Artist: Gil Vicente
Perhaps it's only meant to be an artist's fantasy. But think about it, really think about it...
One of the men drawn above is responsible for the deaths of thousands of completely innocent men, women and children, and the life long maiming and mutilation of thousands more- all under false pretense, all for the sake of greed. If you could have prevented all those meaningless deaths, saved even "only" a few hundred innocent lives- would you have pulled the trigger had you the opportunity depicted above?
Stan- taking another's life (unless in self defense) is morally reprehensible, under any circumstances. Yes, it is pilgrim. It most certainly is. But before you walk away all clean of thought and deed- how you feeling about the thousands you allowed him to kill? You had the chance to stop babies being torn apart and you did nothing. You simply walked after a very terse and simplistic argument. What if the condemnation of your immortal soul allows for the salvation of thousands? Hhmmm?
But Stan, it's easy now knowing how everything transpired- no one knew for sure there were no WMD. Yes, they did. Without a doubt they did- and very few chose to hear it. No one was cheering for them, God did not place the flag of truth and justice upon them. Regardless, who elected you god, jury and executioner? No one, but if so concerned of the life of one murderer (two if you commit the crime- if such it would be called), why are you so dismissive of the thousands you condemned?
OK, enough of the mind games. Yeah, it's the old Hitler question, and I'm certainly not the first to pose or ask it. Besides, if someone had shot Bush, they most certainly would have had to do Cheney as well. So then, where would it stop, Stan? Oh, that would have definitely gotten the message through all right. No rich bastard alive wants to start a war if their own life is at stake. But on to the art...
You can depict the detailed torture and execution of however many people you want, whichever way you want, and show it on screen before millions with a socially approved R rating. But a charcoal drawing of a man holding a gun to a recognized political mass murderer remains very much verboten. Anonymous violence for fun and profit is one thing, suggesting violence on the real world power structure is quite another...
After all, we're civilized folk, are we. Had Gil Vicente shot Bush in reality, it would be the artist whom history would forever recount as killer.
4 comments:
Are you still allowed to do this kind of thing?
I remember as a kid at school, there were always those special people who delighted in making pipe bombs and plotting all kinds of mischief. I once met a guy who said he planned to take anthrax from some island off Scotland and scatter it around Birkenhead because it was such a toilet. He never did it, but it was the kind of thing people said then - like making a list of who would be first up against the wall.
That's what this picture is - the artist's rendition of who should be first up against the wall.
Maybe if we had things like... real trials, where war criminals, regardless of position, would be judged and sentenced for crimes against humanity- we wouldn't need such fantasy scenarios.
Maybe if people who lose elections don't become president... Oh you know the rest!
It's not a good picture anyway. There used to be a poster a few years back of Blair and Bush and a call for them to be brought to trial. But then if you brought them to trial, where would it end? Probably in a better place than we are now? It's time to retake politics.
Colin- I'd be a lot more willing to find out where it would all end, rather than "stay the course" without any accountability whatsoever. At least in Europe (and other nooks and crannies outside the US of A) there are still some people left with enough active brain cells to know when they're being screwed- and more importantly, why they're being screwed, and by whom.
Post a Comment