This little terrorist is clearly threatening the photographer with a deadly weapon. Top secret analysis of the envelope in his hand reveal that it contains deadly Anthrax spores that could very well be carried by the wind to the United States, killing millions of people.

But there is no need to worry: Cluster bombs will momentarily rip him to shreds. If they don't get him, the depleted Uranium scrap metal in his playground will.

Thank you George Bush for protecting me from these terrorists; I sleep a lot better nowadays knowing that you are at the helm of the world.

Now, if you don't mind, would you please go take a flying fucking leap off of the nearest building?

Thank you,

Gullible Citizen # 1,000,000.

i have a question for pro-war people:

how are you "supporting" young working class US soldiers?

i really want to know. i mean besides just saying thanks and waving your flag around and insulting the peace crowd all that symbolic stuff....

you say "support" the troops. so what is it you do that helps the troops? is there any substance to the "support"?

You dont want us to support the troups, at least in as far as that would make the US defeat Iraq faster. So it is ridiculous for you to ask the question even in irony.

I suppose that your solution is to bring them all home now - but hardly any sane person would view that as "supporting the troups" least of all the troups themselves.

If you were a religious person i might say prayer but you might pray for the iraqi soldiers and that they hold out for a long time.more practically I suggest you be like bruce willis and buy them some girl scout biscuits.

That does not look like a photograph of a terrorist to me.

That's right. The article is supposed to be sarcastic. How can you possibly think that a little boy being torn to shreds is something that any human being could want?

scottie says: "You dont want us to support the troups, at least in as far as that would make the US defeat Iraq faster."

the troops are specific people. i support their health, safety, sanity, happiness, family life, education, satisfying employment, etc. etc. etc.

as far as the US defeating Iraq: i disagree with the our president's POLICY toward Iraq. it so happens that his policy is a threat to the health and happiness of the troops but that is not why i disagree with his policy.

scottie says: "I suppose that your solution is to bring them all home now - but hardly any sane person would view that as "supporting the troups" least of all the troups themselves."

this is part of my solution to the specific problem of the reckless endangerment of US troops that has already cost the lives of several service people. there are in fact at least millions of sane people who understand that war is detrimental to the health of soldiers.

other specific problems will require other specific solutions but the terrible situation of soldiers on the field of battle can be solved by returning them to their homes.

scottie says: "If you were a religious person i might say prayer but you might pray for the iraqi soldiers and that they hold out for a long time."

as you guessed i am not religious. i don't object to others praying for the safety and well-being of soldiers. but i think that as far as "SUPPORT" goes, prayer is really a much less substantial for of "support" than education, satisfying employment, housing, healthcare, etc...

scottie says: "more practically I suggest you be like bruce willis and buy them some girl scout biscuits."

again, soldiers on the field of battle are in a very grave situation, though not as grave as Iraqi civilians. girl scout biscuits may satisfy hunger for a short time and provide some sentimental amusement, but real people in real danger need more than care packages - they need to be removed from harm's way and given the opportunities and benefits that people need to have good fulfilling lives.

your position seems less and less serious.

are there any pro-war people who can make this "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" cliche more meaningful than a cruel joke?

Why did you ask a question of pro-war people here? Did something about the article that I wrote make you think that I was pro-war? I am most DEFINITELY against war. To me, it seemed obvious that the boy in the picture can not possibly pose a threat to anybody, let alone "millions of people." That is what makes the article sarcastic. Moreover, the article ends with a request made of George Bush to go take a flying fucking leap off a building. If nothing else, I think that gives it away that the article is SARCASTIC. Am I missing something here? What is there about the article that can possibly be pro-war?

I see no way anyone could possibly view that little boy as a threat except for perhaps the bush warmongers.

My problem with defending that cliche is that I dont happen to use it. Therefore probably am not the best man to go about defending it.

However my point before can be put like this...

if you had a terrorist who wanted to kill some jews and you prevented him from doing it by foiling his plans (surely somthing which is good for his health) not many people would see it as "supporting him".

As to other people.. did anyone shoot that boy?

If not then I guess they didnt consider him a threat.. you may as well have a picture of an american baby there.

What are you trying to say with the photo anyway?

To pissed off in Ohio: Thanks for that. I wrote what I wrote, then I realized, to my horror, that some people might actually consider that boy a threat. I can't tell you how much consternation that caused me, and how relieved I was to hear you reafirm something I had taken for granted.

To Scottie: O'srh, the person whose name seems to a random playing of the keyboard, has already admirably refuted the argument you have presented. The new point that you bring up that involves the "supporting" quote is contradictory: In your first e-mails, the "supporting" is of the soldiers; in your last one, the one being supported is a killer of jews. That doesn't make sense.

About the boy. Yes, I agree with you. It could just as well have been an American boy, except for the little fact that it is not Americans that are being bombed at the moment with thousands of bombs. The boy in the picture, I don't know what has happened to him. He certainly does not seem to be with his family, and maybe the fact that there happen to be oil wells around where he lives has something to do with it.

I wouldn't feel sorry for him though, he's got a fiesty look on his face. The people who really deserve pity are those who sit behind their television sets and enjoy the exciting spectacle of thousands of people being murdered. Or maybe pity isn't the word.

That is a PACK OF CIGARETTES! Gasp! The evil corporate elite in Big Tobacco are trying to hook innocent Iraqi children to nicotine! This is a smoking gun! Quick, we must tell our Fellow Comrades at Thetruth.com to make more anti-tobacco commercials featuring acne-covered stoned teenagers telling people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies!

If he refuted it then feel free to repeat his words or point me to where he did it. but of course your not really getting anywhere because since I dont use that argument its irrelevant. I fully expect you to oppose US troups and be proud of it. because you think you are fighting for a greater cause than their lives.

the second point - i am saying that doing somthign contrary to their wishes (or even their intention) uis not supporting them! If you want you can pretend that I mean that the soldiers are terrorists.. Im sure then you will understand it.

the fact that Iraq is being bombed doesnt make your post any mroe relevant. it would only be relevant if he actually had been hit or targeted. of which we can safely say he has not (you will probably dispute that but the statistics will say otherwise).

Our random keys friends argument is basically along the lines of "I know best therefore I will "support" the troups by trying to make them do somthing they dont want to do."

Just like I might choose to "support" him by putting him on ritilin.

really what he should argue is that he doesn't "support the troups" but that he believes there is a greater good involved (I think he is mistaken but this argument isnt entirely indefensible). He is just playing with words because he doesn't want to get into that argument where he feels he will be on the back foot.