Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is being made to watch his appearance in cult cartoon South Park while he is behind bars.
The deposed leader on trial in Iraq was featured in the movie spin-off as the lover of the devil. South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut featured Hussein and Satan attempting to take over the world together.
Speaking at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said US Marines guarding the former dictator during his trial for genocide were making him watch the movie "repeatedly".
"I have it on pretty good information from the Marines on detail in Iraq that they showed him the movie last year. That's really adding insult to injury. I bet that made him really happy," Stone said.
This is being reported really weird. "ACCORDING TO SOUTH PARK CREATORS PARKER & STONE" should be up there in the first paragragh, with all that... indicates.
'The News' is getting more fudged up every week.
I really hope it's true though...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:11:06 -0500, [email] (Ubiquitous) wrote:
I hope so too. All I know is if I were his American guard I wouldn't hesitate to make him watch it. South Park is the epitome of American culture, the ultimate in free speech and expression, and you know that Saddam's Iraq or any other izlamist nation would never permit such an offensive show even if they weren't the butt of its jokes.
It's not like he's sitting there getting the jokes dude.
Parker & Stone have also said that Barbra Streisand has, in real life, a demonic plot to take over the world, and that their show about her was largely based on reality. Why didn't THAT make the f*cking AP newswire, huh?!
Neither do I or most Americans, but the minority groups that are the butt of the jokes are terribly offended. For example, consider how LULAC - the self-proclaimed Hispandex civil rights group who declared the Taco Bell chihuahua to be a racist hate crime - must react when it sees how SP portrays Mexico and latinos in general (e.g. in hell everyone speaks spanish, the costa rican prostitutes, etc.). The catholics were offended enough to get Bloody Mary pulled and the scientologists are still trying to sue over Trapped in the Closet. And the constant Jewish slurs and holocaust jokes must have the ADL calling for the show to be outlawed.
Which is what I love about America, that we are free to offend anyone we want. I am so sick of hearing ethnic and religious groups claim that their culture/religion is above criticism and that pointing out a group's flaws should be banned on the ground that it might cause others to dislike the same group. I'm always amazed that SP is shown outside the USA at all, especially in Europe with its totalitarian hate speech laws.
There's nothing more pathetic than a fucking redneck whose farthest travel involves a Taco Bell and a porn shop in the nearest village, talk about Europe like he figured the entire continent out from an article in Guns'N'Ammo that he read in his outhouse.
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:06:45 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:
See, to me, there's nothing more pathetic than these people who are stuck in 1980's-mode demonizing people, blaming all the world's ills on some imaginary "redneck". It's like, grow up, get over yourself, see the world, meet some people.
Wow, you described me almost perfectly except that I hate Taco Hell. But I have actually been to Europe, though my two-week vacation was hardly sufficient to examine the finer aspects of eurosocialism. I do know that in the UK a woman was recently almost arrested during a public forum debate after she expressed her personal view that perhaps gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children of the same gender, on the grounds of them providing a confusing role model for the child. A homosexual audience member was offended and called police to investigate a violation of the hatespeech law. Police interrogated her and filled out a detailed report and while she was not arrested at the time, the case remains open.
These sorts of laws exist throughout Europe, and I can't imagine why they would allow such offensive parodies of minority groups, given that private citizens are forbidden from expressing any negative opinions of those same groups.
There is a difference though - one was speaking to an audience as herself and one is a fictional cartoon character. Cartman (usually the one isn'the) is supposed to be deliberately upsetting to people so the other characters can react the opposite way providing a balanced viewpoint and debate on the subject.
I find the constant blasphemy offensive, and I suspects there are lots of people that share that view.
Which stinks, because it's a great show. It does a great job at pointing the spotlight on the absurd parts of a lot of life. And the kids generally show solid values and morals. Except Cartman. Cartman's an asshole.
Swearing is not the same as blasphemy.
On a note related to something else in the thread; the whole not showing naked people because kids might see isn't about sex. Not exactly. It's about modesty. Many of us parents want our kids (especially our daughters) to have some idea about what and when, and with who certain displays are appropriate. They get, real clearly, that shooting people isn't right. When and where they start getting intimate is much more complicated, as is how they might appear to their peers.
But since I'm an American and an adult with a working brain, I just don't watch it. Other adults can watch it as they like, and it's their problem if they let their young kids watch it.
The blasphemy's not constant. It's occasional. Almost a commentary on it, perhaps. Cartman's an *ssh*le - it's usually Cartman who does it. It's a shame; like you say, you're missing the best satire, and this world *really* needs satirising.
No, it's about hypocrisy, i.e. false morals. The same people who spend half of their lives trying to get into each others pants, spend another half trying to prevent their children from doing the same. After all, by far the biggest outrage in the US in the last 10 years was not over the war started on lies and deceit (in which over 100,000 died), but over half a tit flashed for one second on TV. Also, sexual hypocrisy is a contagious meme carried by another memetic virus: religion.
