NationStates Jolt Archive

http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/bush-small.jpg

http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/warpresBIG.jpg

Isn't that just great. What better way to make fun of Bush than to use the faces of all those who died in service on a poster?

Come on guys, make fun of Bush all you want, but don't sink this low. This is just sick.

Ever have that deja vu feeling?

Yeah, me neither.

I do agree that it is in poor taste but, and this is a big but, the man is a menace. He is not fit to lead the US.

This isn't "making fun" of Bush. Nobody's laughing at this. The picture is supposed to be a reminder of the fact that Bush's war has led to the deaths of over 600 soldiers. It's a political statement, and a sad one.

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.

Its funny how people on one side say that the use of pictures for politics is wrong, while the other says he is a war criminal because he declared war, and in fighting the war, the enemy shot his soldiers and thus he is responsible.

That is why I shall be independant....politics...*sigh*....

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

How would you like it if I used the faces of the 9/11 victims in an ad?



Its the truth it has to be said no matter how unpleasent you think it is. Its supposed to be unpleasent to send a message that this war shouldnt be happening.

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?

No...what's next is a picture of Raysia:
http://starterupsteve.servepics.com/funny4/god-jesus.jpg

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?If it comes out--not likely--that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it, then yes. If someone made a photo-mosaic of Osama bin Laden with their faces that had a condemnatory tone, why not?

This is done in incredibly bad taste. The pictures of the dead should not be used to further anyones point of view. Its sick and morbid.

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?If it comes out--not likely--that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it, then yes. If someone made a photo-mosaic of Osama bin Laden with their faces that had a condemnatory tone, why not?There's a difference there.

Everyone hates bin laden.

A LOT of people support Bush's war, and support our troops. And you people using the pictures of our troops that have fallen as an anti-bush poster is just sick and wrong and disrespectful in the highest degree.

This is done in incredibly bad taste. The pictures of the dead should not be used to further anyones point of view. Its sick and morbid.Thank you for being one of the few people on this board with a sense or respect for the dead.

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?

No, it isn't the same at all. I can't see how you think this is making fun of Bush, since pictures of the dead are being used to compose his image. What's funny about that? It sounds like the only one trivializing these deaths is you, in writing this off as some kind of cheap humor. This art makes a point, and has quite a rational reason for doing so.

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?If it comes out--not likely--that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it, then yes. If someone made a photo-mosaic of Osama bin Laden with their faces that had a condemnatory tone, why not?There's a difference there.

Everyone hates bin laden.

A LOT of people support Bush's war, and support our troops. And you people using the pictures of our troops that have fallen as an anti-bush poster is just sick and wrong and disrespectful in the highest degree.


But the thing is most of the soldiers dont want to be in Iraq and most people dont support this war I think the families want this to end as much as the average american.

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?If it comes out--not likely--that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it, then yes. If someone made a photo-mosaic of Osama bin Laden with their faces that had a condemnatory tone, why not?There's a difference there.

Everyone hates bin laden.

A LOT of people support Bush's war, and support our troops. And you people using the pictures of our troops that have fallen as an anti-bush poster is just sick and wrong and disrespectful in the highest degree.

So what outrages you is NOT the use of images of the dead, but instead the fact that such images are being used to attack someone you like. I see, it makes sense now.

Folks can this not freaking degenerate into, "But Bush did this..." and "Bush did that..." fest. The fact of the matter is, no matter what political agenda, the use of the dead is morbid, and wrong. Bush or not. Can we fu*king agree on that much?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and most images can be used on either side of an argument (provided we're thinking so linearly as to imagine there are only 2 sides: the pro-government people and the terrorists). It's only offensive if you let it be, and I found it thought-provoking.
Disembark from your high moral horse for one second, kind sir, and think objectively. Consider the pictures for what they are, not for how they symbolize the wrong actions of a man you admire.

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?


But GW HAS used the pics of 9-11 for personal gain - his re-election.

Including the clip of a body being carried from the rubble.


So I don't see where you can be critical since he set the bar that low.

-Z-

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?If it comes out--not likely--that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it, then yes. If someone made a photo-mosaic of Osama bin Laden with their faces that had a condemnatory tone, why not?There's a difference there.

Everyone hates bin laden.

