PDA

View Full Version : Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses


Pages : [1] 2

Cicero
14th December 2008, 11:01 AM
This guy took pitching lessons from the guys who threw pies at A.C.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28220165

Will this guy be tried like Zacarias Moussaoui for shoe bombing? I bet Obama will not want Bush's wide awake Secret Service detail.

Pardalis
14th December 2008, 11:38 AM
Well that's the end of this journalist's career.

RandFan
14th December 2008, 11:39 AM
:)

tomwaits
14th December 2008, 11:46 AM
Well that's the end of this journalist's career.

As a journalist, or a baseball player?

Tin Foil Timothy
14th December 2008, 12:05 PM
Well that's the end of this journalist's career.

On the contrary he should be given a Nobel Peace Prize!! :D:D:D

I thought it was hilarious. Nearly hit him as well.

Walter Bellhaven
14th December 2008, 12:06 PM
its too bad he missed. haha, at least dana perino was poked in the eye with a long, hard object.

Tin Foil Timothy
14th December 2008, 12:07 PM
As a journalist, or a baseball player?

:D:D

fishbob
14th December 2008, 12:09 PM
This guy took pitching lessons from the guys who threw pies at A.C.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28220165

Will this guy be tried like Zacarias Moussaoui for shoe bombing? I bet Obama will not want Bush's wide awake Secret Service detail.

From the article:

For Prez Bush - In many ways, the unannounced trip was a victory lap without a victory.

WildCat
14th December 2008, 12:14 PM
As a journalist, or a baseball player?
He could probably compete for the Lions QB position.

Pardalis
14th December 2008, 12:15 PM
On the contrary he should be given a Nobel Peace Prize!! :D:D:D

Talk about dumbing down standards.

Crowlogic
14th December 2008, 01:06 PM
Bravo!

Cain
14th December 2008, 01:34 PM
I'm pretty sure the first throw was right on target, but Bush quickly ducked. The guy has reflexes. Though a fathead, he's the most fit president ever. The second shoe, which came right after, missed. Throw two things rapid fire, especially shoes, and you're not likely to be as accurate with the second object.

And this guy's career is not over. He's a celebrity. Shooting Bush would have been bad. The act of throwing shoes at him is pretty cool. The saddest thing about this incident is the timing: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are on break until next year.

gtc
14th December 2008, 01:51 PM
He apparently said:

It is the farewell kiss, you dog


And according to this article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/it-is-the-farewell-kiss-you-dog/2008/12/15/1229189476850.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1), 'soles of shoes are considered the ultimate insult in Arab culture'.

Which does suggest a lack of imagination (or major problems with the cleanliness of either Arab streets or arab feet).

Is it the same in Russia? Is that why Kruschev did his number with his shoe?

Dr Adequate
14th December 2008, 01:57 PM
This guy took pitching lessons from the guys who threw pies at A.C.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28220165

Will this guy be tried like Zacarias Moussaoui for shoe bombing? I bet Obama will not want Bush's wide awake Secret Service detail. The article was most helpful in explaining the meaning of al-Zeidi's otherwise obscure and incomprehensible actions:

In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt.

And there was I thinking it was a universal gesture of goodwill.

Dr Adequate
14th December 2008, 02:00 PM
I'm pretty sure the first throw was right on target, but Bush quickly ducked. The guy has reflexes. Though a fathead, he's the most fit president ever. Obama would have caught it.

Upchurch
14th December 2008, 02:12 PM
He was being greeted as a liberator.

Tin Foil Timothy
14th December 2008, 02:13 PM
Obama would have caught it.

Rice would have gnashed her teeth and shredded it on impact

Cain
14th December 2008, 02:32 PM
Obama would have caught it.

And then thrown it back at the guy knocking him out before he even pitched the second one!

Cicero
14th December 2008, 02:35 PM
Obama would have caught it.

Yup. They would have stuck in his ears.

rwguinn
14th December 2008, 02:45 PM
Gee- Had it bee an American throwing stuff at a Muslim, you ******** whould have been all over the guy.
The blame america first crowd and Bush haters cannot even be good winners- still have to put the guy down AFTER you have won!

Why was this jerk allowed anywhere near the event?

Homeland Insurgency
14th December 2008, 02:59 PM
Man I can't stop laughing. That is hands down the funniest friggin crap I've seen all year. Dubya must of been the dodgeball champ back at his Connecticut country day school.

I finally was able to stop laughing then I heard one of Dubya's statements regarding the whole embarrassing event.

"It's like drivin' down the street and not having people gesturing you with all five fingers"

Then I lost it again

http://slapnose.com/images/blog/1004/1004_bush_finger_318x254.jpg

Pardalis
14th December 2008, 03:13 PM
I'm pretty sure the first throw was right on target, but Bush quickly ducked. The guy has reflexes. Though a fathead, he's the most fit president ever. The second shoe, which came right after, missed. Throw two things rapid fire, especially shoes, and you're not likely to be as accurate with the second object.

Great, we have now our own official JREF throwing of the shoe commentator and analyst... :rolleyes:

Meanwhile in the Congo, the slaughter continues.

DC
14th December 2008, 03:13 PM
Gee- Had it bee an American throwing stuff at a Muslim, you ******** whould have been all over the guy.
The blame america first crowd and Bush haters cannot even be good winners- still have to put the guy down AFTER you have won!

Why was this jerk allowed anywhere near the event?

prolly his anger came from those american freedom bombs and bullets beeing trown at them.

its a while ago, but Bush said, bring em on, one came.... and missed

Dr Adequate
14th December 2008, 03:16 PM
Gee- Had it bee an American throwing stuff at a Muslim, you ******** whould have been all over the guy.
The blame america first crowd and Bush haters cannot even be good winners- still have to put the guy down AFTER you have won! You hear that, Cicero?

For shame!

UserGoogol
14th December 2008, 03:46 PM
I'm pretty sure the first throw was right on target, but Bush quickly ducked. The guy has reflexes. Though a fathead, he's the most fit president ever. The second shoe, which came right after, missed. Throw two things rapid fire, especially shoes, and you're not likely to be as accurate with the second object.

Teddy Roosevelt still takes the cake. He was shot with a bullet and, after noticing that he wasn't coughing blood, figured that the bullet had been slowed enough by passing through his speech and glasses case that he could give his speech, which he then proceeded to do. (And this was after he had already served as president, he was running to regain the position under the Progressive Party banner.)

But yeah, say what you will about George W. Bush, but he knows how to duck a shoe.

Upchurch
14th December 2008, 03:47 PM
Missed it by that much.

Pardalis
14th December 2008, 04:00 PM
Missed it by that much.

Iraq hasn't won an olympic medal in over 40 years, what did you expect?

interwaff
14th December 2008, 04:55 PM
Hundreds greeted the president respectfully, and one attention whore got his 5 seconds of fame. What a loser.

MIKILLINI
14th December 2008, 05:10 PM
Hugo Chavez would love to have been the shoe tosser, but I'll wager he has the footage and is replaying it over and over while laughing his arse off.

fuelair
14th December 2008, 05:42 PM
Gee- Had it bee an American throwing stuff at a Muslim, you ******** whould have been all over the guy.
The blame america first crowd and Bush haters cannot even be good winners- still have to put the guy down AFTER you have won!

Why was this jerk allowed anywhere near the event?
Do you actually think we will ever lose our feelings about Shrub? He is an easily controlled by slime shlub without skill whose welfare I could not care less about. Whether I would have complained about an American throwing something at a Muslim would depend entirely on the circumstances. Shrub long ago earned my disdain.

JoeTheJuggler
14th December 2008, 05:42 PM
Worse, I think, was Dubya saying that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was necessary for the cause of world peace. Yup--war is what gives you peace.

Just like you can have a free country by throwing enough people in prison.

JoeTheJuggler
14th December 2008, 05:45 PM
Hundreds greeted the president respectfully, and one attention whore got his 5 seconds of fame. What a loser.

Yeah that's right. He should wait to get mentioned in the news again the next time he's kidnapped on his way to work in Baghdad. What a loser! He's got no beef with what Bush did to his country. He should be grateful!

fuelair
14th December 2008, 05:46 PM
I'm sure Hugo Chavez has a shoe like it stuck firmly up his fundament - so he can pull it out on occasion and smell the "stench of sulphur"!

HarryKeogh
14th December 2008, 05:50 PM
To be fair, the shoes were stuffed with flowers and chocolates.

MattusMaximus
14th December 2008, 07:23 PM
Man I can't stop laughing. That is hands down the funniest friggin crap I've seen all year. Dubya must of been the dodgeball champ back at his Connecticut country day school.

I finally was able to stop laughing then I heard one of Dubya's statements regarding the whole embarrassing event.

"It's like drivin' down the street and not having people gesturing you with all five fingers"

Then I lost it again

http://slapnose.com/images/blog/1004/1004_bush_finger_318x254.jpg

Apparently, Bush thought it was kind of funny, too. If you watch the video footage closely, you'll see him grinning right after the first shoe was thrown at him.

It's a good thing Bush has quick reflexes, because if he didn't duck that first shoe he would've been cold-cocked. That Iraqi sure can throw - man!

MattusMaximus
14th December 2008, 07:25 PM
Obama would have caught it.

The real question is, what would Chuck Norris have done?

Skeptic Ginger
14th December 2008, 07:26 PM
Gee- Had it bee an American throwing stuff at a Muslim, you ******** whould have been all over the guy.
The blame america first crowd and Bush haters cannot even be good winners- still have to put the guy down AFTER you have won!

Why was this jerk allowed anywhere near the event?I suspect that in a country devastated by the actions Bush is clearly the individual most responsible for, it's pretty hard to have a room full of people and not have one that feels the way this man did.

And your "blame America first" is a crock of "head in the sand". Bush does not represent the America I believe in.

Skeptic Ginger
14th December 2008, 07:30 PM
Man I can't stop laughing. That is hands down the funniest friggin crap I've seen all year. Dubya must of been the dodgeball champ back at his Connecticut country day school.

I finally was able to stop laughing then I heard one of Dubya's statements regarding the whole embarrassing event.

"It's like drivin' down the street and not having people gesturing you with all five fingers"

Then I lost it again

http://slapnose.com/images/blog/1004/1004_bush_finger_318x254.jpg

I thought Bush's after comments were rather meaningless, sort of a snobby, "I'm not bothered by such criticisms". But now that you mention it, that comment suggests people flip Bush off everywhere he goes.

:dl:


BTW, here's a link to the video your link failed to show.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/07/bush_flips_out_1.html

boloboffin
14th December 2008, 07:30 PM
Talk about dumbing down standards.

After Kissinger and Arafat got one? Come on.

Obama would have caught it.

And...

And then thrown it back at the guy knocking him out before he even pitched the second one!

You bastage.

ETA: No, actually, Obama would have set the shoes down gently on his podium and then appointed the man Deputy Press Secretary.

Apparently, Bush thought it was kind of funny, too. If you watch the video footage closely, you'll see him grinning right after the first shoe was thrown at him.

It's a good thing Bush has quick reflexes, because if he didn't duck that first shoe he would've been cold-cocked. That Iraqi sure can throw - man!

I've a theory Bush has dodged a few projectiles before.

ahtong
14th December 2008, 07:33 PM
The Sith have great reflexes. :(

ahtong
14th December 2008, 07:37 PM
On a more serious note, I thought the shoe throwing was rather disrespectful, even though I dislike Bush very much.

If that journo had thrown shoes at Saddam, I am sure he would have been shot on the spot. Credit to Bush for just brushing it off.

Skeptic Ginger
14th December 2008, 07:38 PM
Hundreds greeted the president respectfully, and one attention whore got his 5 seconds of fame. What a loser."Hundreds"? What do you suppose the greeting would look like outside the Green Zone? Or even outside the hand picked, background screened, pro-American only Iraqi press corp?

gtc
14th December 2008, 07:45 PM
If that journo had thrown shoes at Saddam, I am sure he would have been shot on the spot. Credit to Bush for just brushing it off.

Its kind of ironic that President Bush has created the situation in Iraq where people now have the freedom to throw shoes at him. Must have been the way Gorbachov felt when people started to have the freedom to criticise him.

gtc
14th December 2008, 07:46 PM
"Hundreds"? What do you suppose the greeting would look like outside the Green Zone? Or even outside the hand picked, background screened, pro-American only Iraqi press corp?

Clearly not all of the journalists there were pro-American.

UserGoogol
14th December 2008, 09:10 PM
On a more serious note, I thought the shoe throwing was rather disrespectful, even though I dislike Bush very much.

I have to imagine that was kind of the point.

But I'll agree that throwing shoes at world leaders is something people ought to avoid doing.

Policenaut
14th December 2008, 09:30 PM
If Bush's secret service team was competent this guy might have been shot before the shoe left his hand. It could have been a real mess in that room. Luckily for the shoe thrower they seem to be slow as molasses.

Tin Foil Timothy
14th December 2008, 09:57 PM
On a more serious note, I thought the shoe throwing was rather disrespectful, even though I dislike Bush very much.

Ya don't say. That was the whole point. Bush deserves disrespect. He reaps what he sows.



If that journo had thrown shoes at Saddam, I am sure he would have been shot on the spot. Credit to Bush for just brushing it off.

Credit to Bush? ya kidding us? Bush is a total jerk. He had the gall to say in the ABC interview afterwards that he didn't know what they guy's beef was. :jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

Tin Foil Timothy
14th December 2008, 09:59 PM
Gee- Had it bee an American throwing stuff at a Muslim, you ******** whould have been all over the guy.
The blame america first crowd and Bush haters cannot even be good winners- still have to put the guy down AFTER you have won!

Why was this jerk allowed anywhere near the event?

Well I think he was one of the reasons for it. He was conducting a press conference with the Iraqi Leader.

Tin Foil Timothy
14th December 2008, 10:03 PM
Hundreds greeted the president respectfully, and one attention whore got his 5 seconds of fame. What a loser.

Loser? I wanna shake his hand. That first shot was a great aim! I would have cheered my ass off had it broke Bush's nose!! :D:D:D

ahtong
14th December 2008, 10:06 PM
If Bush's secret service team was competent this guy might have been shot before the shoe left his hand. It could have been a real mess in that room. Luckily for the shoe thrower they seem to be slow as molasses.

If the secret service had done that it would be a major disaster. The whole Arab world would be up in arms over Americans bringing guns to a shoe fight. Having said that, I'm amazed the journo had time to throw a second shoe. You'd think they would have tackled him before that.

CORed
14th December 2008, 10:08 PM
This guy took pitching lessons from the guys who threw pies at A.C.

It looked to me like his throws were right on target, but Bush did a good job of ducking.

Cicero
14th December 2008, 10:49 PM
It looked to me like his throws were right on target, but Bush did a good job of ducking.

Bush has had a lot of practise at press conferences. But while the Iraqi journalist was intending to prove the pen is not mightier than the Florsheim, he couldn't hit a cow in the ass with a bass fiddle.

gtc
14th December 2008, 11:24 PM
If Bush's secret service team was competent this guy might have been shot before the shoe left his hand. It could have been a real mess in that room. Luckily for the shoe thrower they seem to be slow as molasses.

I was just thinking that.

On the one hand the secret service agents might have quickly assessed the threat and Bush's ability to duck out of the way and rightly classified the situation as not dangerous.

On the other hand maybe they didn't.

