NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems the journalist who threw the shoe at Bush has been sentenced to three years in jail. Seems ridiculously harsh to me.

Seems the journalist who threw the shoe at Bush has been sentenced to three years in jail. Seems ridiculously harsh to me.

It's fair.
Throwing away shoes, when many people can't even afford buy a pair, is definitely an insult to poverty.

;)

It's fair.
Throwing away shoes, when many people can't even afford buy a pair, is definitely an insult to poverty.

;)

But he was just passing them on to someone about to become unemployed :)

But he was just passing them on to someone about to become unemployed :)

Really good one. :D

He should be fully pardoned and bestowed with Iraq's highest honors.

As a foot soldier, he should have been tried by a military court...
But anyway I think he'll be relieved, thinking "Shoeoeoe, glad they didn't decide to put me two feet under."

Just to throw in a shoestring of puns. :tongue:

Is 3 years a typical sentence for a battery such as this in Iraq? If so, then I can't find fault with it. As much as we may all hate Bush, he is still a man and still deserves and is entitled to protection under the law. While he may deserve to have a shoe or two thrown at him, it's still battery, and it's still a crime. He should go to jail for it.

Is 3 years a typical sentence for a battery such as this in Iraq? If so, then I can't find fault with it. As much as we may all hate Bush, he is still a man and still deserves and is entitled to protection under the law. While he may deserve to have a shoe or two thrown at him, it's still battery, and it's still a crime. He should go to jail for it.

Shouldn't it be attempted battery, since he dodged it?

And although I do agree with you that he deserved to go to jail, 3 years is a bit harsh.

A bit light if anything. He embarrassed the Iraqi government, by making them look unfitto host world leaders.

Is 3 years a typical sentence for a battery such as this in Iraq? If so, then I can't find fault with it. As much as we may all hate Bush, he is still a man and still deserves and is entitled to protection under the law. While he may deserve to have a shoe or two thrown at him, it's still battery, and it's still a crime. He should go to jail for it.

Bush utterly destroyed this man's country and killed hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen and made many more refugees. Quite frankly, he deserves whatever Iraqis throw at him.

Shouldn't it be attempted battery, since he dodged it?

And although I do agree with you that he deserved to go to jail, 3 years is a bit harsh.

Haha, I suppose so.

That's why I asked what the typical (attempted) battery sentence is in Iraq. It may be that that is what you'd get for (attempted) battery on any random Iraqi on the street. If that's the case, then it's as fair as the Iraqi justice system allows. If the normal sentence is 3 months and he got 3 years, well then that's unfair.

Bush utterly destroyed this man's country and killed hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen and made many more refugees. Quite frankly, he deserves whatever Iraqis throw at him.

You may feel that way, and I and hundreds of millions of others might agree with you, but we still live in a society with laws. We don't get to ignore those laws because we find a person odious.

Seems he could have got up to 15 years for what he was charged with.

Let's remember what it is exactly he did: He attacked a foreign leader, the President of the United States no less. He embarrassed the Iraqi government and could have potentially seriously harmed relations between Iraq and the United States.

Three years is a light sentence.

Let's remember what it is exactly he did: He attacked a foreign leader, the President of the United States no less. He embarrassed the Iraqi government and could have potentially seriously harmed relations between Iraq and the United States.

Three years is a light sentence.

considering the Arab guest culture. aka US president is here he is my(president of IRAQ) guest and therefore must be protected. This is really viewed as a affront to the president of Iraq's honor. 10 to 1 this guy disappears in prison.

The best thing about the incident is that it was other Iraqi's that stepped in and basically arrested the shoe thrower.

I don't really know the Iraqi judicial system so I can't really comment on the harshness... but unless there is some procedural issue where the judge/jury was pressured for a harsh decision for political reasons hen we should back away and let Iraq run it's own judicial system.

Seems the journalist who threw the shoe at Bush has been sentenced to three years in jail. Seems ridiculously harsh to me.

Aye. Anyone might have choked and missed in the same circumstances.

considering the Arab guest culture. aka US president is here he is my(president of IRAQ) guest and therefore must be protected. This is really viewed as a affront to the president of Iraq's honor. 10 to 1 this guy disappears in prison.

That and the fact that he threw a shoe as opposed to a stone. If you were to say to an Iraqi in Arabic that they were an old shoe your likely to get your teeth knocked out. Its extremely insulting, more so than in other countries.

That and the fact that he threw a shoe as opposed to a stone. If you were to say to an Iraqi in Arabic that they were an old shoe your likely to get your teeth knocked out. Its extremely insulting, more so than in other countries.

lots of Asian countries has that too. In Thailand you can be sent to three years in jail for stepping on a coin, because it has the picture of the king on it.

Seems the journalist who threw the shoe at Bush has been sentenced to three years in jail. Seems ridiculously harsh to me.


I'm going to be completely neutral in this, as I feel that having any political beliefs behind such a judgement would go against my feelings towards the fair usage of the law. I truly believe that the three year sentence was a political punishment, not a criminal one. He should have, at the ABSOLUTE most, recieved six months of jail, or a harsh fine, though most likely in America it'd be a combination of the two...I think. I really don't know what would happen if someone threw a shoe at the President in America. I'll have to ask some of my lawyer buddies...lol...now I'm curious!

I'm going to be completely neutral in this, as I feel that having any political beliefs behind such a judgement would go against my feelings towards the fair usage of the law. I truly believe that the three year sentence was a political punishment, not a criminal one. He should have, at the ABSOLUTE most, recieved six months of jail, or a harsh fine, though most likely in America it'd be a combination of the two...I think. I really don't know what would happen if someone threw a shoe at the President in America. I'll have to ask some of my lawyer buddies...lol...now I'm curious!

last time someone in the US threw a shoe at the president was Truman. the secret service shot him thinking the shoe was a grenade and we left the issue at that.

Shouldn't it be attempted battery, since he dodged it?

And although I do agree with you that he deserved to go to jail, 3 years is a bit harsh.

Well... part of it, I imagine, is the societal meaning. We in America see it as a shoe, big deal, no harm done.

In Iraq, however, not only was it an attempt at battery, but it was a grave insult in general. Probably the greates slander of character possible, which carries weight in America, even if we don't connote feet with such an insult.

Plus, you know... he was a foriegn President, so it was an embarrassment to their nation as a whole.

I honestly feel he deserved more, the above reasons given.

Well... part of it, I imagine, is the societal meaning. We in America see it as a shoe, big deal, no harm done.

In Iraq, however, not only was it an attempt at battery, but it was a grave insult in general. Probably the greates slander of character possible, which carries weight in America, even if we don't connote feet with such an insult.

Plus, you know... he was a foriegn President, so it was an embarrassment to their nation as a whole.

I honestly feel he deserved more, the above reasons given.

it is likely viewed as a grave personal insult to the president of Iraq.
As soon as the western media stops paying attention to this guy, he will disappear. You don't insult/attack a person's guest in Arab culture, if you do well the host is almost obligated to reply with violence.

it is likely viewed as a grave personal insult to the president of Iraq.
As soon as the western media stops paying attention to this guy, he will disappear. You don't insult/attack a person's guest in Arab culture, if you do well the host is almost obligated to reply with violence.

Who throws a shoe, honestly?

It just seems like a stupid thing to do... he's a journalist... why wouldn't he use words?!

It just seems like a stupid thing to do... he's a journalist... why wouldn't he use words?!

same reason most people resort to violence they think their words will have no affect or they think no one is listening.

same reason most people resort to violence they think their words will have no affect or they think no one is listening.

Lol, the shoe didn't have much effect either, lol.

Thats why it's good for the President to stay in shape... with Obama being fatigues... do you think he could dodge a shoe? :tongue:

Aye. Anyone might have choked and missed in the same circumstances.

Perhaps some kind of training scheme, rather than a custodial sentence, would be in order. :D

Lol, the shoe didn't have much effect either, lol.

Thats why it's good for the President to stay in shape... with Obama being fatigues... do you think he could dodge a shoe? :tongue:

also Obama is taller he will have to duck farther/faster to dodge the shoe.

also Obama is taller he will have to duck farther/faster to dodge the shoe.

How much trouble would I get in, if I were to test these variables?

Is 3 years a typical sentence for a battery such as this in Iraq? If so, then I can't find fault with it. As much as we may all hate Bush, he is still a man and still deserves and is entitled to protection under the law. While he may deserve to have a shoe or two thrown at him, it's still battery, and it's still a crime. He should go to jail for it.

It wasn't battery - the shoes missed him! Darn! :(
For that reason he should seek leave to appeal.

I'm guessing he will and they'll let him out on the quiet.

last time someone in the US threw a shoe at the president was Truman. the secret service shot him thinking the shoe was a grenade and we left the issue at that.

Ah. I see.

Ah. I see.

i was kidding.

