Vietnam war photos
Lee Ayrton
Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
--
"Your problem is that you don't understand reality, and so can't trace
causes to effects."
D. F. Manno critiques Mammonism on AFC-A
Jeff Green
>
>
> Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>
> http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
Interestingly, as the photo-essay is about war, some of the images
showing wounded/killed people require a warning but the image of a guy
getting shot in the head (#14) does not. And in #15 he's not even dead,
struggling on the street. Image #31 does not require clicking but #38
does. I see no rhyme nor reason.
J
Peter Boulding
in <pan.2010.05.13....@panix.com.nul>:
>Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>
>http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Music and Images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ and
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
bill van
Jeff Green <jeffin...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in the
head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack. It's the
gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the warnings.
bill
Lee Ayrton
> Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in the
> head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack. It's the
> gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the warnings.
That little girl was Kim Phuc. What she looks like today:
http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/8323/11024174213Kim-Phuc.jpg/Kim-Phuc.jpg
Hidden Draggin
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:12:31 -0700, bill van wrote:
>
>
>> Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in
>> the head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack.
>> It's the gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the
>> warnings.
>
> That little girl was Kim Phuc. What she looks like today:
>
> http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/8323/11024174213Kim-Phuc.jpg/Kim-Phuc.jpg
Sorry to say this, but she's a babe!
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hansford
CEO of the Brown and Mushy Corporation
http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
Lee Ayrton
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:12:31 -0700, bill van wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in
>>> the head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack.
>>> It's the gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the
>>> warnings.
>>
>> That little girl was Kim Phuc. What she looks like today:
>>
>> http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/8323/11024174213Kim-Phuc.jpg/Kim-Phuc.jpg
>
> Sorry to say this, but she's a babe!
Why should you be sorry?
Hidden Draggin
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:19:56 -0400, Hidden Draggin wrote:
>
>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:12:31 -0700, bill van wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in
>>>> the head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack.
>>>> It's the gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the
>>>> warnings.
>>>
>>> That little girl was Kim Phuc. What she looks like today:
>>>
>>> http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/8323/11024174213Kim-Phuc.jpg/Kim-Phuc.jpg
>>
>> Sorry to say this, but she's a babe!
>
> Why should you be sorry?
Well, she is widely seen as a war victim and
it might be seens as in poor taste that I "objectify"
her by commenting on her obvious good looks.
Bill Turlock
>
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:36:18 -0400, Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote
> in <pan.2010.05.13....@panix.com.nul>:
>
> >Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
> >
> >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>
> Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
>
> Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
No. I. Don't.
Would you care to share my nightmares?
SSgt Bill "Tet offensive 1968" Turlock USAF, hey I didn't get my
t-shirt!
Pierre Jelenc
> In article <hshqfo$roj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Jeff Green <jeffin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/13/2010 4:36 PM, Lee Ayrton wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
> > >
> > > http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
> >
> > Interestingly, as the photo-essay is about war, some of the images
> > showing wounded/killed people require a warning but the image of a guy
> > getting shot in the head (#14) does not.
Interesting how in this day and age they still do not mention that the guy
in question had just murdered the entire family of the general's best
friend, and had been caught literally red-handed.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
mike muth
wrote:
> Peter Boulding wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:36:18 -0400, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com.nul> wrote
> > in <pan.2010.05.13.20.36.17.981...@panix.com.nul>:
>
> > >Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>
> > >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>
> > Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
>
> > Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
>
> No. I. Don't.
>
> Would you care to share my nightmares?
>
> SSgt Bill "Tet offensive 1968" Turlock USAF, hey I didn't get my
> t-shirt!
Bill,
Have you heard Redgum's "Walk in the Light Green." If not, I
recommend it.
--
Mike
Peter Boulding
"@sonnnic.invalid> wrote in <4BECDFA5...@sonnnic.invalid>:
>> >Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>> >
>> >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>>
>> Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
>>
>> Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
>
>
>No. I. Don't.
>
>Would you care to share my nightmares?
No I wouldn't. Point taken, Bill. Apologies.
