War in South Ossetia

Cabaal · 12-08-2008 10:15am #1

Very good selection of photos from this conflict,
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html

any graphic one's are blocked out unless you click on them

BanzaiBk · 12-08-2008 10:22am

It's so infuriating, my grandmother was born and lived some of her life in the Southern Ossetia. I'm ashamed of my heritage today.

Ricky91t · 12-08-2008 10:35am

Nice photos but i don't get this war seems pointless too me

Paulw · 12-08-2008 10:36am

ricky91t wrote: »

Nice photos but i don't get this war seems pointless too me

As opposed to any war that isn't pointless????

All wars are pointless.

As for the images, fair play to the photographers for being there and capturing the images.

Ricky91t · 12-08-2008 10:39am

Paulw wrote: »

As opposed to any war that isn't pointless????

All wars are pointless.

I know that but like take the war on iraq they made it quiet clear iraq had weapons of mass destruction and chemiclas and stuff like that,so that was the reason to go to war.and they were going to get Saddam for war crimes etc

But all iv heard about this is the gorgian president(or whatever he is)saying russia is murdering his country but no actual reason at to why..

Paulw · 12-08-2008 10:44am

Probably not a discussion for the photography section, but Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction at all. None were ever found. The reasons given for war were totally false - Bush linked Iraq with Al-Qaeda - totally false, and said Iraq had WMD - again false.

Bush really went in for the oil and to finish the job that daddy didn't.

As for Georgia, well, it's a bit more complex over there. Russia moved in to protect Russians in South Ossetia, which was invaded by Georgia, even though South Ossetia is within the national borders of Georgia, although South Ossetia claims independence.

Something like that.

Ricky91t · 12-08-2008 10:48am

Paulw wrote: »

Probably not a discussion for the photography section, but Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction at all. None were ever found. The reasons given for war were totally false - Bush linked Iraq with Al-Qaeda - totally false, and said Iraq had WMD - again false.

Bush really went in for the oil and to finish the job that daddy didn't.

As for Georgia, well, it's a bit more complex over there. Russia moved in to protect Russians in South Ossetia, which was invaded by Georgia, even though South Ossetia is within the national borders of Georgia, although South Ossetia claims independence.

Something like that.

yeah i know that the irap war was all made up so they could get in there!
But i never heard anything like that about this one
But now i know so thanks

Anyway back On Topic now

dakar · 12-08-2008 10:50am

Not easy viewing certainly, but some stunning images. The guy being treated in the hospital basement stands out for me, also the one showing the russian convoy along the gun barrell.

As regards the stupidity of the war, there was a guy on Newstalk this morning positing the view that this is the first step in a push by Russia under Putin and Medvedev to regain control over the oil and gas pipelines that run across the Caucuses and that Ukraine will be next, potentially scary times.:(
But that of course is for another forum.

ttcomet · 12-08-2008 10:52am

If I was cynical I would say that the war in Georgia is about the gas/oil pipe line that goes from the Caspiean sea to Europe. The only pipeline that connects the resources in the Caspiean region with Europe that is not under the control of Russia.

And on topic, they are some amazing photos. I am not sure I would have the nerve to go shoot pictures in a war zone.

dakar · 12-08-2008 10:53am

ttcomet wrote: »

If I was cynical I would say that the war in Georgia is about the gas/oil pipe line that goes from the Caspiean sea to Europe. The only pipeline that connects the resources in the Caspiean region with Europe that is not under the control of Russia.

Snap:D

xshayx · 12-08-2008 11:04am

ttcomet wrote: »

If I was cynical I would say that the war in Georgia is about the gas/oil pipe line that goes from the Caspiean sea to Europe. The only pipeline that connects the resources in the Caspiean region with Europe that is not under the control of Russia.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.763901,45.74707&spn=8.917903,13.908691&z=6
(there are similar areas in google maps around the world)

....and on topic, great photos

GhostInTheRuins · 12-08-2008 11:20am

Some brilliant pictures there.

Freddie59 · 12-08-2008 12:40pm

Paulw wrote: »

Probably not a discussion for the photography section, but Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction at all. None were ever found. The reasons given for war were totally false - Bush linked Iraq with Al-Qaeda - totally false, and said Iraq had WMD - again false.

Bush really went in for the oil and to finish the job that daddy didn't.

As for Georgia, well, it's a bit more complex over there. Russia moved in to protect Russians in South Ossetia, which was invaded by Georgia, even though South Ossetia is within the national borders of Georgia, although South Ossetia claims independence.

Something like that.

As you've said Paul not for the Photography forum. Those pictures are horrific and show the effect on a civilian population, wherever it may be. But on your other points you cannot state that 'all wars are pointless'.

What would have happened if the the Nazis and Japanese had been allowed run riot? 'Peace in our time' (Chamberlain) comes to mind straight away.