It just seems like a stupid thing to do... he's a journalist... why wouldn't he use words?!

He also said words when he threw the shoes. Most people ignore them for the more sensational footwear angle.

"This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog," yelled al-Zaidi in Arabic as he threw his first shoe towards the U.S. president.[20] "This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq," he shouted as he threw his second shoe.

I guess people don't want to be bothered by the fact that he was trying to protest the deaths of so many Iraqis.

I honestly feel like he deserves less, because he was protesting against the man who represented the faction that basically destroyed Iraqi sovereignty.

Just because he was protesting doesn't not mean what he was doing is right. He threw a shoe at a leader from another country. Forget any misgivings you have against Bush, he broke the law and has to face the consequences for his actions.

He also said words when he threw the shoes. Most people ignore them for the more sensational footwear angle.



I guess people don't want to be bothered by the fact that he was trying to protest the deaths of so many Iraqis.

I honestly feel like he deserves less, because he was protesting against the man who represented the faction that basically destroyed Iraqi sovereignty.

Oh boohoo. The deaths of so many Iraqis eh? Well they wouldn't have died if they would have simply capitulated and worked with the American military! We would have been GONE within a year if they would have just let us do our thing, make everything right, and established the new government. But no, you had fuckers like Muqtada al-Sadr and al-Zarqawi who insisted on rebelling and stirring up trouble, not to mention the foreign fighters. THEY are the ones killing so many iraqis, not Americans. Yeah, in war, people die. Its unavoidable. But if you calculate the total number of civillian deaths we've caused it MIGHT total one hundred at the absolute most. How many have the insurgents caused eh? A million? Plus? We'll probably never know the true figures. But they're astronomical and obscene. Throw shoes at Sadr sitting peaceable in Tehran. Thank President Bush for getting rid of that bastard Saddam Hussein and giving them the ability to have popular representation.

Oh boohoo. The deaths of so many Iraqis eh? Well they wouldn't have died if they would have simply capitulated and worked with the American military!

They also wouldn't have died if the USA had not invaded.

We would have been GONE within a year if they would have just let us do our thing, make everything right, and established the new government.

In a theoretical world where everyone does what they are told, which is the scenario you seem to be wishing for, the USA would never have invaded.

But no, you had fuckers like Muqtada al-Sadr and al-Zarqawi who insisted on rebelling and stirring up trouble, not to mention the foreign fighters. THEY are the ones killing so many iraqis, not Americans.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Yeah, in war, people die. Its unavoidable.

I love it when people defend 'collateral damage'. Tell me are you going to admit that these unavoidable deaths were caused by incompetent use of weaponry, or are you just going to ignore the reasons behind the high civilian death rate?

But if you calculate the total number of civillian deaths we've caused it MIGHT total one hundred at the absolute most.

Evidence, please.

How many have the insurgents caused eh? A million? Plus? We'll probably never know the true figures. But they're astronomical and obscene.

You can't really claim that we can't know something, then make a cliam based on the idea that you do know that very thing.

Throw shoes at Sadr sitting peaceable in Tehran.

Was Sadr congratulating himself for 'liberating' Iraq?

Thank President Bush for getting rid of that bastard Saddam Hussein and giving them the ability to have popular representation.

Since it was the US government that put Hussein in charge, knowing full well what kind of person he was, your statement is oddly ironic.

Three years does seem a bit harsh, but any kind of assault on the President by a citizen of our country, even shoes, would probably be met with much worse.

Also remember that Bush's policies gave this guy the freedom to throw a shoe at him without having all of his skin peeled off while he was still alive and renditioned to manufacture glue, as Hussein would have done. Then the shoe thrower seems a bit ungrateful.

A bit light if anything. He embarrassed the Iraqi government, by making them look unfitto host world leaders.

Well, I think they should pardon him as especially since President Bush, himself who was the target, seemed to take it in stride and to be a bit merciful towards the man. He, in fact, said something to the effect that is the price one must pay living in a free country, which I do consider a little comical:tongue:

They also wouldn't have died if the USA had not invaded.



In a theoretical world where everyone does what they are told, which is the scenario you seem to be wishing for, the USA would never have invaded.



Do you have any evidence for this claim?



I love it when people defend 'collateral damage'. Tell me are you going to admit that these unavoidable deaths were caused by incompetent use of weaponry, or are you just going to ignore the reasons behind the high civilian death rate?



Evidence, please.



You can't really claim that we can't know something, then make a cliam based on the idea that you do know that very thing.



Was Sadr congratulating himself for 'liberating' Iraq?



Since it was the US government that put Hussein in charge, knowing full well what kind of person he was, your statement is oddly ironic.

1) Thats irrelevant. Saddam needed to be taken out.
2) Not at all. In the scenario I would have liked to have seen, the Americans would have been seen as liberators, which they were, and the Iraqis would have assisted us in our effort to make their country an infinitely better place.
3)I have plenty, have you ever read the news paper? Heard of a Governate Called Diyala, a city called Fallujah, or a suburb in Baghdad colloquially known as "Sadr City"? When was the last time you heard of Americans indescrimately firing into crowds of Iraqis? Never (blackwater doesn't count. I knew those guys, they were innocent). When was the last time you heard of an Iraqi blowing himself up in a market killing dozens of civillians? Earlier today.
4) You seem to think that "precision" weapons are precise. You also obviously have no idea how warfare works. In Iraq, it isn't uncommon for civillians to simply run in front of gunfights in confusion and get shot by both insurgents AND americans going at it with each other. That happens all the time, I've known guys who've accidentally shot kids and seen insurgents do the same. Its terrible, but thats war for you.
5)Problem is that no record is really being kept of the civillian deaths, at least not by the American government, and the Iraqi government doesn't have the resources to do so. I can only do so much myself.
6)This I can do, simply because of certain estimations I've seen floating around. Its a rough number yes, but not out of the question simply due to the sheer massive numbers of casualties the insurgents have inflicted, especially from 2004-2005 with the Shia Uprising and then again in 2006-2007 with the Al-Qaeda Resurgence in Diyala.
7)Sadr is congratulating himself on beginning the "expulsion of the western infidels". At least he was until we kicked the living shit out of his Mahdi Army during the April Uprising.
8)The US Government had nothing to do with putting Saddam in charge of Iraq, in that you are SADLY mistaken. He was put in power by the Ba'ath Party of Iraq, which came to power in the early 70s by, I believe, popular election. I could be wrong, the Syrian counter part had a coup and the Ba'athists tried several coups in '62 and '65, but I believe they moved to the political realmin '69-'70 when they actually GAINED power. Saddam moved up to be their head in '79 and promptly attacked Iran, which got our attention. Then we decided to start giving him money and equipment to fight the Ayatollah so that we could hopefully destabilize it enough to reinsert the Shah or at least humiliate them. But no his rise to power was not our doing. I'd like to add that we also gave money and equipment to Iran to destabilize Iraq, ideally so that there would be a revolution against him and he'd be taken out. The Secretary of State's only comment on the Iran-Iraq War was: "Its a shame both sides can't lose" but off the record he would add, to a point something about doing our damndest to try.

Also remember that Bush's policies gave this guy the freedom to throw a shoe at him without having all of his skin peeled off while he was still alive and renditioned to manufacture glue, as Hussein would have done. Then the shoe thrower seems a bit ungrateful.

Also remember that Bush's policies destroyed this guy's country and quite likely killed people he knew. Then the shoe thrower seems quite merciful.

Saddam needed to be taken out.

Wrong.

Also remember that Bush's policies destroyed this guy's country and quite likely killed people he knew. Then the shoe thrower seems quite merciful.


Bush's policies did no such thing! Do you all not understand that it is the INSURGENTS who are doing the killing?!

Wrong.

Oh really? By all means tell me how.

Bush's policies did no such thing! Do you all not understand that it is the INSURGENTS who are doing the killing?!

Do you understand that if he hadn't invaded the country there would BE no insurgents?

Seems the journalist who threw the shoe at Bush has been sentenced to three years in jail. Seems ridiculously harsh to me.

On one hand it's light, considering the secret service could have shot him all to hell.

On the other, it's harsh because Bush is such an asshole and deserved it, and this journalist did what almost everyone wanted to do.

Let's see now....Blackwater employees were randomly killing Iraqis and their penalty is:

Iraq to Deny New License To Blackwater Security Firm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/28/ST2009012803363.html)

Seems only fair that this Iraqi gets 3 years in jail for throwing shoes???? :rolleyes:

But he was just passing them on to someone about to become unemployed :)
Lmbo :D good one. I do think the sentence was too harsh, though.

Lmbo :D good one. I do think the sentence was too harsh, though.Good golly gosh did you just use a cleaned up version of lmao? That's swell!

He also said words when he threw the shoes. Most people ignore them for the more sensational footwear angle.



I guess people don't want to be bothered by the fact that he was trying to protest the deaths of so many Iraqis.