Mary
wrote:
> Peter Boulding wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:36:18 -0400, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com.nul> wrote
> > in <pan.2010.05.13.20.36.17.981...@panix.com.nul>:
>
> > >Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>
> > >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>
> > Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
>
> > Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
>
> No. I. Don't.
>
> Would you care to share my nightmares?
>
> SSgt Bill "Tet offensive 1968" Turlock USAF, hey I didn't get my
> t-shirt!
Sorry, Bill. I have an uncle who never really recovered from what he
experienced in Vietnam; he killed himself nine years ago.
Mary
Mac
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:07:32 +0000 (UTC), r...@panix.com (Pierre
>
>
>
> Jelenc) wrote:
> >bill van <bill...@separatethis.shaw.ca> writes:
> >> In article <hshqfo$ro...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> Jeff Green <jeffinput...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On 5/13/2010 4:36 PM, Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> >> > > Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>
> >> > >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>
> >> > Interestingly, as the photo-essay is about war, some of the images
> >> > showing wounded/killed people require a warning but the image of a guy
> >> > getting shot in the head (#14) does not.
>
> >Interesting how in this day and age they still do not mention that the guy
> >in question had just murdered the entire family of the general's best
> >friend, and had been caught literally red-handed.
>
A great deal was made of that by both photographers whose pictures
made the incident famous.
It seems pretty likely that Loan thought he was killing someone
resposible for murdering his godchildren, although that may not, in
fact have been the case. A compound of policemen's families was
deliberately attacked, and the residents murdered; among them were the
children of a close friend. Loan was told that the prisoner shot was
captured there. Since two different families have claimed the
executee, there's some doubt.
Pierre Jelenc
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:07:32 +0000 (UTC), rc...@panix.com (Pierre
> Jelenc) wrote:
> >
> >Interesting how in this day and age they still do not mention that the guy
> >in question had just murdered the entire family of the general's best
> >friend, and had been caught literally red-handed.
>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988783,00.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/590605/general_nguyen_ngoc_loan_and_the_shot_pg3.html?cat=37
(3rd paragraph)
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/16/world/nguyen-ngoc-loan-67-dies-executed-viet-cong-prisoner.html
etc etc. It's well known.
Lee Ayrton
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:07:32 +0000 (UTC), rc...@panix.com (Pierre
> Jelenc) wrote:
>
>>bill van <bil...@separatethis.shaw.ca> writes:
>>> In article <hshqfo$roj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Jeff Green <jeffin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 5/13/2010 4:36 PM, Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>>> > >
>>> > > http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>>> >
>>> > Interestingly, as the photo-essay is about war, some of the images
>>> > showing wounded/killed people require a warning but the image of a guy
>>> > getting shot in the head (#14) does not.
>>
>>Interesting how in this day and age they still do not mention that the guy
>>in question had just murdered the entire family of the general's best
>>friend, and had been caught literally red-handed.
>
> What kind of documentation is there for that?
From the photographer himself, quoted here:
http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Vietnam_Execution
Lee Ayrton
> Peter Boulding wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:36:18 -0400, Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote
>> in <pan.2010.05.13....@panix.com.nul>:
>>
>> >Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>> >
>> >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>>
>> Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
>>
>> Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
>
> No. I. Don't.
You may not, but most of the rest of us do. Particularly after 8 years of
heavily sanitized war in two countries.
> Would you care to share my nightmares?
>
> SSgt Bill "Tet offensive 1968" Turlock USAF, hey I didn't get my
> t-shirt!
As always, thank you for your service, Bill. I do appreciate it.
Lee Ayrton
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:19:56 -0400, Hidden Draggin wrote:
>>
>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:12:31 -0700, bill van wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in
>>>>> the head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack.
>>>>> It's the gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the
>>>>> warnings.
>>>>
>>>> That little girl was Kim Phuc. What she looks like today:
>>>>
>>>> http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/8323/11024174213Kim-Phuc.jpg/Kim-Phuc.jpg
>>>
>>> Sorry to say this, but she's a babe!
