• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

UN ad that the networks won't air

xopus

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
Ignorance is one thing. This ad is fiction. It shows a girl blowing up on a socer field. It is not file footage it was acted. This is not pictures of kids with limbs blown off in foriegn lands this is a fictional recreation.

You can't argue reality by showing fiction.

how the fuck can you say that.

if the "fiction" you speak of is a very close representation of real events, then its not fiction.

of course its going to be acted and done in a controlled environment, but that does not mean that its not a real situation worldwide. look at lysistrata's post on the first page. This shit has happened on numerous occasions. Calling this Fiction is utterly Bullshit.

the only part of this ad that is "fiction" is the fact that north americans dont have to deal with this shit. Everything else about it is real.
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
You leave me speechless.


I'm not arguing the message I'm arguing the fact that there is no way a television station would or could air this. I'm against land mines, I'm against all forms of unguided munitions. I think cluster bombs and carpet bombing are evil. I think grenades are dubious and I'm about as against land mines as it gets.

However there are ways to get the message across that are legal and appropriate. There are ways that are not and there are ways that can be used to create reaction even though they aren't entirely above the cuff.

For years ad agencies have released "spoof" ads for contests. They aren't real ads in that they weren't created to be aired. Often they are created without knowledge of the company involved or for a company that is small and insignificant and could never afford the ad to begin with.

They are used to gain awards and accolades within the industry, they are used to advertise the agency that creates them. They are often used as resume builders and more often then not they are done by younger groups that don't have portfolios. I'm not saying that its wrong or that its what happened, only that there is no possible way to put this on television as a commercial.

This is cheap trickery for the right reasons. But it doesn't change the fact that its cheap tricks. Ignorance aside I can make a message that is legal and effective this was intentionally done not to be. Feed the Children and various other groups have worked around this for years and very effectively.

It annoys me that drug companies can advertise there crap and that GM can advertise SUV’s, but the two issues are completely separate and unrelated in terms of this commercial.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by xopus
how the fuck can you say that.

if the "fiction" you speak of is a very close representation of real events, then its not fiction.

of course its going to be acted and done in a controlled environment, but that does not mean that its not a real situation worldwide. look at lysistrata's post on the first page. This shit has happened on numerous occasions. Calling this Fiction is utterly Bullshit.

the only part of this ad that is "fiction" is the fact that north americans dont have to deal with this shit. Everything else about it is real.


ok again remember I'm completely against land mines. I'm against everything pretty much mentioned in this thread.

But the add is fiction. It would have to have warning before it was played due to graphic displays of violence. A more effective message can be created that would easily pass.

Show the kids with no legs, show the emergency wards dealing with the repercussions, solicit funds or sell a service to protect these people. In the sake of "awareness" advertising simply showing fictional violence is dubious.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
After two years of seeing your posts online I still don't follow your logic.


alright what parts don't you agree with or follow in this case.

I lioke the ad but I wouldn't air it either. I don't think under CRTS regulations it can even be aired without warning.

Thus I believe that this ad was created for a different reason. To create contreversy and force others to stand with a black eye.

I highly question that those who created this ad had any intention of seeing it on any network.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by marcinm
to clarify:

the explosion was just like a "poof" and suddenly there were people strewn all over the place.. they need to add some flames and possibly a fireball, something that i can relate to.

Werd up dude. I've often felt at odds with many humanitarian pleas lacking a believable level of explosives. Personally, I'd like to have seen a mushroom cloud in the piece, it would've helped keep my eyes from rolling in contempt.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
This doesn't include the cluster bombs that the Americans love using so much. Afghanistan (and probably Iraq too) is still littered with the little yellow bomblets that don't have the same auto-deactivation technology as proper mines.
The United States Air Force began using cluster bombs with self-destruct fuses in Afghanistan. The Army has been slower to adopt the same protocol and unfortunately used their existing stockpile of old cluster bombs in Iraq.

That being said, signing on to a worldwide landmine ban would not preclude a nation from using cluster bombs.
 

marcinm

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
Werd up dude. I've often felt at odds with many humanitarian pleas lacking a believable level of explosives. Personally, I'd like to have seen a mushroom cloud in the piece, it would've helped keep my eyes from rolling in contempt.

for sure.. although a mushroom cloud would've worked better for something like an ad for the Homelands Security office.

then again, when they had that nuclear bomb go off in that movie with Ben Affleck, I'm pretty sure you weren't too concerned about the thousands that got vapourized.. it was more like "fuck, I hope Ben is ok and that he catches the Nazi badguys"
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
atp

Since the conclusion of the Oslo negotiations of the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL has asked States Parties to reconfirm that according to the definitions in the treaty, antivehicle mines equipped with antihandling devices or sensitive fuzes that as a result function like antipersonnel mines -- exploding from an unintentional act -- are banned by the treaty.
Sure, anti-vehicle mines that function like anti-personnel mines are covered under the treaty. Would that make you feel any safer if you were driving around in a former war zone? Countries who have signed the treaty could potentially be laying mines right now that pose a danger to vehicles for decades, whereas American policy only allows from mines that self-destruct.

