1/19/2004: Swedish art provokes Israeli ambassador

[LUVBUGZ]

Well, I'm not a big artsy-fartsy person. I know what *I* like and what *I* don't like and that's about it. What I get out of the so-called art display is ... well, that doesn't really matter.

The ambassador was a dork for throwing his planned tantrum inside the museum and destroying the display. He could have stood outside with a protest sign or something if he felt so strongly against it, but knowing that he'd get away with destroying the displayed, he probably thought he'd feel better by physically damaging it as opposed to standing outside with a sign.

Anyhoo, some think he's a fucking idiot for doing it, some don't. Who cares. That is simply the opinion of that individual. Just like it is the individual's opinion as to whether it should even be considered art or not.

Now, what I find to be the most offensive thing in this whole thread is the comment made by Paranoid that "... I also think that terrorism is a form of free speech and should be respected, even if not protected."

WTF are you talking about? This has got to be the most fucking stupid thing I've ever heard. Are you trying to tell me that *I* should respect some dumb fuck piece of shit that blows up buildings, killing thousands because his actions are a form of "Free Speech" used as a means to get his fucked up ideas/beliefs across to others? If you are too stupid to realize it, let me inform you that "Free Speech" by no means entails killing people as a way to get your point across. Terrorism is terrorism (vastly different from "Free Speech") and should be neither respected, nor protected; but rather punished and denied.

So, lay off the cheap crack and get a fucking clue while you're at it.

[paranoid]

Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Now, what I find to be the most offensive thing in this whole thread is the comment made by Paranoid that "... I also think that terrorism is a form of free speech and should be respected, even if not protected."

Terrorism is terrorism and should be neither respected, nor protected; but rather punished and denied.

Well, there are several reasons to respect terrorists. First is the fact that they can stand for what they believe in, sometimes with grave danger for their own lives. In my country we respect certain terrorists, such as Alexandr Ulianov and others for their attempts to kill the Emperor and his minions. While I certainly disagree with Palestinian suicide bombers and plainly hate them for what they do, I still have certain respect for their ability to act in such a way (even though for many of them it's not a rational choice, as they are programmed and brainwashed, some, like this woman, make their own decision).

The second reason to respect terrorism is that an act of killing is also a message, just like a pool of blood with a white ship and a portrait is a message. By ignoring the message you are being, using the terminology of this thread, a fucking idiot. The correct course of action should be to realise that the issue that caused people to commit the act is of utmost importance to them and you should consider their position and start a dialog with them to reach a solution.

You suggest denying terrorism. Well, regardless of which way I look at your suggestion, it doesn't seem like the wise course of actions. You can't deny reality.

[axlrosen]

Originally posted by paranoid

The second reason to respect terrorism is that an act of killing is also a message, just like a pool of blood with a white ship and a portrait is a message. By ignoring the message you are being, using the terminology of this thread, a fucking idiot. The correct course of action should be to realise that the issue that caused people to commit the act is of utmost importance to them and you should consider their position and start a dialog with them to reach a solution.

You don't worry that that would make terrorism worth it? If you start a dialog with a group after a series of bombings, and reach a settlement that addresses their problems - aren't you worried that that would cause any group with any problem, even a less serious problem, will start to commit terrorist acts because they see that terrorism works?

[axlrosen]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
This (criminal) act of one pissed off guy (with malice and forethought) who was officially representing Israel and acting (according to him) on behalf of all Jews (except the artist).
He did this as a reaction to *his* interpretation of a piece of "art" that, as most people agree, could be interpreted hundreds of ways.

If his act really WAS on behalf of all Jews - if every Jewish person in the world signed a letter saying that they authorize the ambassador to protest on their behalf - then you'd have a point. The idea that people believe that every Jew in the world authorized this guy to act on their behalf is crazy. He says he was acting on our behalf, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't mean that the world thinks it's true.

It would be the same as the Scottish Ambassador setting fire to your house for painting it blue. Saying you were mocking the slaughtered men that followed William Wallace and it was an affront to all Scots.

