http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29273263/?GT1=43001


An Iraqi reporter who hurled his shoes at George W. Bush said in the past he had videotaped himself practicing the Arab insult to use against the president whose "icy smile" had filled him with uncontrollable rage.

IDGRA why he did it, to me he's still just another douche bag wanting attention.
Dubya disappoints the hell out of me as well, but at least I'm mature enough to not throw a shoe at him in public.

The fact that it enraged him doesn't bother me. The fact that he gave into his impulses like an undisciplined, bratty kid does. What a tool.

He broke Bush's little bubble, that press conference was supposed to wrap up Bush's legacy in Iraq as a success, and instead it became representative of the true story- that Iraqis are pissed about what has become of their country. Al-Zeidi is a true hero, just like that guy that told Cheney to go fuck himself.

The only sad thing here is that,
1. He missed.
2. The shoes were not metal capped.

The only sad thing here is that,
1. He missed.
2. He missed twice.

Corrected.:p

Pathetic that people have let their hate overcome their civility and maturity. There is a word for it: Barbarism.

Yeah, imagine destroying two countries for no reason. :rolleyes:

I think the shoe throwing is great. Weapons of Moron Destruction.

pathetic that people have let their hate overcome their civility and maturity. There is a word for it: Barbarism.

lol

yeah, imagine destroying two countries for no reason. :rolleyes:

I think the shoe throwing is great. Weapons of moron destruction.

Stamp out illiteracy ! :)

Yup!
http://adsoftheworld.com/files/images/amnestyinternational_guanta.preview.jpg

Yeah, imagine destroying two countries for no reason. :rolleyes:

I think the shoe throwing is great. Weapons of Moron Destruction.

Are you really this daft or do you enjoy saying inane things? "No reason"? You might not agree with the reasons, but don't make foolish statements that paint an inaccurate picture of some anarchist let loose.

Elsewhere, I detailed in other threads why throwing a shoe at people you don't like is not only dumb, but barbaric. Seek those comments out. Educate yourself.

Are you really this daft or do you enjoy saying inane things? "No reason"? You might not agree with the reasons, but don't make foolish statements that paint an inaccurate picture of some anarchist let loose.

Elsewhere, I detailed in other threads why throwing a shoe at people you don't like is not only dumb, but barbaric. Seek those comments out. Educate yourself.

An act of protest is not barbaric. I think it was quite courageous to throw his shoe at a first-world leader. I hardly think throwing a shoe at someone qualifies as barbaric either; I mean, how life threatening must it have been for Bush, to be under siege from... one shoe wielding reporter. In fact, Bush was right after the incident when he said, "that's what people do in a free society." They protest. His shoe was a symbol for Iraqi frustration. :p

An act of protest is not barbaric. I think it was quite courageous to throw his shoe at a first-world leader. I hardly think throwing a shoe at someone qualifies as barbaric either; I mean, how life threatening must it have been for Bush, to be under siege from... one shoe wielding reporter. In fact, Bush was right after the incident when he said, "that's what people do in a free society." They protest. His shoe was a symbol for Iraqi frustration. :p

Agreed. Again, too bad he missed.

"Barbaric" is rather a term that can be used to describe issues such as "detention without trail" and "illegal invasion of sovereign nations".

Agreed. Again, too bad he missed.

"Barbaric" is rather a term that can be used to describe issues such as "detention without trail" and "illegal invasion of sovereign nations".

I think it can also apply to water-boarding by the CIA, torture at black-sites that aren't officially within the jurisdiction of the United States and the hanging of Saddam Hussein. How can powerful countries like the USA and Britain expect the world to be civilized if they are not exemplary in their own conduct.

For the record I am British, and no, I do not agree with Saddam's massacre of the Kurds and innocent Iraqis, but nor do I agree with his execution.

I think it can also apply to water-boarding by the CIA, torture at black-sites that aren't officially within the jurisdiction of the United States and the hanging of Saddam Hussein. How can powerful countries like the USA and Britain expect the world to be civilized if they are not exemplary in their own conduct.

For the record I am British, and no, I do not agree with Saddam's massacre of the Kurds and innocent Iraqis, but nor do I agree with his execution.

That is refreshing to hear Clucky. I think FAR too much abuse of human rights has occurred in the last 10 years by many parties. I agree that Saddam did not get a fair trail, and of course this type of behavior creates a precedent.

Idiot reporter explains why he threw his shoe at GW

Idiot poster demonstrates his oversimplified and uneducated analysis of a complex political and moral issue. :rolleyes:

An act of protest is not barbaric.

An act of protest itself is not barbaric, but an act of protest that turns violent, breaks the law, is example of temper and not intellect and a flagrant violation of professionalism is barbaric -- or, at the very least, immature.



I think it was quite courageous to throw his shoe at a first-world leader.

I don't. I think it was violent, illegal, unprofessional and stupid. Children have similar temper tantrums. We punish them for it. The fact is you are only applauding this boob because your hatred of Bush has overwhelmed your ability to examine the incident objectively. That, and you probably think it's "cool" in a smoking behind the school kind of way.


In fact, Bush was right after the incident when he said, "that's what people do in a free society." They protest. His shoe was a symbol for Iraqi frustration. :p

People in a free society are not allowed to have violent protests that end up in assault.

He wasn't trying to hurt Bush, obviously, it's a common insult in the Arab world, and thus the equivalent of giving Bush the finger. It's no different than the Boston Tea Party.