I honestly feel like he deserves less, because he was protesting against the man who represented the faction that basically destroyed Iraqi sovereignty.

Oh, I agree with you, but I'm just saying that all things considered, he's getting off lucky here.

Good golly gosh did you just use a cleaned up version of lmao? That's swell!

That's lmao worthy.


:)

1) Thats irrelevant. Saddam needed to be taken out.

And Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out because someone put him into power. Who was that again? Oh, right. It was the US government. So, those people would not have died if it hadn't been for US intervention. I think throwing shoes is a very understated reaction when we look at the history.

2) Not at all. In the scenario I would have liked to have seen, the Americans would have been seen as liberators, which they were, and the Iraqis would have assisted us in our effort to make their country an infinitely better place.

The scenario you would have liked could only have occurred in Happy Fun Land, complete with puppies and lollipops.

3)I have plenty, have you ever read the news paper? Heard of a Governate Called Diyala, a city called Fallujah, or a suburb in Baghdad colloquially known as "Sadr City"? When was the last time you heard of Americans indescrimately firing into crowds of Iraqis? Never (blackwater doesn't count. I knew those guys, they were innocent). When was the last time you heard of an Iraqi blowing himself up in a market killing dozens of civillians? Earlier today.

Please provide links to your evidence. Your assertion that Blackwater must have been innocent makes me think you might be biased. So, rather than believe your version of what you read, I would like to read it for myself.

4) You seem to think that "precision" weapons are precise. You also obviously have no idea how warfare works. In Iraq, it isn't uncommon for civillians to simply run in front of gunfights in confusion and get shot by both insurgents AND americans going at it with each other. That happens all the time, I've known guys who've accidentally shot kids and seen insurgents do the same. Its terrible, but thats war for you.

If 'precisioon' wepaons are not precise, then they are badly named. If the are imprecise, then why were these oh-so-competent soldiers using them in places where civilians were likely to be injured? And your weird assertion about Iraqis jumping in front of bullets is so unbeleivable, I'm going to need some evidence. And I agree that it is terrible that soldiers are so badly trained that they can't avoid killing children.

5)Problem is that no record is really being kept of the civillian deaths, at least not by the American government, and the Iraqi government doesn't have the resources to do so. I can only do so much myself.

So, no evidence. Okay.

6)This I can do, simply because of certain estimations I've seen floating around. Its a rough number yes, but not out of the question simply due to the sheer massive numbers of casualties the insurgents have inflicted, especially from 2004-2005 with the Shia Uprising and then again in 2006-2007 with the Al-Qaeda Resurgence in Diyala.

Do you have any evidence? Please provide links.

7)Sadr is congratulating himself on beginning the "expulsion of the western infidels". At least he was until we kicked the living shit out of his Mahdi Army during the April Uprising.

So, in other words, he has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

8)The US Government had nothing to do with putting Saddam in charge of Iraq, in that you are SADLY mistaken. He was put in power by the Ba'ath Party of Iraq, which came to power in the early 70s by, I believe, popular election. I could be wrong, the Syrian counter part had a coup and the Ba'athists tried several coups in '62 and '65, but I believe they moved to the political realmin '69-'70 when they actually GAINED power. Saddam moved up to be their head in '79 and promptly attacked Iran, which got our attention. Then we decided to start giving him money and equipment to fight the Ayatollah so that we could hopefully destabilize it enough to reinsert the Shah or at least humiliate them. But no his rise to power was not our doing.

US support for Hussein's political plans began in 1959 (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml):

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

The CIA would continue to support Hussein and other anti-communist factions of the Baath party through the sixties and seventies. Most notably during the 1963 and 1968 coups.

Prison for political speech? Awesome.

Evan Brown (http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_ministers/clips/14383/), the activist who shoved a pie into the face of the (then) Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, received 30 days in jail and a $50 fine. On appeal, he had his sentence reduced to time served (8 days), and a conditional discharge (he won't have a record).

Christopher Geoghegan (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/05/26/pie_20040526.html) hit Alberta Premier Ralph Klein dead centre with a pie and received 30 days in jail (sentence upheld on appeal).

Lord Mandelson (a former secretary for N. Ireland) got a cup full of green custard in the face, hurled by Leila Deen (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5856186.ece). She was not charged. Scotland Yard had this to say about the incident, “It’s not a murder, it’s just someone throwing a bit of paint. There is no investigation under way and no arrest. We would not take action unless we receive a complaint.”

Other famous people who have been 'attacked with pies' include Bill Gates, former European Commission President Jacques Delors, Dutch finance minister Gerrit Zalm, Frank Loy (US chief negotiator at UN conference on climate change at the Hague), Jean-Luc Godard, and Immigration Minister Phil Woolas (UK), along with many others.

I find it interesting that people here, mostly USians, are so adamant that 3 years is an acceptable sentence for tossing shoes at (and missing) Bush. I wonder if it's because you take yourselves entirely too seriously? Or are shoes just a bit too beyond the pale? If he had used a pie, would you be pushing for 3 years in jail?

Prison for political speech? Awesome.

Any act of violence against a politician can be seen as "political speech". Doesn't make it right. This guy wasn't imprisoned for using words or signs. He was arrested for throwing shoes, which could have easily concealed grenades, at the leader of a country that could easily wipe his country off the face of the map. Throwing stuff at people isn't very good political speech.



I find it interesting that people here, mostly USians, are so adamant that 3 years is an acceptable sentence for tossing shoes at (and missing) Bush. I wonder if it's because you take yourselves entirely too seriously? Or are shoes just a bit too beyond the pale? If he had used a pie, would you be pushing for 3 years in jail?

You do realize that shoes tend to be a LOT harder than cream pies, don't you?

Any act of violence against a politician can be seen as "political speech". Doesn't make it right. This guy wasn't imprisoned for using words or signs. He was arrested for throwing shoes, which could have easily concealed grenades, at the leader of a country that could easily wipe his country off the face of the map. Throwing stuff at people isn't very good political speech.


Yes and the pies could have contained anthrax or cooties and the green custard could have contained toxic ostritch droppings. But they didn't.


You do realize that shoes tend to be a LOT harder than cream pies, don't you?
You DO realise that neither shoe actually hit him, don't you? And that you can actually shove a pie into someone's face with great force (don't forget that pies come in pie plates)?

3 years, plus the fact that he was allegedly tortured.


I find it interesting that people here, mostly USians, are so adamant that 3 years is an acceptable sentence for tossing shoes at (and missing) Bush. I wonder if it's because you take yourselves entirely too seriously? Or are shoes just a bit too beyond the pale? If he had used a pie, would you be pushing for 3 years in jail?

No one in their right mind thinks 3 years is a just sentence.

Let's remember what it is exactly he did: He attacked a foreign leader, the President of the United States no less. He embarrassed the Iraqi government and could have potentially seriously harmed relations between Iraq and the United States.

Three years is a light sentence.

please. as if relations between the two is all sunshine and lollipops anyways.. what would have happened if the shoe had connected with it's intended target? would the bombs start dropping all over again?

No one in their right mind thinks 3 years is a just sentence.

I think you've insulted your compatriots better than I could have.

Three years does seem a bit harsh, but any kind of assault on the President by a citizen of our country, even shoes, would probably be met with much worse.

Haha, no.
8)The US Government had nothing to do with putting Saddam in charge of Iraq
One should not be so cocky when one is so woefully ignorant.
I'd like to add that we also gave money and equipment to Iran to destabilize Iraq, ideally so that there would be a revolution against him and he'd be taken out.
This is just plain wrong. We gave money and guns to Iraq. Not Iran. Once again, dont get cocky when youre wrong.

You do realize that shoes tend to be a LOT harder than cream pies, don't you?

>.>

<.<

*Throws frozen pie at Hoyteca*

*Throws cloth baby shoes at Hoyteca.*

*???*

*PROFITS*

I honestly feel he deserved more, the above reasons given.

Yeah, he should have been like, beaten or something.


Oh wait. He was.

This is just plain wrong. We gave money and guns to Iraq. Not Iran. Once again, dont get cocky when youre wrong.

The United States actually sold weapons to both sides. Cause we're good like that.

The United States actually sold weapons to both sides. Cause we're good like that.

Orly?

I know we were banking on Iraq though. At least enough where Reagan and Rummy met with Saddam and were all buddy buddy with him.

Orly?

I know we were banking on Iraq though. At least enough where Reagan and Rummy met with Saddam and were all buddy buddy with him.

Well, you've heard about Iran-Contra, yes? We traded them anti-tank missiles for money and Hezbollah hostages.

Other famous people who have been 'attacked with pies' include Bill Gates, former European Commission President Jacques Delors, Dutch finance minister Gerrit Zalm, Frank Loy (US chief negotiator at UN conference on climate change at the Hague), Jean-Luc Godard, and Immigration Minister Phil Woolas (UK), along with many others.


