« If I Had A Million Dollars... | Main | I hate it when the PC crowd is right... »

UNICEF Carpet Bombs Smurf Village


Of course it's "for the children" so that makes it "OK." The Register reports that Belgian viewers, already shocked, can be thankful the ad agency didn't get its way. They wanted to make a an R-rated gorefest complete with severed limbs and decapitated bodies.

(UK Telegraph coverage/Video)


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UNICEF Carpet Bombs Smurf Village:

» Caerdroia linked with Unicef War Crimes

» The Jawa Report linked with Neocon Agenda: Bomb. Smurfs. Now!

» The Zero Point linked with A collection of the inane

» Caerdroia linked with Unicef War Crimes

» Truth. Quante-fied. linked with UNICEF Offends the World

» Donkey Stomp linked with Parents Beware: Unicef Bombs the Smurfs

» Slublog linked with La, La, La La La...BOOM!

» Tel-Chai Nation linked with UNICEF does Gargamel's dirty work for him

» VinceLocher.com : Don't you have something better to do? linked with Bush Bombs Smurfs

Comments (50)

Air raids and aerial bombin... (Below threshold)

Air raids and aerial bombings of innocent Smurfian civilians, straight from UNICEF, those nice people who brought you donor-funded feministic social-engineering programs...

Not that this film would have any political commentary or angle.

No way.


So which countries have air forces capable of wreaking such [blue] bloody havoc?

USSR? no, what's left of theirs is too busy carpet-bombing Chechnya.

NATO (EU countries)? No, theirs is governed by committee, which means it hardly ever gets in the air, much less supports or conducts REAL combat ops against anyone.

China? Nope, still training its pilots how to avoid running into lumbering USN EP-3's.

Japan? No, it's constitution prevents use of its military in combat ops, other than support roles. No aerial bombing ops by them, post-WWII.

New Zealand? Nope, sold its vintage Skyhawks back to the US, because the island republic of NZ doesn't believe anyone would care to invade such a small, insignificant, remotely-located country, and if they did, well, the Labour party likely has a counseling program for the invaders, along with weekly WINZ (welfare) checks.

Islamic states (Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.)? Nope. For those countries whose air forces possess modern combat-ready equipment (Saudi Arabia & Egypt), you never hear of them doing anything other than conducting the odd training exercise. As for the rest of Islamic countries, they haven't yet figured out how to get individual suicide bombers airborne (but the Palis will succeed eventually, when suicide bombers jump from buildings and detonate themselves on impact).

Who does that leave...? Can't place it.

Oh, that's right!

Air Forces that possess operationally ready combat aircraft, trained pilots, and who have a will to fight when it protects their national interests:




There! NOW I get it!!!

Must be the jooooooooooooooooooos. I just knew it was a conspiracy!

Thanks, UNICEF!

p.s.: a question: if the fleeing Smurfs forget to grab their animals when they evacuate, will PETA lobby to have them put into jail?

I'd pay good money to see t... (Below threshold)

I'd pay good money to see the little blue bastards get theirs! Hope they lay on the napalm extra thick...

Already, Cindy Smurfhan is ... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

Already, Cindy Smurfhan is arranging a demonstration and press conference which is to include the Rev. Al Smurfton to make sure that everyone places blame where blame is due: George BushGargymel!

I'll be selling bootleg "Nu... (Below threshold)

I'll be selling bootleg "Nuke A Smurf" t-shirts in the back alley starting in 15 minutes....$5 a pop...

Yes, war is a terrible thin... (Below threshold)

Yes, war is a terrible thing, but perhaps the people of Europe should be reminded that some things are worse.

How about another small film, this one with Nazi smurfs of Communist smurfs taking over. Then we could have a cultural revolution with thousands of smurfs being murdered, tortured, or sent to slave labor camps where they are worked to death. Then we could have those helpless smurfs that are still alive crying to the UN, and the UN could issuage another resolution against the violence and injustice. Then the oppressed smurfs could cry to NATO, and NATO could respond with, "We can't do anything without the United States." Then the down-trodden smurfs could appeal to the United States, and we can say, "What a monsterous idea. Don't you know how terrible war is? Here, watch this film about how war is bad. It has the smurf village being bombed."