An act of protest itself is not barbaric, but an act of protest that turns violent, breaks the law, is example of temper and not intellect and a flagrant violation of professionalism is barbaric -- or, at the very least, immature.

Everybody gets angry, sometimes violent, in frustration. I hardly call throwing a couple of shoes barbaric or violent. His intention was obviously not to hurt Bush, otherwise he would have used a more appropriate weapon ;) . He was pointing out how angry he was with America. Actions speak louder than words. Peaceful protest is obviously preferable, but when nobody is listening to your words sometimes you resort to action. The suffragettes for example, achieved a hell of a lot, using what most would consider terrible methods.

Being unprofessional is... unprofessional, not barbaric. This rhetoric is nothing more than emotive language.




I don't. I think it was violent, illegal, unprofessional and stupid. Children have similar temper tantrums. We punish them for it. The fact is you are only applauding this boob because your hatred of Bush has overwhelmed your ability to examine the incident objectively. That, and you probably think it's "cool" in a smoking behind the school kind of way.

I'm not applauding his actions, and I assure you I am not clouded in this "hatred of Bush" you mention. I will say, once again, that I simply think that this shows the frustration of some Iraqi citizens. It was courageous. Not necessarily right, but courageous nonetheless.




People in a free society are not allowed to have violent protests that end up in assault.

No, they are free to have violent protests, that do break the law. But for this, they also have to suffer the consequences. Nevertheless they are still free to do so. That is the brilliance of protesting in a democracy.

An act of protest itself is not barbaric, but an act of protest that turns violent, breaks the law, is example of temper and not intellect and a flagrant violation of professionalism is barbaric -- or, at the very least, immature.

There are more cultural customs and norms, than the US variety.


I don't. I think it was violent, illegal, unprofessional and stupid. Children have similar temper tantrums. We punish them for it. The fact is you are only applauding this boob because your hatred of Bush has overwhelmed your ability to examine the incident objectively. That, and you probably think it's "cool" in a smoking behind the school kind of way.

There are more cultural customs and norms, than the US variety.


People in a free society are not allowed to have violent protests that end up in assault.

There are more cultural customs and norms, than the US variety.

There are more cultural customs and norms, than the US variety.



There are more cultural customs and norms, than the US variety.



There are more cultural customs and norms, than the US variety.

Another excellent point well made.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with throwing a shoe as a political gesture.

idiot reporter? He is more like a saint reporter, a courageous man with dignity.

some insane anarchist let loose.

That just about describes it

That just about describes it

Then you are a fool. It's not hard to find why the US invaded either country. You might not agree with those reasons, but they are there. Ignoring them and pretending Bush is a buffoon or a criminal only shows people your paranoia and shallowness. Not that you care, though. . .


He wasn't trying to hurt Bush, obviously, it's a common insult in the Arab world, and thus the equivalent of giving Bush the finger. It's no different than the Boston Tea Party.

It doesn't matter if he was trying to hurt him. It was assault, pure and simple. And yes, I'm aware it's an insult in the Arab world. So what? It's patently beyond the pail, which is precisely why the man was arrested by Iraqis and charged under Iraqi law. And I wager you wouldn't be crowing about this and standing up for this fool if he threw something at a politician you supported, so your defense really isn't a moral or intellectual one, is it?

As for the stupid historical comparison. I've better things to do than to respond to that filler.


Everybody gets angry, sometimes violent, in frustration.

Doesn't give them a pass to break the law.


I hardly call throwing a couple of shoes barbaric or violent.

I would. It's assault. And civilized people who have political disagreements don't throw shoes at each other. I mean, seriously? Are you going to say it's perfectly alright to have this kind of exchange in politics?


The suffragettes for example, achieved a hell of a lot, using what most would consider terrible methods.

I'm not aware suffragettes attacked people.


Being unprofessional is... unprofessional, not barbaric.

Yes, but my point is that it's both when you behave this way.


It was courageous. Not necessarily right, but courageous nonetheless.

It was immature, immoral, unethical and illegal.


No, they are free to have violent protests, that do break the law. But for this, they also have to suffer the consequences. Nevertheless they are still free to do so. That is the brilliance of protesting in a democracy.

Nobody is free to have violent protests. Look at the law. You can't register for a violent protest and violent protests are illegal. The right to assembly is not a blanket immunity.


There are more cultural customs and norms, than the US variety.

Oh, yes. What brilliance from you. Their culture is different. They throw shoes at people in Iraq. Only, they don't. At least, they have laws they say it's illegal. Thus, the man was arrested. Furthermore, your obtuse statement -- repeated again and again -- overlooks the man's unprofessionalism, his immorality and his immaturity.

I will repeat what I said to Ice some weeks ago (he never responded). If you defend this man or applaud him, you are saying the following:

1. That's it's OK to act unprofessionally on the job.

2. That's it's OK to act violently toward someone you disagree with politically.

3. That's it's OK to break the law.

It's not hard to find why the US invaded either country. You might not agree with those reasons, but they are there. Ignoring them and pretending Bush is a buffoon or a criminal only shows people your paranoia and shallowness It's not by ignoring the reasons for invasion - both the real and the loudly claimed - that one realizes W&Co were by turns incompetent and criminal. It's by attending to them, and comparing them with the tactics employed and the gains expected.

It doesn't matter if he was trying to hurt him. It was assault, pure and simple. In American law his intent would matter quite a bit. And in American law this would not be "pure and simple" assault.