By the way, setting a tolerance for failure rates of self-destruct systems does not equate with tests actually failing. My earlier post provided evidence that no failures were recorded out of 67,000 tests.
 

Stormshadow

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
Show the kids with no legs, show the emergency wards dealing with the repercussions, solicit funds or sell a service to protect these people. In the sake of "awareness" advertising simply showing fictional violence is dubious.

I don't understand how you can so completely miss the point of this kind of advertising. Of course they could show real footage of landmine victims, but sadly the reaction it would garner is nothing more than 'Well, that sucks from them. Poor little brown kids'...*flick*"On this week's episode of Fear Factor...".

This kind of ad wakes people up from their stupor, and hits close to home. It's needed to make people realize that this shit happens to people like them, in everyday, ordinary lives. So it's not some problem that shouldn't concern them.

Is it a cheap tactic as you say? Maybe.
But 95% of all advertising does the same thing. How many ads are actually based in reality? It's meant to get your attention, and it accomplishes that.
As for them knowing that networks will never air it, read what other were saying earlier in the thread about the power of the Internet, and the flow of information. They knew this commercial would make the rounds, whether networks would air it or not.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Stormshadow
I don't understand how you can so completely miss the point of this kind of advertising. Of course they could show real footage of landmine victims, but sadly the reaction it would garner is nothing more than 'Well, that sucks from them. Poor little brown kids'...*flick*"On this week's episode of Fear Factor...".

This kind of ad wakes people up from their stupor, and hits close to home. It's needed to make people realize that this shit happens to people like them, in everyday, ordinary lives. So it's not some problem that shouldn't concern them.

Is it a cheap tactic as you say? Maybe.
But 95% of all advertising does the same thing. How many ads are actually based in reality? It's meant to get your attention, and it accomplishes that.
As for them knowing that networks will never air it, read what other were saying earlier in the thread about the power of the Internet, and the flow of information. They knew this commercial would make the rounds, whether networks would air it or not.

If this ad is allowed how do you prevent an anti abortion group doing an ad showing a botched abortion (it does still happen and its graphic as all living hell!). Or a pro-gun group showing a life be taken by an armed robber.

The slope of public information and awareness has to go both ways, the messages I personally support and the ones I don't. Same rules have to apply regardless of my personal feelings.

Showing fiction to make a point may be valid but not in the context of a paid service anouncement. Additionally any commercial showing a life be taken in this nature is simply inappropriate. Commercials have to be of a light nature by the fact that they can not give descriminate warning to kids.


Again I agree with the message, but if I were a network I wouldn't touch this.
 

Stormshadow

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
If this ad is allowed how do you prevent an anti abortion group doing an ad showing a botched abortion (it does still happen and its graphic as all living hell!). Or a pro-gun group showing a life be taken by an armed robber.

Can you really compare a message from the UN to that of a special interest lobby group?
Especially over the topic of landmines?
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

gasper

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
can you explain why? I honestly don't get it and would love to have it explained.

Calling the tactics of this ad dubious b/c it's not a real landmine explosion in a country affected by the problem makes no sense to me. You're completely missing the point, and it blows me away that you'd make such silly arguments. I can't follow your logic at all.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
The United States Air Force began using cluster bombs with self-destruct fuses in Afghanistan. The Army has been slower to adopt the same protocol and unfortunately used their existing stockpile of old cluster bombs in Iraq.

That being said, signing on to a worldwide landmine ban would not preclude a nation from using cluster bombs.

18_102-10_jpg.jpg


These are cluster bombs. Last time the military checked, they were shown to fail 5% of the time. That is an empirical measurement. Those 5% are now landmines. Safer? No.

In Kosovo, The ICRC produced a study that demonstrated children were five times more likely to be injured by cluster bombs than by landmines.
As recently as August 2000, Vietnamese children have been killed by these bombs.

The United States uses these weapons for military-strategic reasons, but it is also highly convenient for them that it does not fall under the Mine Ban Treaty. The fact that they show little concern for the humanitarian effects of these weapons is what is disturbing. Stating that they have no reason to sign the treaty because their arms are "safe already" is ignorant and untrue. They are not the only country with this attitude, but they are certainly the most infamous.


Sure, anti-vehicle mines that function like anti-personnel mines are covered under the treaty. Would that make you feel any safer if you were driving around in a former war zone? Countries who have signed the treaty could potentially be laying mines right now that pose a danger to vehicles for decades,

Countries who have not signed the treaty could be potentially laying mines right now. Oh wait, they are. Like the United States. I don't understand your point here. Is it your belief that the Mine Ban Treaty is a superficial policy with little relevancy to conflict zones?


whereas American policy only allows from mines that self-destruct.

