implode
05-20-2005, 03:16 PM
SADDAM GETS NAKED, PEOPLE FORGET THAT BEING NAKED ISN'T A CRIME
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_saddam_photos">ousted dictator porn - the next big thing?</a>
in a shocking display of audacity, the british newspaper The Sun (though "rag" might be more fitting, as any content it might contain would be more suitable for cleaning up toppled glasses of orange juice than absorbing into your mind) decide to adorn their front page with a photograph of former iraqi dictator saddam hussein bent over in his underwear, a position he's undoubtedly grown accustomed to in his recent tenure of being in situations where he cannot seek solace behind forty armed guards.
and in a shocking display of slang-for-homosexuality, people across the world have condemned these pictures as being "distasteful", "an insult to humanity", and other things that make you wonder what goddamned perspective you have to be thinking in to believe that a photo of a man in his underwear is more "distasteful" than sending thousands of people into gas chambers when you lose your cable TV feed.
let me be clear, because i don't want to inadvertently insult any sunni muslim invader zim fans - whether you believe the genocide mr. hussein inflicted on his own people was justified or not, you still must accept that it happened. if you don't, you end up looking like the 80 year-old german statues that hole themselves up inside their rooms for 40 years writing fairytales about how the word "auschwitz" never really existed. i don't care if you believe your own peopel deserved to die for refusing to bow at the snap of a finger - you need to apply this logic to yourself. would you rather be photographed naked or shot in the face? if your answer is "shot in the face", i have an insurgency business card you might be interested in looking at. forgive me if i don't visit you in person to relay it to you. this man is in prison for a REASON - he is in violation of what we as a humanity agreed on thousands of years ago, when we had nothing to write with but sticks and the ground we found those sticks on: if you're responsible for more deaths than bruce willis's movie career, you deserve to be investigated. because despite popular belief, more people dying does not get as much accomplished as people living does.
the people who are speaking out against this are mainly supporting their arguments by shouting about how the privacy of a baby-killing tyrant should be respected once we've isolated him from the baby population. this is all well and good in a world where everybody hugs each other after every meal just so they don't forget what it feels like to be loved, but these folks seem to forget the reason hussein was arrested in the first place - if saddam hussein was hugging you, it was actually a saddam hussein lookalike who was hiding a cyanide syringe in his sleeve. "do unto others as you would like done unto you" is a philosophy that works for approximately as long as you can avoid broaching that person's past. YES, two wrongs DO make a right when the first "wrong" is actually "genocide and slavery." in fact, 2 wrongs still haven't made a right, as the photos of saddam being forced to dig a grave for every person he unjustly executed have yet to make the rounds in the british tabloids.
prisoners have generally given up on the prospect of being respected by everyone in the world, as anyone active in the field of oppressing others will vouch for the fact that the little girl you molested doesn't suddenly recover an objective opinion on violent anal rape once you've been incarcirated. and as such, concepts like "privacy" should be reserved for people that probably won't take it as an opportunity to torture people who've read different books than them. being photographed in his underwear is the LEAST of saddam's worries, folks - he's going to trial under a tribunal of judges who lived on the same street as three of their friends who dissappeared in the heat of the iraqi night. anyone seriously wondering whether we might have hurt saddam's feelings by posting a picture of him in his skivvies might do well to consider the fact that just two years ago, dancing around in your underwear in iraq for your transgressions wasn't simply getting off light, it was <i>not even a punishment.</i> i'm not even talking about the insane middle east, where people take turns killing each other to express their outrage at other countries - no, even in america, being photographed in your underwear does not merit a fucking condemnation from the red cross. i mean, what the goddamned bloody fuck? the red cross just spent ten years wiping up shi'ite putty from the palaces of baghdad, and now they're outraged that the man who gave those commands is having his privacy invaded? the red cross would do well to hide inside their own medical bags and roll themselves down the biggest hill they can find, if only for the sake that they might realize that rolling down a hill is almost as stupid as expressing concern over the privacy of a self-proclaimed murderer.
people invoking the geneva convention as just as bad, if not worse, because they aren't so hopelessly stupid that they've forgotten that being dead is worse than being naked. people who have actually read the geneva convention should understand the difference between stuffing an enemy grunt's asshole with fire ants and laughing at a picture of the enemy commander in his underwear. WW2 vets must be disgusted - ever hear the rhyme "hitler only has one ball, goebbels two, but they're very small"? welcome to a world where the people you're fighting for sit at home demanding you apologize to hitler's genitals for any embarrassment you may have caused them. the geneva convention was put into place so people found guilty of torturing for the sake of laughing at torture could be duly punished, not so those very same people could have a security blanket for their fragile ego. if you aren't looking the other way from these photos, you should be lauging at them. period. if you're rallying against them, you'd better damned well be doing so with a mortar in your hands and a retardedly literal koran interpretation in your heart, because if you're not, the only "cause" you're advancing is a world where we read our felons bedtime stories and let them hold our hands as they drift off to dreamland. and since that's where you're living in the first place, maybe we ARE all better off that way.
