The Middle East part 2

[Bernadotte 0]

Palestinians keep on firing on Israeli troops patrolling the Rafiah border area between Gaza and Egypt.

The IDF is constantly coming under automatic weapons and RPG fire there, alomg with roadside bombs.

The biggest problem has been the dozens (maybe hundreds by now) of weapons smuggling tunnels going from Egypt to those buildings in Rafiah on the other side.

Don't want to see destroyed houses? Beg you Pal friends to stop shooting at them and to stop trying to haul in large quantities of every possible weapon and explosives they can smuggle in. Also try asking the Egyptians to chip in on their side of the border, as they've done nothing over the last several years to stop the smuggling right in front of their eyes. (So much for peace treaties).

Some snippets from the AP article on this event:

Quote[/b] ]Israel has demolished hundreds of houses in the camp in three years of fighting, saying the buildings give cover to gunmen and weapons smugglers.

The Palestinians say Israel is systematically clearing large swaths in the camp to distance built-up areas from the narrow strip Israeli troops patrol along the Egyptian border.

The Pals are absolutely right. Israel is distancing the built up areas because of their use. How true!

Although I don't think bulldozing occupied homes and a mosque is justified, I agree that bulldozing is the effect caused by Palestinian sniping etc.

Unfortunately, rufusmac would not agree:

I've heard the "cycle of violence" claim a million times.  This is a war, this is not cause and effect like smoking and cancer.

Rufusmac feels that acts of Palestinian terrorism have nothing to do with Palestinian suffering.  And if he does agree with what you've posted above then he is being very inconsistent by suggesting that Israel is allowed to respond and Palestinians are not.

[theavonlady 2]

Unfortunately, rufusmac would not agree:

Don't know what this has to do with being fortunate or unfortunate but let's move on:

Quote[/b] ]

I've heard the "cycle of violence" claim a million times. This is a war, this is not cause and effect like smoking and cancer.

Rufusmac feels that acts of Palestinian terrorism have nothing to do with Palestinian suffering. And if he does agree with what you've posted above then he is being very inconsistent by suggesting that Israel is allowed to respond and Palestinians are not.

Well then, we'll just have to wait for rufusmac to clarify his inconsistencies.

In case it isn't clear, rufusmac and I do not seem to agree on many things.

Later, feeding time at the ....................... ranch.

[denoir 0]

No mention of their being members of a terrorist organization.

Why, why would she care about it? Her brother and cousin were killed. People tend to take such things personally, regardless of the situation.

Also, I strongly suggest you note the clear differentiation of the author of the death of her relatives and the deaths of the people she killed. The author of the text simply notes their deaths as in contrast her actions are described as "murder of innocent civilians". Note the the clear pro-Israel meaning of that?

If it had been a glorification of suicide-bombing, then she would have been called a "martyr" whose relatives were "murdered by Zionist occuipiers" etc.. And there is nothing of the sort. It calls her a murderer and doesn't even criticise Israel's action.

Quote[/b] ]Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions

Did she know of her relative's terror affiliations? Most likely. This is Snow White? Innocent? Non-violent?

"Seemingly innocent" <--- Even you must admit that it's a very long way to go between going to college, becoming a lawyer, planning a future and between blowing yourself up, murdering 19 people. It is this (relative if you wish) loss of innocence that is the central theme. How does a seemingly normal person commit such atrocities? What does it take?

Just saying "a suicide-bomber killed 19 people" means very little as you are not putting it in context. You can only prevent such things from happening by trying to understand why it happens in the first place. Why does a person become a mass-murderer? People are born innocent, but yet some commit horrible things later on in life. Why? What is this process?

Quote[/b] ]The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying

Murderer? Is it murder to protect one's citizens against terrorists sworn to our death and destruction?

Oh, come on. As it is very clear from the text, it's not the authors point of view, but his view on what she must have thought. Do you think that she thought that the killing of her relatives was just?

