Slashdot Mirror
South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein
Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, were given a very special gift by US marines: a signed photo of Saddam Hussein. During his captivity, the marines forced Saddam to repeatedly watch the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut, which shows him as the boyfriend of Satan. Stone said, "We're very proud of our signed Saddam picture and what it means. It's one of our biggest highlights."
Watch his execution. Oh and if you had any lingering respect for the law. Read up on Saddam's trial. If he weren't so famous saddam would have gotten about 1000mistrials.... before he was hung. Yeah... hung, something you think we'd have given up a loong time ago. But I guess the rules don't apply if you REALLY don't like the guy.
Stone, 37, said both he and Parker, 39, were most proud of the signed Saddam photo, given to them by the US Army's 4th Infantry Division.
But then again it states in the summary of the article that they recieved the photo from the Marines. So which is it?
Sadly, regarding approximately 30% of the population (which is the Republican approval rating's floor), the answer is "yes". For some people, the craving for an authoritarian father figure, religious zeal, or susceptibility to propaganda supplant reason and lead people to vote against their own interests. The same forces affect (or afflict) every society, but ours has been made particularly vulnerable by media consolidation, poor education, and a history of religious conservatism.
As with many problems, the solution begins with a little political bravery and continues with massive, sustained investment in education and critical thinking.
Political activists say one thing, eye witnesses say another. http://www.indict.org.uk/witnessdetails.php?target=Qusay
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
You have no idea how true that is.
I hate replying to myself, but I couldn't give up a chance to show the change in inequality too.
Frankly, I believe the US chose to have him tried by Iraqis precisely because they could have him convicted and executed for more expediently there than in the US.
It wasn't a US trial they were most fearful of, it was a UN trial. The case against Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia was comparatively more clean-cut than the one against Saddam, yet, Milosevic put up an extremely good defence. Had he not died while on trial, there's every chance he would have either left the court a free man or found guilty on only relatively minor charges.
In addition to that, Saddam knew where all the American bones were buried: It was the US who sold him those WMD in the 1980s, and he was hand-shaking chums with Rumsfeld and other bigwigs at the time. All of this would have been thrown into the open in a fair trial and made George W Bush's top brass directly complicit to the commission of war crimes were he found guilty. Far better for the US to have Saddam's trial over and done quickly with a kangaroo court.
That would be so great if you are locked in a brightly lit cell/chair and you have a movie with loud sound playing in a loop for days? And then your guard comes after a few days, changes the movie and you don't see him for another few days... Or maybe you prefer naked human pyramids or exploration of dog-human relations? I heard those are fun too!
I had some respect for the authors of the South Park as normal, rational men. But accepting this gift is cruel, unmoral and despicable. Just like torture I mentioned before.
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
The categorical imperative is useful, especially in this instance.
Also, don't be so quick to dismiss our conscience: it's the distillation of millions of years of evolution.
You quote Kant's categorical imperative but then fail to distinguish between 'is' and 'ought' (a difference Kant made clear). Even if you're right that evolution fashioned our "conscience"--if there is even such a thing--a certain way, it doesn't mean we SHOULD act accordingly. If evolution fashioned us in such a way as to still feel the drive to be swinging from the trees, hurling our feces at each other, does it follow that it's what we should be doing?
The parent post was right-on in warning about the conceptual link between a "conscience" and some form of relativism.
I think some people need to read the OP again. He didn't describe being forced to watch the film as torture; he said that "if this is the sort of thing [marines] do behind closed doors - in fact they do worse (torture....)".
Not to say that being forced to watch a film over and over again couldn't be torture - a TV with the volume turned up to maximum, outside the cell but pointing in, playing the same film on repeat 24 hours a day for example. Not that I'm saying that necessarily happened here, although I think we can assume from the word "forced" that he didn't have the TV and remote in the cell with him.
Yeah, the guy was an asshole of epic proportions. But that doesn't make this right.
"We're very proud of our signed photo of Saddam and what it means", say Stone and Parker. Really? What, exactly, *does* it mean? Because AFAICS it just shows that some old man (albeit an epic asshole of an old man) was forced to do things against his will for the amusement of some bored soldiers who knew there was little chance of any comeback. And maybe it's just me, but I don't think that's something to be really proud of.
It's not really adult behaviour is it, and certainly not the behavior of a country that likes to think they are a world leader.
;-)
Too right.
