Radio Talk Show Host and Bush/Iraq Backer, Michael Gallagher, posted a video of the beheading of American contractor, Eugene Armstrong. It doesn't show up when you click on the site but instead gives his reasons for posting the video under a restricted area of his web site. His site: http://www.mikeonline.com/

It is not accessible unless you "join" his web site for a $4.95 membership "upgrade".

His on-air comments included reasoning that the fee would keep the video from underaged viewers without pay access.

I did not watch the video nor did I join his web site.

My questions for debate are:

1. Do you think Gallagher's decision was ethical or motivatd by politics or even money since the video is finadable for free on other web sites on the internet.

2. Do you find such an action (posting the video) reprehensible or newsworthy or somewhere in between?

3. Do you think Western (non-islamic sites) should show these beheadings in light of their violence?

4. How would/should it affect a relative or family member or how would YOU be affected if YOU accidentally discovered such a video of one of your relatives playing on a web site?

1. Do you think Gallagher's decision was ethical or motivatd by politics or even money since the video is finadable for free on other web sites on the internet.

I don't know about "ethical", but it was most certainly motivated by money since he's charging a fee. Whether it's available or not elsewhere on the Internet for free doesn't really make any difference. If one wants to pay to see it on this website, that's up to them. I wouldn't.


2. Do you find such an action (posting the video) reprehensible or newsworthy or somewhere in between?

I don't find it either or anywhere in between. If the video is available on the Internet, it's available on the Internet. What I do find reprehensible is the action recorded on the video and that action is newsworthy. We need to know the face of our enemy and what they do. I don't think we necessarily need to actually see it up close and personal in order to understand that.


3. Do you think Western (non-islamic sites) should show these beheadings in light of their violence?

Given the nature of the Internet, I don't see any way or reason to prevent it. There's a whole lot of pretty nasty stuff out there if one wishes to look for it. If a public person like this radio talk show guy wants to put something like this on his website and charge a fee for viewing it, fine. That opens him up to judgement on others' part.


4. How would/should it affect a relative or family member or how would YOU be affected if YOU accidentally discovered such a video of one of your relatives playing on a web site?

I think it would be pretty difficult to "accidently discover" such a video. You'd have to look for it.

I find the actions of this man reprehensible - "make a buck at any cost", the ugly side of free market and free speech. I have no problem with making a moral judgement on this one. This has nothing to do with having to "know the face of the enemy and what they do". If I am told that a person A rapes a person B I don't need to see the action reel to know "what they do". All that is just an excuse to make a quick buck. This is just as bad as selling the skulls of fallen soldiers as souvenirs. Disguisting.
I am a little surprised that you Aquilla seem to justify (or at least refuse to condemn) this man Gallagher - especially after, as I remember, you were opposed to publishing pictures of caskets at Dover Air Force Base out of concern for the families of the fallen. What happened? Isn't the family of Eugene Armstrong deserves the same kind of consideration?

1. Do you think Gallagher's decision was ethical or motivated by politics or even money since the video is findable for free on other web sites on the internet.

It is hard to answer this without knowing what other content is available on his "pay site". If there are other things there, it is much easier to say that putting it there was done to protect minors. If the video is available for free elsewhere, I doubt he will make much money by charging people for access to it.

2. Do you find such an action (posting the video) reprehensible or newsworthy or somewhere in between?
Is the action of posting it newsworthy? No, I don't think so. Is it reprehensible? Again, I don't think so. Would you rather suppress the gruesome truth about these jihadists? I would not watch such a video, but others might. Sugar coating what the enemy is capable of serves no one but the enemy. There is no mandatory viewing on this video, so I don't see how it can be reprehensible.

3. Do you think Western (non-islamic sites) should show these beheadings in light of their violence?
The internet is filled with stuff like this, if you want to find it. This video could have some redeeming value, by exposing what we are up against. The internet is not policed, so I see nothing wrong with it.


4. How would/should it affect a relative or family member or how would YOU be affected if YOU accidentally discovered such a video of one of your relatives playing on a web site?
I doubt I would care, but who knows? The whole situation is traumatic for the family, regardless of where this video is available.

1. Do you think Gallagher's decision was ethical or motivated by politics or even money since the video is finadable for free on other web sites on the internet.

