Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses

[Cicero]

Given all the evidence (Plame affair; Downing St memo; books by Bush supporter, Bob Woodward and the counter-intelligence head, Richard Clarke; PBS Moyers special, The Selling of the War, to name a few sources), it does boggle the mind the denial people cling to. It goes to show you the marketing adage, just repeating something often enough and people begin to believe it, works quite well. Bush and Cheney actively repeat the "intelligence failure" mantra and sadly, it is successful. But it will only be temporarily IMO. History will not be kind.

I knew the libs would throw Woodward under the Greyhound when he wouldn't tow the company line about the lame Plame affair. What will it take to get the famous investigative journalist, who took on the Nixon Administration, to get back into the good graces of the far left? You fell in love with David Brock only after he repudiated his former boss, The American Spectator, retracted his comments about Anita Hill, and posted his prejudices against FOX News in his Media Matters website. What sort of contortions will Woodward have to submit to before he can worm his way back into the good graces of far left moonbats?

[Klimax]

What happened to skeptics here??? :confused:
Those who are trashing woo in other section,who are promoting critical thinking... here they absolutely HATE Bush NO MATTER what he did/does/will do.
They embrace CT,they trash/insult president only because his administartion had different take on issues.Two wars - not good;one would be enough at a time to complete all objectives.That was his and of administartion error.Getting rid of Sadam,good;going into Afhanistan good.
But I have to wonder why politics will bring out of people the worst is in them... Sceptigirl,Upchurch,godless dave,JoeTheJuggler you should think how is this debate painting you in what light.(bad light)You were not right nearly every time you posted in this thread supporting in fact Sadam and one of his supporters.After things will settle Iraq is going to be far better place then it was(during Sadam reign).About WMDs simply inteligence errors and under/oversimating and since they were once used who could guarantee they wouldn't be used again?(And who could guarantee that he won't attack again)

(this was to left-wing)

And then similar does/will apply to right-wing(See elections and campaing against Obama),but Bush was not worst president (from MY POV,this is from CR)simply had major attack,one bad war and one after long time ending and some strange law passed.I think average performance...

So question stands how does it come that politics will make from skeptics oneside-arguers?

P.S.:Please ignore truthers as they are even more disconected from reality then any of Bush-haters.(See 9/11 CT forum) Or do you want to prove me wrong?

[JihadJane]

After things will settle Iraq is going to be far better place then it was(during Sadam reign).

On what do you base this assertion? The country's infrastruture is in ruins.

[Dr Adequate]

I knew the libs would throw Woodward under the Greyhound when he wouldn't tow the company line about the lame Plame affair. What will it take to get the famous investigative journalist, who took on the Nixon Administration, to get back into the good graces of the far left? You fell in love with David Brock only after he repudiated his former boss, The American Spectator, retracted his comments about Anita Hill, and posted his prejudices against FOX News in his Media Matters website. What sort of contortions will Woodward have to submit to before he can worm his way back into the good graces of far left moonbats? Maybe you should have read skeptigirl's post before replying to it.

[Dr Adequate]

What happened to skeptics here??? :confused:
Those who are trashing woo in other section,who are promoting critical thinking... here they absolutely HATE Bush NO MATTER what he did/does/will do. Why are you shouting at that silly straw doll? It can't hear you, you know.

[Cicero]

Maybe you should have read skeptigirl's post before replying to it.

Read it? I could have predicted it. She believes Woodward is a Bush 43 supporter. When Woodward didn't line up with the pro Val & Joe contingency, that must have cemented it.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Perhaps; but so was Clinton, so was every American president -- the USA always had to deal with dictatorial jerks, and not all of them could, nor perhaps should, be removed. National interest figures in which, if any, of them should. But the "Bush Derangement" folks ignore the rather obvious point that even if Bush is only "pro-democracy when it is convenient" (all which that is left, incidentally, of the "Bush started Iraq war for oil", "Bush started Afghanistan war for a pipeline", "Bush stole the elections", "Bush will declare martial law", etc., etc. conspiracy theories that were oh-so-popular around here a while ago), he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so.

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

This is the kind of company the Bush haters have no problem keeping, as long as they dislike Bush, too. And a man is judged by the company they keep.


Ahh the tired old 1 bit thinking of "if you hate bush, you must support his enemies" crap again.

I think the guy who through the shoe was great. I am sorry that Bush was able to duck in time causing him to miss.

But do I support Saddam Hussein? Hell no. Hussein was one nasty mofo.




"pro-Democracy Bush!" I'mi still laughing at that one. Pure classic humor!!!

Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country.

What was the first thing the CPA did after invading the place and setting up the green zone? No it wasn't to help the Iraqi people. It was to ilegally change Iraq's laws to privatize the place, so that unlimited wealth could be withdrawn from the country.

After Iraq was shock and awed to shreds, who got the contracts for reconstruction? The Iraqis didn't they? Nope. Even though it cost up to 20 times as much the reconstruction was given to, guess, the western corporates who flew in services and supplies, instead of sourcing them locally and helping the Iraq economy.

Anyone who thinks that those who invaded Iraq did it for democracy there are fooling themselves. Or being fooled by the western spin.

[gtc]

Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country.

You claim not to be anti-semitic, yet you use their terminology.

[Klimax]

On what do you base this assertion? The country's infrastruture is in ruins.

War uinfortunately brings that but we have already examples like German or Japan.(They were however easier as there was no insurgency).I view "graph of state" as the one produced by function x^x - first some decreas,then fast improvement.It is difficult to rebuilt and improve when you have terrorist and insurgency.And then they have already freedom which was not there during Sadam.(Sadly I cannot relate from personal experience, but there are good reporters like Michael Yon (http://www.michaelyon-online.com) and Michael Totten (http://www.michaeltotten.com)
(Both cover as Iraq so Afghanistan,good articles there))

Why are you shouting at that silly straw doll? It can't hear you, you know.

There is no silly straw doll... This entire thread shows unhealthy BDS. (there is most possibly thread with ODS)
I read carefully and it's clear that some skeptics forgets critical thinking.

[Skeptic]

About WMDs simply inteligence errors and under/oversimating and since they were once used who could guarantee they wouldn't be used again?

That the Bush administration was wrong about the WMD is certain (well, ALMOST certain -- there's always the possibility Saddam did in fact hide them well). But, two completely obvious points the Bush haters keep ignoring:

1). It was NOT the main reason for going to war, but at most one of the reasons given to Congress. Most of the other reasons were correct.

2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on?

Or take the "mission accomplished" sign:

1). It wasn't put up by Bush or his people, but by the carrier's crew, to emphasize THEIR SPECIFIC MISSION was accomplished (as they came back to port after making it).

2). Bush's own speech on that very same carrier empasized the Iraq mission was NOT accomplished yet.

These are obvious facts. These facts do not mean the war in Iraq was a good idea. But it certainly, and obviously, was NOT "a war based on the WMD lie", and it is certainly, and obviously, NOT the case that the "idiot Bush believe the mission was accomplished".

And yet these two claims are not merely rants on the fringes of the left -- of the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama not American" sort rants on the fringers of the right. These are practically dogma with half of the democrats.

I, too, wonder why critical thinking goes straight out the window when Bush is involved, in favor of silly conspiracy theories.

[Skeptic]

On what do you base this assertion?

Ask the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, for starters. There's a fair chance they will not be genocided under a democratic government, as they were under Saddam. It's not necessarily the case -- perhaps a democratic government will devolve into anarchy and the massacres will start again -- but better a possible salvation with democracy, than certain doom with Saddam.

But you're right: the country's infrastructure IS in ruins. Still, that too has a positive side: when the country's infrastructure was operating well, Saddam had very little trouble sending tanks and soldiers and poison-gas trucks to genocide those people, nor did the vans carrying his political opponents to one of the many prisons he built for them encounter any delay on the way.

Ah, the good old days, before evil American imperialism...

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country.

.You claim not to be anti-semitic, yet you use their terminology.

This is a serious question ....

Can I ask what your IQ is?

Are you seriously, and with a straight face, proclaiming that someone could be antisemitic because they used the word 'leech' ?


Bud, I'm honestly beginning to think there is something wrong with you.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on?
.

Your logic for it not being a deliberate lie has no strength or credibility

Do you really think that people who don't miss a heartbeat about a million civilians getting killed would be worried about any embarrassment of the eventual revelation there were really no WMDs?

They don't give a flying ****

They knew they could just blame it on someone else. Incompetence, Flawed intle, etc, etc. Doesn't matter the job is done.

Iraq was invaded on a lie.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Iraqi's yearn for "the good ol' days" because they were better for most than the New American Century days.

This is true. Even though most Iraqis are glad to get rid of Saddam, they are much worse off now under the PNAC regime.

"pro-democracy Bush" - ROFLMAO!!! Still a classic. If that guy didn't have such a hatred of the Palestinians I'd say he was a comedy genius!

[Pardalis]

After Iraq was shock and awed to shreds, who got the contracts for reconstruction? The Iraqis didn't they? Nope. Even though it cost up to 20 times as much the reconstruction was given to, guess, the western corporates who flew in services and supplies, instead of sourcing them locally and helping the Iraq economy.


Do you have any reliable sources on that, any numbers?

[Dr Adequate]

1). It was NOT the main reason for going to war ... We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Here's the text (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html) of Powell's speech to the U.N, the speech that he later described (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article564912.ece) as a painful blot on his record. Reading it over, what would you say was the main reason he gives for going to war, if not WMDs?

2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on? 'Cos by that time they'd had the war they wanted. Being "embarrassed" might seem a small price to pay, especially as this only applies to people with a sense of shame. Colin Powell was embarrassed, but I can't think of another senior official who's betrayed the least embarrassment. Perhaps you can: if so, feel free to quote them.

