The shoe throwing incident...did it make you feel good?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
No, it didn't make me feel good... it shows that the country we liberated didn't want it to happen in the first place. Sad, and it makes us look like fools.

How does a single journalist speak for the will of an entire country?

How about looking at whether Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone? That's been done already and in poll after poll Iraqis, except for the Sunnis, are overwhelmingly happy that Saddam is gone. Of course getting rid of him wasn't going to come without a lot of pain in the process.

btw, who has killed the most Iraqis since we invaded, by a long shot? Was it Americans or other Iraqis and foreign Arabs? Hint: It's not Americans driving bomb-laden cars into markets, festivals, and police stations.

BTW, who who directly created the conditions that allowed them in? Hint, he lives in the White House.

So there's this guy with a bone tumor in his leg. Someone grabs him and cuts off his leg.

Later someone else says that the fellow is glad his tumor is gone. They curiously omit that he was taken against his will and his leg chopped off without his consent.

Yeah, they are glad to have Saddam gone. Maybe they would have liked to not have to suffer so much for it.

Saddam directly created the conditions in Iraq with his brutality and blatant favoratism of Sunnis. Bush merely opened the door that allowed all the pent up anger that had built over decades to be expressed. There was no way around that though. So the anger is expressed, it peaks and declines, and now Iraqis can gradually begin to get on with their lives without all the frustrations bottled up. They have a much brighter future ahead of them than what Saddam offered as well.

iow, the guy with the bone tumor had to sacrifice a leg so he could live. I guess we could have left it fester and subsequently asked him a few years down the road whether it was better we left his leg whole. Chances are the cancer would have spread and killed him by then though. It all comes down to whether we want to focus on the parts or the whole though, and consider what's more prudent in the process. Or we could just pretend that it wasn't our business getting involved, turn our backs, and leave him to his own fate because turning our backs is an easy method of absolution. After all, how can we be blamed if we refuse to get involved?

That's really magnanimous of you to decide it was OK to kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children because it was for their own good. Perhaps instead of playing God, we should have let them reach their own decisions about their fates and the fate of their country ... especially given the Bush administration and its supporters never gave a tinker's damn about the people of Iraq. It's bad enough we unilaterally attacked the country based on false pretenses. Trying to then justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Perry404
Did it make you feel good to see shoes thrown at the President?

Makes me feel bad to think you are getting your rox off about it though. I'm not a Bush fanboy at all but I still don't want some prick throwing shoes at our President. Funny Thing It's Bush that gave him the right to do such a thing. If he did that crap 9 years ago his whole family would have been executed. Ironic don't ya think.

9 years ago he'd have no reason to try and throw a shoe at Bush.

I see no irony...just poor reasoning.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's really magnanimous of you to decide it was OK to kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children because it was for their own good. Perhaps instead of playing God, we should have let them reach their own decisions about their fates and the fate of their country ... especially given the Bush administration and its supporters never gave a tinker's damn about the people of Iraq. It's bad enough we unilaterally attacked the country based on false pretenses. Trying to then justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Yeah, it's better to allow millions of Iraqis to live under oppression and tyranny, with no hope of ever having a brighter future. Why, what a perfect solution. Don't get involved and that way you don't have to feel guilt because you can just claim that the problems of other human beings are not your problem. 'Iraqis? pfft. Too bad. Sucks to be them. Dey ain't 'mericons. Let 'em fester under Saddam.'

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Umm, Chicken? I know reading is hard work, working hard, and all, but this is a new story, not about the two, unsubstantiated claims by the brothers, but about the finding of the judge who investigated the incident. You see, he is what one would generally expect to be a reasonably credible source. His words carry somewhat more weight than those of an alleged victim's family members, especially when he is reporting the actual results of an actual investigation into the alleged beating. It looks like MSNBC is now properly reporting a real story with real information, which is what reputable news media are supposed to do.

While it is no doubt discomforting that this information doesn't match your wing nut, sky-is-falling, ebil libruhl media gospel, I'm afraid MSNBC isn't obligated to tout the RNC party line 7x24 like you do. Perhaps you should stick to Fox and AM talk radio to avoid exposure to such upsetting ideas. Merry Christmas (and not in the, "there's a war against Christmas" sense).