Don't forget this classic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XTiI1e-wVc

SNIP

I'd of loved to of seen Bush fight back :D

Well, you've heard about Iran-Contra, yes? We traded them anti-tank missiles for money and Hezbollah hostages.


Huh. I just Wiki hunted, and for the first time learned that Iran-Countra happened during the Iran-Iraq war. I always thought it was after. Learn something new (on NSG) everyday.

That makes sense. We were backing Iraq for most of the war, yet then switched sides (kinda) or at the very least played the middle.

Evan Brown (http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_ministers/clips/14383/), the activist who shoved a pie into the face of the (then) Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, received 30 days in jail and a $50 fine. On appeal, he had his sentence reduced to time served (8 days), and a conditional discharge (he won't have a record).

Christopher Geoghegan (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/05/26/pie_20040526.html) hit Alberta Premier Ralph Klein dead centre with a pie and received 30 days in jail (sentence upheld on appeal).

Lord Mandelson (a former secretary for N. Ireland) got a cup full of green custard in the face, hurled by Leila Deen (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5856186.ece). She was not charged. Scotland Yard had this to say about the incident, “It’s not a murder, it’s just someone throwing a bit of paint. There is no investigation under way and no arrest. We would not take action unless we receive a complaint.”

Other famous people who have been 'attacked with pies' include Bill Gates, former European Commission President Jacques Delors, Dutch finance minister Gerrit Zalm, Frank Loy (US chief negotiator at UN conference on climate change at the Hague), Jean-Luc Godard, and Immigration Minister Phil Woolas (UK), along with many others.

I find it interesting that people here, mostly USians, are so adamant that 3 years is an acceptable sentence for tossing shoes at (and missing) Bush. I wonder if it's because you take yourselves entirely too seriously? Or are shoes just a bit too beyond the pale? If he had used a pie, would you be pushing for 3 years in jail?

It's because an assault on Dear Leader is a capital crime. If it were up to the United States instead of Iraq, the man would have been shot at dawn.

That makes sense. We were backing Iraq for most of the war, yet then switched sides (kinda) or at the very least played the middle.

nah the US wanted neither to win and stepped up the whole Iraq weapons sales when Iran started the whole "lets start mass rebellions in the middle east"

It's because an assault on Dear Leader is a capital crime. If it were up to the United States instead of Iraq, the man would have been shot at dawn.

I couldn't find the video of that fox-hunting ban protester getting a good shooing in Parliament :(

:eek:

>.>

<.<

*Throws frozen pie at Hoyteca*

*Throws cloth baby shoes at Hoyteca.*

*???*

*PROFITS*
You probably missed the word "tend"?

* steals your profit :)

You probably missed the word "tend"?

* steals your profit :)

I didn't, but the joke takes precedence.

I vote we go break him out of jail.

You may feel that way, and I and hundreds of millions of others might agree with you, but we still live in a society with laws. We don't get to ignore those laws because we find a person odious.

How can it be a society of laws when people in high places are above the law?

I vote we go break him out of jail.

*gathers explosives, rope, camouflage suits, night-vision goggles, binoculars, etc.*

Let's go!

Since it was the US government that put Hussein in charge, knowing full well what kind of person he was, your statement is oddly ironic.

Supporting someone =/= putting them in charge

1) Thats irrelevant. Saddam needed to be taken out.

By the Iraqis, maybe. By outside forces, no. He posed not the slightest threat to the U.S.

Supporting someone =/= putting them in charge

When you are supporting their attempt to take over the government, you are definitely doing your part in putting them in charge.

Which is exactly what happened.

When you are supporting their attempt to take over the government, you are definitely doing your part in putting them in charge.

Which is exactly what happened.

We helped him and his guys overthrow what's-his-face in 1963, but I think they came to power permanently in 1968 mostly on their own.

And also, U.S. support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War was extremely minuscule compared to the amount of support he received from other countries. Not that this excuses or justifies it, but it's important to know.

How can it be a society of laws when people in high places are above the law?

I am not sure what you're attempting to argue here? Are you saying that, because not everyone is held accountable for their crimes, that we are not a society based around rule of law? That just because some people aren't punished for criminal actions, no one should?

We helped him and his guys overthrow what's-his-face in 1963
Seriously doubtful. There is a single report claiming so, that has been widely repeated, but names no sources.

I am not sure what you're attempting to argue here? Are you saying that, because not everyone is held accountable for their crimes, that we are not a society based around rule of law? That just because some people aren't punished for criminal actions, no one should?

I'm saying the shoe thrower had every right to do what he did.

I think they should have just put him on a pedestal in a public square and let people throw shoes at him and see how many he can dodge. Then take him down, and let him go about with his life.

I think they should have just put him on a pedestal in a public square and let people throw shoes at him and see how many he can dodge. Then take him down, and let him go about with his life.

Good. Then they'd only have to find ONE person in Iraq wanting or willing to throw a show at him.

I think they should have just put him on a pedestal in a public square and let people throw shoes at him and see how many he can dodge. Then take him down, and let him go about with his life.

Better than imprisonment and (probable) torture, at least.

Are you saying that, because not everyone is held accountable for their crimes, that we are not a society based around rule of law?
Some would argue just that.

I agree with a lot of what's already been said. He did assault someone, and a foreign leader no less. I wish he wasn't going to jail, but this is lighter than I would have expected.

He didn't assault, he attempted it. (Bush dodged. Almost like he was expecting it with precognitive powers!)

But because he attempted it, yeah, it falls on the other side of the line of acceptability. He wasn't just making a statement, he was aiming that shoe right at his face. Frankly, one wonders why the SS didn't gun him down as soon as his movement to throw was seen. (Maybe it just wasn't seen.) Look, I'm not defending Bush, but unwanted physical contact of just about any sort can be seen as a violent crime or assault or something, including some guy just poking you in the chest. So having a shoe thrown at your face? Yeah.

It could have hit, he could have had a broken nose and been bleeding all over the place. Suddenly it wouldn't be nearly so funny and I doubt nearly as many would have defended it. I understand the man's motives, though... and it might well have been something other than a shoe, given the severity and potential depth of those motives.

Three years is a bit harsh given the circumstances though. Yay for Iraqi Freedom Iraq and it's Liberated Justice?

I'm saying the shoe thrower had every right to do what he did.

A person does not have the right to inflict unwanted physical contact on another person in ANY circumstances. None.

A person does not have the right to inflict unwanted physical contact on another person in ANY circumstances. None.

I may not agree with you, but I do commend your consistency.

I may not agree with you, but I do commend your consistency.

So you think there exists justification for an individual to inflict bodily harm on another?

So you would be okay with me killing you if I could convince other people it was okay?

It could have hit, he could have had a broken nose and been bleeding all over the place. Suddenly it wouldn't be nearly so funny and I doubt nearly as many would have defended it.

I would have. Hell, I'd laugh my ass off if it had made Bush fall, knock his head on something sharper, like the edge of a step, and suffer permanent brain damage or death.

I would have. Hell, I'd laugh my ass off if it had made Bush fall, knock his head on something sharper, like the edge of a step, and suffer permanent brain damage or death.

And that is why you are a horrible human being.

And that is why you are a horrible human being.

Nah, I'm actually pretty decent. But I'm also a realist: I know Bush won't be punished for his crimes, and SOME sort of punishment would be good to see.

I would have. Hell, I'd laugh my ass off if it had made Bush fall, knock his head on something sharper, like the edge of a step, and suffer permanent brain damage or death.
And this is why you're as bad as most of the folks you attack.

So you think there exists justification for an individual to inflict bodily harm on another?

So you would be okay with me killing you if I could convince other people it was okay?

There may be a context issue that i'm not aware of here but self defence seems like a perfect example of a situation in which you killing someone else would be deemed acceptable to most.

I would have. Hell, I'd laugh my ass off if it had made Bush fall, knock his head on something sharper, like the edge of a step, and suffer permanent brain damage or death.

So asaulting and killing someone who's politics you find offensive is ok?

The man broke the law, had no need to do so in such a way, and achieved nothing positive by doing so.

Nah, I'm actually pretty decent. But I'm also a realist: I know Bush won't be punished for his crimes, and SOME sort of punishment would be good to see.

That you would laugh at the misery of another makes you no better than all the people you post your ALL CAPS! tirades at.

And this is why you're as bad as most of the folks you attack.

Again, it would be a way to see SOME punishment levelled at Bush.

(Levelled or leveled?)

Nah, I'm actually pretty decent. But I'm also a realist: I know Bush won't be punished for his crimes, and SOME sort of punishment would be good to see.

Vigilantism FTW

There may be a context issue that i'm not aware with here but self defence seems like a perfect example of a situation in which you killing someone else would be deemed acceptable to most.

I should have used "initiate" unwanted physical contact, then?

So asaulting and killing someone who's politics you find offensive is ok?

