Anti-war? Shut the hell up
March 26, 2003 4:17 AM   Subscribe

Publishing pics of American prisoners of war on your Web site? Take them down and forget that American media has carried pics of Iraqi POWs. Presenting an Arab perspective on the war? You'll get hacked because we are right and they are wrong. Running a text ad that asks 'Who would Jesus Bomb?' We won't run your ad because you might offend someone. Ashamed to be from the same state as the president of the USA? Better perform for our wonderful troops or we'll boycott your music. Leading a country opposed to the war? Better change your mind or there will be "economic consequences."
posted by johnnydark (23 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: already covered pretty much everything here

Freedom. It's a difficult concept, isn't it?
posted by spazzm at 5:02 AM on March 26, 2003

Actually, no. It's just that some people believe their freedom trumps yours.
posted by ?! at 5:07 AM on March 26, 2003

and when those people hold all the cards and command all the armies and enjoy the blind support of a populace drunk on electronic diversion and the mythology of wars past, speaking out becomes very dangerous indeed.
posted by quonsar at 5:22 AM on March 26, 2003

"Publishing pics of American prisoners of war on your Web site? Take them down and forget that American media has carried pics of Iraqi POWs."

I, myself, cannot forget when the US showed Iraqi POWs giving their name and hometown live on CNN. It was truely sick. Round up Bush now. It was too much to have that American posing over the dead body of an Iraqi POW.

Sick. Sick. Sick. Siiiiick.


Seriously.. comparing American and Iraqi treatment of POWs is stretching it. Unless you want to contend that the US puts bullets into the heads of Iraqi POWs.

To go though your 'questions'

#1) Yellowtimes was shut down by it's ISP (not the first time this has happened, I believe), it'll probably return with an ISP more willing to host it

#2) Who the heck knows who DOS'd Al Jazzerra's site. Although A-J showing those videos no doubt hurt their reputation with people who do this.

#3) Google is not obligated to run a "Who would Jesus bomb" ad.

#4) Your article had nothing to do with performing for troops. I will state that the Dixie Chicks are in the wrong genre of music. Making these comments as a country music star will alienate fans. Now, if they were rock stars, then nobody would have really noticed if they made controversial comments.

#5) the CIA-controlled hit squad will spank Canada a dozen times for daring to speak out. Plus, MK-ULTRA will spawn a new assassin who will fire at the Prime Minister. That'll show them for daring to go against America. Let me laugh and chew my freedom bacon (/sarcasm)

While I agree with the right to speak and all, you exercised your right to hyperbole
posted by RobbieFal at 5:23 AM on March 26, 2003

Is this a MetaFilter post or a manifesto? It's just a bunch of links to news stories that everyone has already heard of....
posted by oissubke at 5:24 AM on March 26, 2003

I'm right and you're wrong! Period! And remember, you tell them - as they stare in disbelief down the barrel of your gun - IT'S MY MIGHT THAT MAKES ME RIGHT!
posted by LowDog at 5:26 AM on March 26, 2003

posted by Beholder at 5:30 AM on March 26, 2003

posted by grabbingsand at 5:35 AM on March 26, 2003

Why do the Americans take offence when other people don't follow them? Is their ego really so brittle that they need to lash out at Canada for not contributing a token company of soldiers for their war?
posted by Space Coyote at 5:42 AM on March 26, 2003

Opposed to US foreign policy, some are boycotting American products. What a horrible use of coercive economic power!

--er, wait a second.
I mean that is OK because they agree with my worldview. No. Wait. I mean...
posted by ednopantz at 5:44 AM on March 26, 2003

So wait a minute . . . Martin Sheen, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon and the Dixie Chicks can say whatever they want against the war, but people that disagree with them should just shut up? I respect their rights to say whatever they want, but I don't agree with them . . . so don't tell me that I can't criticize them or make a decision to avoid their products.
posted by Durwood at 5:48 AM on March 26, 2003

I've been saying it all week, wipe my butt with the Constitution, it's obviously being trampled by our leaders. Burn the Bill of Rights, it's just a memory... though they did find a missing copy a few days ago. RobbieFal is right about the Dixie Chicks thing, if they were rock stars no one would've looked twice. I blame them for not knowing their target audience's likes and dislikes.
posted by phylum sinter at 5:59 AM on March 26, 2003

Disagreeing with the Dixie Chicks is one thing, holding a public bookburning is quite another.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:03 AM on March 26, 2003

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect," Maines said in a statement.

OK, cry IraqFilter, ReHashFilter if you feel this makes your case (and your armchair) comfier - but I've yet to have this explained convincingly to me. Why should the resident of the highest office in the world be treated with respect? Why do they need it? What would they do with it? They should be questioned, queried, checked and double-checked surely...?

No? Oh, OK... I kneel before Zod!
posted by klaatu at 6:04 AM on March 26, 2003

Bush, quoted by Lewis Lapham: "That's the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
posted by hairyeyeball at 6:15 AM on March 26, 2003

i can understand the fundy conservos behavior, but WTF's up with all the joe sixpacks lining up to hoover the shrub? respect for the office may be traditional american mythology, but disrespect for the officeholder is practically a requirement for citizenship.
posted by quonsar at 6:20 AM on March 26, 2003

Hey johnnydark: are you trying to claim that there is rampant censorship? Bullshit. With the exception of the last example, they are all examples of private citizens and/or private companies exercising their rights. The last example is neither censorship nor "wrong" -- it is simply an acknowledgment that we reward our friends, and don't reward those who are not-quite-as-good friends.
posted by davidmsc at 6:21 AM on March 26, 2003

As just about every one of these links and topics have already (recently) been discussed here, I too cast my vote for RehashFilter.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:22 AM on March 26, 2003

I've read the "it's their right to use their influence how they like" argument over and over here and on other sites, and it misses the point completely. No one is saying that they are breaking the law per se, they are simply saying that they don't think it's good practice, and is something they feel needs to be brought to attention.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:30 AM on March 26, 2003

I call filterfilter on all the -filter comments :)
posted by Space Coyote at 6:31 AM on March 26, 2003

Good post.
From this side of the Atlantic America is being increasingly represented by the likes of Rumsfeld and Perle and , quite frankly, their brand of American jingoism is beginning to scare us.
It's good to know that dissenting voices still exist in the USA.

On the subject of dissenting voices did I imagine it or was there a post about Michael Moore's Oscar speech here yesterday, what happened it?
posted by stunned at 6:31 AM on March 26, 2003

« Older Life's a Game   |   The Inescapable US Drive to Own Stuff Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments