4/9/2003: Iraqis protest
 

http://cellar.org/2003/gohomeshields.jpg

As the Iraqi war argument has gone on and on, there is one group of people that hasn't been polled by anyone: the Iraqis.

Today may go, in history, as the day Iraq was liberated - or, unlawfully invaded and toppled, depending on your point of view. But to give some perspective, today IS, by anyone's thinking, the first day that Iraqis themselves could say anything at all against the administration that has ruled them for decades. And they chose to ride the head of Saddam through the streets of Baghdad, hauling it with the chain that brought it down, and whapping it with sticks, shoes, poles, anything they could find.

And they chose to bring us this message.

I would normally shout out "Photoshop!" here due to the rather serious inconsistency between the obviously hand-scrawled portion and the nicely lettered (save for the large spacing gap) portion...but I refuse to believe that our benevolent dictator would stoop to such a low for this esteemed and reverentially observed forum.

So...where *did* you get this image, UT? And are they referring to all of us US types as wankers, or just the human shield portion of our population?

Are the Iraqis not happy with the US in general, or the human shields, who were going to stand in front of hospitals and neighborhoods, but were moved to power stations and the like?

Amusing Anecdote: So I'm telling cute Australian girl how to set her proxy settings, and I'm ready to give her the service request number:"Okay, the SR number is 349 W as in Whiskey, Y as in Wanky..." We both ROTFLMAO'ed for about 3 minutes straight. I meant to say Y as in Yankee.

Where it came from: oh! sorry! I should have attributed it originally. Donald Sensing is screen-capturing them, apparently, and it's from his blog.

And he has another image to show it's not a PS. It looks like somebody tore the original sign in half, which maybe said "welcome" or something, and then they just added their bit.

(First time poster - long time lurker)
My 1st reaction to this image was one of suprise. Then I realised that if I were in the Iraqis position I would harbor some pretty hostile feelings towards people who are putting themselves in the line of fire to try and prevent a war movement that will inevitably liberate me and my people. These "human shields" just decided that they didn't think war was the right answer but they offered no alternative, just chose to stick their noses in where they were not wanted. Some may call them noble, and honerable but I personally reckon they were just caught up in the anti-war protests and the 'righteousness' of it all. They thought "war is wrong - now i'm gonna do something about it" I don't think they really understood what the Iraqi people wanted, nor did they care.

I'm thinking maybe this is the biggest piece of anything these clowns can find to write on and mightn't have had the necessaries to remove the original 'human shield' lettering.
ps UT who the hell put 'rapscallion 'in my profile?

Well this is the thing, if the Iraqis truely want the US to invade (which we won't really know for months) then who are a bunch of middle class left wing bleedings hearts who oppose all war on principle to say it's not 'right'.

novice, your user title is changed throughout your first posts and will become more stable as your post number increases. You can manually edit it as well, by going to "user cp" at the top and then clicking on "profile".

If this was the case, they would have written on the back.

On the back, it says "We love you Saddam", just in case we lost.

The only reaction I heard was "There are some very stupid people in the world -- like these guys! What do they think they're doing!?"

Personally, I think that the sign doesn't look right, but Donald Sensing's other picture makes it convincing that it's not a fake.

Who decides what's right? Whose job is it to say what's right and wrong? Do we listen to the goverment of the country we're going to invade, to see if they're right? Do we listen to the population of the country we're going to invade to see if they're right? Do we just decide on our own that we're right and do whatever fits our version of right?

There is no right. Just because there is no right, however, doesn't mean that there are no wrongs. There are always wrongs. There is just no one right way.

You cannot please all the people all of the time.

One of the often over looked "rights" our country has is the persuit of happieness. If we extend this to other countries, then there really can be no right. For my version of happieness may oppose your version of happieness. I should still have my right to seek happieness, or do I no longer get the right because it interfers with your right?

There is no right. Only many wrongs. The best you can hope for is causing as few wrongs as possible in your persuit of happieness. Or, tailor your view of happieness so that it inflicts as little wrongs as possible without giving up too much of your happieness.

Quzah.

Dude, what the hell are you smoking? Are you saying that there is no good, only evil?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I suspect you're going for a cultural relativism angle. Even with this philosophy, there are still universal morals. For example, not torturing people is <i>always good</i>.

This sounds like a prime topic for the new Philosophy section.

Perhaps the problem with the Philosophy section is that philosophy is involved in nearly everything we do. :)

it underpins it, and provides the framework, but seldom with much forethought or intention. Still a good exercise to exorcise the presuppositions.

Especially if someone has the stones to pick up the guantlet and try to give a rational defense for moral relativism. That's just fun for the pickin.

-sm

Hmm.. I suppose I mean there is no true wonderfully right way that you can cover everyone with and say "This works. This is right answer for everything." Besides, just not doing evil doesn't make you good.

I can not run old ladies in wheel chairs over in my car. It doesn't mean I'm good. It just means I'm not evil in that way.

So in effect, I'm the lesser of two evils in regards to that line of thought.

Here's another one for you:
Parents of Johnny (Johnny is always used in stories...;)) know he's sick. It is their firm belief that in the best interest of their child, they cover him in tea leaves and dance around him naked.

Conventional medicine tells us that if we pull out three of his teeth, it'll cure him.

It is long standing tradition and deep belief that this is a sin against humanity, at least in the child's and parent's eyes.

He dies because the tea leaf dance doesn't save him.

Are the parents evil? Are they good?

(I intentionally made this an abstracted scenario, but you'll easily spot the reference to similar real life incidents.)

Quzah.

The parents aren't evil or good, just stupid..

everyone *knows* that for teeth related illnesses you should use doc leaves not tea leaves.......

I just feel sorry for Johnny, had his gums not been so inflamed they might have used the correct foliage and this tragedy could have been overted..... I blame the government for blatent anti-doc-leaf actions.. It's leafist it is!

Oh sure ...blame the goverment for all ills.
How do you know it wasn't the leaf cartel?

Sssshhh......

don't mention the cartel they listen to our thoughts.....

I believe you mean 'averted' instead of 'overted'.

The tragedy was actually "overted". Remember Johnny's life-threateneing overbite?? ;)