This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
so that they are not lost from history...and more...
Published on February 3, 2006 By ShadowWar In War on Terror

 

Thats what the flap is al about.

Not a whole lot on this one though, except a letter of protest from the Military Chiefs of Staff - called civilized protest -

Here is how our military leaders dealt with their anger over it:

A Reprehensible Cartoon

Thursday, February 2, 2006; A20

We were extremely disappointed to see the Jan. 29 editorial cartoon by Tom Toles.

Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon was beyond tasteless. Editorial cartoons are often designed to exaggerate issues, and The Post is obviously free to address any topic, including the state of readiness of the armed forces. However, The Post and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to readers and to The Post's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who volunteered to defend this nation and, as a result, suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds.

Those who visit wounded veterans in hospitals have found lives profoundly changed by pain and loss. They also have found brave men and women with a sense of purpose and selfless commitment that causes battle-hardened warriors to pause.

While The Post and some of its readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, these men and women and their families are owed the decency of not having a cartoon make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.

As the joint chiefs, we rarely put

our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.

PETER PACE

General, U.S. Marine Corps

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI JR.

Admiral, U.S. Navy

Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

MICHAEL W. HAGEE

General, U.S. Marine Corps

Commandant of the Marine Corps

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER

General, U.S. Army

Chief of Staff

MICHAEL G. MULLEN

Admiral, U.S. Navy

Chief of Naval Operations

T. MICHAEL MOSELEY

General, U.S. Air Force

Chief of Staff

Washington

NOw there are these for us Christians out there:

Piss Christ is a controversial photograph by the artist Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. Some have suggested that the glass may also contain the artist's blood.

and..

Oh and the Madonna with feces: vmary bw can't forget her.

The differences in the reactions to these two seperate yet related images shows the basic foundation difference in the beliefs of the two groups involved. Which is the one of peace and which one is calling for the beheading of the artist and those that publish the works?

Guess I can figure out which is the more peacful and freedom loving group. Can you?



Site Meter


Listed on BlogShares

 


Comments
on Feb 03, 2006
I just wrote a followup to the Joint Chiefs of Staff's letter.  An angry diatribe by the loony left yelling censorship.
on Feb 03, 2006
How will they handle it, I wonder, when we DO outlaw hate speech, and therefore must close all the mosques that preach the destruction of Israel and promote fighting Israel?

Odd, but for the last couple of years I've been hearing from Liberals that people have the right to express such things. Yet now a cartoon is somehow "hate speech". Fine, then. Take down the cartoon, but when PETA calls me a murderer, or when someone around here talks about 'stupid Christians', or when the ignorant call me a 'bushtard', I wanna see the long arm of the law fall on them.

In reality it isn't that way at all. We aren't condemning these cartoons because we respect Islam. We don't respect ANY religion. In reality we're just pandering to them because we are afraid of them. When they dance in the street and threaten to kill over a cartoon, they are just proving the cartoons to be more accurate than caracature.
on Feb 03, 2006

In reality we're just pandering to them because we are afraid of them. When they dance in the street and threaten to kill over a cartoon, they are just proving the cartoons to be more accurate than caracature.

I couldn't agree more. Very good point.

on Feb 04, 2006
Thanks for posting them here... lest we forget.
on Feb 04, 2006
If it wasn't these cartoons it would be an artist or journalist, or some other thing they found offensive. We need to start remembering that we're all of us infidels - so the medieval barbarities that constitute Islamic 'law' do not apply to us, nor to any artistic or jounalist production that derives from the values of the West.

These people don't hate what we do - they hate what we are. Whatever we do they are to going to hate because they hate the civilizational values that lead us to do what we do. And they'd be just as happy to cut the heads off the wey-faced multiculturalists and the apologists of the so called 'liberal' Left here as they would that of anyone deemed to have 'offended' them. I'm an infidel. I don't give a damn if I offend their beliefs.

However, while I think that anymotive for their claiming offense is as good to them as any other, I also think that this issue, the depiction of their prophet, has touched an actual nerve. I think they're mad enough this time that they will reveal, for anyone who has eyes to see, that their civilization and ours are at an historic moment. The rebirth of the wars between Islam and the West, that they know it and that we don't.

Why do you think the adherents of Islam are always so quick to exploite each supposed offence for benefits in terms of entrenching their rights? In terms of securing for themselves an ever more acquiescent response from government? And they do it by exploiting the peculiar guilt and self-distrust that's come to afflict the west in the last two hundred years or so. They exploit this idiot's guilt because they know it's easier to defeat a weakened enemy. And they are our enemy, our enemy at their very roots, whether we appease them or oppose them.

That's the issue we all ought to be debating, not whether it was right to publish or not.

Of course it was.