Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Photos of Mosul 2017

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#111

Post by Simon_says »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #109
Simon_says wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please at least make an attempt to try to understand the other side. When any immigrants come, they change the country they immigrate to. With these particular refugees, they're refugees in no small part because of shortcomings their home culture has. It's not evil to want to preserve your own culture in the face of this. You can feel empathy for the people trapped in a hellish warzone just as you can feel empathy fo…

this is not wrong, but to me, its out of scale. tons of people are getting injured, dying, and unable to live anything resembling a normal life. i just think the need to address that is much greater than the risks you outline. i think we (the usa) can certainly do more to help refugees before that is thrown out of balance.

I guess thanks for not calling me evil.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#112

Post by laithshadeed »

Simon_says wrote: post #98
dragonwriter wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISIL (or something like it; the name/identity couldn't be predicted) as a substantial force with territory, was a foreseeable consequences of the US invasion of Iraq, the inadequate allotment of troops for occupation compared to pre-invasion expert-identified requirements, and bungling of details of the occupation like de-Baathification, particularly the wholesale and disorderly dismissal of security services. The US…

I want to believe that this result was foreseeable. I want to believe that some people at least are wise enough to see consequences of actions. Can you point to some piece of writing explaining this prior to or contemporaneous with the US invasion?

I suggest to you read "I Was Told to Come Alone: My Journey Behind the Lines of Jihad", Specially chapter 3 & 4. It has all the details you want.

https://smile.amazon.com/Was-Told-Come-Alone-Journey/dp/1627...

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#113

Post by Simon_says »

laithshadeed wrote: post #112
Simon_says wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to believe that this result was foreseeable. I want to believe that some people at least are wise enough to see consequences of actions. Can you point to some piece of writing explaining this prior to or contemporaneous with the US invasion?

I suggest to you read "I Was Told to Come Alone: My Journey Behind the Lines of Jihad", Specially chapter 3 & 4. It has all the details you want. https://smile.amazon.com/Was-Told-Come-Alone-Journey/dp/1627...

I'll try to take a look at this later, but Amazon says the publish date is 2017. I'm really looking for something that prognosticates.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#114

Post by reitanqild »

Simon_says wrote: post #110
NegativeLatency wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can simultaneously preserve your own culture and let people have a place to live. Bringing up incidents of rape in the abstract like that is unwarranted and inappropriate in the context of the point you're trying to make. Think about how you'd feel if you were in the situation of migrants/refugees.

You can't perfectly preserve your culture when you let in immigrants on the scale that, say, Germany is. It's sort of a sliding scale; the more you let in, the more you change. Europe will be changed for this. As you should be able to tell from my earlier comment, I do empathize with the migrants. It's a shitty situation, and were I in one of these war-torn country, my top priority would be getting my family out of t…

Defending you here:

I too feel strongly for the refugees.

I'll be happy to pay more tax if it helps solve the problem.

However I see Merkels let-them-come attitude as dangerous feel-good politics.

Why?

1. Because moving that many people around creates dangerous (for us and them) conflicts.

2. Because for every refugee we help in Europe we let down 100 in the middle east. Why? Because it costs enourmously much more to help people here than to help them down there.

So - IMO - today's feel-good let-them-come policy should be replaced with a targeted approach aimed at helping them where they are or in neighbouring countries.

As I said I'll be happy to pay more a little more tax for this.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#115

Post by reitanqild »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #85
stinos wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you got some downvotes. Maybe the wording? But still.. I share your sentiments regarding other's anti-refugee sentiments: seeing things like this video, and having met and talked to actual refugees (seriously, I wonder how many of the antis actually did that? Or would even want to?) and having heard what they went through, it is painful to see others shouting refugees aren't welcome (or worse). Ok I get…

yes. sometimes i wonder... is the magnitude of the suffering that refugees are trying to escape so great that its just lost on people? its impossible to relate to for some people like me. the fact that i was shaken by watching these war videos is evidence of this, perhaps. so maybe some of us just dont empathize at all because the truth is too painful. then its easier to say there will be lots of problems so lets jus…

I hope I'm not to special but I'm in the position where I'll happily do something for those people (e.g. pay more taxes so we can help them, or give my xbox to the local refugee center - actually I did that : - )

I still think we should close the borders and focus on helping the neighbouring countries handle the situation.

Why would a person who care enough to

- want to pay more to help refugees and

- want to help the refugees who are already here

want to do that?

In my case simply because todays solution is very suboptimal:

It creates dangerous situations for refugees (paying huge amounts to criminals to be smuggled across Europe, crossing the Mediterranean in inflatable boats etc etc.)