>>
>> Why should you be sorry?
>
> Well, she is widely seen as a war victim and
> it might be seens as in poor taste that I "objectify"
> her by commenting on her obvious good looks.
She is an attractive woman, and she has spent her life deliberately not
being a victim. I think that the only way that stating that she's a
babe would merit an apology would be if your attraction to her was based
on a fetish for burn scars caused by napalm.
And, going back and looking at that picture again I see that it isn't her
physical attributes, there's something else that comes from within her
that appears in the photo.
Bill Turlock
>
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:29:09 -0700, Bill Turlock <"Bill Turlock
> "@sonnnic.invalid> wrote in <4BECDFA5...@sonnnic.invalid>:
>
> >> >Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
> >>
> >> Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
> >>
> >> Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
> >
> >
> >No. I. Don't.
> >
> >Would you care to share my nightmares?
>
> No I wouldn't. Point taken, Bill. Apologies.
None necessary, you couldn't have known. I've just been feeling a
bit testy lately. Carry on.
Bill Turlock
Sorry myself, I just lost it for a minute there.
Bill Turlock
>
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:29:09 -0700, Bill Turlock wrote:
>
> > Peter Boulding wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:36:18 -0400, Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote
> >> in <pan.2010.05.13....@panix.com.nul>:
> >>
> >> >Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
> >>
> >> Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
> >>
> >> Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
> >
> > No. I. Don't.
>
> You may not, but most of the rest of us do. Particularly after 8 years of
> heavily sanitized war in two countries.
Of course. It give us a chance to learn from our mistakes. <--
irony
ha ha <-- ironic laughter
> > Would you care to share my nightmares?
> >
> > SSgt Bill "Tet offensive 1968" Turlock USAF, hey I didn't get my
> > t-shirt!
>
> As always, thank you for your service, Bill. I do appreciate it.
YW <--srsly
Bill Turlock
I've not heard of it. Is it a song? Wiil it make me cry? I'm
mostly that >< close to tears all the time lately anyway.
John Hatpin
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:19:56 -0400, Hidden Draggin wrote:
> >
> >> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:12:31 -0700, bill van wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in
> >>>> the head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack.
> >>>> It's the gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the
> >>>> warnings.
> >>>
> >>> That little girl was Kim Phuc. What she looks like today:
> >>>
> >>> http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/8323/11024174213Kim-Phuc.jpg/Kim-Phuc.jpg
> >>
> >> Sorry to say this, but she's a babe!
> >
> > Why should you be sorry?
>
> Well, she is widely seen as a war victim and
> it might be seens as in poor taste that I "objectify"
> her by commenting on her obvious good looks.
I wouldn't go to the lengths of complaining about it or anything, it's
not that big a deal, but the word "babe" used to describe a women can
be seen as derogatory and sexist, in a way that, say, "beautiful" or
even "hot" are not.
--
John Hatpin
Are Hobbits examples of a ring species?
Greg Goss
>On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:12:31 -0700, bill van wrote:
>
>
>> Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in the
>> head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack. It's the
>> gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the warnings.
>
>That little girl was Kim Phuc. What she looks like today:
>
>http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/8323/11024174213Kim-Phuc.jpg/Kim-Phuc.jpg
Some network put her and the napalm bomber together for an apology and
forgiveness session.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
>On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:29:09 -0700, Bill Turlock wrote:
>
>> Peter Boulding wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:36:18 -0400, Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote
>>> in <pan.2010.05.13....@panix.com.nul>:
>>>
>>> >Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
>>> >
>>> >http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>>>
>>> Woah. Not Safe For Anywhere.
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting, though; we need to be reminded from time to time.
>>
>> No. I. Don't.
>
>You may not, but most of the rest of us do. Particularly after 8 years of
>heavily sanitized war in two countries.
>
>
>
>> Would you care to share my nightmares?
>>
>> SSgt Bill "Tet offensive 1968" Turlock USAF, hey I didn't get my
>> t-shirt!
>
>As always, thank you for your service, Bill. I do appreciate it.
