I find it amusing that the usual suspects have little or no problem with what this man did. Hate Bush and dislike American policy all you want, but if you have an ounce of national pride -- or an iota of respect for civil discourse, for that matter -- you would realize that tossing shoes at people is juvenile and that disrespecting our president is the same as disrespecting our nation. That is, whether one agress with this man's cause or not, his method is deplorable and insulting.
By saying what you have, it's obvious that you completely miss my point. This is not suprising. Let me try again. There are lots of reasons not to throw the shoe. Among them: 1. A person should respect the office of the president of the United States, regardless who occupies it. 2. A person should respect any world leader visiting their country and treat them as a guest. 3. Professionally speaking, no journalist should ever use his access to a politician as a platform to express their personal beliefs. It goes without saying that using their access to physically attack a politician in order to make a statement about their beliefs is patently ridiculous. And here it's worth reiterating a point raised elsewhere, by others: Namely if this guy really wanted to "get" Bush in some kind of meaningful and lasting way, he could have achieved much more by asking a difficult question and demanding an answer (his job, by the way). 4. Legally speaking, throwing a shoe at someone is assault. 5. Morally speaking, using violence against a person you disagree with is inherently wrong. On top of this basic assumption, which even you should grasp, responsible political systems have been built on what we currently call "civil discourse," a concept that cannot exist so long as shoes are being thrown by ignorant assholes. 6. How about some maturity? By that I mean, keep your shoes on and act like an adult -- not some petulant child.
1) He didn't throw the shoe at the office. 2) W wasn't invited - he was an invader, not a guest. Very rude. 3) Point. But it was a phony conference anyway, so you can argue that no one was there "as a journalist". 4) Legally speaking, invading and occupying someone's home is an assault. Besides, there is no law in Iraq at the moment. 5) That depends on the disagreement. There has been very little "civil discourse" going on in W's treatment of Iraqis. He has little right to expect what he has so often and bloodily refused to grant. 6) No point in granting more dignity than is appropriate. But more than likely if permitted more dignified and effective weaponry he would have been happy to employ it. Shoes were all he had.
Oh, please. Get your ignorant head out of your ignorant ass. 1. He threw a shoe at the president of the United States. The president, whoever he is, embodies his office, his government and the American people whenever he attends an event in an official capacity. 2. What a clever attempt at being pithy. Actually, I'm pretty sure that Bush was invited to Iraq by Maliki to discuss official business. It's not like Bush just showed up and demanded the Iraqi PM meet with him and hold a press conference. But, of course, you're trying to be clever and make a political point about the invasion, without which this press conference wouldn't even be occurying. . . 3. Sure. Whatever. This is the same old batch of media hate you continually bored me with in my past excursions here. It's not worth acknowledging. Everything outside what you consider legitimate news is "propaganda" being peddled by "propagandists". This sort of viva la revolution come Marxism was fashionable about 40 years ago. 4. We're not talking about the invasion -- and there are plenty of laws in Iraq. 5. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges, war to press conferences. This is because, like all fringe Leftists, you can never discuss the issue at hand, you have to expand the scope of any argument so that it includes your personal list of greivances and the specially selected scenarios you believe prove your point. Again, you bore me. 6. Yes. I expect this from you. Behaving stupidly is part and parcel to you and your lot. Heck, it's even kind of "edgy" and "cool" right? Do you cry and throw temper tantrums back at a child, I wonder?
Really? In this case? I would guess that it was, pretty much, exactly that. The shoe thrower was talking about the invasion. W, according to you, embodied the invasion. And there is no law in Iraq - plenty of laws, here and there, notwithstanding. The "press conference" at issue was a constituent part of a military invasion and ongoing occupation. It was part of a war. LOL. If you reread that, will you notice how you have parsed the situation - who is the child, who the adult, in the event, I wonder?