But yes, it might have been a combination of wishful thinking and drooling idiocy, or "woo" as we call it round here. I don't see how that makes it OK.

Or take the "mission accomplished" sign:

1). It wasn't put up by Bush or his people, but by the carrier's crew, to emphasize THEIR SPECIFIC MISSION was accomplished (as they came back to port after making it). As the White House has admitted (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html), the banner was made, and hung in that particular position, by White House staff:

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

And even if you wish to deny what the White House has admitted, are you trying to claim that Bush standing slap-bang in front of it was not an intentional photo-op?

http://bastardlogic.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mission-accomplished.jpg

Of all the things that he could have stood in front of, he just happened to stand in front of that?

Damn, such terrible bad luck.

2). Bush's own speech on that very same carrier empasized the Iraq mission was NOT accomplished yet.

Let's hear from Bush (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml), shall we?

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And yet these two claims are not merely rants on the fringes of the left -- of the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama not American" sort rants on the fringers of the right. These are practically dogma with half of the democrats. Let's be frank, they are "practically dogma" with anyone whose view of reality is not obscured by Bush's ass.

[Darth Rotor]

We have always been at war with Eastasia.
How trite. Please remember that neither Bush nor Powell were clairvoyant. Saddam had programs in some state unknown, I recommend the Scheuer points about how intel dried up after Desert Fox to indicate how in the dark the Bush admins were. Therefore, using an unfortunate helping of confirmation bias, Bush and his team chose to make a worst case assumption about the programs that, within a year of the egg being broken open to see if it had one or two yokes, were not where they had been assessed to be. Time and again I find the Cheney attempts at six sigma in national security decision assessment to be the core problem here, his much ballyhooed unwillingness to deal with the 1/100 or 1/1000 risk. On that basis, the decision process is even more appalling, and IMO, more telling.

We aren't dealing with a lie here. We are dealing with a profound case of

1. Myopia
2. Zero defects woo.
3. A false dichotomy in terms of what options were available. Two is not the correct number, and rarely is at that level.

That is, to me, far more troubling than anything so simple as a lie.

DR

[Cicero]

Iraq was invaded on a lie.

Was Kuwait invaded on a lie?

[Toke]

Was Kuwait invaded on a lie?

As I recall it desert storm was a fight for democracy, I don´t recall which one.:D

[Toke]

Ah, the good old days, before evil American imperialism...

I am sure the quarter of the iraki population that is displaced or dead as a result of the invation are real gratefull for being liberated.

Look on the bright side, american imperialism is no more evil than so many other empires through history, just more powerfull.

[OneShotKi11]

He didnt miss with that throw! Bush's extraordinary shoe dodging capabilities kicked in, and we all seen what happened next...

[Cicero]

He didnt miss with that throw! Bush's extraordinary shoe dodging capabilities kicked in, and we all seen what happened next...

That Iraqi "journalist" manged to hit the American flag, but couldn't tag a guy 10 feet in front of him, twice. But he will get a lot of practise being tagged himself while enjoying the hospitality of the local gray bar hotel.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

http://bastardlogic.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mission-accomplished.jpg

Of all the things that he could have stood in front of, he just happened to stand in front of that?

Damn, such terrible bad luck.



What? You mean the Autocue. :)

Never mind Painting by Numbers, this is Presidency by Numbers. Is he that much of a drone that he has to have a victory speech scripted. but then all good fiction is scripted isn't it? :)

[Skeptic]

I do wish they'd make up their mind -- either Bush is an evil genius or else he's a moron. And no, "He's a moron used by evil geniuses" doesn't cut it, except for being an afterthought excuse for holding obviously contrary views about Bush.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I do wish they'd make up their mind -- either Bush is an evil genius or else he's a moron. And no, "He's a moron used by evil geniuses" doesn't cut it, except for being an afterthought excuse for holding obviously contrary views about Bush.

Why doesn't it cut it?

[Darth Rotor]

Why doesn't it cut it?

They aren't geniuses.

[Cicero]

I am sure the quarter of the iraki population that is displaced or dead as a result of the invation are real gratefull for being liberated.


Over 70,000 French citizens died from Allied bombings before France was liberated in WWII. Nearly a million French homes were destroyed, or partially destroyed, by the Allies and even one or two cities were completely destroyed. Yet, most french citizens were indeed grateful for being liberated.

Many Iraqis people hated the U.S. before 1991, before 2003, and will always hate the U.S. What else is new?

[Dr Adequate]

How trite. Please remember that neither Bush nor Powell were clairvoyant ...

We aren't dealing with a lie here. We are dealing with a profound case of

1. Myopia
2. Zero defects woo.
3. A false dichotomy in terms of what options were available. Two is not the correct number, and rarely is at that level.

That is, to me, far more troubling than anything so simple as a lie. My Orwell quote was not aimed at Bush et al, but at Skeptic, when he claimed that WMDs were never offered as the main reason for invading Iraq. This is a blatant rewriting of history. This is indeed on a par with Stalin airbrushing Trotsky out of photographs and with the Orwellian statement that "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

[Dr Adequate]

I do wish they'd make up their mind -- either Bush is an evil genius or else he's a moron. And no, "He's a moron used by evil geniuses" doesn't cut it, except for being an afterthought excuse for holding obviously contrary views about Bush. When you have to break new records in logical fallacies, this is nature's way of telling you that you're wrong.

I make that a false trichotomy involving three different straw men. If you're going for some sort of a record, why don't you throw in a petitio principii?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

They aren't geniuses.

Yes, good point! :D

[Tin Foil Timothy]

When you have to break new records in logical fallacies, this is nature's way of telling you that you're wrong.

I make that a false trichotomy involving three different straw men. If you're going for some sort of a record, why don't you throw in a petitio principii?

Would it qualify as a stundie ?

I wanted to nominate his "pro-democracy Bush!" assertion. :D:D

[Dr Adequate]

Over 70,000 French citizens died from Allied bombings before France was liberated in WWII. Nearly a million French homes were destroyed, or partially destroyed, by the Allies and even one or two cities were completely destroyed. Yet, most french citizens were indeed grateful for being liberated. Yes. They were. In particular, I can't remember any French citizens making suicide attacks against the Allies. So if Iraqis don't feel the same way, maybe there is a real and significant diffence between the invasion of Iraq and the liberation of France.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Yes. They were. In particular, I can't remember any French citizens making suicide attacks against the Allies. So if Iraqis don't feel the same way, maybe there is a real and significant diffence between the invasion of Iraq and the liberation of France.

Here's an obvious one.

France was occupied by a foreign power before it's liberation

Iraq was occupied by a foreign power after it's invasion.


Surely no one is comparing the two scenarios with a straight face.

[Cicero]

Here's an obvious one.

France was occupied by a foreign power before it's liberation

Iraq was occupied by a foreign power after it's invasion.


Surely no one is comparing the two scenarios with a straight face.

The Resistance in France during WWII was a tiny segment of the overall population. Most of the French people didn't even care about being occupied by the Nazis and even turned their Jews over to the Nazis before even being asked to do so. Yet, the French people threw flowers at their American and British liberators.

Of course the South of France was under Vichy control. So your occupation analogy falls flat.

Oddly enough, the Americans were also greeted as liberators when they got to Baghdad. Unfortunately, the Americans over stayed their welcome.

Saddam occupied Kuwait in 1991. Think of the Gulf War II as just a continuation of that war and you get the same comparison to expelling the Germans from France and then pursuing them into Germany to topple the Hitler regime.

[Dr Adequate]

Tin Foil Timothy is arguing with Cicero.

This is sweet. Dante would have put them next to one another in Hell.

I wish I had some popcorn. Give me some popcorn.

[Cicero]

I wish I had some popcorn. Give me some popcorn.

Maybe you might stumble across a kernel of truth in that bag to compensate for the lack of any in your posts.

[Dr Adequate]

Maybe you might stumble across a kernel of truth in that bag to compensate for the lack of any in your posts. If you can find any errors in my posts, you are of course free to point them out rather than just pretending that they exist.

Of course I realise that the second of these two options is easier for you.

[Dr Adequate]

There is no silly straw doll... I quoted it.

Denial of the bleedin' obvious is not your friend.

[articulett]

Tin Foil Timothy is arguing with Cicero.

This is sweet. Dante would have put them next to one another in Hell.

I wish I had some popcorn. Give me some popcorn.

:popcorn6

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Oddly enough, the Americans were also greeted as liberators when they got to Baghdad.

Yeah by the paid crowd who slapped Saddam's toppled statue with shoes for the western media cameras while at the same time the CPA was illegally creating Iraqi laws allowing tax free removal of Iraq's wealth and the ability of mercenary thugs from Blackwater to kill Iraqi civilians for fun under impunity form the law.

You should learn what liberation actually means. What it doesn't mean is removing an evil tyrant only to create something much worse.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Most of the French people didn't even care about being occupied by the Nazi.

Pure comedy!!!

[Cicero]

Pure comedy!!!

Humorous and true. Are you of Iraqi and French heritage or something?

[Cicero]

Yeah by the paid crowd who slapped Saddam's toppled statue with shoes for the western media cameras while at the same time the CPA was illegally creating Iraqi laws allowing tax free removal of Iraq's wealth and the ability of mercenary thugs from Blackwater to kill Iraqi civilians for fun under impunity form the law.

You should learn what liberation actually means. What it doesn't mean is removing an evil tyrant only to create something much worse.