Skeptic Ginger
15th December 2008, 12:18 AM
Its kind of ironic that President Bush has created the situation in Iraq where people now have the freedom to throw shoes at him. Must have been the way Gorbachov felt when people started to have the freedom to criticise him.I don't suppose it has dawned on you that all Iraqis don't view the world exactly the way Fox news portrays it.

gtc
15th December 2008, 02:47 AM
I don't suppose it has dawned on you that all Iraqis don't view the world exactly the way Fox news portrays it.

:dl:

What has that got to do with what I posted?

And what makes you think I watch Fox News?

:dl:


This is because I pointed out that calling people 'retarded' is really insulting isn't it?

gtc
15th December 2008, 02:51 AM
Seriously, would you prefer the Iraqis didn't have the freedom to throw shoes at a press conference hosted by their leader?

MIKILLINI
15th December 2008, 04:11 AM
Seriously, would you prefer the Iraqis didn't have the freedom to throw shoes at a press conference hosted by their leader?

Maybe Bush realized they hate us for those freedoms.:D

DC
15th December 2008, 04:13 AM
the freedom to trow shoes?

10 000's of Innocent Iraqis died in a war based on lies......

I would like to see you greeting your "Liberator" after the Liberators his freedom bombs killed your familie.

Darth Rotor
15th December 2008, 05:34 AM
the freedom to trow shoes?

10 000's of Innocent Iraqis died in a war based on lies......

I would like to see you greeting your "Liberator" after the Liberators his freedom bombs killed your familie.
Tell us a tale, Guillame. :rolleyes:

DR

Oliver
15th December 2008, 05:36 AM
Why was this jerk allowed anywhere near the event?


Well, because that's the presidents privilege to be at press conferences.

fuelair
15th December 2008, 06:14 AM
Well, because that's the presidents privilege to be at press conferences.
Good one Oliver but someone else had already said it!! (Not me)

Sefarst
15th December 2008, 06:23 AM
If Bush's secret service team was competent this guy might have been shot before the shoe left his hand. It could have been a real mess in that room. Luckily for the shoe thrower they seem to be slow as molasses.

I don't think so. If you watch the video, that shoe-thrower was really quick. The secret service doesn't stand around with their guns drawn ready to waste anyone that makes a false move. The guy managed to throw both shoes in around two or three seconds.

It was an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do. If I had been the Secret Service, I might have thought that the guy was throwing some kind of bomb at the president.

JoeTheJuggler
15th December 2008, 08:36 AM
It was an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do.

Compared to lying to instigate an aggressive invasion and occupation that has killed hundreds of thousands?

ETA: Yeah, I'm finding it difficult to condemn the shoe-thrower as a serious danger to the world!

varwoche
15th December 2008, 08:49 AM
Its kind of ironic that President Bush has created the situation in Iraq where people now have the freedom to throw shoes at him. Must have been the way Gorbachov felt when people started to have the freedom to criticise him. Irony = nil. That's because (1) the guy is in jail and (2) I don't imagine that throwing shoes at an American president named Bush would have been a problem under Saddam.

Cicero
15th December 2008, 09:02 AM
Irony = nil. That's because (1) the guy is in jail and (2) I don't imagine that throwing shoes at an American president named Bush would have been a problem under Saddam.

If you threw your shoes at Saddam, your fate would be slow death by Branick Device.

WildCat
15th December 2008, 09:32 AM
I don't think so. If you watch the video, that shoe-thrower was really quick. The secret service doesn't stand around with their guns drawn ready to waste anyone that makes a false move.
Good thing too, or there would be quite the body count of Chicago motorists pulling their cars up to Obama's motorcade to try to get a picture.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 09:55 AM
I don't suppose it has dawned on you that all Iraqis don't view the world exactly the way Fox news portrays it.

Amazingly there are still some people left who believe all that Freedom and Democracy crap.

Never mind that things are much worse in Iraq under Bush than they were under Saddam.

I suspect the shoe thrower is set to become a hero over there.

btw skeptigirl - I had the intelligence to understand that 'Fox News' was just a metaphor for western media in general. :)

jmcvann
15th December 2008, 10:03 AM
If I had been the Secret Service, I might have thought that the guy was throwing some kind of bomb at the president.

Indeed. Cluelessness was what I saw. I doubt anyone knew what was thrown the first time, at least not right away. Shrub just stands there, seemingly unaware he's in a country that, for a large part, hates him. Reminded me of his cluelessness when he was told of the WTC attack. He just went on reading "My Pet Goat." CLUELESS!!!

Skeptic Guy
15th December 2008, 10:41 AM
Amazingly there are still some people left who believe all that Freedom and Democracy crap.

Never mind that things are much worse in Iraq under Bush than they were under Saddam.

I suspect the shoe thrower is set to become a hero over there.

btw skeptigirl - I had the intelligence to understand that 'Fox News' was just a metaphor for western media in general. :)

Amazingly there are still some people left who believe all that Freedom and Democracy crap.

Never mind that things are much worse in Iraq under Bush than they were under Saddam.

I suspect the shoe thrower is set to become a hero over there.

btw skeptigirl - I had the intelligence to understand that 'Fox News' was just a metaphor for western media in general. :)

Now, I dislike W as much as anyone. He makes me angry just looking at him. I think he and his administration did lie to get us into the Iraq war. But I have been torn in my reaction to the shoe throwing. Part of me chuckled to see someone do what I have often fantasized about. However, for bad or good, he's the President of the US and ultimately it saddens me to see that the role of President of the United States has been so sullied in the past eight years that not only are there people who would actually throw something at the POTUS but get humor out of doing so. Look, I'm one of the ones who thought it amusing, but I would not have done so if it were any other President.

The journalist in question is from Sadr City and has expressed hatred for W and Americans in general in the past. Given this, I think you could say he is certainly biased and not representative of the Iraqi press Corp in general. That being said, I thought it ironic that the very freedoms he enjoys now, and were absent during Saddam's reign, allowed him to do what he did. One of the clerics in Sadr City said that the journalist's detention would be a test of America's commitment to democracy, suggesting that if there was "true democracy" he would be released. However, if there is rule of law, he should be prosecuted for assault and battery. You have the freedom to express yourself, but there are consequences if you break the law to do so.

Bush doesn't run the country, the Iraqi's do, so to suggest that Iraq is worse off under Bush than under Saddam is just not a correct statement. Once Sunnis stop killing Shias, Arabs stop killing everyone, and America gets out of Iraq, they'll be much better off.

Boy, it sounds like I'm defending W, but I'm not. I think he is a vile man and the sooner he goes off to his ranch in Crawford, the better. I just don't think this incident did Iraq or the US any honor.

Also, I think it inaccurate to equate Fox News with most of Western Media.

Sefarst
15th December 2008, 11:00 AM
Compared to lying to instigate an aggressive invasion and occupation that has killed hundreds of thousands?

ETA: Yeah, I'm finding it difficult to condemn the shoe-thrower as a serious danger to the world!

I never said he was a danger to the world. He was certainly a danger to himself and many people in that room though.

I'm sure you would be singing a different tune if the secret service had thought the guy was throwing a grenade and started firing. Not only would the reporter have been killed but there is no telling how many people would have been caught in the crossfire. And for what? Because some guy thought he could hurt Bush's feelings by showing him the bottoms of his shoes?

Undesired Walrus
15th December 2008, 11:15 AM
Apparently, Bush thought it was kind of funny, too. If you watch the video footage closely, you'll see him grinning right after the first shoe was thrown at him.


I didn't see that at all. If you look at it again, he appears deeply hurt by what is going on.

moon1969
15th December 2008, 11:22 AM
Where would he be now if he had done that to Saddam Hussein? Yeah Chemical Ali and Saddam Hussein were such good guys compared to Dick Cheney or George W. Bush. Sure Iraq is corrupt but Iraq is a better place withouth Saddam Hussein and of course UN disagrees with that because of the Oil for Food scandal.

Cicero
15th December 2008, 11:24 AM
Indeed. Cluelessness was what I saw. I doubt anyone knew what was thrown the first time, at least not right away. Shrub just stands there, seemingly unaware he's in a country that, for a large part, hates him. Reminded me of his cluelessness when he was told of the WTC attack. He just went on reading "My Pet Goat." CLUELESS!!!

The correct reaction to learning about the commercial airliner crashing into the Twin Tower would be to panic and run out of the classroom screaming.

Cicero
15th December 2008, 11:29 AM
I didn't see that at all. If you look at it again, he appears deeply hurt by what is going on.

Hurt? He waived away the security(?) gentleman who immediately approached him at the podium indicating he was fine. Do you think after 8 years of being the punching bag of the msm and liberal blogs that flying footwear is now going to hurt his feelings?

dudalb
15th December 2008, 11:34 AM
I never said he was a danger to the world. He was certainly a danger to himself and many people in that room though.

I'm sure you would be singing a different tune if the secret service had thought the guy was throwing a grenade and started firing. Not only would the reporter have been killed but there is no telling how many people would have been caught in the crossfire. And for what? Because some guy thought he could hurt Bush's feelings by showing him the bottoms of his shoes?

I am not so sure some people on this page would sing a different tune if a grenade had been thrown,sad to say.provided Bush was hit.
I am no fan of W, but the level of hatred reaches the psychotic .

Skeptic Guy
15th December 2008, 11:40 AM
Hurt? He waived away the security(?) gentleman who immediately approached him at the podium indicating he was fine. Do you think after 8 years of being the punching bag of the msm and liberal blogs that flying footwear is now going to hurt his feelings?

If you are going to paint a cross-hair on your forehead, you can't complain if someone takes a punch.

JoeTheJuggler
15th December 2008, 11:44 AM
If you threw your shoes at Saddam, your fate would be slow death by Branick Device.

Bush is not the president of Iraq. I know he struggles with the concept of "sovereign country" but I though you knew better.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 11:46 AM
Bush doesn't run the country, the Iraqi's do, so to suggest that Iraq is worse off under Bush than under Saddam is just not a correct statement. Once Sunnis stop killing Shias, Arabs stop killing everyone, and America gets out of Iraq, they'll be much better off.

"under Bush" wasn't meant to be taken literally. Being under Saddam was bad enough but the Iraqi's were certainly better off under Saddam than they are under the occupation.

And don't kid yourself that the Iraqi Government can do much without the sanction of the occupiers. Most of the CPA laws are still in place and they were created by Neocons, not Iraqis

Locals started killing each other because the invaders dismantled the security system. You dismantle the security system in the USA and people will start killing each other. Sorry, I meant kill each other more.



Also, I think it inaccurate to equate Fox News with most of Western Media.

Not really. Fox is more brash and blatant about it's BS that's all. It's like having a 300lb guy in line to make all the other 200lb guys look slim. :)

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 11:49 AM
I am not so sure some people on this page would sing a different tune if a grenade had been thrown,sad to say.provided Bush was hit.
I am no fan of W, but the level of hatred reaches the psychotic .

You live by the sword....

I'm no fan of capital punishment and Bush should get life for war crimes not the death penalty. But if it had been a grenade I would have only felt for the innocent people caught in the blast.

JoeTheJuggler
15th December 2008, 11:50 AM
I never said he was a danger to the world. He was certainly a danger to himself and many people in that room though.
I'm pretty sure he knew that his actions would put himself in danger. I think the source of that danger was Bush and his puppet Iraqi government.

People in the French Resistance put themselves and their families in serious danger by resisting the German occupation. I have a tough time condemning their actions in the light of the horrors caused by the aggressor they were struggling against.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 11:51 AM
Where would he be now if he had done that to Saddam Hussein? Yeah Chemical Ali and Saddam Hussein were such good guys compared to Dick Cheney or George W. Bush. Sure Iraq is corrupt but Iraq is a better place without Saddam Hussein and of course UN disagrees with that because of the Oil for Food scandal.

If only.

Sefarst
15th December 2008, 11:52 AM
I am not so sure some people on this page would sing a different tune if a grenade had been thrown,sad to say.provided Bush was hit.
I am no fan of W, but the level of hatred reaches the psychotic .

I agree. I voted against Bush, but I think he genuinely believed he was doing the right thing invading Iraq. Careless acts like those of the reporter and the mindlessness of those who will cheer with excitement at anything anti-Bush ensures that the Politics forum will continue to live up to its reputation as the place where critical thinking goes to die.

WildCat
15th December 2008, 11:54 AM
puppet Iraqi government.
Quite a trick to get a country to vote for a puppet in a free election!

BDS, once again.

Sefarst
15th December 2008, 12:01 PM
I'm pretty sure he knew that his actions would put himself in danger. I think the source of that danger was Bush and his puppet Iraqi government.

Please cut the crap. The source of the danger was a reporter so obsessed with seeking personal satisfaction that he would hurl a pointless insult that could easily be construed as attempted assassination in a room crowded with people and armed guards. You've heard of yelling fire in a crowded theater, right?

People in the French Resistance put themselves and their families in serious danger by resisting the German occupation. I have a tough time condemning their actions in the light of the horrors caused by the aggressor they were struggling against.

People in the French Resistance weren't throwing shoes at an outgoing president who wouldn't even be relevant in a couple of months. People in the French Resistance didn't have the free speech and right to speak and act out in other ways against those they disagreed with.

Are you really trying to equate throwing a shoe with the anti-Nazi resistance of WWII?

gtc
15th December 2008, 12:37 PM
Irony = nil. That's because (1) the guy is in jail and (2)

Yes. I just read that detail. I hope he gets released soon, but at least he is still alive - which is more than would have happened under Saddam.

I don't imagine that throwing shoes at an American president named Bush would have been a problem under Saddam.

The point I was making is that the Iraqi leader was beside Bush at the time. Throwing a shoe at someone Saddam was hosting a press conference with would not have been a healthy thing to do.

Darth Rotor
15th December 2008, 12:44 PM
I wonder at how the Iraqi PM felt about the breach of manners this reporter engaged in. One thing about Muslim culture that I am aware of are the general norms of manners and social forms. This was a breach, and a bit of an embarassment for Iraq.


If the guy was from Sadr City, I can appreciate his profound frustration. It was a slum under Saddam's day where things were bad, almost a Shia ghetto. SInce the invasion, for a variety of reasons, it has been a place where gunplay and explosions are far too commonplace. I get why he vented as he did. An Iraqi version of Code Pink, sort of.

DR

gtc
15th December 2008, 12:45 PM
Indeed. Cluelessness was what I saw. I doubt anyone knew what was thrown the first time, at least not right away. Shrub just stands there, seemingly unaware he's in a country that, for a large part, hates him.

In the videos I saw, he ducked.

Bush is not the president of Iraq. I know he struggles with the concept of "sovereign country" but I though you knew better.

Who was standing next to Bush at the conference?

People in the French Resistance put themselves and their families in serious danger by resisting the German occupation. I have a tough time condemning their actions in the light of the horrors caused by the aggressor they were struggling against.

Bush = Hitler and Al Qaeda = The French Resistance.

I didn't think I'd hear that meme again.

BDS, once again.

I wonder how they will reconcile the fact that Bush is giving up his Presidency after serving his 2 terms with their belief that he is Hitler?

Maybe they'll decide Obama is in on 'it' too.

jadebox
15th December 2008, 12:55 PM
Headline News keeps running commercials for its comedy show, Not Just Another Cable News Show. The commercial includes a clip of Fidel Castro falling. Yep, that's comedy ... an old man falling ... breaking his arm and leg.

