Bush as a Terrorist: childish delusional simplicity or provocative artistry?

[Asher Kelman]

http://www.pbase.com/oeyvind/image/71875054.jpg
¿El Terrorista?

I like the composition. It is, as is sufficiently confrontational. Although would it be so effective if we had no knowldge of George Bush? That is an important compositon and design question that I'd love to see some comments on.

I'm surprised this is seen outside the USA! I recognize these posters. Always wanted to steam one off and keep it for myself.

I happen to be conflicted about the subject because the statement is simplistic and perhaps juvenile too.

I do like the fact that the poster is on something very chrome finished which contrasts with the casual irreverence of the guerilla political statement.

Asher


P.S. Tim, this "bare-in-your face" picture deserves to be paid attention to for its own inherent value, nothing else.

[Asher Kelman]

The guerilla art depicting american political figures as evil has now found its way around Europe. Here, in the USA, we consider the work interesting, thought provoking irreverence.

However, perhaps it is far more serious.

Is it possible that the artist and those who avidly support this type of anti-American rhetoric* are really naive about the true existential threat of terrorists to the Western (mostly humanistic and Judaio-Christian-flavored) democratic societies?

Asher

*Please don't protest here how "We love Americans just hate GB and his cronies!" as it may be more complex than that!

[Don Lashier]

The guerilla art depicting american political figures as evil has now found its way around Europe. Here, in the USA, we consider the work interesting, thought provoking irreverence.

Speak for yourself - I happen to (more or less) agree with the poster. Not to diminish the threat of terrorists, but GB's reckless behaviour had nothing to do with combating terrorism and in fact diverted attention and resources from the real battle, and in the process alienated most of the world, and Muslims in particular. This was actually counter productive making it more likely imo that we will suffer more from terrorist attacks in the future.

- DL

[Asher Kelman]

Don,

I'm not sure that your own view is excluded from "thought provoking irreverence"? Your words are certainly more strident than that and a not uncommon summation of the GB actions in response to 911.

The comments I made are merely questions, starting off points. I'm just recording impressions I hear around me. Your description has validity.

Asher

[Ivan Garcia]

Although there is a few faces missing from that poster, I am in complete agreement with the statement, Bush, Blair and other world leaders (including Spain’s previous president Mr Aznar) recklessly ignored the UN resolution against the Afghan and Iraqi wars, The UN was created precisely to stop single countries, with military might, to blatantly invade foreign soil. Bush, and his cronies, have made a mockery of this organisation by engaging on an illegal war. Thus making them a bunch of Terrorist, not better or worse, than the so called freedom fighters, that bombs our cities.

[Asher Kelman]

Ivan,

I'm diverted helping a friend with cancer but I just wanted to add a question to this. You used the term "illegal".

This implies some legal system, in fact the legal system. however, we do not have AFAIK a defined legal system that covers where we are today.

People in the UN vote their interest, so the opinions are hardly "legal".

I'm not yet espousing any particular point of view, just the framework seems a little wonky for building an argument on "legality".

One can say what one finds odorous, unfair, unreasonable unworkable and so forth.

Legality is however, a floppy ruler to use!

Asher

[Ivan Garcia]

Asher
Sorry to hear one of your friends has cancer, please extend my wishes for a speedy recovery to him.
I agree, maybe the wrong choice, although the term "illegal war", is used by our own politicians in the UK (the ones against it),"illegal" in my sentence, was more on the meaning of unfairness, and not in the criminal sense of the word.
Not that I am comparing, but, the wars fought against the north and south American native Indians, was perfectly legal.
Today we view those wars as atrocities that eradicated wonderful cultures form the map of this earth, so, even thought this war maybe legal today, tomorrow, it could become a crime against humanity. It will be interesting to see what history will make of it in 50-100 years time.
As with regards of the picture, the composition works for me, and although not sure if intentional, is in good contrast , for me, the chrome represents the knight in shiny armour image that our leaders try to portrait, the poster, the harsh reality of what sectors of the populous think of them.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Ivan,

Now that I think of it, the chrome pillar is like a 21st century phallus, a steel phallus to push where ever one wants or maybe a post to hold warships to the dock.

I think the power of the picture comes from its simplicity and the audacity of the poster. However, without an explanation, in 20 years time, who knows, Bush may be forgotten.

All the European nations raped their colonies and brutalized each other. Now there's something of anhypocracy in looking at /Amrica as crimiminal or wicked as opposed to ill-advised, reckless and not fully prepared for consequences of poorly or incompletely planned and executed responses to real existential threats.

We all live in what I call a "Grand Delusionorium", which I will subsequently try to elucidate with a poem.

A government that is handicapped by narrow belief in the bible and has little knowledge of history and other cultures cannot make realistic plans for dealing with them. In the muslim world the same approach hold but from an an opposite starting point!

While this is happenning, we have jeering disaffected onlookers from Europe. Here many have their own agendas and built up hositilities, jealosy and envy of the USA. Worst there's a pervading delusion that pacifism or negotiation can deal with zealots! There's the idea that if someone is willing to blow themselves up, then there must be some good reason for doing it, when in fact it is the result of narrow teaching of biblical fanatics and exploiters of the faithful.