Not really financial his core audience is conservative and things like this tend to galvanize them. Political reasons seem to be the cause here.


2. Do you find such an action (posting the video) reprehensible or newsworthy or somewhere in between?

I find it distasteful, but then again I consider the way the media is treating these events now disgraceful. We also run the risk of becoming desensitized to this type of act the more they commit them. I guess for some people looking at them refreshes them on how horrible these people doing this really are. No different from airing Nazi atrocity footage IMO.


3. Do you think Western (non-islamic sites) should show these beheadings in light of their violence?

Certainly, let people who want to see what the face of our enemy looks like.



4. How would/should it affect a relative or family member or how would YOU be affected if YOU accidentally discovered such a video of one of your relatives playing on a web site?

Upset of course the local media here found it necessary to play my brothers suicide as a major television event, so I have some prerogative others may not have. However distasteful it is it is legal.

1.Do you think Gallagher's decision was ethical or motivatd by politics or even money since the video is finadable for free on other web sites on the internet.

I don't know who this Gallagher character is, and from what I'm reading, it's no great loss.

I think what he's doing is exploitive in the extreme. Nothing is served by offering this video, whether free or not. No one needs to see the horror to know it happened. Everyone knows what the militants are capable of-no one needs to have blood splattered all over their face to know that. I find the film of the captives before their deaths much more compelling and heart-wrenching as they plead for their lives, and plead for their countries to do something. How many civilians will we allow to be killed in this manner while our leaders stoically maintain that we “won’t bow to terrorist threats”? How many beheadings is this now? 10? 12? Why is it so hard to find these creeps (al Zarkawi and his thugs)- what amounts to a bunch of extremely nasty gang-bangers? How do these lousy excuses for humans manage to always find people to kidnap and behead? You call this SECURING a country?!

2. Do you find such an action (posting the video) reprehensible or newsworthy or somewhere in between?

I find it disgusting. Like I said, no one needs to see the blood and hear the screams to know what happened.

2.Do you think Western (non-islamic sites) should show these beheadings in light of their violence?

No, I don’t think they should be shown. After all, isn’t that what the beheaders WANT you to do?

4. How would/should it affect a relative or family member or how would YOU be affected if YOU accidentally discovered such a video of one of your relatives playing on a web site?

I would be outraged. As if the initial horror of the act wasn’t enough, to have some scumbag profiting from my family’s pain? So wrong I can’t even find words to describe it. And as for those who say they wouldn’t care if it were their family member…wow...just...wow. If your husband/wife/child had his/her head slowly sawn off while screaming in agony and terror while film is rolling and all of a sudden it’s being shown all over the web by citizens of YOUR OWN country for their own greedy, prurient interests, it wouldn’t BOTHER you just a tiny bit?!?!

The discussion thread that you linked to dealt with the restrictions on the media showing pictures of arriving coffins at Dover and the reasons for those restrictions. That is an area where the government does have some power. I agreed with the restrictions from the standpoint of maintaining the privacy and dignity of the families of the fallen.

In this case, short of some very serious censorship of the Internet which I wouldn't support, the government is pretty much powerless to do anything about this video. If some cretin radio shock jock wants to charge people to view it, so be it. I would hope that there would be a backlash to this sort of a thing and people will stop listening to this guy, but who knows. I don't have a clue who he is and have no intention of finding out. Personally I don't think he's even worth the effort of "condemning" but if it makes you feel better my friend, ok. He's a pond scum-sucking cretin who should go crawl back under the rock from which he hatched.

He's a pond scum-sucking cretin who should go crawl back under the rock from which he hatched. - Aquilla in the post above.

Aquilla, Michael Gallagher is a fixture of Right Wing Talk Radio. Since I am on neither "Wing", I tire of the steady audio diet of mainly "Right Wing Radio" pundits.

Michael Gallagher has been a guest HOST for both Joe Scarbororugh on Scarborough Country and for Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes on the Fox News Channel. Gallagher was an invited guest with a remote broadcast booth at the Republican National Convention.

The stance of disagreeing with U.S. soldiers' coffin photos seems strangely detached from the attitude you have of a U.S. "Broadcast Journalist" showing the actual beheading of a U.S. contractor.

As was said before, we do NOT need to see the entire rape of a woman to understand and condemn its violence.