Um. Yes. He is the duly elected leader of the United States. What about that is hard to fathom? Since I know you're really not an idiot, I'll just have to assume you're either completely ignorant of how international relations work or that your bias has blinded you into making the above stupid statement. It's in the interests of both leaders to sit down, so both of them sat down together. Such meetings take weeks, if not months, to arrange -- and I doubt they were made under any sort of demands from either side. I don't think he was "talking" about anything. I think he was throwing a shoe, shouting and generally acting like an ignorant hooligan. Apparently, in your warped mind, this passes for political dialogue or legitimate protest. That doesn't surprise me, but it still sickens me. Furthermore, in typical Ice fashion, you've scurried well away from the original point, which was: "Legally speaking, throwing a shoe at someone is assault." You've not dealt with this simple statement because you can't deny its accuracy. Instead, you started making obtuse political points or talking about there being "no" laws in Iraq, a point which is too ridiculous to really even acknowledge. In other words, let me know when you have something relevant to add. I said he embodies the country. But since the country invaded Iraq, the difference there is largely one of semantics. Maliki is Iraq's duly elected leader, so I'm not sure how you fit him in that statement -- nor do I really care to know. The fact is he and Bush were there to give their official positions on matters of state and to take questions from the press, and putting something in quotation marks is a cute little trick that doesn't alter the situation to carry your argument's water in the slightest. That is, if you have an argument. . . It's fairly obvious for someone not as politically bent as you to see which is which. Adults don't throw shoes at people and act like hooligans, especially in a professional setting where they are supposed to being doing serious work with serious people. Futhermore, as I already argued, even if we accept your silly scenario, responsible adults don't engage with children on the child's level. That is, they don't yell and pitch temper tantrums back at them. So even if Bush is the child, the reporter's behaviour is still grossly out of line. Seriously, Ice. You like what this guy did because you don't like Bush and your hatred has warped your brain to the point that you think stunts like this are both politically significant and morally acceptable. Frankly, such an attitude disgusts me.
That you would honestly expect an Iraqi to respect that. So? And somehow, you doubting something is supposed to convert the reality of W's actually traveling to Iraq, a place almost no one wants him to ever show his face in again, a place under military occupation by W's army, to voluntary political relations between the leaders of two sovereign countries - as if Maliki invited W. Legally speaking, almost anything an Iraqi does to the US Commander in Chief would be self defense. If there were law in Iraq. Iraq has yet to hold "due" elections. And it is fairly obvious to those who read English that you confused the matter, rather comically, when you sailed off on your standard insult tack and lost track of it. Which is your motive for assigning it to others. I can't help you there.
This guy was Egyptian. And yes, I would expect him or any other Arab journalist to behave like an adult and a professional and respect the president of the United States and what he represents. What's sad is boobs like you who think behaving like angry children is a legitimate form of activism. You continue to show your true colors in this thread, so by all means continue to embaress yourself. Don't pretend like I am inventing things. Maliki knows he needs the US, and no matter how unpopular Bush is, Maliki knows sitting down with him is in his and his country's national interests. And your talk of "occupation" is typical hyperbole. Iraq has an independent government not beholden to the US. It has independent troops and police forces. You need to get your head out of your ass and quit pretending we just occupied the Rhineland or something. That is by far one of the dumbest things you have ever said. Throwing a shoe at someone is self-defense? This really isn't even worth commenting on. . . Really? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4555850.stm The UN upheld the 2005 results, in which a large majority of people voted. I confused nothing. I called you on your typical bullshit and typical attempt to slither away from a statement. Obviously, you think it's OK to behave the way this man did. I find that disgusting, though, again, it doesn't surprise me that someone of your ilk would think this way.
I was arguing with some asshat who was claiming that throwing a shoe at somebody was legally assault. Uh, sure. Right. One current debate in the US military governance is whether or not to allow the Iraqi military to fly planes on their own. When the US viceroy has decided it is OK, he will inform the Iraqi government of his decision. Iraqis call the Baghdad government "the puppets". The Iraqi "government's money is kept in a bank in New York. The Kurds for years and now the Sunni also have troops and police. Different ones, but likewise armed and trained by the US, and operating under US command. They aren't allowed to fly planes either. They are allowed to fly their own flags, make their own deals with oil companies, etc.
That's right: Run away from stupidity of your attempt to classify somebody throwing a shoe as "self-defense." I would, too. The attempt was ridiculous. And yes, I was arguing it was assualt, because it is. Assault is defined differently based on what legal jurisdiction you are in, but common law stretching back quite a ways in England talks about assualt in terms of when force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury. Clearly, a shoe hitting someone is personal contact and could cause injury. If you want to test whether this is assualt, I suggest you find a policeman or judge or some other such personage and throw your shoe at them. See what happens -- throwing shoes being non-assault-like in your world and all. I'm willing to bet the result in just about every country is the same. . . Thanks for agreeing. I'm glad we're making progress. Wow. That's powerful stuff. That must mean we have TOTAL control of that country and our running it as our own little oil colony, right? You speak for all Iraqis now? Yeah. Right . . . And to your warped brain, this means what exactly? Again, this signifies what? You seem to be arguing that there is some independence there, which doesn't exactly bolster your claims about "puppets." Also, care to retract your bullshit statement about elections? I notice you've decided to pretend like you didn't say what you said once you were called on it. Typical. . .
