Iraq cheers reporter for Bush shoe attack

[Xthar]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/iraq-cheers-reporter-for-bush-shoe-attack.html


made my day!

edit: damn it too late. already posted my bad.

[Marrik]

America would probably cheer if there was a shoe attack on Bush here too.

[AmonDominus]

Sucks that he missed him though. It would have been epic if he hit him 2 times.

[Rokolith]

HAha awesome. The fact that there was overwhelming approval from the iraqis shows how much our little war there has improved their opinion of us.

[Megumi]

HAha awesome. The fact that there was overwhelming approval from the iraqis shows how much our little war there has improved their opinion of us.

Yeah, time was they'd call Bush a dodge hacker.

[Nevron]

HAha awesome. The fact that there was overwhelming approval from the iraqis shows how much our little war there has improved their opinion of us.

Thousands isn't "overwhelming" as far as Iraqi protests go. Another thing to note is that it was a rally in Sadr City, which is a stronghold for the Shi'a militia of Muqtada al-Sadr known as Jaysh al-Mahdi, a group that receives financial and arms support from Iran and Iranian surrogates.

I wouldn't expect you to know that though. It's common for the uneducated to chime in supporting the popular opinion without understanding the full scope or details of what they're chiming in about. It's cool to bash Bush, so the details are irrelevant, I get it.

I'm not surprised how few people posting don't understand the implication of throwing the shoes. That's basic knowledge of the culture.

[Gaal]

Thousands isn't "overwhelming" as far as Iraqi protests go. Another thing to note is that it was a rally in Sadr City, which is a stronghold for the Shi'a militia of Muqtada al-Sadr known as Jaysh al-Mahdi, a group that receives financial and arms support from Iran and Iranian surrogates.

I wouldn't expect you to know that though. It's common for the uneducated to chime in supporting the popular opinion without understanding the full scope or details of what they're chiming in about. It's cool to bash Bush, so the details are irrelevant, I get it.

I'm not surprised how few people posting don't understand the implication of throwing the shoes. That's basic knowledge of the culture.

A Rokolith appears

Nevron hits Rokolith with knowledge.

Its super effective!

[PainlessDeath]

Thousands isn't "overwhelming" as far as Iraqi protests go. Another thing to note is that it was a rally in Sadr City, which is a stronghold for the Shi'a militia of Muqtada al-Sadr known as Jaysh al-Mahdi, a group that receives financial and arms support from Iran and Iranian surrogates.

I wouldn't expect you to know that though. It's common for the uneducated to chime in supporting the popular opinion without understanding the full scope or details of what they're chiming in about. It's cool to bash Bush, so the details are irrelevant, I get it.

I'm not surprised how few people posting don't understand the implication of throwing the shoes. That's basic knowledge of the culture.
It's common for those who drink heavily from the Trough of Koolaid to defend their Master. Just one question:
What, exactly, would Bush have to do for you to stop swinging from his nuts?

[DeadlyHit]

Ok who doesn't want that guy freed? We all want to chuck out shoes at bush!

[Skyborn]

It's common for those who drink heavily from the Trough of Koolaid to defend their Master. Just one question:
What, exactly, would Bush have to do for you to stop swinging from his nuts?

Refuting stupidity doesn't put you on the bushnutz bandwagon. He's right, get the fuck over it.

Bush bashing is popular cause people refuse to take responsiblity for their own actions. Most folks in the US have felt 0 impact from the war in Iraq.

Take for example many people that have lost their houses...blame the president?!?! Um, ok, how do I put this...you people are idiots. Maybe you shouldn't have tried to live in a 600K $ house when you can only afford a 150K $ house.

Bush will later be remembered as a good president. Public protest in Iraq? Wtf are people complaining about...that is fucking progress.

5 Years ago: Complain in Iraq = Dissappear, Torture, Death

Today: Complain in Iraq = International Media Attention and a Movie Deal (I'm guessing Hollywood will want to suck this dude's nutz)

[Desperado[1G]]

It's common for those who drink heavily from the Trough of Koolaid to defend their Master. Just one question:
What, exactly, would Bush have to do for you to stop swinging from his nuts?

Nothing he said leads me to believe he supports Bush

He simply debunked the retarded notion that the entirety of Iraq hates Bush

[Fro]

;2143309']Nothing he said leads me to believe he supports Bush

He simply debunked the retarded notion that the entirety of Iraq hates Bush

Do you still believe the iraq war was a good thing?

[Nevron]

It's common for those who drink heavily from the Trough of Koolaid to defend their Master. Just one question:
What, exactly, would Bush have to do for you to stop swinging from his nuts?

Try rereading the post, I wasn't defending Bush, directly nor indirectly. I was simply negating the "overwhelming" rally with a little perspective. I'm not a Bush supporter, but on that same note I don't blindly attack him either.

It's amazing that someone can't provide some insight to the situation without being insulted or assumed pro-Bush.

Refute anything I said in my previous post, I dare you.

[Desperado[1G]]

You still believe the iraq war was a good thing?

That depends, are you one of the moonbats that thinks Iraq was a better place under Saddam?

[Ankh]

I'm not surprised how few people posting don't understand the implication of throwing the shoes. That's basic knowledge of the culture.

Shoe throwing is basic knowledge of the culture?

[Skyborn]

Shoe throwing is basic knowledge of the culture?

Yes it is.

