...

I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey them.

Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the violator from court costs and penalties.

...

Be reasonable.

It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving into bankruptcy on your whim.

And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.

Your argument fails on that noone has yet figured out whether including Fair Use content in Wikipedia is illegal or not.

The whole argument seems to be based on the assertion that someone someday will copy Wikipedia content that includes copyrighted Fair Use material (i.e. a photo of Stalin). Put that content in a context in which it is no longer Fair Use. Then whoever owns the copyright, who of some reason has not already sued all other companies who has distributed content in which that photo of Stalin appears, will sue the downstream user. Who in turn will claim that they relied on WP's promise that all content is GFDL. Then the court will decide that WP not only has to remove all fair use images but also that they have to pay lots of money to the suer. IANAL...

BL