This is not exactly a setup for meaninful solutions!'

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

Now, may I suggest a new weapon against war, in this end of 2007, may all OPF members give a try, one never know, if it doesn't work, at least it will kill nobody (well, maybe from a heart attack ;-):
nothing to do with porn (http://globalorgasm.org/)
Enjoy my friends !

[Ivan Garcia]

Asher,
I like your comparison with a phallus :-D
A terrorist and a dick head may have been the original intention lol.
In a serious note, I do agree with your thoughts to some extent; America has become somewhat of an escape goat for disgruntled Europeans.
In the other hand, Europeans have been dealing with terrorist for a very long time, the poster on the “phallus” is located in the Basque country, were ETA terrorists originate, hypocrisy at its best I would say.
England has been dealing with the IRA for a long time too, and those two countries (to put them as an example) have not gone in to war with Ireland or the Basque country. The fact that they are/were involved in this war puzzles me.
The ill advised judgment you are talking about doesn’t just include America; Spain, England, Japan, Australia, (to name but a few) were at some time or another, involved in this war, so my thoughts of contempt is extended to those countries as well.
Europe savaged their colonies, I agree, still, that is hardly an excuse to do the very same again, are we not supposed to learn from past mistakes?
Terrorisms is a fact of life, there will always be people who willingly go to extremes to demonstrate their unhappiness with the way things are turning out, however, we mustn’t allow these people to change or otherwise interfere with our way of life, as it is, they are, and thus makes tem carry on with their evil ways, they are, after all, achieving their goal, to cause as much disruption as possible.

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,
I like your comparison with a phallus :-D
A terrorist and a dick head may have been the original intention lol.
In a serious note, I do agree with your thoughts to some extent; America has become somewhat of an escape goat for disgruntled Europeans........

Terrorisms is a fact of life, there will always be people who willingly go to extremes to demonstrate their unhappiness with the way things are turning out, however, we mustn’t allow these people to change or otherwise interfere with our way of life, as it is, they are, and thus makes tem carry on with their evil ways, they are, after all, achieving their goal, to cause as much disruption as possible.

Ivan,

The assumption is that some unhappiness is the root cause is, I believe, at least too simple an explanation!

There are fundamentalist monopolies over the minds of millions of people indoctrinated to the very fibers of their being that a Muslim Caliphate is needed to rule the whole world. Perhaps they are right!

By contrast, the Christians, Mormons, Catholics and other such believers try to convert wherever they can under the guise of education or medicine, since they are likewise convinced that they are rescuing souls from perpetual damnation. Maybe, instead they hold the sole truth? However, I doubt that too!

At this time, the latter group merely cheer the Bush encampment. They don't actually train suicide bombers.

By contrast, the Muslim fundamentalists who have decided to consolidate society and the rule of Sharia, see no need for other governments or sources of guidance or law. They hardly imagine a function for local democracies or jurisprudence, since that would be superfulous.

In Europe especially, there is the belief, especially in the young who have not experienced Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, the late Imperial govenment of Japan, Stalin and other despots, that freedom is a natural state of man. That is another conforting delusion!

Freedom is not a state of society that has no war or robbers. Many dictator ships can achieve that by ruthless discipline.

The young are interested in self actualization, ipods, comfort, dance and song. Idealism comes from catch phrases and infectious ideals divorced from all the reality of history and the evil power of fantical belief. Flowers and songs will not turn the evil to a negotiating partner to be trusted.

The fundamentalist look to agreements as temporary tactics on the road to their overal strategy for religious replacement of our way of life.

A way of life? Yes a unique and fragile system based on ideals for which we have fought. Mistakenly, the young feel that respect for individual rights, equality of women, freedom and debate are natural facets of man. These liberal characteristics of modern thought are in fact ideals we have struggled for thousands of years to frame and achieve.

As long as we don't face up to this, we are doomed to have more disasters.

Asher

[Ivan Garcia]

Hi Asher.
The assumption is that some unhappiness is the root cause is, I believe, at least too simple an explanation!
Yes Maybe a bit simplistic in my explanation :-)
There are fundamentalist monopolies over the minds of millions of people indoctrinated to the very fibers of their being that a Muslim Caliphate is needed to rule the whole world. Perhaps they are right!
By contrast, the Christians, Mormons, Catholics and other such believers try to convert wherever they can under the guise of education or medicine, since they are likewise convinced that they are rescuing souls from perpetual damnation. Maybe, instead they hold the sole truth? However, I doubt that too!
As education has become more accessible to the masses, people have begun to question religion and other untenable philosophies; Spanish people no longer prosecute and burn decent people believing they are witches and warlocks. Nor do they go through South America bible in one hand a musket in the other. (I use Spanish people as an example because I am Spanish, thus I can talk freely about what my ancestors did, and Spain is a mayor catholic country, but what I am saying applies all over the world)
At this time, the latter group merely cheer the Bush encampment. They don't actually train suicide bombers.
I agree, still, we train highly efficient soldiers willing to die for our own ideologies; just as bad.
By contrast, the Muslim fundamentalists who have decided to consolidate society and the rule of Sharia, see no need for other governments or sources of guidance or law. They hardly imagine a function for local democracies or jurisprudence, since that would be superfulous.
Muslims people (the educated ones) are far from the fanatics the media portraits of them; civilised and willing to find a good compromise, these are the people we need to talk to.
In Europe especially, there is the belief, especially in the young who have not experienced Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, the late Imperial govenment of Japan, Stalin and other despots, that freedom is a natural state of man. That is another conforting delusion!