THE NEWSWEEK SCANDAL - AFGHANS KILLING EACH OTHER - <B>UH-OH</B>
<a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&q=afghan+riots">"peaceful protestors shouting "Death to America"</a>
as the world scrambled to find more reasons to be pissed off with america, newsweek near immediately retracted their story of U.S. interrogators using such hostile techniques of interrogation as <i>being mean to a book</i> in the fear that more fucking lunatics might accidentally set themselves on fire while trying to ignite three american flags and a child's book report on abraham lincoln at the same time.
the story reported that U.S. interrogators in guantanamo bay, cuba (a holding pen for prisoners of war, as thusly, <i>certainly</i> the place the american media should be writing fucking all-inclusive essays about) had attempted to flush a copy of the koran down the toilet in an attempt to get the prisoners to talk. of course, were the media not an oversensitive tulip garden, they might have used the actual motive, "in an attempt to piss the people that are spitting on them off." and we might have had a full 30 minutes of footage of lunatics punching each other in the face to watch while we sat down to dinner. in response to this, people who have read the book used the familiar tactic of <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&q=afghan+riots">"GOING FUCKING INSANE</A> in an attempt to display the outrage at american disrespect that they've been displaying for the past ten years anyway. and, as typical media pussies do, newsweek retracted the story with the grammar-school excuse "the source was determined to be invalid."
alright, newsweek. time for a lesson in sociology from someone who never took the class - if people are killing each other over something you wrote, it's because the idea of it upset them, not the fact that you didn't confirm with with several unconnected sources. publically announcing that you were just bullshitting them will accomplish exactly this: 8====D it doesn't matter if you constructed the story with a fucking etch-a-sketch in your underwear, YOU ALREADY DECIDED TO PRINT IT. saying "oops, wrong country, lol, stupid sources" does not suddenly unmake the atomic decay of the country you just pumped 50 megatons of uranium into. it just makes you look like a lumbering jackass who can't be bothered to look at a map before you hit the LAUNCH button. the only good that you've done by retracting the story is MAYBE getting the non-war-ravaged part of the world to not believe anything you say anymore. if you wanted to make yourself look like an irreputable source of news, congratulations, dipshits, you did it on the wrong side of the world. the people getting upset about this don't give a fuck if the story actually happened - all they want is a reason to stand up and defend their way of life. they take the koran VERY SERIOUSLY, in case you haven't noticed, what with the wars we have going on that all fucking started over a dispute between the american defense department and the people who don't want U.S. military strongholds built on canonical holy lands. it is your responsibility to not print things that only our adversaries will give a shit about, and you failed. big time.
and so we apologize. for what? so the people who are so quick to proclaim "DEATH TO AMERICA" will stop killing each other? OH MAN, GOOD THINKING GUYS. a better way to handle this might be to post a follow up story with the headline: YEAH, WHAT IF IT DID HAPPEN? YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT? people need to be taught that reverence is no excuse for rioting. i'm sorry, but it's true. if something means so much to you that you're willing to die over the idea of the desecration of it, YOU DESERVE TO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT. PERIOD. it will seperate the people who just find solace and comfort in religion and the people who don't understand what religion is about. if you want to take to the streets and participate in the ridiculous trampling of people who agree with you, by all means, GET YOUR ASS OUT THERE. there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with everything, and if the people we'll probably have to start fighting in a few months want to deal with it the wrong way, what the hell are we doing trying to break it up? america relies too heavily on this recess-aide role we play in the world. it's like we're trying to keep these people alive longer so we can have the satisfaction of killing them ourselves.
<img src="http://www.islamfortoday.com/US_flag_burning_2.jpg">
<b>"oh, no no no no, achmad. put that burning american flag down and go back inside, we were just lying to you. now, what were your exact coordinates, again?"</b>
let these fuckers rally. and let the fuckers who think saddam hussein deserves a nice private evening in his garden riot with them. maybe we'll have a forest-fire effect where all these misfits who have nothing better to do but be pissed off at everything will burn each other out, and we can finally live in a world where people don't even consider getting out the machete when you tell them you don't have the exact same opinion on a book you've both read. being upset at something you've read is fine - physically battering each other over who'll get to lynch the author first is stupid. and it's not our place to intervene in another countries' stupid - we've got plenty of our own to deal with, thanks.