[Septus]

It's common for those who drink heavily from the Trough of Koolaid to defend their Master. Just one question:
What, exactly, would Bush have to do for you to stop swinging from his nuts?

lol

[Fro]

;2143323']That depends, are you one of the moonbats that thinks Iraq was a better place under Saddam?

Yes, in some ways anyway.

[Ankh]

Yes it is.

Flying carpets and genie lamps, that's basic knowledge of their culture. And sand.

[Desperado[1G]]

Shoe throwing is basic knowledge of the culture?

IIRC, muslims view the feet as inherently unclean. Showing your feet is improper, so you can imagine what kind of an insult it is to actually throw your shoe at someone.

[Septus]

I'm not surprised how few people posting don't understand the implication of throwing the shoes. That's basic knowledge of the culture.

As opposed to cultures where throwing a shoe at some one is a sign of respect?

Idiot.

[LordTenacious]

lol @ prisonplanet link. I don't think you guys know just how insane Alex Jones is.

[Skyborn]

Flying carpets and genie lamps, that's basic knowledge of their culture. And sand.

I thought Yuripeans were all enlightened and stuff...I thought only the US was ignorant of other cultures?!?!

[Fro]

I thought Yuripeans were all enlightened and stuff...I thought only the US was ignorant of other cultures?!?!

Dont be so ignorant of our ignorance you ignorant american.

[Ankh]

I thought Yuripeans were all enlightened and stuff...I thought only the US was ignorant of other cultures?!?!

What? Are you trying to tell me that Disney's Aladdin doesn't portray middle eastern culture properly?

Also, it's Yuropeans, asshole.

[Desperado[1G]]

ur a peon

[Nevron]

As opposed to cultures where throwing a shoe at some one is a sign of respect?

Idiot.

No, as opposed to cultures where throwing a shoe is simply throwing a fucking shoe.

Dumbass.

[Skyborn]

Dont be so ignorant of our ignorance you ignorant american.

lulz

What? Are you trying to tell me that Disney's Alladin doesn't portray middle eastern culture properly?

Also, it's Yuropeans, asshole.

Aladdin hits most of the stuff...except the whole, dudes kissing each other thing.

And you can't misspell Aladdin and then make fun of me for misspelling a word I was intentionally misspelling.

[Ankh]

And you can't misspell Aladdin and then make fun of me for misspelling a word I was intentionally misspelling.

I edited before you posted! Also, I wasn't making fun of you, which should have been pretty obvious.

[Septus]

No, as opposed to cultures where throwing a shoe is simply throwing a fucking shoe.

Dumbass.

Yes because Americans throw shoes at people just for the fuck of it.

[Desperado[1G]]

Yes because Americans throw shoes at people just for the fuck of it.

As usual, you lost before you even began.

Just stop.

[palo god]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/iraq-cheers-reporter-for-bush-shoe-attack.html


made my day!

edit: damn it too late. already posted my bad.

"Iraqi television responded by demanding the immediate release of the al-Baghdadia correspondent and called on authorities to respect the right of the detained in exercising “freedom of expression”"

I never knew assault was considered freedom of expression.:lmao:

[Fro]

;2143409']As usual, you lost before you even began.

Just stop.

Well atleast he didn't pull a tactical retreat like you.

"Iraqi television responded by demanding the immediate release of the al-Baghdadia correspondent and called on authorities to respect the right of the detained in exercising “freedom of expression”"

I never knew assault was considered freedom of expression.:rolleyes: He missed...

[Nevron]

Yes because Americans throw shoes at people just for the fuck of it.

You obviously aren't grasping it.

I made a comment as to what throwing the shoe implies in that culture. Anywhere else the implication would be that the mother fucker didn't have anything else to throw.

[Skyborn]

I edited before you posted! Also, I wasn't making fun of you, which should have been pretty obvious.

Your post made me cry, I thought you were being mean to me on teh internets, I'm sorry, I have to take a break and listen to good charlotte for a few minutes while I put on my black fingernail polish, it always calms me down.

[Septus]

;2143409']As usual, you lost before you even began.

Just stop.

When will you realize you're just as stupid as the group-think fanatics *you* despise (liberals in your case).

It's just so sad man.

[hardboiled]

I guess Iraqis don't understand the concept "assault" and how can it be illegal.

[Fro]

Lol he didn't assault Bush.

[palo god]

Lol he didn't assault Bush.

I would consider throwing shoes at someone assault.

[Septus]

You obviously aren't grasping it.

I made a comment as to what throwing the shoe implies in that culture. Anywhere else the implication would be that the mother fucker didn't have anything else to throw.

He could have thrown his chair. :D

[Desperado[1G]]

yes, that was assault

[Fro]

I would consider throwing shoes at someone assault.

Then your a massive pussy. If i through a punch at someone and missed, would i have assaulted him?

[Carl Ragadamn]

I would consider throwing shoes at someone assault.

So would the Secret Service, and they would have "forcibly removed" the reporter, had Bush not told them to back off.

[Septus]

Then your a massive pussy. If i through a punch at someone and missed, would i have assaulted him?

Actually I think that is the prime differentiation between assault and battery.

[Skyborn]

Then your a massive pussy. If i through a punch at someone and missed, would i have assaulted him?

They're just talking legal definitions...I don't think there is "attempted assault"

Not sure...

