Foxy, I think there's a difference between knowing something, and really 'knowing' it. You can be aware of something, but not truly grasp its significance until something rams it home.

Generally it's an experience, but a well made film can do it too.

As an example - we may be aware war is horrific, but not in the same way as someone who survived a concentration camp.
By the same token, people are aware that something like heartbreak is painful, but not really 'know' that until they experience it for themselves.

I think the poster was just saying that the film brought home the message of how nasty war can be.

Romany, good topic.

I read the post you refered to in a different context. That the film made an emotional connection with the poster which brought home the horror of war, not necessarily that the poster was unaware of "the facts". Most of us are aware of things which should horrify us but are not always emotionally aware of the horror.

I think that our world is shaped more by the world views we use to interpret data than by ignorance (which I take to mean lack of knowledge).

Another poster mentioned the invasion of Iraq, those who ordered the invasion had access to some of the worlds best information gathering resources. They and those reporting to them interpreted the data based on existing pre-conceptions, discarding what did not fit and paying great attention to what did fit.

We all do that as well to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly the problem is not lack of data but what we do with it.

Sometimes the amazing thing is that we are able to overcome that and change how we see a topic.

R0bert

It is a good thread but should we be surprised?
Northern NSW floods have hurt farmer just weeks out of drought.
Telling of a fish and prawn kill as a result of that flood yesterday one said it was a disgrace?
What that the flood took the air out of the water? who could have stopped it and how?
Today in a single lane road a young lady stopped short of the traffic signal activation loop under ground.
The lights would not change, as each driver asked her to move up she refused.
She pulled over upset and after I calmed her and explained why the horns blew she said how would I know?
A fair question life exposes us to different things.

yes, wobbles, that's why it's important to get the grinder out of the hands of our masters.

War is horrific, but then, so is non-war.

Every day, workers at or on their way to work, are mangled in road accidents or minced or mashed by machinery, & tens of thousands of others die slow deaths from work induced ulcers, cancers & coronary conditions.
Every day, tens of thousands of animals are slaughtered.
Every day, thousands of foetuses are terminated.
[Aren’t the above -when you get down to basics- collateral damage arising from our modern way of life?]

But some things it’s considered progressive to have a conscience about –and other things equally as gory– it’s customary to hold your tongue about.

And, while it's misleading to portray war as all glory.
It's equally misleading to portray it as all gory.
It is cliché, but true, that if others hadn't looked beyond the gory aspects we would not all be sitting here bemoaning its goriness.

And, I wonder, just how you address “testosterone-laced young men smuggle killing machines across borders” who have had a one-sided education (read: indoctrination) and only want to kill infidels –without doing at least some things which polite, detached society may consider gory?

See, I'm not actually questioning the ethics (or lack thereof) of war. That's a bit of a no-brainer, I think, because, like religion, racism, abortion etc. an enormous amount of people have completely immovable attitudes to that question.

What I was stunned about was the apparent ignorance regarding the effects of war.

Yes, TRTL and Robert, your points regarding emotional knowledge are well taken. I still have difficulty however, with someone claiming ignorance of the horrors of war - whether they experienced them emotionally or not. Even if you were not personally disturbed and horrified, surely you would know that the subject was worthy of horror and disturbance? Do you get what I mean?

I don't think that censorship can be relevantly cited in this instance either: that which is allowed is sufficiently graphic. How for instance, could one see the images that accompany wars in Bosnia, the African continent and the Middle East which feature children and other non-combatants with gaping wounds and shattered limbs and still claim not to KNOW?

I'm afraid I do not for one single moment believe that those leaders who called for the current Mid-Eastern conflict were ignorant that their cause was invalid either. Bloody hell, even the local "Kid's Crossing" man in Caloundra told me there were no bloody WOMD so how come GW, Johnny and Tones didn't know