently forms "their own" opinions about it without even understanding what the argument IS. It shouldn't even be an argument.

 

"Steven Harper chose not to lower the flag." ----->

 

person thinking-> (alive=good, but... death=bad. BAD!)-->

 

"Not lowering the flag is... bad! why can't we mourn the victims?"

 

and a lot of these whiners are the very same people who keep voting to cut money from our military. i'm surprised more haven't died with all the 20 year-old equipment their using.

Edited May 5, 2006 by heyrabbit

[Matt]

Okay, not lowering the flag is bad because it is a sign of respect for the fallen, in this case those that fell in the defence of our country. Whether or not they should be there everyone should have a chance to know that they died for us.

[Monochrome Rainbow]

I don't get why not lowering the flag is even an issue. It cheapens the act to do it every time a soldier dies in war. It's war; that's what happens. We didn't do it during any other war we have taken part in so why is it an issue now? The media can be lame sometimes.

 

Although I still believe they should have access to these cermonies. Not only does it provide opportunity to mourn but it also gives people a bit more of an idea exactly what war costs a nation. Whether this cost is justified or not, people still really need to be aware and see for themselves exactly what they are supporting or protesting.