[hardboiled]

Then your a massive pussy. If i through a punch at someone and missed, would i have assaulted him?

A crime is a crime even if you fail at it.

[palo god]

Then your a massive pussy. If i through a punch at someone and missed, would i have assaulted him?

In a legal court it would be considered assault, and you’re french you really shouldn’t be calling anyone a pussy.

[Kaznar Ammur]

It was uncalled for. It is a fact that Bush was there as an elected representative of the people of the United States of America. The journalist should have known that to throw the shoes at the individual that represents them is to also insult the people he represents. Whether he still did it intentionally I don't know.

I am British but feel let down that blind America bashing is a popular pastime. Sure it has happened through the ages with all superpowers, but still I don't agree with it. I did not support Bush, originally because of Kyoto and his campaign donations, but the scapegoat thing has gone way out of hand.

[Fro]

Actually I think that is the prime differentiation between assault and battery.

It seems your right if we are talking about in the US or England and wales....

In a legal court it would be considered assault, and you’re french you really shouldn’t be calling anyone a pussy.

Only in some.

[Ankh]

I think bumping into people on the street qualifies as assault in the US.

[hardboiled]

It was uncalled for. It is a fact that Bush was there as an elected representative of the people of the United States of America. The journalist should have known that to throw the shoes at the individual that represents them is to also insult the people he represents. Whether he still did it intentionally I don't know.

I am British but feel let down that blind America bashing is a popular pastime. Sure it has happened through the ages with all superpowers, but still I don't agree with it. I did not support Bush, originally because of Kyoto and his campaign donations, but the scapegoat thing has gone way out of hand.

O rly?


I think bumping into people on the street qualifies for assault in the US.

I think buying a gun qualifies for murder in Norway.

[Fro]

I think bumping into people on the street qualifies for assault in the US.


Exactly but regardless of legal definition throwing shoes at someone and missing is hardly a serious crime especialy as when as it was a sign of protest.

[Nevron]

He could have thrown his chair. :D

He could have, but I just watched the video again and he doesn't seem to have one, yet everyone around him does. No wonder he was so pissed and threw his shoes.

The real translation of what he was saying was probably, "Fuck you, Bush ..you come here for oil and you take chairs. You let everyone else sit in chairs and make me sit on this floor, fuck you."

[Septus]

He could have, but I just watched the video again and he doesn't seem to have one, yet everyone around him does. No wonder he was so pissed and threw his shoes.

The real translation of what he was saying was probably, "Fuck you, Bush ..you come here for oil and you take chairs. You let everyone else sit in chairs and make me sit on this floor, fuck you."

lol

[Falokis]

;2143323']That depends, are you one of the moonbats that thinks Iraq was a better place under Saddam?I liked Saddam. He did what needed to be done to keep that piece of shit country together. And he did it with style. I still miss his Minister of Information, that guy ruled.

[mantoe]

You are all missing the main point here.... watch that video...

Pres. Bush knows some secret kung fu moves. He dodged the shit out of that shoe. Watch a vid with the slowmotion version, that dude is fast. Mucho respect for him on that. The shoe thrower is lucky that Bush didn't unleash his true powers on his ass.

[LordTenacious]

The minister of information was fucking awesome and hilarious. Whatever happened to him?

[Desperado[1G]]

It was uncalled for. It is a fact that Bush was there as an elected representative of the people of the United States of America. The journalist should have known that to throw the shoes at the individual that represents them is to also insult the people he represents. Whether he still did it intentionally I don't know.

I am British but feel let down that blind America bashing is a popular pastime. Sure it has happened through the ages with all superpowers, but still I don't agree with it. I did not support Bush, originally because of Kyoto and his campaign donations, but the scapegoat thing has gone way out of hand.

Kyoto would not just cripple our economy, but would literally destroy the US military as our machines and weaponry would require 95% overhaul of engines, parts, recreated fuel mixtures and formulas. In the middle of a war no less.

Any sane US president would have rejected that proposition. Nevermind the fact that tying ourselves down to an agreement with no benefit to ourselves makes absolutely no sense to begin with.

[Septus]

I liked Saddam. He did what needed to be done to keep that piece of shit country together. And he did it with style. I still miss his Minister of Information, that guy ruled.

I like how when Saddam does horrible shit, he's an asshole, but when the US does the exact same thing it's for the greater good.

[LordTenacious]

I don't remember the US lobbing mustard gas at the Kurds.

I must not be reading enough prisonplanet.

[Ababoba]

;2143323']That depends, are you one of the moonbats that thinks Iraq was a better place under Saddam?

Which brings us to an another question, why care about Iraq then? Why not depose the dictators in all the African countries too?

[Septus]

;2143524']
Any sane US president would have rejected that proposition. Nevermind the fact that tying ourselves down to an agreement with no benefit to ourselves makes absolutely no sense to begin with.

Yet he supports NAFTA, the WTO, and largely UNequal trade with China.

[Septus]

I don't remember the US lobbing mustard gas at the Kurds.

I must not be reading enough prisonplanet.

the US sold far worse chemical weapons technology to people who would use it (on us, lol).

We've tortured and imprisoned people without evidence, etc.

[Ragnika]

Does not one of you appreciate the fact that this man relinquished his frustrations towards Bush with his shoe?

Irregardless for the reason of the shoe throwing, this man did something that nobody else has had the balls to do in a long time - stand up for himself and express his frustration towards somebody he thinks warranted repercussion.