Quote[/b] ]Before the engagement took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces

Again, no mention of why. Would have ruined the message.

For her, it would have mattered little. It's funny how you complain at the lack of background information at that even but fiercly object against any explanation of why she might have done what she did.

Quote[/b] ]She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shootings

Yes, a little more pity on this soon-to-be-mass-murderer. Please, more!

Same thing as the rest of it: the artist is trying to understand what can drive a seemingly normal human being to become a mass murderer. People are not born evil, they become it. And it is utterly important to understand the mechanisms of this process. If you don't want to understand it, how can you prevent it? How can you know who will become a murderer?

Quote[/b] ]Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"

Here's one of the big lies. The biggest hindrence to Pal's freedom is their own self-proclaimed goals of annihilating Israel. No mention, of course.

A paraphrase would be "If I can't have it my way then nobody else will have theirs". Hardly words of flattery.

Quote[/b] ]And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded

They don't have faces, BTW. They're just mentionables.

As are her relatives. It's a story about her, not about her victims. Every sane person, including the artist can understand that it was a horrible act and that the victims suffered. That goes without saying. What is interesting is her story, why she would do it. Those are the relevant questions:

Why were those 19 people killed?

What drove Mijalovic to murder Anna Lindh?

For what reason was Kennedy assasinated?

Quote[/b] ]All this in an exhibit that is part of an anti-genocide conference. All this even though Ambassador Mazel was assured by Sweden that no provocative anti-Israel art would be connected to the conference.

No he wasn't and nobody could give him such assurances as we have freedom of expression here. The government does not control what the artist do and what the museums show. What was promised was that on the conference itself, the Mid East situation was not going to be discussed, but that the theme should be prevent future genocide. And that's why for instance no palestinian representatives were invited.

[Bernadotte 0]

For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin

No mention of their being members of a terrorist organization.

There's no mention because there is no evidence that they were members of any terrorist organisation.  Even the IDF did not suspect her brother, but killed him anyway.

Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions

Did she know of her relative's terror affiliations? Most likely. This is Snow White? Innocent? Non-violent?

She had just returned from years of studying law abroad.  How is it "most likely" that she knew of an alleged affiliation that the IDF wasn't even able to prove.

The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying

Murderer? Is it murder to protect one's citizens against terrorists sworn to our death and destruction?

There was no arrest attempt.

There were no warning shots.

This was not an act of self-defence.

They gunned down an unarmed suspect and his cousin in cold blood.

Of course it was murder.

You are labelling the artwork anti-Semitic for upholding the principal that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  But, let's face it!  It is your own conviction that her brother, cousin and even she could be considered guilty until proven innocent that is rooted in the ugliest anti-Arab racism.

This was state-sponsered murder of 2 Palestinian Arabs and if it doesn't bother you then you should at least be prepared to face the consequences when it bothers the sister who witnessed it.

[GoOB 0]

Again big actors in world politics are showing off their huge sandbox mentality. Trashing something because you find it offensive, anti-semitic or what have you is very odd and immature behaviour. The woman portrayed in the text commited a horrible crime indeed, but from my point of view it is hard to see the anti-semitism in the text, and the art itself. Rather the opposite, it doesn't glorigy suicide bombings the text makes it very clear how horrible the act was.

And in my eyes it portrayed the woman who commited this horrid crime as a regular woman turned into a beast by her actions, and the actions of others.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Absolutely, when accompanied by the text that accompanied it.

So, the artist is basically trying to encourage others to hate, even murder, himself, his family and his friends?

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]After complaints it was banned.

If i recall it right, it wasnt banned, but pulled away by the people running the campaign, thats a totally different case.

I remember several controversial exhibits around here, for EX in a modern arts museum "Kiasma" there was this room filled with blenders, and inside those blenders was human blood, sperm and urine. The second example comes to my mind when there was a exhibit portraing jesus as gay.

