http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040702/ap_on_re_us/terrorist_fireworks
Thoughts, Concerns, Comments?
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?
I have to wonder why this country has such a rough time in the Middle East.
All we do is blow up caricatures of middle easterners in celebration of our own countries independence.
Really, what’s the big deal? They were Evil Doers, after all. Just love us already!
-Andy A.
I have no problem with blowing up the heads of terrorists. This is a great way to show your patriotism for America while getting your chance to kill a terrorist.
I have no problem with blowing up the heads of presidents. This is a great way to show your patriotism for [oppressive terroristic regime] while getting your chance to kill a president.
Seriously, as long as you are willing to allow anyone to burn anyone else’s effigy, go right on ahead with Osama.
Protected free speech, is a good thing, after all. Advocating blowing up peoples’ (real) heads, somewhat less so.
(Note to Secret Service: Go away. It’s not for real.)
- capital punnishment is legal in America
- Saddam raped murdered thousands of his own people
- OBL was indicted by a grand jury in the '98 US embassy bombings and is worth 25,000,000 [dead or alive]
- putting a president and terrorist in a same category is sickning
- 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)
In conclusion, I’m going to buy some fireworks and blow up some terrorists this weekend because I can.
[quote=“David Kelly”]
putting a president and terrorist in a same category is sickning
Actually, they’re both quite the same thing.
sigh I don’t want to turn this into another political debate; you know well enough by now where my views lie on this. I just want to say for once try and view the world from other peoples’ perspectives…
to you Saddam is a terrorist… to others Saddam is their president.
to you Bush is your president… to others Bush is a terrorist.
So whats the difference between a terrorist and a president? Perception. They say history is nothing more than the winners’ story; it all comes down to perception.
Don’t worry… I’m not advocating Saddam is a good man or that terrorists nurture and raise cute innocent adorable puppies in their down-time… I’m just saying there is a reason that people feel the way they do, and maybe you should try and understand them rather than hate them right back.
After all, you know the ol’ cliche… nothing quite like fighting fire with fire.
Yeehaw!
http://dekart.f.bg.ac.yu/~smijusko/drstrangelove/bomb.jpg[/quote]
Far be it from me to play devil’s advocate here, or take the role of a loony liberal that seems to be so beloved in the United States, but your replies lack a certain fore and afterthought that can usually be found with a chiefdelphi posting.
The 5 points you stated don’t really seem to add much to your argument that you can blow up those effigies, but they merely reinforce the stubborn stonewalling and “I’m Right No Matter What” attitude that provokes angst, frustration and is arguably the root of resentment among countries that the United States seems to have serious differences with.
Seriously, the most mind boggling of your statements is that putting a terrorist and a president in the same category is sickening. Is that not what we have done with Hussein, Milosevic, arguably any Soviet or Iron Curtain leader? Replace the word President with Prime Minister, Leader, what have you, it is the same situation.
Messing with the secret service? The very fact that you posted that underlines just how draconian the entire DoJ has become. Speak to any immigrant of any visible minority, or to the poor Tibetan monk who was denied any access to a lawyer, put in solitary for over a year and a half for taking tourist shots of New York before being released based on the pleading of the FBI agent who turned him in, in the first place. They can tell you not to mess with the secret service all you want.
The fact that “You Can” doesn’t mean that “You Should” nor “I am Right Because I Can”, maybe adding a little dimension to your way of thinking might clear those differences up.
I too am bothered by these points, and feel I must co-defend the devil with my young friend. Luckily, I don’t think this thread can really go off-topic, considering the way Elgin baited us all. 
Yes. It is. While that’s not what Tristan was talking about in any way (don’t group us together in opinion by the way; they’re different), it should still be noted that most states have progressed culturally and socially enough to outlaw this. Another time, perhaps.
I highly doubt Saddam raped, murdered, or “raped murdered” (heh heh) thousands of his own people. His subordinates attacked the Shi’ites and the Kurds, who were included in his country not by his choice, and rude as it may seem, they were not his people. A nation is supposed to be formed on the basis of cultural values that are similar, and Iraq certainly wasn’t an example of this. Neither is Canada for that matter, but Quebec seperatism is a great microcosm for that phenomenon.
Moreover, this genocide was catalyzed by the Gulf War and Western policy, which directly and indirectly killed more of his people than Saddam did anyway. Now it’s absolutely true that political enemies were killed and tortured without hesitation under the Ba’ath party in *huge *numbers, but we should ask ourselves a question, being patriotic Americans: would we care about those people if there wasn’t mad cheddah involved?
Yup, public Enemy #1. That he is. But then again, so is Bush in all those countries with less-important people. </sarcasm>
Define terrorist.
.
.
.
.
Good, now which criterion does Bush not fit? As was said earlier, perspective is everything. I’d love to know the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. I wonder if Pervez Musharraf would be a terrorist if he didn’t support the USA…
My brother is silly. I’m petrified of D’Agustino.
Still, another good excercise in definitions is to define patriot (hint: not the movie, and not the missile). That word is so often misused in the States that the malapropism has filtered into Canadian politics. It bugs me. Michael Moore is a patriot, even though he has dissenting views relative to his president, who by the way is not automatically a patriot. The fact that he wants to improve and loves his country makes him a patriot. Whether he’s right or wrong is a completely different issue from Right or Left.
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.
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.
See, she gets it.
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.
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.
- Correct (but immaterial)
- Likely (but also immaterial)
- Correct (but why the reward amount is in any way pertinent, I can’t say)
- 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…)
- 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.
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?
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…
It’s freedom of speech, and I dont particularly care, so whatever, go at it.
Nice Clancy reference
Cory
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.
Wow I just thought of something really ironic. Someone accidentlly killing themselves up by trying to light one of those effigys.
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.
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.