That's much more than I can say about somebody who sits on the internet pissing and moaning about the problems of today.

He had a shoe thrown at him. A shoe! Assault? Pfft! What's the saying around here?

Oh yeah, boo-fuckity-hoo.

[Zyrex]

Yeah, time was they'd call Bush a dodge hacker.

Lawl, just wait and see for all the festering conspiracy's to show up and claim Bush as an hidden ninja turtle from a planet so called Neburi ...

*sigh*

[Desperado[1G]]

Which brings us to an another question, why care about Iraq then? Why not depose the dictators in all the African countries too?

Have you seen what the kind of reaction we've gotten by staying in Iraq to help them rebuild?

Yea, we didn't go in with the primary intent to help the Iraqi people. We were there because the world thought Saddam was hiding weapons.

I know everyone here loves to profess about how Bush is a blood thirsty warmonger that only cares about oil, but let's not forget what everyone else in the world was thinking at the time;

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."


Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."


Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."


French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem — the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."


President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly — unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . " Clinton, July 2003: " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."


Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."


Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush — he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country." Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."


Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously — and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."


Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."


Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 2002: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."


So now we're in the process of actually helping the people there. If we took the easy route out, and simply left Iraq in a state of ruin after removing the governing body, I would probably agree with some of the anti-war sentiment, but that isn't the case, and I wish people would stop stating that it is. I know none of you will ever entertain that notion, and I know you guys love to hate the US, and love to throw all of the world's problems in Bush's lap, but let's exercise a bit of maturity and sense here.

Look on the bright side, hopefully when all is said and done, and Iraq is a functional democracy, your beloved Lord Obama can take full credit for the victory there.

[DocGonzo]

Then your a massive pussy. If i through a punch at someone and missed, would i have assaulted him?

yes...

hitting him would be battery

[hardboiled]

Which brings us to an another question, why care about Iraq then? Why not depose the dictators in all the African countries too?

None of them are any threat to US or its allies or its interests.

[Fro]

yes...

hitting him would be battery

yeh thats been said and we've moved on. Keep up old man.

Have you seen what the kind of reaction we've gotten by staying in Iraq to help them rebuild?

Yea, we didn't go in with the primary intent to help the Iraqi people. We were there because the world thought Saddam was hiding weapons.

I know everyone here loves to profess about how Bush is a blood thirsty warmonger that only cares about oil, but let's not forget what everyone else in the world was thinking at the time;

So now we're in the process of actually helping the people there. If we took the easy route out, and simply left Iraq in a state of ruin after removing the governing body, I would probably agree with some of the anti-war sentiment, but that isn't the case, and I wish people would stop stating that it is. I know none of you will ever entertain that notion, and I know you guys love to hate the US, and love to throw all of the world's problems in Bush's lap, but let's exercise a bit of maturity and sense here.
Look on the bright side, hopefully when all is said and done, and Iraq is a functional democracy, your beloved Lord Obama can take full credit for the victory there.

I dont think a proper democracy would be able to hold iraq together. I agree leaving now would be wrong but we should of never gone in all guns blazing in the first place. And whos fault is that? The american governements mainly. The iraq war was wrong since the outcome has already left to a million iraqis (by some estimates) being killed and many more homeless.

[Skyborn]

Which brings us to an another question, why care about Iraq then? Why not depose the dictators in all the African countries too?

That argument is so fucking played out, come up with something new already.

The short answer to your stupid ass question is that the US has absolutely nothing to gain by sending troops into Africa. The place makes the Middle East look like fucking Hello Kitty: The Theme Park.

But on a side note the US sends more monetary, food, and medical aid to Africa than anyone else. So....fuck off.

[Sabbathius]

I turned on the news this morning, and I have to say, as much as I dislike Bush and what he did, I was impressed at how well he dodged the first shoe. What surprised me is that the guy tossed both shoes before secret service sat on top of him, pretty shoddy.

EDIT: Ah, I retract the previous statement about Bush, and redouble the statement about the secret service. The guy actually yelled out something before he tossed the shoe, that was plenty of warning, when I watched it in the morning I had the TV muted so I wouldn't wake everyone up. And if he yelled, then threw one shoe and another, good god, they should have been on him like white on bread. If Bush was just starting his term in office, I would have been worried that this was a test of the response time of the secret service and to find the weak ones in the pack.

[Reckin Crew]

I just got to page 2 and i must say...this thread delivers!

[DocGonzo]

yeh thats been said and we've moved on. Keep up old man.



bah...bite meh, junior...

i'm in Maine, and with so many lines down, there's wicked bad lag, even on my work computer...all the posts between me and what i quoted weren't there when i hit enter

so, bite meh and ... geddoff mah bridge!

[Falokis]

the US sold far worse chemical weapons technology to people who would use it (on us, lol).

We've tortured and imprisoned people without evidence, etc.I'm tired of this shit. Water boarding is to torture as a fart is to the green apple splatters.

[Tongue]

I doubt you could find many Iraqis anywhere in Iraqi where this didn't bring a smile to their face.

[Desperado[1G]]

I admit, I lol'd

Partly because some guy decided to throw his shoes at someone, and partly because I had no idea GWB had such good reflexes

[Nafelos]

Thousands isn't "overwhelming" as far as Iraqi protests go. Another thing to note is that it was a rally in Sadr City, which is a stronghold for the Shi'a militia of Muqtada al-Sadr known as Jaysh al-Mahdi, a group that receives financial and arms support from Iran and Iranian surrogates.