The Iraqi citizens who initally greeted the American military with cheer were all paid for their enthusiasm? Would you have any evidance of this other than your innate hatred of Bush, the American military, and your devotion to Bathists?

[Darth Rotor]

My Orwell quote was not aimed at Bush et al, but at Skeptic, when he claimed that WMDs were never offered as the main reason for invading Iraq. This is a blatant rewriting of history. This is indeed on a par with Stalin airbrushing Trotsky out of photographs and with the Orwellian statement that "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

I get that.

FWIW, we (the US and maybe bits and pieces of the UN) had been sort of at war (no armistice, just a non resolved cease fire) with Iraq from 1991 on. UN is still sort of at war with North Korea, as all we have is an unresolved cease fire, not a full armistice.

It was at a low simmer, sure, but I don't call Desert Fox a peaceful interchange between parties, nor the various strikes in the Northern and Southern No Fly Zones. ;)

Casualus belli, or belli interuptus. Pick your poison. ;)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

The Iraqi citizens who initally greeted the American military with cheer were all paid for their enthusiasm? Would you have any evidance of this other than your innate hatred of Bush, the American military, and your devotion to Bathists?
He's a Knight of the Ba'ath, is he? :confused:

[Darth Rotor]

The Iraqi citizens who initally greeted the American military with cheer were all paid for their enthusiasm? Would you have any evidance of this other than your innate hatred of Bush, the American military, and your devotion to Bathists?

Tim might be unaware that not a few Shia in the South were very pleased to see Saddam's regime dissolve. Not a few decided that US and friends were starting to overstay their welcome, as time went on.

DR

[Cicero]

Tim might be unaware that not a few Shia in the South were very pleased to see Saddam's regime dissolve. Not a few decided that US and friends were starting to overstay their welcome, as time went on.

DR

TFT has a difficult time processing any information that does not feed his weltanschauung.

[Dr Adequate]

I get that.

FWIW, we (the US and maybe bits and pieces of the UN) had been sort of at war (no armistice, just a non resolved cease fire) with Iraq from 1991 on. UN is still sort of at war with North Korea, as all we have is an unresolved cease fire, not a full armistice.

It was at a low simmer, sure, but I don't call Desert Fox a peaceful interchange between parties, nor the various strikes in the Northern and Southern No Fly Zones. ;)

Casualus belli, or belli interuptus. Pick your poison. ;)

DR I wasn't actually claiming that "we have always been at war with Eastasia"; it's a literary reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four) to the blatancy with which Skeptic rewrites history.

The world of Nineteen Eighty-Four is built around a never-ending war involving the book's three superstates, with two allied powers fighting against the third ... The allied states occasionally split with each other and new alliances are formed. Each time this happens, history is rewritten to convince the people that the new alliances always existed, using the principles of doublethink ... Throughout the first half of the novel, Oceania is allied with Eastasia, and Oceania's forces are combating Eurasia's troops in northern Africa.

Midway through the book, the alliance breaks apart and Oceania, newly allied with Eurasia, begins a campaign against Eastasian forces. This happens during "Hate Week" (a week of extreme focus on the malice supposed of Oceania's enemies, the purpose of which is to stir up patriotic fervour in support of the Party). The public is quite abnormally blind to the change, and when a public orator, mid-sentence, changes the name of the enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia (still speaking as if nothing had changed), the people are shocked and soon enraged as they notice that all the flags and posters are wrong and tear them down. This is the origin of the idiom "we've always been at war with Eastasia".

[Darth Rotor]

I wasn't actually claiming that "we have always been at war with Eastasia"; it's a literary reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four) to the blatancy with which Skeptic rewrites history.
I read the book. What Orwell wrote is a caricature of political use of propaganda. It's lovely for what it is. I also get the overuse of that reference on this internet subforum.

Why do I find that reference of little use? We have a significant availability of informational variety that 1984's environment didn't have.

What I was hoping to do was apply a little of the forever war idea to the more practical issue in practice, be it the forever war with Iraq since 1991 to now, as they are part of a continuum, or the forever war of the past sixty years between Israel and its varied opponents. The risk of the US slipping into the condition of being a warfare state isn't zero. I am not convinced that sufficient lessons have been learned of the Soviet Union's adapting that model -- which is the authoritarian model that Orwell lampoons, -- and the long term costs. In short, Bush's decision at approaching the War on Terror have, in some ways, been a step toward embracing that approach, the warfare state, regarding a non-state, terrorists, for which Orwells's model is bloody useless. His paradigm was states.

For a useful look at the development of the permanent warfare state,

James J. Schneider

The Structure of Strategic Revolution: Total War and the Roots of the Soviet Warfare State
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Strategic-Revolution-Soviet-Warfare/dp/089141522X

Caveat: it's a decade old, so may or may not address the topic as freshly as one might wish in light of how Russian sources come and go in the intervening years to now. Also, limited in scope to not embody as much of the eventual breaking of said warfare state. Deadlines are what they are.

DR

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The Iraqi citizens who initally greeted the American military with cheer were all paid for their enthusiasm? Would you have any evidance of this other than your innate hatred of Bush, the American military, and your devotion to Bathists?

Will the real Cicero please stand up?

The real Cicero wouldn't accuse anyone of hating bush, hating the American Military, and be devoted to Ba'athists.

You are obviously a fraud.

I will admit to disliking Bush though. Although I couldn't really say I hate him. It's difficult to hate someone who is a complete laughing stock.

[Cicero]

Will the real Cicero please stand up?

The real Cicero wouldn't accuse anyone of hating bush, hating the American Military, and be devoted to Ba'athists.

You are obviously a fraud.

I will admit to disliking Bush though. Although I couldn't really say I hate him. It's difficult to hate someone who is a complete laughing stock.

You pity Bush? OK. You also pity the American military? How much did the U.S. military pay Iraqi citizens to cheer them when they initially arrived in Baghdad in 2003? Could you check your copy of the Baath Party newsletter for the exact amount?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

You pity Bush? OK. You also pity the American military? How much did the U.S. military pay Iraqi citizens to cheer them when they initially arrived in Baghdad in 2003? Could you check your copy of the Baath Party newsletter for the exact amount?

I think it's more pertinent to ask what was stolen from the Iraqi citizens by the Zionist-Neocon invaders.

CPA privatization orders anyone?

[Cicero]

I think it's more pertinent to ask what was stolen from the Iraqi citizens by the Zionist-Neocon invaders.

CPA privatization orders anyone?

So now you are officially out of the closet as an anti-Semite?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

So now you are officially out of the closet as an anti-Semite?

WTF are you talking about? Oh, because I said Zionist-Neocon??

What's that got to do with racism Cicero? - Absolutely Nothing. :rolleyes:

Still you wouldn't be the first to vomit that tired old argument.

[Cicero]

WTF are you talking about? Oh, because I said Zionist-Neocon??

What's that got to do with racism Cicero? - Absolutely Nothing. :rolleyes:

Still you wouldn't be the first to vomit that tired old argument.

You hate Israel and lament the fact that Saddam's regime, a sworn enemy of Israel, is out of power in Iraq. If you are interested in reading regurgitation tea leaves, I suggest you look at your own coughed up bile. There is no mistaking the tell tale signs of an anti-Semite.

[Skeptic]

Yes. They were. In particular, I can't remember any French citizens making suicide attacks against the Allies. So if Iraqis don't feel the same way, maybe there is a real and significant diffence between the invasion of Iraq and the liberation of France.

Yes, there is: for starters, Frenchmen weren't brainwashed by Jihadist ideology who considered the random killing of non-French-Catholics in the holy French land, no matter why they're there, to be an instant ticket to heaven.

But I like your logic -- to wit, that if the terrorists blow up Americans in suicide attacks, this surely shows that the Americans did something incredibly awful and had it coming. By the same logic, since the suicide bombers in Iraq killed far more Iraqis than they did Americans, what the Iraqis are really opposed to is the existence of other Iraqis, and they are simply suicidal. After all, you haven't heard of Frenchmen blowing themselves up in such a way in order to kill as many other Frenchmen as possible, either, have you?

Now, since it's the same people who are blowing up both Americans and the Iraqis, you seem to have a choice. Either you say that they are representative of what "the Iraqis" want, in which case the Iraqis want national suicide and it hardly matters if the USA invades or not. Or, if these people do not represent what "the Iraqis" want, then you can hardly use their suicide attacks against Americans as evidence the Americans are doing something wrong.

On the contrary, if anything: since those who do attack Americans with suicide bombers are in effect the same people who attack the Iraqis with suicide bombers, it follows that those who would destroy Iraq see Americans as their enemies. Therefore, the Americans are on the pro-Iraqi side, against those who would destroy it -- a rather obvious truth.

Well, for most people, at least.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

You hate Israel and lament the fact that Saddam's regime, a sworn enemy of Israel, is out of power in Iraq. If you are interested in reading regurgitation tea leaves, I suggest you look at your own coughed up bile. There is no mistaking the tell tale signs of an anti-Semite.

"the tell tale signs of an anti-Semite." my scrotum. :rolleyes: You people are a laughing stock.

What a load of horse crap. Another piece of bile from the frothing at the mouth Anti-Semite police.

I don't hate Israel. I certainly have nothing against the ordinary Israelis. I am disgusted at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians though.



and lament the fact that Saddam's regime, a sworn enemy of Israel, is out of power in Iraq.

And where did you fabricate these lies from. The fact that you have to lie to try and put forward an argument just proves your prime motives, which are to tarnish anyone with Anti-Semite who dares to criticize Israel/Zionist Movement.

There's no point in challenging you to provide evidence of me lamenting Saddam's demise as I just know you'll squirm behind your monitor and divert and avoid.