Yeah, I remember the pilot ... (Below threshold)

Yeah, I remember the pilot episode of The Smurfs when Papa Smurf used to take hours to arrange his hat in the shape of Israel... thankfully, they cut out that bit as well as let his beard grow out.

Wanderlust, nice little ana... (Below threshold)

Wanderlust, nice little analysis. I think that's one way of looking at it, but a bit of a stretch. IMO, the 'message' it's trying to put out is this: War Is Not Good.

Which is fine, and something I agree with (but sometimes it's necessary. John Stuart Mill can explain it better than I.) . Thing is, the Euro-rugrats get indoctrinated with this all the time, to the point where they won't fight anyone to save their own lives. The folks who need to see this shit are the Palestinians!

And gargemels castle lays i... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

And gargemels castle lays in ruins bombed into rubble and gargemel and asrel are in the basement and big mouth is stranded somewhere out there hiding

"Philippe Henon, a s... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"Philippe Henon, a spokesman for Unicef Belgium, said his agency had set out to shock, after concluding that traditional images of suffering in Third World war zones had lost their power to move television viewers."

But seeing the destruction of a fucking cartoon has set off a controversy.

You just can't make this shit up.

It's about time Gargamel be... (Below threshold)

It's about time Gargamel beat those little blue turds.

I'm no expert, but those ki... (Below threshold)

I'm no expert, but those kids at the beginning of the video could possibly have stepped on land mines, which happens in many places that aren't 'at war', and I would go as far to say that had their village really been carpet bombed, they wouldn't be around.


Wanderlust- you forgot the ... (Below threshold)

Wanderlust- you forgot the most likely candidate:
Aren't they the ones who used their air force last on unarmed Africans, and use puppies as bait?

Soon, a Smurf cartoon will ... (Below threshold)

Soon, a Smurf cartoon will be released showing the horrors of being in a pizzaria, shopping mall, or nightclub when some terrorist clown decides to sneak in and blow himself up, causing all sorts of misery and iestruction, in the name of Allah. Let's all sit down and wait for this forthcoming cartoon, shall we?



I suspect Gargam'al Qaeda</... (Below threshold)

I suspect Gargam'al Qaeda

Let's have a little fun <a ... (Below threshold)

Let's have a little fun at the expense of the IAEA, Mr. Smithers...


"Don't let war affect th... (Below threshold)

"Don't let war affect the lives of children."

Can anyone think of a stupider, more naive slogan?

BTW: Anyone have nude pics... (Below threshold)

BTW: Anyone have nude pics of Mama Smurf?

I recall you could never te... (Below threshold)

I recall you could never tell which ones were female Smurfs.

Not to worry. Finding the female Smurfs is the UN's job, during the "relief" operation.

"In the original final scene, cut from the film short by personal request from Kofi Annan on the basis that it was too factual - er, frightening for children, UN workers are bribing baby Smurfs with eggs and dollars for sex."

That is, after the hapless, unarmed Smurfs were shot up by Fwench troops providing "security" for the UN workers...

p.s.: moseby, nudes of mama Smurf??? that's sick. Just...sick.

psst: How many eggs does mama Smurf cost?

Smurfs are totally gay anyh... (Below threshold)

Smurfs are totally gay anyhow. Why not a cartoon using such badasses like Cobra Commander or Megatron or Skeletor? I'd also say Mum-Ra but that may be too close to Islamic sounding for our U.N. friends.

Can't believe Smurfs was the best they could do. What, the snorks are carebears were taken?

What little respect I had (... (Below threshold)

What little respect I had (and by little, I mean very little) for the majority of people who comment here at Wizbang, that respect has been shot down in flames by the lunatic ravings you have written on this subject.

Not a single person - not even one - showed that they had managed to read the Telegraph's headline. I'm amazed that any of you are capable of turning on your computers. How did you manage to find you way to this site if you can't even read - and understand - a headline.

Here it is: "Unicef bombs the Smurfs in fund-raising campaign for ex-child soldiers".

Can you read that? Do any of you understand that? Here's another article on the smurf ad from USA Today

Let's see if any of the morons who shout first and ask questions later can understand that one. Have any of you ever heard of child soldiers? Do any of you have the slightest idea where this problem is prevalent? Do any of you care?

