View Full Version : Cartoon draws howls of protest from Joint Chiefs
solypsist
02-04-2006, 20:41
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001955937
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=171596830&p=y7y597536
A Tom Toles editorial cartoon published in The Washington Post on Monday and on its Web site has drawn a very rare and very strong protest letter to the editors from all six members of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, E&P has learned.
The letter, not yet published by the Post, charges that the six military leaders “believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper’s reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds. … As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.”
A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed the contents of the letter to E&P late this afternoon. That the newspaper had received such a letter was first reported on the popular AmericaBlog site, which is run by John Aravosis, this afternoon.
The spokeswoman said a letter from all six joint chiefs to anyone, let alone a newspaper, is rare, but the cartoon so offended them, they wanted to let their feelings be known. “It was expressing their disappointment with the paper and outrage at using that image to make a political point,” said Lt. Col. Diane Battaglia. “That is a rare occurrence, but the level of inappropriateness prompted a response of unanimous support.”
link to the toon in question (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=01292006) do not click if do not want to risk being offended.
Proletariat
02-04-2006, 20:43
I'm going to go burn something down.
InsaneApache
02-04-2006, 20:53
I'll eat a bacon butty. ~:yin-yang:
You guys have a chief of joints?!
I smirked at the cartoon. Reminded me of the George Carlin skit about shell-shock. In any case, the Doob Lords are being pansies, if you ask me. Let the mang draw haughty cartoons. Who cares?
Byzantine Prince
02-04-2006, 20:58
Uh oh, DA better watch out, those silly cartoons he made with Gawain and his pet PanzerJager might come back to haunt him. :inquisitive:
Devastatin Dave
02-04-2006, 21:49
Very tastless, but I won't riot or behead anyone for it.
Crazed Rabbit
02-04-2006, 22:10
Tasteless cartoon, and I think it's unfair to classify the JCS letter as a 'howl'.
Still, I'm not going to go burn anything down, or threaten death to those who make cartoons the JCS doesn't like.
Crazed Rabbit
It got a laugh out of me. Because, do you see, it is a joke about the US army and government use thereof, not about US soldiers. Please get off of your high horses. Letting the military have an infuenece on the free press is not advised.
This whole thing with people getting mortally offended by cartoons is turning into a trend. Color me nervous.
Tachikaze
02-05-2006, 05:56
It got a laugh out of me. Because, do you see, it is a joke about the US army and government use thereof, not about US soldiers. Please get off of your high horses. Letting the military have an infuenece on the free press is not advised.
I agree with this.
Gawain of Orkeny
02-05-2006, 06:25
Using the suffering of our wounded veterans to make a joke is not funny. Its tasteless.
rory_20_uk
02-05-2006, 11:14
I think it makes a very important point in a very simple eloquent manner. Soldiers are dying and as far as I am aware are being all but ignored.
Morale of the troops is important, but is bound to be low in a situation that few armies are used to - a sort of semi war where fighting back only makes things worse. One cartoon is not going to affect morale as much as being stuck out there.
The Government has already marginalised the wounded and suffering as far as they are able to via their own channels, now it appears they are trying to stifle all others that remain. :no:
~:smoking:
Major Robert Dump
02-05-2006, 11:30
I've seen worse. It's tacky, yes, but if we weren't in a war it would go unnoticed. But if you guys want to riot, I'll go along because tear gas gets me high.
Proletariat
02-05-2006, 18:53
The Government has already marginalised the wounded and suffering as far as they are able to via their own channels, now it appears they are trying to stifle all others that remain. :no:
~:smoking:
What the hell are you talking about? How are the wounded being 'marginalised'?
rory_20_uk
02-05-2006, 19:15
In the UK are they mentioned in the slightest? No, not at all. They are of "marginal" interest to the media and hence are being "marginalised". Erm, did I wizz through that too fast? :dizzy2:
~:smoking:
Proletariat
02-05-2006, 19:24
Mentioned, shmentioned. I don't know how it's handled in England, but I work in the largest amputee clinic in the US and routinely fit patients with myoelectric prosthetics that can sometimes cost around 40,000 usd and it's all paid for by the Government. In this clinic at Walter Reed, patients are daily visited by folks like Tom Hanks, Snoop Dog, Kelsey Grammar, Tom Brady, etc.