Saddam was a nasty piece of work no doubt. But recognizing that Iraq is worse off under the invading power is not showing support for Saddam. Anyone with even 2 brain cells could work that one out.

By making those baseless accusations you've just made yourself look very stupid indeed.

So carry on flapping around shouting "Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite!" in a squeaky whining voice and give us all a laugh. Is there a standard Anti-Semite Police uniform?

[Skeptic]

WTF are you talking about? Oh, because I said Zionist-Neocon??

Yes, because you said "Zionist-Neocon". "Neocon" might have passed but "Zionist-neocon" is a telltale sign that you consider the invasion was a "Zionist" invasion -- that is, instigated and planned by "Zionists", or for their benefit. But the "Zionists controlled America" nonsense is obviously simply a rehash of the "Jewish controlled world" conspiracy theory.

Even a short check, for instance, of conspiracy theory web sites, shows how the "Zionist controlled" American government, or ZOG, is behind everything -- and "Zionist" is obviously meant as "Jew". For example, the only evidence needed to prove to these folks that someone is a "Zionist" in the conspiracy is that he has a Jewish-sounding name.

As an icing on the cake, your post also says, as usual with antisemitic conspiracy theories, that the "Zionist neocons" did it all for the money. This is the usual "Jews are greedy and will do anything for money" libel. Not to mention your claim that 9/11 was "possibly" a false flag attack -- you won't say by whom, but surely by the same "Zionist-neocons", if by anybody.

And I'm supposed to believe this is a pure coincidence, isn't it? That it is merely by chance that the people you call "Zionist-Neocons" are usually Jews (or else "controlled" by "Zionist-neocons" who are Jews); that it is merely by chance that you blame the "Zionist-neocons" for the same "evil control the USA policy" that the openly antisemitic blame the Jews for; that it is merely by change that you say the "Zionist-neocons" are doing it all out of greed, the usual antisemitic slander about jews; and that it's merely by chance that you also consider it "possible" these Zionist-neocons planned 9/11 as well, like the open antisemites say the Jews did (or that the US government did on the Jews' orders.)

Riiiiiiight.

The antisemite says:

"Some greedy, world controlling Jew, had..."

You say:

"Some zionist neocon, who just happens to be a greedy world controlling Jew, had..."

Yeah, big difference there.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Yes, because you said "Zionist-Neocon". "Neocon" might have passed but "Zionist-neocon" is a telltale sign that you consider the invasion was a "Zionist" invasion -- that is, instigated and planned by "Zionists", or for their benefit. But the "Zionists controlled America" nonsense is obviously simply a rehash of the "Jewish controlled world" conspiracy theory.

Even a short check, for instance, of conspiracy theory web sites, shows how the "Zionist controlled" American government, or ZOG, is behind everything -- and "Zionist" is obviously meant as "Jew". For example, the only evidence needed to prove to these folks that someone is a "Zionist" in the conspiracy is that he has a Jewish-sounding name.

As an icing on the cake, your post also says, as usual with antisemitic conspiracy theories, that the "Zionist neocons" did it all for the money. This is the usual "Jews are greedy and will do anything for money" libel. Not to mention your claim that 9/11 was "possibly" a false flag attack -- you won't say by whom, but surely by the same "Zionist-neocons", if by anybody.

And I'm supposed to believe this is a pure coincidence, isn't it? That it is merely by chance that the people you call "Zionist-Neocons" are usually Jews (or else "controlled" by "Zionist-neocons" who are Jews); that it is merely by chance that you blame the "Zionist-neocons" for the same "evil control the USA policy" that the openly antisemitic blame the Jews for; that it is merely by change that you say the "Zionist-neocons" are doing it all out of greed, the usual antisemitic slander about jews; and that it's merely by chance that you also consider it "possible" these Zionist-neocons planned 9/11 as well, like the open antisemites say the Jews did (or that the US government did on the Jews' orders.)

Riiiiiiight.

The antisemite says:

"Some greedy, world controlling Jew, had..."

You say:

"Some zionist neocon, who just happens to be a greedy world controlling Jew, had..."

Yeah, big difference there.


Wow Skeptic that's 12 times in one post!!!! And a whole gamut of false accusations as icing on the cake.

I have absolutely nothing against anyone for being Jewish. but that doesn't matter to you and your obsessive huge chip on your shoulder about the world hating Jews and wanting to throw Israel into the sea.

Get over yourself. You're going to have a heart attack if you keep on ranting Anti-Semitism at anyone who criticizes the Zionist Movement and or Israel.

You are the one turning it into a Jewish problem not me.

YOU are the one that is racist not I .....

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298005&postcount=360

Of course, the Palestinians could have defeated this evil plan by not killing civilians.

But hey, killing civilians randomly is what Palestinians do.


Just think if someone here had said ...

"But hey, killing civilians randomly is what Jews do."

.. you'd be spitting a constant stream of obsessive shrieks of "Anti-semitism!" for hours.

You are a laughing stock. :D

[Upchurch]

Most of the French people didn't even care about being occupied by the Nazis
:dl:

I'd ask you for evidence for this, but you obviously don't need my help to make a fool out of yourself.

:dl:


Humorous and true.
Well, half right.

[Toke]

How come both Obama and McCain declared their undying devotion to a Greater Israel during the campain?

Israel have no special status in american foreign policy, right?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

How come both Obama and McCain declared their undying devotion to a Greater Israel during the campain?

Israel have no special status in american foreign policy, right?




No of course not. ;)



I read the speeches that Obama, Mccain and Hillary made to AIPAC at their conference. We'll know America has moved on the day it gets a Pro-Palestinian President. Or even better a neutral President.

[Pardalis]

How come both Obama and McCain declared their undying devotion to a Greater Israel during the campain?

You sure you're not putting words in their mouths there fella?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

Nope, nowhere as he mentioned "Greater Israel".

[Darth Rotor]

How come both Obama and McCain declared their undying devotion to a Greater Israel during the campain?

Israel have no special status in american foreign policy, right?
Toke:

The money trail says otherwise. Measured in dollars in aid per capita, Israel gets a remarkable aid benefit from Washington. COmpare that to aid to Denmark or Norway, via the measure of NATO Accounting Units per capita (US dollars are about 25% of NATO common funding) and you'll see a comparison between advanced countries of a similar sort.

See also the bribes from Camp David: a roughly equivalent sum for each player, but Egypt has ten times the population. ;)

I will leave to Oliver and others the AIPAC more flamboyant responses to your post.

Or even better a neutral President.

An American "pro-Palestinian" president is not a good move, nor a rational one.

Neutral is a far better objective, if a change is in the offing.

DR

[Toke]

You sure you're not putting words in their mouths there fella?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

Nope, nowhere as he mentioned "Greater Israel".

Yes I did put words in their mouths, mistakes happen.

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Read it a while ago, and mixed it up with greater Israel from some fundie.

Here is the corrected version
How come both Obama and McCain declared their undying devotion to Israel during the campain?

Israel have no special status in american foreign policy, right?

[Pardalis]

Funny enough, the truther accepted your "mistaken" version hook, line, and sinker.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Yes I did put words in their mouths, mistakes happen.

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.



Supporting the illegal occupation of Jerusulam is just as bad though.

[Toke]

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
I do wonder how big the difference is between this and a Greater Israel, and if Omaba knows it?

Whatever the case, Israel is giving jews a bad name.

[Skeptic]

Supporting the illegal occupation of Jerusulam is just as bad though.

Except that it isn't "illegal". Jews lived in Jerusalem forever... until 1948, that is, when the Jordanian Legion conquered the old city of Jerusalem... and naturally ethnically cleansed every single Jew there and made it Judenrein.

And that, folks, is how Jerusalem became "Arab East Jerusalem" which is "illegally occupied" by Jews -- since the time, 19 years laters, the Jordanian legion tried to finish the job it started in 1948 and push the Jews into the sea.

But I keep forgetting that Arab ethnic cleansing is just fine.

[Skeptic]

Whatever the case, Israel is giving jews a bad name.

Strange.

When my grandfather was young, it was the fact that there wasn't an Israel which, people very honestly and firmly told him, was giving Jews a bad name -- proving that Jews are parasites that must feed off a "host" nation, instead of surviving on their own in their own country, like any normal people would.

Now, it is the fact that there is an Israel which, people very honestly and firmly tell me, is giving Jews a bad name -- proving that the Jews are evil occupiers who must destroy other people with the phony-baloney excuse that they want their own country, instead of being loyal citizens of the European countries they came from, like any normal people would.

I do wish you folks would make up your mind.

[Dr Adequate]

How did this thread become another damn thread about Jews?

Some guy threw a shoe at Bush, he missed, it was kinda funny.

I know that "Jew" and "shoe" sound kind of the same, but nonetheless ...

I guess I'd have to read through the thread to find the segue, except that I have better things to do, such as banging my head against my desk.

[Texas]

Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses

And lives to tell the world about it. Ain't freedom great?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Supporting the illegal occupation of Jerusulam is just as bad though.

Except that it isn't "illegal". Jews lived in Jerusalem forever... until 1948, that is, when the Jordanian Legion conquered the old city of Jerusalem... and naturally ethnically cleansed every single Jew there and made it Judenrein.

And that, folks, is how Jerusalem became "Arab East Jerusalem" which is "illegally occupied" by Jews -- since the time, 19 years laters, the Jordanian legion tried to finish the job it started in 1948 and push the Jews into the sea.

But I keep forgetting that Arab ethnic cleansing is just fine.

You are slacking Skeptic. Only four times in that post.

Those of us who are nto obsessed by 'Jews' realise it's Israle who is illegally occupying Jeruslam, not 'Jews'.

