It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Bush killed' in Palestinian kids TV show

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Choronzon
Nobody here thaught anything of it. But in Iraq I'm sure they were flabberghasted.


You mean, the man that Iraqi civilians feared and hated most?

Do Germans feel sorrow and anger when ever they see a movie that has hitler in hell, getting ready to have a pipe apple shoved up his rectum?

What do those two have in common? They were both dictators who hurt their own people (along with many others) for their own good.




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Aw come on, everybody knows those hate filled Kid Jihad TV shows are produced by the CIA to give Bush an excuse to nuke the Middle East.


[edit on 31-3-2008 by Alxandro]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


As crude as your language is, you couldn't make it up.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Throbber
 


You know, I have the same misgivings as you but I also have to acknowledge that the 'common disrespect' for cultural aspects of social groups is a common denominator across cultures.

I'm not saying that it's justified, but it seems that the more children come to ridicule each other the less 'sensitive' they become to the same kind of jest. I mean, I'm sure that in my grandparents day if you joked about their religion you'd end up ostracized from the community. Nowadays, people joke about religion on TV and are applauded for it.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


There are numerous ways of understanding this Phenomena among the younger generations of today, and i believe that simply by highlighting a few of them will lead to certain members of ATS taking a disliking to me.

I'll only do one -

"Hey, that cool newspaper guy made an image of that Islamic Prophet, and CHECK OUT HOW MUCH ATTENTION HE'S GETTING".


What the kids don't see is the actual consequences of this man's actions - the riots, the torching of embassies, street-law in action, etc.

It's important not to point the finger of blame, but i feel that of all the thing in society we could do to correct this problem, learning not to take the p#ss out of other people's beliefs would be a good start.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Throbber]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Definitely sick to use a kids TV show to fuel hatreds toward a particular nation. But ever wondered why these people (kids and their parents) will buy into these crap?

Well, considered that some of you here in this forum are openly and publicly supporting certain types of terrorism or so-called "freedom fighting", while on the other hand condemning anything that is not in line with your own viewpoints, no wonder this world is stood up with so much terrorists or should we call it conveniently freedom-fighting?

People really should stop mingling in other man's businesses and start to dig into and at least TRY to understand what the other man's culture, norms and values are, without these basics of having a more open mind towards the other and coming close with open and honest communications, we will never be rid of terrorism. You can start by respecting someone's else opinion.

[edit on 1/4/08 by IchiNiSan]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by IchiNiSan
 


It's because we respect other people's opinions that we choose to call certain instances of Terrorism Freedom-Fighting.

Obviously, where innocents are concerned, that would be terrorism.

But fighting against the state when the state is fighting you is something i would call freedom-fighting.

It's an odd lot, when you get down to it - Freedom Fighters and Terrorists often find themselves working alongside each other, perhaps realising they have similar goals ultimately.

Choosing not to make the distinction between Freedom Fighter and Terrorist is tantamount to saying "I don't believe you have the capacity to be right about the very thing you are risking your life to acheive".

Tell me, if someone like MLK had been forced to use violent methods, would you call him a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter?

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Throbber]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Choronzon
I seem to remember a south park movie where saddam heussein died and was in hell with the devil. Nobody here thaught anything of it. But in Iraq I'm sure they were flabberghasted.

[edit on 3/31/2008 by Choronzon]



Uhm... Did the southpark kids KILL saddam? That's a far cry from him just being in Hell.


Not sure why you got stars for your post. Perhaps others on this board also lack the ability to differentiate between murder and satire.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throbber
reply to post by IchiNiSan
 


It's because we respect other people's opinions that we choose to call certain instances of Terrorism Freedom-Fighting.

Obviously, where innocents are concerned, that would be terrorism.

But fighting against the state when the state is fighting you is something i would call freedom-fighting.

It's an odd lot, when you get down to it - Freedom Fighters and Terrorists often find themselves working alongside each other, perhaps realising they have similar goals ultimately.

Choosing not to make the distinction between Freedom Fighter and Terrorist is tantamount to saying "I don't believe you have the capacity to be right about the very thing you are risking your life to acheive".

Tell me, if someone like MLK had been forced to use violent methods, would you call him a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter?