Yeah, reading IS hard work, Finga. You should try it.

Judge Dhia al-Kinani, the magistrate investigating the incident, said the court has filed a complaint on behalf of journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi, and added that court officials "will watch the footage to identify those who have beaten him."

The judge has not investigatED. He is investigtING. That litle nuance passed you by in your rush to wag that finga at me but it's definitely worth mentioning because it's an important distinction. They haven't even watched the footage at this point and the media trots out this claim about the guy being beaten, for the umpteenth time?

Now go back to HuffPo and try to find some more talking points on this issue. Take an English calss while you're at it too. (If you want to make speculative accusations based on pure bullshit originating from your own stereotypical partisan imagination, prepare to receive them in kind.)

Follow your own advice. Your same article mentions the evidence already found showing he had been beaten. What the judge is now investigating is WHO did the beating. From the little snippet you quoted (and apparently can't comprehend), "will watch the footage to identify those who have beaten him."

As far as your attempted English lesson is concerned, no thanks. I prefer to learn from people actually qualified to teach. The fact one is continuing to do something doesn't mean he also hasn't already done it. He has investigated, he is also still investigating. You might have a point had I claimed he'd completed his investigation ... but I didn't. What you're then left with is squawking and flapping to try to distract from the fact you were wrong. Again.

Isn't this about the point where you huff about people being mean to you and disappear?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's really magnanimous of you to decide it was OK to kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children because it was for their own good. Perhaps instead of playing God, we should have let them reach their own decisions about their fates and the fate of their country ... especially given the Bush administration and its supporters never gave a tinker's damn about the people of Iraq. It's bad enough we unilaterally attacked the country based on false pretenses. Trying to then justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Yeah, it's better to allow millions of Iraqis to live under oppression and tyranny, with no hope of ever having a brighter future. Why, what a perfect solution. Don't get involved and that way you don't have to feel guilt because you can just claim that the problems of other human beings are not your problem. 'Iraqis? pfft. Too bad. Sucks to be them. Dey ain't 'mericons. Let 'em fester under Saddam.'

try sharing that sentiment over the suffering in Darfur, or Haiti, or any other shithole on this planet.

your "humanity" is a sham.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's really magnanimous of you to decide it was OK to kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children because it was for their own good. Perhaps instead of playing God, we should have let them reach their own decisions about their fates and the fate of their country ... especially given the Bush administration and its supporters never gave a tinker's damn about the people of Iraq. It's bad enough we unilaterally attacked the country based on false pretenses. Trying to then justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Yeah, it's better to allow millions of Iraqis to live under oppression and tyranny, with no hope of ever having a brighter future. Why, what a perfect solution. Don't get involved and that way you don't have to feel guilt because you can just claim that the problems of other human beings are not your problem. 'Iraqis? pfft. Too bad. Sucks to be them. Dey ain't 'mericons. Let 'em fester under Saddam.'

Your feigned outrage is matched only by your transparent hypocrisy. When you and the other Bush tools show the same deep concern [sic] for the oppressed human beings in those countries where we don't have such overwhelming financial interests, then and only then might I take you seriously. If you're going to fluff the war against Iraq, at least man up and be honest about the reasons. American business interests are numbers one, two, and three on the list. The well-being of the Iraqi people? Not even in the footnotes.

Trying to justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

 

[evident]

bush is a prick but still dont think he should be assaulted

 

[BW86]

I thought it was hilarious

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

chill drama, he didn't wish him harm, he wished he got hit by a shoe

"Chill drama" - That is just special.

Anyway, try this. Throw a shoe and tag your SO's face with it. When the cops come, tell them you "didnt wish her harm". Enjoy your night in jail.

Wow, maybe we should dance around with flowers in our hair and talk about our feelings. Pussification of America continues...

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The ironing is of course that he can throw a shoe at the president (and live) only because of that president. Had he even joked about throwing a shoe at Saddam or one of his ilk he would have been tortured and killed along with his entire family.