Maybe they're being 'marginalised' in England, but this cartoon was about the US, and the soldiers are certainly not being forgotten about or ignored here.
Kralizec
02-05-2006, 19:37
What do you expect, it's a political cartoon. A cartoon can be a brilliant form of criticism, or it can be a complete crock.
This one wasn't even funny, IMO.
The Government has already marginalised the wounded and suffering as far as they are able to via their own channels, now it appears they are trying to stifle all others that remain. :no:
In the UK are they mentioned in the slightest? No, not at all. They are of "marginal" interest to the media and hence are being "marginalised". Erm, did I wizz through that too fast?So, the government is marginalizing the wounded because the media doesnt report on them, but now the government is trying to marginalize the remaining channels by stifling the media..... Makes sense to me. :dizzy2:
Adrian II
02-05-2006, 20:04
Maybe they're being 'marginalised' in England, but this cartoon was about the US, and the soldiers are certainly not being forgotten about or ignored here.I hear you, you have told us before about your personal involvement, and I think the word 'marginalised' was a most unlucky choice of our friend. However, in the UK the government and the media are not exactly promoting any public interest in the wounded. I don't know what is cause and what is effect, but the observation is on the mark for the UK. Same thing happened to the British wounded and traumatised after the Falklands War.
BTW Does anybody ever think twice about what a cartoon might actually be about? The (in)famous Mohammed with the explosive turban for instance. Is that a straight-forward drawing of Mohammed, in which the essence of his Prophecy is reduced to the gratuitous use of violence? Or is it just a cartoon of the sort of Mohammed adored by terrorist groups and hence an indictment of their interpretation of the Prophet?
The same sort of question can be asked about the Washpost cartoon. Is it making fun of the wounded? I don't think so. The crippled soldier in the bed is a symbol of the crippled state of U.S. Army according to some reports, which makes Rumsfeld, who denies this, the real cripple in the picture. An emotional cripple if you will. Or a political one.
Of course there are other possible interpretations, but there is just no way this cartoon could be seen as making fun of (as in: at the expense of) crippled soldiers. Not even a moron will look at it and go: 'Ha, dumb cripple!'
Proletariat
02-05-2006, 20:28
BTW Does anybody ever think twice about what a cartoon might actually be about?
Great point, but this is just a testament to how ineffective cartoons are. When people get in these kind of uproars over a stupid cartoon, the fault lies with the biggest imbecile, who is the cartoon artist. You can't just go around drawing offensive things and then blaming the audience whenever they get upset. I agree that we're seeing idiotic over reactions to all of these cartoons recently, but let's not place 100% of the blame on the unwashed Philistines who just weren't sophisticated enough to 'get it'.
The people who write these things can sanctimoniously hide behind the notion that they're message was misconstrued and that they're being victimised, but anyone with half a brain understands the artists knew full well what they were doing and what kind of reaction they were going to get when they drew these things.
rory_20_uk
02-05-2006, 20:43
I agree, but then the reaction would be people rolling their eyes and saying how blatant, how tasteless etc etc it was is up to individuals, not the state apparatus.
But, although the artist ain't that good or an Oscar Wilde with rapier wit, his right to prove that he is average in almost every way is allowed in both the US and Europe.
~:smoking:
Reverend Joe
02-05-2006, 20:58
Using the suffering of our wounded veterans to make a joke is not funny. Its tasteless.
The cartoon has nothing to do with "the suffering of our wounded veterans." It is a reference to Donald Rumsfeld's delusional statement about the army- that it is "battle-hardened." The wounded soldier is not supposed to be a joke- that is what is happening to our army as a whole, because it is just sitting in Iraq, slowly bleeding to death. The Joint Chiefs (and you) are just pissed because it is a good jab at Don Rumsfeld.