A LOT of people support Bush's war, and support our troops. And you people using the pictures of our troops that have fallen as an anti-bush poster is just sick and wrong and disrespectful in the highest degree.

So popularity = right? What a tenous line you're walking there.

You can support the troops without supporting the war (such as, say, wanting them home safely), and I'd say this is quite a statement of support for the troops. If the artist didn't care for them, he wouldn't bother to blame Bush for their deaths, or to take the time to create this.

I also love the reference to "you people." Keep up the great work, Raysia! :roll:

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-It's a unanimous opinion that 9/11 was a tragedy, and we all suffered in some way because of it.

Like I said, the war on terrorism is another matter, because it is no where NEAR unanimous. It is contraversial. And at least HALF of america actually thinks those people died with honor.

Honor you people would know/care nothing about.

Folks can this not freaking degenerate into, "But Bush did this..." and "Bush did that..." fest. The fact of the matter is, no matter what political agenda, the use of the dead is morbid, and wrong. Bush or not. Can we fu*king agree on that much?


Sometimes only these kinds of images make people understand.....do you want more soldiers to die? Its a neccessary evil.

Guess what I found:

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/images/911Poster_25.jpg

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?If it comes out--not likely--that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it, then yes. If someone made a photo-mosaic of Osama bin Laden with their faces that had a condemnatory tone, why not?There's a difference there.

Everyone hates bin laden.

A LOT of people support Bush's war, and support our troops. And you people using the pictures of our troops that have fallen as an anti-bush poster is just sick and wrong and disrespectful in the highest degree.

So popularity = right? What a tenous line you're walking there.

You can support the troops without supporting the war (such as, say, wanting them home safely), and I'd say this is quite a statement of support for the troops. If the artist didn't care for them, he wouldn't bother to blame Bush for their deaths, or to take the time to create this.

I also love the reference to "you people." Keep up the great work, Raysia! :roll:When I say "you people," I address those who take pride in this anti-bush propoganda that utilizes the faces of those who died serving their country.

Guess what I found:

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/images/911Poster_25.jpgThat would be appropriate.

That's called a MEMORIAL.

NOT AN ANTI-BUSH PROPOGANDA

Holy crap man

Sick? Yes. But it does bring up some good points....like a little thing called Iraq. What ever happened to Osama?

Guess what I found:

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/images/911Poster_25.jpg


I find that offensive because it doesnt have any purpose what is the purpose of posting this picture? The other picture shows we need to get out of Iraq.

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-It's a unanimous opinion that 9/11 was a tragedy, and we all suffered in some way because of it.

Like I said, the war on terrorism is another matter, because it is no where NEAR unanimous. It is contraversial. And at least HALF of america actually thinks those people died with honor.

Honor you people would know/care nothing about.I was going to leave this alone, but no--fuck you, Raysia. We all think these men and women died with honor. How dare you? How dare you say that we don't understand that?

They died with honor but the man who sent them has none. That's the ultimate point of all of this. I spit on you, Raysia.

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-It's a unanimous opinion that 9/11 was a tragedy, and we all suffered in some way because of it.

Like I said, the war on terrorism is another matter, because it is no where NEAR unanimous. It is contraversial. And at least HALF of america actually thinks those people died with honor.

Honor you people would know/care nothing about.

Again with the "you people." Priceless!

The vast majority of people think those soldiers died with honor. A decent chunk of America finds the tragedy in the reasons for which they died. Try to grasp this: Some people find it objectionable that Bush sent these people to their deaths, however honorable those deaths may have been. Some people want to make a statement so they won't be able to build a picture of Bush's entire cabinet with similar pictures. And those people have more at heart than your petty partisan politics.

Don't let me stop your demonizing of the opposition, though. :wink:

http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/bush-small.jpg

http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/warpresBIG.jpg

Isn't that just great. What better way to make fun of Bush than to use the faces of all those who died in service on a poster?

Come on guys, make fun of Bush all you want, but don't sink this low. This is just sick.
Then why did YOU post the picture again?

Guess what I found:

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/images/911Poster_25.jpg

This isnt furthering anyones political agenda. I've got no problem with this, infact this probably should be somewhere in the downtown memorial. THIS is thought provoking. Not the pictures of dead soldiers to make the picture of George W Bush. I sense a real air of hypocrasy here. It's okay for whoever did the Bush thing, to get away with it, because you can equate it to being Anti Bush, however it is wrong for Bush to use the picture of the body being carried out of the WTC because you believe he is using it for his own political gain? Could it be possible he is using it for something thought provoking as well? :roll:

Honestly what he didnt wasnt right, and that isnt right. Its attempting to further a political agenda.