Bush, on the other hand, was not hurt by the shoe incident, Bush ducked, and the shoe missed him. And, he was the first to make a joke about it.

"Shoe. Fly. Don't bother me," is how Bush described it, I think.

-- Roger

Dr Adequate
15th December 2008, 12:58 PM
Iraqis Renouce Terrorism, Embrace Surrealism

Following yesterday's shoe-throwing incident in Baghdad, Iraq has seen fresh outbursts of surrealism as students took to the streets brandishing flaming tubas and shouting Dadaist slogans. In Basra angry mobs waved umbrellas at a fretwork badger while singing a medley of tunes from The Sound of Music.

This new development in the conflict is thought to have stemmed from an incident earlier this month, when Shi'ite extremists responded to a sectarian bombing of their headquarters by exhibiting a huge canvas covered in rancid bean soup and entitled Absolutely The Last Words Of Arthur Flegenheimer.

While Muslim traditionalists insist that representational art is still forbidden, they have offered a cautious welcome to the surrealist movement. "There is nothing in shari'a law prohibiting 'happenings', Situationism, and radical deconstructions of the subject-object distinction", explained prominent theologian and art critic Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, adding "but cartoons of Mohammed are still right out, OK?"

Reaction from around the world has been enthusiastic. "It's good to see the Iraqi people moving away from the repressive influence of their Islamic past," commented one well-known Eurotrash poseur. "You know, all that geometry and interlace. Done the the Alhambra, darling, bought the postcards, but it's all so it's so fourteenth century, isn't it? What does it have to say about the modern world, the vie humaine?"

Meanwhile President-elect Obama is known to have ordered five tons of pink glitter and some glue, and is rumored to be working on a monumental sculpture of a happy unicorn, to be installed in front of the Lincoln Memorial. "It's kitsch", explained a helpful Obama aide. Yes --- but is it Art?

Toke
15th December 2008, 01:01 PM
I wonder what happened to the shoethrower, a fine for public disturbance, or a oneway trip to some terrorist detension center?

gtc
15th December 2008, 01:06 PM
I wonder what happened to the shoethrower, a fine for public disturbance, or a oneway trip to some terrorist detension center?


The journalist, Muntadhar al-Zeidi, was being held by Iraqi security on Monday and interrogated about whether anybody had paid him to throw his shoes at Bush during a press conference on Sunday in Baghdad, said an Iraqi official.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraqis-demand-release-of-shoehurler/2008/12/16/1229189564564.html

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 01:11 PM
I'm pretty sure he knew that his actions would put himself in danger. I think the source of that danger was Bush and his puppet Iraqi government.

People in the French Resistance put themselves and their families in serious danger by resisting the German occupation. I have a tough time condemning their actions in the light of the horrors caused by the aggressor they were struggling against.

Some people today are called terrorists for resisting occupation. Funny how things change isn't it? :rolleyes:

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 01:14 PM
Who was standing next to Bush at the conference?



Dunno, but they hid the strings well. :D :D

godless dave
15th December 2008, 01:18 PM
I think it's clear that, as a whole, Iraqis need to work on their aim.

Good show, Mr. Zaidi. American reporters won't even throw questions at Bush.

Darth Rotor
15th December 2008, 01:24 PM
Some people today are called terrorists for resisting occupation. Funny how things change isn't it? :rolleyes:
The rhetoric from the Bush group was that "insurgents" (at one time dead enders, which turned out to be false) for some of them fighting the foreigners in their country. However, the foreign fighters were called various things, to include terrorists, as were the terrorist cells, like Al Zarqawi's group (he was Jordanian, in case you weren't aware) who did things like blow up markets places and police recruiting stations where Iraqis, not foreigners, were standing in line.

why do I bother

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 01:26 PM
Quite a trick to get a country to vote for a puppet in a free election!



It's very easy. The USA and UK have been successfully been pulling it off for years.

Travis
15th December 2008, 01:34 PM
It's very easy. The USA and UK have been successfully been pulling it off for years.

You know the Iraqi Government is a "Puppet Government" how? By observing they do things you disagree with?

dudalb
15th December 2008, 01:34 PM
I am really afraid that Al Qaeda and Islamic entremists have found their share of "Useful Idiots" here.

Some people today are called terrorists for resisting occupation. Funny how things change isn't it?

So you support placing bombs in marketplaces, and kidnapping and executing journalist?
But then you are a 9/11 Truther so I should not be surprised.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 01:34 PM
The rhetoric from the Bush group was that "insurgents" (at one time dead enders, which turned out to be false) for some of them fighting the foreigners in their country. However, the foreign fighters were called various things, to include terrorists, as were the terrorist cells, like Al Zarqawi's group (he was Jordanian, in case you weren't aware) who did things like blow up markets places and police recruiting stations where Iraqis, not foreigners, were standing in line.

why do I bother

As bad as that is it can't compete with the majestic carnage of the invaders who were not only complicit in softening up sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands, blew up the whole country and crassly called it 'shock and awe', dismantled the security system allowing looting and street wars, the creation of 4.5 million Iraqi refugees, the creation of illegal laws which gave Blackwater mercenary thugs to go around shooting up Iraqis for fun with impunity, the corrupt reconstruction which rather than employ local Iraqi contractors, instead used US and other Western suppliers often at 20 times the cost.

Gimme a break.

dudalb
15th December 2008, 01:36 PM
Quite a trick to get a country to vote for a puppet in a free election!

BDS, once again.


Some people in the Left insist on playing with fire by supporting Islamic extremism,(whether openly or by inference) and they are going to be burned when..as sadly I think there will be...there is another 9/11 style attack on the US.

plumjam
15th December 2008, 01:37 PM
The US military needs to recognise that the Iraqis have hit on a new strategy for fighting back. That was the beginning of Scholl and Awe.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 01:37 PM
But then you are a 9/11 Truther so I should not be surprised.

I'm a 911 truther? Actually I'm not. I'm a 911 agnostic.

You're a proven liar! --> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4241912&postcount=254

Darth Rotor
15th December 2008, 01:40 PM
As bad as that is it can't compete with the majestic carnage of the invaders who were not only complicit in softening up sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands, blew up the whole country

Idiot speak does not make your more credible. Please, gimme a break Tim.

Blew up the whole country.

For Fox Ache, Tim. *facepalm*

As to the sanctions: when you make a ceasefire deal, and it is not complied with on time, what do you do then, Tim? Enforce it or not? The UNSC chose to enforce it. Please read the charter on the authority the UNSC cited for that exercise of its functions.

That Saddam would rather his people suffer than his ego take a shot is a whole different ball game. In his defense, his worry about Iran seeing him as weak was probably non trivial. I doubt he was predisposed to trust the West with "we'll back you against Iran if they get froggy" after that 1991 war. Funny thing, is, the varied support he got in the 80's to give Iran the red arse might have been a clue that he could play that card again. Too bad he didn't try, it might have worked out for him.

We will never know.

DR

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 01:43 PM
Some people in the Left insist on playing with fire by supporting Islamic extremism,(whether openly or by inference) and they are going to be burned when..as sadly I think there will be...there is another 9/11 style attack on the US.

Some idiots still believe Bush when he dumbly said "You're either with us or the terrorists!" and are indoctrinated by this Good v. Evil crap that ran through the Cold War and now the War On Terror.

It might come as a surprise to some that there is more than two sides and that criticizing one side does not mean you support the other side.

I neither support Islamic Extremism or Neocon Extremism. Evil v. Evil AFAIC

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 01:45 PM
Idiot speak does not make your more credible.
....

It wasn't intended to. Although for some it seems to work for the Neocon doctrine. :)

Anyway once you get past the filter of the mainstream media the situation out there speaks for itself.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 01:49 PM
That Saddam would rather his people suffer than his ego take a shot is a whole different ball game.

No one with more than a couple of neurons in working order would be stupid enough to think that putting sanctions on a country would hurt the ruling elite that had a big stash.

It's a vile argument to put sanctions on a country and then blame the leadership of that country for the suffering of the ordinary citizens.

plumjam
15th December 2008, 01:59 PM
No one with more than a couple of neurons in working order would be stupid enough to think that putting sanctions on a country would hurt the ruling elite that had a big stash.


Correct. The 10 year porn embargo was never gonna work.

Tsukasa Buddha
15th December 2008, 02:00 PM
Ha ha, does making jokes about his aim somehow deflect any of the serious controversies about Bush for right wingers?

Big Les
15th December 2008, 02:06 PM
"Don't faze (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Caterpillar-709134SP-faze-9/dp/B0010LV09I) me bro!"

Ahem.

Sefarst
15th December 2008, 02:08 PM
No one with more than a couple of neurons in working order would be stupid enough to think that putting sanctions on a country would hurt the ruling elite that had a big stash.

It's a vile argument to put sanctions on a country and then blame the leadership of that country for the suffering of the ordinary citizens.

That must be why things like the child mortality rates in the UN administered humanitarian zones of the north continued to decline after the 1st Gulf War while the central, Saddam administered zone rates more than doubled.

Armchair quarterbacking is fun though, isn't it?

godless dave
15th December 2008, 02:24 PM
I voted against Bush, but I think he genuinely believed he was doing the right thing invading Iraq.

That's what makes him evil.

godless dave
15th December 2008, 02:27 PM
On a more serious note, I thought the shoe throwing was rather disrespectful,

Um, that was the idea.

I don't know about you guys, but if some foreign country invaded my country, and then their leader showed up to gloat with his puppet prime minister, I'd be throwing a lot more than shoes.

godless dave
15th December 2008, 02:29 PM
Seriously, would you prefer the Iraqis didn't have the freedom to throw shoes at a press conference hosted by their leader?

It's really none of my business what freedoms Iraqis have. See, I'm not an Iraqi. It's not my job or my country's job to decide how other countries are governed.

godless dave
15th December 2008, 02:30 PM
It was an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do. If I had been the Secret Service, I might have thought that the guy was throwing some kind of bomb at the president.

If only.

gtc
15th December 2008, 02:48 PM
Um, that was the idea.

I don't know about you guys, but if some foreign country invaded my country, and then their leader showed up to gloat with his puppet prime minister, I'd be throwing a lot more than shoes.

'gloat', 'puppet prime minister'?

Hyperbole like that won't help the Iraqi people get back on their feet.

It's really none of my business what freedoms Iraqis have. See, I'm not an Iraqi. It's not my job or my country's job to decide how other countries are governed.

Under what conditions would you think the US should intervene? Would you have had America remain neutral regarding Europe during WWII? After the War would you have had America leave Europe to the Soviets?

Pardalis
15th December 2008, 02:50 PM
And what makes you think I watch Fox News?


It's her favorite strawman.

godless dave
15th December 2008, 02:51 PM
'gloat', 'puppet prime minister'?

Hyperbole like that won't help the Iraqi people get back on their feet.

Recognizing facts like that will help the Iraqi people liberate themselves.



Under what conditions would you think the US should intervene?
An actual threat to US national security or, in some cases, to one of our allies.

Hitler's Germany was invading other countries. We made war on Germany to stop and reverse those invasions, not to bring democracy to Germany. Notice we didn't invade Fascist Spain - because Spain wasn't attacking other countries. We let Franco rule until he died - because it wasn't our problem, just as Saddam wasn't our problem.

We're not the world police force.

Pardalis
15th December 2008, 02:57 PM
We will never know.


Even if we did know, or had known, people would still find a way to blame the US.

godless dave
15th December 2008, 03:13 PM
Some people in the Left insist on playing with fire by supporting Islamic extremism

Like who?

Cicero
15th December 2008, 03:14 PM
Recognizing facts like that will help the Iraqi people liberate themselves.



An actual threat to US national security or, in some cases, to one of our allies.

Hitler's Germany was invading other countries. We made war on Germany to stop and reverse those invasions, not to bring democracy to Germany. Notice we didn't invade Fascist Spain - because Spain wasn't attacking other countries. We let Franco rule until he died - because it wasn't our problem, just as Saddam wasn't our problem.

We're not the world police force.


1) Germany declared war on the U.S, ergo, they made war on the U.S.

2) Spain was neutral in WWII. But Americans did fight against Franco in The Spanish Civil War.

3) I beleive it was Democrat President Truman who wanted the U.S. military to be a police force. He called the Korean War a "police action."

Skeptic Ginger
15th December 2008, 03:20 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraqis-demand-release-of-shoehurler/2008/12/16/1229189564564.htmlThen there is this report from the NYTs. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/world/middleeast/16shoe.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)Witnesses said that Mr. Zaidi had been severely beaten by security officers on Sunday after being tackled at the press conference and dragged out. One of his brothers, Maythem al-Zaidi, said Monday that the family had not heard from Mr. Zaidi since his arrest, and that a security officer who picked up Mr. Zaidi’s cellphone at midnight on Sunday had threatened the family.


And more specifically from the NYT's Baghdad Bureau (http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/brother-is-proud-of-shoe-tossing-iraqi-journalist/) regarding the threat to the family when a brother tried to call his arrested brother's cell phone:When his brother, Maythem al-Zaidi, 28, called his cell phone on Sunday night, a man claiming to be one of the prime minister’s bodyguards answered. Maythem al-Zaidi said that the bodyguard threatened, “that they will get us all.”(emphasis mine)



When I referred to the Fox News version of reality, what I was referring to was twofold. One, too many Americans view the world from ignorance believing every person on the planet should have the same values as that American does, and two, the main sources of information in America about the rest of the world are completely distorted by those sources, with Fox epitomizing that distortion.

Iraq is not a heterogeneous country where everyone hated Saddam equally throughout. And sometimes, even a dictator with the worst record on human rights still trumps outsiders coming in and occupying a country to some people in that country, especially given the cost the Iraqis have paid and are paying to get rid of Saddam.

The current government does not deal with all populations even handedly. There is an undercurrent with the nature of a simmering civil war in Iraq. Not everyone in Iraq feels the replacement government was freely elected. US interests had a clear advantage in support and campaign publicity. Paul Brenner in the first year 'dictated' all the laws, including making deals for foreign oil companies. The reconstruction was a mess leaving extremely high unemployment in Iraq while foreign companies, many Bush cronies, looted the reconstruction money. Private security firms like Blackwater have not been held accountable for murdering innocent Iraqis (until recently and that one case is no where near being decided).

I'm not claiming the world is either all black or all white. But I certainly am not such an ignorant egotistical aka "Ugly American" as to claim an Iraqi should be "grateful" we invaded their country. That is up to that individual Iraqi to decide for themselves, and who am I to question how that individual should feel about it?

dudalb
15th December 2008, 03:21 PM
If only.

So you advocate the assasination of Dubya?

Nice.
Of course your avatar displaying you attitude toward copyright tells us all we need to know about you.

godless dave
15th December 2008, 03:24 PM
1) Germany declared war on the U.S, ergo, they made war on the U.S.

2) Spain was neutral in WWII.

My point exactly.


3) I beleive it was Democrat President Truman who wanted the U.S. military to be a police force. He called the Korean War a "police action."

And we've had ample time to realize just how flawed that view is.

godless dave
15th December 2008, 03:26 PM
So you advocate the assasination of Dubya?


I advocate that Iraqis use violent resistance against the guy who invaded their country. That's not assassination, it's an act of war.

I absolutely do not advocate that Americans use violence against Bush. But if an Iraqi were to kill him, it would be competely justified under the customs of war, and I would do a happy dance.