The man broke the law, had no need to do so in such a way, and achieved nothing positive by doing so.

It's not someone whose politics I find offensive. It's someone whose politics killed about a hundred thousand people in Iraq alone.

We helped him and his guys overthrow what's-his-face in 1963, but I think they came to power permanently in 1968 mostly on their own.
....

Not according to former CIA operative Miles Copeland and former NSC staff member John Morris. The Baath secretary-general at the time said: "We came to power on a CIA train." (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/revealed-how-the-west-set-saddam-on-the-bloody-road-to-power-1258618.html)

That you would laugh at the misery of another makes you no better than all the people you post your ALL CAPS! tirades at.

It's Bush. Not a person.

I should have used "initiate" unwanted physical contact, then?

Yup but there will probably be some other nitpicker worse than me who will find fault with that too :p

The Baath secretary-general at the time said: "We came to power on a CIA little engine that could." (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/revealed-how-the-west-set-saddam-on-the-bloody-road-to-power-1258618.html)

Fixed for lulz.

It's Bush. Not a person.

Again, you merely prove the point that you are a bad person and no better than those whom you attack. In fact, one might go so far as to argue that you are such a bad human being that you're not really a "person" at all, and thus not entitled to the protections we afford other people.

It's unfortunate how easy it is to turn your arguments against you.

Vigilantism FTW

Oh, come on. Fine, then, let's eliminate the human agent here. If Bush tripped and hit his head on the asphalt, dying from it, can you honestly say you would be saddened?

Again, you merely prove the point that you are a bad person and no better than those whom you attack. In fact, one might go so far as to argue that you are such a bad human being that you're not really a "person" at all, and thus not entitled to the protections we afford other people.

It's unfortunate how easy it is to turn your arguments against you.

And if I ever start an unwarranted war that kills thousands, you will have every reason to do so.

Oh, come on. Fine, then, let's eliminate the human agent here. If Bush tripped and hit his head on the asphalt, dying from it, can you honestly say you would be saddened?

I wouldn't be saddened because i'm in no way linked to the man but I wouldn't be celebrating either.

And if I ever start an unwarranted war that kills thousands, you will have every reason to do so.

No, I won't. That's my entire point. I will never have "every reason" to unilaterally decide another person is unworthy of life, and neither do you, regardless of what your self-absorbed delusions tell you.

Oh, come on. Fine, then, let's eliminate the human agent here. If Bush tripped and hit his head on the asphalt, dying from it, can you honestly say you would be saddened?

We wouldn't derive joy.

I wouldn't be saddened because i'm in no way linked to the man but I wouldn't be celebrating either.

Not even if I invited you to my party? :D

Not even if I invited you to my party? :D

I would drink all the free alcohol and eat all the free food while maintaining a completely neutral position ;)

I would have. Hell, I'd laugh my ass off if it had made Bush fall, knock his head on something sharper, like the edge of a step, and suffer permanent brain damage or death.

Oh, yeah, funny ha-ha, a Presidential assassination. Ho ho ho, President Cheney's ascent to power, public outcry and martyrdom of GW and reconfirmation of his policies, blood and violence yay! :confused:

Well, needless to say none of that brings a smile to my face. The only reason it was funny was because GW's android-like reflexes which prevented any of that, and because it enabled people to be open to the guy's message. Wouldn't have been the case if there was real violence.

Oh, yeah, funny ha-ha, a Presidential assassination. Ho ho ho, President Cheney's ascent to power, public outcry and martyrdom of GW and reconfirmation of his policies, blood and violence yay! :confused:

Well, needless to say none of that brings a smile to my face. The only reason it was funny was because GW's android-like reflexes which prevented any of that, and because it enabled people to be open to the guy's message. Wouldn't have been the case if there was real violence.

Good point, I admit.

I recant my statements based on it.

So you think there exists justification for an individual to inflict bodily harm on another?

In some cases, yes.

So you would be okay with me killing you if I could convince other people it was okay?

Depends on your reason for doing so. ;)

Oh, come on. Fine, then, let's eliminate the human agent here. If Bush tripped and hit his head on the asphalt, dying from it, can you honestly say you would be saddened?

Yes, I would. I see no point in revenge, or taking pleasure in another person's suffering. It accomplishes nothing. And I've never believed the whole "deserves to die" thing.

Not according to former CIA operative Miles Copeland and former NSC staff member John Morris. The Baath secretary-general at the time said: "We came to power on a CIA train." (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/revealed-how-the-west-set-saddam-on-the-bloody-road-to-power-1258618.html)

I stand corrected and don't mind saying so. Thanks for the info, btw. Learn something new everyday. :)

Seems the journalist who threw the shoe at Bush has been sentenced to three years in jail. Seems ridiculously harsh to me.

There is so much wrong with your conclusion. He threw a show at a US president visiting in Iraq. What do you thing America would have done if King Louis was in the USA during the revolutionary war and some American threw a show at him?

Also, the mere fact that this is the Middle East means that you have to look at it in that context. In the Middle East people get whipped lots of times for being in the same room with a member of the opposite sex who is not related to you. In other words, you go to the grocery store and oops there is a member of the opposite sex buying groceries and she is not related --50 lashes! I know I am being a little silly here but the point is that things are taken pretty seriously over there.

Also, it is seen as a pretty big embarassment for any foreign dignitary to be hurt while travelling abroad. The US Secret Service protects a lot of awful scumbags who visit our country for the UN or any other reason. We do not protect these people because we necessarily like them. We do it to avoid the embarassment and potential for an international incident.

A US president was assasinated by an American and there are many conspiracy theorists out there. Imagine how many conspiracy theorists there would be in Dirtbagia if the Dirtbagian Grand Poobah was assasinated on our soil. It would be a mess. The point is that any attack on a foreign dignitary is a pretty big deal.

Serious question - do Iraqi courts reduce sentences, enact parole for good behavior in jail or is three years three years? I've always wondered why we bother to give people a huge sentence for shock value and they end up serving a smaller portion. I do think incentivizing early release with good behavior is a good thing, however.

Seems the journalist who threw the shoe at Bush has been sentenced to three years in jail. Seems ridiculously harsh to me.

Well, that's retarded.

There is so much wrong with your conclusion. He threw a show at a US president visiting in Iraq. What do you thing America would have done if King Louis was in the USA during the revolutionary war and some American threw a show at him?

Also, the mere fact that this is the Middle East means that you have to look at it in that context. In the Middle East people get whipped lots of times for being in the same room with a member of the opposite sex who is not related to you. In other words, you go to the grocery store and oops there is a member of the opposite sex buying groceries and she is not related --50 lashes! I know I am being a little silly here but the point is that things are taken pretty seriously over there.

Also, it is seen as a pretty big embarassment for any foreign dignitary to be hurt while travelling abroad. The US Secret Service protects a lot of awful scumbags who visit our country for the UN or any other reason. We do not protect these people because we necessarily like them. We do it to avoid the embarassment and potential for an international incident.

A US president was assasinated by an American and there are many conspiracy theorists out there. Imagine how many conspiracy theorists there would be in Dirtbagia if the Dirtbagian Grand Poobah was assasinated on our soil. It would be a mess. The point is that any attack on a foreign dignitary is a pretty big deal.

How about we put it into perspective with this story about another assault in Iraq. A US Army Staff Sergeant is involved in the death of an Iraqi detainee, murder charge is dropped down to assault and he gets a sentence of 17 months. Death versus a shoe that fails to hit.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzuwkhrcOZ-H5K2HgCBMz-ICJ0nwD96EA23O1

How about we put it into perspective with this story about another assault in Iraq. A US Army Staff Sergeant is involved in the death of an Iraqi detainee, murder charge is dropped down to assault and he gets a sentence of 17 months. Death versus a shoe that fails to hit.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzuwkhrcOZ-H5K2HgCBMz-ICJ0nwD96EA23O1

But the US soldier was tried in America.

But the US soldier was tried in America.

..and? Does it somehow change the fact that three years for missing someone with a shoe is harsher than 17 months for killing someone?

..and? Does it somehow change the fact that three years for missing someone with a shoe is harsher than 17 months for killing someone?

No. Yet it is still an apples to oranges comparison for the reasons that I already mentioned.

I find it interesting that people here, mostly USians, are so adamant that 3 years is an acceptable sentence for tossing shoes at (and missing) Bush. I wonder if it's because you take yourselves entirely too seriously? Or are shoes just a bit too beyond the pale? If he had used a pie, would you be pushing for 3 years in jail?

I didn't say it was acceptable. I said it was light when all things are considered. Considering the state of justice in Iraq, he could have easily ended up with a much harsher sentence.

My sentencing of him would've been to fine him something like $25 and then let him go with no jail time required, to be honest.

No. Yet it is still an apples to oranges comparison for the reasons that I already mentioned.

