Longinius

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.

Stop it, Denoir. You know it doesnt work, it never has, never will. There is no way you can get FS to admit that he is wrong, regardless how many examples you provide him with. Anyway, the sex thing is interesting. If you tell a kid that he can't do something, most kids will go and do it as soon as possible. Because someone told them they couldn't do it. Abstinence isnt the answer, neither are condoms. Its common sense, combined with all other measures. Without common sense, nothing will work. And common sense is not something the government can effect, thats up to parents and society.

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

Avon, do you consider that piece of art antisemetic by the way?

Nah, thats not the problem. There is plenty of that going around. The only problem for an artist, is contacts. If they know the people managing the gallaries etc they can get very far with very little. If they dont have the contacts, they are basically screwed. Kinda like the rest of us I guess

Ah, artists. One of the few trades that can take literally nothing, and end up with everything

Artwork, even if offensive, should not be regulated or controlled. The whole purpose of art is to make people think, to encourage debate. And this art piece has succeeded more than most. The only problem here is that one person, the embassador, formed an opinion on a work of art and projected it as the only right opinion. Most people that saw the artwork however, did not see it the same way. This does not mean he is wrong, or that they are wrong, simply that they are looking at it from different perspectives. Trashing it however was way out of line. And him getting away with it is far worse. Not long ago two people vandalized an art exibit with pictures of dead animals in various arrangements. Had they been identitied, I am quite sure there would have been legal reprecusions. Same thing goes for the people who ripped down paintings in a Malmö museum a while back. They were all wrong, as so was the embassador. Not in having different opinions than most other visitors, but in how they chose to act based on those opinions. We are a democratic country, they could try and get popular opinion on their side to facilitate change.

It just goes to prove that as soon as you make any statement regarding the situation in Israel, you are an anti-semite. Because, Israelis clearly got upset about this womans picture. And they would get equally upset if it was Sharons picture. So in other words, never comment on Israeli matters because unless you are 100% with them, you are 100% against them, a nazi supporter and anti-semite. I think this is a great piece of art, much thanks to the embassadors actions. It succeded with what art is all about: getting people to think and discuss.

Well, if you define a camp as a spot of land enclosed by a fence or wall, then we are all ready there... Of course, Israel isnt gasing anyone. And I dont think they ever will. They are however effectively killing of any and all possibilities for work and companies to exist in the regions closed of by the wall.

The opposite isnt true. Increased attacks by Palestinians on Israelis lead to increased attacks by Israelis on Palestinians. More dead Palistinians, more walls, less freedom, leads to bigger hatred against Israelis. If Palestinians thought they actually had a chance at a normal life, I am convinced the amount of terror attacks would drop over time, because the people would have no incentive to fight as the extremists arguments would be mute.

According to Joltans description, isnt it quite possible that they were actually there to maybe fix something on the tractor? Or the farming equipment attached to it?

Yes, and the more you opress or strike at a people, the harder they fight back. Living in Israel, you should know this. Giving the enemy hope and a chance at a better life is the only way to stop them from striking back. Terrorists and geurilla fighters, no matter where in the world, lose as soon as they do not have the support of the population. And they lose the support as soon as the population feels safe and has hope. As long as the population lives in terror of their liberators / government the opposition will be able to work efficiently.

My statement was in remark to Denoirs small ironic post about WMD's and acting on assumptions. So I wasnt refer to the apaches in that case.

I dont know you. I dont know the pilot. I havent talked to the pilot. So yeah, that statement doesnt really mean much to me without some kind of validation. No offense meant.

LOL! But you forget, they had proof. They just cant show it to us. I wonder how many court rooms that would hold up in by the way...

"Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush. The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets. And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released." Do you have a link, or any other way to verify this statement? I'd just like to see the actual source myself.

Even if this is true and they were in fact placing a mine, which they very well might have been. The point is still that the pilots killed a wounded man and there by broke the Geneva Convention.

Key word being "would" not "did". If they are not fighting back, yeah. Or atleast confirm the fact that they were indeed enemies. Atleast my actions dont end up killing people who might be innocent.

Never been to war. Never fired a weapon in anger. However... The situation is as follows. We have apache helicopters looking at a target, quite a distance away. Target consists of a tractor on a field, currently equiped for farm work, an open truck and a pickup. Three unarmed people, one of which has carried / carries a tube shape object. No CONFIRMED weapons visible. First off... Arent soldiers supposed to confirm their targets? If the apache pilots were under fire, I'd understand if they were rather safe than sorry. But they had plenty of time to react if one of those guys went for a weapon. Long enough to blast the guy to bits, thats for sure. Secondly. Didnt the thought ever enter their minds that this could actually be farmers? Tractor... field... farm equipment. Ring a bell? Third. The guy is wounded, then executed. This IS against the Geneva Convention and cannot be denied. Fourth. They could have taken out the vehicles without specifically targeting the people. That would have destroyed any weapons and forced the people into cover. If the people then tried to produce weapons, they would still have the option to blast them to bits. Defending actions like these are sad, but not totally unexpected.

And that door swings both ways.

What, you expect them to build special houses away from the rest of civilisation, with signs on them indicating a palestinian militant lives there? Naturally they operate among civilians, as their targets usually are found in civilian areas. And they live themselves in civilian areas, posing as civilians, because otherwise they'd be whiped out in no time. Clearly they stand no chance what so ever against the IDF in open conflict. So they use geurilla tactics. Not very strange.

That might be because Bush is standing on your side of the fence, so to speak.

I might have misunderstood you, but there are plenty of religions that have contradicted each other. Basically anything from just one god to multiple, from glorifying violence to preaching peace and understanding.

Wonder if he ever gets his connection reset by peer...

In a way, yes. It was his own initiative of course. But he asked a member of TBA what their stance would be on a Kuwaiti invasion. The answer was that they wouldn't intervene. He took this as an OK by the US, and went ahead with his plans. So while they didnt tell him to do it, they didnt try to stop him either. Quite the contrary.