Of course your avatar displaying you attitude toward copyright tells us all we need to know about you.

I think you don't get it. My avatar shows my attitude towards copyright infringement.

boloboffin
15th December 2008, 03:29 PM
Last night in the wee hours, the Bloomberg anchor read the copy -- "Throwing shoes is a sign of disrespect in Middle East culture" -- and then added his own commentary: "...as it is in any culture I'm aware of..." and then continued without missing a beat. Beaut.

Cicero
15th December 2008, 03:34 PM
My point exactly.



And we've had ample time to realize just how flawed that view is.

Switzerland was a nuetral country in WWII, yet they were in bed with Nazi Germany. They allowed shot down Luftwaffe fliers to be repatriated with Germany while holding on to American fliers for the duration. Not to mention they banked the gold taken from Jews and occupied countries.

So even declaring oneself neutral does not mean that it is actually so.

Iraq was never a neutral country and had invaded Kuwait back in 1991.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 03:38 PM
So you advocate the assasination of Dubya?

Nice.
Of course your avatar displaying you attitude toward copyright tells us all we need to know about you.

Once again you get it all wrong. ha ha ha ha ha. :D:D:D Someone urinating on copyright infringement means to most rational people that it's a stand against it.

Or maybe you are someone who advocates copyright infringement?

godless dave
15th December 2008, 03:42 PM
Iraq was never a neutral country and had invaded Kuwait back in 1991.

Which is completely irrelevant to the 2003 invasion.

Cicero
15th December 2008, 03:49 PM
Which is completely irrelevant to the 2003 invasion.

Had Iraq not violated numerous UN sanctions and fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone from 1991 to 2003, you might have a point.

godless dave
15th December 2008, 03:56 PM
Had Iraq not violated numerous UN sanctions and fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone from 1991 to 2003, you might have a point.

The coalition aircraft had no right to be in the no-fly zone, so my point stands.

Violating UN resolutions is not a sufficient cause for the US to invade someone. Military force is only for self-defense.

Cicero
15th December 2008, 04:12 PM
The coalition aircraft had no right to be in the no-fly zone, so my point stands.

Violating UN resolutions is not a sufficient cause for the US to invade someone. Military force is only for self-defense.

Ah, it is Iraqi aircraft that could not operate in the two no-fly zones. U.S., U.K., and French aircraft patrolled the skies in these areas to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south.

Self-defense is the only reason to use military force? Says who? Iraq did not threaten these countries when they invaded Kuwait in 1991:

U.S.
U.K.
Egypt
France
Syria
Morocco
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Bangladesh
Canada
Italy
Australia
Netherlands
Niger
Senegal
Spain
Bahrain
Belgium
South Korea
Afghanistan
Argentina
Czechoslovakia
Greece
Poland
Philippines
New Zealand
Denmark
Hungary
Norway

yet they all participated in fighting Saddam.

gumboot
15th December 2008, 04:37 PM
I'm surprised no one has given the obvious response...

5D5oKEVqQJg

However, despite the hilarity of the event (and yes, it was hilarious), I am likewise quite alarmed by what it suggests. Good or bad, smart or stupid, admired or reviled, the simple fact is George W Bush is President of the United States.

Do you Anti-Bush Americans honestly think the journalist was simply expressing disgust at Bush? Do you think you and he could sit down over coffee and joke and laugh about your shared distaste for the President? How naive can you be?

The journalist was throwing his shoe at America. He was expressing his disgust and hatred at America. At you. Do you think the scene would have played out any different had it been six months later, and Obama standing there? Please. All they see is America, standing on that podium. The Iraqi people have been raised on hatred of the west, and particularly the USA, for almost two decades. None of this is new, spontaneous, or even caused by Bush or the Iraq War.

And yet you're laughing at it. You're cheering this person. Your country's name is mud, and you think it's funny? I'm appalled.

As for discussion of the war itself, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we will have to wait until the very end of my lifetime before we can begin to look at this war objectively and actually find any truth in it. I wonder if people felt the same about the Vietnam War 30 years ago. So many people are so blinded by their own personal little political vendettas they're incapable of actually thinking rationally.

I mean, what are people thinking with statements like "puppet government of Iraq?: The Iraq elections were overseen by an international monitoring group, many of whose members were loudly opposed to the invasion. The Iraq elections were easily less corrupt, more fair, and more accurate in end result than any American election for decades. And let's not forget the governments that have been voted in are not the governments the USA wanted.

This reporter is an idiot, and he's liable to be brutally punished by the Iraqi government for what he did. There is no greater crime than insulting a guest.

CAPULET:Why, how now, kinsman! wherefore storm you so?

TYBALT: Uncle, this is a Montague, our foe,
A villain that is hither come in spite,
To scorn at our solemnity this night.

CAPULET: Young Romeo is it?

TYBALT: 'Tis he, that villain Romeo.

CAPULET: Content thee, gentle coz, let him alone;
He bears him like a portly gentleman;
And, to say truth, Verona brags of him
To be a virtuous and well-govern'd youth:
I would not for the wealth of all the town
Here in my house do him disparagement:
Therefore be patient, take no note of him:
It is my will, the which if thou respect,
Show a fair presence and put off these frowns,
And ill-beseeming semblance for a feast.

TYBALT: It fits, when such a villain is a guest:
I'll not endure him.

CAPULET: He shall be endured:
What, goodman boy! I say, he shall: go to;
Am I the master here, or you? go to.
You'll not endure him! God shall mend my soul!
You'll make a mutiny among my guests!
You will set cock-a-hoop! you'll be the man!

Romeo and Juliet, Act 1. Sc. 5

If this journalist is so enamoured of his Arab culture he must know how the Iraqi government will react.

Dr Adequate
15th December 2008, 04:52 PM
The journalist was throwing his shoe at America. Yes, but on the other hand, the journalist was throwing his shoe at America.

Cicero
15th December 2008, 05:06 PM
Yes, but on the other hand, the journalist was throwing his shoe at America.

Another "soulless" journalist disapproves of the U.S. This guy will be a shoe-in to get a job at the New York Times or MSNBC.

Pardalis
15th December 2008, 07:07 PM
When I referred to the Fox News version of reality, what I was referring to was twofold.

No, there's really one reason why you keep using Fox News as a rhetorical device: Everytime you disagree with someone you accuse that person of listening to Fox News, you did that to me a few months ago, and I don't even have cable.

Iraq is not a heterogeneous country where everyone hated Saddam equally throughout. And sometimes, even a dictator with the worst record on human rights still trumps outsiders coming in and occupying a country to some people in that country, especially given the cost the Iraqis have paid and are paying to get rid of Saddam.
This can't be more clear, you prefer Hussein than the present democratic government (even though it's not perfect, it's still better). Again, a perfect example of the far-Left making excuses for monsters. I'm just glad he's dead, and his crazy sons, but that's just me.

The current government does not deal with all populations even handedly. And Saddam Hussein did?

There is an undercurrent with the nature of a simmering civil war in Iraq. Not everyone in Iraq feels the replacement government was freely elected. Like those elections Hussein won at 99%? Clearly that was far better then, according to your "logic", after, all, it's the Iraqi's choice, who are we to interfere or tell them who to vote for when their genocidal dictator can do that for them.

Pardalis
15th December 2008, 07:16 PM
The coalition aircraft had no right to be in the no-fly zone, so my point stands.

Yes, by all means respect the dictator's airspace! :rolleyes:

Good thing people are still rooting for him.

Violating UN resolutions is not a sufficient cause for the US to invade someone.

You prefer sanctions?

JoeTheJuggler
15th December 2008, 07:32 PM
Bush = Hitler and Al Qaeda = The French Resistance.

I didn't think I'd hear that meme again.
What?

I never said Bush is Hitler. And what has Al Qaeda got to do with it?

The guy who threw the shoe was not a member of Al Qaeda--not even "Al Qaeda of Iraq" (which didn't exist before Bush's invasion and occupation and is not the same organization as Bin Laden's Al Qaeda).

I was pointing out that a guy who is angry enough to risk life and limb to resist a foreign invader and occupier--even if that resistance is largely symbolic--is not some media whore loser looking for a bit of personal grandiosity.

quixotecoyote
15th December 2008, 07:36 PM
You prefer sanctions?

I don't know if dave meant it that way, but you could make an argument that it's not our business if Saddam butchered 200 babies a day and kicked a puppy on Sundays so long as he wasn't threatening us.

I don't buy it. I think atrocity is a reason for intervention, but in this case it was an excuse not a reason.

JoeTheJuggler
15th December 2008, 07:38 PM
The journalist was throwing his shoe at America.
Yes, but on the other hand, the journalist was throwing his shoe at America.


Are you saying he threw one shoe with each hand?

Pardalis
15th December 2008, 08:02 PM
I don't buy it. I think atrocity is a reason for intervention, but in this case it was an excuse not a reason.

I agree. I still don't fully understand why the US didn't just wait a few months or maybe years for it to be plainly obvious to everyone that Saddam Hussein in Iraq was unacceptable. If they had waited for Hussein to make his move, which he would have done I have no doubt, then everyone would have been on board to snuff him out.

gumboot
15th December 2008, 09:40 PM
The guy who threw the shoe was not a member of Al Qaeda--not even "Al Qaeda of Iraq" (which didn't exist before Bush's invasion and occupation and is not the same organization as Bin Laden's Al Qaeda).


Er... wrong, and wrong.

Al Qaeda in Iraq did exist before the invasion, although it was known at the time as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. It was founded in the early 1990s by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and they worked closely with Al Qaeda in Taliban Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden gave al-Zarqawi funds to establish a training camp in Afghanistan, and Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad received much of their funds from Al Qaeda.

Al-Zarqawi refused to swear allegiance to Osama Bin Laden because, get this, he didn't think Al Qaeda was serious enough or committed enough to Jihad. Despite this his organisation was funded by Al Qaeda, and his members in turn raised funds for Al Qaeda.

When the US invaded Afghanistan al-Zarqawi joined up with Al Qaeda and fought alongside them.

In mind 2002 he moved into Northern Iraq where he teamed up with Ansar al-Islam and fought against Kurdish nationalist forces.

When the US invaded Iraq he was well positioned to lead foreign resistance to the invasion. Finally, after 8 months of negotiation al-Zarqawi swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden at which point he renamed Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 10:13 PM
.... despite the hilarity of the event (and yes, it was hilarious), I am likewise quite alarmed by what it suggests. Good or bad, smart or stupid, admired or reviled, the simple fact is George W Bush is President of the United States.

Do you Anti-Bush Americans honestly think the journalist was simply expressing disgust at Bush? Do you think you and he could sit down over coffee and joke and laugh about your shared distaste for the President? How naive can you be?

The journalist was throwing his shoe at America. He was expressing his disgust and hatred at America. At you. .

What a load of crap!! :rolleyes:

I would happily shake this dude by the hand and sit down over coffee and share the disgust at the murders of Iraqis.

I don't hold the ordinary Iraqi people guilty for the crimes of Saddam, why should he hold ordinary American's for the crimes of bush.

Most people with a brain realise that the actions of a country's government don't reflect the views of all or even the majority of the population.

Ordinary people have no beef with each other. Have you travelled dude? I have. I've found decent ordinary people from Middle Eastern countries very welcoming to Westerners.

Stop stirring up national sectarianist baloney.

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 10:17 PM
Er... wrong, and wrong.

Al Qaeda in Iraq did exist before the invasion, although it was known at the time as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad.

So it wasn't Al-Qaeda then was it? make your mind up.

And don't be silly, The shoe thrower wasn't a member of Al-Qaeda. He was a journalist passionately aggrieved at the crimes of the invaders. He's worth a million times the murdering Bush.

boloboffin
15th December 2008, 10:18 PM
The journalist was throwing his shoe at America. He was expressing his disgust and hatred at America. At you. Do you think the scene would have played out any different had it been six months later, and Obama standing there? Please. All they see is America, standing on that podium. The Iraqi people have been raised on hatred of the west, and particularly the USA, for almost two decades. None of this is new, spontaneous, or even caused by Bush or the Iraq War.

And yet you're laughing at it. You're cheering this person. Your country's name is mud, and you think it's funny? I'm appalled.

We're also making animated gifs of it.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/Politics/moe.gif

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/Politics/honestly.gif

:D :p :dl:

ETA: Also, the guy is reportedly just as hacked off at Iranian influence (http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20081215/4945e450_3421_1334520081215-1583109374) in Iraq.

gtc
15th December 2008, 10:19 PM
When I referred to the Fox News version of reality, what I was referring to was twofold. One, too many Americans view the world from ignorance believing every person on the planet should have the same values as that American does, and two, the main sources of information in America about the rest of the world are completely distorted by those sources, with Fox epitomizing that distortion.

That is nice, but what has that got to do with me?

Iraq is not a heterogeneous country where everyone hated Saddam equally throughout.

Indeed not. Some Iraqis prospered under his regime; every dictator knows to spread some of the ill-gotten gains around. Do you think he was one of those?

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 10:22 PM
What?

I never said Bush is Hitler. And what has Al Qaeda got to do with it?

The guy who threw the shoe was not a member of Al Qaeda--not even "Al Qaeda of Iraq" (which didn't exist before Bush's invasion and occupation and is not the same organization as Bin Laden's Al Qaeda).

There is no Al-Qaeda Iraq. that's just a media label.


I was pointing out that a guy who is angry enough to risk life and limb to resist a foreign invader and occupier--even if that resistance is largely symbolic--is not some media whore loser looking for a bit of personal grandiosity.

Exactly. Bush is a complete jerk saying he didn't know what the guy's beef was. Err, you've invaded his country and murdered hundreds of thousands and you don't know what his beef was? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tin Foil Timothy
15th December 2008, 10:24 PM
That is nice, but what has that got to do with me?



Because you seem quite indoctrinated by the Mainstream Media version of events.

Skeptigirl can see it. I can see it. Others can see it. Enjoy the fantasy. :)

gtc
15th December 2008, 10:30 PM
No TFT, Skeptigirl thinks I have been indoctrinated by Fox News. You think I have been indoctrinated by Western media in general which includes:

The NY Times,
The Guardian,
The (UK) Independent,
The BBC,
The Economist and
Der Spiegel.

Amongst others.

Which tells me that while skeptigirl is wrong about me, you are wrong about everything.

shecky
15th December 2008, 10:44 PM
The journalist was throwing his shoe at America. He was expressing his disgust and hatred at America. At you. Do you think the scene would have played out any different had it been six months later, and Obama standing there? Please. All they see is America, standing on that podium. The Iraqi people have been raised on hatred of the west, and particularly the USA, for almost two decades. None of this is new, spontaneous, or even caused by Bush or the Iraq War.

And yet you're laughing at it. You're cheering this person. Your country's name is mud, and you think it's funny? I'm appalled.


I suspect you've got this pretty wrong. Few Iraqis were throwing shoes at America immediately following the ouster of Saddam. On the contrary, there were news stories of folks throwing their shoes at images of Saddam. Something happened between then and now. If you look real hard, you might be able to find what it was. Needless to say, Iraqi sentiment has soured in the interim. You are right in some respect. None of this is new. It's been brewing for several years since the invasion.

And yes, I'm laughing. Even cheering this person. Because he's one of those ingrates who does not see the benevolence of Bush's foreign policy. My country's name is mud because the man at the top couldn't stop blundering, and went through great lengths to make sure the US would be dragged into the mud. This is the perfect send off for a failure of a President. Getting some shoes tossed in his direction is small retribution for what he's done around the world, and to his country.