Apples and oranges comparison? Like comparing an assault with someone buying groceries and meeting someone of the opposite sex?

He didn't assault, he attempted it. (Bush dodged.
To be pedantic: "assault" means making the attempt; "battery" is if you succeed. He DID assault, but it was not assault and battery because Bush dodged.
Not according to former CIA operative Miles Copeland and former NSC staff member John Morris. The Baath secretary-general at the time said: "We came to power on a CIA train." (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/revealed-how-the-west-set-saddam-on-the-bloody-road-to-power-1258618.html)
Interesting. Your source is more comprehensive than the 2003 article, which was widely repeated but wasn't given much credence among those track such information:
An April 10, 2003, UPI story by Richard Sale, citing anonymous U.S. intelligence sources, claimed that Saddam Hussein, while working as an agent of the CIA, took part in the failed assassination attempt of October 7, 1959. The article cites only anonymous sources, yet its claims have been repeated in dozens of news articles, by The BBC, The Telegraph, CBS, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Asia Times, Counterpunch, Z Magazine, Democracy Now, and many others.
website (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/iraq/baath1959.htm)
So I am a little curious that this book by Aburish is not mentioned in the other sources discussing this period. Reviewers find him full of axes to grind:

But alas, his indictment is brief and superficial. Indeed, it only sets the stage for Aburish's true topic-finding a scapegoat for this dismal state of affairs. Here, to put it charitably, he is less than enlightening. His explanation for Arab tyranny dwells not on the foibles of Arab or Muslim culture, not on the premodern legacy of dictatorship, nor on the winner-take-all atmosphere that dominates politics in the Arabic-speaking countries. In fact, he has almost nothing to say about the motor forces of Arab life, for all his attention is focused outward.

Specifically, he indulges the usual Middle Eastern propensity to affix blame. Yes, nearly all the problems of the Middle East are due to a vast British and American conspiracy that aims to perpetuate what he calls "Western political hegemony" in the Middle East. At great length and with considerable feeling, he argues that the West does so not by relying on a mechanism so crude or transparent as direct rule, but by the much more clever technique of installing Arab puppets in power.
website (http://www.danielpipes.org/780/a-brutal-friendship-the-west-and-the-arab-elite)
but I don't see accusations against him of dishonestly fabricating material.
Paul Wolf has some declassified documents such as:
Communists accused the CIA of the the Iraq coup right at the start (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/iraq/Communists%20Blame%20CIA%20Feb%2015%201963.htm)
and
US government not at all sure how to react to Iraq coup (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/iraq/Arms%20Sales%20Feb%2015%201963.htm)
for what they're worth.

3 years (+ torture) is ridiculously harsh. If he had thrown his shoe at an ordinary american do you think he would have gotten more than a fine? No. Just because somebody is the president doesnt put them on a pedestal.

Also somebody posted showed what happened when other people assaulted politicians. In all cases nothing. Just because Bush is the precious president makes him no more special than the average joe.


EDIT: lol at that review. While not all the middle easts problems can be blamed on the west, quite a lot can. Lol at angry reviewer stereotyping middle eastern behaviour and denying the fact that western governments have on numerous occasions installed "puppet leaders" for their own aims.

3 years (+ torture) is ridiculously harsh. If he had thrown his shoe at an ordinary american do you think he would have gotten more than a fine? No. Just because somebody is the president doesnt put them on a pedestal.

Also somebody posted showed what happened when other people assaulted politicians. In all cases nothing. Just because Bush is the precious president makes him no more special than the average joe.


EDIT: lol at that review. While not all the middle easts problems can be blamed on the west, quite a lot can. Lol at angry reviewer stereotyping middle eastern behaviour and denying the fact that western governments have on numerous occasions installed "puppet leaders" for their own aims.

Quoted for truth.

A perfect example of punishment fitting the crime. He threw shoes at someone, now the legal system has thrown the book at him :p

A perfect example of punishment fitting the crime. He threw shoes at someone, now the legal system has thrown the book at him :p

*Groans*

*Groans*

*dodges tomatoes thrown in my general direction*

Thank you. You've been a great audience. I'm here all week, try the veal!

Let's see now....Blackwater employees were randomly killing Iraqis and their penalty is:

Iraq to Deny New License To Blackwater Security Firm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/28/ST2009012803363.html)

Seems only fair that this Iraqi gets 3 years in jail for throwing shoes???? :rolleyes:


The Blackwater Case isn't portrayed very well, because few people understood what actually went on there. I talked to some of the guys who were there, and they told me that basically someone fired at them, they cordoned off the area as they were supposed to, and then iraqi civillians started crowding around them. Someone dropped a grenade, then Mahdi Militiamen started firing at them from the crowd. The Blackwater Guards returned fire and both the Americans AND insurgents hit innocents in the process. That happens sometimes in urban warfare, believe me its sad but it really can't be avoided. But I don't understand how those blackwater guys can be thrown in jail, they committed no crime.

If 'precisioon' wepaons are not precise, then they are badly named. If the are imprecise, then why were these oh-so-competent soldiers using them in places where civilians were likely to be injured? And your weird assertion about Iraqis jumping in front of bullets is so unbeleivable, I'm going to need some evidence. And I agree that it is terrible that soldiers are so badly trained that they can't avoid killing children.


Okay. How about I put you in with my infantry platoon and we see if you can survive in Sadr City without iraqi civillian deciding to pop into your fields of fire. I don't think you realize that most of those Iraqis RUN in front of American firing lanes for the PURPOSE of martyring themselves on Al-Jazeera and thus blaming the Americans for it. Half the time the insurgents shoot the people themselves to make it look like the Americans did, because you bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably.

And with any luck, he'll emerge from prison shoes-first :p

so we all agree after his sentence is up he shall be extradited to the US to be executed. If Obama wont do it he is soft on terrorism and will be impeached.

Say what you will about Bush's politics:

For an old guy, he sure has good reflexes.

Well, I think they should pardon him as especially since President Bush, himself who was the target, seemed to take it in stride and to be a bit merciful towards the man. He, in fact, said something to the effect that is the price one must pay living in a free country, which I do consider a little comical:tongue:

It's not Bush's country though. Bush's pardon (which should be expected... especially consdering his faith) should have no effect outside of America.

And with any luck, he'll emerge from prison shoes-first :p

Yaaaay! NM has shown up to wish death upon a man for throwing shoes at Bush!

Guess what, Leeroy: He's considered a hero by most Iraqis. He'll get out of prison with a pat on the back.

I'd of loved to of seen Bush fight back :D

Lol... he should've whipped his shoes at the guy! that would have been great.

I don't think you realize that most of those Iraqis RUN in front of American firing lanes for the PURPOSE of martyring themselves on Al-Jazeera and thus blaming the Americans for it. Half the time the insurgents shoot the people themselves to make it look like the Americans did, because you bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably.

I'm busy, but I need someone to make a joke thread with examples of such excuses being used for other crimes.

EDIT: lol at that review. While not all the middle easts problems can be blamed on the west, quite a lot can. Lol at angry reviewer stereotyping middle eastern behaviour and denying the fact that western governments have on numerous occasions installed "puppet leaders" for their own aims.
I was curious about Aburish because I had just been through an argument (with DaWoad on another thread that got shut down, not because of DaWoad and me) about this topic (alleged CIA involvement in Saddam's rise) and had looked up a bunch of sources that never mentioned this Aburish, so I wanted to know his credibility.
I singled out the Daniel Pipes piece precisely because, as an extreme pro-Zionist, Pipes was the maximally-possible-hostile reviewer I could find, and so if even Pipes doesn't accuse Aburish of fabricating facts (just of badly interpreting them), that raises the chances that Aburish isn't just making this up. Aburish comes across as a "paranoid conspiracy theorist" type-- but of course, in the Middle East paranoid conspiracy theories may well be true. I doubted his quotes from CIA insiders because I don't think a radical Palestinian is likely to get candid interviews with such people-- but the former Ba'athist minister is precisely the kind of person Aburish might be expected to talk to, so that quote sounds significant.

It's not Bush's country though. Bush's pardon (which should be expected... especially consdering his faith) should have no effect outside of America.

I understand that, but what I am saying is that if the would be victim acts in a gracious manner, the judge should take that into consideration. I could see a revocation of his security clearance as a reporter and a court ordered public apology being an appropriate punishment for this man.

I'm busy, but I need someone to make a joke thread with examples of such excuses being used for other crimes.

Dude.

STFU. Seriously.

Have you, a Brazilian, talked to any soldiers who have served on the ground in Iraq? I doubt it.

Wanderjar's antecedents are perfectly valid and believable. He's served on the ground. He knows what the fuck he is talking about.

I've heard similar stories from soldiers who have served in Iraq.

Men who, you know, were actually there.

Edit:

And the sentence sounds about right to me. He did embarass his nation and try to assault a foreign leader.

Dude.

STFU. Seriously.

Have you, a Brazilian, talked to any soldiers who have served on the ground in Iraq? I doubt it.

Wanderjar's antecedents are perfectly valid and believable. He's served on the ground. He knows what the fuck he is talking about.

I've heard similar stories from soldiers who have served in Iraq.

Men who, you know, were actually there.

1- Yes?

2- No, I won't. What are you going to do about it? Write more acronyms about it? Blog? Complain about me on YouTube?

3- There are some, here, on NSG. So, I probably did.

4- Everyone's a soldier on the Internet. The story remains outlandish.

5- Everyone knows a soldier on the Internet. The story remains absurd.

6- Everyone was in Iraq on the Internet. The story remains a lie.

So you think there exists justification for an individual to inflict bodily harm on another?

So you would be okay with me killing you if I could convince other people it was okay?

In self-defense, I would. But IIRC, you're only talking about initiating violence, right? So I don't think I would initiate it ever.

I would have. Hell, I'd laugh my ass off if it had made Bush fall, knock his head on something sharper, like the edge of a step, and suffer permanent brain damage or death.

Nah, I'm actually pretty decent. But I'm also a realist: I know Bush won't be punished for his crimes, and SOME sort of punishment would be good to see.

These statements contradict each other.

These statements contradict each other.

Or so you think. *Shrugs*

1- Yes?

2- No, I won't. What are you going to do about it? Write more acronyms about it? Blog?

3- There are some, here, on NSG. So, I probably did.

4- Everyone's a soldier on the Internet. The story remains outlandish.

5- Everyone knows a soldier on the Internet. The story remains absurd.

6- Everyone was in Iraq on the Internet. The story remains a lie.


What an ignorant person.

You purposely ignore what people on the ground have said.

What an ignorant person.

You purposely ignore what people on the ground have said.

1- Somehow I'm not surprised that insults are all you can muster in this debate. But clearly the response to "what are you going to do about it" is flaming me. So... Keep going, by all means. At one point or another I'm sending a precious list to the mods.

2- No, I highly doubt outlandish statements by people with agendas that claim to have been on the ground and that go against pretty much any and all notions developed about this thrice-accursed war, human behavior and logics.

1- Somehow I'm not surprised that insults are all you can muster in this debate. But clearly the response to "what are you going to do about it" is flaming me. So... Keep going, by all means. At one point or another I'm sending a precious list to the mods.

2- No, I highly doubt outlandish statements by people with agendas that claim to have been on the ground and that go against pretty much any and all notions developed about this thrice-accursed war, human behavior and logics.



So now civilians being startled and scared by a firefight and getting getting caught in the crossfire is outlandish? Huh, doesn't really sound that outlandish. That sounds very plausible, and sadly, probably too common since the insurgents hide behind civilians.

Civilians being killed by insurgents doesn't sound outlandish.

Civilians being killed by suicide bombers doesn't sound outlandish.

What, pray tell, is all this outlandish stuff you heard?

So now civilians being startled and scared by a firefight and getting getting caught in the crossfire is outlandish? Huh, doesn't really sound that outlandish. That sounds very plausible, and sadly, probably too common since the insurgents hide behind civilians.

Civilians being killed by insurgents doesn't sound outlandish.

Civilians being killed by suicide bombers doesn't sound outlandish.

What, pray tell, is all this outlandish stuff you heard?

I don't think you realize that most of those Iraqis RUN in front of American firing lanes for the PURPOSE of martyring themselves on Al-Jazeera and thus blaming the Americans for it. Half the time the insurgents shoot the people themselves to make it look like the Americans did, because you bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably.

Did you READ the post I was quoting? It had NOTHING to do with what you just wrote.

Did you READ the post I was quoting? It had NOTHING to do with what you just wrote.

And that doesn't really sound that outlandish considering the stories from people on the ground, which, you haven't heard, and wouldn't believe based on what you've said here.

And that doesn't really sound that outlandish considering the stories from people on the ground, which, you haven't heard, and wouldn't believe based on what you've said here.

Give me a decent report by a decent source that isn't madly in love with, and fapping to the notion of, killing brown people and I'll give it some credit. Until then, no, I won't believe your anecdotes or his. Because I, too, can claim to have a cousin that's an American soldier in Iraq and tells me the soldiers are lining up children to rape them, see?

Or so you think. *Shrugs*

My belief is quite strong in this regard.

Give me a decent report by a decent source that isn't madly in love with, and fapping to the notion of, killing brown people and I'll give it some credit. Until then, no, I won't believe your anecdotes or his. Because I, too, can claim to have a cousin that's an American soldier in Iraq and tells me the soldiers are lining up children to rape them, see?

First off your belief that anyone here gets off to the idea of killing 'brown' people is ridiculous and disgusting. It also reveals just how far you dislike of Americans is. You've some funny notions runny around your skull.

And no one would believe your claim because of your history on the subject.

As for reports, of what?

Be specific.

And your inability to even consider stories from people on the ground as plausible is ridiculous.

Let's remember what it is exactly he did: He attacked a foreign leader, the President of the United States no less. He embarrassed the Iraqi government and could have potentially seriously harmed relations between Iraq and the United States.

AHAHAH!

How can anyone harm the relations between Iraq and the US MORE than the Shrub did himself, I wonder.

First off your belief that anyone here gets off to the idea of killing 'brown' people is ridiculous and disgusting. It also reveals just how far you dislike of Americans is. You've some funny notions runny around your skull.

And no one would believe your claim because of your history on the subject.

As for reports, of what?

Be specific.

And your inability to even consider stories from people on the ground as plausible is ridiculous.

1. Hotwife admitted multiple times a desire to go to Iraq to kill Arabs. That you refuse to believe that people like that might exist is childish and naive.

2. Show us a report of Iraqis purposely running into American fire for the goal of martyring themselves and making the Americans look bad. A report that isn't based on an anecdote of a soldier on the ground that you totally know.

3. This is the internet. The burden of proof is higher than "I know a guy." Because, if "I know a guy" is an acceptable level of required confirmation for you, I know a guy who says you raped him every Sunday for 5 years.

3. This is the internet. The burden of proof is higher than "I know a guy." Because, if "I know a guy" is an acceptable level of required confirmation for you, I know a guy who says you raped him every Sunday for 5 years.

But...but... You said you wouldn't tell anybody!

*runs off crying*

1. Hotwife admitted multiple times a desire to go to Iraq to kill Arabs. That you refuse to believe that people like that might exist is childish and naive.

2. Show us a report of Iraqis purposely running into American fire for the goal of martyring themselves and making the Americans look bad. A report that isn't based on an anecdote of a soldier on the ground that you totally know.

3. This is the internet. The burden of proof is higher than "I know a guy." Because, if "I know a guy" is an acceptable level of required confirmation for you, I know a guy who says you raped him every Sunday for 5 years.

Thanks, Sdaeriji! :D

Hey, Trollgaard: This. Consider your stupid flame about me "hating America" answered.

...I don't think you realize that most of those Iraqis RUN in front of American firing lanes for the PURPOSE of martyring themselves on Al-Jazeera and thus blaming the Americans for it.

I don't believe this. At all.

Half the time the insurgents shoot the people themselves to make it look like the Americans did, because you bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably.

So, when I ask you for evidence, I'm asking you to provide a link to a reputable source. Something I can click on that will take me to another website, where there is evidence for what you say. Can you do that?

The Blackwater Case isn't portrayed very well, because few people understood what actually went on there. I talked to some of the guys who were there, and they told me that basically someone fired at them, they cordoned off the area as they were supposed to, and then iraqi civillians started crowding around them. Someone dropped a grenade, then Mahdi Militiamen started firing at them from the crowd. The Blackwater Guards returned fire and both the Americans AND insurgents hit innocents in the process. That happens sometimes in urban warfare, believe me its sad but it really can't be avoided. But I don't understand how those blackwater guys can be thrown in jail, they committed no crime.
Blackwater committed no crime? Try again.

You are looking at only one specific situation and missed a multitude of others:

Security Firm Faces Criminal Charges in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/world/middleeast/23blackwater.html)

UN urges U.S. to punish random-killing contractors (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/11/content_6866190.htm)

Blackwater most often shoots first, congressional report says (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/01/blackwater.report/index.html)

Murder = no charge

Throwing shoes = 3 years

Yup, that seems fair enough. :rolleyes:

Apples and oranges comparison? Like comparing an assault with someone buying groceries and meeting someone of the opposite sex?
Yes. Just like that.

Yes. Just like that.

Arguing with you is like trying to buy cheese from mr. Wensleydale.

Dude.

STFU. Seriously.

Have you, a Brazilian, talked to any soldiers who have served on the ground in Iraq? I doubt it.

Wanderjar's antecedents are perfectly valid and believable. He's served on the ground. He knows what the fuck he is talking about.