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_saddam_photos">ousted dictator porn - the next big thing?</a>
in a shocking display of audacity, the british newspaper The Sun (though "rag" might be more fitting, as any content it might contain would be more suitable for cleaning up toppled glasses of orange juice than absorbing into your mind) decide to adorn their front page with a photograph of former iraqi dictator saddam hussein bent over in his underwear, a position he's undoubtedly grown accustomed to in his recent tenure of being in situations where he cannot seek solace behind forty armed guards.
and in a shocking display of slang-for-homosexuality, people across the world have condemned these pictures as being "distasteful", "an insult to humanity", and other things that make you wonder what goddamned perspective you have to be thinking in to believe that a photo of a man in his underwear is more "distasteful" than sending thousands of people into gas chambers when you lose your cable TV feed.
let me be clear, because i don't want to inadvertently insult any sunni muslim invader zim fans - whether you believe the genocide mr. hussein inflicted on his own people was justified or not, you still must accept that it happened. if you don't, you end up looking like the 80 year-old german statues that hole themselves up inside their rooms for 40 years writing fairytales about how the word "auschwitz" never really existed. i don't care if you believe your own peopel deserved to die for refusing to bow at the snap of a finger - you need to apply this logic to yourself. would you rather be photographed naked or shot in the face? if your answer is "shot in the face", i have an insurgency business card you might be interested in looking at. forgive me if i don't visit you in person to relay it to you. this man is in prison for a REASON - he is in violation of what we as a humanity agreed on thousands of years ago, when we had nothing to write with but sticks and the ground we found those sticks on: if you're responsible for more deaths than bruce willis's movie career, you deserve to be investigated. because despite popular belief, more people dying does not get as much accomplished as people living does.
the people who are speaking out against this are mainly supporting their arguments by shouting about how the privacy of a baby-killing tyrant should be respected once we've isolated him from the baby population. this is all well and good in a world where everybody hugs each other after every meal just so they don't forget what it feels like to be loved, but these folks seem to forget the reason hussein was arrested in the first place - if saddam hussein was hugging you, it was actually a saddam hussein lookalike who was hiding a cyanide syringe in his sleeve. "do unto others as you would like done unto you" is a philosophy that works for approximately as long as you can avoid broaching that person's past. YES, two wrongs DO make a right when the first "wrong" is actually "genocide and slavery." in fact, 2 wrongs still haven't made a right, as the photos of saddam being forced to dig a grave for every person he unjustly executed have yet to make the rounds in the british tabloids.
prisoners have generally given up on the prospect of being respected by everyone in the world, as anyone active in the field of oppressing others will vouch for the fact that the little girl you molested doesn't suddenly recover an objective opinion on violent anal rape once you've been incarcirated. and as such, concepts like "privacy" should be reserved for people that probably won't take it as an opportunity to torture people who've read different books than them. being photographed in his underwear is the LEAST of saddam's worries, folks - he's going to trial under a tribunal of judges who lived on the same street as three of their friends who dissappeared in the heat of the iraqi night. anyone seriously wondering whether we might have hurt saddam's feelings by posting a picture of him in his skivvies might do well to consider the fact that just two years ago, dancing around in your underwear in iraq for your transgressions wasn't simply getting off light, it was <i>not even a punishment.</i> i'm not even talking about the insane middle east, where people take turns killing each other to express their outrage at other countries - no, even in america, being photographed in your underwear does not merit a fucking condemnation from the red cross. i mean, what the goddamned bloody fuck? the red cross just spent ten years wiping up shi'ite putty from the palaces of baghdad, and now they're outraged that the man who gave those commands is having his privacy invaded? the red cross would do well to hide inside their own medical bags and roll themselves down the biggest hill they can find, if only for the sake that they might realize that rolling down a hill is almost as stupid as expressing concern over the privacy of a self-proclaimed murderer.
people invoking the geneva convention as just as bad, if not worse, because they aren't so hopelessly stupid that they've forgotten that being dead is worse than being naked. people who have actually read the geneva convention should understand the difference between stuffing an enemy grunt's asshole with fire ants and laughing at a picture of the enemy commander in his underwear. WW2 vets must be disgusted - ever hear the rhyme "hitler only has one ball, goebbels two, but they're very small"? welcome to a world where the people you're fighting for sit at home demanding you apologize to hitler's genitals for any embarrassment you may have caused them. the geneva convention was put into place so people found guilty of torturing for the sake of laughing at torture could be duly punished, not so those very same people could have a security blanket for their fragile ego. if you aren't looking the other way from these photos, you should be lauging at them. period. if you're rallying against them, you'd better damned well be doing so with a mortar in your hands and a retardedly literal koran interpretation in your heart, because if you're not, the only "cause" you're advancing is a world where we read our felons bedtime stories and let them hold our hands as they drift off to dreamland. and since that's where you're living in the first place, maybe we ARE all better off that way.