I wouldn't expect you to know that though. It's common for the uneducated to chime in supporting the popular opinion without understanding the full scope or details of what they're chiming in about. It's cool to bash Bush, so the details are irrelevant, I get it.

I'm not surprised how few people posting don't understand the implication of throwing the shoes. That's basic knowledge of the culture.

This.

[Nafelos]

None of them are any threat to US or its allies or its interests.

This.

[Skyborn]

This.

Wow, impressive...you double posted and both are worthless...its Worthless Squared!

[pookums]

As opposed to cultures where throwing a shoe at some one is a sign of respect?

Idiot.

I lol'ed. A lot.

[Ziegler]

He missed...

So lee Harvey Oswald was just expressing his freedom of speech...and you're allowed I guess as long as you dont get your point across...harvey made the mistake of actually hitting his target...:rolleyes:

Then your a massive pussy. If i through a punch at someone and missed, would i have assaulted him?

Well depends...over here...you'd be dead for being french and ignorant enough to start a fist fight with gun carrier.

I did not support Bush, originally because of Kyoto and his campaign donations, but the scapegoat thing has gone way out of hand.
Nah...just you wait...he'll be responsible for everything that goes bad on Obama's watch too.

Exactly but regardless of legal definition throwing shoes at someone and missing is hardly a serious crime especialy as when as it was a sign of protest.
Protesting is yelling, making poster boards, and lots of other things...but I am pretty sure violent actions..qualify as crimes.

UNequal trade with China

Yeah...he should be castrated for this, and then hung from the whitehouse steps for allowing us to be invaded by Mexico.
Does not one of you appreciate the fact that this man relinquished his frustrations towards Bush with his shoe?


He had a shoe thrown at him. A shoe! Assault? Pfft! What's the saying around here?
No...he's a dumbass that missed and did nothing to change anything.

[Nafelos]

Wow, impressive...you double posted and both are worthless...its Worthless Squared!

Troll on, sir!

[Skyborn]

Troll on, sir!

You need some lessons...thats not trolling.

[Fro]

So lee Harvey Oswald was just expressing his freedom of speech...and you're allowed I guess as long as you dont get your point across...harvey made the mistake of actually hitting his target...:rolleyes:

Yeh, shooting at someone with a high powered rifle and throwing your shoe at then are completely the same.

Well depends...over here...you'd be dead for being french and ignorant enough to start a fist fight with gun carrier.

Well actualy i wouldn't miss and i wouldn't give you the chance to draw your gun either but who realy cares???

Protesting is yelling, making poster boards, and lots of other things...but I am pretty sure violent actions..qualify as crimes.
No i'm pretty sure he was still protesting. Prostesting and commiting a crime are not mutualy exclusive. My point was that his "crime" was hardly a serious one.

Troll on, sir!

No seriously, stop it.

[DocGonzo]

it truly boggles my Mind that there are still some hardcore neocon adherents that worship the Shrub and his cronies even after all that has gone on in the last 8 years...

Barnum was a genius, imo

[Titus Ultor]

Bush will later be remembered as a good president.

I seriously lol'd.

There is nothing good about the Bush Presidency. No one will ever remember anything "good" about him. How anyone can, for a second, believe that Bush has done well in any category is beyond me. His war has killed well over a million people. He has curtailed civil rights where-ever possible, and has attempted to do even more (see Total Information) before Congress woke up. We don't even know the full extent of Cheney's craziness, which already includes actively subverting the historic interpretation of the Constitution to strengthen the executive branch and quite possibly outing an active CIA agent for political revenge.

Really, I'm just going to accept that you mean that other Presidents after him will be so awful that he seemed tamed and goodly by comparison. That's the only conceivable way that statement makes sense.

[Kusghuul]

Thousands isn't "overwhelming" as far as Iraqi protests go. Another thing to note is that it was a rally in Sadr City, which is a stronghold for the Shi'a militia of Muqtada al-Sadr known as Jaysh al-Mahdi, a group that receives financial and arms support from Iran and Iranian surrogates.

What's the difference between them and iraqis receiving financial and arms support from the U.S. and the West?

[Kaznar Ammur]

What's the difference between them and iraqis receiving financial and arms support from the U.S. and the West?

One is democratically elected and relatively internationally recognised which is *debatably* trying to abide by international law and has a good relationship with much of the world including the west. The other is led by an authoritarian religious regime with a private militia, possibly backed by Iran, which does not seem to have a leash on some of its followers or worse still, endorses actions including murder, torture, child soldiers etc to achieve a fundamentalist set of goals. This includes significant changes to the social-economic foundations to foster a theocratic autonomous area whereby adherence to ultra conservative laws is enforced, and religious expressions, sexual expression, democratic expression etc is manipulated and curtailed, with breaches resulting in severe consequences...you've all prob seen examples. Externally it's probable they will end up pushing their ideological beliefs abroad leading to increased grief in areas like Lebanon, Kosovo etc.

It's a f****d up situation, but what would you have us do? What's the disengagement plan that you would put into place? What would be the results?

[Murnaz]

This may be me being a giant pussy, but was anyone else impressed that Bush didn't totally lose it and run out of the room when the guy started beaming shit at him?