Compare your false morals, religious hypocritical bullshit to the countries with far more liberal and open sexual culture, and you may notice that teenage pregnancy rates, STDs, sexual deviancy and sex crime rates are significantly higher in the US.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:45:56 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:
No, the war started on lies and deceit caused the biggest outrage. So much so, that we were forced into war, and spent nearly a year in spontaneous national mourning.
Normal people see Terrorism as the problem. You and your snottty little ilk see America as the problem, as you freely admit.
Janet Jackson subjecting the unsuspecting audience to her flabby old-lady bosom was pretty fucking sickening, but there's no need to go to war with her... at least not the first time she does it
Just how were we "forced into war"? Where are the top rationales for the invasion of Iraq today?
Has Iraq actually been an imminent threat to the US? I don't see how a shitty little country, under UN sanctions, thousands of miles away, could have been a threat to a nuclear super-power. But hey, let's examine the remaining rationales:
Iraq possessed a stockpile of WMDs. None were discovered. Search abandoned.
Iraq had an Al Qaeda connection. None was discovered. Lie acknowledged by the current administration.
Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Forgery and lie acknowledged by the current administration.
And if you took your head out of O'Reilly's, Hannity's and Limbaugh's asses for a second, perhaps you'd be able to explain how Iraq was a terrorist threat before the invasion.
Then explain how much opening the Iraq's oil resources to foreign markets was a factor in this illegal and immoral war. The fact is, American soldiers are dying over there so Shell, BP and Exxon can increase their profit margins. And we're all paying for it, to boot.
A conservative's attempt at what can feebly be described as humor. Barf City.
"Forced into war" gimme a break. You might want to check up on the Cuban missile crisis and see how hard a president worked when trying to avoid conflict.
Rational (not normal) people see terrorism not just as a problem but as a symptom. I'm not advocating terrorism by any means but you'd have to be a little blind not to think that maybe, just maybe you might have to be a little upset about something before killing yourself and thousands of others along with you.
Thank you for proving my point. Exactly which terrorism shall we look at? 9/11?
So what if unbalanced extremists are a little upset? That is their permanent condition. They would be a little upset until the entire world is an Islamic caliphate, which is no exaggeration.
So you justify 9/11 by saying "they were a little upset"? That is honestly a psychosis my friend. You have a problem and you need to get it dealt with, in all friendliness. I know you can't hear me, but please try: anti-Americanism has taken you over - you are not behaving rationally any more. You don't need to be vilified. You need rest, and attention from caring professionals my friend.
I realise you are seething with rage at my "outrageous" statement, but please try to calm down.
All casual readers can take a look at this video which shows a "Palestinian" childrens TV show puppet going crazy and talking about killing people with AK-47's for day-to-day problems. Terrorists are CREATED by devious psychology and are simply one weapon in a much wider war to dominate the planet by certain extremists (real-player): rtsp://66.132.139.173:554/levittmedia/ZLV-906.rm?cloakport=8080,554
Yes they are upset. They have been created, they have been manipulated into terrorists. If anyone knows the film CLOCKWORK ORANGE, where a man is made into a violent killer by media, this is a very good example.
Before you snip 99% of my text and say you didn't justify 9/11, yes, you did.
That is pushing well towards justifying 9/11, and it not wrong, it is unbalanced. America = good. Islamic caliphate goal of extreme muslims = bad. It's really, really, really simple.
I recommend you try and sit still and quiet for 20 minutes a day without your mind racing on TV garbage; reality will become clearer. Take some time to remember who you are. THINK ABOUT IT.
I don't think that's true. I think there were a couple cases of punks seeing the movie and afterwards dressing like Alex's gang, but the movie didn't cause them to become violent criminals, it just influenced their sense of fashion.
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:27:32 GMT, George Weinberg wrote:
Ugh! Here's the first one I pulled up:
'Teen film fans set woman on fire for fun' BARCELONA: Three Spanish teenagers fascinated by the film Clockwork Orange burnt a homeless woman to death for kicks. http://english.people.com.cn/200512/27/eng20051227_231059.html
What I find the creepiest thing is how 3 weeks ago some leftist guy was like "Iraq was a western country in the 80s". I gave him a link to Iraqi-made video of the Hallabja Holocaust 1988 and challenged him to view it, and then repeat the statement! But he'd rather just walk away than admit he was wrong and that Iraq was a disgusting evil country and therefore "Bush was right" or something. It's a totally damning indictment of the mindset.
Reason is reason, for heaven's sake. Some people are so horribly attached to the partisan nastiness.
Here is that thread (from about 10 replies down):
Watch a few of the things Saddam did in the name of Allah HERE: http://www.vpcenter.org/Videos.htm
Watch the videos, then say that. The first is Hallabja Holocaust 1988. Go. See Hallabja Holocaust 1988.
So what if Saudi or Pakistan are 'worse' or wear burkas? This isn't a War on Burkas!
