Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gtc

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ira...189564564.html

Then there is this report from the NYTs.

Quote:

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 regarding the threat to the family when a brother tried to call his arrested brother's cell phone:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by godless dave

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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.

Originally Posted by Cicero

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]

Originally Posted by dudalb

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.

Originally Posted by dudalb

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]

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]

Originally Posted by godless dave

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]

Originally Posted by dudalb

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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

Which is completely irrelevant to the 2003 invasion.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by godless dave

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]

Originally Posted by Cicero

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]

Originally Posted by godless dave

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]

I'm surprised no one has given the obvious response...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The journalist was throwing his shoe at America.

Yes, but on the other hand, the journalist was throwing his shoe at America.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

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]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

The current government does not deal with all populations even handedly.

And Saddam Hussein did?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by godless dave

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!

Good thing people are still rooting for him.

Quote:

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

You prefer sanctions?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by gtc

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]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Originally Posted by gumboot

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]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by gumboot

.... 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!!

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]

Originally Posted by gumboot

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]

Originally Posted by gumboot

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.







ETA: Also, the guy is reportedly just as hacked off at Iranian influence in Iraq.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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?

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Quote:

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?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Originally Posted by gtc

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]

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]

Originally Posted by gumboot

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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

He could probably compete for the Lions QB position.

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

[Skeptic]

Only now do we fully realize the meaning of Bush's desire for "more boots on the ground" in Iraq.

[boloboffin]

Oh, it's getting brutal out there:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by godless dave

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

So we have a bit of an Iraqi nationalist acting out. No real surprise, is it?

From bolo's earlier link:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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. Bush got off comparatively easy.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by gumboot

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]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

Quote:

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]

New York Times article with Al-Zaidi's brother: http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.c...qi-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]

Originally Posted by Sefarst

New York Times article with Al-Zaidi's brother: http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.c...qi-journalist/

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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/...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]

Also mention of it here: http://blogometer.nationaljournal.co..._big_deal.html

Quote:

Mark Kleiman 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. 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."