The Mine Ban Treaty is a more restrictive policy than the American policy. And the American policy is simply a compromise that permits their weapons to be used with total disregard for the human factor, which is the driving force behind the ban in the first place. Obviously if countries don't follow the rules then the only thing you can do is try to legally hold those countries accountable. I would rather that the United States cooperated as an international member of a treaty whose spirit suggests that human life is important.

What is of concern here is human life. The fact that the United States is unwilling to cooperate on an international scale is a) consistent with their behaviour in this regard and b) illustrative of how they perceive the treaty: as a threat to their ability to operate as a military (killing) machine.


By the way, setting a tolerance for failure rates of self-destruct systems does not equate with tests actually failing. My earlier post provided evidence that no failures were recorded out of 67,000 tests.

The reported failure rates are observed. Especially with respect to cluster bombs (or bomblets) that rely on the same "smart" technologies:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/cluster031803.htm
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r75_1.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cluster.htm

It is estimated that approximately 1600 Iraqis have been killed as a result of these "malfunctioning" bomblets. In addition, the United States has not actually stopped the use of persistent anti-personnel mines. Indeed, according to their own CCW treaty:

Today, persistent anti-personnel landmines are ONLY stockpiled for use by the United States in fulfillment of our treaty obligations to the Republic of Korea. Between now and the end of 2010, persistent anti-vehicle mines can only be employed outside the Republic of Korea when authorized by the President. After 2010, the United States will not employ either of these types of landmines.

I'll let HRW finish off this silly debate:

Do U.S. landmines contribute to the global problem?

The U.S. is one of just fifteen countries left in the world that produce or reserve the right to produce antipersonnel mines. U.S.-manufactured antipersonnel mines have been found by deminers in at least twenty-eight mine-affected countries or regions. The U.S. exported over 5.6 million antipersonnel mines to thirty-eight countries between 1969 and 1992 and stockpiled its antipersonnel mines in at least twelve foreign countries.


How many landmines does the U.S. stockpile?

The U.S. stockpiles 10.4 million antipersonnel mines and 7.5 million antivehicle mines making it the worlds third largest mine power. Included in this 17.9 million landmine stockpile are 1.5 million long-lived antipersonnel mines and 1.3 million long-lived antivehicle mines. Mixed systems that contain both self-destructing antipersonnel and antivehicle mines constitute only eleven percent of the overall stockpile.


When was the last time the U.S. used landmines?

The U.S. last used landmines in the 1991 Gulf War by scattering 117,634 landmines in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. U.S. forces in recent combat operations in Afghanistan or Iraq did not use landmines.

Protective minefields from the Soviet era are incorporated into the perimeter defense scheme at locations U.S. forces currently occupy in Afghanistan. Military advantage is derived from these minefields and the U.S. is obligated to comply with 1996 Amended Protocol II of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to mark and monitor these minefields to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians. The US failed to report measures it has taken to protect civilians from the effects of these landmines in its annual national reports for this treaty submitted in December 2002 and November 2003.


Do smart mines still pose a humanitarian threat?

The time when the mines are armed and when they self-destruct or fully self-deactivate can be as long as nineteen weeks. In theoretically perfect conditions all of these mines should destroy themselves. However, mines are damaged during delivery, two-to-five percent of self-destruct mechanisms fail, and up to ten percent of the mines fail to arm properly. This means that a proportion of these U.S. mines would always remain intact on the surface of the ground without any indication whether the mine is live or not. Since aircraft or artillery remotely deliver these mines in large numbers, they are not required to be marked, fenced, or monitored to exclude civilians. From a deminers perspective, all mines encountered must be treated as though they are live. The mines must be cleared one-at-a-time using the same procedures used to clear all mines. The humanitarian impact is still present regardless of whether the mine has a self-destruct mechanism.


How reliable are U.S. landmines that self-destruct?

Assurances that U.S. landmines are unquestionably reliable are inconsistent with the cautions contained in Army field manuals, the findings of ammunition surveillance testing data, and experiences in the 1991 Gulf War. The Pentagon provided the U.S. General Accounting Office in 2002 with test records that documented reliability problems with eight of its self-destruct landmine systems; among other problems, some landmines did not self-destruct as intended. The reports cited by the GAO indicated at least one test produced hazardous dud mines. A U.S. demining contractor working in Kuwait in 1991-1992 reported finding substantially more U.S. landmine duds than would be expected if dud rates were as low as documents and briefings stated.
 

phunkymunky

TRIBE Member
definitely a great ad. really gets it's point across. unfortunate that no stations will air it. i could see canadian stations airing it possibly...
 
Top