Dumb show (UK's Guardian Cries Out for Bush Assassination)

The Guardian (UK) ^ | 10/23/04 | Charlie Brooker

[GeorgeBerryman]

From the article by Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker:

"On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

Excerpted

To: GeorgeBerryman

Co-Founder and Creative Director - Zeppotron

Charlie Brooker has worked as a writer, journalist, cartoonist, TV and radio presenter.

He created TV Go Home, a hugely successful comedy website that was turned into a book and a TV series.

His TV writing credits include the 11 O'Clock Show, Brasseye Special, TV Go Home, Unnovations, and The Art Show. He has a weekly TV column in the Guardian and is currently writing a new Channel 4 series with Chris Morris.

charlie.brooker@zeppotron.com

93 posted on 10/23/2004 2:42:15 PM EDT by kcvl

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[kcvl]

[Happy2BMe]

Great work, MeekO!

FoxNews reported this story this morning. It will get plenty of coverage - but not the kind the worm who wrote it expected.

[oh_coco]

I find it slightly puzzling that a nation founded through bloody revolution and so fond of forced regime change elsewhere in the world should find this idea so alien.

I'm not advocating the death of any individual, anywhere. However, as a method of political expression, it's fairly well established.

If any nation is prepared to participate in violent intervention in the affairs of another state, it must be prepared to accept the possibility that others may wish to visit the same upon them.

[Rocko]

Apparently the entire civilised world is also advocating assassinating the President of the United States.

Not the truly civilized parts.

[KwasiOwusu]

" find it slightly puzzling that a nation founded through bloody revolution and so fond of forced regime change elsewhere in the world should find this idea so alien. " That nation you are talking about of course is Britain. Britain is a country that has carried out more violent changes in more countries, more genocide, more rape, more pillage, more outright robbery, in every single continent on the planet, than any other country on earth. You guys should not even be opening your mouths at all when it comes to crimes committed against humanity. Britain is world champions at that.

[sauropod]

Mr. Brooker is playing with his feces in public.

He certainly didn't watch the same debates that I did. Of course, this arrogant prick thinks he and his countrymen have the right to tell us whom should be our leader.

We fought for independence once and won. We can do it again.

ES&D, Mr. Brooker. BLOAT. 'Pod

[oh_coco]

Well, no, I'm not ... for the simple reason that Britain has never had a revolution.

However, I am well aware of that country's history in these matters.

As such, if someone were to advocate the assasination of Tony Blair or the Queen, as head of state, they'd just have to take it on the chin and accept it as a consequence of their actions.

That's just my point. You can't expect to be afforded better standards than you allow others. I don't.

[tsmith130]

You can't expect to be afforded better standards than you allow others

If I'm understanding your reasoning correctly, you put the President of the United States in the same 'standards' category as Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler? President Bush should be 'taken out' for the same reasons they were?!

[KwasiOwusu]

"Apparently the entire civilised world is also advocating assassinating the President of the United States." If by "civilized world" you mean the psychopaths who carried out the child massacre outrage at Beslan, or the lunatics who run The Guardian news paper and their Al Quaeda pals, then yes you are right.In the real world of course that is utter rubbish.

[oh_coco]

No, not at all.

What I said was that if one nation state subscribes to policy of violent, unilateral intervention in the affairs of another because it does not agree with them, it must be prepared to accept the possibility that others may wish to make a similar intervention in their affairs for similar reasons.

Under no circumstances do I support or advocate these actions.

I simply point out that the two are inextricably linked.

[MeekOneGOP]

:^D

[sauropod]

He's a cupcake ;-)

[pickrell]

I'd have to admit, in the privacy of my own thoughts during the Clinton Administration, wondering "Doesn't ANYONE want to impress Jodie Foster again??"

But I didn't say anything aloud because to do so would be out of bounds. And wrong. We need to take these guys out in the arena of ideas.

Apparently the same bounds that limit conservatives don't apply though to the left. The best evidence is the apparent Krystallnacht that they have going against Republican campaign headquarters.

Once a thug...always a thug.

[tsmith130]

What I said was that if one nation state subscribes to policy of violent, unilateral intervention in the affairs of another because it does not agree with them, it must be prepared to accept the possibility that others may wish to make a similar intervention in their affairs for similar reasons.

Your talking points are showing. Define 'unilateral' for me...define 'does not agree with'.

Let us not forget that:

1) This was NOT unilateral, no matter how much you yell it.

2) The end of Gulf War I was a CEASEFIRE. At which time, Saddam Hussein, under several UN resolutions, (spanning 12 years) had to PROVE he destroyed him WMD. Instead he played a game of 'find 'em if you can' with the inspectors. (not that I give a rat's a$$ about the WMD anyway.) But THAT is what the world told him he had to do...did he do it?