People who believe in the "Lone Shoe Thrower" theory are extremely gullible. We are supposed to believe that a single man removed and threw two shoes at President Bush in under three seconds? There was clearly a second thrower. Plus, did you see the way Bush dodged? Like he knew the shoes were coming. No old man can dodge like that without forewarning. This was clearly a plot by the Bush administartion that they are now blaming on shoe terrorists.
How about this: The current Iraq has never had due elections. The current Central Government in Baghdad is not in fact a duly elected government of the country as a whole. It fails to be that by having (under US direction) forcefully excluded major populations and political forces in the country from representation in any "elections", and by not in fact being able to govern the country. The Central Government in Baghdad does not control the military, the finances, the mineral resources, the air space, or the borders of the country. It cannot enforce its laws, or deal openly and independently with foreign countries, or even fly airplanes through its own air space under its own jurisdiction. Will that do, for a retraction? And for W to show his face in Iraq, publicly expect to carry out some pretense of diplomacy and honest government in that arena, is a colossal act of nerve and as severe an indictment of the American press as I can imagine.
No, it's actually just more bullshit. But I'd never expect you to admit you're wrong, even when it's obvious you're wrong. You will do what you always do. Shift the context, add chum or whatever lopsided opinion it takes (in your mind) to make you sound less cockeyed. Typicall, you fail. . . There have been two set of elections, with another scheduled this year. Yes, it is. The elections were sanctioned by the Iraqis, the UN and have been acknowledged and recognized by the rest of the world. Sorry. The only people excluded were Ba'athists, just as Nazis were excluded in German elections in the wake of WW2. The Sunnis decision not to vote is nothing different than the 100 million Americans who chose not to go to the polls in November. Regardless, thanks to the US, Iraq has a government that is far more represenative of its populace than Jordan, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc. Perhaps the only Muslim countries with an equal or greater represenative govt. are Turkey, Indonesia or Malyasia. So yeah, your point is kind of pointless. . . Bullshit. How many Oil deals have the Kurds made on their own? Or the Iraqis? A great many of them with the Chinese. What's more, you seem to view the US as an occupying power, dictating its way, when that is clearly not the case. Military cooperation is not the same as subjegation. The Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi military want the US there for the immediate future. This is obvious. Regardless, the relationship is much more give and take then your typical hyperbole pretends. And one that you think makes throwing shoes acceptable. Yeah. I get it. You're an immature little chest-thumper, just like the boob who threw his shoe. We're a long way from the topic now, and your arguments grow more desperate with each post. . .
From bizarre fantasies of Maliki freely inviting W for discussions of country/country collaboration, to depicting the Sunnis as just sort of not taking the trouble to vote, lazy or something, to overlooking the exclusion of Communists and trade unionists from elections that welcomed former Baathists as military governors etc, you continue to expand the boundaries of your world. And welcome to it. The rest of the world - the one containing a shoe-thrower who is an international hero, now jailed with a broken arm and the effects of a severe beating (legally, that would be assault. But there is no law) - is not going to be taking anything you and your kind say seriously for a very long time. You are the press agents of Baghdad Bob, railing about "lack of respect for the office".