It creates problems here as well. Lets not understate that either.

And last but perhaps not least: we are letting down the people who are hit hardest by spending the money on those who have the resources to cross Europe already instead of helping neighbouring countries.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#116

Post by reitanqild »

canada_dry wrote: post #71
andmarios wrote: post #30

These shots capture the harshness of human conflict and how we (human beings) change in the face of it. Thank you. I disagree with people saying these are good shots. In the collection another user posted ( http://www.kainoalittle.com/mosul ) there are better shots technically and artistically. Yet that the photographer chose these shots for the article speak tons. These aren't photographs to make you feel better, th…

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/PwUqoz6-800x534... It really hurts seeing little kids caught in this crap.

Agree. A lot of this cannot be truly understood just by the facts, it seems you somehow need to feel it too.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#117

Post by vwcx »

HearMeRoar wrote: post #10

Why would no one buy these amazing photographs? Either OP is bad at finding a buyer or photography is one tough job.

I am a photo editor at a major publication that's been around for more than 100 years, and I have been responsible for sending photographers to Iraq, Syria and other conflict zones over the past seven years.

The short answer is that we do not publish unsolicited imagery from war zones, especially imagery from a completely unknown photographer randomly approaching us via email. In the same way we wouldn't publish a quote from a random citizen claiming to have interviewed Donald Trump, we do due diligence to learn the context of unsolicited images.

Lots of people make the assumption that images are unbiased and truthful representations of an objective reality, and I see many comments here supporting Kai for his "distinct" perspective. I encourage you to read Errol Morris' book "Believing is Seeing", where he discusses the importance of context as related to truth in photography.

Furthermore, especially in a conflict like Iraq or Syria, we do not want to encourage random photo cowboys to show up without the resources that our organizations offer true professionals on assignment in these stories. As journalism got particularly crunched in the early 2000s, we tried this for a brief period and it resulted in many young photographers heading to war zone s to "make a name" for themselves. They were killed and we were blamed for encouraging them.

Lastly, my professional opinion is that Kai's work is amateur. It's what we see from young photographers, relying way too much on aesthetic and situation to try and make an abstract point. Study the work of James Nachtwey, the late Chris Hondros, Don McCullin, even Robert Capa, and you will immediately see (and more importantly, FEEL) the difference.

I am happy to share more if there is interest in starting a dialogue.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#118

Post by vwcx »

probably_wrong wrote: post #14
HearMeRoar wrote: post #10

Why would no one buy these amazing photographs? Either OP is bad at finding a buyer or photography is one tough job.

There are things that are not supposed to be shown on the traditional media, dead soldiers being the first one that comes to mind. Maybe these pictures go against the prevailing vision the media wants to disseminate.

A media's distaste for violent images is not the issue here. Photographs very similar to these are published every day by tens of thousands of outlets around the world. The issue is that these photographs are coming from an unknown source and not many editors are apt to trust unknown sources randomly emailing with conflict images these days.

Source: I hire and direct photographers in war zones professionally.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#119

Post by nl »

notacoward wrote: post #53
nl wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I strongly support this journalist's work, I'm extremely hesitant to support the Free Burma Rangers. In Iraq they are an armed religious group, and while their goal of supporting refugees is admirable, their methods seem likely to make things worse. To be clear, their methods involve actively seeking out firefights. See http://www.freeburmarangers.org/international/kurdistan/ for some idea of how they think abo…

They are armed and they are religious, but they don't seem to be acting as combatants. The article you cite doesn't indicate that FBR members participated in any fighting. Yes, they actively seek out firefights because - rather obviously - that's where their services are likely to be needed. There are arguments for and against being armed in such an environment, but none of that suggests they're an "armed religious g…

They are armed and fight. Look at the OP photos, or Google for news coverage.

Fighting armed Christian groups fits perfectly with the ISIS narrative of a religious war.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#120

Post by notacoward »

nl wrote: post #119
notacoward wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are armed and they are religious, but they don't seem to be acting as combatants. The article you cite doesn't indicate that FBR members participated in any fighting. Yes, they actively seek out firefights because - rather obviously - that's where their services are likely to be needed. There are arguments for and against being armed in such an environment, but none of that suggests they're an "armed religious g…

They are armed and fight. Look at the OP photos, or Google for news coverage. Fighting armed Christian groups fits perfectly with the ISIS narrative of a religious war.

There is nothing in the OP that shows them fighting. Couldn't find anything on Google either, or on their website. If you have any actual specific evidence of what you claim, show it. Otherwise I'd have to conclude you're either delusional or deliberately defaming a humanitarian group.
Post reply on HN