And I wager you wouldn't be crowing about this and standing up for this fool if he threw something at a politician you supported, so your defense really isn't a moral or intellectual one, is it? You'd lose that wager, more often than not. And your entire line of spew depends on such assertions - their occasional accuracy, if any, is all the reality you've got. Meanwhile, the deduction remains invalid.

I would. It's assault. And civilized people who have political disagreements don't throw shoes at each other. And that's your description of what motivated the guy - a "political disagreement"?

In most courts of applicable law, the appearance of the commander in chief of an invading and occupying army can be greeted with rifle fire by the invaded and occupied citizenry. That is, self defense is legal among the civilized people of the earth. Certainly a couple of thrown shoes is in order, if properly motivated.

btw: The people invading with soldiers, riding around killing and torturing and blowing things up, subject to no law and answerable to themselves only, coming over the border in armies and wrecking the place, are normally referred to as "the barbarians" in situations like this.

If you defend this man or applaud him, you are saying the following: Am not.

Then you are a fool. It's not hard to find why the US invaded either country. You might not agree with those reasons, but they are there. Ignoring them and pretending Bush is a buffoon or a criminal only shows people your paranoia and shallowness. Not that you care, though. . .


I don't expect barbarians to understand it, but thats...ironic. ;)

It would be hilarious if Bush was greeted with a shoe at every public meeting for the rest of his life.

It even beats the poo flag.

http://existentialpunk.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bushpooflag_1.jpg

For the sake of historical accuracy, the Suffragettes did hurt people, or at least disrupted their lives. Which, to be honest, is merely what this reporter did.

You do realize the Suffragettes bombed public buildings, right?

Again, for the record, if somebody did throw a shoe at a politician I supported, it wouldn't particularly matter to me. If they want to stand up for something they believe in, I'm quite fine with that. Especially over something like the Iraq War, which is suspect to say the least.

And constantly referring me to the "law" doesn't counter my point. We are all free to do what we wish, but should we do so, we must ultimately pay the price under the law. Nevertheless we are still free to do it, nobody is stopping you, as such. This isn't Minority Report. I do realize the law exists you know, and nowhere said that it gives them a free pass to break the law. I'm saying that it's his right to express his disdain for the invasion. They must obviously be tried under the law, like any other protester would be. I think he was fully aware what would happen to him, that wasn't the point of what he did.

Iceaura has already summarized the rest o what I was going to say.

Yeah, imagine destroying two countries for no reason. :rolleyes:

I think the shoe throwing is great. Weapons of Moron Destruction.
Sam, two wrongs don't make a right.

"Since he acts like a kid, I guess it's ok for me to as well", huh Sam?
You're pretty clueless for a woman that's supposed to be in her late 30s.

Sam, two wrongs don't make a right.

"Since he acts like a kid, I guess it's ok for me to as well", huh Sam?
You're pretty clueless for a woman that's supposed to be in her late 30s.

I like throwing shoes at morons. :D

All I have to do is remember what the moron is responsible (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iZAh1Ljaezc/SZ3ONhp2sLI/AAAAAAAAAjo/E6oRfZjXD9c/s1600/dead%2Bgirl%2Bwith%2Bdummy.jpg) for.

I like throwing shoes at morons. :D

All I have to do is remember what the moron is http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iZAh1Ljaezc/SZ3ONhp2sLI/AAAAAAAAAjo/E6oRfZjXD9c/s1600/dead%2Bgirl%2Bwith%2Bdummy.jpg for.

Then you should enjoy throwing shoes at yourself.

If it were up to me, I would have given him up to the families of the victims of Iraq and Afghanistan

Then you are a fool. It's not hard to find why the US invaded either country.

A 'War or Terror', a search for 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', LOL! Is terror banished? Were WMD found? Why do you still buy into the bullshit?


It was assault, pure and simple.

Throw a shoe at one guy, it's assault. Cause the deaths of 100,000 civilians, and what is that?


Doesn't give them a pass to break the law.

The UN did not approve the action in Iraq. That makes it illegal.

A 'War or Terror', a search for 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', LOL! Is terror banished? Were WMD found? Why do you still buy into the bullshit?

Throw a shoe at one guy, it's assault. Cause the deaths of 100,000 civilians, and what is that?

The UN did not approve the action in Iraq. That makes it illegal.

This. Thread. Isn't. About. The. Fuckin. Iraq. War.
It's about an Iraqi reporter's immature and unprofessional conduct.

I guess you decided to skip over the part where I said 'two wrongs don't make a right'.
Have you and Sam been sippin on the same glass of clueless juice?

phlo, everyone and their god dam mother already knows Bush's conduct over the past several years. We don't need you or anyone else to repeat what everyone already knows there, Captain Obvious.
We're talking about the conduct of a reporter. What part of that eludes your perception?

I think is the very least that someone should have thrown at him. :bravo:

I like throwing shoes at morons.

I think is the very least that someone should have thrown at him. :bravo:

So, is the fact that you're ready, willing and able to resort to some kind of violent act reflective of your Muslim heritage towards peace?

Can we throw things at you when you demonstrate moronic behavior? Would you be ready for such an enormous onslaught of flying objects that would most likely bury you up to your neck?

So, is the fact that you're ready, willing and able to resort to some kind of violent act reflective of your Muslim heritage towards peace?


I'm an atheist with no Muslim heritage and I would have thrown a shoe at him as well given the chance.