And as for Iraq. The impotent UN gave pplenty of time for ANY WMD to be moved to Syria or elsewhere. And I think most people would think it a bit naieve that Saddam was not giving succour to Al-Qaeda and their ilk. Perfect the Americans may not be - but give me an alternative.

sineadw · 12-08-2008 3:14pm

Whatever about the politics (feckin oil.. :mad:) there are some really moving shots in there. What is it about war photography that I can never keep my eyes off? Hmmm.. not sure what that says about my psyche.

BoardsRanger · 12-08-2008 3:39pm

some really great photos here and you really feel as if you are in the middle of the conflict.
however,with regards to the 11th photo down (the old lady seeking help), does anyone else not think it a better idea to help her up rather than to advance one's portfolio? then again, a large zoom lens might have been used..

Tar.Aldarion · 12-08-2008 3:41pm

Their some photos.

Paulw · 12-08-2008 3:43pm

That's always the question - do you take the photograph and then help, do you help and maybe miss a photograph, do you take the photograph and move on, do you try to help and try to take the photo?

I guess it's a personal answer, for each photographer in such a situation. When it comes to war - do you want to be seen as assisting the enemy (no matter what side you help), or are you totally impartial and just there to report?

dakar · 12-08-2008 3:51pm

Paulw wrote: »

That's always the question - do you take the photograph and then help, do you help and maybe miss a photograph, do you take the photograph and move on, do you try to help and try to take the photo?

I suppose that the same questions apply outside of a warzone with some street photography. It's not like nature photography where it's a case of 'nature red in tooth and claw' and non-intervention is the standard.

As you say, a lot depends on the situation (geographically and emotionally), the subject and the photographer. There are no easy answers.

BoardsRanger · 12-08-2008 4:00pm

well I suppose it is a very subjective answer. It did seem as if the photographer was trying to justify himself by stating that neighbours did come and help her- perhaps a guilty conscience?
Then again, it is his job to report and would most likely not get so much reporting done if he was to help everyone.

Paulw · 12-08-2008 4:03pm

An interesting quote from Joe Galloway (Photographer/journalist seen in the film "We Were Soldiers") -

-- In combat you may find that those around you may need a helping hand. Do not shy away from an opportunity to act first as a concerned human being and then later as a reporter. Help the wounded, if called to do so. Carry water or ammo or the dead if it seems needed. None of that violates either the Geneva Convention or your objectivity as a journalist.

He is the only civilian to ever be awarded the Bronze Star for his action in the Battle of The Ia Drang, Vietnam, 1965.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0304/galloway.html
http://www.weweresoldiers.net/joes-story.htm

BoardsRanger · 12-08-2008 4:13pm

and from http://www.weweresoldiers.net/joes-story.htm :
"I looked over and saw Joe Galloway sitting with his back against a small tree, camera in his lap, rifle across his knees. I knew why I was there. I'm a professional military man and it's my job. But what the hell was HE doing there? Turned out he was doing his job too."
-Lt. Gen. (ret.) Hal Moore-

DaireQuinlan · 12-08-2008 4:17pm

Paulw wrote: »

-- In combat you may find that those around you may need a helping hand. Do not shy away from an opportunity to act first as a concerned human being and then later as a reporter. Help the wounded, if called to do so. Carry water or ammo or the dead if it seems needed. None of that violates either the Geneva Convention or your objectivity as a journalist.

or AMMO ?!? I'd call shenanigans on that. I mean, its a whole sticky subject I think to go into, the objectivity of journalists in time of war. Were those rousing enthusiastic reports from embedded journalists during the Iraq war really 'objective' ? How about Geraldo Riviera toting an M-16 around the place ? I would say that toting ammo around the place has crossed the line, and that makes the situation more difficult for ALL journalists in a warzone. My opinion, I'd imagine this has been dealt with exhaustively and comprehensively in more appropriate fora than this.

Freddie59 · 12-08-2008 5:54pm

BoardsRanger wrote: »

and from http://www.weweresoldiers.net/joes-story.htm :
"I looked over and saw Joe Galloway sitting with his back against a small tree, camera in his lap, rifle across his knees. I knew why I was there. I'm a professional military man and it's my job. But what the hell was HE doing there? Turned out he was doing his job too."
-Lt. Gen. (ret.) Hal Moore-

Kind of says it all. And that guy (and others like him) was the only source of shots (no pun intended) in those days. No Internet.

AnimalRights · 12-08-2008 6:31pm

Freddie59 wrote: »

And I think most people would think it a bit naieve that Saddam was not giving succour to Al-Qaeda and their ilk.

Only back from Holidays so only seen the thread now but there are official leaked US papers that admit Saddam NEVER had any links to Al Quiada and once US invaded you had Al Quiada running and killing with impunity until this summer when it went pear shaped for them.

Great photos btw.

War in South Ossetia

Comments