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-It's a unanimous opinion that 9/11 was a tragedy, and we all suffered in some way because of it.

Like I said, the war on terrorism is another matter, because it is no where NEAR unanimous. It is contraversial. And at least HALF of america actually thinks those people died with honor.

Honor you people would know/care nothing about.

Well, well, well. Let's look at what you're saying here. When someone makes a political statement that most Americans agree with, it's perfectly legitimate. But when someone makes a political statement that roughly half of Americans disagree with, it's not only illegitimate, but it's a crime worthy of death.

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-It's a unanimous opinion that 9/11 was a tragedy, and we all suffered in some way because of it.

Like I said, the war on terrorism is another matter, because it is no where NEAR unanimous. It is contraversial. And at least HALF of america actually thinks those people died with honor.

Honor you people would know/care nothing about.

Bush's reason for attaching those bodies to his campaign is that it was "the defining moment" of his tenure in office.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, this war is a "defining issue" on this election.

And where exactly does this pic indicate that the soldiers didn't die with honor?

It just reminds you that they died with honor on his command in this controversial war.

What makes you assume that this is an insult to the memory of the servicemen?

That is one hell of a stretch.

As to your personal insult: noted, and ignored.

-Z-

*sigh*

NY+NJ, you're a good man. But we have no chance of swaying these people. (Yes, anbar, I said these people, you people, the people who throw tragedy at us to back up your political spin and lies)

I'm going to leave this thread, before I get deated or something.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I see nothing wrong with that representation of a president that used an aircraft carrier and hundreds of seamen to puff out his chest as a war leader. The fact that he has failed makes it rather appropriate.
Besides, not one of the dead have been honoured properly by Bush. He has attended not one funeral and has forbidden the filming of the dead returning home.

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?If it comes out--not likely--that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it, then yes. If someone made a photo-mosaic of Osama bin Laden with their faces that had a condemnatory tone, why not?There's a difference there.

Everyone hates bin laden.

A LOT of people support Bush's war, and support our troops. And you people using the pictures of our troops that have fallen as an anti-bush poster is just sick and wrong and disrespectful in the highest degree.

So popularity = right? What a tenous line you're walking there.

You can support the troops without supporting the war (such as, say, wanting them home safely), and I'd say this is quite a statement of support for the troops. If the artist didn't care for them, he wouldn't bother to blame Bush for their deaths, or to take the time to create this.

I also love the reference to "you people." Keep up the great work, Raysia! :roll:When I say "you people," I address those who take pride in this anti-bush propoganda that utilizes the faces of those who died serving their country.

Well, you used it to refer to Incertonia, who I haven't seen taking any pride in any such thing. Nor do I imagine that you have any idea what inspired the creation of this work. But, again, don't let that stop you from generalizing and ranting at anyone who dares to see this from your point of view.

Bush's reason for attaching those bodies to his campaign is that it was "the defining moment" of his tenure in office.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, this war is a "defining issue" on this election.

And where exactly does this pic indicate that the soldiers didn't die with honor?

It just reminds you that they died with honor on his command in this controversial war.

What makes you assume that this is an insult to the memory of the servicemen?

That is one hell of a stretch.

As to your personal insult: noted, and ignored.

-Z-*one more post*

You realize that basically the only 9/11 victim relatives that complained about the commercial were paid to come forth by John Kerry, right?

You're so interested in the truth, why can't you see it in ALL Things?

This isnt furthering anyones political agenda. I've got no problem with this, infact this probably should be somewhere in the downtown memorial. THIS is thought provoking. Not the pictures of dead soldiers to make the picture of George W Bush. I sense a real air of hypocrasy here. It's okay for whoever did the Bush thing, to get away with it, because you can equate it to being Anti Bush, however it is wrong for Bush to use the picture of the body being carried out of the WTC because you believe he is using it for his own political gain? Could it be possible he is using it for something thought provoking as well? :roll:

Honestly what he didnt wasnt right, and that isnt right. Its attempting to further a political agenda.

