There is a very limited view of the world pushed by the media in war zones. You don't want to puke on your fry up when the 6 comes on. The footage is usually lots of AK fire in the air - good for pics and sound - and followed by heavily censored pictures of the aftermath of the effects of these weapons on the poor buggers on the receiving end, whenever the militias of any side remember to point them downwards before pulling the trigger. MY question is - and no, not a lurking journo - how much of the horror should the media show? I say this because I've just watched a militia chap from 'doesn'tmatterwhatfuckinside' say that the poor young boys, and they were boys, they put up in Sarajevo, had no idea what a round or a grenade would do to a human body. They learned the hard way, natch. If your average Joe, or Mohammed, knew what modern weapons did to a body, would they be less likely to send people out to fight? Too many non-professional soldiers think an AK, 2 thirty rounds mags and a sody pop to keep the sugar up is all you need to get by, until they actually see it. I think the media should show the full ****ing monte; Markale, Rwanda or wherever. If they don't, the sanitisation of the images invites more young cretins to sign up and pop an AK out of a window, imho.