Cartoonist Ted Rall Compares American Troops to Suicide Bombers...

Ted Rall has created one of the most despicable, offensive, loathsome and disrespectful cartoons of all time....

From Ted Rall Online...

W Zip

Bookmark Weasel Zippers click HERE, then press CTRL+D

Via:NewsBusters

Comments

[the Boodge]

Get a rope!

[Nick Nolan]

Actually, this cartoon gets all facts right. Suicide bombers and US soldiers come generally from similar backgrounds, and both get the reasons for war wrong. Of course we fight for oil, that is something real to die for, they fight for wrong religion.

[Giles Goat Boy]

Ted Rall's pure amateur. Here's how you disrespect the troops. Skimp big time on the number you send into war. Don't bother to give them effective strategy and tactics. Send them inadequate equipment to cut costs. Lie about all this. And hide the bodies when they come home.

[Urban Infidel]

This sicko doesn't have the guts to say that to a soldier's face.

[Joe Bloggs]

Easy effendi,
I thought cartoonist-rage was for Dainish muslims.

For thinking folk, it makes more sense to be angry with the corrupt leader who sent our troops to die based on a pack of lies. Not some political cartoonist.

[hey]

im sorry, how is this offensive? loosen up

[Robin Crenshaw]

I have to agree with the first poster, sort of. Maybe they are cut from the same cloth, but we Republicans need to be brave enough to say the truth: our boys are dying for something worthwhile and theirs are dying for a worthless religion (I don't know if our boys are dying for oil, we call it the Freedom Agenda after all, not the oil agenda).

[Corwin]

Hmmm. What a sad human being. Rall got some things wrong:

male - True Both are males ususally, but not always.

willingness to die for a cause - Hmm, if there is someone who DOESN'T feel strongly enough about SOMTHING to die for it, that is just pathetic. That is called LOVE, so...Rall doesn't love anyone/thing. Ok, sad for him.

religious fevor - He seems to want to equate all faith to fevor, again, sad. OK, since he is a anti-religious bigot, we can end this point here.

poor education - Most enslisted people with more than 6 years in have a BA/BS, all officers have to have a BA/BS, most have Masters. It seems that Rall doesn't even want to admit that most people in the military are better educated than him. Which is fairly obvious.

blind obedience - Just because someone thinks that you are wrong about hating someone (hating Bush that is) doesn't mean that. Rall thinks anyone who supports Bush is blind, well, that is just silly and rude.

poverty - most terrorists are from middle class to wealthy. And for our side, why is it bad for the "poor" to try to get ahead?

belief in life after death - see above. Rall is a hate filled person who doesn't like any religion.

immaturity - I thnk just reading the above proves, that Rall is the immature one.

[dante50]

Wake up, America. Our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters are being slaughtered in Iraq for NO GOOD REASON!

Ted Rall is correct. And we should all be enraged at the Bush/Cheney malAdministration for the treasonous lies purpotrated on the public that enabled them to send 3,600 of our best into the Iraq meat grinder.

[3]

I'd love to see some reasons why he might be wrong.

[Bruce]

Here is a complete idiot standing on the freedoms that previous generations of service men and women paid for with their blood and sacrifice. You have got to love the cowards who rail against the U.S.

[Anthony D'Onofrio]

Are you kidding? Offensive? How? This is completely, objectively true. They're both human beings fighting for something they believe in (however wrong or confused). Unless you're suggesting that somehow these people's beliefs are inferior to those of the US soldiers, or that they are somehow not valid as human beings in the way Americans are. Which would, of course, be wholly and totally racist, not to mention discriminatory on so many other levels.

All human beings are human beings. Period. All opinions and beliefs are equally valid, however irrational. I think you're an asshole, you think I'm an asshole, objectively correct? Maybe not, but equally valid.

[grayFalcon]

Well, you're right, it's quite offensive. Suicide bombers haven't come close to US troops in the number of innocent people killed. And they tend not to rape girls and kill them and their families to keep it hidden. If I was a suicide bomber, I'd be really offended at this comparison.

Oh, and to the guy who said they die for a worthless religion - as an agnostic, I tend to agree. They're all pretty much worthless.

[Corwin]

Validity is not universal.

One side (The US) is trying to defend itself and Western Civilization from groups of people who have stated very clearly that they want to distroy our civilization and rule the world under their religion.

The moral equivelency stated by Anthony is the true problem with debate in this contry now.

The US is NOT the same as Al Quida, it is better. The US does NOT target kill women & children, AQ does. The only way you can make the above statement is if you REALLY think that we are no better than they. If that is case, you really need to look at what they say they want to do, because they will use you then kill you, without any second thought.

A solder does NOT try to kill as many people as possible, a solder tries to distroy the will to fight in the enemy solder.

The enemy wants to kill as many people as possible so they can rule the rest from a point of fear.

[v]

There are some funny posts here, such as:
"our boys are dying for something worthwhile and theirs are dying for a worthless religion"

You're right, as someone said, every religion is worthless and even scary when people start killing over it. What "our boys" are dying for that's worthwhile, though, I am not sure. Revenge against Saddam Hussein or 9/11 in some crazy roundabout way? Showing that we try to solve problems like terrorism and instability not through diplomacy and calculated maneuvers but through blunt force? I am not sure if that comment was just rhetoric from some bumper sticker or if you actually meant something.

"Here is a complete idiot standing on the freedoms that previous generations of service men and women paid for with their blood and sacrifice. You have got to love the cowards who rail against the U.S."

Either this is a joke or a good example of someone who should be sat down and told, "Hey, you do have to think every once in a while." Look, I understand this is common rhetoric, but you have to understand it's meant to be symbolic, to drum up pro-war feelings. Obviously when it's phrased that way it sounds bold and inspiring. But it's obviously wrong; you're not supposed to actually BELIEVE it.

You can't STAND on freedoms, in fact, what he's doing is EXERCISING they very freedoms you think soldiers defend. This is a controversial cartoon and so he's obviously not a coward, either. Maybe you misunderstood what you said or copy/pasted from somewhere, so I suggest reading it next time before you post.

[575]

This Cartoon is brutally truthful. It's a wake up call, I can see why people are offended, it's simply because it's all true. So, be offended if you must, but then when you come down from being angry at the truth teller Rall, come to your senses and stop drinking the goddam koolaid. Your belligerent nationalism is not patriotism.

[v]

To the above poster: In fact, fervent nationalism and jingoism is very anti-patriotic, if patriotism still means what it did to our founding fathers.

[confused]

Same? hardly. American soldiers aren't walking into crowded markets and blowing themselves up to undermine a new democracy. They *are* raiding homes to find these bombers to support the democracy that we are imposing. Yes innocents are hurt in both cases, but they are not morally the same.

Most people that chime in about how American soldiers and religious fanatics are the same, have not met either. I have, and while I generally choose to avoid the company of both, I'd choose a soldier any day over a religious nut.

I am somewhat confused how people equate the two, its a very lazy argument. If you want to sound intelligent, limit your criticism to the policies, not the honorable people that we send there to support them. Remember, you might find yourself supporting the next war and imagine how silly you'll feel when you suddenly start blindly supporting the soldiers to make your point.

[Corwin]

"Your belligerent nationalism is not patriotism."

And your belligerent ANTI-nationalism is not either.

Saying that our troops are not the same as the terrorists is NOT nationalism, it is the definition of patriotism.

I am not attacking your patriotism, btw. You don't have any to start with.

[John]

That cartoon is 100% correct!

[zeno]

Spot on. Of course they are the same thing- that's why they fight all the time.`

[Mazzer Rackham]

This couldn't be more correct. Wake the fuck up.

[Fight4TheRight]

dante50 and Mazzer,

Hate to break it to you but you don't get free cheerios to suck on here or even a free sippy cup for your juice like you get over at Kos.

Now, why don't you head back there and try and unravel the latest new revelation about Hillary's sex change operation last year outside of Brussels. (and you thought she was out in Cali with Chelsea!).

As for Ted Rall...when your popularity and income levels have plummeted, you will try just about anything to put some food on the table. Nice try Ted but we see through it.

[Hank]

Brilliant and True.

[bc]

Ted forgot the "We're the good guys" panel!