Is there some online service where I could buy him a gift certificate
for a custom T-shirt? (grin)
Opus the Penguin
Huh. For me "hot" is more sexist than "babe". Neither one is
particularly sexist in the absolute, though. It's a matter of
context.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Lee Ayrton
And in draggin's un-asked-for defense, I read his "babe" remark as "I find
the act of looking at her photograph especially pleasant" not "Shit, I'd
do her right here on the floor in front of everyone!"
Of course, that reading may be based on his apology, too.
John Hatpin
It's the derogatory element of "babe" that I was thinking about; I
shouldn't have mentioned the sexist element. That's another, and much
more complex question.
bill van
<56f04613-0224-4830...@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the background to the execution. I
read through the material cited in an earlier post and didn't find
anything that stood up for me. The details of the several accounts
differed: in one, it was relatives of the general who had been allegedly
killed by the prisoner; in another it was various policemen and their
families; in the third it wasn't clear the prisoner had personally done
any killing but he was said to have been captured at or near the scene,
and he was said to be variously a Viet Cong military or political
official.
All the accounts are credited to the general himself via the
photographer, with no other evidence or accounts offered. And the
general was apparently notorious for his short fuse. All we know for
sure is that the prisoner was executed on the spot without trial or
other due process required for prisoners of war.
bill
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>> Huh. For me "hot" is more sexist than "babe". Neither one is
>> particularly sexist in the absolute, though. It's a matter of
>> context.
>
> It's the derogatory element of "babe" that I was thinking about; I
> shouldn't have mentioned the sexist element. That's another, and
> much more complex question.
Interesting. I don't see "babe" as derogatory. I don't know if the
difference is pondian or individual.
Lee Ayrton
> In article
> <56f04613-0224-4830...@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
[On Gen. Loan shooting Lop]
>> A great deal was made of that by both photographers whose pictures
>> made the incident famous.
>>
>> It seems pretty likely that Loan thought he was killing someone
>> resposible for murdering his godchildren, although that may not, in
>> fact have been the case. A compound of policemen's families was
>> deliberately attacked, and the residents murdered; among them were the
>> children of a close friend. Loan was told that the prisoner shot was
>> captured there. Since two different families have claimed the
>> executee, there's some doubt.
>
> Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the background to the execution. I
> read through the material cited in an earlier post and didn't find
> anything that stood up for me. The details of the several accounts
> differed: in one, it was relatives of the general who had been allegedly
> killed by the prisoner; in another it was various policemen and their
> families; in the third it wasn't clear the prisoner had personally done
> any killing but he was said to have been captured at or near the scene,
> and he was said to be variously a Viet Cong military or political
> official.
>
> All the accounts are credited to the general himself via the
> photographer, with no other evidence or accounts offered. And the
> general was apparently notorious for his short fuse. All we know for
> sure is that the prisoner was executed on the spot without trial or
> other due process required for prisoners of war.
Amicus curiae (IANAL):
I think that an argument can be made that Bay Lop was in violation of the
3rd Geneva Convention of 1949, specifically Article 4, Section (2), (b)
and (d), and therefore outside of the protections accorded to Prisoners Of
War. Art. 4 defines a POW as persons who have fallen under the power of
the enemy (2) provided that they (b) wear a fixed distinctive sign
recognizable at a distance and (d) conduct themselves in accordance with
the laws and customs of war. Lop was part of an organized resistance but
not in uniform, nor any part of a uniform, did not wear insignia, and
engaged in the murder of non-combatants.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68
I admit that I'm having a difficult time squaring this postion with my
stance on prisoners at Gitmo.
John Hatpin
> John Hatpin (RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com) wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin wrote:
> >>
> >> Huh. For me "hot" is more sexist than "babe". Neither one is
> >> particularly sexist in the absolute, though. It's a matter of
> >> context.
> >
> > It's the derogatory element of "babe" that I was thinking about; I
> > shouldn't have mentioned the sexist element. That's another, and
> > much more complex question.
