Friday, October 14, 2005

Good and Bad Staging


GOOD

NBC's TODAY SHOW thrills it's audience with a dazzling display of a staged event for the public good. Before the Holy Men walked on water, the viewers were led to believe the water was very deep. You may deduce the true depth for yourself.


BAD


In another heinous act of public deception, the President of the United States of America, George Bush, attempted to hoodwink the the American public, nay, the World public, with a scripted (GASP!) interview involving US soldiers in Iraq. The evil nature of this man knows no bounds.


Good

Let me introduce an Iraqi citizen murdered and buried in a mass grave under the enlightened and benevolent reign if Saddam Hussein. This citizen, and hundreds of thousands of others, enjoyed the right to votein staged elections for only one candidate at bayonet point. If an error in voting was made, the entire family had the privilege to be murdered by the official state death squads.



BAD

Here we see an Iraqi woman shortly after a biologically staged birth to a freeborn citizen in Najaf, voting in the Constitutional Referendum. How dare this woman exercise her democratic and human right of suffrage. Surely she must know she is just playing into the hands of the Great Satan, George Bush and Western Civilization. She is betraying the heritage of the male dominated, violent word of Islam which benignly protects her and her child from the wonders and conveniences of the modern world under the threat of death most cruel.

On a slighthly different, uscripted, and unstaged note, Frank Sinatra (not an impersonator) sings his intentions concerning Strangers on My Flight .

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

14 comments:

dcat said...

Loved the tune Indigo! :)

Mike's America said...

quite a set of contrasts there...

That canoe thing was just too funny...

Sofocleto said...

And here are some abstentionists:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ajw0meT-WDUJ:www.p10k.net/Images/terror_victim_iraq.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:J5DWeZHYvwsJ:www.alhejazi.net/images/terror_iraq_2_300.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:hrYgBClPW8gJ:www.awitness.org/bloody/iraq/deadkid2.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:p3_kCfj7bIIJ:www.soulwalking.co.uk/%

Indigo Red said...

Sofocleto,

Thanks for the pics, but I've seen all of those photos before and they would be valid and useful had the post been about innocent civilians killed in the coarse of bringing about todays Constitutional Referendum.

The essential difference between your photo choices and mine is that the express purpose of death deadman I show was to kill that specific man. That is premeditated homocide for the extended purpose of instilling fear and unquestioning obediance in others. The photos you chose are the very unfortunate fatalities of an attempt to free people from the decades long tyranny under which the victim I showed had lived. In short, the difference is intent: Saddam's regime intended to murder, the coalition forces, knowing innocent people would die, did not target these people specically for death.

Today, and again next December, the fruits of those deaths exhibited by you and me will be on display and their deaths will not have been in vain. Iraq will know a new birth of freedom, if not peace.

By the by, when I pasted the Google addresses into GOOGLE "No matches were found". I then put them into YAHOO and the photos came right up. I thought it amusing.

Indigo Red said...

"the express purpose of death deadman..." should read "the express purpose of THE deadman..."

Finding things like that is what proofreading is for. But one must know to read before hitting the publish button.

Sofocleto said...

100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study
The Guardian - Friday October 29, 2004

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.


One year has passed. How many more died since that time?

Indigo Red said...

Sofo,

The Guardian did say 100,000 dead civilians in Oct 2004. And the number has been widely repeated, but that doesn't make it accurate.

According to the LANCET, the British medical journal, and many other studies in the intervening year, have shown the death toll due to actual warfare to be about 75% lower.

Included by the Guardian, relying on Iraqi medical personell who were not keeping accurate records before or after the invasion, were heart attacks and strokes, auto and other accidents, normal crime, family blood feuds, neonatal and infant deaths, other chronic disorders and natural causes. Another cause for the inflated figures is the fact that most of the military personell and the insurgents were dressed in civilian clothes making the distinction between civilian and soldier nearly impossible. The wounded insurgent typically does not go to hospital with his AK-47, but rather, leaves it with the uninjured to use.

Today, Sunday Oct 16, 2005, Iraq Body Count puts the number of civilian dead at 26521 min / 29873 max. IBC has it's own problems with counting actual war casualties (counts of non-Iraqi civilian dead such as private contractors driving convoy, a wedding hit by a grenade thrown by an unknown assailent), but they will admit the problems, so I am inclined to believe their figures.

Now, Sofocleteo, I want to make one thing clear: I am not dismissing the awful number of civilian dead, almost 30,000 max civ-dead are too many by any measure. But let's not cheapen that number of dead with false counts.

The impression given in most of the estimates is that all of the civilians were killed by American and Coalition military bombs, bullets, and combat. This is simply not true. Neither is it true that the civilian deaths caused by military actions were purposeful in nature as opposed to the very purposeful actions of the Ba'athist regime under Saddam.

I am not about to say that you were in support of the Saddam era killings. I am interested, though, as to your solution to ending the murders, tortures, and diappearances that occurred during the time of Saddam, recognizing that sanctions were not working and the previous Gulf War had not ended after twelve years. And because we are talking about civilian deaths, please, no arguements about WMD or oil - strictly civilian deaths. How would you, Sofocleto, if you were King of the World, have stopped the murderous rampage of Saddam and Company?

Sofocleto said...

Indigo, this has nothing to do with Saddam. It's something much bigger.

Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Read the full article HERE

Indigo Red said...

Sofoceleto,

You specified dead Iraqi citizens. That does have something to do with Saddam. And you didn't answer the question, but merely changed the focus of the conversation.

Again, how would you have stopped Saddam's murderous regime; what would you do if you were in charge?

Now you've introduced anew question for yourself: If what we are doing "is entirely the wrong way to go about it", what would you suggest we do?

I began reading the article to which you provided a link. I only needed to get to the middle of the first paragraph to know where it was going, though I read most of the rest anyway. When the author states, "They also were able to convince much of the American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks of 9/11..." I knew this to be another scramble of the truth. You see, Sofocleto, President Bush and all the President's men said very plainly that Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. You cannot present any video or audio evidence to the contrary and all of the written evidence is from opposition misquotes and fabrications.

I do agree, however, that this is something much bigger than Afghanistan, Iraq, or simply chasing terrorists hither and yon. It's about a religious philosophy (Islam) that says it's the duty of every Muslim to kill you and me, destroying Western Civilization in the process. That probably not the "something much bigger" thing you had in mind, but it is bigger. Besides that, I happen to agree with the general outline of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which I have all 80 pages on CD to read at my leisure.

Now, back to the questions: What would you have done in Iraq and what do you propose be done in the future vis-a-vis the world?

Sofocleto said...

You want murder dictators that have been maiming, killing and pauperising their own people:

A lot of world dictators

So, why did Bush choose Saddam?

Indigo Red said...

Sofocleto,

The link didn't work. And neither will your attempt to change direction. You have 2 Questions to answer - answer please.

Anonymous said...

I hope people reading your blog understand when and where you are being sarcastic. Nice blog.

Joanne

Indigo Red said...

Joanne,

Nice to see you here, thank you very much.

I think most folks understand the sarcasm, at least the smarter folks. Those that don't are at least smart enough not to come back.

Leap Frog said...

:) LOL Indigo!

Very well put.