Nothing wrong with 'Jews' living in Jerusalem at all. Like you say Jews have lived in Jerusalem for thousands of years.

That doesn't give Israel exclusive right to occupy Jerusalem and claim it as it's capitol though.

Jerusalem is an international city. Israel has illegally and immorally occupied it.

And only four times. Are you tired? You didn't even say "Anti-Semitic". Come on Skeptic, you can do better than that!! :D

[Toke]

Strange.

When my grandfather was young, it was the fact that there wasn't an Israel which, people very honestly and firmly told him, was giving Jews a bad name -- proving that Jews are parasites that must feed off a "host" nation, instead of surviving on their own in their own country, like any normal people would.

Now, it is the fact that there is an Israel which, people very honestly and firmly tell me, is giving Jews a bad name -- proving that the Jews are evil occupiers who must destroy other people with the phony-baloney excuse that they want their own country, instead of being loyal citizens of the European countries they came from, like any normal people would.

I do wish you folks would make up your mind.
My bolding.
Some would say that those other people were living there first, and that waving a an old book around does not change the rightfull ownership of land.
(try show up in denmark saying "god gave us this land, its ours")

Still, jews seem to be unpopular with or without country.

Yes strange, have you wondered why?

[Texas]

Still, jews seem to be unpopular with or without country.

Yes strange, have you wondered why?
That is an amazing statement.

[Toke]

have you wondered why?

What is the israely equivalent of "because we are free"?

[chillzero]

Several posts moved to AAH for bickering. Keep on topic, and address the topic, not personal issues with each other. Keep it civil, please.

[Skeptic]

Still, jews seem to be unpopular with or without country.

Yes strange, have you wondered why?

Why, Mr. David Irving! What a surprise! I didn't know you post on the JREF forum!

(See: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804622.html )

Too bad for the usual token "I'm not an antisemite, I'm just an anti-Zionist" claim, though.

This claim is usually -- I emphasize NOT always -- shown to be false, sooner or later, when the "anti-Zionist" starts ranting about how if everybody hates the Jews it's all their fault, or how the Jews control the world (or at least the USA) and are perverting its policy for their own nefarious - usually monetary - ends.

But only rarely is the exposure so quick.

[Cicero]

How did this thread become another damn thread about Jews?


Simple. TFT couldn't keep the topic Kosher.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4298384#post4298384

[Toke]

Why, Mr. David Irving! What a surprise! I didn't know you post on the JREF forum!

(See: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804622.html )

Too bad for the usual token "I'm not an antisemite, I'm just an anti-Zionist" claim, though.

This claim is usually -- I emphasize NOT always -- shown to be false, sooner or later, when the "anti-Zionist" starts ranting about how if everybody hates the Jews it's all their fault, or how the Jews control the world (or at least the USA) and are perverting its policy for their own nefarious - usually monetary - ends.
My bolding

But only rarely is the exposure so quick.

I can´t tell if you are talking from bad experince or have a bad day, but your post come across as simpleton argumentation.

Do you call holocaust denier and evil antisemite every time somebody critice israel? (how do you get along with liberal israelis?)

have you wondered why?
The question may sound nasty, but try take it at face value.

My guesses are:
Religius/cultural intolerance, need of a scapegoat, and more recently the mess in israel, which reflects badly on both jews and muslims.

Try contact some iranian mulla or maybe sunniman, I am sure you could have a fruitless argument.

Did you read the bolding or is it copy paste from elsewhere?

[Skeptic]

I can´t tell if you are talking from bad experince or have a bad day, but your post come across as simpleton argumentation.

Do you call holocaust denier and evil antisemite every time somebody critice israel?

No, I call those who use the "if the Jews are hated, it must be their fault" age-old blame-the-victim antisemitic argument antisemites. Two persons who presented this argument are (a) you, and (b) David Irving, one of the world's most notorious Jew-haters.

This argument has little or nothing to do with criticism of Israel. It was used by antisemites from time immemorial, long before Israel's existence. It will probably be used by antisemites as long as Jews exist, whether or not Israel does.

Indeed, you yourself, in emphasizing that the Jews are hated "with or without a state", made quite clear that you do not think it is because of Israel that the Jews are hated, but that it is something in their very Jewishness that is to blame.

[Toke]

When my grandfather was young, it was the fact that there wasn't an Israel which, people very honestly and firmly told him, was giving Jews a bad name -- proving that Jews are parasites that must feed off a "host" nation, instead of surviving on their own in their own country, like any normal people would.

Now, it is the fact that there is an Israel which, people very honestly and firmly tell me, is giving Jews a bad name -- proving that the Jews are evil occupiers who must destroy other people with the phony-baloney excuse that they want their own country, instead of being loyal citizens of the European countries they came from, like any normal people would.
Indeed, you yourself, in emphasizing that the Jews are hated "with or without a state", made quite clear that you do not think it is because of Israel that the Jews are hated, but that it is something in their very Jewishness that is to blame.

Still, jews seem to be unpopular with or without country.Post #324

My guesses are:
Religius/cultural intolerance, need of a scapegoat, and more recently the mess in israel, which reflects badly on both jews and muslims

You are the one with the with or without a state.
[QUOTE]My guesses are:
Religius/cultural intolerance, need of a scapegoat, and more recently the mess in israel, which reflects badly on both jews and muslims.[/QUOTE
As for the wonder why, I did make some sugestions that are more constructive that screaming evil antisemite.

Guess you don´t agree that Israel is giving jews a bad name? (post 320)

[Skeptic]

As for the wonder why, I did make some sugestions that are more constructive that screaming evil antisemite.

No, no, no, Toke. Not in the post you asked this rhetorical question you didn't. Irving, too, uses the "I'm only ASKING!" device when it is noted that his claims are antisemitic.

[Toke]

So, I stepped in something you find non-pc, **** happens.

I will just have to live with being on your hate/ignore list.


No, no, no, Toke. Not in the post you asked this rhetorical question you didn't
Try this
Some would say that those other people were living there first, and that waving a an old book around does not change the rightfull ownership of land.
(try show up in denmark saying "god gave us this land, its ours")
Guess you didn´t agree.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I can´t tell if you are talking from bad experince or have a bad day, but your post come across as simpleton argumentation.

Do you call holocaust denier and evil antisemite every time somebody critice israel?

No, I call those who use the "if the Jews are hated, it must be their fault" age-old blame-the-victim antisemitic argument antisemites. Two persons who presented this argument are (a) you, and (b) David Irving, one of the world's most notorious Jew-haters.

This argument has little or nothing to do with criticism of Israel. It was used by antisemites from time immemorial, long before Israel's existence. It will probably be used by antisemites as long as Jews exist, whether or not Israel does.

Indeed, you yourself, in emphasizing that the Jews are hated "with or without a state", made quite clear that you do not think it is because of Israel that the Jews are hated, but that it is something in their very Jewishness that is to blame.

No skeptic, you DO call people who criticize Israel or the Zionist movement anti-Semites. You are obsessed with it in fact.

here's the proof ..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298386&postcount=17

one of many.

Your posts nearly always contain the word 'Jew' numerous times, even when the thread is not about Jews.

You are the one making everything related to Israel adn/or Zionism a Jewish problem, And you are the main person who sprays anyone criticizing them an anti-Semite.

You agenda is clear.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Simple. TFT couldn't keep the topic Kosher.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4298384#post4298384

I thought you were linking to a post about Jews there for a moment. I was talking about the Zionist-Neocons. You do not have to be Jewish to be either a Zionist, a Neocon or both.

But then it's no surprise that the ADL Police are trying to make it a 'Jewish Problem' again.

But Cicero, you've a long long way to go before you become an ADL Grandmaster like Skeptic. :D :D

[Toke]

So I am not the only one that gets skeptic´s anti-semite treatment.

I got david irving, beat you TFT.:D

My original point were why an pilgrimage to aipac were a neccecary element of an american election, it is supposed to be an domestic event.

Can that be explained without jews/israelis having an unusual influence in the usa?

Have anyone accused exilecubans of running us policy on cuba?
Does this make me an evil anti-cuban?:D

Do I think skeptics anti-semite rants is a cheap stunt?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

So I am not the only one that gets skeptic´s anti-semite treatment.

I got david irving, beat you TFT.:D


Damn. I wanted a David Irving :) But I got a whole long list of 'Anti-Semite' though.

I got used to Skeptic and his band of ADL Police Cadets crying Anti-Semite.

It's almost a daily occurrence and is laughable.

I think most of the foot soldiers do it as some kind of troll insult game. But I think Skeptic actually means it and is truly deluded. He's paranoid the whole world is out to kill all Jews.



My original point were why an pilgrimage to aipac were a neccecary element of an american election, it is supposed to be an domestic event.

Can that be explained without jews/israelis having an unusual influence in the usa?

It's not a 'Jew' thing IMO. It's the Zionist Movement that has undue influence in the USA and other countries.

It's those wishing to stifle criticism of Zionism that make is a Jewish Problem so they can shout and Scream "Anti-Semitism!"

That's why there's this big propaganda push to link Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism



Have anyone accused exilecubans of running us policy on cuba?
Does this make me an evil anti-cuban?:D

Do I think skeptics anti-semite rants is a cheap stunt?

I think he's obsessed. :)

[Toke]

We had on israel/palestine in highschool history.
We concluded that there were plenty of arguments, but the israeli had the most guns.

ADL?

There were a tread on the jew/israeli definition I did not follow it.
Guess it can get complicated, and used as a pc minefield.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

ADL?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League

I never read the wiki article on the ADL before, so I was pleased to see these quotes. Which are spot on...

