All I want for Christmas: A Lego Terrorist  

Muslims are offended?!?! What about the rest of us? I am deeply offended that islamic terrorism has been mainstreamed and presented to children. That is s-i-c-k.

Terrorism of all sorts belongs on the fringe of society if it exists at all. It should never be justified or given mainstream credibility. And it should never EVER be presented to children as an option for them to choose from. It would be better if little children never even knew such evil and horror existed.

I am offended as well.

What do we tell our children about these little lego terrorists toys? There is a great deal of evil on the news, in the paper, as a topic of discussion wherever you go, that one has to "tone-down" and explain much to the youngsters anyway. To have such a term or visual picture of islamic terrorism thrown into the childs face is appalling.

While I fully understand the current state of the world and the horrendous acts of violence and destruction perpetrated by terrorists... are we not over-blowing a simple lego toy?

As you may recall, back in the day, the cartoon, arcade game, toys, and comic book series GI JOE constantly warred against Cobra command. For a comic series predominantly aimed at children, Cobra was a relatively realistic depiction of a highly successful terrorist organization. With its strong symbolic imagery, charismatic and ruthless leader and fanatical hierarchy, the fictional group is similar to other fictional terrorist and fascist organizations. The GI Joe series was far more prolific than this lego toy and yet there seemed to be little outrage. And let us not forget there exist entire comic book story lines based on the stories of good versus evil, American versus terror and on and on.

Have not toys always to some extent reflected the world around us? From cowyboys and indians, to video games to lego and on and on...

Yet I would hesitate to argue that a lego toy justifies terrorism or gives it 'credibility'.

CL, I'm surprised you can't distinguish between opposing forces (cowboy - indian, allies -axis, etc.) and the disgusting form of evil that is represented by that islamic terrorist toy.

Islamic terrorists, you must be reminded, do not represent any country against which we could strike back. As such, I fear that they are not so easily categorized in the mind of a child.

Furthermore, they don't do battle, nor do they subscribe to the "rules" of war. They purposely focus their efforts on blowing up and torturing CITIZENS.

Should we have a Pol Pot doll? A Jeffrey Dahmer doll? Perhaps we should also present to children little dolls that represent the victims of such distorted minds? Mutiliated, tortured, victims. For you to say that these disturbed terrorist individuals are appropriate as models for figurines to be presented to children is just beyond me. There is good v. evil, yes. And then there is PURE EVIL. These figurines represent the latter.

JMT, you beat me to the punch. I am in complete agreement with you.

We were attacked on our soil by terrorists. We have waged war against terrorists. We still do not have the danger of terrorism subdued.

The threat of terrorism is strikingly real.

A child should not be exposed to this kind of evil. A toy only diminishes the realism of what we currently face.

Is cowboys and indians different, yes. But you cherry picked your analogy and then used it to set the context of your argument. That example was used to point out how toys and games have always reflected world events and occurances. The direct comparison was between the lego figures and the GI Joe comics, cartoon, arcade game, etc etc.

I guess you've never watched, read, or played GI Joe... Or picked up a Captain America comic book.

And one last note... a simple read of the post and commentary shows that my words never said: "that these disturbed terrorist individuals are appropriate as models for figurines to be presented to children."

PS... is anyone here saying the threat of terrorism isn't strikingly real?

I must have missed that thread.

CL -- YOU are the one who cherry-picked your example to try and set the debate by making a comparison between real terrorism (represented by the lego) and imaginary evil (Cobra, comic books, etc.). YOU are the one who took issue with my original post wherein I said that terrorist toy figurines should not be presented to children. I was merely defending my point. So you are wrong for accusing me of shifting the argument. My point IS the argument.

To reiterate: islamic terrorism represents a horrific, disturbed, twisted, mentality along the lines of Jeffrey Dahmer that results in innocent civilians being blown to bits and TORTURED for the pleasure of the terrorist. It is a complicated form of evil that ought not to be presented to children.

It differs greatly from the simplified form of evil to which you refer: GI Joe v. Cobra, or good superhero versus bad villain. It also differs greatly from the simplified good v. evil examples that I offered: cowboys v. indians and allies v. axis.

Fringe elements of humanity ought to be left on the fringe and not presented to children as playthings. Why? Because in order to play with them, children must -- and will -- attempt to get into their mindset in order to play out scenarios. I, for one, do not want my young children entertaining thoughts about torturing others or blowing up innocent people to make a statement.

Well said, JMT. My thoughts exactly.

JMT...