Freedom is not a state of society that has no war or robbers. Many dictator ships can achieve that by ruthless discipline.
Coming from Spain I know all too well what life under dictatorship feels like, and I do not take for granted our liberties, on the contrary, I know just how fragile they are. We should be proud that our youth takes these liberties for grantred, it shows just how much we have acheived
The young are interested in self actualization, ipods, comfort, dance and song. Idealism comes from catch phrases and infectious ideals divorced from all the reality of history and the evil power of fantical belief.
Sadly this is true the young are more interested in Prada clothing that politics or history.
Flowers and songs will not turn the evil to a negotiating partner to be trusted.
The fundamentalist look to agreements as temporary tactics on the road to their overal strategy for religious replacement of our way of life.

I do agree the evil doers are always going to stall for time to put their dastardly plans in to action.
We need to hunt down these fanatics but not at the expense of innocent lives.
A way of life? Yes a unique and fragile system based on ideals for which we have fought. Mistakenly, the young feel that respect for individual rights, equality of women, freedom and debate are natural facets of man. These liberal characteristics of modern thought are in fact ideals we have struggled for thousands of years to frame and achieve.

As long as we don't face up to this, we are doomed to have more disasters.
The excuse of imminent terror attack is being used and abused by politicians all over the world to fast track bills that interfere with our civil liberties.
If the threat is so great, how come bombs are not going off every day of our lives in every city?
By contrast bombs are going off every day in Iraq, the place we were supposed to liberate, the threat there is very real and daily.
The truth is, there is a threat, but not as big as our governments wants us to believe.

[Asher Kelman]

Now, may I suggest a new weapon against war, in this end of 2007, may all OPF members give a try, one never know, if it doesn't work, at least it will kill nobody (well, maybe from a heart attack ;-):
nothing to do with porn (http://globalorgasm.org/)
Enjoy my friends !


By coincidence, Nicolas, tomorrow December the 22cd is our wedding anniversary so that's perfect timing! Thanks for facilitating this great celebration! I hope you can help to send up a force field of love from Bordeaux to Los Angeles and everywhere in between going spirally arounf the globe!~

Asher

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Now, may I suggest a new weapon against war, in this end of 2007, may all OPF members give a try, one never know, if it doesn't work, at least it will kill nobody (well, maybe from a heart attack ;-):
nothing to do with porn (http://globalorgasm.org/)
Enjoy my friends !

Thank goodness, your news came in time, I'm not late to pitch in:-)
Sounds like a big day tomorrow, eh? ;-)
"Make love not war!"
Peace, out!

[Nicolas Claris]

I hope you can help to send up a force field of love from Bordeaux to Los Angeles and everywhere in between going spirally arounf the globe!~
Asher
I'll try my best !

[Asher Kelman]

Who knows the name of this famous artist?

Asher

[Rob Riley]

the actuality as i understand it, illegal applies

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1200535.htm

"Kofi Annan, said today that the US-led invasion was illegal"

whenever some country acts without a clear UN mandate its such a provocative way, that act has implications of criminality. Going against the UN charter, without a UN mandate, even when a decision to the contrary had been decided upon is definitely within that sphere. Hence, a complaint request has been taken to the German Federal Prosecutor to open an investigation into the responsibility of high-ranking US officials for authorising war crimes. Since Donald Rumsfeld has resigned from the US Govt, and is therefore without state protection status, he is liable. We simply cannot afford this notion of pre-emptive war to continue unabated. That said an accused must have the right of an adequate and fair defense, and a label of criminal before a conviction should be avoided

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve06/1300case.html

"The complaint alleges that the defendants "ordered" war crimes, "aided or abetted" war crimes, or "failed, as civilian superiors or military commanders, to prevent their commission by subordinates, or to punish their subordinates", actions that are explicitly criminalised by German law."

Perhaps on the wider point, did the iraq war have implications for the war on terror ?
I would say without a doubt, there is now a mounted resistance to the pursuit of the war on terrorism by factional Muslim groups that simply didnt exist before the Iraq invasion.

As to the relevance of the work in question,
it makes an awkward but ironic connection to the war on terror by its principle proponent.


Riley

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Riley,

Kofi, himself might very well have somewhat "dirty hands" in the finances of the food for oil scandal. So he's hardly the boyscout person to be the arbiter of the jucntion between legal-illegal.