I agree. People would think that this ambassador was a little nuts. Do you think that people would look down on all Scots because of it?

[warch]

Well, there are several reasons to respect terrorists.

All easily trumped by a great big uber-reason not too. Tis the nature and strategy of the evil beast to express one's heartfelt message by destroying the lives and rights of others. That aint cool, no way.

You light yourself on fire in public protest, endanger only yourself, thats one thing. You blow yourself up at populated busstop that's quite another. I can respect protest, I cant respect terrorism.

[glatt]

Originally posted by paranoid

Well, there are several reasons to respect terrorists.

Paranoid, I think I know what you are trying to say, and it may be that this is just arguing about the subtle nuances of various words. But I think "respect" is a poor selection of words. Perhaps "understand" would be better. "Respect" often means "look up to" or "admire." I don't think you mean that here. At least I hope you don't. Terrorists should never be admired or looked up to. They should not be respected. But there is nothing wrong with understanding a terrorist.


Regarding your previous quote that "I also think that Jewish rabbies should be killed, mutilated, burned alive, whatever, although in no way I am anti-semitic." I still think that's an idiotic thing to say. You call for the murder of Jewish spiritual leaders, and then in the same sentence claim that you are not hostile or prejudiced toward Jews. Of course that statement is anti-semitic. Your claim that you are in no way anti-semitic is so clearly false, that it becomes idiotic.

You mention "your country" so maybe in your country English isn't the primary language. If English isn't your primary language, I am very impressed with your command of the English language, but subtle nuances do matter when you are discussing politics.

[paranoid]

Originally posted by axlrosen

You don't worry that that would make terrorism worth it? If you start a dialog with a group after a series of bombings, and reach a settlement that addresses their problems - aren't you worried that that would cause any group with any problem, even a less serious problem, will start to commit terrorist acts because they see that terrorism works?

First, let me say that there are two kinds of terrorists. One is when some random guys highjack a plane and demand a million dollars, a suitcase of heroin and a helicopter. There is no message worth listening to, so just send out your SAS team. Second type of terrorism is when a group of people has a message. In the latter case you simply can't ignore that, because the situation must be resolved somehow, since these people would rather die than allow the status quo to continue. As much as I might hate Palestinians, Israelis must reach a consensus with them - neither permanent war, nor the genocide of the Palestinians is an option.

Terrorism should work (with some exceptions). That's the point! When situation is as unbearable for people that they are ready to die to change it, it must be changed. And to think that people with minor concerns would turn to terror if "it works" is unrealistic. Terrorism (at least its suicidal variety) is and will remain the last resort.

[warch]

Youre confusing people who would rather die with people who would rather kill.

[paranoid]

Originally posted by glatt
Terrorists should never be admired or looked up to. They should not be respected. But there is nothing wrong with understanding a terrorist.

Thank you for complimenting my English (I am Russian and English is my second language) and you are correct about the reason for disagreement. Yes, "respect" is not the right word to convey my attitude towards the suicide bombers. I think "appreciate" and "recognize" are better choices. The reason for my mistake was to first think about the attitude of terrorist's compatriots. Palestinians respect terrorists and rightly so. Soviets have long respected people like Vera Zasulich, Alersandr Ulianov (Vladimir Lenin's older brother), Sergej Kravchinsky, Aleksandr Soloviev, Sofia Perovskaya, Dmitry Karakozov and others (all of them successful terrorists in Czarist Russia). When we are on the receiving end of the terror, though, we tend to despise and hate terrorists. But although they do not deserve our compassion or respect, they at least deserve to be heard.

Another point to consider is that in the modern world politicians tend to protect themselves so much as to make any assasination attempt futile. With the exception of relatively safe countries in Northern Europe, the leaders usually drive in bulletproof limos and emply hundreds, if not thousands of bodyguards. I am reasonably sure that Hamas would prefer killing Israeli PM or defence minister, but what chances do they have? Killing civilians remains the only feasible option, and (in a wicked sense) the effectiveness of Israel army, police and special services (in protecting the Israeli leaders) are responsible for deaths of innocents.