That's more information than I need to know, PACPanzer. There are a whole lot of nutcases out there running around as "Right Wing Talk Radio" hosts and to be honest, I don't pay much attention to most of them. About the only radio shows I listen to on a semi-regular basis are Rush and Phil Hendrie because I find them at least entertaining. I have listened to Michael Reagan from time to time because he sometimes has some great personal stories about his dad. But hey, I'll be the first to admit that we have some real nutjobs who identify themselves as on the "right".

The context of my stance on the coffin photos is as a policy position on the part of the US Military. It is a policy with which I agree for the reasons stated in the linked thread. Furthermore, it is a policy that can be practically implemented. IN the case of the video in question, short of some sort of draconian censorship of the Internet, there really isn't anything that one can do about it.

Aquilla,

I am not interested in whether the prevention of showing of these videos is possible. We all know that much of even the illegal material on the internet is hard to prevent. My debate question asked whether YOU thought the beheadings should be shown.

I understand your comment about draconian censorship but it did not address your feelings as to the advisabilty of putting these videos up for public consumption. (Several more sites are advertising they have the videos online to view free.)

A photographer IS being prosecuted for taking and publishing a picture of U.S. Coffins.

I find the FULL videos both dispicable and unecessarily offensive to most civilized people.

Remember the fad of "snuff" movies filmed with unknowing participants (mostly in Latin and South American) where "actors" were hired and then really killed when the people on the inside used real guns and knives? There is just something about showing the violent or unexpected death of someone that strikes a nerve in me and makes me revile the purveyor or the footage almost as much as the killers involved.

Again, the debate was on the advisiablity of such publication - not the legality or chance to enforce any rules about it.

The photographer violated a contractual agreement NOT to take photos of caskets on the base. Appreciate the difference?

Personally, I think showing this video is reprehensible. For money, or not. I don't find his charging money to be more despicable. If people wish to pay to see this video, it's their lost money, and I think they are rather disturbed as well.

Perhaps then I misunderstood the initial intent of your questions, PAC Panzer. In terms of whether I personally find the airing of these videos on a website, for pay or not, offensive, I most certainly do. I think it's reprehensible and demonstrates a complete lack of any human decency whatsoever. When I termed this radio guy a cretin, I meant it and I'd certainly stop listening to his radio show except I never listened to it in the first place. That's not a terribly effective boycott. If I watched Scarbourgh or Hannity and Colmes and this dude appeared on them, I'd register a protest with MSNBC or FOX NEWS, but I don't watch either of those programs because I don't like them.

Now, if your intent was to infer that because some self-described "right wing" radio talk show host attempted to profit from a horrible act and that somehow reflects badly on the "right wing" (of which I am a member), then I in no uncertain terms reject that argument. That is not something I stand for and it is not something that those conservatives I know would condone. I find his actions in doing this to be completely offensive and utterly without defense. This guy may claim to be a member of my party, but I've got news for him. We have a big tent, but it ain't that big. That dude is not only not under my tent, he's in the hole under the outhouse in the back as far as I'm concerned and if Hannity or Scarbourgh want to endorse him, they can darn well join him there.

If you voluntarily undertake to watch the beheading of another human being, then no matter what your motivations may be, you have actively taken on the role of spectator and as such bear a part in the responsibility for the action itself.

Any one who chooses to watch such a video, knowing fully well what the video is about should search their souls and question why they feel the need to cheapen another person's violent death and why by choosing to participate as an onlooker to an act of murder they have given the murderer the very reason he requries within his heart to justify the act of slaying an innocent person.


1. Do you think Gallagher's decision was ethical or motivated by politics or even money since the video is findable for free on other web sites on the internet.

I don't know what this man's motives may have been. I only know he is helping the terrorists spread terror.


2. Do you find such an action (posting the video) reprehensible or newsworthy or somewhere in between?

I find it reprehensible and without any redeeming justification.


3.Do you think Western (non-islamic sites) should show these beheadings in light of their violence?

No. If we really need to see dead bodies, then it should those of the innocent Iraqi's who are unfortunate enough to be slain by Coalition bombing. To show the deliberate deaths caused by these murderers whilst avoiding any footage of the deaths we cause is nothing but base hypocrisy.