I checked. So far, I didn't find Kofi declare

"This war was a criminal act!"

Now I have not addressed whether or not the war was illegal or criminal. One has to frame this according to a particular context or body of law.

If we had to rely on Kofi's judgement for security then we in the USA might very well be subject top the same conscience Kofi showed for poor non-oil rich Rwanda's chopped to death or for non-oil endowed Black afrcians raped, slughtered and exiled by govenment directed militias in Darfur.

I cannot accept that our notions of a/ legality or b. criminality should be defined and judged by a man who has already come short in ethical behavior.

Now it could well be that the war was illegal and certain acotrs were indeed criminal.

Excepts from ABC doe not constitute and proof of anything except that both Bush and his war are considered reckless even cruel and illegal and should be punished.

Perhaps had Bush sent an extra 200,000 troops to keep the Iraq people safe and secure to go to the hospital and work and go to school, we would now be saying

"He did a great job, but was wrong doing it in the first place."


I think it is perfectly valid to hold Bush, Cheney and co accountable for their actions.

To my mind art, through its power, can sometiimes expose and condemn more effectively than a court.

In our society, public figures cannot sue for such art.

The Bush legacy has already unflattering posters stapled to it.

For sure in De Gaule's France, a doodle like that on a restaurant napkin would land one in jail!

Asher

[Rob Riley]

certainly the implied crimes of Kofi Annan (the actual connections were relatives i think) are despicable, and while him saying the war is illegal may seem like the pot calling the kettle black, the allegations would be properly be prosecuted in a court of law. And Kofi isnt the only one who would suggest illegalities

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1166522799501

reports that the considered opinion is the quest would fail, but “They want to know that the world doesn’t think that it’s OK.”

http://www.asil.org/insights/2006/12/insights061214.html

the publication for The American Society of International Law, recites that
"it is not without precedent. Twelve trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany under the provisions of the Control Council Law No. 10, following the U.S. defeat of Nazi Germany.[12] One of these trials, the United States versus Joseph Altstoetter, et. al (also known as “the Justice Case”)[13] indicted nine officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice[14] for participating in the drafting and enacting of unlawful orders and facilitating the violation of the laws of war and of humanity, by allowing war crimes to be perpetrated under the impression of law authorized by the Ministry of Justice"

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

offers a multiplex of opinion to the nature of criminality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

and from Kofi Annan "
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

I think it is safe to say there is a case to answer, but outside of International obligations there is this

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

"However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal.

Perhaps the legal circumstances lay closer to home ?

Riley

[Asher Kelman]

Riley,

From where do we conclude that

"Both claims have been disproved"

I don't know of any proof that Iraq did not have waeposn of mass destruction.

I don't know of any evidence that Iraq did not repeat what he did in the first gulf War, transfer valuable anf targetable war resources to Iran and Syria.

If Saddam felt it was OK to sned his fighter planes to safety in Iran then why is it a stretch to imagine he wouldn't send stores of nerve gases to Syria or move centrifuges to it's neighboring Baath Arab state, Syria.

So I think it's true to say no proof was found and that Bush was discredited. However, it can still be the case that we simply have not found weapons that were transferred.

So one cannot say the belief that bush asserted that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction was disproved when it is merely discredited.

Thanks for providing the references which I'll now read.

Has anyone seen other similar posters?

Who knows the name of the guerilla poster artist?

Asher

[Rob Riley]

Asher
I wont go on about it as it is getting aside of the topic, but to say this
there were no substantial quantities of wmd's found, means there is no evidence
not the the crafty saddam removed them to somewhere else
there was evidence recovered, that suggested healthily, that the weapons (originating from the US) were destroyed in 1991, fragments and disposal sites were found at the sites declared.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/#storyContinued

Both Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, who were managing the UN weapons inspection program, which was withdrawn at the dawn of the war, you can see what Blix says for himself here, Scott Ritters testimony is broadly well known, and was before the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3160602.stm

more tellingly perhaps, the article goes on to announce

Senator Rockefeller said: "You just don't make decisions like we do and put our nation's youth at risk based upon something that appears not to have existed."

There has been no official reaction from the US Government to the report.

But the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, Porter Goss, said the decision to go to war had been made because of the bad things Saddam Hussein had been doing.

Which coincides with GW Bush statements that the war was about removing Saddam and installing democracy, you might recall the ever shifting reasoning for the war which developed over time.

that is in a nutshell, pretty much the view I hold. As an ex-soldier of some 30+yrs service, I take no joy in placing the lives of soldiers in harms way, for a game of musical chairs with the truth. You would find, that I am not alone in that cause.

cheers

Riley

[Louis Doench]

Ivan,

I'm diverted helping a friend with cancer but I just wanted to add a question to this. You used the term "illegal".

This implies some legal system, in fact the legal system. however, we do not have AFAIK a defined legal system that covers where we are today.

People in the UN vote their interest, so the opinions are hardly "legal".