Piercy
15th December 2008, 10:45 PM
He could probably compete for the Lions QB position.

That's harsh. No love for Orlovsky? 0-16 here they come! :p

Skeptic
15th December 2008, 10:48 PM
Only now do we fully realize the meaning of Bush's desire for "more boots on the ground" in Iraq.

boloboffin
15th December 2008, 10:49 PM
Oh, it's getting brutal out there:

TU1xLrC5ogc

Darth Rotor
16th December 2008, 07:04 AM
The coalition aircraft had no right to be in the no-fly zone, so my point stands.
You might want to check what the UN language was on establishing the no fly zones. (There were two, IIRC, one in the North and one in the South.) These no fly zones were directly related to the UN/Iraq cease fire agreement, which Iraq did not comply with. As noted above, it was Iraqi aircraft who were restricted by the UN order, which was empty unless someone enforced it, like any decree tends to be.
Violating UN resolutions is not a sufficient cause for the US to invade someone.
Maybe, maybe not. 30 or so governments seemed to agree, others did not. You may mean justification rather than cause, since the war went ahead with failure to comply with UN cease fire provisions for twelve years as one of a number of justifications offered.
Military force is only for self-defense.
Well, if everyone believed that, nobody would need an army since nobody would be subject to anything offensive. Sadly, your unsupported assertion is deathly wrong: military force is for a lot of things, to include the threat of its use as a deterrent, with the aim for preventing its use. ;)

Suggestion: leave the ideal and move to the real. That statement might be better phrased as "military force ought to be reserved for self defense." While it is a statement of an ideal as well, it's closer to the interface between an ideal and the real.

DR

Darth Rotor
16th December 2008, 07:18 AM
So we have a bit of an Iraqi nationalist acting out. No real surprise, is it?

From bolo's earlier link:
BAGHDAD - The Iraqi TV reporter who hurled his shoes at George W. Bush was kidnapped once by militants and, separately, detained briefly by the U.S. military.

Over time, Muntadhar al-Zeidi, a 28-year-old unmarried Shiite, came to hate both the U.S. military occupation and Iran's interference in Iraq, his family told The Associated Press on Monday.
Translation: them furriners need to quit interfering with my country. Understandable sentiment.
Al-Zeidi's act of defiance Sunday transformed an obscure reporter from a minor TV station into a national hero to many Iraqis fed up with the nearly six-year U.S. presence here, but also fearful that their country will fall under Iran's influence once the Americans leave.
He is not alone in that worry.
Several thousand people demonstrated in Baghdad and other cities to demand al-Zeidi's release. The attack was the talk of the town in coffee shops, business offices and even schools - and a subject across much of the Arab world. A charity run by the daughter of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi bestowed a medal of courage on al-Zeidi, calling on the Iraqi government to free him.
Conviction carries a sentence of up to two years in prison or a small fine - although it's unlikely he would face the maximum penalty given his newfound cult status in the Arab world.
Suggestion: a small fine, and three hundred hours community service polishing shoes, or mending shoes as a cobbler's assistant.
Bush was not hit or injured in the attack, and Iraqi security guards wrestled al-Zeidi to the ground immediately after he tossed his shoes. White House press secretary Dana Perino suffered an eye injury when she was hit in the face with a microphone during the melee
Foot in mouth? No, mouth in eye.

Hmm, there is a better joke in there for that, but I don't have it on the tip of my tongue.

@ gumboot: back in the 1950's, VP Nixon had rocks thrown at him in Venezuela during a speech (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936915,00.html). Bush got off comparatively easy.

In the thick traffic of the working-class suburb of Catia, the caravan slowed to a crawl, then halted. Several hundred rioters came running. They ripped the U.S. and Venezuelan flags from Nixon's car, pounded the doors with clubs, pipes, brass artillery-shell cases. Grapefruit-sized stones smashed against the safety glass until slivers began flying through the inside of the car. A shower of glass struck Nixon, one piece lodging in his temple near his right eye (it was easily removed).

Outside, the handful of escort police hung back. Brutally manhandled by vengeful mobs after the overthrow of Dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez last January, they seemed afraid to tackle bloodthirsty civilians again. One U.S. Secret Service man threw himself across the back window of Nixon's car to protect it from stones and clubs. Others pulled at a stubborn student lying under the car's front wheels. The howling mob tried to overturn the car.

After twelve minutes' bitter combat, the limousine bucked ahead, bound for the tomb of Simón Bolívar, where Nixon was scheduled to lay a wreath. A block from the tomb the car suddenly veered off into a side street. Glancing through a shattered side window, Nixon could see a mob of 3,000 rioters, mostly high school students, waiting for him. (Days later, policemen found 400 Molotov cocktails cached in the basement of a nearby house.) The limousine sped off to the safety of the U.S. embassy residence.
Makes Hugo Chavez seem rather polite in comparison, doesn't it?

DR

Upchurch
16th December 2008, 07:18 AM
And yet you're laughing at it. You're cheering this person. Your country's name is mud, and you think it's funny? I'm appalled.
Well, yes. Because Bush is the man who has done his dim-witted best to drag my country's name into the mud. Despite your over simplifications and claims of naivety, I do think that most of the world understands differentiates between "America" and "Bush".

I have no idea what that reporter's specific motivations were. I'm frankly surprised that you think you do enough to make this generalization.

Darth Rotor
16th December 2008, 07:33 AM
Well, yes. Because Bush is the man who has done his dim-witted best to drag my country's name into the mud. Despite your over simplifications and claims of naivety, I do think that most of the world understands differentiates between "America" and "Bush".

I have no idea what that reporter's specific motivations were. I'm frankly surprised that you think you do enough to make this generalization.
Try boloboffin's link. The guy wants the furriners to leave Iraq alone. I found this interesting, about his lawyer.

Gaddafi's only daughter is Aisha Gaddafi, a lawyer who had joined the defense team of executed former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein
No picture of her easily found on the web.

DR

Sefarst
16th December 2008, 07:50 AM
New York Times article with Al-Zaidi's brother: http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/brother-is-proud-of-shoe-tossing-iraqi-journalist/

Not sure what to make of this guy. Some people say he wanted to do anything to become famous and the others portray him as quiet and humble. His brother said he had no intention of throwing his shoes while others say he'd been talking about it for a long time.

The article also says he had ties with Saddam's Baathist party.

Al-Baghdadiya (the network al-Zaidi works for) is a pro-Sunni television station. A few people on the intranets have been trying to stretch "pro-Sunni" to "pro-Sunni insurgency". We'll see how far that goes.

http://www.katu.com/news/3637701.html

Darth Rotor
16th December 2008, 07:59 AM
New York Times article with Al-Zaidi's brother: http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/brother-is-proud-of-shoe-tossing-iraqi-journalist/

http://www.katu.com/news/3637701.html
According to his brother, Muntader al-Zaidi is “a calm man.” Both of his parents are dead, and he has 10 other siblings. Maythem al-Zaidi said that his brother is politically independent, but several people who know him mentioned that he was a Baathist who turned into a Sadrist after the war.
Interesting.
Al-Baghdadiya (the network al-Zaidi works for) is a pro-Sunni television station. A few people on the intranets have been trying to stretch "pro-Sunni" to "pro-Sunni insurgency". We'll see how far that goes.
Do they mean pro Sunni insurgency against the Shia in Sadr City, against Maliki, against America, or against "everyone else" with the aim of the Sunni once again being the dominant political and social force in Iraq?

DR

Sefarst
16th December 2008, 08:35 AM
Do they mean pro Sunni insurgency against the Shia in Sadr City, against Maliki, against America, or against "everyone else" with the aim of the Sunni once again being the dominant political and social force in Iraq?

Not sure, I've only seen vague references on a few message boards like: http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1242270&page=0&fpart=3&vc=1 (Post is by Vitamin near the bottom)

Obviously random people on the internet do not a factual statement make and referring to an "Islamic Khmer Rouge" really doesn't make any sense.

Just pointing out that we can expect some reaching and stretching regarding this guy's background. I trust the New York Times though, that he's got Baathist ties and I trust Katu.com that al-Baghdadiya is a pro-Sunni station. If his sister was also part of Saddam's defense team, as you say, then we can perhaps get a clearer idea of his motivation.

Sefarst
16th December 2008, 08:43 AM
Also mention of it here: http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/12/1215_a_big_deal.html

Mark Kleiman (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_occupation_of_iraq_/2008/12/these_boots_are_made_for_throwin.php) chastises some of his fellow liberal bloggers: "I notice a tendency in parts of Blue Blogistan to make the TV reporter who threw his shoes at the Beloved Leader (henceforward to be known as 'George W. ibn al-Kalb') some sort of spokesman for the outraged Iraqi people. The technical term is 'projection.' It will be interesting to see what the reactions are among Iraqi politicians, but the shoe-thrower turns out to work for a network based in Egypt that supports the Sunni insurgency (http://www.juancole.com/2008/12/odierno-thousands-of-us-troops-will.html). So curb your enthusiasm, folks. Be grateful the ibn al-kalb wasn't hurt. And it wouldn't hurt to express a little admiration for his coolness."

Cicero
16th December 2008, 10:31 AM
Now Muntarar will have the ASPCA on him.


On its part France Press said : " The correspondent of al-Baghdadiya Channel, '' Muntarar al-Zayadi '' who was standing amongst reporters threw his pair of shoes saying: " This is the Farwell kiss O' dog '' ) .

http://www.jananews.ly/Page.aspx?PageId=35182&PI=29

Skeptic Guy
16th December 2008, 11:02 AM
I don't know if dave meant it that way, but you could make an argument that it's not our business if Saddam butchered 200 babies a day and kicked a puppy on Sundays so long as he wasn't threatening us.

I don't buy it. I think atrocity is a reason for intervention, but in this case it was an excuse not a reason.

The problem is that there are a lot of dictators around and they all do really bad things. Why aren't we going after all of them? Because Iraq was an easy target. They couldn't hit back. There are a lot of bad guys out there, but it isn't up to us to get rid of them all.

The fact is that there was a stable government and I think there were a lot of options we had other than war. I don't want to get off on a tangent outside of the OP here, but war was the last option we should have gone with.

Er... wrong, and wrong.

Al Qaeda in Iraq did exist before the invasion, although it was known at the time as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. It was founded in the early 1990s by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and they worked closely with Al Qaeda in Taliban Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden gave al-Zarqawi funds to establish a training camp in Afghanistan, and Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad received much of their funds from Al Qaeda.

Al-Zarqawi refused to swear allegiance to Osama Bin Laden because, get this, he didn't think Al Qaeda was serious enough or committed enough to Jihad. Despite this his organisation was funded by Al Qaeda, and his members in turn raised funds for Al Qaeda.

When the US invaded Afghanistan al-Zarqawi joined up with Al Qaeda and fought alongside them.

In mind 2002 he moved into Northern Iraq where he teamed up with Ansar al-Islam and fought against Kurdish nationalist forces.

When the US invaded Iraq he was well positioned to lead foreign resistance to the invasion. Finally, after 8 months of negotiation al-Zarqawi swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden at which point he renamed Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Gumboot, are you sure about this? I have never heard of Al Qaeda being in Iraq prior to the US invasion. I know that a lot of people made claims that al-Zarqawi was active there, but there has been no documentation, that I have seen, to back that up.

And as much as I am left of center, I cannot understand how you can say that the Iraqi government is a "puppet government". The Iraqis voted for it and as someone else pointed out, it was monitored by the international community. I agree, we should never have gone in there and we need to get the hell out, but we did set-up an independent government, and more importantly, we ARE getting out.

boloboffin
16th December 2008, 11:23 AM
http://www.duckduckbush.com

Cicero
16th December 2008, 11:28 AM
http://www.duckduckbush.com

sample:

"A deck chair from the Hindenberg."

The posters on this sight are as flummoxed as Muntarar.

Tin Foil Timothy
16th December 2008, 12:51 PM
http://www.duckduckbush.com

I picked the most distasteful to throw at him...... Freedom Fries.

Such a vile and crass icon of the decades of Neocon Lies and Deception.

Upchurch
16th December 2008, 12:56 PM
I picked the most distasteful to throw at him...... Freedom Fries.
You can throw more than one thing at him. I know I did.

Cicero
16th December 2008, 04:38 PM
You can throw more than one thing at him. I know I did.

You probably developed bursitis throwing in virtual reality.

gtc
16th December 2008, 07:42 PM
Chips.

Chips are a vile and crass icon of Neocon Lies and Deception.

Are they kosher, I wonder?

Sefarst
16th December 2008, 08:39 PM
Chips.

Chips are a vile and crass icon of Neocon Lies and Deception.

Are they kosher, I wonder?

http://www.advantageservice.net/images/SnyderKoshDill1.jpg

So kosher you'll lose your yamulke.

Frank Newgent
16th December 2008, 09:06 PM
We're also making animated gifs of it.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/Politics/moe.gif


Thank you, sir!

funk de fino
17th December 2008, 05:04 AM
What a load of crap!! :rolleyes:

I would happily shake this dude by the hand and sit down over coffee and share the disgust at the murders of Iraqis.

I don't hold the ordinary Iraqi people guilty for the crimes of Saddam, why should he hold ordinary American's for the crimes of bush.

Most people with a brain realise that the actions of a country's government don't reflect the views of all or even the majority of the population.

Ordinary people have no beef with each other. Have you travelled dude? I have. I've found decent ordinary people from Middle Eastern countries very welcoming to Westerners.

Stop stirring up national sectarianist baloney.

Have you been to iraq and asked people about how they feel about getting rid of saddam and his cronies?

Cicero
17th December 2008, 09:44 AM
Looks like the al-Zaidi family has the same problems the Casey Anthony family has about keeping their stories straight:


***.."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."..***

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

***.."Saddam Hussein's former lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi said he was forming a team to defend Zaidi and that around 200 lawyers, including Americans, had offered their services for free."..***

http://www.france24.com/20081215-arabs-hail-shoe-attack-bushs-farewell-gift-0

How could they resist?

Tin Foil Timothy
17th December 2008, 03:38 PM
Have you been to iraq and asked people about how they feel about getting rid of saddam and his cronies?

Have you? No of course you haven't.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the blame of ordinary people for the crimes of their leaders.


But most interviews of Iraqis I've seen say they didn't want the country made even worse than under Saddam in order to get rid of him.

And this is the main point. Saddam could have been ousted without wrecking the place and dismantling the security system. Leaders have been ousted in many countries without so much carnage.

The whole invasion was based upon lies anyway.

And funny how Zimbabwe isn't being wrecked in order to oust Mugabe isn't it?

And do you think the Iraqis are all cheering and really happy now Saddam has gone? The million dead and the 4.5 million refugees aren't that's for sure.

The naivety in this world is staggeringly incredible.

Tin Foil Timothy
17th December 2008, 03:41 PM
And while the hypnotized are munching on their freedom fries and wallowing in the illusion that Iraq now has freedom and democracy, the rest of you can have fun throwing a shoe at Bush. I only got 5 points. I need more practice. :)

http://play.sockandawe.com/

Cicero
17th December 2008, 04:13 PM
And this is the main point. Saddam could have been ousted without wrecking the place and dismantling the security system. Leaders have been ousted in many countries without so much carnage.