UNICEF's Belgian office said the campaign was intended "to shock a complacent public into backing its fundraising efforts for ex-child soldiers in Africa."

Did any of the mentally-challenged among you pick up on the last few words - "ex-child soldiers in Africa"?

The campaign is to "raise money for UNICEF projects in Burundi, Congo and Sudan". Do any of you give a @#[email protected] about that?

Obviously not because Wanderlust summed up the collective intelligence and caring of the Wizbang community:

"Must be the jooooooooooooooooooos."

If - and this a very big if - there is just one person here who cares about the children who are forced by adults to kill and rape, you can find information here

This is inappropriate on so... (Below threshold)

This is inappropriate on so many levels. Your tax dollars at work. I hope our legislators remember this one next time the United Nations comes to them for funding. How did things ever get so messed up?

Wanderlust is a crackpot wh... (Below threshold)

Wanderlust is a crackpot who can't read and sees conspiracy in everything. Hey wait, isn't that the definition of a moonbat?

cat:Yeah, it is fo... (Below threshold)


Yeah, it is for former child soldiers. Did you actually bother to read what people said in the comments? The little cartoon is totally inappropriate for the cause it was made for, and smacks of a secondary message. What does bombing the smurfs en masse, killing —presumably— men, women, and children have to do with aiding children who were soldiers?

We could all go out and make a film starring the Fraggle Rock gang getting lined up against a wall and executed, then claim we are raising awareness —and money, always money— for the child victims of kidnappings in Mexico; that would not make the message of choice appropriate for the cause.

Noble cause, sure? Appropriate way to draw attention to said cause? Hell no. Who can honestly say the first thing they thought was, "Wow, those poor Burundi former child soldiers. The message is so clear," when they saw the smurfs get wasted and the message, "Don't let war affect children" flash across the screen?

Maybe if it actually showed Baby Smurf as a child soldier and then having to cope with that it would be another matter, but that was not what we got, was it?

Yes, Inquiring, I did read ... (Below threshold)

Yes, Inquiring, I did read the comments. Did you? Given the subject matter, those comments were disgusting. If you don't think so, go back and read them. Just for the record, you are the first person other than me to even mention child soldiers - and that was only because you were responding to me. So I think you just proved my point.

None of you slimeballs give a damn about anything or anyone except yourselves. But why care? It's much more fun to make snide comments like:

"I'd pay good money to see the little blue bastards get theirs!"

"I'll be selling bootleg "Nuke A Smurf" t-shirts in the back alley starting in 15 minutes....$5 a pop..."

"Then the oppressed smurfs could cry to NATO"

"Yeah, I remember the pilot episode of The Smurfs when Papa Smurf used to take hours to arrange his hat in the shape of Israel"


The campaign is to "rais... (Below threshold)

The campaign is to "raise money for UNICEF projects in Burundi, Congo and Sudan". Do any of you give a @#[email protected] about that?

I guess since you're all so fired up about this, the question is what the carpet bombing of Smurf village has to do with child soldiers in Congo? I didn't see any little smurflings toting AKs or crowds of smurfs getting massacred by smurfs from a rival tribe.

Can you point out any of that? It may be relevent...

If - and this a very big... (Below threshold)

If - and this a very big if - there is just one person here who cares about the children who are forced by adults to kill and rape, you can find information here

I guess I care as much as the UN cares about the genocide in Darfur

Shark, the point is that we... (Below threshold)

Shark, the point is that we are talking about it - before the ad (made for a Belgian audience) we weren't. So it worked...well, no it didn't work because instead of talking about child soldiers, the only thing people like you can do is criticize because of your kneejerk reactions to the letters UN. But...if you really mean what you say, you can still put your money where your lying mouth is...here

Shark, the point is that... (Below threshold)

Shark, the point is that we are talking about it - before the ad (made for a Belgian audience) we weren't. So it worked...well, no it didn't work because instead of talking about child soldiers, the only thing people like you can do is criticize because of your kneejerk reactions to the letters UN. But...if you really mean what you say, you can still put your money where your lying mouth is...