It is clear that those exhibits brought up many protests, but where they banned? no. Why should they be banned? I dont know. Who gets to be the judge of what is "proper" art and what is not? Avon? Blake? Denoir? a foreign diplomat? and to obtain a common knowledge from that matter there should be all Finlandwide elections about each matter, otherwise you cannot use the term "commonly seen as bad"

There is no such thing as a piece of art that everyone likes, there is allways someone who wants to destroy and vandalize it

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I remember several controversial exhibits around here, for EX in a modern arts museum "Kiasma" there was this room filled with blenders, and inside those blenders was human blood, sperm and urine.

But they were just disgusting, not related to recent mass murder which I felt was handled in a rather distasteful manner.

You need more reason than just desire to vomit after seeing it to withdraw/relocate an exhibition.

Quote[/b] ]The second example comes to my mind when there was a exhibit portraing jesus as gay.

No relation to current actual events like the suicide bombing which took place. Nobody living has relation to that 'speculative event'.

There's difference of dealing with murderers of this day in art than some historical figures or human excrements.

You could call those artworks 'peculiar' but relating suicide bomber to a snowwhite in a pool of blood is somewhat really twisted and insulting to the victims whose relatives are still probably crying their eyes out. Making jesus gay and using sperm in a washing machine just don't compare.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]But they were just disgusting, not related to recent mass murder which I felt was handled in a rather distasteful manner.

You need more reason than just desire to vomit after seeing it to withdraw/relocate an exhibition.

So it is you, who is qualified to draw the line between things that are too sensitive to do art from and make conversation. are you saying that the limit is massmurder (remember the red khmers and all the art from the killings), or is the limit murder? how a bout a rape then? Would assault and battery be enough? Religion? The fact is that different people see things differently

Quote[/b] ]Making jesus gay and using sperm in a washing machine just don't compare.

they dont compare in your eyes, but what would a fundamental christian think about that.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]So it is you, who is qualified to draw the line between things that are too sensitive to do art from and make conversation. are you saying that the limit is massmurder (remember the red khmers and all the art from the killings), or is the limit murder? how a bout a rape then? Would assault and battery be enough? Religion? The fact is that different people see things differently

Just my personal view here - I found the artwork rather tasteless and insulting. No, I'm not promoting government control over art, but I'm just trying to claim that people have right to object such creations which they find deeply insulting. Not in a vandalizing way but through civilized means.

Nobody would be surprised if people would start a fierce campaign in Sweden or Finland to relocate that same piece of art if it would contain the Myyrmanni or AL murderer's photo in blood.

But now when that piece handles Palestinian suicide bomber's crime it's not insulting or in any way offending to in eyes of most people here. Everobody on the contrary is shocked how anybody dares to be offended by such humane piece of modern art.

I think it's just the lack of people's ability to put themselves to victim's positions who live far, far away but which damn well will not make their suffering any less relevant.

Quote[/b] ]they dont compare in your eyes, but what would a fundamental christian think about that.

It's not handling brutal mass-murder which still is much more relevant than religious mockery which is apparent everywhere in society nowdays.

[denoir 0]

Nobody would be surprised if people would start a fierce campaign in Sweden or Finland to relocate that same piece of art if it would contain the Myyrmanni or AL murderer's photo in blood.

But now when that piece handles Palestinian suicide bomber's crime it's not insulting or in any way offending to in eyes of most people here. Everobody on the contrary is shocked how anybody dares to be offended by such humane piece of modern art.

I think it's just the lack of people's ability to put themselves to victim's positions who live far, far away but which damn well will not make their suffering any less relevant.

I would be very surprised. As I said earlier, I would not mind at all had Lindh's murderer been displayed with an equivalent explaining story. (Although it seems that he was mentally ill to start with, so his actions probably don't have too much of a social context.)

I don't see how this could be more hurtful to the relatives than any memorial. It does not in any way lessen their loss. On the contrary, it puts it in context of a larger reality of a cricle of violence. It shows that this wasn't an isolated act of a crazy woman but it puts it into context of a never ending system of violence. And that gives hope for removing that system.

