I wonder if his Sensei taught him that move.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-12-15 14:34:45)
mtamosaitis wrote:
where was the secret service to jump in front of that shoe?
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-12-15 18:58:22)
Malloy must go
I think it's pretty sad that some Iraqis apparently think that throwing shoes at someone is something that is protected by free speech.
In their culture showing someone the soles of your shoes/feet is deemed as one of the worst insults you can give to someone.Turquoise wrote:
I think it's pretty sad that some Iraqis apparently think that throwing shoes at someone is something that is protected by free speech.
Flipping somebody off and throwing shoes at someone are very different things. He could've just printed up a big picture of his shoe soles and held it up or something.SirSchloppy wrote:
In their culture showing someone the soles of your shoes/feet is deemed as one of the worst insults you can give to someone.Turquoise wrote:
I think it's pretty sad that some Iraqis apparently think that throwing shoes at someone is something that is protected by free speech.
Shoe goes on, shoe goes off.M.O.A.B wrote:
I wonder if his Sensei taught him that move.
i wonder what would have happened if this guy thru a shoe at a press conference with saddam and someone else.
Saddam would call Chemical Ali. You know what he would do to the poor guy.usmarine wrote:
i wonder what would have happened if this guy thru a shoe at a press conference with saddam and someone else.
"Allahu ackbar! Off with his head!"usmarine wrote:
i wonder what would have happened if this guy thru a shoe at a press conference with saddam and someone else.
Did I state the US acted for humanitarian reasons? No. We acted in accordance to perceived self-interest. Removing Saddam's oppression was a very nice byproduct, which we used to boost our emotional appeal.CameronPoe wrote:
RAIMIUS - Saddam stifled all religious/ethnic tension with a brutal and malignant fist, putting in place a Sunni-biased secular society where women and non-Muslims were freer to do as they please then than they are today. He invaded Iran and the west supported him. People in the rest of the world, France, Russia, USA, UK, you name it, made millions during sanctions - sanctions which effectively only punished oridinary Iraqis - through the Oil For Food program debacle. Yes he gassed Kurds and he was a heinous cunt for doing so - nobody criticised him much at the time because he was 'on our side'. Was the Nigerian yellowcake story not proven to be false? We only did anything about him when he pounced on an small oil-rich nation to his south. It was nothing to do with 'the goodness of our hearts' or 'global peace'. Why didn't we step in to support Iran if we were concerned with border transgressions? What was happening in Iraq was the business of Iraq and their neighbours. If you are having a heated perhaps violent argument with your wife I'm not going to walk across the highway, butt in and perhaps punch you in the face, the likelihood is she'd started hitting me (as happened in post-invasion Iraq).RAIMIUS wrote:
Cam, your bias is getting the better of you, here. There was good under Saddam, but there was also the religious/ethnic minority oppressing the others, attempted genocide, state-funded international terrorism, the invasion of neighboring nations, the use of food as a political weapon, defiance of UN resolution after resolution, a few tons of yellowcake uranium here and there (hmm...what could that be for?), and the governmental murder of a couple million civilians due to political opposition.
Yes, Iraq is screwed up. Yes, Bush is hated by many. Yes, many Iraqis feel as that reporter does......and no, we cannot make an accurate judgement as to whether this whole thing has turned out better or worse than leaving Saddam in power.
I can't abide this whole 'it'll work out in the long run so it's ok/worth it' attitude, as if that somehow negates the immorality and resented patronising uncalled-for bloodshed that we wrought upon them. If Iraq turns out alright it'll be down to one group of people and one group of people alone - Iraqis.
Yellowcake--you are correct if you mean the uranium mentioned in the State of the Union address. Saddam still had 550 tons stockpiled from before the 1st Gulf War.
I'm not saying things will be better in the future. I'm not saying everything will work out. Saddam broke many resolutions, and the US government felt it was in our interests to remove him before he could do more damage. Is the war just? No, war is not just. However, that does not mean some good did not occur. Will the good outweigh the bad? WE DON'T KNOW. Lincoln was hated at his death, now he is one of the most respected Presidents in US history. Kennedy was put on a pedestal, but most historians agree, he wasn't a very good President. We simply don't know how things will play out. The metaphorical game isn't over.