THE NEWSWEEK SCANDAL - AFGHANS KILLING EACH OTHER - <B>UH-OH</B>
<a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&q=afghan+riots">"peaceful protestors shouting "Death to America"</a>
as the world scrambled to find more reasons to be pissed off with america, newsweek near immediately retracted their story of U.S. interrogators using such hostile techniques of interrogation as <i>being mean to a book</i> in the fear that more fucking lunatics might accidentally set themselves on fire while trying to ignite three american flags and a child's book report on abraham lincoln at the same time.
the story reported that U.S. interrogators in guantanamo bay, cuba (a holding pen for prisoners of war, as thusly, <i>certainly</i> the place the american media should be writing fucking all-inclusive essays about) had attempted to flush a copy of the koran down the toilet in an attempt to get the prisoners to talk. of course, were the media not an oversensitive tulip garden, they might have used the actual motive, "in an attempt to piss the people that are spitting on them off." and we might have had a full 30 minutes of footage of lunatics punching each other in the face to watch while we sat down to dinner. in response to this, people who have read the book used the familiar tactic of <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&q=afghan+riots">"GOING FUCKING INSANE</A> in an attempt to display the outrage at american disrespect that they've been displaying for the past ten years anyway. and, as typical media pussies do, newsweek retracted the story with the grammar-school excuse "the source was determined to be invalid."
alright, newsweek. time for a lesson in sociology from someone who never took the class - if people are killing each other over something you wrote, it's because the idea of it upset them, not the fact that you didn't confirm with with several unconnected sources. publically announcing that you were just bullshitting them will accomplish exactly this: 8====D it doesn't matter if you constructed the story with a fucking etch-a-sketch in your underwear, YOU ALREADY DECIDED TO PRINT IT. saying "oops, wrong country, lol, stupid sources" does not suddenly unmake the atomic decay of the country you just pumped 50 megatons of uranium into. it just makes you look like a lumbering jackass who can't be bothered to look at a map before you hit the LAUNCH button. the only good that you've done by retracting the story is MAYBE getting the non-war-ravaged part of the world to not believe anything you say anymore. if you wanted to make yourself look like an irreputable source of news, congratulations, dipshits, you did it on the wrong side of the world. the people getting upset about this don't give a fuck if the story actually happened - all they want is a reason to stand up and defend their way of life. they take the koran VERY SERIOUSLY, in case you haven't noticed, what with the wars we have going on that all fucking started over a dispute between the american defense department and the people who don't want U.S. military strongholds built on canonical holy lands. it is your responsibility to not print things that only our adversaries will give a shit about, and you failed. big time.
and so we apologize. for what? so the people who are so quick to proclaim "DEATH TO AMERICA" will stop killing each other? OH MAN, GOOD THINKING GUYS. a better way to handle this might be to post a follow up story with the headline: YEAH, WHAT IF IT DID HAPPEN? YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT? people need to be taught that reverence is no excuse for rioting. i'm sorry, but it's true. if something means so much to you that you're willing to die over the idea of the desecration of it, YOU DESERVE TO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT. PERIOD. it will seperate the people who just find solace and comfort in religion and the people who don't understand what religion is about. if you want to take to the streets and participate in the ridiculous trampling of people who agree with you, by all means, GET YOUR ASS OUT THERE. there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with everything, and if the people we'll probably have to start fighting in a few months want to deal with it the wrong way, what the hell are we doing trying to break it up? america relies too heavily on this recess-aide role we play in the world. it's like we're trying to keep these people alive longer so we can have the satisfaction of killing them ourselves.
<img src="http://www.islamfortoday.com/US_flag_burning_2.jpg">
<b>"oh, no no no no, achmad. put that burning american flag down and go back inside, we were just lying to you. now, what were your exact coordinates, again?"</b>
let these fuckers rally. and let the fuckers who think saddam hussein deserves a nice private evening in his garden riot with them. maybe we'll have a forest-fire effect where all these misfits who have nothing better to do but be pissed off at everything will burn each other out, and we can finally live in a world where people don't even consider getting out the machete when you tell them you don't have the exact same opinion on a book you've both read. being upset at something you've read is fine - physically battering each other over who'll get to lynch the author first is stupid. and it's not our place to intervene in another countries' stupid - we've got plenty of our own to deal with, thanks.