Personally, I didn't think that Bush's use of the 9/11 images was all that outrageous. The people who were protesting were mostly family members of victims of the 9/11 attacks. I can understand why they would be offended, just as I can understand why some people would be offended by the Bush picture. But I don't regard either political statement to be illegitimate.

Let's put you through the hypocrisy test too, New York and Jersey. Tell me, do you think that Bush's use of 9/11 images was okay, but that the image above of Bush is unacceptable?

NY+NJ, you're a good man. But we have no chance of swaying these people. (Yes, anbar, I said these people, you people, the people who throw tragedy at us to back up your political spin and lies)

Just like Bush is using the 9/11 images in his re-election ads, right? Seems like a bit of a double standard you have there. That's nothing new for you though, so I guess you're actually being consistent there.

"Be not forward, but friendly and courteous. "

-George Washington

That is total racial segregation. The blacks are up in the dark corner while the whites are in the lighted areas...

And the creators of the poster will not tell you 1 thing. Most of Those soldiers said they were damned proud to free the Iraqis and would do it again.

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-It's a unanimous opinion that 9/11 was a tragedy, and we all suffered in some way because of it.

Like I said, the war on terrorism is another matter, because it is no where NEAR unanimous. It is contraversial. And at least HALF of america actually thinks those people died with honor.

Honor you people would know/care nothing about.

Well, well, well. Let's look at what you're saying here. When someone makes a political statement that most Americans agree with, it's perfectly legitimate. But when someone makes a political statement that roughly half of Americans disagree with, it's not only illegitimate, but it's a crime worthy of death.

*hears crickets chirping from Raysia's side of the room*

Perhaps I'm on to something here.

I sense a real air of hypocrasy here. It's okay for whoever did the Bush thing, to get away with it, because you can equate it to being Anti Bush, however it is wrong for Bush to use the picture of the body being carried out of the WTC because you believe he is using it for his own political gain? Could it be possible he is using it for something thought provoking as well? :roll:


Where did I say it wasn't OK for GW to use that pic? IT was Raysia that asked "what - will pics of 9-11 victims be next?"

I'm saying that Bush Supporters such as Raysia shouldn't be hipocritical and say GW can use the pic of the body carried out of the WTC, but scream about this pic.


Frankly, I'd rather both sides laid off showing the dead for political gain. But since they are both doing it - I'm not going to scream at one side but not the other as Raysia is doing.

You seem to agree with me.

-Z-

You realize that basically the only 9/11 victim relatives that complained about the commercial were paid to come forth by John Kerry, right?

You're so interested in the truth, why can't you see it in ALL Things?You want to back that up with something that you didn't pull out of your ass? Somehow, I doubt it.

You realize that basically the only 9/11 victim relatives that complained about the commercial were paid to come forth by John Kerry, right?

You're so interested in the truth, why can't you see it in ALL Things?
Is this true? Do you have a source?

I have pity on the people who made that....consdering my cousin died in iraq :( :cry:

Bush's reason for attaching those bodies to his campaign is that it was "the defining moment" of his tenure in office.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, this war is a "defining issue" on this election.

And where exactly does this pic indicate that the soldiers didn't die with honor?

It just reminds you that they died with honor on his command in this controversial war.

What makes you assume that this is an insult to the memory of the servicemen?

That is one hell of a stretch.

As to your personal insult: noted, and ignored.

-Z-*one more post*

You realize that basically the only 9/11 victim relatives that complained about the commercial were paid to come forth by John Kerry, right?

You're so interested in the truth, why can't you see it in ALL Things?

Source?

*sigh*

NY+NJ, you're a good man. But we have no chance of swaying these people. (Yes, anbar, I said these people, you people, the people who throw tragedy at us to back up your political spin and lies)

I'm going to leave this thread, before I get deated or something.

Ooh, I guess I better report this to the opertaives at Liberal HQ over in Los Angeles - they'll want to know that their latest propaganda has failed! Pull it back, boys, Raysia's see through our latest political spin and lies! :lol:

The only one belittling the sacrifice of these men is you, in assuming that they mean so little as to be used for humor or political gain. You're the one who posted this, and you're the one who gave it this context. I think that's very telling.

And, once again, Raysia flees his own thread when faced with opposition.

