Statement by man who threw shoe at Bush on why he did

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: spittledip
He makes it sound like everyone in Iraq was all lovey-dovey with each other before the US invaded.

While they were all under the threat of terror from Saddam, they *were* a lot more 'lovey dovey' with one another before the US invasion.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: chucky2
untable w/o going on a USistheworstandBush&Comademestubmytoeitsalltheirfault bender. The problem is the Iraqi's first, Iran and contributing destabilizing factions second, and third enablers such as yourself that give credence to the first 2 pushing the blame anywhere but themselves. A far far distant number is US forces racking up the death toll.

.

Hahahahahh, wow. That's like hearing a wifebeater give reasons for why he kicked his wife down the stairs.
"I only hit her because she made me to, her friends didn't respect me and someone called me a bad name."

Well, I'm glad you finally got that in this case, the "wife beaters" are the Iraqi's themselves, and the "wife" is the shoe thrower. Add in the Iranians and other purposefully destabilizing forces (AQI, jihadists, etc) as the wife beaters co-dysfunctional brother telling his kin he needs to beat that b1tch into submission. Instead of throwing the wife down the stairs though, it's suicide bombing's, IED's, retribution killings, etc.

I'm glad you've come around to Reality now...

Chuck

When the point goes sailing over your head, do you wave to it or wonder what the wooshing sound was.
For those not keeping up, remember, its the Iraqi's fault that we invaded and killed thousands of them and destabilized the country, not ours. Why is that? Because a lot of leftists made mean comments about our military whenever they shot civilians.

On other news: Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) proves the mindset of Republicans in a fantastic way.
Rohrabacher to Iraqis: Be More Grateful!

Then Rohrabacher opened his mouth.

"I have never heard one word of gratitude from the Iraqi people about the 4,300 Americans who lost their lives," he exclaimed.

"We went to Iraq to try and free your people and now we're being blamed for sectarian violence," he said. "Don't blame us because that type of bloodlust exists in your society."

A defiant Mutlaq responded, "You were the ones who pushed your troops. We did not invite you."

It was at this point that an exasperated Rohrabacher threw up his hands and stormed out of the room.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spittledip
He makes it sound like everyone in Iraq was all lovey-dovey with each other before the US invaded.

While they were all under the threat of terror from Saddam, they *were* a lot more 'lovey dovey' with one another before the US invasion.

So you mean to say that under threat of death or traumatic punishment is the only way those people could get along? They really haven't lost much then in this case.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spittledip
He makes it sound like everyone in Iraq was all lovey-dovey with each other before the US invaded.

While they were all under the threat of terror from Saddam, they *were* a lot more 'lovey dovey' with one another before the US invasion.

So you mean to say that under threat of death or traumatic punishment is the only way those people could get along? They really haven't lost much then in this case.

The history is a bit much for you IMO. For what it's worth, you should read a book, but my understanding is that Iraq was formed when England - involving Winston Churchill - set up the nation intentionally combining hostile groups, because as the English well knew, a great way to dominate a region was to 'divide and conquer'.

It's not that Saddam's repression was necessary to the later 'lovey dovey' that had developed, but it had and it existed under his repression.

Regardless, you made a statement, it was corrected, and more information awaits you at your local bookstore if you care to get informed at all before you post more on this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The above post by Craig is correct. Iraq was cobbled together to keep the people at each other's throats. In the end, the Brits called it a democracy and left it to the ruthless.

Saddam was an SOB, no question about it, but after he got his ass handed to him in the Gulf War, he was a paper tiger. Still no charmer, but no real threat internationally. Why Bush effectively abandoned his WOT by engaging in a token effort in Afghanistan and concentrating on Iraq is a matter of conjecture, but there is no real doubt that there was a desire to invade that was not warranted by any real threat.

Since Bush and his associates didn't really care about the internal dynamics (or much else) in Iraq, they were completely overwhelmed by the natural consequences of the resulting power vacuum. Grudges which had been held in check suddenly had nothing to hold them back. Yes, Iraqis did kill each other, but that was as predictable as the results of dropping off a bunch of inner city black kids at a drunken Klan rally. "Oh we didn't hurt them". No, but the feeble minded plot to get one man was responsible nevertheless.

Now as far as this guy, I don't know if he was tortured or not. If I toss a shoe at Obama, I ought to expect spending some time in a cell cooling my unshod heel, but I sure as hell don't warrant being tortured. Neither did he.