There are an increasing number of cultural messages, and messengers, in US media the subtext of which is "it is OK and even desirable to act like you are ten years old all of the time", the framing of Howard Stern as a folk hero being the canonical example.
I don't think anyone faults the fans of South Park, Howard Stern, etc. for finding them amusing. The problem is that immaturity is increasingly finding a place in public life. Apparently these soldiers think it's OK to act like ten year olds while acting in an official capacity, such that they don't see anything wrong with bragging about it to the media. It will be interesting to see whether their superiors think so too.
And, while this particular incident hardly qualifies as "torture", there does seem to be an immaturity continuum on the part of US actors and decision makers in the Iraq war that starts here, runs through Abu Ghraib, and all the way up to the White House, where apparently torture was not only planned and condoned, but micromanaged, with high level participants apparently doing so at least in part to gain personal satisfaction from the act. There's no credible evidence that any of it was effective, and plenty of evidence that it was counterproductive, but apparently, in times of crisis, the appropriate response is not to act like adults and address the problem effectively, but to act like ten year olds and pull the wings off of flies because we can.
And, while there has certainly been a fair bit of outrage over all of this (underreported) in the US, there are plenty of people who thinks that it is all right and good. It would be interesting to know the correlation between South Park/shock jock/reality show fandom and the condoning of torture among the American public.
But don't get too cocky in your own country. One of America's biggest exports is its media. It's like I tell my kids: what we are, you will be.
#!
I was told that we (UK) invaded because he had weapons of mass destruction. Didn't believe a word of it and I don't think Blair or Bush did. Anyway if democracy was the reason why Iraq ? Why not invade Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China or Kuwait? Come on face it... the invasion was ostensibly about control of resources.
Plus however long the condemned can hold his breath.
Still, that's about the only drawback. Otherwise, it's safe for whomever is administering it, not too harsh on the audience (there may be some struggling, but there's no blood or worse), allows an open-casket funeral, and leaves the organs available for transplantation.
Actually, the most ironic thing is that watching Saddam's hanging gave you respect for the man. The shiit thugs killing him were shouting and making fun of a man that was about to die, but Saddam answered them calmly and with more courage than I expect Bush or any of the other people behind the Iraq war would have knowing they are about to die in a minute.
(I remember watching Wolfowitz scared shitless trying to keep it together in front of the cameras after his hotel had been hit by mortar fire in Baghdad. What contrast to the arrogant self-assurance Wolfy had when orchestring a war on false pretenses, a war that he should have known would cause thousand of innocent people and US soldiers to die.)
Then Saddam is hanged before he is able to finish his last prayer to God, a perfect ending to an execution that encouraged Saddam loyalist and ensured that the brutal dictator was transformed into an Iraqi martyr. And again, the beautiful irony that Saddam finally manages to create a picture of himself as a religious leader, after having problems saying the muslem prayers correctly in propaganda shots earlier in his career. Even Saddam's mortal enemy bin Laden must have been proud of the propaganda value of that last prayer cut short.
The thing many people in the US have a problem to understand is the shear stupidity that lies at the bottom of many of the Bush gangs decitions. Bush supporters think "Saddam hanged, yeah!" and consider it done in a manly way. But the fact is because of the incompetence shown in how the trial is performed and how Saddam's life is ended (like so many of the other "manly" things Bush wanted to do) US is instead shown as weak and the opposite message and result of what was wished for is achieved.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Getting a bullet through the head does NOT mean you die. Stop watching Hollywood films. You have a not-so-small chance to survive the bullet through your head and then you simply die of cerebral haemorrhage.
Maybe blowing the sentenced up with explosives? A small lead container with walls strong enough to be reusable and enough explosives to annihilate the human?
What I thought was weird was how they consistently released photos and stories just to make him look bad - Saddam getting his teeth inspected, Saddam wearing whitey-tighties, Saddam likes Cheetos and Doritos - every release of information about him was carefully controlled to discredit him as a strongman. But the US govt always claimed these were all just unintended leaks, and they were going to "investigate" the leaks, but of course nothing was ever heard of those investigations again... and then (finally, the weird part), the media just uncritically passed along the derogatory information and the ruse of it all being accidental when obviously it was propaganda to weaken his support among Iraqis.
you need just the right amount of torque to snap a persons neck by hanging, which takes a bit of math to determine how long the rope and how high the fall needs to be for a certain weight and height of a person.
if the rope is too short, the executee will end up being strangled.
if the rope is too long, the head of the executee will pop off like the head of a champagne bottle.
as someone mentions below this post, popping the head off and breaking the spinal cord essentially leads to death in the same way (oxygenated blood cannot reach the brain / heart stops beating).
hanging is easier on the eyes, but imho decapitation by guillotine might be a better way, as hanging can be botched up easily.
fun fact:
it can take up to a minute to lose consciousness after the brain isn't supplied with oxygenated blood anymore, although somewhere around 5-20 seconds is more common. so if you ever get your block chopped off, take a minute to savour the view.
after that, brain death takes around 6 minutes.