In the book All Quiet on the Western Front, the narrator relates a story that was told to him by a fellow soldier: in an army field hospital, a man who is missing a leg reports to a doctor who is supposed to decide what his battlefield readiness is. The doctor, without looking up, lists him as A1, saying they need as many men as they can get to the front. The soldier angrily announces that he will gladly get a wooden leg, and go straightaway to the front and get his head blown off, and get a wooden head- so then he will be able to do the doctor's job.
Now do you see the point?
Edited. Yeah, I got pissed off yesterday and said something I shouldn't have. When I get pissed off, bad things are said. Sorry.
And Dave, I really don't need you to say that for me.
Devastatin Dave
02-05-2006, 23:09
No, you probably don't. :wall: I swear, sometimes I wonder if you came back from Vietnam with a wooden head. You are a very, very intellegent person, Gawain, but at the same time you are blind and deaf.
Getting personal? Were you in Vietnam? Have you been in combat? Have you served in the military? I believe an apology is in order for this very tastless insult, your post Sir is below the belt. :furious3:
Gawain of Orkeny
02-05-2006, 23:28
The wounded soldier is not supposed to be a joke-
I never said he was did I? I said
Using the suffering of our wounded veterans to make a joke is not funny. Its tasteless.
He is using the image of a wounded soldier to make his point. I find that tasteless. You are free to dissagree.
And how does he know how Rumsfeld feels?
Papewaio
02-06-2006, 00:07
In the book All Quiet on the Western Front, the narrator relates a story that was told to him by a fellow soldier: in an army field hospital, a man who is missing a leg reports to a doctor who is supposed to decide what his battlefield readiness is. The doctor, without looking up, lists him as A1, saying they need as many men as they can get to the front. The soldier angrily announces that he will gladly get a wooden leg, and go straightaway to the front and get his head blown off, and get a wooden head- so then he will be able to do the doctor's job.
You do realise that there have been single and double amputees who have continued to serve in a frontline capacity?
The biggest hurdle often isn't the physical but the mental relocation of what you can and can't do. The best can adapt to any situation, even one which is a disability.
Adrian II
02-06-2006, 07:40
When people get in these kind of uproars over a stupid cartoon, the fault lies with the biggest imbecile, who is the cartoon artist.More often than not, people get in uproars over their own stupid notions and interpretations of cartoons. The same rule applies to spoken and written text -- heck, it even applies to sign language. The idea that words, drawings, sounds or any other signs can have several different meanings is one stop too far for many peoples' brains.
Azi Tohak
02-06-2006, 08:17
Did Moslems howl in protest about those cartoons depicting Mohammed? Or is saying that they howl racist? I would like to see those cartoons actually.
Great, ADD kicked in. Back to topic!
I don't really understand how this lousy piece of commentary is any more offensive than other things I have seen (e.g. Ted Rall). But I guess offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
I don't think it is funny, and I don't think I ever will. I'll stick to Foxtrot!
Azi
I repeat for the hard of thinking: the casualty depicted in this cartoon is the US Army as a whole, not individual soldiers. In no way is this cartoon an attack on the soldiers who have done their duty and been wounded doing so. It is an attack on Rumsfeld and his overly optimistic (in the cartoonist's eyes) analysis of the Army's state of health.
Also the The Joint Chiefs have, in my view, no right to protest against this or any other article in the press as a mititary and political entity. They may protest as private individuals of course, but not collectively as the Joint Chiefs.
I repeat for the hard of thinking: the casualty depicted in this cartoon is the US Army as a whole, not individual soldiers. In no way is this cartoon an attack on the soldiers who have done their duty and been wounded doing so. It is an attack on Rumsfeld and his overly optimistic (in the cartoonist's eyes) analysis of the Army's state of health.
And to repeat Gaiwan's comment.
