Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses

[Darth Rotor]

From Cicero's link, but not about lawyers representing people, which is what lawyers do:

But young Iraqi woman Oum Mina said she didn't consider Zaidi a hero.

"Bush is our enemy. But when you invite your enemy into your home, you don't treat him this way. This could destroy the image of Iraqis."

Protestors in Sadr City, the bastion of radical anti-US cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, however, threw shoes at passing US military vehicles, while in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, the crowds chanted "Down with America."

"All US soldiers who have used their shoes to humiliate Iraqis should be brought to justice, along with their US superiors, including Bush," said Ali Qeisi, head of a Jordan-based Iraqi rights group.

Put a microphone in front of some people, and watch the stupid happen.

"All US soldiers who have used their shoes to humiliate Iraqis should be brought to justice,

I show the soles of my shoes to this nitwit. The shoes aren't the problem. If the soldiers had been running around with no shoes on for the past five years, no problem with a few thousand barefoot Marines, right?

If it's shoes that have you upset, you have no problem. Soldiers wear shoes, Iraqis wear shoes, Iraqi soldiers wear shoes, and even Jews wear shoes. Dogs chew on shoes.

There are people in Iraq making a reasoned complaint about their country having in it a load of foreign soldiers. You? "It's gotta be the shoes!"

Saladin wept.

DR

 

[Cicero]

Another "soulless" journalist disapproves of the U.S. This guy will be a shoe-in to get a job at the New York Times or MSNBC.

Post #134 15th December 2008, 06:06 PM

On the December 15 Tonight Show, Leno said:

"Well, the interesting thing was the journalist who threw the shoe was immediately arrested, and then offered his own show on MSNBC."
Jay Leno

Wow! Leno's writers are JREFer board followers.

Predictably, Letterman had to figure out how to make a joke combining the Iraqi and FOX News:

"It turns out this guy was described as a hot head. He's a guy who is an Iraqi journalist. They say he's a hot head with poor journalistic skills. Well, no surprise, today he was offered his own show on Fox News."
David Letterman

His politics wouldn't allow him to make a logical construct as Leno did.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed3.htm

 

[Pardalis]

There's one thing I don't understand about that shoe throwing incident.

The sole of the shoe as a bad omen is an Iraqi thing right? So how was Bush supposed to know that? How is he supposed to be insulted by something he can't even relate to? For him a shoe is just a shoe. If you want to insult somebody, isn't it common knowledge to do it in a way that the person you're trying to offend is going to get it?

 

[Cicero]

From Cicero's link, but not about lawyers representing people, which is what lawyers do:
DR

When you see some of the same forensic experts and defense attorneys that testified for, or defended, Simpson and Spector, that specialize in blowing smoke and confusing the jury, and now are working "pro bono" on the Casey Anthony defense, you can draw your own conclusions.


The same applies to the lawyer who defended Saddam and now is defending the shoe thrower.

 

[Darth Rotor]

When you see some of the same forensic experts and defense attorneys that testified for, or defended, Simpson and Spector, that specialize in blowing smoke and confusing the jury, and now are working "pro bono" on the Casey Anthony defense, you can draw your own conclusions.

The same applies to the lawyer who defended Saddam and now is defending the shoe thrower.

The political motivations are screamingly obvious, if that is what you were remarking on. See my suggested penal event: a fine and three hundred hours of community service polishing shoes, or repairing shoes as cobbler's assistant. (Maybe I posted that in the other thread.) That would fit nicely, don't you think? It would also be a punishment to fit the crime of bad manners on a national scale.

DR

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Actually I have TFT.

Yes of course you have.

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

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

And?

The argument isn't that Saddam was a great guy and the invaders came wrecked the place. The argument is that Saddam was a real bad guy, but the Invaders made the place worse.

Your failure to understand that simple concept is a sure indication you haven't asked any Iraqis. BS

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.

The invasion was based upon fabricated Intel made to look bad. i.e lies. Unless you can prove otherwise then you are the liar.

I can't believe anyone could be so naive. I bet you believe all that 'Freedom and Democracy' nonsense as well don't you?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Pray tell,

How could Saddam have been removed from office, otherwise?

By force. but without wrecking the country and dismantling it's social infrastructure so civilians have no security and basic services.

You'd almost think that was done on purpose to create anarchy.


Waits for someone to chime in with old 'incompetence' howler.

 

[funk de fino]

Yes of course you have.

get out of your bubble

And?

The argument isn't that Saddam was a great guy and the invaders came wrecked the place. The argument is that Saddam was a real bad guy, but the Invaders made the place worse.

Your failure to understand that simple concept is a sure indication you haven't asked any Iraqis. BS

Yes the kurds are having thousands gassed nowadays and the marsh arabs still have their homelands and thousands of them are being slaughtered. Oh no wait...