Which was recently sold to Canada. http://www.newsmax.com/international/ye … 10709.htmlRAIMIUS wrote:
Yellowcake--you are correct if you mean the uranium mentioned in the State of the Union address. Saddam still had 550 tons stockpiled from before the 1st Gulf War.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- … 8346.story
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.
In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."
Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.
This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
imo
Haha the grin he has on his face after he dodges the first shoe is fucking priceless.
Bad hitreg.
usmarine wrote:
i wonder what would have happened if this guy thru a shoe at a press conference with saddam and someone else.
Sorry to burst your bubble guys...[TUF]Catbox wrote:
you're right... now that Saddam is gone... he will probably get fairly treated... freedom of expression... awesome
Shoe thrower 'beaten in custody'
Please, under Saddam this guy would never be seen again.
Well, maybe his mummified corpse would be dug out of a trench years later.
It's funny all the Saddam supporters here weighing in; typical
The funneh gifs keep coming :
Well, maybe his mummified corpse would be dug out of a trench years later.
It's funny all the Saddam supporters here weighing in; typical
The funneh gifs keep coming :
Last edited by Vax (2008-12-16 14:50:56)
lol WoWVax wrote:
Please, under Saddam this guy would never be seen again.
Well, maybe his mummified corpse would be dug out of a trench years later.
It's funny all the Saddam supporters here weighing in; typical
The funneh gifs keep coming :
http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008 … age005.gif
http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008 … age001.gif
Recruited him for moar attacks against teh west?usmarine wrote:
i wonder what would have happened if this guy thru a shoe at a press conference with saddam and someone else.
QFTVax wrote:
Please, under Saddam this guy would never be seen again.
Well, maybe his mummified corpse would be dug out of a trench years later.
"The brother of the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush has said that the reporter has been beaten in custody.Braddock wrote:
usmarine wrote:
i wonder what would have happened if this guy thru a shoe at a press conference with saddam and someone else.Sorry to burst your bubble guys...[TUF]Catbox wrote:
you're right... now that Saddam is gone... he will probably get fairly treated... freedom of expression... awesome
Shoe thrower 'beaten in custody'
Muntadar al-Zaidi has allegedly suffered a broken arm, broken ribs and internal bleeding, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC.
Mr Zaidi threw his shoes at Mr Bush at a news conference, calling him "a dog".
A spokesperson for the Iraqi military says the journalist is in good health and said the allegations were untrue."
Sorry to burst your bubble but at least read what the article says. Guy will probably get a job working at BBC.
whose bubble? all i know is that dude would have been hanged before sunset that day. so, nice try to draw a comparison as usual. go eat your apples and oranges and leave them out of this thread.Braddock wrote:
usmarine wrote:
i wonder what would have happened if this guy thru a shoe at a press conference with saddam and someone else.Sorry to burst your bubble guys...[TUF]Catbox wrote:
you're right... now that Saddam is gone... he will probably get fairly treated... freedom of expression... awesome
Shoe thrower 'beaten in custody'
Nice to see the US have managed to swap torture and execution for just torture in Iraq.
Keep up the good work guys!
Keep up the good work guys!
I hope you are being sarcastic Brad. We all know one just doesn't fit without the other.Braddock wrote:
Nice to see the US have managed to swap torture and execution for just torture in Iraq.
Keep up the good work guys!
Malloy must go
I'm just taking a wee jab at those of us here that have been so quick to jump in and extol the virtues of post-Saddam Iraq's attitude to disgruntled members of the press.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I hope you are being sarcastic Brad. We all know one just doesn't fit without the other.Braddock wrote:
Nice to see the US have managed to swap torture and execution for just torture in Iraq.
Keep up the good work guys!
EDIT: By that I mean it's undoubtedly better there as regards freedom of expression but I wouldn't go singing from the rooftops yet.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-12-17 06:28:04)