Using the suffering of our wounded veterans to make a joke is not funny. Its tasteless.
And yes I know what the author's message is - I caught that with the drawing with Rumsfield's name on the doctor. His political message does not mean that this method of delivering that message is not tasteless. Its a very crude one in fact.
Also the The Joint Chiefs have, in my view, no right to protest against this or any other article in the press as a mititary and political entity. They may protest as private individuals of course, but not collectively as the Joint Chiefs.
And you would be incorrect. They as governmental representives can protest a political message that targets their military department, especially one that they feel is incorrect and tasteless. Freedom of Speech does not prevent governmental departments from protesting against an individuals freedom of speech, it just protects the individual from being prosecuted for his speech by the government.
Reverend Joe
02-06-2006, 16:29
You do realise that there have been single and double amputees who have continued to serve in a frontline capacity?
The biggest hurdle often isn't the physical but the mental relocation of what you can and can't do. The best can adapt to any situation, even one which is a disability.
:inquisitive: I think you missed the point of that anecdote...
Anyway, an amputee would not have done so well in the Great war.
Vladimir
02-06-2006, 16:51
Don't these fools realize that they're playing into the hands of the terrorists? No force on Earth can hope to stand up militarily to the US (especially when teamed up with the UK) which is why these people seek to destroy our morale. This is the declared strategy of UBL and his ilk. Anti-war protests, ridiculous cartoons, political games etc are victories for these people. I understand that people want to feel loved and popular by towing whatever line is fashionable but I do not sympathize. The Western world needs to show the same resolve against the Islamists as the allies did against Fascists if we are able to conclude this conflict swiftly.
Their war is for our hearts and minds and yes, our way of life. Compare the reasoned outrage over this cartoon to the burning, murderous rampage of those who have little else but their faith. Prosperity must occur in Iraq if we are to change the region and give hope to these people. Prosperity does a lot to moderate one's opinions. A large outpouring of support is what we need. It doesn't have to be genuine, just as long as the enemy thinks it is.
First of all in my opinion the catoonist is not using the suffering of veterans to make a political point. I really do not see where this is coming from.
Secondly I do not claim that the Joint Chiefs have no right to protest, but that they should do so as individuals rather than as representatives of their office. It is not the military's place to comment on press articles, especially items as harmless as satirical political cartoons. Nor is it the military's place to get itself involved with internal politics.
Don't these fools realize that they're playing into the hands of the terrorists? No force on Earth can hope to stand up militarily to the US (especially when teamed up with the UK) which is why these people seek to destroy our morale. This is the declared strategy of UBL and his ilk. Anti-war protests, ridiculous cartoons, political games etc are victories for these people. I understand that people want to feel loved and popular by towing whatever line is fashionable but I do not sympathize. The Western world needs to show the same resolve against the Islamists as the allies did against Fascists if we are able to conclude this conflict swiftly.
Their war is for our hearts and minds and yes, our way of life. Compare the reasoned outrage over this cartoon to the burning, murderous rampage of those who have little else but their faith. Prosperity must occur in Iraq if we are to change the region and give hope to these people. Prosperity does a lot to moderate one's opinions. A large outpouring of support is what we need. It doesn't have to be genuine, just as long as the enemy thinks it is.
Don't fall off your soapbox!
First of all in my opinion the catoonist is not using the suffering of veterans to make a political point. I really do not see where this is coming from.
Lets see a man in a bed with multiple limbs missing. Yes indeed the cartoon is tasteless. Regardless of the poltical message that the cartoonist is trying to get across.
Secondly I do not claim that the Joint Chiefs have no right to protest, but that they should do so as individuals rather than as representatives of their office. It is not the military's place to comment on press articles, especially items as harmless as satirical political cartoons. Nor is it the military's place to get itself involved with internal politics.
This would be incorrect. The Joint Chiefs are representives of the military. They have the ability to protest the cartoon as being misrepresentive of the area in which they are responsible for, in fact one could say they have an obligation to the men and women who serve in the military to make just the point they did to the newspaper and the cartoonists because of the responsiblities that come with their office. They can also point out correctly that the cartoonist's attempt was crude and tastless.
In the words of the Joint Chiefs taken form Soly's link
The letter, written on Tuesday, charges that the six military leaders "believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds. ... As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered."
This is within the purview of the duties of the Joint Chiefs in my opinion, and I am willing to bet that the letter was looked at by several different internal lawyers of the military (JAG) and the civilian counterparts within the DOD before it was sent out.
By saying this the Joint Chiefs are not involving The United States Military in internal politics, they are exercising a buttal within the scope of free speech so that cartoonist can understand the effects and consequences of his free speech.
The ability to have free speech also comes responsiblity and criticism for your speech. The government can not prosecute someone for their speech unless it violates the law, however that does not prevent your speech from drawing criticism from the government agency in which you are speaking about.
Tachikaze
02-06-2006, 19:05
Zorba and Slyspy are right. I wonder if this cartoon would draw the same reactions if Rumsfeld were visiting a grave instead?
The tasteless one is not the cartoonist, but Rumsfeld.
Zorba and Slyspy are right. I wonder if this cartoon would draw the same reactions if Rumsfeld were visiting a grave instead?
The tasteless one is not the cartoonist, but Rumsfeld.
The cartoonist could of conveyed the same message with Mr. Rumsfeld wearing mechanic coveralls looking at a jeep with all its wheels taken off. Same message would be in both.
However the cartoonist decided to add something else to his drawing to convey his political message. Its within his right as a political cartoonist to exercise his freedom of speech however he choses to exercise it, however that does not remove him from criticism of his message or his method.
Some of you seem to be forgetting that.
Tachikaze
02-06-2006, 19:26
The cartoonist could of conveyed the same message with Mr. Rumsfeld wearing mechanic coveralls looking at a jeep with all its wheels taken off. Same message would be in both.
However the cartoonist decided to add something else to his drawing to convey his political message. Its within his right as a political cartoonist to exercise his freedom of speech however he choses to exercise it, however that does not remove him from criticism of his message or his method.
Some of you seem to be forgetting that.
The cartoon isn't meant to be a gentle jab; it's meant to harshly criticize the callousness of Rumsfeld. The only way to demonstrate the reality of its impact is to depict people, not motor vehicles.
The obscenity is not in the cartoon—it's in the war. War is obscene. Don't criticize people for not softening it for public consumption.
The cartoon isn't meant to be a gentle jab; it's meant to harshly criticize the callousness of Rumsfeld. The only way to demonstrate the reality of its impact is to depict people, not motor vehicles.
Hence the cartoonist is subject to recieving criticism from those who are upset with his drawing. Free Speech is a double edge sword. You seem to be forgetting that.
The obscenity is not in the cartoon—it's in the war. War is obscene. Don't criticize people for not softening it for public consumption.
And don't criticize those who disagree with the way the message was attempted. Your forgetting something again in this statement. Free Speech is a double edge sword, it cuts both ways. If your free to criticize public policy any way in which you chose, however when sending your message - you also open your message up for the same criticism in which you are doing.
The cartoon was tasteless and crude from the standpoint of the Joint Chiefs, and they let their interpation of the cartoon be know to both the paper that printed it, and the cartoonists.
Both have exercised free speech. However it seems you might have a problem with one side particapating in free speech verus letting all particapate in it.
Tachikaze
02-06-2006, 21:13
Hence the cartoonist is subject to recieving criticism from those who are upset with his drawing. Free Speech is a double edge sword. You seem to be forgetting that.
And don't criticize those who disagree with the way the message was attempted. Your forgetting something again in this statement. Free Speech is a double edge sword, it cuts both ways. If your free to criticize public policy any way in which you chose, however when sending your message - you also open your message up for the same criticism in which you are doing.