I think what the guy did was silly and dumb and partially meaningless. However on the other hand I think the above statement is true; it's interesting that the guy was in a position to be allowed to throw his shoe.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's really magnanimous of you to decide it was OK to kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children because it was for their own good. Perhaps instead of playing God, we should have let them reach their own decisions about their fates and the fate of their country ... especially given the Bush administration and its supporters never gave a tinker's damn about the people of Iraq. It's bad enough we unilaterally attacked the country based on false pretenses. Trying to then justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Yeah, it's better to allow millions of Iraqis to live under oppression and tyranny, with no hope of ever having a brighter future. Why, what a perfect solution. Don't get involved and that way you don't have to feel guilt because you can just claim that the problems of other human beings are not your problem. 'Iraqis? pfft. Too bad. Sucks to be them. Dey ain't 'mericons. Let 'em fester under Saddam.'

Your feigned outrage is matched only by your transparent hypocrisy. When you and the other Bush tools show the same deep concern [sic] for the oppressed human beings in those countries where we don't have such overwhelming financial interests, then and only then might I take you seriously. If you're going to fluff the war against Iraq, at least man up and be honest about the reasons. American business interests are numbers one, two, and three on the list. The well-being of the Iraqi people? Not even in the footnotes.

Trying to justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Bolded.

Don't be surprised when the 'spoils' of freeing Iraq go to the Rooskies, the Chinese, the French and, most importantly, Iran (for that sweet Shia domain we created for them).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's really magnanimous of you to decide it was OK to kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children because it was for their own good. Perhaps instead of playing God, we should have let them reach their own decisions about their fates and the fate of their country ... especially given the Bush administration and its supporters never gave a tinker's damn about the people of Iraq. It's bad enough we unilaterally attacked the country based on false pretenses. Trying to then justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Yeah, it's better to allow millions of Iraqis to live under oppression and tyranny, with no hope of ever having a brighter future. Why, what a perfect solution. Don't get involved and that way you don't have to feel guilt because you can just claim that the problems of other human beings are not your problem. 'Iraqis? pfft. Too bad. Sucks to be them. Dey ain't 'mericons. Let 'em fester under Saddam.'

Your feigned outrage is matched only by your transparent hypocrisy. When you and the other Bush tools show the same deep concern [sic] for the oppressed human beings in those countries where we don't have such overwhelming financial interests, then and only then might I take you seriously. If you're going to fluff the war against Iraq, at least man up and be honest about the reasons. American business interests are numbers one, two, and three on the list. The well-being of the Iraqi people? Not even in the footnotes.

Trying to justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Your idiocy is only surpassed by your partisan rhetoric.

A Bush tool? I love that, especially considering I voted for Obama and never voted for Bush. The problem with your ilk is that you view Iraq through your BDS filter, where anyone that doesn't beat Bush like a red-headed stepchild is automatically deemed to be nuzzling his nuts and stroking his shaft. That attitude is the height of idiocy. I doubt you'll ever grasp that though because you seem to have this need to create this faux 'Us and Them' scenario, all while people like you whine how Bush is a divider, not a uniter. Welcome to your own hypocrisy, troll.

Maybe you haven't noticed, or maybe you just aren't smart enough to grasp the concept, but politics, addressing the human condition around the world, and the need for military action vs. diplomacy functions on a case-by-case basis. There is no one size fits all despite your mighty strawman attempt to imply that it should be that way. Nor am I justifying any sort of slaughter. Your transparent attempt at maligning and labeling me as someone who desires carnage and death is patently ridiculous, but it's a tacic you and yours consistently resort too which demonstrates how pathetically weak your arguments frequently become. It'd be great if all this could have gone down without a single person being hurt but that doesn't jibe with reality. Then again I wonder if considering the reality of any situation ever creeps into that brain of yours? It doesn't seem so. You'd rather pretend that the world should all be kindness and smiling faces instead; a lovely paradise where everyone is happy. Viva Utopia.

Hate to break the news to you, but it doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. But continue ignoring reality and stay in that pretend, guilt-free, everybody-loves-us world of yours.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's really magnanimous of you to decide it was OK to kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children because it was for their own good. Perhaps instead of playing God, we should have let them reach their own decisions about their fates and the fate of their country ... especially given the Bush administration and its supporters never gave a tinker's damn about the people of Iraq. It's bad enough we unilaterally attacked the country based on false pretenses. Trying to then justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Yeah, it's better to allow millions of Iraqis to live under oppression and tyranny, with no hope of ever having a brighter future. Why, what a perfect solution. Don't get involved and that way you don't have to feel guilt because you can just claim that the problems of other human beings are not your problem. 'Iraqis? pfft. Too bad. Sucks to be them. Dey ain't 'mericons. Let 'em fester under Saddam.'

