
#31
tartanskirtgirl wrote:
I don’t think that I’ll be watching it. This poor guy has a family, and I know that if someone had put footage of my Dad dying on the net I would have been appalled to think that anyone felt they had the right to see it. The final moments of anyones life are personal, and just because the footage is available to the world doesnt mean the world has to access it. The manner in which he lost his life is undignified enough without the whole world thinking they have the right to peer at it. Maybe I’m mistaken and his family are happy with this being about - but I guess that the fact that they are declining to talk to the press would indicate otherwise.
We all have seen the stills on TV, and know what became of him. The fact that we know he was beheaded should be enough to sicken us all to the pits of our stomachs - we shouldn’t feel the need to watch the event too.
I just really don’t think that just because something is out there means we all have the right to look at it.
Posted on Thu, 13 May 2004 at 12:12
#32
Michael wrote:
tartanskirtgirl wrote:
Maybe I’m mistaken and his family are happy with this being about
His family must be gutted, I saw a pic in the newspapers of his dad, crying in his other son’s arms when he heard the news of this video circulating on the web.
Happy? Far from it.
Posted on Thu, 13 May 2004 at 13:01
#33
marja (sinner) wrote:
Bush is just an asshole.[/quote]
You’re right on that, but I fear that he will win the elections again. I hope I’m wrong, but the image we have in europe of bush is totally different from the image shown in american media.
Posted on Thu, 13 May 2004 at 13:45
#34
White Psycho wrote:
he probably will win elections again. When I say win he will be chosen by the electorial college who actually decide who becomes president. Bush has friends on that so no matter what the public vote he’ll probably be “re-elected”
Posted on Thu, 13 May 2004 at 14:07
#35
Red_Mist wrote:
I heard the new symbol for the US Government is gonna be a Pentagram and there changing their direct line to 666.
If you looked under the carpet in the Whitehouse there’s a secret passage to Hell, where they thought of the idea to sell weapons to the poor countrys then blow the shit outta them (as soon as the cheque clears of course).
Cue Bill Hicks Quote:
You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world — and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded — we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever in peace.
Posted on Thu, 13 May 2004 at 16:31
#36
hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:
Well said Tartan, and indeed Bill Hicks..
Posted on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 00:56
#37
JSar666 wrote:
I saw Bill Hicks’ last performance on DVD last Friday and it saddens me that despite him dying 10 years ago, a lot of his comedy and criticism of the American government (and indeed governments around the world) still hold true. There’s a stupid guy called Bush in the White House, there’s a conflict in Iraq and the media are still keeping people dumb by being flooded with inane reality shows and other garbage.
RIP Nick Berg.
Posted on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 06:39
#38
zipless wrote:
White Psycho wrote:
…he’ll probably be “re-elected”
or, as someone else said: re-Selected
Posted on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 07:49
#39
motherh666 wrote:
Posted on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 09:15
#40
zipless wrote:
makes one think… my big question still remains: who can you trust?
Posted on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 10:03
#41
Citizen Erased wrote:
Red_Mist wrote:
Cue Bill Hicks Quote:
You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world — and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded — we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever in peace.
Have you been reading ‘Love All the People’? I got it this week and it’s scary just how relevant it is to 2004.
The photos of British soldiers torturing Iraqis have been denounced as fictitious. Which is a sick thing to do, especially as it could conceivably lead to another Nick Berg.
Is it just that this war has had more media coverage than any other, or does it seem sicker than most conflicts?
Posted on Fri, 14 May 2004 at 20:31