A problem I have with the Neocon mentality is the relative morality they demonstrate.
"We're good because we aren't as bad as the last guy". "Yeah we tortured him, but hey, we didn't kill him. That makes it ok".

Well, there was this guy some may remember, Idi Amin. He had a nasty habit of eating his enemies and occasionally one of their family members. So "logically" speaking Saddam was a good guy because he didn't eat (to my knowledge at least) his opposition, so we went to war with a saint. BS.

Amin did evil because he did, Saddam did evil because of what he did and there is NO excuse to torture someone like this because it's evil. Being a lesser demon isn't all that much to brag about.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corn
Obviously the shoe thrower is a racist for interrupting the President during a speech.

You know this shit is as tired as your ass

 

[manowar821]

Not so much a patriot of his country as a patriot to the human race, perhaps? As in, fuck imperialist pigs.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spittledip
He makes it sound like everyone in Iraq was all lovey-dovey with each other before the US invaded.

While they were all under the threat of terror from Saddam, they *were* a lot more 'lovey dovey' with one another before the US invasion.

So you mean to say that under threat of death or traumatic punishment is the only way those people could get along? They really haven't lost much then in this case.

The history is a bit much for you IMO. For what it's worth, you should read a book, but my understanding is that Iraq was formed when England - involving Winston Churchill - set up the nation intentionally combining hostile groups, because as the English well knew, a great way to dominate a region was to 'divide and conquer'.

It's not that Saddam's repression was necessary to the later 'lovey dovey' that had developed, but it had and it existed under his repression.

Regardless, you made a statement, it was corrected, and more information awaits you at your local bookstore if you care to get informed at all before you post more on this.

Huh, ok. I was under the impression that the people always had conflict there and Sadam kept it in check through violence. oh well

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: loki8481
just to get things straight... shouting out "lie" = offense to the glory of the office, but throwing a shoe at the president's head = patriot?

That's leftist logic.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: chucky2


P.S. I'm not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. If I had my way, we'd take every politician, their direct senior aides, and lobbyists, and machine gun the whole lot; the few innocents - and there'd be very few - we could elect statues of later. Maybe the next round that got elected would do a better job and be a little cleaner than the cesspool we've got in Washington now.

Who's we?
who's stopping you?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: chucky2


P.S. I'm not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. If I had my way, we'd take every politician, their direct senior aides, and lobbyists, and machine gun the whole lot; the few innocents - and there'd be very few - we could elect statues of later. Maybe the next round that got elected would do a better job and be a little cleaner than the cesspool we've got in Washington now.

Who's we?
who's stopping you?

Get'em lined up, I'll buy a machine gun and ammo and be right there.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: chucky2
untable w/o going on a USistheworstandBush&Comademestubmytoeitsalltheirfault bender. The problem is the Iraqi's first, Iran and contributing destabilizing factions second, and third enablers such as yourself that give credence to the first 2 pushing the blame anywhere but themselves. A far far distant number is US forces racking up the death toll.

.

Hahahahahh, wow. That's like hearing a wifebeater give reasons for why he kicked his wife down the stairs.
"I only hit her because she made me to, her friends didn't respect me and someone called me a bad name."

Well, I'm glad you finally got that in this case, the "wife beaters" are the Iraqi's themselves, and the "wife" is the shoe thrower. Add in the Iranians and other purposefully destabilizing forces (AQI, jihadists, etc) as the wife beaters co-dysfunctional brother telling his kin he needs to beat that b1tch into submission. Instead of throwing the wife down the stairs though, it's suicide bombing's, IED's, retribution killings, etc.

I'm glad you've come around to Reality now...

Chuck

When the point goes sailing over your head, do you wave to it or wonder what the wooshing sound was.
For those not keeping up, remember, its the Iraqi's fault that we invaded and killed thousands of them and destabilized the country, not ours. Why is that? Because a lot of leftists made mean comments about our military whenever they shot civilians.

You're co-warped (with the Iraqi's) rant didn't go over my head, I know they blame us for their deaths, even though it was them overwhelmingly killing each other. I just don't buy it. ME and others that have this warped view think it's always the fault of someone else for the wrong's that come to them. It's no worse than the 3rd generation ghetto inhabitant whining to some bleeding heart how her son is now the 4th generation ghetto inhabitant. Clue: You're doing something very wrong for 3 generations, and now 4, if you're still in the ghetto.