Quote[/b] ]You could call those artworks 'peculiar' but relating suicide bomber to a snowwhite in a pool of blood is somewhat really twisted and insulting to the victims whose relatives are still probably crying their eyes out.

I'm not sure that you've understood the message of it. The point of the piece is the contrast of the innocence she started with and the mass murderer she became. It's the process and transition that the artist is reflecting over. He has the starting point, an innocent girl, symbolized by snow white, and the ending point, a pool of blood. And then he asks: why did this happen? How did this transition take place? I mean it really requires a serious mind-fuck to go from being a student, planning for the future to strapping explosives on yourself and mass murdering people. She wasn't mentally insane (in the clinical sense). So what made her do such acts of madness?

That is the theme that the artist is exploring, and it's very relevant. How will we prevent such things in the future, if we don't dare to observe and reason around what processes are at work here?

Quote[/b] ]

It's not handling brutal mass-murder which still is much more relevant than religious mockery which is apparent everywhere in society nowdays.

I know there are a lot of people that would disagree. And hence censoring based on your perception of "moral and decency" is a very dangerous road to take. In some cultures it is considered indecent and immoral for a woman to show her face. In ours it is not. Do you really think "moral and decency" are absolute terms?

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I would be very surprised. As I said earlier, I would not mind at all had Lindh's murderer been displayed with an equivalent explaining story. (Although it seems that he was mentally ill to start with, so his actions probably don't have too much of a social context.)

Well I think you can draw much about his immigration roots. But that artwork would not go down without a scandal. It would hit hard. I'm pretty certain of it. Especially if he's labelled Pinocchio or Peter Pan.

Quote[/b] ]I don't see how this could be more hurtful to the relatives than any memorial.

Maybe memorials will look like that one day? Some simulated guts could be cool also.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure that you've understood the message of it.

I can read and process what I've read. And even see how the white styrox contrasts with the red blood. The whole story was already advertised widely on media like Time magazine how this innocent student turned into a suicide bomber. She even made to the front page. It was nothing new to me. I understand the message but I think the story was told on a naive fairy tale fashion. Snow White...I think the message of the artwork was simplistic, naive and showed it in a distasteful fashion in my view. Basically: Beautiful Snowwhite sailing on a sea of blood. Roll in the seven dwares...

Quote[/b] ]I know there are a lot of people that would disagree. And hence censoring based on your perception of "moral and decency" is a very dangerous road to take. In some cultures it is considered indecent and immoral for a woman to show her face. In ours it is not. Do you really think "moral and decency" are absolute terms?

We are dealing with visualized blood of victims with Snowwhite sailing in the middle with a fairy tale style poem written on it. She's a murderer of children, fathers, parents, grandads, Israelis, Arabs. But I'm not in any part saying that government should control artists and uphold artistic decency or do pre-censorship, where did I say that?

Artists can express themselves any way they wan't but if the ones who got hurt in this monstrous act don't have the freedom to demand that their view is taken into account seriously without yelling them that they want facist government censorship then nothing what we display doesn't matter anymore. I just think that the blood spilled by both sides in Mid-East has just experienced inflation so we here up north can handle it with more liberal views than the mess we have on our own yard.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]I would be very surprised. As I said earlier, I would not mind at all had Lindh's murderer been displayed with an equivalent explaining story. (Although it seems that he was mentally ill to start with, so his actions probably don't have too much of a social context.)

Well I think you can draw much about his immigration roots.

Oddly enough, there has not been a word about that, not even from the right-wing. I suppose that everybody has accepted that he's a complete nutcase.

Quote[/b] ]But that artwork would not go down without a scandal. It would hit hard. I'm pretty certain of it. Especially if he's labelled Pinocchio or Peter Pan.

No, I don't think so. Actually, I'm pretty certain of it. Perhaps if it had come within one week of the murder, but not today. People view him mostly like a mentally ill man who didn't recieve the help he should have had.