I'm not yet espousing any particular point of view, just the framework seems a little wonky for building an argument on "legality".

One can say what one finds odorous, unfair, unreasonable unworkable and so forth.

Legality is however, a floppy ruler to use!

Asher

Sorry about your friend... good thought's directed his way.
In fact we do have a legal ruler to use, the US constitution, which makes all signed treaties, like the UN Charter, equal to US law. So when we signed the UN Charter, we agreed to abide by the decisions of the security council as if it were a part of the US legal system. It's not International Law that the Bush Administartion has broken... but our own!

[Rob Riley]

yes Asher
prayers to your friend
thats really more important


Riley

[Edward Bussa]

The problem with the UN deciding legality is that the entire organization is wholly unqualified. As a political system it barely functions, but as a legal system it fails miserably.

Per my understanding, our use of force against Iraq is pre-authorized under several UN descisions based on a decade of defiance by the Iraq military let alone the surrender agreement.

A political discussion with a bunch of photographers... I need to go watch Zoolander again =D

[Asher Kelman]

Sorry about your friend... good thought's directed his way.
In fact we do have a legal ruler to use, the US constitution, which makes all signed treaties, like the UN Charter, equal to US law. So when we signed the UN Charter, we agreed to abide by the decisions of the security council as if it were a part of the US legal system. It's not International Law that the Bush Administartion has broken... but our own!

I'm not sure Louis that signing such treaties obliterates interpretations, ranking of competing laws and jurisdictions.

The USA has not to date, AFAIK, agreed to make US law subservient to Security Council Decisions, rather to consider them seriously.

To get a sense of reality, the only reason why we have a peace in Europe is because Americans joined the Russians and British sphere of soldiers to wipe out Nazi Germany and Crush Imperial Japan. We didn't negotiate, that failed. We were lied to.

That hard lesson cost 20 million Russian lives alone!

We cannot just negotiate ourselves into a nuclear holocaust.

If we ignore the terorist states then we will be signing our own death warrants and the devastations of WWII will look like a dress rehearsal.

It's very simplistic to ignore threats of new totlalitarian hateful ideolgy. Trading makes them rich, talking allows them to become strong but the fear is that doing neither makes the hatred even worse.

It's the tiger on your neck. Don't stab it, it's a beautiful creature and worse, it could get angry.

Having said that, Bush needs to have thought this out better and then if it was necessary to go to war, do so as if it was an imperitive not a side dish to a normal meal.

Whether or not he is a terrorist is an argument that allows us to examine the ethics of war and of isolationsim.

Still, that paper poster stuck to the steel in the street is awefully powerful.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

A terrorist is one who purposely targets civilians for a political objective, how exactly would you define Bush as that?

Do you realise just how much you belittle the crime of a real terrorist by bandying the word around at politicians? Are you really putting Bush on par with the bastards who flew planes into the twin towers? Do you realise that you are just repeating the claims of muslim interest groups across the world whose biggest problem with the US army being in the middle east is that they are the US, nothing more?

Ben,

I do not believe that Bush is a terrorist at all! I try to look at the underlying gaps in our society strcuture that puts into action poor responses to the horrors of the scource of terrosism all over the world fed by hatred of Christians and Jews and the wish for a Caliphate.

Not that a Caliphate would necesarily be bad for the adherants of Islam, but that's to me their own decision if that's what they indeed want. However, please give us the free choice too!

Equating Bush to those who slaughter civilians, is disgusting and ridiculous. However, that's the norm in much of Europe and the world. European opposition intensely disliked USA power well before all this!

We have shown a shortage of practical commonsense in the conduct of our fight. Bush's lack of critical thinking only worsened our position.

Still, none of this allows us to equate demonic intentional murder with clumsy military and political response!

The men we call terrorists have bombed, beheaded, incinerated, tortured and scattered body parts amongst debris from Indonesia and the Phillipines to Darfur and the Twin Towers and the women and children in Jerusalem Bus 19!

I just was taken back by the poster at the top of the thread!

Pictures are powerful mind-trainers. That's what they are for.

Even when they lie!

Asher

[Rob Riley]

I think that one of the aspects the image tries to raise
is the question of terrorist or freedom fighter
fighting for freedom is a quest Bush pushes often

now for those engaged in the fight for freedom within their own country
and where Afghanistan is a good example
the Hadim who were not too long ago freedom fighters against the Soviets
find themselves terrorists against NATO

therefore, can the analogy be reworked in reverse
is the question that I think is posed
it doesn't therefore represent what it at first seems

[Asher Kelman]

I think that one of the aspects the image tries to raise
is the question of terrorist or freedom fighter
fighting for freedom is a quest Bush pushes often

We must be careful how we use this word. By Freedom we mean here the ability for people to individually have choice in society as to what and to what extent the choose religion, how to dress, whether to educate their daughters and so forth. By freedom we also mean freedom to investigate and to express ideas and to hope to be able to improve one's lot by honest effort.

Thus, I have no issue with "Fighting for "freedom".

When Freedom means a single path holiness and "salvation" I hesitate!