The cartoon was tasteless and crude from the standpoint of the Joint Chiefs, and they let their interpation of the cartoon be know to both the paper that printed it, and the cartoonists.
Both have exercised free speech. However it seems you might have a problem with one side particapating in free speech verus letting all particapate in it.
No. People may disagree with the statement all they want to, but I don't understand how they can call it tasteless. I think this reaction is focusing attention away from a valid criticism of a certain politician. The true issue is being avoided.
Devastatin Dave
02-06-2006, 21:46
No. People may disagree with the statement all they want to, but I don't understand how they can call it tasteless. I think this reaction is focusing attention away from a valid criticism of a certain politician. The true issue is being avoided.
For a little perspective, do you find the cartoons depicting Muslims as terrorists as tasteless? What cartoon would you find tasteless? I'm just trying to find out if you would find anything tasteless, not trying to make a point or anything, just curious.
No. People may disagree with the statement all they want to, but I don't understand how they can call it tasteless. I think this reaction is focusing attention away from a valid criticism of a certain politician. The true issue is being avoided.
What are you answering no to?
The true issue of Mr. Rumsfeld's comments are not being addressed by such a cartoon, it actually does more distraction because of the tasteless and crudeness that the artist decided to use to protray his message. Political based satire cartoons mean absoluetely nothing to me, because they never address the issue, nor do they offer a solution.
If your attempting to say that the cartoonists is not subject to criticism for his method of sending a message? Then you are incorrect. I found the cartoon tasteless because it shows a soldier wounded in bed as a political message. Do I understand the message that the artist was attempting to state, yes I understand his message however I find his method crude and tasteless, without class.
Freedom of Speech is a double edge sword. It cuts in both directions. The cartoonists took a swipe at the military and Mr. Rumsfeld. The cartoonists gets to reap the consequences of his message, just like Mr. Rumsfeld gets to reap the consequences of his political actions.
solypsist
02-07-2006, 00:22
redleg for teh win
those last few replies have been brilliant and well thought out.
redleg for teh win
those last few replies have been brilliant and well thought out.
Why thank you.
There are few things I hold dear to my heart, and one or two of them I have a great understand of what the concept means. Freedom of Speech happens to be one of them that I try to wrap myself into understanding.
Words have power, and so do pictures.
Reverend Joe
02-07-2006, 02:46
It has just occurred to me that this is an unwinnable issue for both sides. It just boils down to what you are willing to accept in a political cartoon, and some people are looser about it than others. It also depends on who is being attacked- if it was the left being attacked in the cartoon, the leftists would be calling it tasteless. (Honestly, though, I am pretty loose about these things, so I just don't get offended by them too often. They're just pictures.)
Oh, and Soly, I believe what you are trying to say is "I believe that Redleg has won this issue." Phrases like "... for teh win" drive me up the wall.
I must be nuts... correcting a moderator's grammar... what the hell is wrong with me? :help:
Zorba pwns Soly!! l33t g4mm4r h4x0r. Zorba is Chuck Norris of Backroom!
Reverend Joe
02-07-2006, 19:24
Zorba pwns Soly!! l33t g4mm4r h4x0r. Zorba is Chuck Norris of Backroom!
:laugh4:
Goofball
02-08-2006, 01:37
Zorba pwns Soly!! l33t g4mm4r h4x0r. Zorba is Chuck Norris of Backroom!
T|-|3r3'5 |\|0 w4y I w0u1d 5i7 b4(k 4|\|d 74k3 7|-|47 5|-|i73 if I w3r3 u S01y. Y0u 5|-|0u1d bu57 0u7 7|-|3 b4|\|57i(k 4|\|d 0p3|\| up 4 (4|\| 0f w|-|up455...
Reverend Joe
02-08-2006, 01:57
T|-|3r3'5 |\|0 w4y I w0u1d 5i7 b4(k 4|\|d 74k3 7|-|47 5|-|i73 if I w3r3 u S01y. Y0u 5|-|0u1d bu57 0u7 7|-|3 b4|\|57i(k 4|\|d 0p3|\| up 4 (4|\| 0f w|-|up455...