If I am an American in Iraq-let alone President Bush-and I see some pissed off looking local send something wizzing past my face, circumstances are not going to allow me to believe that the object was anything but a grenade or bomb.

I know the secret service all but cavity searches everyone in the room before hand, but fuck ups happen, and I would be on edge just being there in the first place. Anyone else thinking Bush must be high as a kite pretty much 24/7 now?

[Tyler]

cat like reflexes of our president amaze me.

who throws a shoe? really?

[Maas]

Bush obviously plays DFO because you can't dodge shoes in WoW.

[Ankh]

Bush obviously plays DFO because you can't dodge shoes in WoW.

Compelling argument.

[Camthylion]

lmao I dont hate Bush but I did find this very funny... Again I doubt that Bush even cares that anyone dislikes them he is of high society and doesn't care for the little people. :rolleyes:

[AngusFinch]

;2143323']That depends, are you one of the moonbats that thinks Iraq was a better place under Saddam?

Moonbats? The New Iraqi government has been staging mass executions; the country has been submerged in war and chaos for over half a decade; hundreds of thousands have died; civil and legal rights have gone down the toilet, virtually non-existent.

Saddam terribly abused his power at times and for that he deserved removal, but the country was still stable under him. To think anything other than it being a better place under him is absolute ignorance. Iraq may never recover.

[Lioness]

What the fuck?

What a waste of perfectly good shoes.

[Ziegler]

Saddam terribly abused his power at times and for that he deserved removal, but the country was still stable under him. To think anything other than it being a better place under him is absolute ignorance. Iraq may never recover.


THey have the chance to change and make their country a better place....but they wont. Cause they havent been able to do it in recorded history. THis was probalby the biggest issue with going to Iraq....even if we free them, they are too fuckin stupid to quit killing each other and get along. If you take out on dictator, another one will just take his place. Once Obama pulls out of Iraq, you'll probably see another sadaam like leader take his place before the end of Obama's term.

[Barokk]

Who wouldn't? [cheer]

[Barokk]

THey have the chance to change and make their country a better place....but they wont. Cause they havent been able to do it in recorded history. THis was probalby the biggest issue with going to Iraq....even if we free them, they are too fuckin stupid to quit killing each other and get along. If you take out on dictator, another one will just take his place. Once Obama pulls out of Iraq, you'll probably see another sadaam like leader take his place before the end of Obama's term.

And why is that? Because you created the instability, by engaging in an illegal war, in the first place.

Sure, you may very well believe you've done the just thing in Iraq. The fact is you went to war illegally on false/fabricated evidence, in the process killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civillians. Your militray doesn't even want to keep count of this, breaking internation rules of warfare; so this is done by private organizations. Without the false evidence, you would have no support for the war by the UN in the first place.

Then, ofc, comes the justification which does not equal truth.

Edit:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
90-98000 dead so far.

Btw, after the Nürnberg trials it was established that not only does the aggressor in war have the responsibility for direct casualities resulting from their use of force. It also need to take responsibility for creating unrest/instability in a region, and with it the casualties that follows....

[Nevron]

in the process killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civillians.

I'm not gonna bother with anything else in your post, but don't sit there and state that the military is killing thousands upon thousands of civilians and implying some cover-up as to the count. Most of the civilian casualties are a direct result of sectarianism and attacks on Coalition Forces.

Our rules of engagement are strict.

[Kusghuul]

Our rules of engagement are strict.

Doesn't help if they're not followed.

[Barokk]

I'm not gonna bother with anything else in your post, but don't sit there and state that the military is killing thousands upon thousands of civilians and implying some cover-up as to the count. Most of the civilian casualties are a direct result of sectarianism and attacks on Coalition Forces.

Our rules of engagement are strict.

Read my edit... you're still responsible... and why wouldn't you be? You created the instability which results in people dead.

That said, it's a fact that 90% of people killed in modern warfare are civilians. Going by the total military casualties, you could easily do some math yourself regarding direct civilan casualties. However I did provide a link for this in my edit.

Stop hiding your collective head in the soil. It would fit your nation much better, if you took the consequences like a real man....

Oh, and I'm not implying a cover up. It's just a stated fact from the US military. They're not interested in keeping count. You seem to imply in your post that the military, in a war, are not killing people. That's preposterous.


Edit:
http://www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm

On modern warfare

Civilian fatalities in wartime have climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century ... to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s.

[Nevron]

Doesn't help if they're not followed.

What a profound statement, think of it by yourself?

Read my edit... you're still responsible... and why wouldn't you be? You created the instability which results in people dead.

That said, it's a fact that 90% of people killed in modern warfare are civilians. Going by the total military casualties, you could easily do some math yourself regarding direct civilan casualties. However I did provide a link for this in my edit.

Stop hiding your collective head in the soil. It would fit your nation much better, if you took the consequences like a real man....

So when a Sunni decides he wants to go to a Shi'ite shrine and blow up hundreds of civilians, that goes on the US kill tally? That isn't a very accurate portrayal of events, is it?

What's going on is sectarianism being spurred on in a strategic sense so douchebags like you will buy into the anti-American sentiment and jump on the good ole bandwagon that everything over there is our fault. It's the same rationale used in ramping up attacks corresponding to US elections or any other significant event that would impact public opinion.