If Freedom means to worship Allah, then that has my great respect.

But extremists wishing "Freedom" to bring back, by bombs and guns, their strict life style to the exclusion of all choice, is not "Freedom" but a dictatorship of fighters.

They promise to remove the new freedoms that Afghanis enjoy: to sing, dance; go to school and so forth.

Now for those engaged in the fight for freedom within their own country
And where Afghanistan is a good example
The Hadim who were not too long ago freedom fighters against the Soviets
find themselves terrorists against NATO

My italics!

The fighters are not suddenly waking up to some new world order where they have enemies! Afghans have armed tribal societies with structures maintained by shifting alliances as it has for thousands of years.

They are for sure used to fighting, but the difference is the Saudi-ization of the training of young Muslims, bring hatred to hundreds of thousands of young boys along with their religious training.

The Taliban merely took advantage of the weaponry to obtain hegemony over all the other groups in the country and were brutal in doing so.

They not only did not "find" themselves, rather they trained to bring their own strict form of life to everyone they could conquer.

therefore, can the analogy be reworked in reverse

It can be claimed.

One can use the same sword "Freedom" in many ways, but clearly we are not using the same word when we see "Freedom" in the sense of ability to make choices in thought, study, art, religion, marriage and other expression we have little in common with the "Freedom" to be bandits or Heroin smugglers or "Freedom" to ram one's own ethics into everyone else’s life!

it doesn't therefore represent what it at first seems

But then neither does "Freedom"!

I do think, however, that the undoubtedly rude and nasty and unconscionable equivalence meted out in the poster, does shock us and at least calls to attention that people are totally confused, disillusioned about US policy.

So it's important that we in the USA do see this as a flag being waved by those who have disdain and horror, however misplaced, against the U.S. world position.

Sure Bush can be vilified in this case, and as a guy who likes to remind us he's from Texas, he's an easy target for a cartoon representation as the cowboy!

Still, for we who can vote, we need to take stock that there is a hell of a lot of education to be done!

Our government needs a huge portion, but even more so, most of Europe needs to get out of its narcoleptic trance. These people who blow up civilians to murder them, do so because that act is glory and they want to get to heaven killing as many infidels as possible! It is not that they have a misunderstanding with us!

The idea that the fundamental differences between the West and the terrorists is the fate of the Palestinians or of misunderstandings is one huge delusionorium!


Asher

BTW, I've never seen any such guerillia art for the plight of Darfur blacks, raped, robbed, murdered and driven from their homes. We have a selective outrage. In that context, it is obscenely P.C. to declare that Bush is a Terrorist!

BTW all this terorism has zip to do with the Palestinians. They should have their own State. That's what they need and that's what should be achieved. I hope peace will come. However, hatred of Christians and Jews and other nom-believers is a sidetrack for movements of national aspiration.

[Rob Riley]

The use of the word freedom is Bush's choice, not mine. He uses the word as a tool, leave aside whether I suggest that he wrong or right, but I do suggest the word trucks with it an invitation to associate objectives for good or the greater good. As individuals, we have to make up our minds if that is true or not. And I would say it is particularly designed to motivate Americans and doesn't carry the same freight for peoples elsewhere. The association of the word freedom lacks import to the civilian in the middle of the outback here, for obvious reasons.

Likewise the use of the word terrorist is far from a pleasant description, meant to advise the nature of the enemy at hand, and likewise it is not necessarily accurate but it is far from emotive. Used to describe the crackerjacks that commandeered civil aircraft to destroy 2 buildings it is apt; but when used to garner fervor against a land half a world away I'm not sure it means the same. Moreover these words are tools, and it is spin. Who next is a terrorist? is it good for the adventists at the Boston tea party, the French Resistance,

And then there is this, as you point out there is a religious dimension to the use of the word freedom. Perhaps in the back of our minds 'freedom of religion' harks, what a pity it wasn't freedom from religion. 'The evil doers' always seemed such odd language to me, somehow out of this time, it is straight from the bible, evangelistic. The president - who after 9/11 called the war on terrorism a "crusade," until protests forced the White House to backpedal, later becoming Iraq Freedom I don't think these were words of choice made by entirely by accident.

The language is powerful, its might is right, good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny. It is carefully chosen diatribe, selected because it works. It eliminates the objections of a sultry UN, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter (Scott Ritter where are you now?) Germany, France, etc, the musical chairs of ever moving objectives; wmd's, the war on terror, al-Qaeda, regime change, a phone on every corner.

Unfortunately many of these terms feed the basis for a part of the war in the minds of the enemies of the US (does US mean us?). For there are 2 wars in Iraq, the civil war between religious based factions that no soldier can stop, and the war against the infidel on arab soil, an idea that must go back hundreds of years. The arab dimension sucking in the peoples of other arab states, that wholly contribute to the ensuing violence, and is in the here and now been proven to be state authorised too. Is that not terrifying? As in most things, you get what you give, but havn't we given enough.

[Asher Kelman]

Rob,

I have to sleep but at least let me thank you for your response.