Can you tell me where I "lied"? Why exactly do I have a lying mouth?

cat:I mentioned th... (Below threshold)


I mentioned the child soldiers not only in response to you, but also to point out the message of the smurf snuffing was in no way appropriate or related to the supposed cause of helping these former child soldiers.

Face it, if that article did not specifically point out that UNICEF is trying to raise awareness about child soldiers with that cartoon would you have honestly thought that was the cartoon's message? Did that cartoon (did you even bother to watch it? I did) give any indication that it was about child soldiers?

That is how I read the other comments in this thread. They are not making fun of the issue of child soldiers, they are mocking the —very— arguably propaganda-like nature of the cartoon. The very absence of mentioning child soldiers while heavily criticizing the merits of said cartoon displays this handily.

No mention of child soldiers while the smurfs die, no mention after the smurfs are killed, the only mention is a seperate press release, and this is supposed to help raise awareness of the issue?

Oh, but this is a campaign to help the children, so naturally anyone who does not instantly genuflect in humility and praise this cartoon —despite its lack of merit or appropriateness— is a slimeball in your eyes.

As we all should have learned by now, if it something is claimed to be for the children it must instantly be accepted without question, no matter what the content.

Cat-I'm glad you h... (Below threshold)


I'm glad you have a pet cause in this, I really am. However, since you've been such a graceless, humorless self-righteous twit here, let me assure you that no matter how worthy, I will never donate to or support that cause.

My supply of money, time and compassion is finite. Why would I ever want to throw in with someone like you on any cause?

Cat:You kno... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


You know if you took that itchy old hair shirt off once in awhile you might not be in such a pissy mood all the time.

Does this:

"Philippe Henon, a spokesman for Unicef Belgium, said his agency had set out to shock, after concluding that traditional images of suffering in Third World war zones had lost their power to move television viewers."

not bother you at all?

hint: shocking people repeatedly just makes them numb- stop trying to shock, try educating, and you might have better results.

Inquiring, I am not saying ... (Below threshold)

Inquiring, I am not saying that anything shoud be "accepted without question". But, I repeat - until I reacted to the obscene comments here at Wizbang, not a single person had mentioned child soldiers. If people think the ad could have been made in a different way to properly reflect the tragic violence...fine, say so. But no one did.

Now, let me say again, s-l-o-w-l-y...an ad made for an audience in a foreign country thousands of miles away in a foreign language has generated discussion in the US. It wasn't intended to spark articles in the Daily Telegraph and USA Today, but it did. The target audience was Belgians - and they are talking about it. They are arguing whether or not the ad is appropriate...and they're discussing the problem of child soldiers. They weren't doing that before. So, the ad worked.

If they bomb the smurfs wil... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

If they bomb the smurfs will they do it to the whos there in whosville? and they going to bomb THE GRINCH? or HORTON THE ELEPHANT or THE CAT IN THE HAT? on my gosh SAM I AM is in trouble and theirs UN troops marching up MULBERRY STREET

With a minimum of effort, y... (Below threshold)

With a minimum of effort, you can find the link to the actual commercial, of which the smurf toon is only a small part.


which I found at this site:


It's hard to interpret the entire commercial unless you understand Belgian and European culture. They were allegedly going for the shock value to get folks to ante up Euros. None the less, the air raid theme and the only folks with big Air Forces are indeed well noted above. Another part of Belgian culture.

Remember when we used to collect pennies for UNICEF on Halloween?

BOO!... (Below threshold)


BMoe and Shark, sorry that ... (Below threshold)

BMoe and Shark, sorry that I haven't got much humor to offer about children being forced to kill. Just think about that for a moment. As for throwing your cause in with me, what have I got to do with it? I'm arguing the issue, but the issue isn't me. Saying you don't want to care about something because you don't like me...what does that say about you? If I say pedophilia is wrong, will you say that it's right just to spite me? What kind of sick argument is that?

If you choke a Smurf, what ... (Below threshold)

If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn?

When you say, cat, that the... (Below threshold)

When you say, cat, that the ad worked and that the cause is way more important than anything else, you're saying that the end justifies the means? Lying, libel, defamation of character... all of that is justified by the desired goal?

I don't agree.

I doubt very much that anyone here would defend the use of children as combatants in Africa. Children suffer terribly in war and in all the pseudo-war varieties of uncivil strife.