You need to stop obsessing so much about Islam Q. Let it go.. take a break.. Anything..

It's not by ignoring the reasons for invasion - both the real and the loudly claimed - that one realizes W&Co were by turns incompetent and criminal. It's by attending to them, and comparing them with the tactics employed and the gains expected.

Sam -- or whoever it was -- said Bush invaded two countries for no reason, almost as if it was a crazed whim. That's absolutely fucking stupid. Even if you think Bush invaded Afghanistan for a pipeline and Iraq for oil, which I don't and you probably do, those are REASONS.


In American law his intent would matter quite a bit. And in American law this would not be "pure and simple" assault.

This is laughable, Ice. Under American law? Is it really your contention that a man could throw a shoe at the President in this country and not be charged with numerous felonies?


You'd lose that wager, more often than not. And your entire line of spew depends on such assertions - their occasional accuracy, if any, is all the reality you've got. Meanwhile, the deduction remains invalid.

I don't think I lose any wager. I'm arguing a principle devoid of circumstance. That is, I am arguing that what happened is immoral, illegal and unethical. I don't care who the politician on the other end of the shoe is. Not at all. Even a politician I can't stand shouldn't have shoes thrown at him. But I doubt that's the pervasive attitude here, and I deduce that based on the incoherent rage people have towards Bush. If this were Obama having a shoe thrown at him, want to guess what people on this kooky site would say?


And that's your description of what motivated the guy - a "political disagreement"?

Yes, it is. He didn't agree with US policies in Iraq. Policy disagreements are political disagreements.


In most courts of applicable law, the appearance of the commander in chief of an invading and occupying army can be greeted with rifle fire by the invaded and occupied citizenry. That is, self defense is legal among the civilized people of the earth. Certainly a couple of thrown shoes is in order, if properly motivated.

You've tried this malarkey before. It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now. What's even more of a joke than this inane argument is the fact you still refuse to acknowledge that the shoe thrower is not even an Iraqi. HE WAS AN EGYPTIAN. So even if I took your bullshit argument seriously, it's without merit under its own terms.


btw: The people invading with soldiers, riding around killing and torturing and blowing things up, subject to no law and answerable to themselves only, coming over the border in armies and wrecking the place, are normally referred to as "the barbarians" in situations like this.

Again, you smear the American soldier with your Leftist political dreams cooked up in whatever parental basement you inhabitant. Thankfully, your bias and myopia isn't common.


Am not.

Yes, you are. You are excusing an illegal act. You are excusing an unprofessional act. You are excusing violence. And you doing all of this because you agree with some larger political context. See that's the important difference between you and I. Even if I agreed with this boob, I still would not countenance his foolish behavior. I have principles that are not subservient to my own biases. You do not.

I'm an atheist with no Muslim heritage and I would have thrown a shoe at him as well given the chance.

You've rarely shown an intellect, bells, so that wouldn't surprise me. Sam is under strict religious doctrine not to do such things.


You need to stop obsessing so much about Islam Q. Let it go.. take a break.. Anything..

When the Muslims here stop contradicting that which the take in the highest regard, perhaps then.

So, is the fact that you're ready, willing and able to resort to some kind of violent act reflective of your Muslim heritage towards peace?

Can we throw things at you when you demonstrate moronic behavior? Would you be ready for such an enormous onslaught of flying objects that would most likely bury you up to your neck?

You just want an excuse to throw shoes at me.

Hm maybe we should throw thongs at GWB? Or poo?

Or maybe you should act like an adult instead of a chimp.

Well, he was beaten and tortured by electric shock after his arrest, and forced to make an incriminating video. I hope you are happy about the state of Iraq now, which we helped create.

Or maybe you should act like an adult instead of a chimp.

http://lsblog.org/blog1/images/bush_chimp.jpg

Very mature of you Sam. It's a post worthy of your intellect.

Well, he was beaten and tortured by electric shock after his arrest, and forced to make an incriminating video. I hope you are happy about the state of Iraq now, which we helped create.

That has nothing to do with what he did. Again, the old two wrongs don't make a right maxim is applicable. I no more applaud what happened to that man than I do his initial action. But the two have nothing to do with each other, and like most liberals, you are grasping for some greater context that excuses or "explains" something that you know is wrong.

Very mature of you Sam. It's a post worthy of your intellect.

http://nobeliefs.com/politics/BushChimp.jpg

That has nothing to do with what he did. Again, the old two wrongs don't make a right maxim is applicable. I no more applaud what happened to that man than I do his initial action. But the two have nothing to do with each other, and like most liberals, you are grasping for some greater context that excuses or "explains" something that you know is wrong.

I think it's relevent. We overthrew the government on some pretext, but then justified by saying how Saddam tortured his own people. What has changed?

Idiot poster demonstrates his oversimplified and uneducated analysis of a complex political and moral issue. :rolleyes:

Herc - that can only be stated in the style of a news headline if it is actually newsworthy - not something that happens every day on this board :rolleyes:

You've rarely shown an intellect, bells, so that wouldn't surprise me.

You lead and I follow sweetheart. Just because you would bow and lick the toes of a man who ordered and allowed the torture of children to continue, does not mean everyone agrees with you.


Sam is under strict religious doctrine not to do such things.
So it was Sam who threw the shoe? Are you a tad confused?

Or is this a warning to Sam to not throw shoes?


When the Muslims here stop contradicting that which the take in the highest regard, perhaps then.
Irony.