I'll just jump for now to the last sentence:

As in most things, you get what you give, but havn't we given enough

Well the hand that feeds also get's bitten!

Who'd imagine the attitude of France to the USA after all that was given!

Servicemen who remember Normandy can't figure this one out!

Still I'm a Francophile! Explain that!

Asher

[Antonio Correia]

... Not that I am comparing, but, the wars fought against the north and south American native Indians, was perfectly legal.
Today we view those wars as atrocities that eradicated wonderful cultures form the map of this earth, so, even thought this war maybe legal today, tomorrow, it could become a crime against humanity. It will be interesting to see what history will make of it in 50-100 years time ...

Please Ivan, tell me:
When you are refering to "wars fought against the north and south American native Indians, was perfectly legal" do you refer to native Indians in the American Continent ?

If you are, I can not desagree more with you.

Indians were in the American Continent before whites arrived.
Blacks were in Africa before whites arrived.

Have you ever heard of Aristides De Souza Mendes (http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/saviors/diplomats/mendes/3975.htm) ?

I admire the courage of this man. He jeperdized his life for the sake of thousands (30.000) of people !!

[Rob Riley]

perhaps they owe the arabs more

slaap lekker !

cheers Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

Who'd imagine the attitude of France to the USA after all that was given!

Servicemen who remember Normandy can't figure this one out!

Because there are no relation between the 2 events.

Did the US guys come to France in 1944 because they did remember Lafayette?
Certainly not, they came to beat the Nazis!

France as lot of other European countries - AS they are FRIENDS with American PEOPLE - did warn US administration because they did know that the arguments against Irak where lies (the pseudo super arms) and that the strategy was as wrong as the one that permit the American defeat in Vietnam.

What US army has done in Irak will have bad consequences for all the western countries for long! They have let the islamist getting stronger and more and more listened in the Muslim communities, see what's happening now in England, polls have demonstrated that young muslims are now, more than ever, for a total war against non muslim! Can you imagine that they say that changing of religion must be punished by death!

So no, my good friend Asher, what the US army has done to help and save us in Europe is not a reason to let all us go for suicide, just to let some oil companies make more benefits. Sorry.

I would like so much to be wrong!

Anyway, American people are still my friends if they want and if they don't mix-up everything.


Yes, Peace, yes Love.
This is by the way what I try to bring into my photography work, even the commercial one. Find the angles and the light where poetry, beauty and balance is…

[Asher Kelman]

Nicolas,

What can I say for now, I'm asleep, but your response is worth paying attention to!

Still, I cannot allow your well written argument against ill thought out US response to be used by Chirac et all as a cover for their distaste for the USA and England which predates the birth of many on this forum!

Now, good night!

Asher

[Antonio Correia]

Because there are no relation between the 2 events.

Did the US guys come to France in 1944 because they did remember Lafayette?
Certainly not, they came to beat the Nazis!

France as lot of other European countries - AS they are FRIENDS with American PEOPLE - did warn US administration because they did know that the arguments against Irak where lies (the pseudo super arms) and that the strategy was as wrong as the one that permit the American defeat in Vietnam.

What US army has done in Irak will have bad consequences for all the western countries for long! They have let the islamist getting stronger and more and more listened in the Muslim communities, see what's happening now in England, polls have demonstrated that young muslims are now, more than ever, for a total war against non muslim! Can you imagine that they say that changing of religion must be punished by death!

So no, my good friend Asher, what the US army has done to help and save us in Europe is not a reason to let all us go for suicide, just to let some oil companies make more benefits. Sorry.

I would like so much to be wrong!

Anyway, American people are still my friends if they want and if they don't mix-up everything.


Yes, Peace, yes Love.
This is by the way what I try to bring into my photography work, even the commercial one. Find the angles and the light where poetry, beauty and balance is…


Well spoken Nicolas !

I agree with you !
:)

[Ben Rubinstein]

Well as one who fought against them, I would not have a problem with defining those who fight against soldiers/police as 'other than terrorists', though western civilisation has a problem with the fact that they don't wear uniforms, not 'fair' somehow.

Those who purposely use civilians as targets and ensuring deaths of their own civilians for propaganda purposes are dispicable and evil terrorists.

The problem comes when 'freedom fighters' fight in civilian clothing, it becomes extremely difficult to diffrentiate between a civilian killed in battle or a freedom fighter whose gun has been hurridely kicked aside for the media to take a photo of a 'dead civilian'. A good example would be the disparity between the numbers of Hezbollah that the Israeli army claim to have killed and that which the UN has counted. When they are all wearing civies and their weapons are long gone by the time the 'counters' get there, who is to say?

The thing is, and this is important, if you want to fight against an army, however just your cause, you cannot cry foul when you get killed just because the army or country is bigger than you! Unlike the way countries see it, that anyone fighting against the incumbent governement is a traitor, a freedom fighter should be treated as a combatant. If you start a war then you have to accept the consequences of losing a war with all that entails.