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Throbber]



You know, he was forced to use violent methods. He simply didn't. This was probably one of his largest strengths of character. During the bus boycott the reprisals by whites were hard and cruel. And he was surrounded by a mob of angry black people ready to take a justifiable revenge.

However, he knew that if the change he sought would ever come to pass, it would have to occur without violence on their part.

The one who succumbs to be moved to violence in any fashion is not a Freedom Fighter, they are simply angry and full of hate.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Did a similar Thread on this a while back.

Has links to some of the other kids shows in the ME.

Odd... only rec'd one reply.


LOL



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


And wasn't MLK assassinated?

Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd if he was acting in purely peaceful methods?

MLK was not a freedom fighter, an experienced freedom fighter is remarkably difficult to assassinate.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Man if those dolls where vodoo dolls...That segment would have solved allot of problems....well not solve them, just make people happier iguess..



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
The one who succumbs to be moved to violence in any fashion is not a Freedom Fighter, they are simply angry and full of hate.


Fully agree.

It always still stuns me how come people could justify certain kinds of violence for being so-called freedom fighting and another kind that they disapprove as terrorism. Well this is maybe the common teachings and educations in certain parts of the world, and one way of looking into the world.

It saddens me that these people really have no clue why the hatred in certain parts of the world towards them are so deep, so deep that some of them even will resort to cowardly suiciding and killing innocents,even if they are soldiers, after all what is the different between a civilian in an open market and a soldier walking down the streets of Baghdad. People at the soldier's home country will still call it terrorism, while the common definition to them of terrorism/freedom fighting are certainly something different as mentioned previously.

On one hand cheering and supporting freedom fighting, on the other hand condemning terrorism, well that is in my opinion nothing more than hypocrisy and shows a total lack of understanding what is really going on.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
The sad thing about this is that the children of all countries are subjected to this and we as a human species will never reach that level of peace until it stops everywhere. Our children are the future for humanity.

[edit on 4/1/2008 by Solarskye]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by IchiNiSan
 


I'll take that as an indirect attack on my own personal reasoning capabilities, and i'll promote it.

Now, the example i provided was only one scenario, and granted it was somewhat unrealistic (in that it didn't happen).

But i ask you, what if a terrorist or freedom fighter or whatever was in a position whereby his country's political establishment had made it so that it was actually IMPOSSIBLE to do anything about the issues which effect them peacefully?

Which would, of course - ensure that any political insurgency going on in that political establishment's territory could be branded a terrorist act.

I know it's unlikely you'll accept this as a possibility, but it is.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
The sad thing about this is that the children of all countries are subjected to this and we as a human species will never reach that level of peace until it stops everywhere. Our children are the future for humanity.

[edit on 4/1/2008 by Solarskye]


Couldn't agree more with this statement. Well said!



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Well one of the basics many lack is respecting and listening to other people's opinion. If one already "think" and "assume" with prejudices that they already know what the other is thinking and already made up conclusions before even starting a discussion or listening to the answer, then what is the use to even start asking a question. If this basic respect is not shown from where we can start a discussion, to me that is kinda pointless. After all, I'm not a Buddha, only a Buddhist in the learn, a simple minded human being, so I would rather not waste my time.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by IchiNiSan
 


Well, even by responding to your post i am acting under the illusion that you were infact responding to my own post.

Are you saying there is something wrong with a bit of on-the-spot discussion?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throbber
reply to post by Quazga
 


And wasn't MLK assassinated?

Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd if he was acting in purely peaceful methods?

MLK was not a freedom fighter, an experienced freedom fighter is remarkably difficult to assassinate.



Actually, true freedom fighters have a history of getting assasinated. We call it martyrdom.

MLK was assasinated just like Jesus was assasinated, just like many others.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


One would think that fighting was an integral part of freedom fighting, but that's just my rather young and inexperienced opinion.

MLK fought for freedom for black people and white people within a system that was anything but free, and because the system still existed after MLK was assassinated, one could say that the so-called 'system' prevailed.

And why?

Because it had the capacity to assassinate someone and get away with it.

p.s; i defy you to call Jesus a freedom fighter once more.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Throbber]



new topics




 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join