Quote[/b] ]I understand the message but I think the story was told on a naive fairy tale fashion. Snow White...I think the message of the artwork was simplistic, naive and showed it in a distasteful fashion in my view.

Ok, so you didn't like it. The old romans had a saying: De gustibus non est disputandum - matters of taste should not be disputed. You are fully entiteled to your opinion. And that's one of the foundations of the expression of speech.

Quote[/b] ]Artists can express themselves any way they wan't but if the ones who got hurt in this monstrous act don't have the freedom to demand that their view is taken into account seriously without yelling them that they want facist government censorship then nothing what we display doesn't matter anymore.

Those that disagree with the art are fully entiteled not to like it. They can even make works of art or write books about how they don't like it. We already have reasonable limits - defamation, racial agitation etc that are prohibited by law. That's more than enough censorship and taking into account the feelings of other people.

This work of art does most certainly not violate those laws. At the level you are suggesting, you could basically censor anything that is a touchy subject for anybody. And that's not the way of the modern civilized open world. If you disagree with something, you debate it: you don't try to cover it up and much less destroy it.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]This work of art does most certainly not violate those laws. At the level you are suggesting, you could basically censor anything that is a touchy subject for anybody. And that's not the way of the modern civilized open world. If you disagree with something, you debate it: you don't try to cover it up and much less destroy it.

You got me all wrong. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You have right to file a valid complaint - get addressed - and the insulting peace perhaps gets relocated to other place when somebody has made some rethinking about. Or you receive an apology. Or receives nothing whatsoever. Is everything always allowed in the name of art? Is taking those who get hurt into account against the civilized world? I'm not talking about somebody getting itch from Warhol's 'Campbell's soup' installation....please.

Do I have to spell it? Maybe we're going nowhere...I'm facist pro-censorship pig and you'd like to have body parts of suicide bombers dangling in art museums in name of art. Let's leave it at that then. Anything goes in the sacred Art Museums and nobody can do nothing about it, because hey, it's art

[Guest]

Palestinians keep on firing on Israeli troops patrolling the Rafiah border area between Gaza and Egypt.

The IDF is constantly coming under automatic weapons and RPG fire there, alomg with roadside bombs.

The biggest problem has been the dozens (maybe hundreds by now) of weapons smuggling tunnels going from Egypt to those buildings in Rafiah on the other side.

Don't want to see destroyed houses? Beg you Pal friends to stop shooting at them and to stop trying to haul in large quantities of every possible weapon and explosives they can smuggle in. Also try asking the Egyptians to chip in on their side of the border, as they've done nothing over the last several years to stop the smuggling right in front of their eyes. (So much for peace treaties).

Some snippets from the AP article on this event:

Quote[/b] ]Israel has demolished hundreds of houses in the camp in three years of fighting, saying the buildings give cover to gunmen and weapons smugglers.

The Palestinians say Israel is systematically clearing large swaths in the camp to distance built-up areas from the narrow strip Israeli troops patrol along the Egyptian border.

The Pals are absolutely right. Israel is distancing the built up areas because of their use. How true!

Although I don't think bulldozing occupied homes and a mosque is justified, I agree that bulldozing is the effect caused by Palestinian sniping etc.

Unfortunately, rufusmac would not agree:

I've heard the "cycle of violence" claim a million times.  This is a war, this is not cause and effect like smoking and cancer.

Rufusmac feels that acts of Palestinian terrorism have nothing to do with Palestinian suffering.  And if he does agree with what you've posted above then he is being very inconsistent by suggesting that Israel is allowed to respond and Palestinians are not.

Talk about twisiting language...

I think my claim fully validates this point. Israel, in a tactical military decision, decided to destroy those homes to protect its soldiers from enemy fire. Something you may see armies doing when they fight wars, not looking for "revenge".

Furthering this point, you can also surmise from my statement that Israel does not retaliate in an "eye for an eye" fashion (cycle of violence etc), they respond to specific threats with moves like targeted assasinations and home demolitions.

The only example of this reciprocal punishment was the policy of destroying homes of suicide bombers families, which I never found an effective policy in the first place.

[Guest]

Now, when are we going to start arguing about this latest "skirmish"?

[turms 0]

Now, when are we going to start arguing about this latest "skirmish"?

We can start talking about it by reading a article from Reuters

Quote[/b] ]Earlier, the Israeli army changed its account of Monday's border incident and said the soldier killed by a Hizbollah anti-tank missile was several yards inside Lebanon, where a military bulldozer was clearing explosives planted by the group.

Israel soldiers In lebanon get shot? what a surprise

Quote[/b] ]Syrian President Bashar al-Assad called in December for renewed peace talks, but Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been cool to the idea. The negotiations over the future of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights collapsed in 2000.

[Bernadotte 0]

I think my claim fully validates this point.  Israel, in a tactical military decision, decided to destroy those homes to protect its soldiers from enemy fire.  Something you may see armies doing when they fight wars, not looking for "revenge".

The IDF has been demolishing homes in Rafah almost monthly, for the past few years.  If this time the demolitions were a tactical military decision then what were they all the other times?  And if they were all done for the same tactical reason then why weren't they done all at once?

Answer:  Revenge.

If the IDF really wanted to protect soldiers patrolling the border they would construct a few kilometers of wall.  Of course, such a wall would actually have to follow a recognised border so naturally there's not much Israeli enthusiasm for that.

[bn880 5]

I can tell the future is going to be very fruitful based on the behaviour of Israel... great job, well done, hurray to the new superior beings.

At this rate all this injustice is just going to turn around for Israel, right back into its arse, we'll just have to wait and see when.

[Oligo 1]

Well that is quite funny. Well what hell do Kekkonen and Soviet Union got to do with people getting offended by distasteful art peaces.

Quote[/b] ]I must say that if somebody made a similar piece of art about the Vantaa bomber person, with an inscription like: "There was this eccentric person, who in his madness, blew his ass up in a shopping mall, murdering and maiming a bunch of people.", I'd be forced to say: "Cool piece of art. That artist dares to take this sad case of our recent history and present it here in the open."

It's really great that all morals and decency are thrown own out of a window. Why don't you make one and wait for the cheering crowd then sue the man whose son was blown up there for throwing down a lamp on your precious artwork. Then cry out loud and call him a facist pig.

I mentioned Kekkonen and Soviet Union, because the finnish culture of STFU originates from those times. Back then we learned that only "proper" things can be said in public and so it has been ever since: Only officially Moral and Decent is allowed, no dissenting opinions please. Have you ever heard about a concept called "tyranny of the majority"?

Also, if you bothered to actually read and understand the inscription I was planning for the Vantaa case artwork, you would see that it was not offending the victims. The inscription called the bomber "eccentric" and "mad", which he surely was or do you disagree? It said he blew himself up, which he did. It also said that he murdered and maimed a lot of people, which he did, don't you say? So how is stating mere facts offensive to the victims? If you don't talk about it, it never happened, is that it?

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Have you ever heard about a concept called "tyranny of the majority"?

Without taking part on this currently trendy Kekkonen-bashing, thats what you get if those who get offended by deeply insulting forms of art are not heard and just labelled censorits.

Quote[/b] ]So how is stating mere facts offensive to the victims? If you don't talk about it, it never happened, is that it?

Do you need to show pool of blood to the victims to make your point? Put an edited picture on a Finnish site with Vantaa murderer with text and then look how people feel about it. Who'se saying it never happened? What are you trying to imply here? If you completely fail yourself to put yourself to a victim's position and figure how they might feel that is really not my problem. There are scars in victim's minds which are best left to heal instead of ripping them out with provokative vulgar forms of art. But I guess for you 'anything goes'. Get some police footage of the scene, thats just mere facts for you.