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-It's a unanimous opinion that 9/11 was a tragedy, and we all suffered in some way because of it.

Like I said, the war on terrorism is another matter, because it is no where NEAR unanimous. It is contraversial. And at least HALF of america actually thinks those people died with honor.

Honor you people would know/care nothing about.

Well, well, well. Let's look at what you're saying here. When someone makes a political statement that most Americans agree with, it's perfectly legitimate. But when someone makes a political statement that roughly half of Americans disagree with, it's not only illegitimate, but it's a crime worthy of death.

*hears crickets chirping from Raysia's side of the room*

Perhaps I'm on to something here.

Don't expect logic...He can't even read his own answers...

You seem to agree with me.

-Z-

Of course, I feel the same way, however I have to defend Raysia, because its unfair how he's being ganged up on by the left, and frankly while he does have a slightly flawed arguement, the other side is playing itself as if it is okay to do the same thing. Doesnt the saying go, Two wrongs dont make a right?

12:33=(edited) You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?
12:34=(posted before the edit took hold) You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

How would you like it if I used the faces of the 9/11 victims in an ad?

Its the truth it has to be said no matter how unpleasent you think it is. Its supposed to be unpleasent to send a message that this war shouldnt be happening.

Looks like Raysia re-thought this line and edited, but not in time!
Why the editing of that line, Raysia?
Did you suddenly realize it didn't quite sound right considering Bush's use of 9/11 pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....(as Zeppistan said)?
hmmm??

I'm going to take the middle ground here, like so few have.

Originally I was going to decry Raysia for this high and mighty moralistic view he had impressed upon the others here, whether that is the real Raysia or not, but that's just furthering the argument. I was going to say that there's nothing honorable about having your face blown off by a 7.62mm bullet because some jackass sent you there for oil to fuel his empire, but that'd only spark more controversy. Lets face it, we're not going to come to an agreement, ever. This is arguably the most debated topic and the one we are most split over in our history, and that's not going to change because of some post on an obscure forum in a sea of billions. This is getting way too hot for some of us to handle, and so I think we should let it sit before someone gets hurt or so offended that something serious arises, and there'll never be and end to the feud. Please, like Raysia has pledged he'll do (but has yet to do so, I see), everyone back off the topic for now. Thank you.

Frankly, I'd rather both sides laid off showing the dead for political gain. But since they are both doing it - I'm not going to scream at one side but not the other as Raysia is doing.

Speaking of sides, do we even know who made this, beyond Raysia's assertion of some grand Liberal scheme? I mean, yes, it is a tragic image in tragic times, but quite frankly we know nothing about who made it or for what purpose, beyond what Raysia's said. When we're making motives and political gain part of the debate, I think that's pretty relevant.

NY&NJ, why exactly are you assuming that "the left" is the prime mover behind this? Are you seriously trying to assert that only people on the left are opposed to Bush's actions in Iraq, or can see a valuable message in this work?

Is this server actually getting worse?!

*does a random google seach for '9/11 victims' and 'Heinz'*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092116/posts

And Anbar- I'm leaving because Zep's wife threatened to DEAT me ;) This is my last post, I swear... only because some people are afraid to read all of the news.

You seem to agree with me.

-Z-

Of course, I feel the same way, however I have to defend Raysia, because its unfair how he's being ganged up on by the left, and frankly while he does have a slightly flawed arguement, the other side is playing itself as if it is okay to do the same thing. Doesnt the saying go, Two wrongs dont make a right?

I don't think anyone has said that. But maybe I missed it. However Raysia is clearly being hipocritical by allowing the one and screaming about the other. Excuse us for pointing that out.

And the fact that he chooses to stoop to personal attacks such as "you people are without honor" WILL generate a response.

You expect otherwise?

This is a regular tactic of his. He likes to group and label people and throw out blanket insults like that.

I did not respond in kind, but I understand why many do. He has earned the response he gets by his past behaviour.

-Z-

*does a random google seach for '9/11 victims' and 'Heinz'*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092116/posts

And Anbar- I'm leaving because Zep's wife threatened to DEAT me ;) This is my last post, I swear... only because some people are afraid to read all of the news.That claim was debunked within two days of its original report. And what point were you hoping to make with that anyway?

*does a random google seach for '9/11 victims' and 'Heinz'*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092116/posts

And Anbar- I'm leaving because Zep's wife threatened to DEAT me ;) This is my last post, I swear... only because some people are afraid to read all of the news.

That's not a source.

Indymedia and newsmax aren't sources either.

You just don't get it, Raysia. We're not making fun of Bush. We're criticizing him. There's a difference. Considering that he is responsible for every one of those deaths, there use of those pictures in this fashion is completely appropriate as an indictment of George W. Bush.Same difference.

You are using the pictures of a thousand dead soldiers for your anti-Bush propoganda.

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?If it comes out--not likely--that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it, then yes. If someone made a photo-mosaic of Osama bin Laden with their faces that had a condemnatory tone, why not?There's a difference there.

Everyone hates bin laden.

A LOT of people support Bush's war, and support our troops. And you people using the pictures of our troops that have fallen as an anti-bush poster is just sick and wrong and disrespectful in the highest degree.

So it would be okay to use the faces of dead Iraqi's let say to make a picture of bin Laden? Little bit of a double standard I would say..

Actually Ray, only 53% of Americans support the war in Iraq.. and that poll was taken before all this new uprising, so it's not beyond the scope to believe that it's probably dropped a few points since last week-end and the nearly 40 new dead Americans.

As for the rest of the world.. saying they support Bush's war is a rather tough sell at best.

Also, in the other thread you were quite upset and wanting the pic to be taken down, then you turn around and post it yourself?

I'm just not seeing the logic. If it offends you so much, why would you also post the pic?

*does a random google seach for '9/11 victims' and 'Heinz'*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092116/posts

And Anbar- I'm leaving because Zep's wife threatened to DEAT me ;) This is my last post, I swear... only because some people are afraid to read all of the news.

We all have read that.

And your assumption I guess is then that the families of the victims are faking being upset at the ad and turned up at the rally to collect individual cash handouts in order to express false sentiment.

That is one hell of an accusation - regardless of who helps fund the group that organized the event.


You also fail to mention that the NY firefighters association also asked for the ads to be pulled.

Are you suggesting that Kerry pays for the NY fire service too?

Your assertion that Kerry paid people to pretend to be upset over the use of images of the deaths of their loved ones is far more abhorent than anything else discussed in this thread.

It is beneath contempt.

-Z-

Recent opinion polls put support for Bush's Iraq policy at or below 43% depending on who does the polling. I've seen one as low as 38%. He's hemorrhaging support right now and who knows how bad it will get. The fact that he won't testify without Cheney there makes him look, well, less than independent.

Boy, you know its interesting.. When 'I' Did a random google search for '9/11 victims' and 'Heinz'* ... This was the first website at the top of the list:
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/


September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows has never received funding from the Howard Heinz Endowment, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, Teresa Heinz Kerry or John Kerry.

Peaceful Tomorrows has no connection with the Heinz or Kerry families through Tides Foundation, the Tides Center or any other entity. Nor does Peaceful Tomorrows endorse any candidate for any political office.

Peaceful Tomorrows has been a not-for-profit project of the Tides Center since July of 2002. As our fiscal sponsor, the Tides Center provides administrative and financial services that allow the staff and membership of Peaceful Tomorrows to focus on work related to our mission. We raise money for our own work and we pay Tides Center 9% of those funds in exchange for vital services such as invoice payment, tax services, and insurance.

*does a random google seach for '9/11 victims' and 'Heinz'*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092116/posts

And Anbar- I'm leaving because Zep's wife threatened to DEAT me ;) This is my last post, I swear... only because some people are afraid to read all of the news.

I have no idea what that last line is supposed to mean. As for the link, so a group of 9/11 families has ties to a charitable organization connected to Kerry's wife...and this is supposed to surprise me? It's a charitable organization, they tend to give out money, as the article mentions. Ooh, but since they're tied to one of those horrible leftists (you know, those people, in the vernacular of this thread), their message surely couldn't be genuine, and the group couldn't have been funded by the Heinz Foundation after its creation. The timeliness of all this is strikingy absent, but that couldn't have anything to do with the partisan nature of your source. Talk about spin...again, who's diminishing the sincerity and honor of the dead and their relatives for their own gain here?

Finally, I suppose it is a wise decision to leave if you can't conduct yourself in an appropriate manner. I just wanted to point out that this is quite far from the first time you've egressed so.