Noam Chomsky ...

The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticsm of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement.


Michael Lerner, a left-wing rabbi:

The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern).

[Toke]

Yes, the anti-semite card is played as a "get out of jail free" whenever anybody critices israel.

[gtc]

Yes, the anti-semite card is played as a "get out of jail free" whenever anybody critices israel.

Actually you have twice mentioned Jews in addition to Israelis.

If you are ignorant about the difference between Jews and Israelis then you really should research it because at the moment, your posts are making you sound as if you could be someone who dislikes Jews.

[Toke]

Actually you have twice mentioned Jews in addition to Israelis.

If you are ignorant about the difference between Jews and Israelis then you really should research it because at the moment, your posts are making you sound as if you could be someone who dislikes Jews.

I don´t, it would be foolish stereotyping. (racist, religionist?, or both)

As for the bolded part, it seems to me that there are several different versions of the correct terminology. If I don´t fit yours or seem inconsistant feel free to point it out, or write it off to mistake and concentrate on the rest of my post.

[Skeptic]

More accuately, Toke, every time posters here show obvious hatered and dislike of Jews in general, and are called to the carpet for that, they whine: "I'm just criticizing Israel! Stop playing the 'antisemite' card!".

[gtc]

I don´t, it would be foolish stereotyping. (racist, religionist?, or both)

I accept that. However, the way you worded your posts was making it sound like you might think otherwise.

As for the bolded part, it seems to me that there are several different versions of the correct terminology. If I don´t fit yours or seem inconsistant feel free to point it out, or write it off to mistake and concentrate on the rest of my post.

Israel is a country so Israeli means somebody with a strong connection to Israel, it usually means a citizen of Israel. Jewish can refer to an ethnicity, a culture, a religion or a race but it doesn't say anything about their country.

A Jewish person may never have been to Israel and an Israeli person may not be Jewish.

[Cicero]

That's why there's this big propaganda push to link Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism


Is this anything like the propaganda of those who attempt to camouflage their prejudices by de-linking Anti-Zionism from their Anti-Semitic beliefs?

[Toke]

More accuately, Toke, every time posters here show obvious hatered and dislike of Jews in general, and are called to the carpet for that, they whine: "I'm just criticizing Israel! Stop playing the 'antisemite' card!".

I fail to see how that relates to me.
What i do see, is that you find it far easier to use "anti-semite" or irwing awards, than to consider if there is any truth to criticism of israel.

How do you think that reflects on you and others ability to take you serius*?
You don´t have to answer me, just think about it.

*As in truther yelling goverment shrill, instead of responding with a coherent argument.
It´s a bit of a shame really, you do have acces to coherent arguments.

I have heard of this irwing.
He has the profesional intregety and credibility of a flood geologist.
It can´t be that hard for you to debunk.


TFT
That's why there's this big propaganda push to link Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism
Cicero
Is this anything like the propaganda of those who attempt to camouflage their prejudices by de-linking Anti-Zionism from their Anti-Semitic beliefs?

Hope you both realise that both exist and trive.
It tend to poison any reasonable debate, as seen here and almost everywhere else.

Try read up on israeli liberals, guess they get to criticise goverment policy without getting irwing awards.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Is this anything like the propaganda of those who attempt to camouflage their prejudices by de-linking Anti-Zionism from their Anti-Semitic beliefs?

And where these people? You can of course accuse anyone who criticize Zionism/Israel behavior of being a closet Anti-Semite can't you. It's incredibly easy and cheap to do so.

You could of accuse anybody who criticizes any political group of hiding racial prejudices about the people who belong to that group.

It's a weak argument with no logical weight or basis. You have to provide evidence that someone is racist. You can't go around accusing everyone who eats Bratwurst of being like Hitler because Hitler ate bratwurst.

The following logic broken ...

A says X and Y
B says X and Z

Therefore A = B

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I fail to see how that relates to me.
What i do see, is that you find it far easier to use "anti-semite" or irwing awards, than to consider if there is any truth to criticism of israel.

How do you think that reflects on you and others ability to take you serius*?
You don´t have to answer me, just think about it.




Skeptic and his band ADL Police Cadets have now descended way below the threshold of being taken seriously.

Skeptic says:

More accuately, Toke, every time posters here show obvious hatered and dislike of Jews in general, and are called to the carpet for that, they whine: "I'm just criticizing Israel! Stop playing the 'antisemite' card!".

Actually more accurate is that Skeptic and his minions jump on the case of anyone who criticizes Israel. Showing an obvious hatred for people being Jewish is certainly not required to be the target of their Anti-Semitic Toy Water Pistol.

All that's required is a heavy criticism of the Zionist Movement and the behavior of Israel.

[Cicero]

.
You can't go around accusing everyone who eats Bratwurst of being like Hitler because Hitler ate bratwurst.


Hitler was a vegetarian. A fact that has upset the moonbat fringe to the point where vegan Rynn Berry wrote a revisionist account of Hitler that desperately tries to deny this.


Your own words betray your true opinions on Jews. You extol the virtues of Arabs and Arab countries (no doubt Iran as well) while indicting Zionists and Israel for existing.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Hitler was a vegetarian. A fact that has upset the moonbat fringe to the point where vegan Rynn Berry wrote a revisionist account of Hitler that desperately tries to deny this.

:roll: It wasn't supposed to be taken literally, it was an analogy. Replace 'Bratwurst' with 'Carrot' if it makes you feel any better.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:


Your own words betray your true opinions on Jews. You extol the virtues of Arabs and Arab countries (no doubt Iran as well) while indicting Zionists and Israel for existing.

The above accusation is total lies of course, and is an offensive strawman. Shall I ask you to provide a source for those accusations? It's pointless as you'll only duck and dive and divert and derail as usual. Like all the others who turn any criticism of Israel and the Zionist Movement into a Jewish problem you so can shout anti-semitism, your credibility on this forum is shot.

"I extol the virtues of Arabs and Arab countries" - hahaha that's a good one. I wonder how long it took to author that literary magnificence

[Thunder]

Actually more accurate is that Skeptic and his minions jump on the case of anyone who criticizes Israel. .


funny how he hasn't jumped on me...and I call the West Bank an Apartheid regime.

please explain.

if the REAL criteria for calling someone an "anti-Semite", was simply being critical of Israel, I would no doubt be the major target.

there must be something else happening here.

[JihadJane]

And lives to tell the world about it. Ain't freedom great?

By some accounts, he was badly beaten up after he was arrested, leaving him with broken bones, so not that great.

[Cicero]

By some accounts, he was badly beaten up after he was arrested, leaving him with broken bones, so not that great.

Hate to spoil your attempt to bestow martyrdom on the Stride Rite Strunze, but brother Maitham al-Zaidi said he had spoken with his brother on the phone and was told: "Thank God I am in good health.".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-1192844.html

[Toke]

funny how he hasn't jumped on me...and I call the West Bank an Apartheid regime.

please explain.

if the REAL criteria for calling someone an "anti-Semite", was simply being critical of Israel, I would no doubt be the major target.

there must be something else happening here.

Previus posting history is a factor.
Defending iran´s holocaust denial gives a bad impression.

I have mentioned israeli liberals, I don´t think they are called anti-semites.
It could be that you are a jew and TFT are not.

[JihadJane]

Hate to spoil your attempt to bestow martyrdom on the Stride Rite Strunze, but brother Maitham al-Zaidi said he had spoken with his brother on the phone and was told: "Thank God I am in good health.".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-1192844.html

As the article you linked to makes clear, and as I acknowledged in my post, there are conflicting reports about Muntazer al-Zaidi's injuries:


“A brother of Muntazer al-Zaidi said the reporter had been taken to the Ibn-Sina military hospital after being hit on the head with a rifle butt. Iraqi security men had also broken his arm. Dargham al-Zaidi said his brother had suffered broken ribs and internal bleeding.

But another brother, Maitham al-Zaidi, later said he had spoken with the shoe thrower on the phone and he had said: 'Thank God I am in good health.'

The guards of the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were seen beating Mr Zaidi just after the incident and he was seen screaming in pain, but the extent of his injuries were not clear. ”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraqi-shoe-thrower-beaten-in-custody-1192844.html

There are various possible explanations for Muntazer al-Zaidi’s presumably monitored phone statement from captivity. It may also simply be an example of the famous Iraqi gallows sense of humour. In the new, “liberated” Iraq, not being a headless torso in a ditch after arrest could be interpreted as being “in good health”!


Your irrelevant introduction of the martyrdom concept suggests that you have become enslaved by unfortunate racist stereotypes.

[Cicero]

As the article you linked to makes clear, and as I acknowledged in my post, there are conflicting reports about Muntazer al-Zaidi's injuries:


“A brother of Muntazer al-Zaidi said the reporter had been taken to the Ibn-Sina military hospital after being hit on the head with a rifle butt. Iraqi security men had also broken his arm. Dargham al-Zaidi said his brother had suffered broken ribs and internal bleeding.

But another brother, Maitham al-Zaidi, later said he had spoken with the shoe thrower on the phone and he had said: 'Thank God I am in good health.'

The guards of the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were seen beating Mr Zaidi just after the incident and he was seen screaming in pain, but the extent of his injuries were not clear. ”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraqi-shoe-thrower-beaten-in-custody-1192844.html

There are various possible explanations for Muntazer al-Zaidi’s presumably monitored phone statement from captivity. It may also simply be an example of the famous Iraqi gallows sense of humour. In the new, “liberated” Iraq, not being a headless torso in a ditch after arrest could be interpreted as being “in good health”!