This from the man who thinks that child abuse is bad, that religious indoctrination is bad.. but thinks sexual abuse of children and torture of children in Gitmo is acceptable.. Kettle.. Pot.. Black..

Muslims or just certain few?

I fail to see how throwing a shoe was a wrong.

Is it really your contention that a man could throw a shoe at the President in this country and not be charged with numerous felonies? It was my contention that simple assault would not necessarily be the charge.

It is also my observation that a man who threw a shoe at the smirking commander in chief of an occupying army that had done to the US what the US military and mercenaries have done to Iraq might be greeted with other reactions than "two wrongs don't make a right".

I'm arguing a principle devoid of circumstance. That is, I am arguing that what happened is immoral, illegal and unethical. I don't care who the politician on the other end of the shoe is. Not at all. Even a politician I can't stand shouldn't have shoes thrown at him. W is not an Iraqi politican. He's the commander in chief of an invading horde of mercenaries and occupation troops.

What's even more of a joke than this inane argument is the fact you still refuse to acknowledge that the shoe thrower is not even an Iraqi. HE WAS AN EGYPTIAN. You could try Buffalo's technique for doubling down on factual error - make the shoutcaps red, and in a bigger font. But I forget - Buffalo is not a professional journalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntader_al-Zaidi

If this were Obama having a shoe thrown at him, want to guess what people on this kooky site would say? Whatever I guessed, I wouldn't confuse it with a reality that holds other people to account.

Am not.
”
Yes, you are. Am not.
I have principles Wishful thinking? Hmmmm - - - Maybe that's why you're so heated up over this guy Zaidi - he's a real professional journalist with a job and everything, and he apparently has principles of some kind, according to which he acts.

You just want an excuse to throw shoes at me.

Hm maybe we should throw thongs at GWB? Or poo?

You appear to be prone towards violence. Not surprising for a Muslim.

I think it's relevent. We overthrew the government on some pretext, but then justified by saying how Saddam tortured his own people. What has changed?

A lot has changed, some for the better some for the worse. Does the word nuance mean anything to you?

It was my contention that simple assault would not necessarily be the charge.

Yeah. More charges would be filed, which only strengthens my argument about the act's illegality and not your bullshit excuses for it. So what are you trying to prove?


It is also my observation that a man who threw a shoe at the smirking commander in chief of an occupying army that had done to the US what the US military and mercenaries have done to Iraq might be greeted with other reactions than "two wrongs don't make a right".

And that's just your bullshit rationalization for what this moron did. You agree with him, politically speaking, so it's OK to break the law, behave unprofessionally, etc. I get where you're coming from, believe me. I just think it's shallow and pathetic.


W is not an Iraqi politican. He's the commander in chief of an invading horde of mercenaries and occupation troops.

That's more of your bullshit opinion, laced with your usual amount of hyperbole. It doesn't justify what happened, morally, professionally or otherwise. But yeah, keep shoveling this shit out. It sounds good to the usual crowd on this site.


You could try Buffalo's technique for doubling down on factual error - make the shoutcaps red, and in a bigger font. But I forget - Buffalo is not a professional journalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntader_al-Zaidi

So it seems I am wrong about his national of origin. Fine. I'm a big boy. I was wrong. Initially, it was reported he was Egyptian, probably because of his work association. My points still stand. That is, he doesn't get a pass to act illegally, unprofessionally and immorally all because he feels aggrieved.


Am not.

Am not? Is that all you have? Is this junior high? Why don't you just say "Am not infinity"? Seriously. . .

Again, if you are excusing this man's act, you are essentially saying the it's OK to assault someone you disagree with politically and OK to act unprofessionally -- or are you arguing that throwing shoes at a press conference isn't illegal and totally beyond the pale for a journalist?


Wishful thinking? Hmmmm - - - Maybe that's why you're so heated up over this guy Zaidi - he's a real professional journalist with a job and everything, and he apparently has principles of some kind, according to which he acts.

No, stupid, biased thinking -- which is about all we ever get from you and friends on this kooky site. Principles? Throwing shoes is demonstrating principles now? Well, they are your principles then, not mine. I don't believe in illegally assaulting people to get my point across.

If you think this is such a kooky site, why are you here? Do you enjoy surrounding yourself with the stupid, biased, plebian masses?

Everybody else's arguments are just as valid as your own. Nobody ever said because we disagree with Bush, it gave him a free pass to break the law, we are saying the situation is more complicated and subtle than you are making out. We're not saying that he shouldn't be prosecuted for his actions, we're saying that why he did it was reasonable. He made a political statement. Does the word nuance mean anything to you? I think Iceaura knows what he thinks, and would prefer it if you didn't dictate what he means to him. That's why he reaffirmed that he wasn't condoning the reporter's actions, as such.

And unfortunately, despite what you may think, the USA are an invading occupation.

When you consider how well Bush cherry picks his audience everywhere he goes....hmmmm wonder why?

It's about time someone got through.

Now if only the idiot former president could give us a decent explanation of why he invaded Iraq ....


• • •



I fail to see how throwing a shoe was a wrong.

He didn't have Congressional approval? He didn't lie to the U.N.? Or maybe it was wrong because, instead, he should have bought a plane ticket to the United States and set some of our children on fire?

Oh, oh, oh ... I know. He threw a shoe, not a thermobaric explosive. And he threw it at the white guy when there were plenty of brown-skinned people in the room. After all, as everybody knows, white people have asses for kissing, and brown people have asses for shooting the shit out of.