The US made a huge mistake with Guatmano. The fighters should have been put in POW camps and treated like POW's according to the Geneva convention. It should have been stated that they would be let out when the war is over and when they are no longer enemy combatants albeit this might be a very very long time. Trying them as criminals is just stupid.

The Palestinian people elected a governement that has declared war against Israel. Fair enough, they have a right to so choose, that is democracy. But they cannot fight on one hand and complain of closed borders, the drying up of international charity, etc on the other. Either you are at war or you are not. You cannot fire on a country and expect them to turn the other cheek. If they were only fighting against the soldiers of which I was one at the beginning of the 2nd Intafada, then I would be happy not to label them as terrorists, it would be a war and however much I disagree with their objectives, the war would be conducted as a war. Soldiers know that they may die in war. We mourn them as I mourned friends but it isn't a tragedy when it's man against man and both are armed (Yes, of course it's a tragedy but not on the scale of civilians being killed by armed men). It's when civilians are targeted as civilians, not as unfortunate victims but as specific targets, when civilians are used with the sole purpose of ensuring that the media will have plenty pictures of dead babies the next morning to gloat over on their front pages, that is when it becomes terrorism and inexcuseable and utterly dispicable.

My question is whether the media has a responsibility for the use that terrorists are making of them as a propaganda tool?

Would the next 'Lebanon' occur in the same way if the media had said 'we're not doing your dirty work for you, if you ensure the deaths of your own civilians then we are not going to do anything but say, terrorists, this is your own fault don't come crying to us'. We all know what the headlines did say at the time and we all know exactly what strategy will be used by terrorists for the future, it worked like a dream this time...

[Ben Rubinstein]

Actually it all so very stupid, if the same money was ploughed into renewable forms of energy, if the oil companies and the Saudi were gagged for 6 years or so, then the huge cash resources of countries with little or no right to dictate to the civilised world would end, the need to worry about the opinion of such countries would end, we would all save the planet and the middle east would return to its rightful place in global politics, utterly ignored and totally inconsequential with the option to join the civilised world with all that entails, or be ignored.

It would be a hell of a lot cheaper for all of us as well.

Now if only human beings were rational creatures!

[Nicolas Claris]

Still, I cannot allow your well written argument against ill thought out US response to be used by Chirac et all as a cover for their distaste for the USA and England which predates the birth of many on this forum!

No, no, no!
You're wrong on this matter, Chirac and de Villepin (though they aren't my cup of tea) have nothing against Americain nor English Peoples.
They are are the heirs of de Gaulle politic who wanted to establish strong relations with Americans besides USA not into USA.
When the good American troops went into Europe thru Normandy and together with the English, French and other allies such as Russians (on the opposite side of Europe) to beat the nazis, USA did not forget to come with tons of cigarettes, coke and othe stuff that were highly welcomed.
A very few people saw at that moment that it was the premises of a well made plan by US administration and major US companies to have Europe for a new economic market to sell products from USA.
de Gaulle understood that very early and since that time was suspected of anti-americanism which he was not.
It was very important for him to have, if not Europe, at least France, independant, this explains the need of the French nuclear bomb. Do not forget that Europe is much more close to USSR than USA!
This was an opposite politic than the British one. Well, why not!

In fact I suspect you don't like Chirac for his position about Israel and Palestine.
On this matter I have to admit that most of French do agree with this politic.
We do love Israelians.
We do love Palestinians.
We do not agree with palestinian terrorism.
We want a peace as Yitzhak Rabin tried to settle before being assassinated.

Stop war! (yes I know French are not the latest to sell arms in the world).

And please stop to simplfy, if we don't agree, this does not mean we're against you.
If we don't want to be a colony, this does not mean that we're ennemies!

[Ivan Garcia]

Please Ivan, tell me:
When you are refering to "wars fought against the north and south American native Indians, was perfectly legal" do you refer to native Indians in the American Continent ?

If you are, I can not desagree more with you.

Indians were in the American Continent before whites arrived.
Blacks were in Africa before whites arrived.

Have you ever heard of Aristides De Souza Mendes (http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/saviors/diplomats/mendes/3975.htm) ?

I admire the courage of this man. He jeperdized his life for the sake of thousands (30.000) of people !!

Well Antonio.
Is not a matter for you to disagree with me, is a matter of History.
At the time those wars were fought, they were “Perfectly legal”, in the sense that the governments in power at the time, endorsed and pursued those wars.
Today we view those wars as atrocities.
But, if you still want to disagree with me, be my guest.

[Ivan Garcia]

Actually it all so very stupid, if the same money was ploughed into renewable forms of energy, if the oil companies and the Saudi were gagged for 6 years or so, then the huge cash resources of countries with little or no right to dictate to the civilised world would end, the need to worry about the opinion of such countries would end, we would all save the planet and the middle east would return to its rightful place in global politics, utterly ignored and totally inconsequential with the option to join the civilised world with all that entails, or be ignored.

It would be a hell of a lot cheaper for all of us as well.

Now if only human beings were rational creatures!
...If only.