It's the same thing in the ME.

It's the US's fault, it's Iran's fault, it's the UN's fault, it's someone else's fault....but magically, the people doing almost all of the killing are - gasp - Iraqi's themselves.

Amazing.

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: spittledip
[Huh, ok. I was under the impression that the people always had conflict there and Sadam kept it in check through violence. oh well

That's one factor - more the threat of violence.

But in the US, the 'threat of violence' in the form of the police putting you in jail if you went shooting people you don't like creates a society where people restrain themselves mostly.

If the police were simply removed, you would see crime skyrocket in the US.

If the federal government were removed and the 50 states each became a nation, you would start to see each state arm and use war at times in conflicts.

So the lockdown by Saddam prevented violence - but the people actually reportedly got along a lot better, as the guy who thre the shoe said.

Maybe an analogy in our soceity is the history of race relations. When the government didn't get too involved, you had thousands of lynchings as the more powerful whites 'kept the blacks in their place'. When the government got involved, you had some white mobs protesting with guns and bombs and rocks, you had the federal government sending forces to the locations of the protests, with some of the governors pledging resistance, and eventually the government's forcing the issue led to 'peaceful relations' that were real.

With the government saying 'you will not lynch, you will integrate', at the point of a gun, the people changed from widely racist and segregationist to where racism is condemned.

While there are still many poople who have emotions around race, you don't hear about lynchings - one racial murder made national headlines.

So in our society you had a mix of people who had no race tension, and people who had race tension but behaved - and that sounds a lot like how Iraq was.

Saddam's violence was aimed mainly at any 'threat' to his regime.

If the federal, state, local government in the US was removed, you would likely start seeing factions form and civil wars break out. Any organized group could form and you would have to find an organized group to join for protection. That's what he says about Iraq, except that Iraq alrady had a society with the factions established, along tribal and family lines, within the two main religious groups, not counting Kurds in the North who were already pretty much their own nation, Saddam had no forces there.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: loki8481
just to get things straight... shouting out "lie" = offense to the glory of the office, but throwing a shoe at the president's head = patriot?

Yes. Clearly, if Joe Wilson had sent loafers flying instead, he wouldn't have been censured by his own house.

:roll:

/tap...is this sarcasm detector thingy working?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I know they blame us for their deaths, even though it was them overwhelmingly killing each other. I just don't buy it. ME and others that have this warped view think it's always the fault of someone else for the wrong's that come to them. It's no worse than the 3rd generation ghetto inhabitant whining to some bleeding heart how her son is now the 4th generation ghetto inhabitant. Clue: You're doing something very wrong for 3 generations, and now 4, if you're still in the ghetto.

As I said in the last post:

If the USSR had the power to come over here and eliminate all government in the US pretty much, and left chaos throughout the country (while they did protect only the oil administration buildings), and now add in the way that Iraq culture already has establish religious, tribal and family factions that are very strong while the US would have to form factions (though states could be one faction), you would start to see groups rising up and grabbing power with violence - and you would blame the invaders.

And you would be right.

That's simplistic and not too close to the details of Iraq, but you can read a book,like I told another poster, for more detailed info before you go posting based on nothing.

Your ghetto analogy is similarly ignorant - you don't understand the history and the effects of the history of the racism that created and maintained the ghettos, so you post that.

For just a taste, I'd suggest you check out the Stac Peralta documentary '"Made in America"
that has a lot of the history and helps provide some understanding.

There are things you don't understand too well that affect groups. When you see the way the people in the documentary above are discarded by society and isolated, in their own little world, you may start to get some idea about their being 'stuck in the ghetto'. The origin of film was when Peralts asked, 'what if it were white kids forming these gangs and murdering each other, would the country do a lot more to get involved in doing something about the problem?' That's an example of 'invisible racism'.

The movie shows the history from when blacks first formed the communities involved, and when the work allowed, formed strong middle class communities.

Then it goes into the history about how those communities declined into 'ghetto communities' - including the history of decades of blacks being 'imprisoned' in them.

Go watch the interviews with black teens who have never seen outside a few miles of black gang areas and don't know anyone but gang people. It might help you.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jonks
That's nice.

Frankly I don't give a crap. You do that to a visiting head of state, your ass belongs in jail. Not years in jail, but to jail you must certainly go. He's lucky SS didn't open fire in the room and accidentally kill bystanders.

As to his torture claims, I'll wait and see what any evidence shows. He's super high profile, torturing him would just be dumb.

Why should it matter the individual's title?

You don't understand why throwing a shoe in a crowded room at a man guarded by a cadre of trigger happy gun wielding soldiers assigned to protect while he is in a country populated by people who have displayed a strong dislike for him, is contextually different from throwing a shoe at a random person on the street?

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jonks
That's nice.

Frankly I don't give a crap. You do that to a visiting head of state, your ass belongs in jail. Not years in jail, but to jail you must certainly go. He's lucky SS didn't open fire in the room and accidentally kill bystanders.

As to his torture claims, I'll wait and see what any evidence shows. He's super high profile, torturing him would just be dumb.

I think your post is very wrong, and here's how: you jump from jailing him, which I agree with as right as his 'cause' was, to including 'not caring' if he was abused and tortured, too.

In my opinion his claims are very credible - I've seen reports before this - but we don't have to resolve that to say that it's terrible for it to happen as a matter of principle.

You miscontrue my post, almost purposefully it seems. I separated out the "don't give a crap" for the explanation of his motives for his actions from the torture allegations he makes. This is denoted by my introductory clause in a separate paragraph: "As to his torture claims..." Further, I stated my reasons why I don't currently believe his torture claims, and stated that I'd be looking for substantiating evidence should it appear. Hardly sounds like I don't give a crap about it. Additionally, I'm one of the strongest proponents on here against "enhanced interrogation" of terror suspects, or anyone, as a matter of policy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
just to get things straight... shouting out "lie" = offense to the glory of the office, but throwing a shoe at the president's head = patriot?

I guess it depends on if you think that a sitting Congressman at an official state function that he is a part of should not be held to any higher standards than some random journalist in a country we are occupying.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jonks
That's nice.

Frankly I don't give a crap. You do that to a visiting head of state, your ass belongs in jail. Not years in jail, but to jail you must certainly go. He's lucky SS didn't open fire in the room and accidentally kill bystanders.

As to his torture claims, I'll wait and see what any evidence shows. He's super high profile, torturing him would just be dumb.

Why should it matter the individual's title?

You don't understand why throwing a shoe in a crowded room at a man guarded by a cadre of trigger happy gun wielding soldiers assigned to protect while he is in a country populated by people who have displayed a strong dislike for him, is contextually different from throwing a shoe at a random person on the street?

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jonks
That's nice.

Frankly I don't give a crap. You do that to a visiting head of state, your ass belongs in jail. Not years in jail, but to jail you must certainly go. He's lucky SS didn't open fire in the room and accidentally kill bystanders.

As to his torture claims, I'll wait and see what any evidence shows. He's super high profile, torturing him would just be dumb.

I think your post is very wrong, and here's how: you jump from jailing him, which I agree with as right as his 'cause' was, to including 'not caring' if he was abused and tortured, too.

In my opinion his claims are very credible - I've seen reports before this - but we don't have to resolve that to say that it's terrible for it to happen as a matter of principle.

You miscontrue my post, almost purposefully it seems. I separated out the "don't give a crap" for the explanation of his motives for his actions from the torture allegations he makes. This is denoted by my introductory clause in a separate paragraph: "As to his torture claims..." Further, I stated my reasons why I don't currently believe his torture claims, and stated that I'd be looking for substantiating evidence should it appear. Hardly sounds like I don't give a crap about it. Additionally, I'm one of the strongest proponents on here against "enhanced interrogation" of terror suspects, or anyone, as a matter of policy.

I accept that there was a miscommunication in light of your saying I got the wrong impression. Since you say the 'don't give a crap' doesn't apply to any abuse of him, and since I agreed to his getting some punishment however right his moral position, we saem to agree there.

We continue to disagree on the credibility of his torture claims. I coudl explain why I have my opinion, but t's subjective and not 'proof'. It's unlikely they'll release a video.

But I think your 'argument why' you hold your opinion is weak - who could be a higher profile detainee than the '9/11 mastermind' yet he was quite tortured by us.

I don't see *any* reason why the visilbility of this person would prevent the Iraqis torturing him. Indeed, the allegation is out there and beleived by many or most.

And what problem has ic caused for them?

Your argument is like saying Reagan would never permit an Iran-Contra operation to illegally operate because of the political risks - yet he did.

The simple fact he's visible doens't prove he's lying to me at all.