Is the media going too far with this photo? WARNING

An Israeli forensics expert reaches for a severed head at the scene of a suicide bombing in a restaurant in the northern Israeli port city of Haifa Saturday Oct. 4, 2003.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/wl/080601mideast&a=&tmpl=sl&ns=&l=1&e=21&a=0

what a terrorist bomb does to real people...

It's hard to tell from the info provided...

more often...maybe they'd quit doing it.

Iraeli, Arab,US? Mideast citizens are very familiar with personally viewing victims of violent death. So photos are no big deal there.

We in the US, of course, consider ourselves more "civilized" so we show pictures of half naked women.

The truth is, I think the US could do with a little truth in their pictures. Remember Vietnam and the backlash that was caused by the little girl running nude and burned by napalm? And the photo of the alleged RVN soldier being shot in the head (executed with his hands tied behind his back)

Maybe if Americans could see the real pictures of what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territorities it would change some opinions.

It's on our wire here at work.

** EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT ** An Israeli forensics expert reaches for a severed head at the scene of a suicide bombing in a restaurant in the northern Israeli port city of Haifa Saturday Oct. 4, 2003. ... (AP Photo/ Eitan Hess-Ashkenazi)

I checked "Properties". Came up with: http://us.news2.yimg.com

I thought it was from US News.

Could have been from Rotten.com

(post edited and revised upon further scrutiny)

The violence must be seen and heard in order for people to react to incite positive change in order to create and maintain true peace. (I'd say "felt", but Idiot* perverted the concept with his knowing of and allowing 9/11 to take place.)

American media is so clean and homogenized and pastuerized that everything said is faceless and desensitizing. Unless the american media WANTS it to be disturbing in order to make you feel what they want you to feel. Oh, then they'll show all sorts of things.

Anything that might alter a viewer's opinion to something that the parent corporation of the media station doesn't want you to believe automatically nixes that news being made public as well. Why else does Al Jazeera show the acts and results of the US invasion force while the bulk of our public sees nothing from our own media? They don't want our public to think when it's against their opinion.

The same censoring applies here in Australia, where Murdoch owns almost 70% of our print media, and so many people never look any
further than his tacky tabloids. My greatest frustration is with
people who are in denial about what really happens in modern warfare, yet won't take the trouble to find out the truth for themselves.

Searching out information on what is happening in the Palestinian territories turned me from being 100% pro-Israeli to about 60-40 against. And when I was searching for info on depleted uranium and found myself looking at photos of deformed babies born to Iraqi women after the 1991 Gulf War, I couldn't see properly for my tears.
Things like that, which are beyond the knowledge and experience of most of us, do make it much harder to think in absolutes. War is easy to contemplate for those who know nothing of it. Like chickenhawk Bush, our fearless leader John Howard has also never done military service, but he thinks war is terrific as long as he can send others to do the actual fighting. I bet he never looks at photos either.

which probably explains why they feel free to show it...

And we all know why - if people were to see the real consequences of violent action, there'd be less of it.

"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,
Making the green one red."
- Macbeth