The whole invasion was based upon lies anyway.


Obviously, Saddam could not be removed using clandestine methods, or he would not still be in power a dozen years after Gulf War I.

Errors in intel are not lies. After seven years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

But not to worry. The same lawyer that defended Saddam is defending your buddy, Muntazer al-Zaidi. That should be of some comfort to Munt.

Tin Foil Timothy
17th December 2008, 04:51 PM
Obviously, Saddam could not be removed using clandestine methods, or he would not still be in power a dozen years after Gulf War I.

Errors in intel are not lies. After seven years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

But not to worry. The same lawyer that defended Saddam is defending your buddy, Muntazer al-Zaidi. That should be of some comfort to Munt.

You don't seriously believe the the WMD lies were just errors in intel do you?

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!


Anyway, even if Bush was lied to by those behind the scenes, it was still lies. Bush not knowing it was a lie doesn't make it an "error in intel"

gtc
17th December 2008, 06:30 PM
Pray tell,

How could Saddam have been removed from office, otherwise?

mortimer
17th December 2008, 06:44 PM
You don't seriously believe the the WMD lies were just errors in intel do you?

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!


Anyway, even if Bush was lied to by those behind the scenes, it was still lies. Bush not knowing it was a lie doesn't make it an "error in intel"

The four smilies in a row and the laughter in ALL CAPS is certainly convincing enough evidence that it was lies and not errors by Bush and his intel community. I'll need to remember that next time someone asks for evidence to support a position.

:):D:o:(:p;)

funk de fino
18th December 2008, 04:59 AM
Have you? No of course you haven't.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the blame of ordinary people for the crimes of their leaders.


But most interviews of Iraqis I've seen say they didn't want the country made even worse than under Saddam in order to get rid of him.

And this is the main point. Saddam could have been ousted without wrecking the place and dismantling the security system. Leaders have been ousted in many countries without so much carnage.

The whole invasion was based upon lies anyway.

And funny how Zimbabwe isn't being wrecked in order to oust Mugabe isn't it?

And do you think the Iraqis are all cheering and really happy now Saddam has gone? The million dead and the 4.5 million refugees aren't that's for sure.

The naivety in this world is staggeringly incredible.

Actually I have TFT.

There is only one naive person I can see posting here.

How about you ask the kurds? Or the marsh arabs is the south?

The invasion was based on bad intel given to many countries from many sources, not lies. Unless you can prove otherwise then you are the liar.

Does Mugabe have or could have had WMD? Has he been an aggressor against other sovereign nations in tha past.

Mugabe is a clown and a animal but there is no comparison to Saddam here.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!

stundie??

Trojan_Jockey
18th December 2008, 05:42 AM
The four smilies in a row and the laughter in ALL CAPS is certainly convincing enough evidence that it was lies and not errors by Bush and his intel community. I'll need to remember that next time someone asks for evidence to support a position.

:):D:o:(:p;)

With all those smilies he nearly convinced me too. :):):):):)

Perhaps a new law should be defined, ergo, the number of smilies is inversely related to the strength of the argument.

Darth Rotor
18th December 2008, 06:23 AM
From Cicero's link, but not about lawyers representing people, which is what lawyers do:
But young Iraqi woman Oum Mina said she didn't consider Zaidi a hero.

"Bush is our enemy. But when you invite your enemy into your home, you don't treat him this way. This could destroy the image of Iraqis."

Protestors in Sadr City, the bastion of radical anti-US cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, however, threw shoes at passing US military vehicles, while in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, the crowds chanted "Down with America."

"All US soldiers who have used their shoes to humiliate Iraqis should be brought to justice, along with their US superiors, including Bush," said Ali Qeisi, head of a Jordan-based Iraqi rights group.
Put a microphone in front of some people, and watch the stupid happen. :mgduh

"All US soldiers who have used their shoes to humiliate Iraqis should be brought to justice,

I show the soles of my shoes to this nitwit. The shoes aren't the problem. If the soldiers had been running around with no shoes on for the past five years, no problem with a few thousand barefoot Marines, right?

If it's shoes that have you upset, you have no problem. Soldiers wear shoes, Iraqis wear shoes, Iraqi soldiers wear shoes, and even Jews wear shoes. Dogs chew on shoes. :gromit:

There are people in Iraq making a reasoned complaint about their country having in it a load of foreign soldiers. You? "It's gotta be the shoes!"

Saladin wept. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin)

DR

Cicero
18th December 2008, 08:35 AM
Another "soulless" journalist disapproves of the U.S. This guy will be a shoe-in to get a job at the New York Times or MSNBC.
Post #134 15th December 2008, 06:06 PM

On the December 15 Tonight Show, Leno said:

"Well, the interesting thing was the journalist who threw the shoe was immediately arrested, and then offered his own show on MSNBC."
Jay Leno

Wow! Leno's writers are JREFer board followers.

Predictably, Letterman had to figure out how to make a joke combining the Iraqi and FOX News:

"It turns out this guy was described as a hot head. He's a guy who is an Iraqi journalist. They say he's a hot head with poor journalistic skills. Well, no surprise, today he was offered his own show on Fox News."
David Letterman

His politics wouldn't allow him to make a logical construct as Leno did.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed3.htm

Pardalis
18th December 2008, 08:46 AM
There's one thing I don't understand about that shoe throwing incident.

The sole of the shoe as a bad omen is an Iraqi thing right? So how was Bush supposed to know that? How is he supposed to be insulted by something he can't even relate to? For him a shoe is just a shoe. If you want to insult somebody, isn't it common knowledge to do it in a way that the person you're trying to offend is going to get it?

Cicero
18th December 2008, 08:52 AM
From Cicero's link, but not about lawyers representing people, which is what lawyers do:
DR

When you see some of the same forensic experts and defense attorneys that testified for, or defended, Simpson and Spector, that specialize in blowing smoke and confusing the jury, and now are working "pro bono" on the Casey Anthony defense, you can draw your own conclusions.


The same applies to the lawyer who defended Saddam and now is defending the shoe thrower.

Darth Rotor
18th December 2008, 08:55 AM
When you see some of the same forensic experts and defense attorneys that testified for, or defended, Simpson and Spector, that specialize in blowing smoke and confusing the jury, and now are working "pro bono" on the Casey Anthony defense, you can draw your own conclusions.

The same applies to the lawyer who defended Saddam and now is defending the shoe thrower.
The political motivations are screamingly obvious, if that is what you were remarking on. See my suggested penal event: a fine and three hundred hours of community service polishing shoes, or repairing shoes as cobbler's assistant. (Maybe I posted that in the other thread.) That would fit nicely, don't you think? It would also be a punishment to fit the crime of bad manners on a national scale.

DR

Tin Foil Timothy
18th December 2008, 12:32 PM
Actually I have TFT.

Yes of course you have. :roll:



There is only one naive person I can see posting here.

How about you ask the kurds? Or the marsh arabs is the south?

And?

The argument isn't that Saddam was a great guy and the invaders came wrecked the place. The argument is that Saddam was a real bad guy, but the Invaders made the place worse.

Your failure to understand that simple concept is a sure indication you haven't asked any Iraqis. BS


The invasion was based on bad Intel given to many countries from many sources, not lies. Unless you can prove otherwise then you are the liar.

The invasion was based upon fabricated Intel made to look bad. i.e lies. Unless you can prove otherwise then you are the liar.

I can't believe anyone could be so naive. I bet you believe all that 'Freedom and Democracy' nonsense as well don't you?

Tin Foil Timothy
18th December 2008, 12:33 PM
Pray tell,

How could Saddam have been removed from office, otherwise?

By force. but without wrecking the country and dismantling it's social infrastructure so civilians have no security and basic services.

You'd almost think that was done on purpose to create anarchy. ;)


Waits for someone to chime in with old 'incompetence' howler. :)

funk de fino
18th December 2008, 01:00 PM
Yes of course you have. :roll:

get out of your bubble

And?

The argument isn't that Saddam was a great guy and the invaders came wrecked the place. The argument is that Saddam was a real bad guy, but the Invaders made the place worse.

Your failure to understand that simple concept is a sure indication you haven't asked any Iraqis. BS

Yes the kurds are having thousands gassed nowadays and the marsh arabs still have their homelands and thousands of them are being slaughtered. Oh no wait...

Before you throw your pathetic accusations around you should really take a step back. I have been to Iraq a few times actually. The violence is not good at the moment but the violence is being carried out by terrorists, some of whom are not Iraqis and who are killing other Iraqis. Ask any Iraqi except those who were part of the clique, if they are happy saddam is gone.

The country is not great just now but better than it was. They have an elected govt. They have a chance to decide their own future.

The invasion was based upon fabricated Intel made to look bad. i.e lies. Unless you can prove otherwise then you are the liar.

Less of the truther debate style please. USA was not the only country who deemed him a threat and you have yet to show us any lies.


I can't believe anyone could be so naive. I bet you believe all that 'Freedom and Democracy' nonsense as well don't you?

Take a look in the mirror. I fought in the first gulf war. I disagreed with the second one. It should have been left. Regardless, the fact it has happened has made the country a better place for ordinary Iraqis.

Your performance in this and other threads in this section is quite frankly appalling. You are so blinkered it is unreal. That you have to accuse me of lying says it all.

Skeptic Ginger
18th December 2008, 01:46 PM
That is nice, but what has that got to do with me? ..I was about to say then noticed TinFoil did it for me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4273938#post4273938) and very succinctly at that.

Skeptic Ginger
18th December 2008, 01:56 PM
No TFT, Skeptigirl thinks I have been indoctrinated by Fox News. You think I have been indoctrinated by Western media in general which includes:

The NY Times,
The Guardian,
The (UK) Independent,
The BBC,
The Economist and
Der Spiegel.

Amongst others.

Which tells me that while skeptigirl is wrong about me, you are wrong about everything.Regardless of the source of your indoctrination, it is clear to me your view of the world is not consistent with the evidence in this case. And, your view more closely reflects the misinformation Fox continues to spew regarding Bush and Iraq in particular.

Most of the 'facts' regarding Bush and Iraq that you continue to believe have been discredited by overwhelming evidence. It's the word of media pundits and outright liars, vs sourced evidence in case after case.

Media Matters just awarded Hannity "2008 Misinformer of the Year" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200812170007?src=misinformer-3). They document lie after lie after lie that typifies not just Fox News, but also the views that you, Cicero and a number of other pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War forum members here continue to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence against.

gtc
18th December 2008, 02:03 PM
There's one thing I don't understand about that shoe throwing incident.

The sole of the shoe as a bad omen is an Iraqi thing right? So how was Bush supposed to know that? How is he supposed to be insulted by something he can't even relate to? For him a shoe is just a shoe. If you want to insult somebody, isn't it common knowledge to do it in a way that the person you're trying to offend is going to get it?

I think it was probably designed so that the arab audience could see that he had been insulted.

I was about to say then noticed TinFoil did it for me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4273938#post4273938) and very succinctly at that.

:dl:

His comments reflect a crazed conspiracy theory and had nothing to do with what we were discussing.

What is the mainstream media version of events? Remember that the mainstream media includes the BBC, Deutsche Welle, The New York Times, the New York Post, the Times of London, MSNBC and The Economist amongst others.



This is what you said:

quote=skeptigirl;4273146]When I referred to the Fox News version of reality, what I was referring to was twofold. One, too many Americans view the world from ignorance believing every person on the planet should have the same values as that American does, and two, the main sources of information in America about the rest of the world are completely distorted by those sources, with Fox epitomizing that distortion.[/quote]

I'll ask you again.

What does this have to do with me?

Skeptic Ginger
18th December 2008, 02:04 PM
Only now do we fully realize the meaning of Bush's desire for "more boots on the ground" in Iraq.Pith nom!

gtc
18th December 2008, 02:06 PM
Regardless of the source of your indoctrination,

Do you even recognise the names of the media outlets I listed?

If you did, then you couldn't have written the rest of what you wrote.

Skeptic
18th December 2008, 02:06 PM
I would happily shake this dude by the hand and sit down over coffee and share the disgust at the murders of Iraqis.

Unless, of course, they were murdered by Saddam; when that was going on, you didn't give a damn how many of them were being killed. For that reason, I doubt that "disgust at the murder of Iraqis" is the real reason here.

JihadJane
18th December 2008, 02:08 PM
The country is not great just now but better than it was.


It doesn't make any difference whether you've been to Iraq or not. If you had talked to a cross-section of ordinary Iraqis it would not be possible to maintain this naive belief . Iraq is now in a much worse state than in Saddam's time, especially for women, to the extent that Iraqis who hated Saddam are now nostalgic for his rule.

Skeptic Ginger
18th December 2008, 02:37 PM
Have you been to iraq and asked people about how they feel about getting rid of saddam and his cronies?There have been a number of surveys, and there are hundreds of interviews with actual Iraqis as opposed to the barrage of pundit opinions in the mainstream news. Here are some examples noted by CommonDreams of specific news articles that ignored Iraqi public opinion in favor of their own versions of reality:

As Usual, NYT Ignores Iraqi Opinion - Anecdotes trump polls on withdrawal (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/16-0)Notably, Farrell opted not to include polling data in his article. Perhaps that's because had he done so, it would have undermined the thesis of his piece.

A poll from March 2008 conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) for the British Channel 4 (2/24-3/5/08) found 70 percent of Iraqis wanting occupation forces to leave. Within this group, 65 percent wanted them to leave "immediately or as soon as possible"-meaning fully 46 percent of Iraqis would fall under Farrell's "leave immediately" group. Another 19 percent wanted them out within a year or less, while 12 percent wanted to wait until "whenever the security situation allows it." (Interestingly, in Baghdad-where Times journalists are based-the number of those who wanted troops out immediately was only 42 percent, while 20 percent wanted to wait until the security situation improves; still, a majority wanted troops out within a year.)

Another March 2008 poll conducted by D3/KA for ABC News and other media outlets (2/12-20/08) similarly found that 73 percent of Iraqis either "somewhat" or "strongly" opposed the ongoing foreign troop presence in their country, with 38 percent in favor of immediate withdrawal. Only 7 percent of Iraqis-primarily Kurds-"strongly" supported the presence of occupation forces. A Gallup poll from April 2004 (USA Today, 4/28/04) revealed that "a solid majority [of Iraqis] support an immediate military pullout." Fifty-seven percent said the coalition should "leave immediately." The same poll found that 75 percent of the residents of Baghdad favored an immediate withdrawal. At the same time, a poll from the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (4/28/04), which was partly funded by the State Department and had coordinated its work with the Coalition Provisional Authority, found that more than half of all Iraqis wanted an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces, an increase of 17 percent over the previous October.

In writing about Iraqi opinion, though, the Times' Ian Fisher (5/23/04) ignored this data, asserting, "There are still far more people . . . who are skeptical of, and maybe even hate, the Americans but see them as the only way to save themselves." As evidence, Fisher cited not scientific surveys-as those would have contradicted his claim-but rather a tally conducted by Sadim Samir, a 23-year-old political science student at the University of Baghdad, who "canvassed five neighborhoods" of Baghdad for a "class paper."

More recently, 18 Iraqis were interviewed for the Times article "In Iraq, Mixed Feelings About Obama and His Troop Proposal," by Sabrina Tavernise and Richard Oppel (7/17/08). Again, the Times preferred to rely on the opinions of less than two dozen Iraqis rather than refer to available polling data that would have undercut the theme of the story: that Iraqis faced "a deep internal quandary" about Obama's support for withdrawal.