Sorry, VI. It's not you I'm upset with. Rather, I've run out of patience for douchebag racists who think throwing a shoe is somehow an excessive response to someone bombing the shit out of your country for no good reason.

Fuck, the reporter should have just shot Bush. Hell, in the U.S., you can kill a homeless child for rummaging through a trash can for something to eat. Or shoot someone to death for asking directions. And, you know, that's the thing. Like in Oregon, if someone attacks you and you fight back with your hands, you get arrested. It's called mutual combat. But if someone gets in your face and acts weird and never lays a hand on you, and you shoot him in the face? You're in the clear.

Of course, if the reporter had shot Bush, then the douchebag racists would be complaining because an Iraqi adopted the American way. And you know, that is just unacceptable.

Principles? Throwing shoes is demonstrating principles now? Well, they are your principles then, not mine. I don't believe in illegally assaulting people to get my point across.

I don't think anyone here is saying that throwing his shoes was a demonstration of his principles. It was a demonstration of his anger, which came from having principles. Who knows how many personal friends, or possibly even family members, this man has lost? You might think it is unreasonable for him to personally blame Bush for this, but I do not. Grief for lost loved ones, and for a country that has been devastated, can make you act in ways that might seem irrational to anyone who hasn't suffered such a loss.

That the Bush administration was able to get most of the country to play along with this unnecessary invasion doesn't absolve that administration of responsibility. It wouldn't have happened if his administration hadn't wanted it to.

Now if only the idiot former president could give us a decent explanation of why he invaded Iraq ....

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7375/whyweinvadediraq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8580/cmartbush.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

hell I would chuck a shoe at him to. I'd miss but I'd still do it.

hell I would chuck a shoe at him to. I'd miss but I'd still do it.

and be held at Guantanamo for eternity.

Haha, this post almost was enough motivation for me to write about why I dont trust S.A.M or dragon. In S.A.Ms pre-Bush Iraq, Saddam would have had the guy shot if the shoes were thrown at him, and if it was someone throwing something at the Russian puppet *kof* , sorry, I mean "president".. Medvedev.. or his leash handler, Putin.. they would have died shortly afterwards as a result of a "random journalist attack", "radioactive poisoning" or some of those damm Chechnyans (and just because theyre Muslim doesnt mean Russia was doing any ethnic cleansing).

Basically I dont trust dragon because of his god/faith attitude with Putin and the rest of his FSB cronies, and I dont trust S.A.M because she thinks her religions poo doesnt stink.

Either way, this journalist got off lightly. By saying that I mean he is still alive to throw a shoe another day.

yeah but you didnt see anyone throwing shoes at them. if this is what people want then i say we give it to them or specifically let them have it.

they want dictators and work to support them at every turn so... at the other end of the spectrum the socialist whores are out in force supporting socialist dictators and the elites so i say give it to them as well.

"radioactive poisoning"

That was not the work of Russian secret service, that was the work of MI5

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7375/whyweinvadediraq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8580/cmartbush.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:roflmao:

I love it. I'm gonna stick this on my office door

yeah but you didnt see anyone throwing shoes at them. if this is what people want then i say we give it to them or specifically let them have it.

they want dictators and work to support them at every turn so... at the other end of the spectrum the socialist whores are out in force supporting socialist dictators and the elites so i say give it to them as well.

I dont mind some socialism *run/hide*. Within reason of course. Like Swedish reason.. but what I despise in people is blinding hypocrisy.

For S.A.M it comes through in her living in the USA, and for Dragon its attacking GW Bush, while idolizing Putin. Someone who anyone with half a brain can realize is a really really bad person.

So when dragon has a go at the US... considering his own back yard is such a mess .. I cant take him seriously, in fact, I actually see him as a professional agitator (this is the only logical reasoning that I can have to someone so blinded by their government).

I mean.. at least Americans know they chose an idiot.. Russians still have to realize their government owns them. The thing is.. its not just dragon who thinks Putin is good for him.. a lot of Russians feel the exact same way as what Hitler made Germans feel after WW2. He filled them with "pride and power".. and they think those things matter.

As for trusting Russians for picking their leaders... well I still have to see them pick someone who isnt either drunk or a dictator wannabe.

That was not the work of Russian secret service, that was the work of MI5

Sure bud. And let me guess.. the Easter Bunny was an accomplice? Did MI5 also start a cyber attack on Estonia? Or was that Father Xmas?


Dragon.. you talking about good governance or about political accountability is like a Zimbabwean ZANU-PF supporter telling me why Mugabe is good for Africa. A complete fail all round. My suggestion is to clean up your own government before digging into the Americans, because it is a terrible case of the pot calling the kettle black.

As a Russian I would also shut the hell up when it comes to anything to do with Islam until such time as those responsible for the atrocities against Chechnya are brought to book.

Now this bit applies to Americans and Rooskis. STOP SELLING WEAPONS TO DICTATORS.

Sure bud. And let me guess.. the Easter Bunny was an accomplice? Did MI5 also start a cyber attack on Estonia? Or was that Father Xmas?

The cyber attack on Estonia was started by hobby hackers from Russia.

The cyber attack on Estonia was started by hobby hackers from Russia.

Actually FAIL! Being in Internet security.. I know that attack started with government aid and then was picked up by the hobbiests who thought it would be fun to bully a smaller country. Again with the Hitler power and pride thing. I also know about the other attacks, those launched by Russia, America and China. While your government media may lie to you, the security lists are full of the right information.