Your irrelevant introduction of the martyrdom concept suggests that you have become enslaved by unfortunate racist stereotypes.


So the only credible account, the one you beleive, is one that describes Munt with broken bones? Munt doesn't seem to be the whimsical type, so pretending he was being sarcastic is rather bizarre.

Good to see that you acknowledge the lack of lethal treatment of prisoners in a post Saddam Iraq.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Actually you have twice mentioned Jews in addition to Israelis.

If you are ignorant about the difference between Jews and Israelis then you really should research it because at the moment, your posts are making you sound as if you could be someone who dislikes Jews.

Oh no!! He said the word 'Jews' :jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp SHOCK!! HORROR!!! AGHAST!!!

If mentioning the word 'Jew' or 'Jews' was a measure of how much someone dislikes Jews then Skeptic would be the worlds biggest Anti-Semite.

This forum sometimes reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where the guy gets stoned for saying "Jehova"

[Skeptic]

Well, Parky, for starters:

1). You don't think Israel has no right to exist or to defend itself, even if we may disagree on some, or even many, of Israel's policies.

2). Nor are you a lying hypocrite who claims to care about human rights... but in reality cares about human rights only when you can blame Israel for violating them.

3). Nor do you think everything Israel does is automatically wrong, or that everything the Palestinians or the Arabs or Muslims in general do is a "reaction to the occupation", and whose "root cause" is the existence of Israel.

A few minor differences, here, between you and certain other posters who criticize Israel. For those posters, their real beef with Israel, despite their unconvincing protestations to the contrary, is its very existence as a Jewish state. You, whatever our disagreements about specific Israeli policies, do not think that.

I like the way, incidentally, that these folks think that wanting the Jewish state dismantled, and that the Jewish state--alone of all the nations in the world, of course--is illegitimate and has no right to exist, is NOT antisemitism, but "only anti-Zionism". That's about as logical as saying, "I don't hate all Black people, only those who don't know their place should be lynched."

[Dr Adequate]

But, two completely obvious points the Bush haters keep ignoring:

<snip>

Or take the "mission accomplished" sign:

1). It wasn't put up by Bush or his people, but by the carrier's crew, to emphasize THEIR SPECIFIC MISSION was accomplished (as they came back to port after making it).

2). Bush's own speech on that very same carrier empasized the Iraq mission was NOT accomplished yet.

These are obvious facts.

<snip>

And yet these two claims are not merely rants on the fringes of the left -- of the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama not American" sort rants on the fringers of the right. These are practically dogma with half of the democrats.

I, too, wonder why critical thinking goes straight out the window when Bush is involved, in favor of silly conspiracy theories. Bush's last press conference (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/12/raw-data-transcript-bushs-white-house-press-conference/) :

QUESTION: And I'm not trying to play "gotcha," but I wonder, when you look back over the long arc of your presidency, do you think in retrospect that you have made any mistakes? And, if so, why is the single biggest mistake that you may have made?

BUSH: Gotcha.

(LAUGHTER)

Look, I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better or, you know, mistakes I made.

Clearly, putting a "mission accomplished" on a (sic) aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but, nevertheless, it conveyed a different message.

Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Well, Parky, for starters:

1). You don't think Israel has no right to exist or to defend itself, even if we may disagree on some, or even many, of Israel's policies.

2). Nor are you a lying hypocrite who claims to care about human rights... but in reality cares about human rights only when you can blame Israel for violating them.

3). Nor do you think everything Israel does is automatically wrong, or that everything the Palestinians or the Arabs or Muslims in general do is a "reaction to the occupation", and whose "root cause" is the existence of Israel.

A few minor differences, here, between you and certain other posters who criticize Israel. For those posters, their real beef with Israel, despite their unconvincing protestations to the contrary, is its very existence as a Jewish state. You, whatever our disagreements about specific Israeli policies, do not think that.

I like the way, incidentally, that these folks think that wanting the Jewish state dismantled, and that the Jewish state--alone of all the nations in the world, of course--is illegitimate and has no right to exist, is NOT antisemitism, but "only anti-Zionism". That's about as logical as saying, "I don't hate all Black people, only those who don't know their place should be lynched."

Your post is so transparent. Where you go wrong and where you expose yourself is that you ALWAYS try to make the Zionist/Israel issue a Jewish Issue so you can spew up the tired old cry of Anti-Semite!!

But where you seem totally blind is that Zionists created Israel on land owned by others and turfed them off. Israel has since embarked upon a systematic racial persecution of the Palestinians, ghettoization of the Palestinians for the last 60 years.

I suppose you think all that behavior is OK don't you? So in your eyes the only reason people could be criticizing Israel is because it's population is mainly Jews.

You also have a chip on your shoulder about the world hating Jews. Just because christianity has been generally anti-semitic over the last 2,000 years don't blame the rest of us.

You need to start appreciating that the vast majority of people's criticisms of Israel have nothing to do anyone being Jewish. Who cares what race you are? What does it matter? Get over yourself

[Oliver]

CNN: Iraqis build Bush shoe-throwing monument (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/29/iraq.shoe.monument/index.html) :D

[Tricky]

CNN: Iraqis build Bush shoe-throwing monument (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/29/iraq.shoe.monument/index.html) :D
Yes, it's very nice.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/WORLD/meast/01/29/iraq.shoe.monument/art.shoe.monument.cnn.jpg

[Cicero]

Isn't that a coincidence? The monument of Muntadhir al-Zaidi's shoe found a home in the region of Tikrit, Saddams's birth place. Laith al-Amiri is rumored to be working on a giant Odor-Eaters Insole sculpture so the shoe will not offend the orphans.

[Cicero]

The monumnet lasted 1 day. Ah well, maybe Laith al-Amiri will have better luck with a giant Birkenstock.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.shoe.monument/

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The monumnet lasted 1 day. Ah well, maybe Laith al-Amiri will have better luck with a giant Birkenstock.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.shoe.monument/

Well at least it further shows how the Current Iraqi Government is invader friendly. Democracy in Iraq is currently... You can vote for anything as long as it's ratified by the Americans

I think the magnificent shoe statue should be erected in front of the Whitehouse to show Americans not to forget the dangers of a rotten presidency.

[Cicero]

Well at least it further shows how the Current Iraqi Government is invader friendly. Democracy in Iraq is currently... You can vote for anything as long as it's ratified by the Americans

I think the magnificent shoe statue should be erected in front of the Whitehouse to show Americans not to forget the dangers of a rotten presidency.


"We will not allow anyone to use the government facilities and buildings for political motives," said Abdullah Jabara, Salaheddin deputy governor."

It seems Iraq follows the same guidelines as the U.S. does about using government property to erect personal political statements.

We already have a monument 1/4 mile from The White House that reminds Americans of the dangers of 3 rotten Presidents; The Vietnam Memorial

[Dr Adequate]

Bumped because "Skeptic" is once more talking about "absurd conspiracy theories about Bush".

[Lonewulf]

My Orwell quote was not aimed at Bush et al, but at Skeptic, when he claimed that WMDs were never offered as the main reason for invading Iraq. This is a blatant rewriting of history. This is indeed on a par with Stalin airbrushing Trotsky out of photographs and with the Orwellian statement that "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

But there never were any WMDs, ergo, Bush never talked about WMDs!

Simple, eh?

Why do you have to make this so complicated?! :(

[BPSCG]

The monumnet lasted 1 day. Ah well, maybe Laith al-Amiri will have better luck with a giant Birkenstock.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.shoe.monument/From the linked article:

"We will not allow anyone to use the government facilities and buildings for political motives," said Abdullah Jabara, Salaheddin deputy governor.I think we can point to at least one way in which Iraqi governance is more mature than American. Wouldn't it be great if the no one were allowed to use the U.S. Capitol and the White House for "political motives"?

[Cicero]

Muntadhar al-Zeidi gets three years (the minimum sentence) in prison for hurling Florsheim's at Bush.

"I have great faith in the Iraqi judiciary. It is a judiciary that is both just and has integrity," al-Zeidi responded."

Munt must have a lot of confidence in the Iraqi appellate court.

Amazing how much sympathy this guy gets from American "journalists." Lourdes Garcia-Navarro and Steve Inskeep never once mentioned that Munt was a Saddam supporter and that the shoe monument, that lasted 1 day, was erected in Saddam's home of Tikrit.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101777924&ft=1&f=1004

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Guy gets 3 years for throwing a couple of shoes in the direction of Bush and misses.

Bush is responsible for the deaths of a million and gets a fat pension and a place in his retirement home to stand that botox mannequin called Laura.

There's no justice.

[Brainster]

Guy gets 3 years for throwing a couple of shoes in the direction of Bush and misses.

Bush is responsible for the deaths of a million and gets a fat pension and a place in his retirement home to stand that botox mannequin called Laura.

There's no justice.

And you're still in Mom's basement.

I blame the Jooos for that.

Please refrain from personal attacks. Remember to be civil and attack the argument, not the arguer. Thank you.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

And you're still in Mom's basement.

I blame the Jooos for that.

The irony. such a childish personal attack.

[gumboot]

Apparently "assault on foreign leader" is significantly different to just "assault" and carries a minimum sentence of 3 years.

This case appears to have been tried entirely by the book, so no issues with it. I personally think the sentencing limits are a bit harsh, but it's not my country.

[Cicero]

Guy gets 3 years for throwing a couple of shoes in the direction of Bush and misses.

Bush is responsible for the deaths of a million and gets a fat pension and a place in his retirement home to stand that botox mannequin called Laura.

There's no justice.

I wonder why Munt has more faith in the Iraqi criminal justice system than you do?