It's not about fate, it's about character.
there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
No, they're the "borrow and spend" party. Because borrowing is so much nicer. "Don't take all that money from me, take it from my kids, their kids, their kids kids, etc".
Yup. From YFA:
Bush: "I find it very interesting that when the heat got on, you dug yourself a hole, and you crawled in it."
A couple years earlier, a small group of murderers with a handful of commercial jets had managed to immediately drive Cheney into a hole^H^H^H^H^H undisclosed location and Bush into underground shelter. A couple years later, it just took a single report of an off-course plane to send Bush underground again. Was it so tactically unreasonable to expect Saddam to hide from a hundred thousand men armed with the best military technology in the world?
Even if this was propaganda for the Iraqis' benefit, it seems like condescending propaganda. Go for the root of the problem, and persuade people that a strongman ruler is illegitimate if he isn't democratically supported and/or if he violates human rights. Don't just cop out and try to paint yourself as the stronger man.
Saddam likes Cheetos and Doritos - every release of information about him was carefully controlled to discredit him as a strongman.
HA!
It's funny that you should mention it in this light, because I distinctly remember the strongest criticism of this kind of leaked information about Saddam came from the very people who wanted to demonize him.
The argument was that the left-wing press was making him look much more innocent and human by showing the human side of him.
The military wanted him dead. They can't justify killing him if nobody is focusing on the genocide and war crimes...
Personally I don't care either way. But I thought it was funny that you are making the same complaint that right-wing saddam bashers seemed to be making, but for slightly different reasons.
Go for the root of the problem, and persuade people that a strongman ruler is illegitimate if he isn't democratically supported and/or if he violates human rights. Don't just cop out and try to paint yourself as the stronger man.
You mean, use arguments that work in the west, based on western culture, to convince Iraqis it is a bad idea to back Saddam and his Baath party?
In Arab culture a ruler is not rendered legitimate by being elected, but by being so strong nobody could topple him. To tell Iraqis that Saddam is an unelected strongman would be as effective as telling people in the US that they should no longer listen to President Obama because he lost the Mandate of Heaven.
Showing that the US is stronger than Saddam was a necessary first step in giving the democratically elected government the legitimacy it needs to rule. The second was handing Saddam over to an Iraqi court to be tried under Iraqi law and be executed by an Iraqi executioner.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
As someone who has been in solitary confinement for 30 days before, I'm not sure how I feel about the article. I think a blanket statement that everyone would come out damaged might be stretching it. Granted, there is a big difference between 1 month and 6 months, but I was very happy to be in solitary as general population would have been much scarier to me.
By nature, I tend to be a fairly solitary person. As long as there are books, or I have something to do (I read a lot, and did things like figuring out 2^100 on paper) I'm generally good to go. Of course, I was also in a brig, and got occasional phone calls, etc.
The only real psychological effect that I noticed after getting out was a bit of agoraphobia. The world is much bigger than a 6x9 cell. Having people able to walk up behind you is a bit freaky at first.
So anyway, I'm just saying that they might need a bigger sample. Not all people need that much human interaction. In prison you usually get a minimum of 1hr a day outside the solitary confinement cell. That would be enough for at least some people--like me.
Wait a minute, this is Saddam we're talking about. I HIGHLY doubt that "a few immature soldiers" were even allowed near him. You can bet that EVERY ACTION said or done to him or around him was carefully orchestrated, if it wasn't, that would be a HUGE failour of our military. This wasn't a "prank", this was militarilly condoned humilliation. There was no logical reason for doing this, it was simple done for pleasure and specticle, which is incredibly evil, in my mind. They were basically "fucking around" with one of the most dangerous and powerful men in the middle east for some shits and giggles. If you don't find that disturbing, I don't know what to say.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.