4. How would/should it affect a relative or family member or how would YOU be affected if YOU accidentally discovered such a video of one of your relatives playing on a web site?

Relatives of the murdered man would be in their full right to take legal action to punish this man Gallagher.

Moif,

Good thoughts. My reaction was the same. I did not bring it up as a left or right wing thing (I am neither) but rather consider myself anti WING type person.

The opportunity to see this horrific act reminded me of an email I received from a friend linking a site showing quite well-taken photographs gathered in a slide show of the 9-11 tragedy.

The first few slides showed detailed color pictures of the huge fire ball and the airborne debris we all saw on the nes reports that day.

When I had seen the news reports, I was pleased that the networks I watched chose NOT to show pictures or tape of those poor souls JUMPING to their deaths.

I was saddened to hear about what they had done and very much respected the major networks for editing out that disturbing footage. I knew I could find a place to see those shots but, of course, my desire was to see only the giant blast and not have to emotionally process deaths of those people who jumped to their deaths.

Back to the emailed link to the slide show. Without warning, in the middle of the slide show was the picture of a poor woman with a look of horror on her face caught in mid-air halfway through a jump that killed her.

Without warning, without a disclaimer, without thoughts as to my desire of NEVER wanting to see these people in their most agonizing last moments, I had it thrust upon me.

I finished the slide show. I think it was entitled "Lest We Forget" or something similar to that. At the bottom was another button to click to get more information. I did so with the idea of writing an email to express my displeasure with not being warned beforehand and there was a flag bordered web site with a message from the web site owner. In that message he admitted being contacted by those who thought the jump pictures were inappropriate. He dismissed those complaints in not so many words as being "Weak on Terror" and "Unsupportive" of our President and our troops. To me, it was an affront to many who STRONGLY believe in the War on Terror but who don't believe the War on Terror and the War on Iraq are synonymous.

1. Do you think Gallagher's decision was ethical or motivatd by politics or even money since the video is finadable for free on other web sites on the internet.
I have never been to his website and I dont watch him on tv so I dont know how liberal/conservative he is so I cant say if it he would be the type to consider such things sensitive or if it is money related but, if he were to have it easily availible people may question his character by making it so easy to access, but I dont think money is to much of an issue because anyone who really wants to see the video will find it somewhere else for free if they really want to see it


2. Do you find such an action (posting the video) reprehensible or newsworthy or somewhere in between?
As long as the victims' family members have no objection I see no problem with it. If someone does not want to see it then they should not click on the link

3. Do you think Western (non-islamic sites) should show these beheadings in light of their violence? I think that should be considered on a site by site basis. I think that the terrorist are doing it to intimidate the US but all it does is remind us of why we are over there. I remember when 911 took place everyone was ready for war but later that feeling started to go away, and then the first American was beheaded and I think support rose again. If the terrorist stopped doing things people would start to lose interest in them and try to bring the troops back but as long as the terrorist are doing things to get our attention we will support the war on terrorism because it will continue to be visible

4. How would/should it affect a relative or family member or how would YOU be affected if YOU accidentally discovered such a video of one of your relatives playing on a web site? If someone were to do that without my permissio I would try to find out if I could sue them. My feelings on the subject are a lot stronger than the above sentence but I dont have any idea as to express how angry I would be.

I've been online since 1998 and I've been in my fair share of dark alleys of the Internet. I've never seen one example of kiddie porn even by accident and I figure unless I frequent the kind of sites where sickos get off on that kind of filth I never will "accidently" be fouled by such a sight.

So with that thought in mind, who in their right mind would give $5 bucks to a slob like Mike Gallagher to see "shock and awe" porn and watch a man have his head chopped off? Only someone NOT in their right mind would want to see something as cruel and twisted as that.

I figure there are places on the web where you can see dead Iraqui children accidently killed by U.S. troops or anti-abortion sites with color pics of dead fetuses thrust in your face. No thanks. I'll pass on the splatter side of the World Wide Web.

There's no political agenda to be served by "reminding" people of how savage and brutal the insurgents and terrorists are in Iraq. Do Americans need to see footage of the planes ploughing into the Twin Towers or the people jumping to their death and crashing into the sidewalk to recall how horrible September 11, 2001 was?

Does exploiting death enlighten us, debase us or just leave us numb?

So to answer the questions posted.