:dizzy2: :bigcry:
Edit: Oh, no, I can understand it... :help:
Divinus Arma
02-08-2006, 02:24
Okay, being a military guy means that my opinion here is more important than anyone else's... with the exception of a few other military folks round abouts in the neighborhood. ~;)
I am not offended. I understand the perception of exploitation. And it is totally valid.
But living in a free country means exposure to distasteful, insulting, and fradulent portrayals or very emotional topics.
I am willing to be that guy on the bed in the toon so that Tom Toles can draw his crappy cartoons without fear of forceful government reprisal.
Insulting cartoons are par for the course. Have any of you been to the Al Jazeera Website (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage) and seen the cartoons by Shujaat? He portrays Hamas as innocent children and peaceful diplomats. I check Al Jazeera almost daily to see what is stirring in the minds of mainstream Islam. Similarly, we can view Tom Toles and see what is stirring in the minds of mainstream American Liberals.
solypsist
02-08-2006, 04:04
|-|3'5 |\|07 \/\/0R7|-| 17
T|-|3r3'5 |\|0 w4y I w0u1d 5i7 b4(k 4|\|d 74k3 7|-|47 5|-|i73 if I w3r3 u S01y. Y0u 5|-|0u1d bu57 0u7 7|-|3 b4|\|57i(k 4|\|d 0p3|\| up 4 (4|\| 0f w|-|up455...
Divinus Arma
02-08-2006, 04:20
Take your hacker speak to the talk your own language thread in the frontroom. Nobody has time for that giberish here.
Kralizec
02-08-2006, 16:23
:dizzy2: :bigcry:
Edit: Oh, no, I can understand it... :help:
So could I :wall:
Hadn't looked at Al Jazeera for a while. Good interview with the Hamas leader. They put him on the spot a fair bit. Take a look:
Hamas Leader Interview (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C727FDC4-85F8-4EBB-AA75-8BB2DF29C09A.htm)
Goofball
02-08-2006, 17:50
Take your hacker speak to the talk your own language thread in the frontroom. Nobody has time for that giberish here.
Just for that, I'm going to translate that post and any future posts you make in this thread into 1337.
T4k3 y0ur |-|4(k3r 5p34k 70 7|-|3 741k y0ur 0w|\| 14|\|gu4g3 7|-|r34d i|\| 7|-|3 fr0|\|7r00m. |\|0b0dy |-|45 7im3 f0r 7|-|47 gib3ri5|-| |-|3r3.
There, that'll learn ya...
:laugh4:
Now, OT:
Okay, being a military guy means that my opinion here is more important than anyone else's... with the exception of a few other military folks round abouts in the neighborhood. ~;)
I am not offended. I understand the perception of exploitation. And it is totally valid.
But living in a free country means exposure to distasteful, insulting, and fradulent portrayals or very emotional topics.
I am willing to be that guy on the bed in the toon so that Tom Toles can draw his crappy cartoons without fear of forceful government reprisal.
Being a military guy, I would think that you most of all would understand that the cartoonist was taking a shot at the administration, not at the soldiers, and that any crying that people (including the JCS) are doing about the cartoon exploiting the plight of the soldiers is at best poor comprehension, and at worst a deliberate attempt of their own to exploit the plight of the soldiers in order to stir up public sentiment against the cartoonist.
Adrian II
02-08-2006, 19:35
Being a military guy, I would think that you most of all would understand that the cartoonist was taking a shot at the administration, not at the soldiers, and that any crying that people (including the JCS) are doing about the cartoon exploiting the plight of the soldiers is at best poor comprehension, and at worst a deliberate attempt of their own to exploit the plight of the soldiers in order to stir up public sentiment against the cartoonist.At least the JCS are no longer publicly ignoring the plight of the war wounded and other victims. What is next? Complaints about cartoons that depict body bags?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.