New Terrorism inspired Fourth of July Fireworks

[Billfred]

Go for it. It's not like it's realistic by any means (although the real deal would probably be liked as much by most folks)

Gotta love free enterprise, eh?

[Elyse Holguin]

Originally Posted by Billfred

Gotta love free enterprise, eh?

it's good marketing, at any rate.

people look at the killing of a terrorist, be it real-live or in firecaracker form, as a sign of patriotism (that is, the definition of patriotism most people are using these days), and at this time of the year anything patriotic sells.

on that level of thinking alone, some may feel that they are being patriotic in "killing" the people they have been told terrorists, and if it makes them happy, then the product was successful.

personally, i like the sparkly fountain fireworks, and the big sky displays. i think it's nice to hear them crackle.

[Lisa Perez]

Originally Posted by Elyse Holguin

it's good marketing, at any rate.

I agree. Just as long as the users know the difference between blowing a firecracker up, and blowing a real person up. If parents are buying this for their kids, they should definitely make sure they know that difference.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Lisa Perez

Just as long as the users know the difference between blowing a firecracker up, and blowing a real person up.

See, she gets it.

Originally Posted by SuperDanman

So whats the difference between a terrorist and a president? Perception.

And so does he.

So, if one wants to "buy some fireworks and blow up some terrorists this weekend because I can", all the better. Just don't complain when you see Bush being burned in effigy, or see a flag trampled upon.

Originally Posted by David Kelly

1. capital punnishment is legal in America
2. Saddam raped murdered thousands of his own people
3. OBL was indicted by a grand jury in the '98 US embassy bombings and is worth 25,000,000 [dead or alive]
4. putting a president and terrorist in a same category is sickning
5. don't mess with the secret service. nothing is a joke to them (one of my HS teachers could tell you a story about it)

As for these, I'm not sure why some of them are relevant to the question of mocking leaders and/or terrorists via explosive devices.

1. Correct (but immaterial)
2. Likely (but also immaterial)
3. Correct (but why the reward amount is in any way pertinent, I can't say)
4. Like SuperDanman said, one man's terrorist is another's great leader. I'm not at all saying that Bush is Saddam's spitting image--but neither of them are especially responsible leaders. (And when we're talking about fireworks, who cares if presidents and terrorists are in the same category--they're all going to explode anyway....)
5. If they can't take a joke, or a parody, they should be in another line of work. Don't waste taxpayer dollars chasing Canadians who make fun of the system™. That sort of paranoia is utterly insane, and belongs in Soviet Russia.

[Yan Wang]

What was the golden rule... treat others as you would treat yourself.

And... two wrongs don't make a right.

If the USA wants to increase its popularity in the world, these stupid fireworks wouldn't be used. It's these small things that happen that add up to cause a much larger negative image of us. Why not just set a better example from the beginning? Isn't that an offshoot of gracious professionalism?

[Karthik]

I know better than to try and get water from a stone, so I'm going to ignore most of the ignorant and offensive nonsense in this thread.

That being said, I have question. I'm a little confused as to why there's so much public outcry to people burning effigies of Bin Laden and Hussein, yet it's perfectly acceptable when it comes to serial killers and child molesters.

To cite a Canadian example, there's nothing that rallies our country together more than people discussing different ways to torture Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmoka (The notorious serial killing and raping couple). As soon as one speaks out about this, they're immediately turned into social pariah's.

I think it was only 10 years ago when people mailed all their O.J. Simpson memorabillia to a central location for some sort of public burning.

Clearly the crimes of Hussein and Bin Laden are worse (if you can even compare magnitudes at this level). I'd be interested to hear what people have to say in terms of this apparent double standard? I'm looking at those on both sides of the coin here...

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by Karthik

That being said, I have question. I'm a little confused as to why there's so much public outcry to people burning effigies of Bin Laden and Hussein, yet it's perfectly acceptable when it comes to serial killers and child molesters.