I was going to say that the use of children as combatants was without excuse and then I imagined myself in a sod hut on the prairie surrounded by wolves, or bandits, or an Indian war party, and I think I'd hand guns to my kids. I would. And I would be proud of them if they shot the bad guys.

What these child soldiers need is a peaceful and prosperous world to live in, where people aren't shooting at them.

What kind of sick argume... (Below threshold)

What kind of sick argument is that?

It's the argument that says there are too many causes demanding time and attention from me, all worthy so I have to decide which ones I will support. And since you're such a pill, I can cross this particular cause off my list of considerations.

Flies, honey, vinegar and all that. You'd do well to remember that next time you want to pimp a cause.

PS- The ad isn't a success because we're "talking about it" - look at the quality of the discussion. I guess if your definition of success is having the message totally blurred by the way in which it was sent, or by alienating potential supporters with your annoying postings, then yeah, boo rah for you.

I doubt very much that a... (Below threshold)

I doubt very much that anyone here would defend the use of children as combatants in Africa. Children suffer terribly in war and in all the pseudo-war varieties of uncivil strife.

Indeed, I await UN cartoons aimed at preventing Jihadis from using children and mentally disabled as suicide bombers. I also await seeing the cartoon where the Muppett Babies are blown up in a Tel Aviv pizzeria...

Synova, no - the end does n... (Below threshold)

Synova, no - the end does not justify the means. Anyone who has studied Nazism knows where that road leads. But follow the link that epador provided - if you can't understand it, learn Flemish. There is no end justifying any means here. And while I agree with the picture you paint of a family defending itself against an "Indian war party," why not exercise your imagination a little more and think about the "Indian" families who were massacred?

Shark...!!! Have you still ... (Below threshold)

Shark...!!! Have you still not got the message that the ad was made in Belgium for Belgians? OK, I'm sorry I didn't use honey instead of vinegar. Well, I would be sorry, but I can still remember the comments here that I was reacting to. Poor Shark. Don't worry...I'm not trying to force you to give any money.

I really haven't expressed myself properly, have I? I'll try again.

I think we all agree that it is wrong to have sex with a child. If it's wrong to do that, we should all agree that it's wrong to force that child to commit multiple murders.

Now, an ad agency in Belgium chooses a particular set of images to raise awareness about that issue. Not everyone will agree that they chose the right images - in that case, say so. But no one here did that until I entered this discussion. The only acknowledgement I have seen that anyone cares about children being forced to kill has been in response to my criticisms.

You don't have to give money to every cause - no one does that. But just show a little respect for humanity, please!

So is the UN, with using th... (Below threshold)

So is the UN, with using the very blue smurfs, wishing for their own demise or is this just a slap at American culture?

[email protected] cat<... (Below threshold)


@ cat

1. When was your sense of humor removed, and when are they going to transplant a new one?

2. You really think this advertisement is going to *remain* in Belgium? That they won't simply translate it to other languages and spam it all over the world?

3. It's an absurd vignette that has neither grace or value. What's worse is that it has sucked all the oxygen from the discussion and has left nothing for the actual *purpose*, which were the child soldiers.

Instead of discussing them and their plight, we're discussing this stupid cartoon. And I seriously doubt that anybody else on planet Earth is doing anything different. Everyone discussing this cartoon is very likely not discussing the plight of the child soldiers.

As such this vignette is a complete failure. And I'll point out that this entire discussion is a prime example of what kind of failure that vignette is as we are all discussing the vignette and little else.

4. Because it's such an absurd vignette it is being criticised here. Awareness can be achieved in many other ways, in ways that would induce people to contribute. But the two most popular ways for video producers is to either shock or shame. And generally it's because they are the easiest of emotions to generate.

Shocking people is easy. Shaming them is even easier. Developing a story or advertisement that can actually generate genuine sympathy is a real bastard to do.

5. Frankly I don't know how they do things in Belgium. But here in the US, assuming you don't live here of course, people will donate money for practically anything reasonably charitable. You don't even need such a silly cartoon.