If you can't see evil because you have a problem with Bush or 'neocons'... I just hope you'll think again. Hate Bush if you must, but why should it color everything that you see?
And here is the snipped text from_this_ part of the thread :)
Iraq was a SECULAR country, dumbass. It's the US that's lead by a bunch of religious extremists. That's why the FCC now wants to put fines on broadcasters that show football games where audience members say a "bad word".
And let's not forget the "can't show titties / can show gruesome deaths" hypocrisy -- even though there's no anti-titty commandment, yet there is one about not killing.
"Bart Van Hemelen" wrote in message news:[email]...
It's not a hypocrisy. I don't agree with it, but it's all about what parents are comfortable discussing with their kids. Violence rarely happens to people, so it's an easy thing to dismiss with "don't worry honey, this is all make-believe." Titties (et al) are another matter. Everyone has some kind of sex (even little kids play with themselves, after all) and many parents are *very* uncomfortable having the subject brought up before they're ready (which is often too late to do any good but that's another topic).
Did you read my post or just the one sentence? I'm hardly advocating adults having sex with children just because children are curious about their genitalia.
My point was that the ubiquity of sex in real life (in all it's glorious forms, not one of which involve an adult and a child...sheesh!) makes it a difficult topic for many parents whereas the rarity of violence makes it a pretty easy topic.
"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message news:jEsQg.304$[email]...
It's not a rationalization. It's an explanation. If you want to know why people behave they way they do, it helps to try and understand them. I know a knee-jerk reaction is more fun but is it more useful?
On 18 Sep 2006 00:41:48 -0700, "Bart Van Hemelen" wrote:
Pshht! I wouldn't call Baathism secularism. More of an unholy marriage of socialism and Islamism. Saddam used kuran as justification for his crimes OFTEN. Google for the video that shows the Saddam Fedayeen breaking a man's arms in the name of Allah.
Highly islamist, highly extremist, but also opportunist. It's not about the religion, it's about the power that it can get them
Only a total idiot would equate 1980s Iraq with what these days is called extremist islam. Iraq in the 1980s was a western country, no burqas in sight, etc. That changed when Bush the elder set up Saddam to invade Kuwait and eroded Saddam's power base, then Saddam had to turn to religion. But Iraq still was a modern country, far from the backwards mentality in that great US ally Saudi-Arabia, i.e. the country that funds extremists schools, the country that provided most of the 9/11 hijackers and the country that Bush the younger is trying so hard to keep out of the picture when it comes to 9/11.
If you think Iraq is bad, take a look at Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia. Oh no, those are the "good guys", so they get to oppress women etc.
If militant muslims bother Bush so much, why was he sucking Taliban dick when he was a governor? And again in early 2001?
Bullshit.
You're talking about the neocons. Who BTW resemble Osama's bunch a whole lot.
On 19 Sep 2006 00:54:42 -0700, "Bart Van Hemelen" wrote:
Watch a few of the things Saddam did in the name of Allah HERE: http://www.vpcenter.org/Videos.htm
Watch the videos, then say that. The first is Hallabja Holocaust 1988. Go. See Hallabja Holocaust 1988.
So what if Saudi or Pakistan are 'worse' or wear burkas? This isn't a War on Burkas!
If you can't see evil because you have a problem with Bush or 'neocons'... I just hope you'll think again. Hate Bush if you must, but why should it color everything that you see?
No, it wasn't. While Saddam enjoyed creating allusions to the Prophet, he also made a big deal about how he was Nebuchadnezzar reborn. Saddam wasn't so much an Islamist as he was an opportunist. :-)
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:09:38 -0500, "El Puerco" wrote:
Exactly right, Joe.
Watch Hallabja holocaust 1988, saddam goons break a guy's arms in name of allah, blow up a student by putting plastic explosive in his pocket and detonating him, and generally beat the living sh*t out of political opponents HERE (EXTREME viewer discretion advised):
http://www.vpcenter.org/Videos.htm
But then I wonder if the "hard-line Islamic regimes" aren't essentially the same opportunists too.
"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message news:nIQQg.650$[email]...
Well, as I seem to have already demonstrated my ignorance on these matters, why not let's go the whole hog.
hard-line Islamic means Shariah law, zero women's rights (except to fuck her husband), apostasy punishable by death, no dogs and cats, and no chess. And DEFINITELY no bacon sandwiches.
No, suppression of speech has nothing to do with religion, as in even the most enlightened secular socialist European countries they would ban the ethnic insults heard on South Park. Anyway, I don't know how you can call Saddam's Iraq secular when he personally ordered the religious phrase "allah akbar" added to the Iraqi flag to appeal to his moozlum neighbors in the first war. And he also commissioned a handwritten copy of the koran using his own blood as ink. Saddam's Iraq might have appeared secular, but while the authority of the traditional izlamist clerics was suppressed, Saddam assumed the role of supreme religious authority, almost to the point of becoming a living god.