Just because you barge into my house doesn't mean I'm justified in going next door and killing my neighbor.

As far as your bodycount link goes, I've seen it before, and while the number may be accurate, one would have to be outright retarded to state or even imply that even a significant number of those are a direct result of US arms. I was an intelligence analyst over there, and I worked with people who were responsible for tracking civilian casualties and the cause. You and others like you who take statistics at face value would be completely dumbfounded by information and statistics that don't have to go through a media buffer, or aren't just thrown up as a giant number like a billboard without any relevant break-downs.

You don't care though, you just want to ignore everything and just throw blame.

Oh, and I'm not implying a cover up. It's just a stated fact from the US military. They're not interested in keeping count. You seem to imply in your post that the military, in a war, are not killing people. That's preposterous.


I didn't imply that we aren't killing people, that's ludicrous that you'd even draw that implication from what I said.

As far as your link to the 90% statistic, it's referencing wars of the 1990s. The current war in Iraq didn't start until 2003, so you might want to find a statistic a little more relevant and reflective of current events.

[Barokk]

Calling me a douchebag and a retard don't help you in making a valid point. It just goes to show your normal level of argumentation.


BTW, read my edit on modern warfare.


IIRC you were among the winning party after WW2 :rolleyes:

Btw, after the Nürnberg trials it was established that not only does the aggressor in war have the responsibility for direct casualities resulting from their use of force. It also need to take responsibility for creating unrest/instability in a region, and with it the casualties that follows....

There was no surge under Saddam.

I do believe the site is seperating between direct casualties, and casualties resulting from other parties. The point is though that you're still responsible. Of course you are....

I've seen your argumentation before. It's classical right wing agenda, disregarding neutral facts. Then again "neutrailty" is a bad word among your kind....

I've stated my view, I'm done.


As far as your link to the 90% statistic, it's referencing wars of the 1990s. The current war in Iraq didn't start until 2003, so you might want to find a statistic a little more relevant and reflective of current events.

heh, it's ludicrous of you to think that things have changed dramatically. Do a google search if you don't belive me.

Civilian fatalities in wartime climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century, to 15 per cent during World War I, to 65 per cent by the end of World War II, to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s.


I was an intelligence analyst over there, and I worked with people who were responsible for tracking civilian casualties and the cause

So far I've provided more facts than you have as a so called intelligence analyst.

[Nevron]

Calling me a douchebag and a retard don't help you in making a valid point. It just goes to show your normal level of argumentation.


BTW, read my edit on modern warfare.


IIRC you were among the winning party after WW2 :rolleyes:



There was no surge under Saddam.

I do believe the site is seperating between direct casualties, and casualties resulting from other parties. The point is though that you're still responsible. Of course you are....

I've seen your argumentation before. It's classical right wing agenda, disregarding neutral facts. Then again "neutrailty" is a bad word among your kind....

I've stated my view, I'm done.

I called you a douchebag, but I didn't call you retarded. I read your modern warfare link, check previous post.

You're right, there was no sectarian surge under Saddam. Wanna know why? Because he'd gas them. He gased the Kurds to the north and drained the marshes of the Shi'ites in southern Iraq. Besides that, the Iran-Iraq war had a part in unifying Iraq and keeping the sectarianism at bay.

I see you've relegated to the default "right wing" label to pin on anyone that disagrees with you. Sorry, but I'm not a republican so you're going to have to save that one for someone else.

heh, it's ludicrous of you to think that things have changed dramatically. Do a google search if you don't belive me.

So far I've provided more facts (yes, I'm not about an agenda) than you have as a so called intelligence analyst.

I never said that things have changed dramatically, but your link still doesn't represent current events. You don't just quote something and say, "well it's close enough so just take it as fact even if it's not up to date". My main issue is that you're just using that 90% statistic for Iraq and then on top of that making it out to be entirely at the hands of the US when sectarian violence is the attributing factor for MOST of it.

You've provided more irrelevant statistics, that's for sure. I can't tell you anything specific of what I learned over there as far as numbers go and specifics because as an intelligence analyst I worked in a classified environment and the information handled on the systems I used is classified. I know that seems a little cliche, but that's just how it is.

[Barokk]

Saddam beeig Saddam. My point still stand. You can't justify murder with murder. You're still responsible for [I]your actions, and the consequences that follow.


I never said that things have changed dramatically, but your link still doesn't represent current events. You don't just quote something and say, "well it's close enough so just take it as fact even if it's not up to date". My main issue is that you're just using that 90% statistic for Iraq and then on top of that making it out to be entirely at the hands of the US when sectarian violence is the attributing factor for MOST of it.

As i said, do a google search if you don't believe me. The civilian casualties have been steadily rising since the 1900's.

You're the sole cause for the instabilty of the region. The cause for the sectarian violence is multi-faceted I'm sure, the instability beeing one... If you stir the water, you're responsible for anyone drowning. That doesn't mean you pushed them under, but you see the point...

[Fro]

THey have the chance to change and make their country a better place....but they wont. Cause they havent been able to do it in recorded history. THis was probalby the biggest issue with going to Iraq....even if we free them, they are too fuckin stupid to quit killing each other and get along. If you take out on dictator, another one will just take his place. Once Obama pulls out of Iraq, you'll probably see another sadaam like leader take his place before the end of Obama's term.

We put saddam in power in the first place and then usedh im to fight our wars. Wen ever went into iraq to "free its people".

[Ziegler]

And why is that? Because you created the instability, by engaging in an illegal war, in the first place.

Sure, you may very well believe you've done the just thing in Iraq. The fact is you went to war illegally on false/fabricated evidence, in the process killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civillians. Your militray doesn't even want to keep count of this, breaking internation rules of warfare; so this is done by private organizations. Without the false evidence, you would have no support for the war by the UN in the first place.

Then, ofc, comes the justification which does not equal truth.

Edit:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
90-98000 dead so far.

Btw, after the Nürnberg trials it was established that not only does the aggressor in war have the responsibility for direct casualities resulting from their use of force. It also need to take responsibility for creating unrest/instability in a region, and with it the casualties that follows....

Oh get over it. We were pissed off, sadaam had been running his fucking nmouth for 10 years, tried to assissinate Bush Sr, and Jr fucked his whole country up for it. You cna whine and bitch about it being illegal and unfounded all you want...it should just go to show you how little the UN is without the backing of the US. The rest of the world didnt do shit but stomp their feet and whine and moan..just as expected. It was right to remove Sadaam, it was wrong to have any kind of faith in muslims to govern themselves responsibly. We should have blown the country to bits...and then left and told them...get yer shit together and dont make us have to come back because some stupid leader of yours doesnt know when to STFU.

I may not care for bush, but by god, I do like the bastard for telling the rest of the world to fuck off. And I laugh at you bitches for taking it and not doing a damn thing to stop us.

[Fro]

Oh get over it. We were pissed off, sadaam had been running his fucking nmouth for 10 years, tried to assissinate Bush Sr, and Jr fucked his whole country up for it. You cna whine and bitch about it being illegal and unfounded all you want...it should just go to show you how little the UN is without the backing of the US. The rest of the world didnt do shit but stomp their feet and whine and moan..just as expected. It was right to remove Sadaam, it was wrong to have any kind of faith in muslims to govern themselves responsibly. We should have blown the country to bits...and then left and told them...get yer shit together and dont make us have to come back because some stupid leader of yours doesnt know when to STFU.

I may not care for bush, but by god, I do like the bastard for telling the rest of the world to fuck off. And I laugh at you bitches for taking it and not doing a damn thing to stop us.
Morons like you give americans a bad name.

[Ziegler]

We put saddam in power in the first place and then usedh im to fight our wars. Wen ever went into iraq to "free its people".

tired tired argument. Yeah we put him there because we took him at his word to be our ally. Just as with all muslims, he lied to the infidels to get something from them(us) as allah tells them it is ok to lie and decieve infidels.


If only Bush Sr had told the international community to fuck off and went ahead into Iraq the first time and removed him, this wouldnt be a discussion. But because Sr actually took into consideration the butthurt pussy feelings of the rest of the world...we left him there to thumb his nose and mock the international community for a decade longer.

[Ziegler]

Morons like you give americans a bad name.

bitches like you is why we still laugh at the french.

[Fro]

tired tired argument. Yeah we put him there because we took him at his word to be our ally. Just as with all muslims, he lied to the infidels to get something from them(us) as allah tells them it is ok to lie and decieve infidels.

No you put him in power because he didn't like extreme religous movements like the iranainas and you used him to fight them (irony since your bangin on about the evil muslims). Also i dont like your racist comments because you act as if white christians never lie? Everyone lies, *** you should know that since your governement lies to you so much.

If only Bush Sr had told the international community to fuck off and went ahead into Iraq the first time and removed him, this wouldnt be a discussion. But because Sr actually took into consideration the butthurt pussy feelings of the rest of the world...we left him there to thumb his nose and mock the international community for a decade longer.

Alot of the international community went into iraq with the U.S the first time. If he was taken out of pwoer we would of had the mess we currently have.

bitches like you is why we still laugh at the french.

Irony.

[Barokk]

Oh get over it. We were pissed off, sadaam had been running his fucking nmouth for 10 years, tried to assissinate Bush Sr, and Jr fucked his whole country up for it. You cna whine and bitch about it being illegal and unfounded all you want...it should just go to show you how little the UN is without the backing of the US. The rest of the world didnt do shit but stomp their feet and whine and moan..just as expected. It was right to remove Sadaam, it was wrong to have any kind of faith in muslims to govern themselves responsibly. We should have blown the country to bits...and then left and told them...get yer shit together and dont make us have to come back because some stupid leader of yours doesnt know when to STFU.

I may not care for bush, but by god, I do like the bastard for telling the rest of the world to fuck off. And I laugh at you bitches for taking it and not doing a damn thing to stop us.

This speaks for itself. :rolleyes:

[Barokk]

No you put him [Saddam] in power because he didn't like extreme religous movements like the iranainas and you used him to fight them

Actually, I saw a recent interview with a senior polititial analyst who claim that the current Iraqi leader is more friendly towards Iran than Saddam ever would have.

I find that quite interesting, might be worth looking deeper into.

[Nevron]

Actually, I saw a recent interview with a senior polititial analyst who claim that the current Iraqi leader (put there by the americans) is more friendly towards Iran than Saddam ever could have been.

I find that quite interesting, might be worth looking deeper into.

There's an obvious reason for that, Saddam was Sunni and Maliki is Shi'a.

[Barokk]

Yes, you're right about that.