Your feigned outrage is matched only by your transparent hypocrisy. When you and the other Bush tools show the same deep concern [sic] for the oppressed human beings in those countries where we don't have such overwhelming financial interests, then and only then might I take you seriously. If you're going to fluff the war against Iraq, at least man up and be honest about the reasons. American business interests are numbers one, two, and three on the list. The well-being of the Iraqi people? Not even in the footnotes.

Trying to justify the slaughter as "for their own good" crosses the line from malevolent to evil.

Your idiocy is only surpassed by your partisan rhetoric.

A Bush tool? I love that, especially considering I voted for Obama and never voted for Bush. The problem with your ilk is that you view Iraq through your BDS filter, where anyone that doesn't beat Bush like a red-headed stepchild is automatically deemed to be nuzzling his nuts and stroking his shaft. That attitude is the height of idiocy. I doubt you'll ever grasp that though because you seem to have this need to create this faux 'Us and Them' scenario, all while people like you whine how Bush is a divider, not a uniter. Welcome to your own hypocrisy, troll.

Maybe you haven't noticed, or maybe you just aren't smart enough to grasp the concept, but politics, addressing the human condition around the world, and the need for military action vs. diplomacy functions on a case-by-case basis. There is no one size fits all despite your mighty strawman attempt to imply that it should be that way. Nor am I justifying any sort of slaughter. Your transparent attempt at maligning and labeling me as someone who desires carnage and death is patently ridiculous, but it's a tacic you and yours consistently resort too which demonstrates how pathetically weak your arguments frequently become. It'd be great if all this could have gone down without a single person being hurt but that doesn't jibe with reality. Then again I wonder if considering the reality of any situation ever creeps into that brain of yours? It doesn't seem so. You'd rather pretend that the world should all be kindness and smiling faces instead; a lovely paradise where everyone is happy. Viva Utopia.

Hate to break the news to you, but it doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. But continue ignoring reality and stay in that pretend, guilt-free, everybody-loves-us world of yours.

ROFL! Well, that was random. Feel better? It had pretty much nothing to do with what I said, but it was quite a rant. Do you have it in a macro?

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
...

politics, addressing the human condition around the world, and the need for military action vs. diplomacy functions on a case-by-case basis. There is no one size fits all despite your mighty strawman attempt to imply that it should be that way.

...

Every instance of US military action, post WW2, has in fact been evaluated against the exact same bottom line. Is it good for US economic interests? That is pretty one-size-fits-all to me. This is why genocide is permitted in Darfur and atrocities continue unaddressed elsewhere, and trillions are spent "liberating" the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator whom was not really any worse than probably at least a dozen others around the world. (A dozen others who were either put into power by the US, or who don't happen to be sitting on billions in natural resources.)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFL! Well, that was random. Feel better? It had pretty much nothing to do with what I said, but it was quite a rant. Do you have it in a macro?

Random? wtf? I directly addressed what you said and apparently hit pretty damn close to the mark. Well, whatever. At least it shut your stupidity down temporarily. No doubt you'll be back with more of your foolery though.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFL! Well, that was random. Feel better? It had pretty much nothing to do with what I said, but it was quite a rant. Do you have it in a macro?

Random? wtf? I directly addressed what you said and apparently hit pretty damn close to the mark. Well, whatever. At least it shut your stupidity down temporarily. No doubt you'll be back with more of your foolery though.

Ah yes, one of your favorite tactics, projecting your own behaviors and failings on others. Random because it didn't address what I said, but launched one of your canned, straw man rants you use when you want to change the subject away from your own failures. It was long on indignant huffing and puffing, totally devoid of responsive content. That's fine. I didn't honestly expect you to acknowledge your morally bankrupt defense of BushCo's war on Iraq.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bad, it is disrespectful.

Good, they have the freedom to be disrespectful. Good that the President can see directly that not everyone is happy.

Sad that it is too little too late.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFL! Well, that was random. Feel better? It had pretty much nothing to do with what I said, but it was quite a rant. Do you have it in a macro?

Random? wtf? I directly addressed what you said and apparently hit pretty damn close to the mark. Well, whatever. At least it shut your stupidity down temporarily. No doubt you'll be back with more of your foolery though.

Ah yes, one of your favorite tactics, projecting your own behaviors and failings on others. Random because it didn't address what I said, but launched one of your canned, straw man rants you use when you want to change the subject away from your own failures. It was long on indignant huffing and puffing, totally devoid of responsive content. That's fine. I didn't honestly expect you to acknowledge your morally bankrupt defense of BushCo's war on Iraq.

See. I knew it would only shut your stupidity down temporarily.

Damn I'm good.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
He got the shit beat out of him after, that made me feel good.

Yes from what I hear he sustained a broken arm and some broken ribs while in cusody.
Sounds very similar to Saddam Hussein's regime no?

Perry, when are you going to get it? America is always right no matter the circumstance. Double standard. "America! Fuck Yeah!" :disgust:

 

[her209]

I thought it was funny so shoe me.

 

[filetitan]

it's about time someone did what I wouldn't be able to do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
No, it didn't make me feel good... it shows that the country we liberated didn't want it to happen in the first place. Sad, and it makes us look like fools.

How does a single journalist speak for the will of an entire country?

How about looking at whether Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone? That's been done already and in poll after poll Iraqis, except for the Sunnis, are overwhelmingly happy that Saddam is gone. Of course getting rid of him wasn't going to come without a lot of pain in the process.

btw, who has killed the most Iraqis since we invaded, by a long shot? Was it Americans or other Iraqis and foreign Arabs? Hint: It's not Americans driving bomb-laden cars into markets, festivals, and police stations.

BTW, who who directly created the conditions that allowed them in? Hint, he lives in the White House.

So there's this guy with a bone tumor in his leg. Someone grabs him and cuts off his leg.

Later someone else says that the fellow is glad his tumor is gone. They curiously omit that he was taken against his will and his leg chopped off without his consent.

Yeah, they are glad to have Saddam gone. Maybe they would have liked to not have to suffer so much for it.

Saddam directly created the conditions in Iraq with his brutality and blatant favoratism of Sunnis. Bush merely opened the door that allowed all the pent up anger that had built over decades to be expressed. There was no way around that though. So the anger is expressed, it peaks and declines, and now Iraqis can gradually begin to get on with their lives without all the frustrations bottled up. They have a much brighter future ahead of them than what Saddam offered as well.

iow, the guy with the bone tumor had to sacrifice a leg so he could live. I guess we could have left it fester and subsequently asked him a few years down the road whether it was better we left his leg whole. Chances are the cancer would have spread and killed him by then though. It all comes down to whether we want to focus on the parts or the whole though, and consider what's more prudent in the process. Or we could just pretend that it wasn't our business getting involved, turn our backs, and leave him to his own fate because turning our backs is an easy method of absolution. After all, how can we be blamed if we refuse to get involved?

So if someone thinks your child has cancer, it's OK for them to grab him or her off the street without their or your consent, and yank out an organ or two. You know the funny thing about that bone tumor? It could have been treated without amputation. Sucks to be him, but hey he's better in the long run.

I know it helps you to sleep better at night knowing your side killed or caused to be killed countless of thousands, but it was better that Americans did it rather than Saddam.

I really wish I could put you in a room with all your righteous "amputations" and let you explain just how lucky they are that people like you killed their families.

I'm sure it would be smashing. You play God too easily.

 

[Number1]

A bronze shoe statue representing the one thrown by Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi at former U.S. president George W. Bush during a press conference in Baghdad is unveiled Thursday in Tikrit, about 180 kilometres from Baghdad.

Statue

Fairly irritating if you ask me...........


:laugh:

 

[jpeyton]

Good news! An Iraqi court reduced his sentence from 3 years to 1 year, presumably because they realized how big of a douchebag GWB is.

 

[Robor]

I didn't like him as president and I think his views/policies were completely insane. That said, I answered 'NO' to the poll.

GWB was the leader of a country. You don't throw shoes - or anything for that matter - at the leader of a country. Carry a sign, shout him down until you're hauled out kicking and screaming, mount a protest rally. There were plenty of ways to show displeasure without winding up in jail.