Frankly this isn't a new issue. The problem of how to rehabilitate these child soldiers has been around for a few years, and it's a serious problem. These kids have been extremely traumatised not only for the terrible acts that they committed, but for the terrible things done to them along with the forced drug addictions. And yet during all this time many charitable organizations have been able to mobilise volunteers and funding without having to resort to some ridiculous piece of tripe. Which frankly appears to me to be more of a career self-promotion gimmick for the producers rather than anything really dedicated to an actual cause.

It is rather a leap from a ... (Below threshold)

It is rather a leap from a cartoon Guernica to the topic of child soldiers. It would have been more effective if the cartoon had been closer in subject matter to the topic being discussed.

cat, really. Whomever talke... (Below threshold)

cat, really. Whomever talked you into having that humorectomy should be sued for malpractice.

mantis boy, how does one post to you, weeks ago, equal "...sees a conspiracy in everything"? Ditto to you on that malpractice suit advice.

So if I read cat's argument correctly, it was OK for UNICEF to make this little short film because it was presented solely to a Belgian audience, people talked about it, and in so doing, raised awareness about children being used as soldiers (something NOT presented in the film at all), and made people want to donate to UNICEF.


Did you think Belgians don't talk to anyone outside of their country? Or that somehow, no one else would see this film? Is the only way to get Belgians to "talk" about the child soldier issue to scare the bejeezus out of their kids? And why Belgium? How many child soldiers fight in that country?

The UNICEF of the 1950's, and nickles to prevent children suffering from hunger and abject poverty, is not the UNICEF of 2005. Like many NGO's, they long ago crossed into social engineering programmes, and have become dependent upon maintaining political influence - and budgetary visibility - from the UN.

So no, cat, no one here was trying to "dis" your pet issue. I have children, and I would certainly not want children to bear arms or otherwise participate in combat ops. That being said, most of us here were examining the message of the film itself, UNICEF's use of that film, and its larger political ramifications.

mantis boy, I don't see a "conspiracy" here. I see the mundane vulgarity of one more bloated and ineffective UN agency sucking money out of people on the back of bashing official US foreign policy, in that the film showed an aerial bombing to make its point. As I attempted to illustrate above in a humorous setting, there are precious few air forces who the casual viewer could infer as having been the one dropping the bombs. And yes, even though you may think I'm looking into things and finding a self-revealing "conspiracy", all I am doing is standing back for a moment and thinking about what the film is implying.

How many children do you know can pilot an aircraft of any type, much less an operational bomber? And in the film, how many children were depicted as being involved in combat operations, from bearing guns, to other combat roles - even to merely bringing combat troops a drink of water or a bite to eat?



Wasn't it the Left that came up with the slogan, "think globally, act locally"? Well, here's an idea on how to do just that: right now, there is a place on this planet where children are encouraged to become combatants, not only in support roles, but in front line tasks - ones that frequently get them wounded or killed. The people who bear arms in this place think nothing of using women and children as "human shields" to keep them from being fired upon by their enemies. And their government officially turns a blind eye to the practice, and does nothing more than give lip service to efforts to make it stop.

Wouldn't you want to put an immediate end to this practice?

Well, it's simple, really.

Call your Congressman and Senator right now, or write them a letter. Tell them that you do not support regimes who condone the use of children in combat operations or combat support roles. Tell them that you will not allow your taxpayer monies to support such a government.

And get the US to stop financially supporting the Palestinian Authority.


See? That wasn't too hard, and we met cat's objective of getting children out of combat.

mantis boy, how does one... (Below threshold)

mantis boy, how does one post to you, weeks ago, equal "...sees a conspiracy in everything"? Ditto to you on that malpractice suit advice.

I read your posts that aren't directed towards me too.

As I attempted to illustrate above in a humorous setting

Does that mean it's a joke, and not to be taken seriously?

Not that this film would have any political commentary or angle.
No way.

That sure doesn't sound like you're joking. It sounds like you're dissecting this to get to the underlying message, and you say as much in your follow-up.

You proceed to go through an incomplete list of countries with air forces, dismissing them all on dubious grounds (the only one you should have needed was that none of them are located anywhere near the smurf village), largely as an excuse to disparage the ones you see as too liberal. Then you get to your jew conspiracy (btw Israel is not near the smurf village either).