But since this has turned into offtopic discussion which will not conlclude so I will leave it at this since admins probably breath on the neck already

[Oligo 1]

Who'se saying it never happened? What are you trying to imply here? If you completely fail yourself to put yourself to a victim's position and figure how they might feel that is really not my problem. There are scars in victim's minds which are best left to heal instead of ripping them out with provokative vulgar forms of art.

FYI, tyranny of the majority happens when a majority of the people is allowed to suppress the views of the dissenting minority. In a democracy, political decisions are made on the basis of majority, but freedom of speech should never be trampled on, since that makes change in society impossible. New ideas need the space and time to grow and spread so that they might in time become the view of the majority. Thus, freedom of speech is of utmost importance and to hell with the "hurt feelings".

And "If you don't talk about it, it never happened" is definitely your attitude. You seem to advocate a society where it is not allowed to talk about bad things, because you claim it is vulgar, provocative and insensitive. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

In my opinion this discussion has everything to do with the current Mid East situation, since certain representatives of the peoples in this region use the same arguments you use to suppress freedom of speech.

[Longinius 1]

The thing is this:

Yes, the blood might be upsetting to the victims, true. But without a strong message, those not victims of such acts would not even care about it. The artwork isnt directed at the victims and relatives, it is directed at those that never come close to seeing the real carnage, those that otherwise would be uneffected. And in order to reach them, the message has to be strong.

[Cephalid 0]

Quote[/b] ]Have you ever heard about a concept called "tyranny of the majority"?

Without taking part on this currently trendy Kekkonen-bashing, thats what you get if those who get offended by deeply insulting forms of art are not heard and just labelled censorits.

Quote[/b] ]So how is stating mere facts offensive to the victims? If you don't talk about it, it never happened, is that it?

Do you need to show pool of blood to the victims to make your point? Put an edited picture on a Finnish site with Vantaa murderer with text and then look how people feel about it. Who'se saying it never happened? What are you trying to imply here? If you completely fail yourself to put yourself to a victim's position and figure how they might feel that is really not my problem. There are scars in victim's minds which are best left to heal instead of ripping them out with provokative vulgar forms of art. But I guess for you 'anything goes'. Get some police footage of the scene, thats just mere facts for you.

But since this has turned into offtopic discussion which will not conlclude so I will leave it at this since admins probably breath on the neck already  

Blake I can understand that some people really feel offended by this kind of art. But the freedom of speak and to express your self is very important and has brought us more benefits then censorship, as it was mentioned in posts before by others. May try to see like this: Every freedom has its advantages and disadvantages. If you want to have the benefits of the advantages because they serve you, you have to accept and tolerate the disadvantages.

Example:

Can you imagine how it would feel, if the majority thinks that’s a great artwork and they don’t like it, that you criticise it. They would even warn you to hold your tongue, or you would have to face other consequences.

That goes in the same direction, as if you would put a censorship at this work of art.

Even if it would support the attitude of the Palestinians, what’s definitely not the case, it would still be a piece of art and you have the right to create and expose it. Sometimes you have no other choice then to provoke, otherwise you can’t get the attention of others.

Sometimes it is good when you are able to listen to the arguments of others and try to understand, why they act as they do. May you can find a common line. That’s what you need, if you want to start talking about the problem with each other.

In this conflict the Palestinians and Israelis are fighting, these is definitely the case. Both want to have peace, but they are not listening to each other. Each accuses the other of not being willed for peace and that he is fomenting the aggressions.

I wonder how much more blood is needed, until they start realising that they are caught in a vicious circle.

The artist was pointing at these problem with the question, ‘why is somebody able of becoming so evil’. It is a start to understand the others motivation, because then you can may realise that not only the other, but may also you are doing something wrong.

A lot of moral, lol.

[brgnorway 0]

I'm quite discusted when reading some of the arguments here.

How can it be that you wan't to cencor artists' free right of expression? Because you don't like it due to: aesthetic reasons, political reasons or whatever.

Someone really has to learn a few things about bookburning and fascists!

I bet Blake would be offended by this one too:

Guernica