Despite his limited perspective on Iraqi opinion, Burns has repeatedly presented that perspective to the public without caveats, both in the Times and in other outlets-most frequently the Charlie Rose show on PBS-and it's a perspective that runs counter to the survey data.

"In my experience, the great majority of Iraqis are . . . very loathe to see those American troops leave now," Burns told Rose on June 14, 2006, shortly before the State Department's own polls showed nearly half of Iraqis wanting immediate withdrawal and seven in ten wanting troops out within a year (Washington Post, 9/27/06). Burns told Rose a year later (PBS, 7/17/07

Tin Foil Timothy
18th December 2008, 03:24 PM
Ask any Iraqi except those who were part of the clique, if they are happy saddam is gone.

I didn't say they were not happy get rid of Saddam Hussein. You are arguing against your own fabrications. Your performance in this and other threads in this section is quite frankly appalling. You are so blinkered it is unreal. That you have to accuse me of lying says it all.

So let's try again shall we?


The argument isn't that Saddam was a great guy and the invaders came wrecked the place. The argument is that Saddam was a real bad guy, but the Invaders made the place worse.

Your failure to understand that simple concept is a sure indication you haven't asked any Iraqis. BS

I have been to Iraq a few times actually. Yeah yeah of course you have. What did you do? Give them some Freedom Fries. :roll:


The country is not great just now but better than it was. They have an elected govt. They have a chance to decide their own future.

Of course it's not better than it was. And you have the gall to call ME blinkered.



Less of the truther debate style please. USA was not the only country who deemed him a threat and you have yet to show us any lies.

Oh yes the UK's Blair BS was that Saddam could attack them within 45 minutes. That was hilarious



I fought in the first gulf war. I disagreed with the second one. It should have been left. Regardless, the fact it has happened has made the country a better place for ordinary Iraqis.

Yeah it sure made it better for those million killed during sanctions and the invasion didn't it?

Sure made it better for those 4.5 million Iraqi refugees didn't it? Sure made it better for those poor kids deformed by depleted uranium didn't it? You should google some pictuers of them? They are someone's child.

I've seen videos of the US military thugs shooting innocent Iraqis and then laughing about it. I've seen videos of private Army mercenary thugs from the likes of Blackwater shooting up innocent Iraqis and laughing about it.

I've seen videos of Bush standing in front a bunch handpicked good looking US military in Iraq, delivering a propaganda speech of Iraq is a better place to the grunts of approval.

To say Iraq is better now is a complete joke. The sanctions and invasion wrecked the place far worse and killed more than even the evil Saddam could do in 24 years. Quite a feat that. Bush, Blair and their hired thugs should be proud of themselves!!

Tin Foil Timothy
18th December 2008, 03:56 PM
Unless, of course, they were murdered by Saddam; when that was going on, you didn't give a damn how many of them were being killed. For that reason, I doubt that "disgust at the murder of Iraqis" is the real reason here.

Skeptic why do you make such fraudulent statements? You are too intelligent to stoop so low.

Tin Foil Timothy
18th December 2008, 04:08 PM
Sorry about all those posts. I hit submit and nothing happened, and I couldn't access the forum for a while

gtc
18th December 2008, 04:17 PM
No need to apologise in future. Just report one of the posts and the mods will delete the extra copies.

Tricky
18th December 2008, 04:30 PM
No need to apologise in future. Just report one of the posts and the mods will delete the extra copies.
Right you are. Happens to everyone. Even Darat.

But not Lisa, so we must assume it's her fault.

Cicero
18th December 2008, 05:37 PM
There have been a number of surveys, and there are hundreds of interviews with actual Iraqis as opposed to the barrage of pundit opinions in the mainstream news. Here are some examples noted by CommonDreams of specific news articles that ignored Iraqi public opinion in favor of their own versions of reality:

As Usual, NYT Ignores Iraqi Opinion - Anecdotes trump polls on withdrawal (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/16-0)

For a minute there, I figured you actually had a completely redoubtable unbiased news source, but it is just the liberal newswire CommonDreams that feature opinions from Deepak Chopra, Alfie Kohn, Frank Rich, Michael Moore and Robert Redford.

BTW: Obama's Iraqi policy is not much different from Bush's. I wonder how CommonDreams will cover what happens in Iraq under the Obama Administration?

Skeptic Ginger
18th December 2008, 09:10 PM
Here are a couple links to a myriad of polls and a discussion paper on the validity of polling given the circumstances in Iraq:

Multiple links to polls done in Iraq from 2004-2008 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/pollindex.htm)

Opinion Polls in Iraq (http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55)

Measuring opinion in a ‘war zone’ - What Iraqi’s really think (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/ESOMAR%20paper.pdf) From a summary of the paper:The paper will show:-

• how, within three years and with genuine risks to his life, a man has built up a nationwide field force, a network of regional supervisors and a busy head office…. all motivated by the belief that accurate opinion research can be a force for good.

• the challenges and practical solutions to establishing a research agency in the most difficult of circumstances. It will outline the immense detail that goes into establishing sampling frames, ensuring that various ethnic/religious groups are considered and that – as far as interviewer safety allows - as many locations as possible are covered.

• how meeting such challenges calls for exceptional determination, bravery and belief in the power of public opinion

• why organisations conduct tracking polls and the strategic insights they learn from them.

• what the people of Iraq really think. The paper will reveal what Iraqi’s feel about the security situation, about the occupying forces and how life today compares to that under Saddam. Tracking data reveals the highs and the lows of public opinion and the impact various events have had on the views of ordinary Iraqi’s.

Skeptic Ginger
18th December 2008, 09:16 PM
For a minute there, I figured you actually had a completely redoubtable unbiased news source, but it is just the liberal newswire CommonDreams that feature opinions from Deepak Chopra, Alfie Kohn, Frank Rich, Michael Moore and Robert Redford.Care to actually address the material in the CommonDreams link rather than this excuse for an argument? The specific news stories and documentation of the facts which contradict the news accounts is spelled out for you in multiple cases. And all you can do is whine about irrelevant stories CommonDreams also writes about.

BTW: Obama's Iraqi policy is not much different from Bush's. I wonder how CommonDreams will cover what happens in Iraq under the Obama Administration?OM-FSM! Cicero, you've actually posted something I agree with.

Darth Rotor
18th December 2008, 09:34 PM
OM-FSM! Cicero, you've actually posted something I agree with.
Standing by for the Rapture in 3, 2, 1. ;)

OK, Iraq of today is still a place broken undergoing a bizarre sequence of repairs. How long it takes to fix it up, if it can be fixed up (my money on the long term is Kurds break away) is anyone's guess. The prime virtue of Iraq under Saddam was stability, which autocrats do pretty well. The nostalgia for that makes a lot of sense, given five years of civil war of varying intensity since he left the building.

The current present virtue is that autocracy has been replaced by something more like a republican/parliamentary form of government, and all that goes with it, with the singularly vexing problem of the transition being soaked in blood.

At the moment, there's a lot of churn and downside to that new virtue. No further comment on the desireability of change, since any Iraqi might be frustrated that the time and choosing of transition was not their own ... though for some, I am guessing a few, it was.

Change can be rough. This change has been really rough. Again, over a million fled the country, and about that number internally displaced. In America, that translates to about 12 million fled the country, and 12 million forced to move: Katrina times forty.

Some of us would be irritated as well, eh? There might even have been some gunplay involved.

DR

Pardalis
18th December 2008, 09:37 PM
Change can be rough.

No kidding, that new avatar of yours almost gave me a heart attack! :D

gtc
18th December 2008, 09:38 PM
The question then becomes whether the violence associated with splitting the country between the Kurds and possibly between the Sunnis and the Shias be less than the violence that would occur trying to keep them together and who gets to make the decision?

gtc
18th December 2008, 09:40 PM
No kidding, that new avatar of yours almost gave me a heart attack! :D

Yeah. It took me a moment to get the reference but I like it.

funk de fino
19th December 2008, 02:10 AM
Yeah yeah of course you have. What did you do? Give them some Freedom Fries.

Again, the pathetic accusations say it all about you pal.

Get out of your house. Travel the world. Look at it with unbiased and less bitter eyes.

Take the blinkers off.

Stop snipping posts to enable you to take them out of context.

Have you been to the Middle East?

Darth Rotor
19th December 2008, 04:41 AM
No kidding, that new avatar of yours almost gave me a heart attack! :D

Orhpia Nay (with help from PaulHoff) gave it to me as a Christmas present. :) That was waaaaaay better than having a shoe thrown at me.

:xmas

Cicero
19th December 2008, 08:36 AM
Muntazer al-Zaidi wants Bush to pardon him. Ole Munt rails aginst American occupation and interference in Iraqi politics, but he wouldn't mind if the American President tells an autonomous Iraqi government what to do in this case.

This reminds me of Sirhan Sirhan protesting that if RFK were alive, he would be in favor of his parole:

***..I sincerely believe that if Robert Kennedy were alive today, I believe he would not countenance singling me out for this kind of treatment. I think he would be among the first to say that, however horrible the deed I committed 14 years ago was, that it should not be the cause for denying me equal treatment under the laws of this country."..***

Too bad for Sirhan he killed the one guy who was sympathetic to his plight.

Darth Rotor
19th December 2008, 08:40 AM
Muntazer al-Zaidi wants Bush to pardon him.
Bush can't, maybe Maliki can. Pardon is a legal issue in Iraq on this matter, not within Bush's presidential jurisdiction.

Bush can forgive him, however, if he so wishes. Might be a Christian thing to do.

Apropos of nothing other than the general topic of this thread: (originally posted in Puzzles/Limericks)

As we kiss our dear leader goodbye
We shall duck when Iraqi shoes fly
Then raise glasses and cheer
The libation? Busch beer
So we'll all get quite wet with eyes dry

As to Sirhan Sirhan: aye.

DR

Skeptic
19th December 2008, 10:52 AM
Bush can forgive him, however, if he so wishes. Might be a Christian thing to do.

I've seen a few minutes of a news segments where Bush, quite wittingly actually, says, first, that he wasn't personally insulted (which seems to imply he'd forgiven the shoe-thrower) and, second, it wasn't too bad compared to all the other stuff people slinged at him during his presidency...

(Bush, though nobody would have imagined it, seems to be one of the presidents with the wittier sense of humor, when he's in the mood for a joke. Go figure.)

Tin Foil Timothy
19th December 2008, 02:03 PM
Again, the pathetic accusations say it all about you pal.

Get out of your house. Travel the world. Look at it with unbiased and less bitter eyes.

Take the blinkers off.

Stop snipping posts to enable you to take them out of context.

Have you been to the Middle East?

Yes I have numerous times. And beyond. I didn't travel to these places to kill people though.

I don't feel I have to proclaim such in a forum to add weight to an argument

Your posts say more about you than your arguments. Perhaps it makes you feel superior to assume that no one else has had the experiences you have?

Enjoy your Freedom Fries.

Tin Foil Timothy
19th December 2008, 02:09 PM
I've seen a few minutes of a news segments where Bush, quite wittingly actually, says, first, that he wasn't personally insulted (which seems to imply he'd forgiven the shoe-thrower) and, second, it wasn't too bad compared to all the other stuff people slinged at him during his presidency...

(Bush, though nobody would have imagined it, seems to be one of the presidents with the wittier sense of humor, when he's in the mood for a joke. Go figure.)

Well you have to have a sense of humor to believe that Iraq was invaded on the basis Freedom and democracy. I bet they thought that if they named the murderous invasion Operation Freedom everybody would believe them. And some even did. :jaw-dropp !! :D :D

Tin Foil Timothy
19th December 2008, 02:13 PM
No kidding, that new avatar of yours almost gave me a heart attack! :D

Who is the dude in your avatar pardalis. It's on the tip of my tongue.

Skeptic Ginger
19th December 2008, 02:48 PM
Thousands protest for release of Iraqi journalist (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/139512/Thousands-protest-for-release-of-Iraqi-journalist)

Iraq rally for Bush shoe attacker (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783608.stm)

In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.) (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/world/middleeast/16shoe.html?em)

Thousands of Iraqis protest arrest of shoe-throwing journalist (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/15/shoes-bush.html)

Montrealers are being invited to hurl their footwear at the U.S. Consulate on Saturday in solidarity with an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush this week. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hjB2V9Sl72XB8_dOOBF_kQIZlERA)


Not trying to cherry pick, mind you, but I couldn't find more than a blog comment or reply supporting Bush.

Cicero
19th December 2008, 03:26 PM
Thousands protest for release of Iraqi journalist (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/139512/Thousands-protest-for-release-of-Iraqi-journalist)

Iraq rally for Bush shoe attacker (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783608.stm)

In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.) (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/world/middleeast/16shoe.html?em)

Thousands of Iraqis protest arrest of shoe-throwing journalist (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/15/shoes-bush.html)

Montrealers are being invited to hurl their footwear at the U.S. Consulate on Saturday in solidarity with an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush this week. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hjB2V9Sl72XB8_dOOBF_kQIZlERA)


Not trying to cherry pick, mind you, but I couldn't find more than a blog comment or reply supporting Bush.

What did Bush do during the press conference that would require a solicitation of support? All he did was easily maneuver out of the way of two shoes thrown from 10 feet away by a Saddam supporter. You can find Saddam supporters in the U.S. and even in the JREFer forums.

Toke
19th December 2008, 03:29 PM
What is the expected ground temperatur in Montreal on saturday?

You don´t need a major trial to give the guy a fine and some community service.
Guess he could get his own tv-show afterwoods.

Toke
19th December 2008, 03:30 PM
Are you sure he was a Sadam supporter and not just a Bush hater, the later are much more common.

Tin Foil Timothy
19th December 2008, 03:41 PM
What did Bush do during the press conference that would require a solicitation of support? All he did was easily maneuver out of the way of two shoes thrown from 10 feet away by a Saddam supporter. You can find Saddam supporters in the U.S. and even in the JREFer forums.


Two major problems there!

ONE: The guy didn't throw his shoes at bush for what he did or said during the press conference. The guy through his shoes at Bush in disgust at the murder of hundreds of thousands and te wrecking of his country


TWO: Saddam Supporter? :confused: There's nothing to suggest he was a support of Saddam. I do appreciate however that some people don't have the intelligence or sense to realize that the world isn't split into two camps and thus think that anyone criticizing one side must by defulat support his enemy.

This very low intelligent proposition was made popular by Bush when he said "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists!" Most decent people are with neither.

OK, there's another thing. Saddam supporters in the JREF forums? I've never come across any. Even the US Establishment stopped supporting Saddam when he decided to invade Kuwait and launched some missiles at Israel.

a_unique_person
19th December 2008, 04:02 PM
Obviously, Saddam could not be removed using clandestine methods, or he would not still be in power a dozen years after Gulf War I.

Errors in intel are not lies. After seven years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

But not to worry. The same lawyer that defended Saddam is defending your buddy, Muntazer al-Zaidi. That should be of some comfort to Munt.

The Australian intelligence office who resigned over the invasion told everyone how it works, he's seen it happen. Taken some piece of intelligence, remove the qualifications, instant fact. Afterwards, blame the intelligence officers because the politicians removed the qualifications.

a_unique_person
19th December 2008, 04:03 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/world/turkish-company-sees-boom-in-sales-of-bush-shoes-20081220-72j3.html

Sales in "Bush" shoe are booming.