>
> Interesting. I don't see "babe" as derogatory. I don't know if the
> difference is pondian or individual.
I need a new brain. I meant, it's demeaning, not derogatory. It's
nearly as bad as "the girl".
bill van
Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com.nul> wrote:
These are difficult issues, but I regret the use of legal hair-splitting
to exclude captives from protections enacted for earlier circumstances,
so as to allow them to be tortured and/or executed. It's not what I
expect from a nation that respects human rights.
(I'm not just U.S.-bashing here. My country's armed forces have been
turning Taliban suspects over to the Afghani armed forces for torture,
we've had confirmed lately. We're not finished yet with that bit of
controversy; it has the potential to cost our current government the
next election. No, I don't know whether there is any country out there
that has been involved with a war lately and kept its hands clean.)
bill
Mark Steese
news:hsk0u1$dd3$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> Tim <admins...@nowhere.org> writes:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:07:32 +0000 (UTC), rc...@panix.com (Pierre
>> Jelenc) wrote:
>> >
>> >Interesting how in this day and age they still do not mention that
>> >the guy in question had just murdered the entire family of the
>> >general's best friend, and had been caught literally red-handed.
>>
>> What kind of documentation is there for that?
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988783,00.html
Says nothing about why the man in question was shot; doesn't even give
his name. (Only the second of the three articles mentions Nguyen van Lem's
name.)
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/590605/general_nguyen_ngoc_loa
> n_and_the_shot_pg3.html?cat=37 (3rd paragraph)
The first line of the first paragraph is "Lem's exact role in this
operation is obscure." Apparently the evidence for his guilt comes from
"South Vietnamese sources."
> http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/16/world/nguyen-ngoc-loan-67-dies-execut
> ed-viet-cong-prisoner.html
"Mr. Loan insisted that his action was justified because the prisoner
had been the captain of a terrorist squad that had killed the family of
one of his deputy commanders." So, we have only the general's word for
it.
> etc etc. It's well known.
Not necessarily true, but inarguably well known.
--
Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
conversation. -Rebecca Solnit
Mac
> In article
> <56f04613-0224-4830-b832-c17ba2ca8...@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
I worked for an old Artillery colonel who knew both: Adams and Loan.
He did not have a low opinion of Loan, and the Colonel was a man with
a strong conscience - too strong, the way I heard it, to make
general.
( I'm not sure how many times that would make this second hand, since
some of the details weren't first hand even to the participants. I
met Loan myself a couple of times, but the conversation was brief,
and tended to center around spring rolls and nuoc mam, which did not
give further insight.)
> and the
> general was apparently notorious for his short fuse. All we know for
> sure is that the prisoner was executed on the spot without trial or
> other due process required for prisoners of war.
He was not, however, a POW. A person fighting in civilian clothing
without some distinctive marking is liable to be shot in a good many
other circumstances; when his actions themselves are seen as a war
crime, that's a much surer bet. When you were attacking the captors
friends and family, I suspect that shortened the odds against a little
more.
Greg Johnson
"@sonnnic.invalid> wrote:
It's a fairly well-known song in Australia. It probably would. The
full title is "I Was Only 19(A Walk In the Light Green)".
mike muth
It's an Australian song. Yes, it might make you cry. It's on
youtube. If I had a real connection with actual bandwidth, I'd search
out a link. There are several.
--
Mike
Heather
Here is a link to the song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urtiyp-G6jY
But I warn you, Bill, it definitely will make you cry.
--
Heather
Bill Turlock
Hell, "Waltzing Mathilda" makes me cry. Maybe I'll pass.
TY
Peter Ward
I think it's derogatory - a babe is a stinky creature with no social
skills.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
Death is too permanent for my tastes.
- Groo
mike muth
wrote:
I'll bet "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" is a real killer.
That one hits me more than any other song.
--
Mike
John Hatpin
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:12:31 -0700, bill van wrote:
>
> > Everyone has long since seen the one of the prisoner being shot in the
> > head, and of the nude little girl fleeing the napalm attack. It's the
> > gruesome shots most of us haven't seen that carry the warnings.