I humbly submit that you are still missing the point of the comments. You said "Fringe elements of humanity ought to be left on the fringe and not presented to children as playthings."

The point is that they already are. In comic books, in arcade games... The point was never that the lego toy is justifiable. It's that it doesn't justify terrorism. Why is there no outrage against the other "play things" that do tell the story lines of terror? Should we not have video games that are based in part on the Nazi regimes of the past? Those things all exist... yet they have seemingly not brought the outrage that this one lego figurine has.

You're arguments are great... when you use words I never said. For example: "YOU are the one who took issue with my original post wherein I said that terrorist toy figurines should not be presented to children". Did I say they shouldn't be presented? I must have missed that thread as well. I'm pretty sure all i did was raise the question over whether or not the issue was being overblown.

CL -- I said the toys shouldn't be presented to children. You said my reaction was "overblown." I think it reasonable to understand that your challenge inferred that the toys were appropriate to be presented to children. You then went on to list other violent and supposedly terrorist toys that children have played with in the past. The normal presumption is that you were doing so to normalize children playing with terrorist toys.

So please don't try to bow out now and say that you never used the exact words that it is appropriate for children to play with such toys. You are smart enough to know that communication lies in what you infer just as much as in what you actually say.

As for your examples of Nazi toys, comic books, etc., those are not at issue here. You need to focus. The issue is the lego toy. Obviously, toys must be evaluated on a case by case basis. I can only evaluate the toy that is before me: the lego toy. And I have rendered my opinion of that toy.

Nazi toys might be repulsive to me if they conjured up torture chambers, or they might not if they merely conjured up images of an opposing army in battle.

And therein again lies my point. Although kids played with Nazi toys, they were all geared for the field of battle. I don't remember Mattel issuing little plastic Nazi gas chambers to kill your little Jew figurines in. In my view, the principle identity of islamic terrorists is TERROR, not warfare. Therefore, I don't believe that they are appropriate for little children.

Crickets from CL....

I have noticed that my good friend has a problem conceding when others have won an argument.

"Nazi toys might be repulsive to me if they conjured up torture chambers, or they might not if they merely conjured up images of an opposing army in battle."

You went on to say "And therein again lies my point. Although kids played with Nazi toys, they were all geared for the field of battle."

So the item isn't the problem it's whatever images you congure up to associate with it?

Maybe you should review your history books about Nazis and the torture chambers. Last I checked this little lego comes as a stand alone and not with a torture chamber as part of the package. Perhaps terrorists are more repulsive to you than the Nazis were. If so fair enough. But AGAIN... the point is why the outrage of legos but not the other 'play things' on market for children.

Your "point," which you keep repeating, has been adequately addressed by me, but I'll give it one last go: (1) you ASSUME that there is no "outrage" on my part toward other playthings on the market. You have no substantiation for this assumption; and (2) I can only offer an opinion regarding that which is presented to me. You presented a picture of the lego character and I offered my opinion. For you to challenge my opinion by referring to items about which I have not had the chance to form an opinion is really poor argumentation.

Secondly, yes, the Nazis committed terrorist atrocities. But I would argue that was not their core identity, which is what separates them from a terrorist toy. Obviously, the primary identity of the lego toy is terror. Unlike islamic terrorists, Nazis were the ruling party of their county, Nazi soldiers wore the uniform of their country and waged war against other countries. Because their primary identity was as soldiers for their country, something like a gas chamber would be required to inform a child that terror, not war, is what is being contemplated by a Nazi toy wearing a uniform. The islamic terrorist lego needs no such additional prop because his core function is to kill and torture civilians -- the definition of "terrorist." Try this logic on for size: Not all Nazis were terrorists, and not all terrorists were Nazis, but all islamic terrorists are terrorists. Q.E.D.

Growing up, I played wargames with my toys. Good guys USA verus bad guys Germany. It was always basic warfare -- soldiers against soldiers. Never did it enter my mind to have my German soldiers start killing Ken and and torturing Barbie in order to gain advantage over the US soldiers. And I can't ever remember playing "gas the Jews" with my German soldiers. I don't think I was ever aware at my young age that the Nazis gased the Jews. And that is, in my opinion, how it should be. When a child is more mature, there will be ample time for him to confront the complex evils of the world. But legos are aimed at very young children, and straight up simplistic good guys versus bad guys is about as much as I'm prepared to accept for children so young.

It surprises me that you are willing to resort to such strained argument in support of such a heinous toy just to avoid "losing" an argument.

Did someone say Pol Pot doll? I've been looking for one to complete my Kampuchea collection! Are they available online?