Yet, you compare President Bush freeing 50 million people from sadistic, murdering rulers on an equal par with those rulers. Odd view if you ask me.

[KwasiOwusu]

"Well, no, I'm not ... for the simple reason that Britain has never had a revolution" Oh yes you did! What do you call Oliver Cromwell's seizing power from the monarchy and subsequently chopping off the head of the English King Charles I? That was a revolution if I ever saw one. "As such, if someone were to advocate the assassination of Tony Blair or the Queen, as head of state, they'd just have to take it on the chin and accept it as a consequence of their actions. " I just gotta laugh at how funny this statement of yours is. You see, I lived in Britain for quite a while. I happened to be there when the Irish Republican Army bombed a few pubs (bars) in Birmingham. I also happened to see the subsequent BAYING and SCREAMING for blood by the English people and the English media lead by drums roll.. The Guardian!! The result? Innocent Irishmen were shanghaied into prison on trumped up evidence to satisfy the lust for blood and revenge of the English public. It took SEVENTEEN years in jail before the British government released these guys on the grounds that confessions were beaten out of them and their convictions were rubbish! You know how many people died in these pub bombings? 21 dead. Just imagine what the British reaction would have been like if they had 3000 dead like we had on 9/11! The British have had a "Prevention of Terrorism Act" in place long long before 9/11 and long before we even thought of the Patriot Act. This has allowed the British government to put any Irishman they suspect of even thinking about terrorist acts in prison with habeas corpus. If you think the British will calmly take a call for the assassination of their queen or prime minister lying down, then you got another think coming!

[sauropod]

I've been to your country a few times and am glad most of your countrymen are not like you.

At least here, we can defend ourselves with firearms, no thanks to poofs like you.

[oh_coco]

Jeez

Once again, I did not compare the two individuals or their actions, just pointed out that the philosophy of violent intervention in foreign affairs is a two-way street.

If I'd realised you would all find it so difficult to understand even the slightest possibility that someone might hold a slightly different view, I would have hired someone from Fox to shout my original point over and over again just to make sure you swallowed it anyway.

[KwasiOwusu]

"What I said was that if one nation state subscribes to policy of violent, unilateral intervention in the affairs of another because it does not agree with them, it must be prepared to accept the possibility that others may wish to make a similar intervention in their affairs for similar reasons. "

You are getting more desperate by the minute, dude.

#1, There was no unilateral action by anybody, no matter how loud you scream it. This was a MULTILATERAL action involving at least FORTY NINE countries. Count it again FORTY NINE countries. FORTY NINE countries does not equal unilateral. Get it?


#2, we have UN resolutions that promised full consequences if Iraq did not stop Noncompliance of UN resolutions. They continued to not to comply.
They faced the "full consequences"
# 3, America just happens to be the most powerful country on the planet. If you and your pals in the psychotic Euro-crazy community think that you want to assassinate our president, because he won't kiss your flabby weasel butts, then bring it on, and see what happens to you.
Europeans doesn't have a very good record on wars with America. We have given you guys a clobbering every time!

[Ostlandr]

Okay- behind the curve on this one (computer problems.) thanks for the post!

Just want to echo that this is one leftie columnist and not the entire populace of Britain.

The whole 400+ posts brought to mind a chat I had with a British subject on gun control a few years ago. He said:
"Hold on to your freedom. It's too late for us- we've already been disarmed." He went on to tell me about how, during WWII, American citizens had donated a shipload of weapons and ammunition to help a disarmed British population defend itself from the impending Nazi invasion. The weapons were kept locked up in warehouses under guard, and when the expected invasion didn't occur, were melted down for scrap.
Anyway, there are conservatives like us in Britain- albeit disarmed and subject to a currently socialist government.
They deserve our friendship and support.
Or, Plan B- we invade, impose regime change, install Lady Thatcher as interim PM, and free the oppressed indigenous peoples of Scotland, Ulster, Wales, Cornwall, and Man. If Bush calls, the Clans will rise.
"At the risin' o' the moon,
at the risin' o' the moon,
we'll join the Clans together
at the risin' o' the moon."

[GarySpFc]

I'm amazed that we are uncivilized if we elect Bush. England long ago rejected God, embraced Spiritualism, and it is obvious which country has gone downhill. Charles Brooker is a reflection of their belief system and is one depraved monster.

[MeekOneGOP]

I was kind of impressed. From the time stamp on my outgoing note to the time stamp of the reply from the FBI, only 12 minutes lapsed between. And it was not an automated reply either, so the note said.