Before you throw your pathetic accusations around you should really take a step back. I have been to Iraq a few times actually. The violence is not good at the moment but the violence is being carried out by terrorists, some of whom are not Iraqis and who are killing other Iraqis. Ask any Iraqi except those who were part of the clique, if they are happy saddam is gone.

The country is not great just now but better than it was. They have an elected govt. They have a chance to decide their own future.

The invasion was based upon fabricated Intel made to look bad. i.e lies. Unless you can prove otherwise then you are the liar.

Less of the truther debate style please. USA was not the only country who deemed him a threat and you have yet to show us any lies.

I can't believe anyone could be so naive. I bet you believe all that 'Freedom and Democracy' nonsense as well don't you?

Take a look in the mirror. I fought in the first gulf war. I disagreed with the second one. It should have been left. Regardless, the fact it has happened has made the country a better place for ordinary Iraqis.

Your performance in this and other threads in this section is quite frankly appalling. You are so blinkered it is unreal. That you have to accuse me of lying says it all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is nice, but what has that got to do with me? ..

I was about to say then noticed TinFoil did it for me and very succinctly at that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No TFT, Skeptigirl thinks I have been indoctrinated by Fox News. You think I have been indoctrinated by Western media in general which includes:

The NY Times,
The Guardian,
The (UK) Independent,
The BBC,
The Economist and
Der Spiegel.

Amongst others.

Which tells me that while skeptigirl is wrong about me, you are wrong about everything.

Regardless of the source of your indoctrination, it is clear to me your view of the world is not consistent with the evidence in this case. And, your view more closely reflects the misinformation Fox continues to spew regarding Bush and Iraq in particular.

Most of the 'facts' regarding Bush and Iraq that you continue to believe have been discredited by overwhelming evidence. It's the word of media pundits and outright liars, vs sourced evidence in case after case.

Media Matters just awarded Hannity "2008 Misinformer of the Year". They document lie after lie after lie that typifies not just Fox News, but also the views that you, Cicero and a number of other pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War forum members here continue to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence against.

 

[gtc]

There's one thing I don't understand about that shoe throwing incident.

The sole of the shoe as a bad omen is an Iraqi thing right? So how was Bush supposed to know that? How is he supposed to be insulted by something he can't even relate to? For him a shoe is just a shoe. If you want to insult somebody, isn't it common knowledge to do it in a way that the person you're trying to offend is going to get it?

I think it was probably designed so that the arab audience could see that he had been insulted.

I was about to say then noticed TinFoil did it for me and very succinctly at that.

His comments reflect a crazed conspiracy theory and had nothing to do with what we were discussing.

What is the mainstream media version of events? Remember that the mainstream media includes the BBC, Deutsche Welle, The New York Times, the New York Post, the Times of London, MSNBC and The Economist amongst others.



This is what you said:

quote=skeptigirl;4273146]When I referred to the Fox News version of reality, what I was referring to was twofold. One, too many Americans view the world from ignorance believing every person on the planet should have the same values as that American does, and two, the main sources of information in America about the rest of the world are completely distorted by those sources, with Fox epitomizing that distortion.[/quote]

I'll ask you again.

What does this have to do with me?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Only now do we fully realize the meaning of Bush's desire for "more boots on the ground" in Iraq.

Pith nom!

 

[gtc]

Regardless of the source of your indoctrination,

Do you even recognise the names of the media outlets I listed?

If you did, then you couldn't have written the rest of what you wrote.

 

[Skeptic]

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

Unless, of course, they were murdered by Saddam; when that was going on, you didn't give a damn how many of them were being killed. For that reason, I doubt that "disgust at the murder of Iraqis" is the real reason here.

 

[JihadJane]

The country is not great just now but better than it was.

It doesn't make any difference whether you've been to Iraq or not. If you had talked to a cross-section of ordinary Iraqis it would not be possible to maintain this naive belief . Iraq is now in a much worse state than in Saddam's time, especially for women, to the extent that Iraqis who hated Saddam are now nostalgic for his rule.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have you been to iraq and asked people about how they feel about getting rid of saddam and his cronies?

There have been a number of surveys, and there are hundreds of interviews with actual Iraqis as opposed to the barrage of pundit opinions in the mainstream news. Here are some examples noted by CommonDreams of specific news articles that ignored Iraqi public opinion in favor of their own versions of reality:

As Usual, NYT Ignores Iraqi Opinion - Anecdotes trump polls on withdrawal

Notably, Farrell opted not to include polling data in his article. Perhaps that's because had he done so, it would have undermined the thesis of his piece.

A poll from March 2008 conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) for the British Channel 4 (2/24-3/5/08) found 70 percent of Iraqis wanting occupation forces to leave. Within this group, 65 percent wanted them to leave "immediately or as soon as possible"-meaning fully 46 percent of Iraqis would fall under Farrell's "leave immediately" group. Another 19 percent wanted them out within a year or less, while 12 percent wanted to wait until "whenever the security situation allows it." (Interestingly, in Baghdad-where Times journalists are based-the number of those who wanted troops out immediately was only 42 percent, while 20 percent wanted to wait until the security situation improves; still, a majority wanted troops out within a year.)