I've heard similar stories from soldiers who have served in Iraq.

Men who, you know, were actually there.

Edit:

And the sentence sounds about right to me. He did embarass his nation and try to assault a foreign leader.

H2 lives in a country that endured a brutal (and American-backed) military dictatorship for over two decades. Forgive him if he's less than head over heels over the military as an institution.

But...but... You said you wouldn't tell anybody!

*runs off crying*

*comforts*

Arguing with you is like trying to buy cheese from mr. Wensleydale.

Who is Mr. Wensleydale and how do you buy cheese from him?

Rambhutan has not argued with me. He only asked me yes or no type questions of the sort that we are encouraged to ask in the cross examination of wintesses.

Who is Mr. Wensleydale and how do you buy cheese from him?

Glad you asked. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese_Shop_Sketch)

I don't believe this. At all.

I can believe that a very, very small minority of Iraqis do this, but I very highly doubt it's commonplace.

Blackwater committed no crime? Try again.

You are looking at only one specific situation and missed a multitude of others:

Security Firm Faces Criminal Charges in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/world/middleeast/23blackwater.html)

UN urges U.S. to punish random-killing contractors (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/11/content_6866190.htm)

Blackwater most often shoots first, congressional report says (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/01/blackwater.report/index.html)

Murder = no charge

Throwing shoes = 3 years

Yup, that seems fair enough. :rolleyes:

But Blackwater was fighting for FREEDOM™!

The wicked shoe thrower threw his shoe at the Dear Leader of the FREE WORLD™!

Know the difference, man! And learn your priorities! :tongue:

(joking, obviously)

The Blackwater Case isn't portrayed very well, because few people understood what actually went on there. I talked to some of the guys who were there, and they told me that basically someone fired at them, they cordoned off the area as they were supposed to, and then iraqi civillians started crowding around them. Someone dropped a grenade, then Mahdi Militiamen started firing at them from the crowd. The Blackwater Guards returned fire and both the Americans AND insurgents hit innocents in the process. That happens sometimes in urban warfare, believe me its sad but it really can't be avoided. But I don't understand how those blackwater guys can be thrown in jail, they committed no crime.
People in Blackwater said they committed no crime?!? *Gasp*

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, I talked to OJ Simpson, and he said he didnt kill anyone. And he would know, he was there!
Okay. How about I put you in with my infantry platoon and we see if you can survive in Sadr City without iraqi civillian deciding to pop into your fields of fire. I don't think you realize that most of those Iraqis RUN in front of American firing lanes for the PURPOSE of martyring themselves on Al-Jazeera and thus blaming the Americans for it. Half the time the insurgents shoot the people themselves to make it look like the Americans did, because you bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably.

Wow. I think youre full of shit. Seriously, I think you just won NSG's award for Biggest Liar now that DK's not around to claim it.

Zomgz stupid Iraq civies runnin in front of mah bullets!

Pity he missed. I find the sentence disgusting. A guy who killed a disabled gay man got a lesser sentence than that. When is Bush going to be tried for crimes against humanity?

Pity he missed. I find the sentence disgusting. A guy who killed a disabled gay man got a lesser sentence than that. When is Bush going to be tried for crimes against humanity?

What does the disabled and gay thing have to do with it?

You know what will happen? He'll be cleared by the court based on a wave on anti-American sentiment, be given his shoes back, and then set free. However, in his jubiliation, he will put his shoes on too quickly without carrying out the proper checks. As a result, he will stumble out the door of the courtroom, fall down a large number of steps like a human slinky, then die. So he'll be the one who is killed in a footwear related accident. The shoe will be on the other foot.

What does the disabled and gay thing have to do with it?

Other than showing that America sees murdering a gay disabled man as much less severe of a crime than throwing a shoe at Dear Leader? Dunno.

Other than showing that America sees murdering a gay disabled man as much less severe of a crime than throwing a shoe at Dear Leader? Dunno.
Right, because unlike most trials on earth, both the case with the murderer of the disabled gay man and the guy who threw shoes at Bush were decided by a national referendum.

You know what will happen? He'll be cleared by the court based on a wave on anti-American sentiment, be given his shoes back, and then set free. However, in his jubiliation, he will put his shoes on too quickly without carrying out the proper checks. As a result, he will stumble out the door of the courtroom, fall down a large number of steps like a human slinky, then die. So he'll be the one who is killed in a footwear related accident. The shoe will be on the other foot.

...


Where did your new found hilarity come from? Are you trying out for the mantle of NSG's resident humorist? Coz I gotta tell you, it's working. You are at least at grandmaster level.

Okay. How about I put you in with my infantry platoon and we see if you can survive in Sadr City without iraqi civillian deciding to pop into your fields of fire. I don't think you realize that most of those Iraqis RUN in front of American firing lanes for the PURPOSE of martyring themselves on Al-Jazeera and thus blaming the Americans for it. Half the time the insurgents shoot the people themselves to make it look like the Americans did, because you bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably.

Holy fuck, that is the most pathetic pile of steaming shit I have ever come across on this forum. Also terrible logic. Half the time these insurgent shoot people and blame the Americans BECAUSE bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably? Wow. Generally when I know someone who doesn't think reasonably, I point it out to them, rather than shooting someone and blaming it on America, but hey, everyone's different!

"I hate American mom!"

"Go get a soldier to shoot you son, then they'll learn!"

"Okay! Tra la la!"

Right.

...


Where did your new found hilarity come from? Are you trying out for the mantle of NSG's resident humorist? Coz I gotta tell you, it's working. You are at least at grandmaster level.

*sniffle*

Holy fuck, that is the most pathetic pile of steaming shit I have ever come across on this forum. Also terrible logic. Half the time these insurgent shoot people and blame the Americans BECAUSE bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably? Wow. Generally when I know someone who doesn't think reasonably, I point it out to them, rather than shooting someone and blaming it on America, but hey, everyone's different!

"I hate American mom!"

"Go get a soldier to shoot you son, then they'll learn!"

"Okay! Tra la la!"

Right.

Basically, Wanderjar's defense can be summed up in seven words:

"Your honor, she was asking for it."

Basically, Wanderjar's defense can be summed up in seven words:

"Your honor, she was asking for it."

No, it's more like "she made me rape her to get me in trouble!"

No, it's more like "she made me rape her to get me in trouble!"

I stand corrected.

No, it's more like "she made me rape her to get me in trouble!"

got me out of prison sentences on many occasion. well that and 100 million spent on lawyers.

got me out of prison sentences on many occasion. well that and 100 million spent on lawyers.

Just don't try to rob a collectibles dealer in Vegas and you'll be fine.

Also, while it's (possibly) true that insurgents sometimes kill innocent Iraqis to blame it on the U.S., the U.S. undoubtedly does the exact same thing (kills innocent Iraqis to blame it on the insurgents). I hear that's a common tactic used by all sides in every war.

Also, while it's (possibly) true that insurgents sometimes kill innocent Iraqis to blame it on the U.S., the U.S. undoubtedly does the exact same thing (kills innocent Iraqis to blame it on the insurgents). I hear that's a common tactic used by all sides in every war.I really don't think so. This kind of accusation was really unheard-of until quite recently.

Its a shame that Blackwater and other PMCs (Private Military Companies) have legal immunity. (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf) It's one thing for a U.S. soldier to commit and use such tactics 'cause they're under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20IV.%20COURT-MARTIAL%20JURISDICTION), but contractors have no legal ramifications.

Holy fuck, that is the most pathetic pile of steaming shit I have ever come across on this forum. Also terrible logic. Half the time these insurgent shoot people and blame the Americans BECAUSE bleeding heart liberals don't think reasonably? Wow. Generally when I know someone who doesn't think reasonably, I point it out to them, rather than shooting someone and blaming it on America, but hey, everyone's different!

"I hate American mom!"

"Go get a soldier to shoot you son, then they'll learn!"

"Okay! Tra la la!"

Right.

Actually, your example is not far from the truth of what happens over there. Little kids are brought up to hate Americans and they see death as martyrdom. However, I would contest that it is not the mothers who offer this advice as usually it is the fathers recruit their kids for terrorist acts.

And his statements was that the reason they get away with killing their own people and blaming it on us was because of liberal morons who try to make the bad guys the victims. And you deftly tried to twist his words to do just that, so I have to assume you are a la la land liberal.

Actually, your example is not far from the truth of what happens over there. Little kids are brought up to hate Americans and they see death as martyrdom. However, I would contest that it is not the mothers who offer this advice as usually it is the fathers recruit their kids for terrorist acts.

And his statements was that the reason they get away with killing their own people and blaming it on us was because of liberal morons who try to make the bad guys the victims. And you deftly tried to twist his words to do just that, so I have to assume you are a la la land liberal.

All these claims, all this trolling and all this flamebaiting and raving about "liberals", and not a shred of evidence to be found.