You call for the murder of Jewish spiritual leaders, and then in the same sentence claim that you are not hostile or prejudiced toward Jews. Of course that statement is anti-semitic.

I am against them because they are spiritual leaders, not because they are Jewish. I hate Pope and Russian Orthodox Church only slightly less than I hate Jewish rabbies and this has nothing to do with my attitude to Italians, Poles, Russians or Jews. I did not even become aware of the whole "Jewish Question" until I was about eighteen. My two best childhood friends were Jews, so I don't think I am capable of being anti-semitic. And neither is my statement, the call for murder. I think that organised religions today are so harmful for the humankind that advantages of destroying them would compensate the disadvantages of killing thousands of people in the process. You can call that brutal, barbarous, bizarre or just plain bad, but anti-semitic it is not.

[warch]

Assasination, no matter how appealing , is not the only, nor best way to engage in political change.

[hot_pastrami]

One interesting point is the subjectivity of terrorism. The recipient calls it "terrorism," and the sender calls it "heroism." Outside observers usually take a lot of gray-area stances on it. This is pretty much universally true.

The American colonists' Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism from the perspective of the British at that time. But to the Americans, it was heroic. Now history takes the latter view... is that because they really were in the right, or because in the end, the Americans won, so they got to write the history books on it? If Palenstine were to somehow overthrow Isreal, would the suicide bombers be universally regarded as "heroes" in two hundred years?

I am only bringing this up as a discussion on perspective... I think suicide bombing is a horrible, unspeakable practice.

[Beestie]

The second reason to respect terrorism is that an act of killing is also a message...

I see.

So if someone cut off your head, sucked out your brains and filled the void with roach droppings, stuck a dildo in each eye socket and send the completed work to your mother with some lavendar potpourri and a note instructing her not to have any more children then we should all stroke our chins, admire the ingenuity of the terrorist and open a dialog with this person to see what we can do to address his concerns.

I obviously need to get out more.

And I recommend that you consider the difference between genuine revolutionaries who strike out at those responsible for their oppression, those who strike out at those distantly connected to those responsible for their oppression but in no way responsible for it and lastly, those who are just crazy effing lunatics.

[Serk]

Not justifying one side or the other, just consider, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... It's all a matter of means and perspective...

Was Shock and Awe not a form of terrorism? Yes, is was more isolated to military targets, but that is primarily because we have the technology to do so, not because of some moral highground we stand on...

Could not someone living in WWII Germany call the bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism? Or a citizen of Tokyo, wouldn't they consider the firebombing of their city the work of a terrorist?

It's all a matter of means and perspective...


...history is written by the winners...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by warch
The real goof is that the museum seems surprised. shocked!
Politics, Religion, Murder, Suicide, ambiguous imagery... The artists and the presenting organization hafta acknowlege and take responsibility for the nature of the work they are presenting, or they are wimping right out. There are lines. Pornography was listed, Hate speach is another... If its about finding the line to cross...well just know that it might be crossed and be prepared, you doofuses. I actually think the ambassadors behavior has made this artwork far more "interesting" than it was before he flipped. Not sure that was his intention.....snip

Maybe Swedish museums don't usually have that concern.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by axlrosen


Again, there are many reasons that anti-semitism exists in this world, but I don't think that an ambassador trashing an art display is one of them.

You said "Maybe Jews acting like this is why anti-semitism continues to be such a problem." So what similar actions have Jews taken in the past that have promoted anti-semitism? Certainly there must have been a number of them, if "acts like this" are what helps to keep anti-semitism alive.

This was the act of one pissed-off guy. Don't you think it's a little prejudiced to characterize a whole group of millions of people based on the act of one person?

Everytime a Jew commits a crime, acts morally reprehensibly or is just an asshat, and blames "5000 years of oppression", it adds fuel to anti-semitism.
Same for the Black man blaming 400 years of slavery.
Or even the Latin blaming his "hot blooded heritage".