Another March 2008 poll conducted by D3/KA for ABC News and other media outlets (2/12-20/08) similarly found that 73 percent of Iraqis either "somewhat" or "strongly" opposed the ongoing foreign troop presence in their country, with 38 percent in favor of immediate withdrawal. Only 7 percent of Iraqis-primarily Kurds-"strongly" supported the presence of occupation forces.

A Gallup poll from April 2004 (USA Today, 4/28/04) revealed that "a solid majority [of Iraqis] support an immediate military pullout." Fifty-seven percent said the coalition should "leave immediately." The same poll found that 75 percent of the residents of Baghdad favored an immediate withdrawal. At the same time, a poll from the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (4/28/04), which was partly funded by the State Department and had coordinated its work with the Coalition Provisional Authority, found that more than half of all Iraqis wanted an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces, an increase of 17 percent over the previous October.

In writing about Iraqi opinion, though, the Times' Ian Fisher (5/23/04) ignored this data, asserting, "There are still far more people . . . who are skeptical of, and maybe even hate, the Americans but see them as the only way to save themselves." As evidence, Fisher cited not scientific surveys-as those would have contradicted his claim-but rather a tally conducted by Sadim Samir, a 23-year-old political science student at the University of Baghdad, who "canvassed five neighborhoods" of Baghdad for a "class paper."

More recently, 18 Iraqis were interviewed for the Times article "In Iraq, Mixed Feelings About Obama and His Troop Proposal," by Sabrina Tavernise and Richard Oppel (7/17/08). Again, the Times preferred to rely on the opinions of less than two dozen Iraqis rather than refer to available polling data that would have undercut the theme of the story: that Iraqis faced "a deep internal quandary" about Obama's support for withdrawal.

Despite his limited perspective on Iraqi opinion, Burns has repeatedly presented that perspective to the public without caveats, both in the Times and in other outlets-most frequently the Charlie Rose show on PBS-and it's a perspective that runs counter to the survey data.

"In my experience, the great majority of Iraqis are . . . very loathe to see those American troops leave now," Burns told Rose on June 14, 2006, shortly before the State Department's own polls showed nearly half of Iraqis wanting immediate withdrawal and seven in ten wanting troops out within a year (Washington Post, 9/27/06). Burns told Rose a year later (PBS, 7/17/07

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Ask any Iraqi except those who were part of the clique, if they are happy saddam is gone.

I didn't say they were not happy get rid of Saddam Hussein. You are arguing against your own fabrications. Your performance in this and other threads in this section is quite frankly appalling. You are so blinkered it is unreal. That you have to accuse me of lying says it all.

So let's try again shall we?


The argument isn't that Saddam was a great guy and the invaders came wrecked the place. The argument is that Saddam was a real bad guy, but the Invaders made the place worse.
Your failure to understand that simple concept is a sure indication you haven't asked any Iraqis. BS

I have been to Iraq a few times actually.

Yeah yeah of course you have. What did you do? Give them some Freedom Fries.

The country is not great just now but better than it was. They have an elected govt. They have a chance to decide their own future.

Of course it's not better than it was. And you have the gall to call ME blinkered.

Less of the truther debate style please. USA was not the only country who deemed him a threat and you have yet to show us any lies.

Oh yes the UK's Blair BS was that Saddam could attack them within 45 minutes. That was hilarious

I fought in the first gulf war. I disagreed with the second one. It should have been left. Regardless, the fact it has happened has made the country a better place for ordinary Iraqis.

Yeah it sure made it better for those million killed during sanctions and the invasion didn't it?

Sure made it better for those 4.5 million Iraqi refugees didn't it? Sure made it better for those poor kids deformed by depleted uranium didn't it? You should google some pictuers of them? They are someone's child.

I've seen videos of the US military thugs shooting innocent Iraqis and then laughing about it. I've seen videos of private Army mercenary thugs from the likes of Blackwater shooting up innocent Iraqis and laughing about it.

I've seen videos of Bush standing in front a bunch handpicked good looking US military in Iraq, delivering a propaganda speech of Iraq is a better place to the grunts of approval.

To say Iraq is better now is a complete joke. The sanctions and invasion wrecked the place far worse and killed more than even the evil Saddam could do in 24 years. Quite a feat that. Bush, Blair and their hired thugs should be proud of themselves!!

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Unless, of course, they were murdered by Saddam; when that was going on, you didn't give a damn how many of them were being killed. For that reason, I doubt that "disgust at the murder of Iraqis" is the real reason here.

Skeptic why do you make such fraudulent statements? You are too intelligent to stoop so low.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Sorry about all those posts. I hit submit and nothing happened, and I couldn't access the forum for a while

 

[gtc]

No need to apologise in future. Just report one of the posts and the mods will delete the extra copies.