The Turkish shoe company making the brand of footware used by an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush has seen a surge in orders.
Ramazan Baydan, owner of the shoe factory in Istanbul of the same name, told DPA that he had received orders in the past week for some 300,000 pairs of the model that was thrown at the US president.

Tin Foil Timothy
19th December 2008, 04:15 PM
The Australian intelligence office who resigned over the invasion told everyone how it works, he's seen it happen. Taken some piece of intelligence, remove the qualifications, instant fact. Afterwards, blame the intelligence officers because the politicians removed the qualifications.

It's nearly 2009!! I can't believe people are still indoctrinated by this 'intel incomptence' BS. Iraq and it's citizens were sanctioned, invaded and murdered on the back of lies.

The Neocon plan to remove saddam was already under way in 1996

The 1996 report called a "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" was the first Neocon report calling for Iraq invasion. Was written by the Neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser

Cicero
19th December 2008, 05:01 PM
Two major problems there!

ONE: The guy didn't throw his shoes at bush for what he did or said during the press conference. The guy through his shoes at Bush in disgust at the murder of hundreds of thousands and te wrecking of his country


TWO: Saddam Supporter? :confused: There's nothing to suggest he was a support of Saddam. I do appreciate however that some people don't have the intelligence or sense to realize that the world isn't split into two camps and thus think that anyone criticizing one side must by defulat support his enemy.

This very low intelligent proposition was made popular by Bush when he said "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists!" Most decent people are with neither.

OK, there's another thing. Saddam supporters in the JREF forums? I've never come across any. Even the US Establishment stopped supporting Saddam when he decided to invade Kuwait and launched some missiles at Israel.

1) The elected Iraqi parliament overwhelmingly passed the Bush-backed security plan that the he went to Iraq to sign.

2) The only countries in the Middle East where a journalist could survive after pelting a visiting dignitary with their shoes is Iraq and Israel.

3) Al-Baghdadia TV , where Munt works,

"has backed the Sunni terrorist insurgents, who were trying to restore the Saddam regime."

and

Al-Zeidi is a correspondent for al-Baghdadia, a pro-Baathist television station based in Cairo, Egypt, that some suspect is funded by Raghad.

http://middle-east-analysis.blogspot.com/

4) The fact that Arabs consider dogs “kelb” (scavengers) only enhances their image as noisome mendicants.

Tin Foil Timothy
19th December 2008, 10:35 PM
So as I say .... two major problems there. nothing you said negates that.

Skeptic
20th December 2008, 12:12 AM
2) The only countries in the Middle East where a journalist could survive after pelting a visiting dignitary with their shoes is Iraq and Israel.

Well, Jordan too, probably... though nowhere else, for sure.

Skeptic
20th December 2008, 12:20 AM
Al-Zeidi is a correspondent for al-Baghdadia, a pro-Baathist television station based in Cairo, Egypt, that some suspect is funded by Raghad.

Ah, yes. The usual brand of pro-terrorist, I mean pro-insurgent, I mean pro-freedom fighters, guy.

All he cares about, surely, is how undermocratic and human rights abusing Bush is, and what suffering he caused to the Iraqis-- unlike that Ba'athist Saddam Hussein -- the flower of Iraq, the Lion of Jerusalem, the Tiger of Damascus, the Cheetah of Hamburg.

No wonder the usual gang of idiots supports him as a "freedom fighter" on this forum. He hates Bush, so he must be a good guy, right?

Skeptic
20th December 2008, 12:31 AM
We have here a case of a pro-Saddam journalist throwing shoes at a pro-Democracy Bush. Suppose that the case was the opposite: suppose the pro-democracy man was the shoe throwing journalist, who protested Bush's decision to reinstall Saddam Hussein in power after a democratic coup.

Since the usual gang is falling over itself to congratulate the pro-Ba'athist journalist for his atack on the pro-democracy Bush, if the opposite were the case it would condemn the pro-democracy journalist and rally to support the pro-Ba'athist Bush, right?

Oh wait.

This is why I cannot take the anti-Bush ranters seriously: for all their talk about "human rights violations" and "opposing dictatorship", they automatically support and lionize ANYBODY -- from disgruntled journalists up to (and including) genocidal dictators -- who oppose Bush, no matter how fascistic or violent or thuggish they are.

Dr Adequate
20th December 2008, 02:18 AM
http://www.theage.com.au/world/turkish-company-sees-boom-in-sales-of-bush-shoes-20081220-72j3.html

Sales in "Bush" shoe are booming. You just can't buy publicity like that, can you?

Not that it makes sense much. I mean, if you were going to throw your shoes at Bush, obviously you'd use your least favorite pair.

Dr Adequate
20th December 2008, 02:56 AM
We have here a case of a pro-Saddam journalist throwing shoes at a pro-Democracy Bush. Suppose that the case was the opposite: suppose the pro-democracy man was the shoe throwing journalist, who protested Bush's decision to reinstall Saddam Hussein in power after a democratic coup.

Since the usual gang is falling over itself to congratulate the pro-Ba'athist journalist for his atack on the pro-democracy Bush, if the opposite were the case it would condemn the pro-democracy journalist and rally to support the pro-Ba'athist Bush, right? No. Since the removal of Saddam Hussein was the one good thing about an otherwise dumb and dishonest war, people would like Bush even less under the circumstances you postulate.

No, the only thing that would have made Bush acceptable to the "usual crowd" would have been if his Presidency hadn't been crap, an option which he does not appear to have considered.

Skeptic
20th December 2008, 05:13 AM
No. Since the removal of Saddam Hussein was the one good thing about an otherwise dumb and dishonest war

Really? I could've sworn the same folks who now support the pro-Saddam shoe-thrower are also the same people who explained to us how removing Saddam "violated Iraq's sovereignity", how Saddam was really the "glue holding Iraq together", how life in Iraq under Saddam wasn't that bad, how removing him "destabalized" the region, etc., etc., etc. -- you know, the usual.

So my conclusion is that whatever their theoretical justifications, the usual gang on this forum are de facto pro-Saddam, since they strongly believe that he should have been left in power and that it was, as you say, "dumb and dishonest" to go to war to remove him.

people would like Bush even less under the circumstances you postulate.

Of course that you'd be in favor of the shoe-thrower and against Bush in the circumstances I describe, as well. That's just my point: you'd be in favor of the shoe-thrower and against Bush under any and all circumstances -- even if he were a KKK member who had thrown his shoes at Bush while Bush was singing "we shall overcome".

Let's imagine the posts on this forum by the usual gang of idiots in that case, shall we?

---"Bush is so unpopular even the KKK hates him, ha ha."
---"The shoe thrower exposed the hypocracy of Bush's singing of such a song when in reality he's a racist"
---"The real reason for the shoe throwing is that the KKK member is probably poor and is expressing the anger of working class America at the lies of the rich corporations that control Bush"...

Etc., etc., etc.

It's not even hard to know in advance what the forum anti-Bush gang's reaction will be, since it never varies. They'd support the KKK just like they support Saddam and Iran: it is enough to hate Bush in order to be on the side of the angels, no matter what sort of evil thug you are.

Dr Adequate
20th December 2008, 06:04 AM
Really? I could've sworn the same folks who now support the pro-Saddam shoe-thrower are also the same people who explained to us how removing Saddam "violated Iraq's sovereignity", how Saddam was really the "glue holding Iraq together", how life in Iraq under Saddam wasn't that bad, how removing him "destabalized" the region, etc., etc., etc. -- you know, the usual. And, as I have explained, the same sort of criticisms could be leveled against an equally dumb war that installed a dictator rather than deposing one --- plus, in your hypothetical scenario, Bush would have installed a dictator rather than deposing one. This would make a bad move worse.

So my conclusion is that whatever their theoretical justifications, the usual gang on this forum are de facto pro-Saddam, since they strongly believe that he should have been left in power and that it was, as you say, "dumb and dishonest" to go to war to remove him. What a bizarre, other-worldly conclusion.

Which countries do you think the US should invade right now? Do you "conclude" that you are "de facto" in favor of the ruling regimes of any countries not on your list? Or does this sort of zany fantasy only apply to people whom you disagree with?

Of course that you'd be in favor of the shoe-thrower and against Bush in the circumstances I describe, as well. That's just my point: you'd be in favor of the shoe-thrower and against Bush under any and all circumstances ... No. As I pointed out, if he hadn't made a total pig's breakfast of everything, that would have earned my approval.

Let's imagine the posts on this forum by the usual gang of idiots in that case, shall we?

---"Bush is so unpopular even the KKK hates him, ha ha."
---"The shoe thrower exposed the hypocracy of Bush's singing of such a song when in reality he's a racist"
---"The real reason for the shoe throwing is that the KKK member is probably poor and is expressing the anger of working class America at the lies of the rich corporations that control Bush"...

Etc., etc., etc.

It's not even hard to know in advance what the forum anti-Bush gang's reaction will be, since it never varies. They'd support the KKK just like they support Saddam and Iran: it is enough to hate Bush in order to be on the side of the angels, no matter what sort of evil thug you are. You can, of course, "imagine" what you like. But railing against other people on the basis of your fantasies about them makes you look a little odd. Perhaps you should stick to criticizing people for what they actually do, rather than on the basis of your daydreams about them.

gtc
20th December 2008, 04:40 PM
Not trying to cherry pick, mind you, but I couldn't find more than a blog comment or reply supporting Bush.

This makes no sense.

Bush broke no law during the conference. He doesn't need, nor could it benefit him, to have support.

Tin Foil Timothy
20th December 2008, 05:16 PM
You're not a Bush supporter as well are you? That figures :)

gtc
20th December 2008, 05:44 PM
Yes, the way you can tell that I am a Bush supporter is by pointing out why I would expect no one to support him over the shoe throwing incident.

Good work there.

Skeptic Ginger
20th December 2008, 07:26 PM
It's nearly 2009!! I can't believe people are still indoctrinated by this 'intel incomptence' BS. ...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.

Skeptic Ginger
20th December 2008, 07:34 PM
This makes no sense.

Bush broke no law during the conference. He doesn't need, nor could it benefit him, to have support.You and Cicero are quite the pair here. I post evidence of worldwide support of the sentiment against Bush and you make this straw man style excuse for why there is no equivalent of Bush supporters making their views publicly known.

Skeptic Ginger
20th December 2008, 07:41 PM
... a pro-Democracy Bush. ....And you call yourself a skeptic!

Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. And in his case, it's mostly only convenient to claim to be for democracy and freedom. I think if you took a few minutes to look past the rhetoric at the actual things Bush has done in the last 8 years, it might be more apparent to you what a silly statement you've made here.

Tin Foil Timothy
20th December 2008, 08:07 PM
We have here a case of a pro-Saddam journalist throwing shoes at a pro-Democracy Bush. Suppose that the case was the opposite: suppose the pro-democracy man was the shoe throwing journalist, who protested Bush's decision to reinstall Saddam Hussein in power after a democratic coup.

Since the usual gang is falling over itself to congratulate the pro-Ba'athist journalist for his atack on the pro-democracy Bush, if the opposite were the case it would condemn the pro-democracy journalist and rally to support the pro-Ba'athist Bush, right?

Oh wait.

This is why I cannot take the anti-Bush ranters seriously: for all their talk about "human rights violations" and "opposing dictatorship", they automatically support and lionize ANYBODY -- from disgruntled journalists up to (and including) genocidal dictators -- who oppose Bush, no matter how fascistic or violent or thuggish they are.


"Pro-Democracy Bush" :jaw-dropp


I almost 'did a gtc' then and posted a whole chorus line of Laughing Dogs.

You are also showing what I'm calling 1 bit computational limits. There's only 2 possible states.

"you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"

"You're either with us or you're with the twoofers"


Can't some of you people understand that just because someone criticizes one side it doesn't mean they support their enemy?

This ideology of "Good versus Evil" without room for any other facet really has indoctrinated some. The old school lessons on 'Duck and Cover' had a long lasting effect on some I think :)


"Pro-Democracy Bush" <shakes head>

Now that's today's killer. It's a pity the stundie awards are limited to CTs :D :D

Tin Foil Timothy
20th December 2008, 08:09 PM
And you call yourself a skeptic!

Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. And in his case, it's mostly only convenient to claim to be for democracy and freedom. I think if you took a few minutes to look past the rhetoric at the actual things Bush has done in the last 8 years, it might be more apparent to you what a silly statement you've made here.

I almost spat my coffee over my keyboard when I read that. In amongst the fabricators of straw man arguments and gross untruths there's some real entertainment value in this forum.

Priceless!!! We should frame it and hang it on the wall!! :D:D:D

gtc
20th December 2008, 08:43 PM
You and Cicero are quite the pair here.

Saying that just makes you look even sillier.


I post evidence of worldwide support of the sentiment against Bush

No you didn't.

This is what you posted:

Thousands protest for release of Iraqi journalist (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/139512/Thousands-protest-for-release-of-Iraqi-journalist)

Iraq rally for Bush shoe attacker (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783608.stm)

In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.) (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/world/middleeast/16shoe.html?em)

Thousands of Iraqis protest arrest of shoe-throwing journalist (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/15/shoes-bush.html)

Montrealers are being invited to hurl their footwear at the U.S. Consulate on Saturday in solidarity with an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush this week. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hjB2V9Sl72XB8_dOOBF_kQIZlERA)

These are articles in support of the man who threw his shoes at Bush.

Then you ended the post with this:

Not trying to cherry pick, mind you, but I couldn't find more than a blog comment or reply supporting Bush.

and you make this straw man style excuse for why there is no equivalent of Bush supporters making their views publicly known.

What were you expecting? People know that throwing shoes at someone is not polite, its why the man did it. There is no need to point out that it is impolite to do so.

As an aside, what is a straw man style excuse? Either something is a straw man argument or it isn't.

gtc
20th December 2008, 08:45 PM
And you call yourself a skeptic!

Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. And in his case, it's mostly only convenient to claim to be for democracy and freedom. I think if you took a few minutes to look past the rhetoric at the actual things Bush has done in the last 8 years, it might be more apparent to you what a silly statement you've made here.

You've tried posting Naomi Wolf's 12 signs of fascism before and it was debunked.

If you want us to accept your conspiracy theory then you really need to supply some evidence.

Skeptic Ginger
20th December 2008, 08:50 PM
....

If you want us to accept your conspiracy theory then you really need to supply some evidence.Conspiracy theory? :rolleyes:

gtc
20th December 2008, 08:53 PM
Yes.

It is a conspiracy theory.

You are alleging that there is a conspiracy to undermine or even overthrow democracy that encompasses the GOP and the MSM amongst others. Its almost all you ever post about.

Skeptic
20th December 2008, 11:07 PM
Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient.

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.

JihadJane
21st December 2008, 01:37 AM
he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so.

Hee hee.

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?)



Life for women in US Iraq is much worse than it was under the murderous Saddam Hussein.

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

Dr Adequate
21st December 2008, 07:11 AM
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?) I'm glad I don't live in your imagination: it is dark, fetid and unpleasant.

Pardalis
21st December 2008, 08:03 AM
I'm glad I don't live in your imagination: it is dark, fetid and unpleasant.

Reality's a bitch ain't it?

Dr Adequate
21st December 2008, 08:09 AM
Reality's a bitch ain't it? And yet I still prefer it to the alternative.