>
> That little girl was Kim Phuc. What she looks like today:
>
> http://portal.unesco.org/en/files/8323/11024174213Kim-Phuc.jpg/Kim-Phuc.jpg
A heads-up: there's a documentary about her coming up on BBC Radio 4
at 4pm BST on Tuesday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00scvqh
"Kim Phuc, subject of an iconic picture from the Vietnam War, tells
her story as she's reunited with the ITN reporter who helped save her
life 38 years ago.
The image of a nine year old girl screaming as she ran naked down a
road in Trang Bang after suffering extreme burns in a Napalm chemical
attack became one of the most famous photographs of the Vietnam War.
But what happened to the 'Girl in the Picture'?
In an emotional meeting, former ITN reporter Christopher Wain - who
helped to save her life that day - is reunited with Kim for the first
time in 38 years.
They recall the events of June 8th 1972 and Kim hears for the first
time the lengths to which Chris went to get her life-saving treatment.
She tells how Nick Ut's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph has helped
and haunted her in equal measure. She explains how she was recruited
as a 'symbol of war' before finally escaping Government control by
fleeing to Canada.
She managed to live a normal life for a while but was discovered by
the press again in the 1990s. She soon realised she had to take
control of the photograph and decided to use her fame to help others
by establishing a charity for child victims of war called 'The Kim
Phuc Foundation'.
The burns Kim suffered in 1972 left her scarred for life and still
take their toll on her body. She's in constant pain and has to take
regular breaks. But it doesn't stop her living a busy life.
As part of the programme, Kim also meets Ali Abbas, who lost both his
arms and sixteen members of his family in the Iraq War. The pair share
their experiences and Kim offers him advice on living a normal life
and finding a way to forgive."
Mac
It's become overused, but The Flowers still hits harder if it's played
well. Ever Heard Kathryn Tickell's version?
Mark Steese
news:MPG.265870d34...@news.eternal-september.org:
> John Hatpin says...
>>
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>> > John Hatpin (RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com) wrote:
>> > > Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Huh. For me "hot" is more sexist than "babe". Neither one is
>> > >> particularly sexist in the absolute, though. It's a matter of
>> > >> context.
>> > >
>> > > It's the derogatory element of "babe" that I was thinking about;
>> > > I shouldn't have mentioned the sexist element. That's another,
>> > > and much more complex question.
>> >
>> > Interesting. I don't see "babe" as derogatory. I don't know if the
>> > difference is pondian or individual.
>>
>> I need a new brain. I meant, it's demeaning, not derogatory. It's
>> nearly as bad as "the girl".
>
> I think it's derogatory - a babe is a stinky creature with no social
> skills.
But exemplary sheep-herding skills.
Heather
It does have a powerful emotional impact. Here is a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG48Ftsr3OI
--
Heather
bill van
<9950057c-4fe2-4800...@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
mike muth <mike...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
Agreed. But second place in the same category, for me, is Stan Rogers'
Barrett's Privateers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Ufe0jF-AE
bill
bill van
John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> As part of the programme, Kim also meets Ali Abbas, who lost both his
> arms and sixteen members of his family in the Iraq War.
I suspect the 40 thieves.
Mark Brader
>>>>> I shouldn't have mentioned the sexist element. That's another,
>>>>> and much more complex question.
>>>> Interesting. I don't see "babe" as derogatory. I don't know if the
>>>> difference is pondian or individual.
>>> I need a new brain. I meant, it's demeaning, not derogatory. It's
>>> nearly as bad as "the girl".
>> I think it's derogatory - a babe is a stinky creature with no social
>> skills.
> But exemplary sheep-herding skills.
That'll do, pig.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "[I] have a will of iron."
m...@vex.net | "And a head to match." --Robert B. Parker, "Chance"
Beaver Fever
> Photo essay, some of them very well known shots. 47 in all:
> http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html
>
> "Your problem is that you don't understand reality, and so can't trace
> causes to effects."
> D. F. Manno critiques Mammonism on AFC-A