Why do you think the Russian Business Network is by default blocked by any tech savvy administrator outside of Russia? Its because thats were most cyber attacks start from. Its also the hosting for the worlds biggest pedophillia collections.

Im part of a security list that records every RBN IP address that we are able to find.. and who filter them out at our tier1 routers. Malware, hacks and trojans reduce by about 95% when you do.

Dude.. your information is so badly diluted.. I hope you dont get it from Russia Today.

Actually FAIL! Been in Internet security.. I know that attack started with government aid and then was picked up by the hobbiests who thought it would be fun to bully a smaller country. Again with the Hitler power and pride thing.

Dude.. your information is so badly diluted.. I hope you dont get it from Russia Today.

fine fine...the FSB maybe had something to do with it...but only indirect. Just supplying keyboards to needy students. :rolleyes:

fine fine...the FSB maybe had something to do with it...but only indirect. Just supplying keyboards to needy students. :rolleyes:

Of course... however.. as much as you want to .. until you guys sort your stuff out.. we cant trust you. We will continue to filter out dirty networks until those networks have some kinda accountability. Like when you guys become a REAL democracy :D

Like South Africa?

Like South Africa?

No.. the South African government sucks.. really it does. Like all political leaders they are corrupt.

HOWEVER.

We still have a free and fair judicial system. That the government cant control without pushing the country into civil war.

IE.. our idiot leaders can kinda still be held accountable. You will also know that support for these corrupt leaders comes from the uneducated rural folk. They like the person who dances the best. Education is the enemy of the dictator.

Also FYI.. we sacked our last president :D

Is that what the pogroms last May were about?

I dont mind some socialism *run/hide*. Within reason of course. Like Swedish reason.. but what I despise in people is blinding hypocrisy.

For S.A.M it comes through in her living in the USA, and for Dragon its attacking GW Bush, while idolizing Putin. Someone who anyone with half a brain can realize is a really really bad person.

So when dragon has a go at the US... considering his own back yard is such a mess .. I cant take him seriously, in fact, I actually see him as a professional agitator (this is the only logical reasoning that I can have to someone so blinded by their government).

I mean.. at least Americans know they chose an idiot.. Russians still have to realize their government owns them. The thing is.. its not just dragon who thinks Putin is good for him.. a lot of Russians feel the exact same way as what Hitler made Germans feel after WW2. He filled them with "pride and power".. and they think those things matter.

As for trusting Russians for picking their leaders... well I still have to see them pick someone who isnt either drunk or a dictator wannabe.

right well i have a different image of socialism and i dont think many countries who claim or some people claim them to be socialist really are socialist. do we call them socialist capitalists?

we have:

communism - then - socialism - then - capitalism.

the problem is that socialism can get too close to communism and then it does not take much to cross over that line and it really just boils down to can i make my own decisions or not?

we do need some form of balance. the shame is that people are their own worst enemies. i dont think Putin was all that bad either.

Is that what the pogroms last May were about?

Nope, that was the communist party and COSATU shuffling for power in the new ANC government. With Mbeki loyalists all leaving and forming the new political party COPE (Congress of the people).. COSATU and SACP had to push for power, since their entire support base is rural they had to get political attention.

This was done by screwing with a major issue in South Africa that even surpasses racism. Tribalism (for some reason Bantu people hate other Bantu people more than they hate white people).

And yes.. I am able to admit that was perhaps South Africas worst hour. Im not sure if you saw it in the news but normal families form around South Africa took foreign families into their houses to protected them from the uneducated mob. Its was disgusting and evil.

Can you admit anything about your culture or religion is disgusting and evil S.A.M? And I mean reasonably so. Dragon isnt able to. He blames hobbiest hackers for the mass co-ordinated attack on Estonia. He isnt able to admit his people screwed up. Are you able to take accountability yet SAM? Or are you still blaming everyone else for your cultures fkups?

I'm wondering why my religion or culture is even an issue in this thread.

/me looks at dragon and S.A.M

This moment reminds me of the words to that song. "clowns to the left of me.. jokers to the right"

I'm wondering why my religion or culture is even an issue in this thread.

Yah.. cause its all about Bush`s "icy smile". Has nothing to do with your culture or RELIGION.

Blind blind blind... but I will let this direction of conversation die if its wanted.

maybe if everyone is a clown or a joker, you're the joke?

maybe if everyone is a clown or a joker, you're the joke?

That could very well be. I accept my world view is screwed and I dont pretend to be objective. If I am the clown then this whole reality and world is a sick joke. Who says Allah doesnt have a wicked sense of humour?

Yah.. cause its all about Bush`s "icy smile". Has nothing to do with your culture or RELIGION.
Blind blind blind.

Or just maybe you should look up what he said when he threw the shoes.

Nah not relevant.

Though I have to confess to a similar feeling of revulsion watching the gleeful expression on the face of a certain candidate while he was expressing his joyful support of the invasion. Fucker was practically jerking off onscreen.

So yeah I can see how he might be motivated to wipe a smile like that off his face.

Or just maybe you should look up what he said when he threw the shoes.

Nah not relevant.

Though I have to confess to a similar feeling of revulsion watching the gleeful expression on the face of a certain candidate while he was expressing his joyful support of the invasion. Fucker was practically jerking off onscreen.

So yeah I can see how he might be motivated to wipe a smile like that off his face.