1. There's nothing ethical about the exploitation of another person's misery. It's profiteering, it's pornographic and it's evil. Just because other twisted geeks are airing it for the entertainment of other twisted geeks doesn't stop it from being a geek show.

2. Newsworthy? Oh, you mean in the same way sex flicks in the Seventies used to run disclaimers that they had a clinical and sociological importance before the huffing and puffing began? You can dress up a pig in a bow but it's still a pig.

3. Anyone who wants to show beheading videos has a right to do so as does anyone who wants to view it. It helps if you're one sick puppy too.

4. I agree that it would be hard to "accidently" stumble onto some garbage like that. It would only confirm my previously held conviction that people will do anything for a buck.

Well, if it wasn't about money and purely about making a point, then he would donate a portion of the money to the family of the poor guy. He's merely using it for political ends, not so much to Support th president and be supportive of the family at the same time. The guy's actions is just crass. How would you feel if someone made a buck off of your relative's death?

QUOTE

Only two people on this discussion have answered this question directly, the others I presume, would rather not answer it because they understand entirely your point. The family, as concerro points out, is due some compensation for this from this guy.

I've been listening to talk radio for a long time now, mostly because it's really the only "news" you can get while in your car. Although I've never heard of this guy, I've heard other conservative radio personalities voice their opinion on showing these types of videos.

The general consensus from most of them is that they want people to see this and get angry, angry enough to want to support someone that will do something to rid the world of people who have the capacity to do such a horrific act. Namely......Bush.

So, in my opinion, it's politically motivated. The money has nothing to do with it, by charging five bucks, it does prevent thousands of websites linking to his site, killing his bandwidth, and making it even easier for people to "stumble" upon it.

The ethics of this however.....are subjective of course. Some find it appalling, some see it as a necessary evil.

I myself have seen one beheading video, and there's really no way to prepare yourself for it. I'll tell you one thing though, in the back of my mind I've always thought that no one could truly, truly be able to do something like that.....until I saw it with my own eyes. It gave me a whole new level of understanding what's going on over there, and it scares me.

the video was horrible!! this destroyed dignity of the person being beheaded because a lot of people have seen it. It means there's no privacy. this video should deterred in letting more people see it because it could contaminate their minds and somehow this belittles a person's credibility.

Well...according to your profile, you are 15. Since Michael Gallagher's on-air comments "included reasoning that the fee would keep the video from underaged viewers without pay access", maybe he has a point afterall.

so you're saying in your last reply that i'm not worthy of being here because i don't know anything about it? well, i only have little information about this topic but i'm trying my best to speak my mind.. but if you think that i'm not giving much sense about this thing well i'm really really sorry about it.. i'm still practicing and wants to be a good one..... sorry for that.. maybe i'll try again in other topic....

If I was in that position my diginity would not be number 1 on my list of worries

I intended to respond directly to kuruk's quote. i pressed wrong quote button

*edited to fix quotes

No, not at all. You are a minor, and have seen the video of the beheading (I'm inferring from your first sentence in your first post). One of the reasons Michael Gallagher used to explain charging a fee was to prevent minors from seeing the video on his website. Of course, I don't think he should show it at all, but if he chooses to (since it isn't illegal) I now agree that charging a small fee is probably a better idea than not.

Edited to add: This might be a language nuance thing, and differences in expressing tenses that sometimes happen with translations. You are doing well, don't worry, and welcome to the forum, By the way.

You are right. The video did destroy the dignity of the person as well as ending his life. It is destructive to the dignity of his family as well.

Americans, though, are less concerned about loss of dignity than about the sheer brutality of the murder. I realize that in other cultures dignity is valued even above a person's life, and this is probably why we did not understand your message very well.

Please, kurukutongever, feel welcome here in America's Debate. We do value your participation.

thank you very much for appreciating my opinions.. and sorry for misinterpreting
what you have posted...well now i get excited in posting more of my opinions... thank you very much!!

and for my another reaction:
i really think that individuals should change some of their beliefs because it really affects the way people foresee life... i think change must be for the better of all. dignity isn't that important compared to life because you can REBUILD your dignity in some way and it's up to the person to stand and be proud.. but life.. we only have one and we never know if it's our time or not....so better make use of it in good way instead of worrying such things....