To get to this conclusion you assume that the makers of this piece decided to use aerial bombings because they were trying to portray the lovable smurfs as being bombed by not only a country in the real world, not the smurf world, but by a specific country. You never once consider that using such imagery was probably the easiest and most effective for getting the point across (at least in the minds of the creators). You further assume that they have a political message apart from the obvious one (apparently ignoring the non-smurf parts of the piece), raising funds to rehabilitate former child soldiers. Not only that, you conclude that this message was anti-semitic. The "casual viewer" would never come to this conclusion at all, and I doubt that he/she would even wonder about who is doing the bombing in the context of the entire piece.

I understand that the conspiracy you were joking about was that of the jews against the smurfs, but the conspiracy you imply is UNICEF against the jews. To get there you enter tin-foil hat territory, which it seems you're pretty familiar with. You're a nut; revel in it.

Btw the smurfs were created in Belgium, and the ad is only running after 9 pm (i.e. not intended for kids). Many Belgians have fond childhood memories of the smurfs, and this was seen as a way to get thru to them.

Also, for the record I think the whole smurf thing was stupid, just not anti-semitic propaganda.

ok, ok, ok...mantis, for th... (Below threshold)

ok, ok, ok...mantis, for the record, I don't give two shits about what you think of me personally, so lay off the ad hominem attacks. Argue your point all you wish; just understand that attacking me personally detracts from your argument, and makes you appear to be insecure. Ditto for my "mantis boy" rantings - must have been my tinfoil hat fitting too tightly (or it was the MKULTRA project implants and brainwashing; my handlers are still working on my drug doses and triggering)...

At least we both seem to agree that the thing wasn't exactly UNICEF's smartest thing to do.

I wonder if Smurfett... (Below threshold)
Tesco Vee:

I wonder if Smurfette is blonde all over?

Ladies and Gentlemen: Have ... (Below threshold)
Donald Rilea:

Ladies and Gentlemen: Have read the various comments by the various posters here, and have to say that your comments have the intellecual power and in-sight into the UNICEF commercial and the problem of child soldiers of a Hostess Twinkie.

It's simply appalling and a God-Damned shame that it even takes a cartoon ad to bring awareness of the atrocity of using child soldiers to the Belgian and World publics at all, since Western audiences have succumbed to a numb indifference to real film, video and other images of real human beings suffering.

As for the use of carpet-bombing somehow being a "subtle libel" of the US, Israel and Australia(??), perhaps one might want to consider the fact that, in the Sudan, janjaweed raids were often supported by Sudanese air force planes(in some cases, transport aircraft from which explosives were pushed out onto their targets), which, in turn, engaged in bombing the targeted villages, hamlets, etc.

Quite frankly, it doesn't take that much in the way of airpower capability to carpet-bomb a village and its inhabitants to Bloody Hell.

Any large-to-medium-sized air force on this planet can do it, especially if it has enough in the way of fighter-bombers, armed reconaissance aircraft, or even armed training aircraft, to do the job.

Wanderlust makes a good point in that the ad doesn't directly address, through its visuals, the atrocities that are visited upon child soldiers, and those that they, in turn, visit upon those unfortunate to be in the path of whatever army employs them.

Interesting fact about child soldiers, anyhow, and that's that a child soldier is considered to be someone below the age of 18 years of age who is employed by a government or faction to engage in all the duties that a soldier performs.

Considering that the US military, among others, allows 17 year old boys and girls to enlist and serve as soldiers, sailors, marines and air force personnel, and has been reported by Human Rights Watch as engaging in the practise, well, I should think that anyone, whether American or any other nationality whose military employs child soldiers, has scant room for talk, let alone criticism of others that do.

If you want to end the problem of child soldiers, then start here at home. Otherwise, shut up.

This problem won't be ended, until the world's Great Powers, and most especially the United States, decide to take firm action about it, and start the process by ending their own recruitment and use of child soldiers, whether directly or by proxy, such as through supporting various armed political factions around the world that use them as well.

If they are not prepared to do that, then the very LEAST that they can do, is not to indulge in hypocritical preaching about it, and that includes their citizens, as well as their governments.

It is one thing for grown people to volunteer to fight, kill and die for their nation, ethnicity, religion, or political faction. It's quite another for grown people to use children and teen-agers to do their dirty work for them.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy