cbacon

Jesus, I can't believe they actually produced that video. I didn't even know they aired a segment with Hassan telling Davari that he would be a sacrifice. I can't imagine how they were planning to continue the angle or how Hassan would explain himself.

Up until 2 months ago, Broken Social Scene. Currently, Death Cab For Cutie, Coldplay, Metric and The Beatles. Hopefully i'll have those covered by Christmas.

I'm sure many people found those angles offensive. Being offended by something is subjective. Surely the necrophilia 'hit home' with a few fans watching. If we go by those standards, wrestling should be off the air all together. The Hassan thing carried media attention, sure, but i'm sure the media won't care several months from now, especially if they don't go overboard again. Like I said, it's an isolated incident that shouldn't dictate Hassans gimmick. That, and theres the fact the viewers have a thing called a remote control, and if they really are offeneded by it, all it takes is a click. No matter what the explanation would be, it would be half-assed, no doubt. But thats nothing new that we shouldn't expect from wrestling. Almost all angles carry illogical explanations for characters behaviour.

But it dosen't make sense to ban a character based on one bad angle/incident. Why not ban Torrie Wilson for the abortion of the Al Wilson angle? Then ban Triple H and Kane because of Katie Vick. The premise of Hassans gimmick isn't that he's a terrorist. If you isolate that one incident, theres no reason to worry. The best thing to do would to continue with the gimmick, downplay the terrorist angle as much as possible or come up with some logical explanation as to why Hassan went along with it.

No, i'm asking what ramifications there would be if Spike or UPN aired the character if they didn't go overboard with the whole terrorist aspect.

What bullshit. What possible ramifactions would there be if Spike TV or UPN for that matter, carried on with Hassan's character? Unless the WWE continued with the pseudo-terrorism aspect, there is no rational reason for this.

It was very subtle, and they could have easily hit him with chairs or something else instead. It's all about the context. While it wasn't totally explicit and obvious to everyone, it did seem like they were trying to draw certain parallels for the sake of the angle. Hassan praying and Davari being carried out like a martyr only exemplified this. It's subtle, so they can easily claim that it wasn't what they meant. That said, I still don't find the angle more offensive than it is stupid. It was highly illogical for Hassans character and I really don't know how they could have gone about explaining it. I agree with everything else you've said regarding the issue though.

I'll agree with you insomuch as that UPN should've never aired the segment in the first place. Over the past few years, many innocent people have been kidnapped by terrorists and murdered. Some of those murders were recorded and broadcast on the internet. This segment with Hassan and his faction is a reenactment of portions of those recordings. Vince McMahon is using real life murders to get a wrestling angle over. Anyone who doesn't find that offensive probably doesn't find ANYTHING offensive, and thus is not a reliable source for what should or should not be allowed by UPN to air on their own network. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can think of a lot more offensive things out there then some silly wrestling angle. I've never found anything in wrestling particularly offensive, but I would think that the Katie Vick and Al Wilson angles were far worse. The terrorist angle was tasteless and stupid, but you can only let yourself be offended by something as much as you let it, especially in the jingoistic world that is professional wrestling.

While it was an incredibly stupid move on the WWE's behalf to execute the angle, UPN are no better when it comes to censoring it. I highly doubt Vince will alter his perception of what makes for 'good tv' considering the only reason UPN is making such a fuss is because of post 9/11 sensitivity. If UPN were to censor the Al Wilson angle for example, they'd have a bit more credibility, even though I don't agree that it should have been. If UPN felt so strongly about the WWEs content, they should just cancel it all together.

They should hold off a Hardy/Edge match for at least a few more months. Have Snitksy and Kane (whom Hardy should still have heat with) act as roadblocks until then. Hardy could cost Edge his money and the bank shot (at Unforgiven perhaps) to further the angle.

....anything?

Me or doink?

Poor Alanis.

I'd try to complete the list of DVDs and CDs on my wishlist. That, and either do the north east US road trip or the overseas trip to the Caribbean or Europe. I'll be doing one of those at the end of August, sans the 4 grand and with an impending tuition debt :/ And if your feeling extra generous, donate a bit to a charity or two.

*nods* Them, and Hot Hot Heat supposedly put on a great live act. I'd also check out the Bloc Party. I imagine they'd put on an insanely fun set.

Matthew Good Band - Jenni's Song Matthew Good - Annabelle Arcade Fire - Neighbourhood #2 (Laika) (a girls name or Russian space dog?) Barenaked Ladies - Jane Hawksley Workman - Claire Fontaine

I'm going to say no, but I could very easily be swayed to the yes side. It all comes down to how much the US is making the situation worse and the level of security Iraq would have if they did leave. I think the insurgents are generally made up of two groups: 1. Foreign terrorists who have come to Iraq because this may be the best/easiest chance they ever get to attack American targets. 2. Iraqis who want the American occupation to end. That being said, any time a situation as lawless and chaotic as the one in Iraq occurs, there are going to be people/groups who attempt to use violence to further their personal ambitions or political ends. Right now there's no serious way to determine how many of that kind there are or what their behaviour would be after an American withdrawal, except that it's almost certain they would step up their attacks. After all, even if the Americans aren't really stopping the insurgency, they are at least to some degree keeping it in hiding and on the run. It seems pretty unlikely that an Iraqi military or police force could adequately deal with such an insurgency. If that's the case, an American withdrawal put many innocent lives in danger The other thing, and to me this is the real problem, is I'm quite worried about the possibility of genocide in Iraq. The situation closely mirrors those in places like Rwanda and Bosnia, and I've yet to see or hear anything to persuade me that the situation in Iraq is different enough that the same thing is unlikely to happen. However, this may be a moot point since it seems like soldiers are not doing anything to make things better - they're making things worse, and the longer they're there the bigger the insurgency will get. Maybe it would be best to pull them out, bring in the UN and pay massive reparations. Iraqi standard of life has dropped way down since the war started (and ended?) and it's not going to improve any time soon with the US there. Discuss.

Chew on this I’d be inclined to agree with you on that, if Fisk had actually said that. Perhaps something more precise will illustrate the point Fisk was trying to make : Would this also be another example of justifying the attacks? No, it doesn’t, they both imply different things. You can say “they’re paying the price” without implying that the price was justifiable. The context in which he is speaking refers to the consequences of US foreign policy. With that premise in mind, how else might he word that phrase to make it sound like he wasn’t justifying the attacks? Alright, but the concept of something being “paid back” does not necessarily make it just, nor does Fisk state that it is so. He’s saying if America dicks around and pisses off Arabs, then those Arabs are going to retaliate and kill a bunch of innocent civilians. These are consequences for our actions. They are not deserved, but they are consequences nonetheless. Your absolutely right. However, the point I was making was that this irrational extremism is what fuels their various incentives (the Palestine issue, the war, etc.). I’m not going to condone their radical religious dogma, but we (the West) are not helping the cause by waging war in the Middle East. If Muslims believe that US bases residing in their Holy Land are offensive, then we have to tolerate these beliefs. We obviously don't tolerate their reactions to such issues, but these are dangerous conditions that are important to keep in mind and address. Obviously we differ on the basis behind the reason many in the Arab world are so pissed off. According to you they have no reason to be angry since its their extreme fundamentalism that clouds their judgment, ignoring any social or political concerns. You should be aware that not all Islamists share the ideologies of the extremists, and many are pissed off about things like their children being killed by coalition bombs, and the fact that malnutrition has doubled since the war began, among other things. Is this something they shouldn't be concerned about? I wasn't arguing whether they are justified in feeling such ways (although in most cases I believe they are, but thats an entirely different argument). The main issue I was refuting was the notion made by posters like Doyle and Barron about how it doesn’t matter what the terrorists think we should just kill kill kill and that will sort everything out. You cannot stop terrorism this way, you only fuel the hatred. This of course, is exactly what individuals such as Osama bin Laden want. Since we both know exactly what these terrorists are saying, why is it that we often hear the same old 'they hate freedom' or 'they are jealous of our power' rhetoric? Why does the media never make note of these issues and debunk them as you did?

We are a target, but not a huge priority for terrorist organizations. What seperates us from the other countries is Iraq. It bought us some time, but we did send troops to Afghanistan and in the past we have acted in the interest to the detriment of people in the Middle East by follwing the US in such avenues as supporting corrupt and dictatorial regimes. Hopefully we've taken all the necessary measures to deter such attacks, or at least minimize them as much as possible. It is probable that an attack may occur sometime in the future, but its not something we should be losing sleep over, nor should we be entering any state of panic.

You could say the same thing about nearly all non-UN "security" missions or whatever you want to call them too. You may be right about the UN in this case, but I threw that option in as a possible alternative given the nature of the situation. The consequences are going to be bad with or without a pullout, it's just a matter of how much worse they will get. Overall, i'm pretty much in agreeance with you on the US withdrawl issue....for now.

I think this takes the cake as the most ignorant comment i've seen on these boards, and thats saying something.

Meh, you can continue to hamper on what I said then if it makes you feel better about your lack of ability to say anything relevant or build concise argument based on facts. Given the context, what I said back then was a bit colorful and I probably should have re-worded it (although i'm sure I clarified myself in that thread). What it comes down to is that my belief that the re-election of Bush may prove to cost the loss of more lives than that of September 11. I need not say anymore on the issue. Ad hominen rebuttals are great though, eh?

That could very well be the case. I'd imagine the fallout would be the same though.

I call them terrorists who wrongly target innocent civilians to acheive their own political means and they should be brought to justice as soon as possible. If there is nothing to hide at Guatanamo, then they'd allow international observers into their facilities. Simple as that.

The 'sub-human terrorist scum' rhetoric is something that'd be expected out of a five year olds mouth. How on earth can you expect to stop terrorism if you don't address the root causes of it? Hardline nationalistc ideology at its finest. Your hopeless. I could care less what some Demorcrat critic says. Until human rights organizations or the UN are allowed to visit (and why shouldn't they?) then i'll continue to remain skeptical.