To cite a Canadian example, there's nothing that rallies our country together more than people discussing different ways to torture Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmoka (The notorious serial killing and raping couple). As soon as one speaks out about this, they're immediately turned into social pariah's.

I think it was only 10 years ago when people mailed all their O.J. Simpson memorabillia to a central location for some sort of public burning.

Clearly the crimes of Hussein and Bin Laden are worse (if you can even compare magnitudes at this level). I'd be interested to hear what people have to say in terms of this apparent double standard? I'm looking at those on both sides of the coin here...

Okay Karthik, I'll bite. You raise an interesting question and I'm going to just touch on it. First of all to put things in perspective, I think a lot of us are actually quite indifferent as to what other people want to burn/hack/mash/eat, but the argument you present about them imposing a double-standard doesn't address something I'll attempt to explain in a minute. I personally couldn't care less if either party's effigies were mutillated in a show of free expression, as we Canadians call it, though it's certainly a silly waste of the aformentioned mad cheddah.

My belief is this: Paul and Karla hit close to home and commited much more brutal, personal crimes. Saddam commited very detached crimes in a much greater magnitude, but we as a whole can hardly relate with the goings-on of the Arab world. Likewise, Saddam only recently started being tried, in a questionable court on the other side of the world; he exists as an icon to the West, but we really know little of him. As some have already pointed out in this thread, the reason they are questioning the motive behind burning Osama's effigy is that doing so is less a statement of disapproval for the crime as it is a childish political statement. As such, I think this could also be an important distinction that is being made, rather than a double-standard.

[Adam Y.]

Wow I just thought of something really ironic. Someone accidentlly killing themselves up by trying to light one of those effigys.

[Amanda Morrison]

The store where I work is in the same building as a fireworks store, so we're often in close contact. I've seen the above mentioned fireworks, but honestly haven't seen many people leaving with them. Really, I see a lot of the huge sets and large fireworks leaving the store. Now, take into consideration that this is one of the top selling fireworks stores, and I guess you can see the general consensus of the NW Indiana South Chicago area: We just like to blow things up, no matter whose face is printed on it.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

My belief is this: Paul and Karla hit close to home and commited much more brutal, personal crimes. Saddam commited very detached crimes in a much greater magnitude, but we as a whole can hardly relate with the goings-on of the Arab world. Likewise, Saddam only recently started being tried, in a questionable court on the other side of the world; he exists as an icon to the West, but we really know little of him. As some have already pointed out in this thread, the reason they are questioning the motive behind burning Osama's effigy is that doing so is less a statement of disapproval for the crime as it is a childish political statement. As such, I think this could also be an important distinction that is being made, rather than a double-standard.

True, the Homolka/Bernardo connection hit eerily close to home for some(he grew up on the 60 yards away from one of my best friends). But so did the September 11th attacks. Over 2,900 people died that day, mainly from the city of New York. If you play a little game of six degrees, and assume each of those people was close with 100 people, eliminating a hardy amount of duplications (about 19 million or so) you see that at least 10 million people were only a mere two degrees from someone who died in the attacks. It's natural that's going to be an extreme amount of anger.

I understand completely the dangers and error of responding out of vengeance and anger. Yet, I will never fault someone for doing so. I cannot claim to grasp the anger felt when one loses a loved one to something as horrifying as murder. If people are angry, let them be angry. If their anger is limited to blowing up effigies, that's great. It's better than their anger being taken out in some other, more destructive way. (Blowing up effigies = good, blowing up look-a-likes = bad)

Taking that all into account, it is the responsibility of cooler heads, and those not directly involved to behave in a less vengeful manner. I would never ever, want punishments (I'm firmly against the death penalty) or foreign policies created out of anger. It's why we have impartial juries and judges.

I just think that telling people who may have been impacted by such horrible events, that they really shouldn't burn Bin Laden's face because it might upset people in other parts of the world, is being a tad bit unrealistic. I know how'd I react if someone told me to show some respect for someone who had killed my mother, for the sake of keeping up foreign relations.