Now we see the source of your angst. Communists and Unions. Yeah. That's right up your alley. Got a source for that? Not that I care one way or the other if it's true. Oh, and here's a hint: The leaders of nations talk to each other. A lot. The fact this seems nefarious and evidential of something to you says nothing of the circumstances and everything about your skewed brainwaves. In other words, the leaders of Iraq and the US have obvious things to talk about and so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they would do so. As usual, though, you take the fact that event A actually happened as proof that wacky theory B (which you made up) is true. This is typically how you argue and part of the reason I realized speaking with you to be a foolish waste of time (to say nothing of your WTC Building Seven remarks, remember them?) If you think Bush demanded that Maliki meet with him and forced it, then produce some evidence. Otherwise, shut up. You're boring me and wasting bandwidth. Not to mention you are so far off topic (again, typical) as to be completely lost in the weeds. Say all your paranoid rambling is true. Bush is a bloodsucking-wolf-killer after oil and he did demand the meeting. That still doesn't give this boob a pass to negate his professionalism, maturity and morality just so he can throw a show and become a posterboy for all the misguided fools of the world -- and I wager there's not a real journalist anywhere who will say otherwise. Me and my kind. How cute. The fact the man is hailed as a hero says more about the world than it does about the shoe thrower. Or to come at with logic (something you should try to apply now and again), I'm sure you are aware that an appeal to the masses in no way, shape or form is a rational argument. In fact, it's hogwash and worthy of a F for fucking-waste-of-time. Back on topic, the fact this man seems to have been beaten is a crime, and I don't condone it. In fact, I think it's horrible and the people responsible should be dealt with accordingly. The fact that what this man did disgusts me doesn't mean he shouldn't have rights and be treated humanely. As an American, you should respect the office, but the view from the keyboard setup in your parents' basement probably allows you to continue to be glib and cynical and ride the "hip" wave of occidentalism and anti-American feeling out there. Fight the Power, Ice. . . Before I close, I'd like to point out how you typically FAILED to deal with the majority of the substance my last post. As usual, you're too busy slithering for new ground. Slither, slither, slither. . .
Exactly. In this world, the notion of "respect for the office" currently held by W has a status similar to the notion of respect for the office held by Baghdad Bob - if Bob had been powerful and murderous. Your kind is not cute. It's ugly. And the fact that they haven't been and won't be illustrates my point: there is no law in Iraq these days. There are laws, here and there, varying by region, enforced by various local agencies - but not law. That is something regional journalists know, and apparently do not respect. Nothing there worth typing about. If you actually believe that the "elections" of 2005 installed a valid government in Iraq, independent of the US and governing Iraq as a country, a country that W would be invited to visit and hold press conferences in with his opposite number, there's only so much anyone can say in reply.
Al-Jazeera keeps broadcasting the story about a shoe-maker who has thousands of orders for "freedom-shoes", made to the same style as those hurled by the now famous Iraqi journalist. His lawyers have filed suit for police brutality, in the manner of his arrest. Reminds me of that old footage of George II's senatorial campaign, some dude wags his finger at him and the 'security team' of thugs go into action, and open a can of whoopass on the finger-wagger.
So you're comparing the president of the United States to an Iraqi propagandist? Yeah, that's about your style. I guess this means that in "your" world, half-witted occidentalist/anti-Americanism is perfectly acceptable no matter what it's form, because America is so evil and unworthy of respect. The fact you can't seem to muster one positive feeling for the office and what it means is telling of how debased your thinking, how powerful your irrational hatred and how warped your silly biases really are. This is the office of the president of the United States. You might not like Bush. You might think him a war criminal ripe for impeachment, but when the man walks in a room you stand up and call him Mr. President. You do this for all the men who came before him in that job, all that came after and the nation he represents. The fact you seem incapable of understanding such a simple form of respect boggles my mind, but then I doubt you respect much of anything from the safe confines of your parents' basement. Meanwhile, why don't you tell me more about Building 7? My kind? You mean the type person arguing for a professional to behave like one? The type person who thinks laws shouldn't be broken and people assaulted just because they disagree politically? The type person who thinks morality and ethics should trump a petty display of childish rage? I sincerely hope they are more people like me and less like you, Ice. No, it illustrates how the law is different or flawed. The BBC tells me the man was, in fact, charged today and he will be brought to trial. That he was beaten is unfortunate, but it is not surprising. Middle Eastern and Arab countries do not take attacks on authority well, and physical retribution is usually the procedure when it happens. You have nothing to say because you have no argument. Only bullshit and chum and skewed political opinions. There have been two sets of elections in Iraq, with a third to follow in 2009. You can sit their and gripe about them and call them whatever you like, but the fact is an overwhelmingly number of people voted in them and they were certified by the UN. You have posted nothing that throws their results into question or proves the elected officials powerless. Nothing. Again, Iraq's govt. is more represenative than the govts. in the majority of the Muslim world and it has the US to thank for this. Below is a story about your faux government making its own decisions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7797927.stm