After Nancy Pelosi's treatments, even Joan Rivers would have to scramble to find any BOTOX®

[Cicero]

Apparently "assault on foreign leader" is significantly different to just "assault" and carries a minimum sentence of 3 years.

This case appears to have been tried entirely by the book, so no issues with it. I personally think the sentencing limits are a bit harsh, but it's not my country.

"Squeaky" Fromme drew an empty chamber Colt .45 Government Automatic on Ford when he reached to shake her hand in a crowd. She was sentenced to life in prison. If she threw her pumps at Ford, do you think she would have gotten probation?

[gumboot]

"Squeaky" Fromme drew an empty chamber Colt .45 Government Automatic on Ford when he reached to shake her hand in a crowd. She was sentenced to life in prison. If she threw her pumps at Ford, do you think she would have gotten probation?

You're being a bit dishonest there. The pistol's chamber was empty but the magazine had four rounds in it, and she was convicted of attempted assassination not assault.

I don't think she would have been convicted of attempted assassination if she'd thrown shoes at him.

In addition she directed her actions against her own head of state, not a foreign visiting head of state.

Assault isn't even a federal crime in the USA, so had Fromme thrown a shoe at someone and missed it would have been simple Assault under California law, which has a maximum sentence of $1000 fine or 6 months in jail.

Even if she had hit him it would only add an additional maximum of $2000 fine or 6 months in prison.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I wonder why Munt has more faith in the Iraqi criminal justice system than you do?

Errrrrr, it's not the Iraqi criminal justice system that's the problem is it? Bush is the one that got off


After Nancy Pelosi's treatments, even Joan Rivers would have to scramble to find any BOTOX®

You ain't kidding.

[Cicero]

You're being a bit dishonest there. The pistol's chamber was empty but the magazine had four rounds in it, and she was convicted of attempted assassination not assault.

I don't think she would have been convicted of attempted assassination if she'd thrown shoes at him.

In addition she directed her actions against her own head of state, not a foreign visiting head of state.

Assault isn't even a federal crime in the USA, so had Fromme thrown a shoe at someone and missed it would have been simple Assault under California law, which has a maximum sentence of $1000 fine or 6 months in jail.

Even if she had hit him it would only add an additional maximum of $2000 fine or 6 months in prison.

She would have been convicted of attempted assassination if she struck Ford in the head with spiked heels. Since the .45's chamber was empty, it was not about the lethality of the weapon, since Fromme didn't squeeze the trigger, rather it was the perceived threat of imminent danger to the President that got her what she wanted, life in prison.

If Fromme had drawn an automatic with an empty chamber on a civilian, she would not get life in prison. Had she done the same thing to a visiting head of state, I doubt she would be given a slap on the wrist.

Even in your own scenario, Munt would get at least a year in the slammer if this happened in the U.S. and Bush was just another civilian, and hadn't ducked.

What do you suppose would be the penalty for Munt had he done the same thing to Talibani? More time, less time?

[gumboot]

She would have been convicted of attempted assassination if she struck Ford in the head with spiked heels.

Evidence?


Since the .45's chamber was empty, it was not about the lethality of the weapon, since Fromme didn't squeeze the trigger, rather it was the perceived threat of imminent danger to the President that got her what she wanted, life in prison.

This is false. The weapon was a deadly weapon, with ammunition in the magazine. Had she pulled the trigger a couple of times, she would have killed him. The prosecution case was that the USSS prevented her doing this.


If Fromme had drawn an automatic with an empty chamber on a civilian, she would not get life in prison. Had she done the same thing to a visiting head of state, I doubt she would be given a slap on the wrist.

Attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon, depending on if the prosecution could successfully argue she had intended to shoot.


Even in your own scenario, Munt would get at least a year in the slammer if this happened in the U.S. and Bush was just another civilian, and hadn't ducked.

No. In California he would have received a maximum sentence of 1 year in prison (probably not actually, because both sentences would probably be served at the same time).

What do you suppose would be the penalty for Munt had he done the same thing to Talibani? More time, less time?

And the relevance? The sentence is fair because it's less harsh than probably the most ruthless regime to exist in the last decade? Seriously?

Next time anyone complains about a harsh sentence I'll be sure to point out that by Roman standards they got off lightly...:rolleyes:

[Cicero]

Evidence?




This is false. The weapon was a deadly weapon, with ammunition in the magazine. Had she pulled the trigger a couple of times, she would have killed him. The prosecution case was that the USSS prevented her doing this.



She could have cocked and pulled the trigger a 1000 times and nothing would have happened. This is not a revolver, or even a double action automatic, it was a Colt .45 automatic. She would have had to pull the slide back to chamber a round.

Attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon, depending on if the prosecution could successfully argue she had intended to shoot.


Had it not been the President, it would have been an ADW charge.

No. In California he would have received a maximum sentence of 1 year in prison (probably not actually, because both sentences would probably be served at the same time).

Evidence that the sentence would be served concurrently and not consecutively? Had an American citizen done the same thing to a visiting head of state, it would be a federal crime and not tried in a California state court.


And the relevance? The sentence is fair because it's less harsh than probably the most ruthless regime to exist in the last decade? Seriously?

Next time anyone complains about a harsh sentence I'll be sure to point out that by Roman standards they got off lightly...:rolleyes:


Ruthless regiem? President Talibani is now more ruthless than Saddam? OK

Again, explain how three years is a harsh sentence in Iraq when the maximum was 15 under Iraqi law?

[gumboot]

Ruthless regiem? President Talibani is now more ruthless than Saddam? OK

Oops, for some reason I thought you were talking about the Taliban...:D

I don't know if Iraq has special rules for crimes committed against the President.


Again, explain how three years is a harsh sentence in Iraq when the maximum was 15 under Iraqi law?

I didn't say it was a harsh sentence in Iraq. In fact I thought I made it pretty clear I thought the trial was completely reasonable and fair, in keeping with Iraqi law. I merely said that I felt the Iraqi sentencing limits (3 - 15yrs) were a bit harsh.

I cite the example of California which has substantially lighter sentences for the same crime.

[Cicero]

Oops, for some reason I thought you were talking about the Taliban...:D

I don't know if Iraq has special rules for crimes committed against the President.




I didn't say it was a harsh sentence in Iraq. In fact I thought I made it pretty clear I thought the trial was completely reasonable and fair, in keeping with Iraqi law. I merely said that I felt the Iraqi sentencing limits (3 - 15yrs) were a bit harsh.

I cite the example of California which has substantially lighter sentences for the same crime.

Considering how difficult it is for a California jury to convict any high profile defendant, maybe that state's sentencing isn't the best example of American jurisprudence.

[Texas]

Considering how difficult it is for a California jury to convict any high profile defendant, maybe that state's sentencing isn't the best example of American jurisprudence.Even though Bush made it clear that it was no big deal to him, what this guy did is an unforgivable violation of "hospitality" in the Arab world be it Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Had he thrown the shoes at Talibani he would have probably been beaten senseless and let go.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Even though Bush made it clear that it was no big deal to him, what this guy did is an unforgivable violation of "hospitality" in the Arab world be it Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Had he thrown the shoes at Talibani he would have probably been beaten senseless and let go.

I think the shoe thrower guy is excellent!!!. I'm just sorry he missed Bush. I would have laughed my ass off had he broke Bush's nose with one of those shoes.

Considering the deaths and misery Bush has been a large part of causing I think he would have gotten off very lightly. Bush shoulda been in Guantanamo for a few years having constant Eminem played at full volume for 24-7 and a spot of occasional waterboarding.

[Cicero]

I think the shoe thrower guy is excellent!!!. I'm just sorry he missed Bush. I would have laughed my ass off had he broke Bush's nose with one of those shoes.

Considering the deaths and misery Bush has been a large part of causing I think he would have gotten off very lightly. Bush shoulda been in Guantanamo for a few years having constant Eminem played at full volume for 24-7 and a spot of occasional waterboarding.

If Bush invaded Israel and brought death, destruction and misery to that country, I bet you would be outraged at any Israelis who even threw a matza ball at him.

[Cicero]

Munt's sentence reduced from 3 years to 1 year. Even gets credit for time served before his conviction.

"We welcome this fair decision that shows the independence and the integrity of the Iraqi judiciary system," said another al-Zeidi's attorney, Yahya al-Ittabi.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04072009/news/worldnews/iraqi_shoe_thrower_gets_reduced_sentence_163339.ht m

[Toke]

Munt's sentence reduced from 3 years to 1 year. Even gets credit for time served before his conviction.
Sounds fine to me.

It is obviusly a PR-stunt from the Iraki DOJ:D

[Cicero]

Muntadhar al-Zeidi the Al-Baghdadiya reality TV star.

Iraqi shoe thrower released; says he was tortured


"Some Iraqis said fear of a repeat of recent massive bombings in Baghdad, a crackdown by security forces or the fatigue caused by the dawn-to-dusk fast during the current Muslim month of Ramadan kept them from celebrating al-Zeidi’s release."

Or

"But nine months later, there was little public outpouring of support for him, a sign of how things have changed."



"That he was jailed and released testifies that we have a democracy in Iraq and that America does not control Iraq,” said Haidar Jabar, a mini-market owner from southwest Baghdad."


I wonder if Munt shares Jabar's sentiments?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/iraqi-shoe-thrower-released-says-he-was-tortured

[JihadJane]

Hee hee - the murderer Bush got shoed.

[Peephole]

Well, it's good thing that that million+ of Iraqis died so their compatriots could at least be free from tortu- oh ****

[JihadJane]

'TRNN Exclusive: The man that "shoed" Bush'

Interview with Muntadhar Al-Zaidi

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=560