I guess your polarization and opinion explains why idiots like him are so easily able to get people to agree to wars.

Its like this big war of idiots. Remarkable!

I guess your ignorance explains how he gets cannon fodder for his BS

I guess your ignorance explains how he gets cannon fodder for his BS

Yah SAM.. whatever. *face/palm*

What he said to bush:

This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq.

Seems reasonable to me.

Imagine Osama coming to NYC and smiling smugly after 9/11.

Giving speeches on why can't we all get along.

I'm wondering why my religion or culture is even an issue in this thread.

Because it's Islam.

I mean, think of it this way: To the one you have the people who think Muslims are all suicide bombers. Then some guy throws a shoe—or, to be more direct, doesn't strap a bomb to his chest in order to make his point—and people still complain.

It's easier to pretend that Muslims are inherently stupid and evil than to consider history and the effects thereof.

In the end, we must remember that this is the twenty-first century. All things are equal now, haven't you heard? It's hard to work into a snappy catch-phrase, but it works like this: History doesn't apply. What is equals what is right. Thus, if Muslims don't like being shit on, that's their own problem. And if they stand up against injustice, it's only because they're stupid and evil.

How many times might one point out the Schwarzkopf cycle from Mossadeq to Desert Storm? How many times might one remind that an Islamic scholar named Yvonne Haddad pointed out the source of the Islamic world's disagreement with Western democracy (e.g., the exploitation of Muslim lands and peoples) twenty-seven years ago?

The only people left supporting the Iraqi Bush Adventure never actually cared why we went to war. They just wanted to see some brown people get blowed up.

And those who continually expect the darker-skinned among us to demonstrate the kind of civility the "civilized world" is incapable of, to prove themselves superior before being regarded as equal? Well, give me some time, and catch me on a day when I care to undertake the endeavor, and I might be able to invent a justification for them.

The mantra against Muslims right now is that in order to be respected as equals, they must do what the civilized world is too good to be bothered with. I'm sorry I don't have a solution. In the meantime, they can all fuck off, and when that inevitably gets tiresome (as it did long ago), well, this is the human endeavor after all. Nobody said it would be easy. Or fair. Or carried out with half a clue.

Reality sucks. I'll let you know if I come up with anything useful.

Meantime, and I'm not being sarcastic here, offer up your thanks to God that you're not afflicted with these gifts of modernity. And pray that God will someday grant them sight. Sooner rather than later. If e'er we faced a time in which the human endeavor depended on love conquering evil, it is now.

And as to that last, well, yeah. Again, I'll let you know if I come up with anything useful.

What he said to bush:

This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq.

Seems reasonable to me.

Imagine Osama coming to NYC and smiling smugly after 9/11.

Giving speeches on why can't we all get along.

Why didnt he throw a shoe at Saddam when that dictator was alive? :confused:

Oh wait.. he couldnt.. he would have been killed.

why didnt he throw a shoe at Saddam?
Exactly.

Now think. :)

Exactly.

Now think. :)

Saddam would have tortured and executed anyone who had dared to throw a shoe at him?

No he wasn't a hypocrite. That's where gab's "smile" factors in.

The hypocrisy was what finally got to Muntadar al Zaidi. The fact that bush acted like he did them a favour. That's pure evil.

George Bush had the right attitude.
He Joked and said it was a size 10.

George Bush's behaviour at that conference was impressive.
I have always liked the man, even when I couldn't agree with his policies.

A plea of clemency from the ex president would be gracious.

Yeah I'm still laughing at the state of the US, economic, political, social and strategic.

Boy that man sure had a sense of humour

I'm wondering why my religion or culture is even an issue in this thread.

Violent acts in response to perceived threats?

What would happen if an American threw something at a visiting Islamic leader? Would Muslims worldwide riot in the streets? Would there be deaths?

is that before or after he invaded and occupied the country killing hundreds of thousands of people?

is that before or after he invaded and occupied the country killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Are you talking about Muhammad?

No since he's uh dead?
But I see you get the point since you're resorting to strawmen now

No since he's uh dead?
But I see you get the point since you're resorting to strawmen now

Too funny, the queen of strawmen arguments calling a strawman.

Muhammad invaded and occupied countries killing hundreds of thousands. How is that a strawman, Sam?

Let's start with: relevance?

What would happen if an American threw something at a visiting Islamic leader? Would Muslims worldwide riot in the streets? Would there be deaths?

This is not an American custom. They seem to prefer invasion and mass murder.

we have:

communism - then - socialism - then - capitalism. Uh, you forgot something.

Starts with an "f".

And as you attempt to fit it into that odd little synopsis of confusion (between capitalism and socialism? Maybe that's too obviously comical ) the important question to ask yourself is: Why did you overlook it?

Especially, in watching W visit the conquered and occupied Iraq and hold carefully controlled "press conferences" with the local client state rep, as the oil and military contractors set the scene and the last stages of the ethnic cleansings lurch along in the wings, how could anyone possibly have overlooked the dominant ideology of this kind of venture in the modern industrial world?

Because it caused no injury, it is a minor offence.
Any sentence more than weeks or months in prison would be ludicrous.

If he had hit George Bush in the face that would have been worse.

If George Bush, instead of being an expert dodger of objects, had been panic stricken and died of a heart attack, that would have been much worse.

Looking at the footage, you might wonder why W is so adept at dodging missiles.

Marriage problems perhaps?