Well, If it's OK for GW to use pics of the WTC in his election campaign.... including a body being carried out....

I don't see a huge diference.

-Z-It's a unanimous opinion that 9/11 was a tragedy, and we all suffered in some way because of it.

Like I said, the war on terrorism is another matter, because it is no where NEAR unanimous. It is contraversial. And at least HALF of america actually thinks those people died with honor.

Honor you people would know/care nothing about.I was going to leave this alone, but no--fuck you, Raysia. We all think these men and women died with honor. How dare you? How dare you say that we don't understand that?

They died with honor but the man who sent them has none. That's the ultimate point of all of this. I spit on you, Raysia.

Incertonia - deep breaths dude, deep breaths. please don't let this get to you. If you are frustrated go have a smoke or a drink and come back.. okay!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif


It looks like the Bush Administration managed to shoot itself in the foot with its first volley of campaign ads. The ads show images of the World Trade Center devastation, complete with a flag-draped coffin being removed from the smoldering ruins. Victim’s families and first-responders were not impressed.

• “Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political expediency is dead wrong. It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11.”-- Chris Burke, whose brother died in the North Tower

• “Mr. Bush's ad flashes a shot of firefighters removing some flag-draped remains of a victim from the wreckage at ground zero even as he prohibits the filming of flag-draped remains of soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan.”-- Maureen Dowd, NYTimes, 3/4/04

• “It's so hard for us to believe that it's not obvious to everyone that Ground Zero shouldn't be used as a backdrop for a political campaign. We are incensed and hurt by what he is doing.”-- Rita Lasar, whose brother died in the North Tower

• “As a firefighter who spent months at Ground Zero, it’s deeply offensive to see the Bush campaign use these images to capitalize on the greatest American tragedy of our time.”-- Tom Ryan, a 20-year veteran fireman

• “We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders.”-- Harold A. Schaitberger, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters

• “He's trying to cover himself with the flag. He's trying to justify the war in Iraq by saying it had something to do with 9/11.”-- Wright Salisbury of Lexington, Mass., whose son-in-law was killed in New York

The Bush Administration’s use of 9/11 images should not surprise anyone. What else can they run on—record job losses, record deficits, perpetual war? Their one hope is to rekindle the support Bush enjoyed after 9/11, but it’s not going to work. Too many things have come to light about what the Bush Administration did and didn’t do—before, during, and after the attacks of 9/11. The Bush Administration has a lot of explaining to do, and they don’t seem very anxious to explain anything

• “Three thousand people were murdered on President Bush's watch. He has not cooperated with the investigation to find out why that happened.”-- Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband, died in the World Trade Center

• “The Bush administration will not cooperate fully with the 9/11 commission and at the same time they are trying to invoke and own 9/11 and use it for his re-election.”-- Stephen Push, whose wife died in the plane crash at the Pentagon

• “How this administration handled that day as well as the war on terror is worthy of discussion and I look forward to discussing that with the American people.”-- George W. Bush, 3/6/04

• “We've been fighting for nearly 21 months -- fighting the administration, the White House. As soon as we started looking for answers we were blocked, put off and ignored at every stop of the way.”-- Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in World Trade Center's Tower 2

• “It is a triumph of chutzpah for Mr. Bush to thwart the investigation into 9/11 at the same time he seeks re-election by promoting his handling of 9/11 and scaring us with the specter of more terrorism. He's even using 9/11 memorials as the backdrop for his convention in New York.”-- Maureen Dowd, NYTimes, 2/29/04

• “Lucky me. I hit the trifecta.”-- George W. Bush, mid-September, 2001—describing how he felt after the attacks of 9/11; quoted by his budget director, Mitch Daniels, 10/16/01

Even Bush’s handpicked chairman of the commission investigating the events surrounding 9/11 has said the attacks should have been prevented.

• ”As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done. This was not something that had to happen.”-- Thomas Kean, Chairman of the federal commission investigating 9/11, CBS News, 12/17/03

If we dismiss the conspiracy theories and ignore all the unanswered questions, we are still left with an account of an incompetent administration that received warnings from the previous administration, a dozen nations, and their own intelligence agencies—but still failed to do anything to safeguard the public. If they want to make that the cornerstone of their campaign, I say, “Bring it on!”

What's next, the faces of the 9/11 victims?

You mean like the ones Bush used in his ads? :roll:

I'm calmer already Steph. Perhaps I shouldn't confess this, but that response was quite reasoned in comparison to what I originally wrote. I felt I had to reply strongly--I refuse to allow shallow, small-minded pseudo-patriots to accuse me of not honoring those killed in action. Had he done that in person, he or I or both of us would be sporting injuries right now--that's how strongly I feel about it. But I am calmer now, as I hope my more recent posts prove. Thanks for worrying.

*does a random google seach for '9/11 victims' and 'Heinz'*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092116/posts

And Anbar- I'm leaving because Zep's wife threatened to DEAT me ;) This is my last post, I swear... only because some people are afraid to read all of the news.

I never threatened to delete you in this thread.. wtf are you talking about? I warned you in another thread to cool down.. that wasn't this thread Ray.. and it has nothing to do with my husband.. Zeppistan didn't even post in the other thread. This annoys me that you would make such an un-founded allegation!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif


It looks like the Bush Administration managed to shoot itself in the foot with its first volley of campaign ads. The ads show images of the World Trade Center devastation, complete with a flag-draped coffin being removed from the smoldering ruins. Victim’s families and first-responders were not impressed.

Some were, some weren't. You speak for no one.

Letter to President Bush on Valentine's Day 2004

"Dear President Bush,

Two years ago today, family members of 9/11 victims lost at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on Flight 93 launched a group called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. We chose Valentine's Day as a symbolic reminder that the American ideals of peace, justice and reconciliation remain vibrant, and did not die with our loved ones.

On that day, we held up a large heart containing a valentine letter to you. In the letter we asked to meet with you to discuss the creation of a fund to assist innocent victims of war in Afghanistan. We felt that it was not only a decent and moral response to those accidental deaths, but also a practical opportunity to demonstrate the same compassion that 9/11 family members received from all over the globe.

You chose not to meet with us, but since that day two years ago, the members of Peaceful Tomorrows have worked to display the best of America's ideals to the rest of the world. We secured congressional funding to assist Afghan civilians affected by the war. We connected with others around the world who have been similarly affected by terrorism and war. We stood with millions across the globe against the war in Iraq and for the cause of peace. And our group has grown as more 9/11 family members have found healing by turning their grief into action for peace. In contrast, you declared it was an "us versus them" world, and pursued unilateral and unpopular policies that turned that world against the United States and made us less secure. And worst of all, you often used the deaths of our family members as an excuse to pursue that agenda.

Two years later, we ask you to stop exploiting the tragedy of September 11 for political gain and to join us in responding to that tragic day in a manner that brings about genuine healing and peace for Americans and the rest of the world. "

http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/

Interesting to say the least........

Using 911 victims for political propaganda is totally disgusting - using the tragedy of others to build on one's own benefit.

But using the victims in Iraq to portray Bush is another thing altogether. It hurls the cold, hard truth at Bush's feet: LOOKIE HERE, MR. PRESIDENT. SEE THE LIVES YOU TOOK AWAY? I think it's a hugely sardonic act of skepticism to Bush - and by voting him out later on may prove to save more American lives.

That's sick.

Yeah, somebody does have some pretty bad taste.

There are almost 1,500 pictures of soldiers in that image. President Bush is not responsible for that many American military deaths.

Just wait...

There are almost 1,500 pictures of soldiers in that image. President Bush is not responsible for that many American military deaths.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Bush invaded Iraq.


Warning: graphic content.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/fallujah_attack/flash.htm

There are almost 1,500 pictures of soldiers in that image. President Bush is not responsible for that many American military deaths.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Bush invaded Iraq.


Warning: graphic content.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/fallujah_attack/flash.htm

1)What is your point?
2)Why did you post that link?

There are almost 1,500 pictures of soldiers in that image. President Bush is not responsible for that many American military deaths.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Bush invaded Iraq.


Warning: graphic content.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/fallujah_attack/flash.htm

1)What is your point?
2)Why did you post that link?

Well if you read it you might understand. You don't have to agree, but the point, I would have thought, is obvious in this thread

I read it, however that post does not relate in any which way to the quote in question. What about what happened in Fallujah? You cant just post a link and expect everyone to instantly know what your thinking. :roll: