Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses

quixotecoyote said:
I don't know if dave meant it that way, but you could make an argument that it's not our business if Saddam butchered 200 babies a day and kicked a puppy on Sundays so long as he wasn't threatening us.

I don't buy it. I think atrocity is a reason for intervention, but in this case it was an excuse not a reason.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there are a lot of dictators around and they all do really bad things. Why aren't we going after all of them? Because Iraq was an easy target. They couldn't hit back. There are a lot of bad guys out there, but it isn't up to us to get rid of them all.

The fact is that there was a stable government and I think there were a lot of options we had other than war. I don't want to get off on a tangent outside of the OP here, but war was the last option we should have gone with.

gumboot said:
Er... wrong, and wrong.

Al Qaeda in Iraq did exist before the invasion, although it was known at the time as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. It was founded in the early 1990s by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and they worked closely with Al Qaeda in Taliban Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden gave al-Zarqawi funds to establish a training camp in Afghanistan, and Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad received much of their funds from Al Qaeda.

Al-Zarqawi refused to swear allegiance to Osama Bin Laden because, get this, he didn't think Al Qaeda was serious enough or committed enough to Jihad. Despite this his organisation was funded by Al Qaeda, and his members in turn raised funds for Al Qaeda.

When the US invaded Afghanistan al-Zarqawi joined up with Al Qaeda and fought alongside them.

In mind 2002 he moved into Northern Iraq where he teamed up with Ansar al-Islam and fought against Kurdish nationalist forces.

When the US invaded Iraq he was well positioned to lead foreign resistance to the invasion. Finally, after 8 months of negotiation al-Zarqawi swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden at which point he renamed Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad as Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Gumboot, are you sure about this? I have never heard of Al Qaeda being in Iraq prior to the US invasion. I know that a lot of people made claims that al-Zarqawi was active there, but there has been no documentation, that I have seen, to back that up.

And as much as I am left of center, I cannot understand how you can say that the Iraqi government is a "puppet government". The Iraqis voted for it and as someone else pointed out, it was monitored by the international community. I agree, we should never have gone in there and we need to get the hell out, but we did set-up an independent government, and more importantly, we ARE getting out.
 
Chips.

Chips are a vile and crass icon of Neocon Lies and Deception.

Are they kosher, I wonder?
 
gtc said:
Chips.

Chips are a vile and crass icon of Neocon Lies and Deception.

Are they kosher, I wonder?
Click to expand...

SnyderKoshDill1.jpg


So kosher you'll lose your yamulke.
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
What a load of crap!! :rolleyes:

I would happily shake this dude by the hand and sit down over coffee and share the disgust at the murders of Iraqis.

I don't hold the ordinary Iraqi people guilty for the crimes of Saddam, why should he hold ordinary American's for the crimes of bush.

Most people with a brain realise that the actions of a country's government don't reflect the views of all or even the majority of the population.

Ordinary people have no beef with each other. Have you travelled dude? I have. I've found decent ordinary people from Middle Eastern countries very welcoming to Westerners.

Stop stirring up national sectarianist baloney.
Click to expand...

Have you been to iraq and asked people about how they feel about getting rid of saddam and his cronies?
 
Looks like the al-Zaidi family has the same problems the Casey Anthony family has about keeping their stories straight:


***.."brother of Muntazer al-Zaidi said the reporter had been taken to the Ibn-Sina military hospital after being hit on the head with a rifle butt. Iraqi security men had also broken his arm. Dargham al-Zaidi said his brother had suffered broken ribs and internal bleeding.

But another brother, Maitham al-Zaidi, later said he had spoken with the shoe thrower on the phone and he had said: "Thank God I am in good health."..***

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...i-shoe-thrower-beaten-in-custody-1192844.html

***.."Saddam Hussein's former lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi said he was forming a team to defend Zaidi and that around 200 lawyers, including Americans, had offered their services for free."..***

http://www.france24.com/20081215-arabs-hail-shoe-attack-bushs-farewell-gift-0

How could they resist?
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
Have you been to iraq and asked people about how they feel about getting rid of saddam and his cronies?
Click to expand...

Have you? No of course you haven't.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the blame of ordinary people for the crimes of their leaders.


But most interviews of Iraqis I've seen say they didn't want the country made even worse than under Saddam in order to get rid of him.

And this is the main point. Saddam could have been ousted without wrecking the place and dismantling the security system. Leaders have been ousted in many countries without so much carnage.

The whole invasion was based upon lies anyway.

And funny how Zimbabwe isn't being wrecked in order to oust Mugabe isn't it?

And do you think the Iraqis are all cheering and really happy now Saddam has gone? The million dead and the 4.5 million refugees aren't that's for sure.

The naivety in this world is staggeringly incredible.
 
And while the hypnotized are munching on their freedom fries and wallowing in the illusion that Iraq now has freedom and democracy, the rest of you can have fun throwing a shoe at Bush. I only got 5 points. I need more practice. :)

http://play.sockandawe.com/
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
And this is the main point. Saddam could have been ousted without wrecking the place and dismantling the security system. Leaders have been ousted in many countries without so much carnage.

The whole invasion was based upon lies anyway.
Click to expand...

Obviously, Saddam could not be removed using clandestine methods, or he would not still be in power a dozen years after Gulf War I.

Errors in intel are not lies. After seven years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

But not to worry. The same lawyer that defended Saddam is defending your buddy, Muntazer al-Zaidi. That should be of some comfort to Munt.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
Obviously, Saddam could not be removed using clandestine methods, or he would not still be in power a dozen years after Gulf War I.

Errors in intel are not lies. After seven years, nobody has produced proof that Bush knowingly, intentionally, or with premeditation, lied about what he thought to be true about WOMD's.

But not to worry. The same lawyer that defended Saddam is defending your buddy, Muntazer al-Zaidi. That should be of some comfort to Munt.
Click to expand...

You don't seriously believe the the WMD lies were just errors in intel do you?

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!


Anyway, even if Bush was lied to by those behind the scenes, it was still lies. Bush not knowing it was a lie doesn't make it an "error in intel"
 
Pray tell,

How could Saddam have been removed from office, otherwise?
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
You don't seriously believe the the WMD lies were just errors in intel do you?

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!


Anyway, even if Bush was lied to by those behind the scenes, it was still lies. Bush not knowing it was a lie doesn't make it an "error in intel"
Click to expand...

The four smilies in a row and the laughter in ALL CAPS is certainly convincing enough evidence that it was lies and not errors by Bush and his intel community. I'll need to remember that next time someone asks for evidence to support a position.

:):D:o:(:p;)
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
Have you? No of course you haven't.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the blame of ordinary people for the crimes of their leaders.


But most interviews of Iraqis I've seen say they didn't want the country made even worse than under Saddam in order to get rid of him.

And this is the main point. Saddam could have been ousted without wrecking the place and dismantling the security system. Leaders have been ousted in many countries without so much carnage.

The whole invasion was based upon lies anyway.

And funny how Zimbabwe isn't being wrecked in order to oust Mugabe isn't it?

And do you think the Iraqis are all cheering and really happy now Saddam has gone? The million dead and the 4.5 million refugees aren't that's for sure.

The naivety in this world is staggeringly incredible.
Click to expand...

Actually I have TFT.

There is only one naive person I can see posting here.

How about you ask the kurds? Or the marsh arabs is the south?

The invasion was based on bad intel given to many countries from many sources, not lies. Unless you can prove otherwise then you are the liar.

Does Mugabe have or could have had WMD? Has he been an aggressor against other sovereign nations in tha past.

Mugabe is a clown and a animal but there is no comparison to Saddam here.

TFT said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!
Click to expand...

stundie??
 
mortimer said:
The four smilies in a row and the laughter in ALL CAPS is certainly convincing enough evidence that it was lies and not errors by Bush and his intel community. I'll need to remember that next time someone asks for evidence to support a position.

:):D:o:(:p;)
Click to expand...

With all those smilies he nearly convinced me too. :):):):):)

Perhaps a new law should be defined, ergo, the number of smilies is inversely related to the strength of the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom