"Shoes Fly, Don't Bother Me" soundtrack to Bush's (R) latest visit to Iraq
Watch this space.
Shoe tossing a gesture of great contempt.
In the Arab world, shoe flinging is a gesture of extreme disrespect. A notable occurrence of this gesture happened in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. When U.S. forces pulled down a giant statue of Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many Iraqi detractors of Hussein threw their shoes at the fallen statue.
This may be an ancient gesture from the Middle East; Psalms 60:10, speaking of some of the traditional enemies of Judah, says that "Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe...." (KJV)
The shoe represents the lowest part of the body (the foot) and displaying or throwing a shoe at someone or something in Arab cultures denotes that the person or thing is "beneath them." Showing the bottom of one's feet or shoes (for example, putting one's feet up on a table or desk) in Arab cultures is considered an extreme insult. Examples include Iraqi citizens smacking torn-down posters of Saddam Hussein with their shoes, and the depiction of President of the United States George H. W. Bush on a tile mosaic of the floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel's lobby, forcing all visitors entering the hotel to walk on Bush's face to enter the hotel.
Man throws shoes at Bush in Iraq
By JENNIFER LOVEN – 31 minutes ago
BAGHDAD (AP) — A man threw his shoes at President George W. Bush and was dragged away by security officials during the president's farewell trip to Iraq.
The incident occurred as Bush was appearing Sunday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Bush ducked and wasn't hit by either shoe. Bush joked, saying that all he can report was that it was a size 10 shoe. then calmly took questions.
We've just seen this on the news while eating our tea.
Really made us laugh.
Shame on the thrower though, he really should have adjusted his aim after Bush ducked the first one.
I would have preferred a pie in the face myself, but given how serious shoe flinging is in the Arab world, it's quite enjoyable.
"The greatest regret of my presidency was the lack of intelligence in Iraq" - George W. Bush.
"The greatest regret of my presidency was the lack of intelligence"
Fixed if for you Mr Bush.
What? No mobs of hatred? No gatherings or mass protests? Guess they killed all of "those Iraqis."
[youtube]mjdXwLQrRJ8[/youtube]
Interesting.
"This is a farewell kiss, you dog."
So if someone throws a pie or a pipe bomb at Obama you guys would be ok with that? Now that would be funny.
How about a noose? would that be funny? Disrespect is disrespect, no matter where it happens.
I have to agree with Merc here. Depsite the contempt and disrespect Bush has shown to pretty much everyone in the world but his cronies, showing disrespect back to him only reduces you to his level.
Was it a shoe of mass destruction?
(I'm serious. My shoes could qualify as both chemical and biological weapons!)
Maybe the guy should have just poked out his tongue...
Good thing he threw it at Bush. Had it been any other leader in that area the guy would have been beheaded and then disposed of in a mass grave with a bunch of other murdered people.
Ahh, the beginning of a new era.
So if someone throws a pie or a pipe bomb at Obama you guys would be ok with that? Now that would be funny.
How about a noose? would that be funny? Disrespect is disrespect, no matter where it happens.
I would laugh at a pie. I would think the person who did it was an idiot, but it would be entertaining. Pipe bombs and noose's are on a different level though. Throwing of shoes might be the "ultimate" form of disrespect in Arabic culture but it isn't a, or hint of an assassination attempt.
Yeah...i've got to agree with pierce. I don't think bombs etc are on the same level as shoes. ;)
You know, I've been thinking that if you're the sort of person that gets offended a lot in Iraq, you'd spend a fair bit on shoes.
Or do you get your shoes returned after you've thrown them? If so, it doesn't really seem right. A bit like being an indian giver. You know...giving something then expecting it back later...
Or do they have special discount 'throwing shoe' shops in those cultures? Now that'd be a good business to be in!
I still don't like GWB, but he's got a good duck-reflex.
Makes me wonder about the security though. Presumably those present had passed through metal detectors etc, but when the attack came, security took longer to react than I would have expected. (Hee hee, not that an Australian is in a position to offer criticism of presidential security.)
I still don't like GWB, but he's got a good duck-reflex.
He played baseball in college. He was again demonstrating his fielding abilities.
Our politicians have things thrown at them occasionally - pies, eggs etc. I find that funny too. I would if it were thrown at Obama too (although I'd question how he managed to insult the thrower ).
I guess I'm just childish like that.
Who throws a shoe?
[youtube]5D5oKEVqQJg[/youtube]
If you listen carefully, you can hear the shoe-thrower yelling "Don't tase me bro!" in Arabic.
coulda been worse. he coulda flung poo.
Washington Post reporters prepare for next Bush news conference.
(Bush'll have to start meeting the press in mosques from now on...)
You know, I've been thinking that if you're the sort of person that gets offended a lot in Iraq, you'd spend a fair bit on shoes.
Or do you get your shoes returned after you've thrown them? If so, it doesn't really seem right. A bit like being an indian giver. You know...giving something then expecting it back later...
:lol2:
Worldwide is a new display in support of that shoe thrower. Notice the many cars with shoes now hanging from the mirror? Due to the run on shoes, stores are no longer offering Christmas discounts on shoes and gift certificates. In honor of the new George Jr economy, people all over the world are now going shoeless. Even the Pope is talking about having your soul reevaluated.
I don't think that's exactly support for the shoe thrower. lol More like a lot of western people seeing the funny side of it and sharing the mirth.
What's tw gonna do come January?
Dude, TW just made a pun! I see a new career as a comedian!
The shoe: George's best dodge since Vietnam. [COLOR="LemonChiffon"][from Letterman][/COLOR]
tw does crack the odd funny now and then.
Al-Zeidi may have also been motivated by what a colleague described as a boastful, showoff personality.
"He tried to raise topics to show that nobody is as smart as he is," said Zanko Ahmed, a Kurdish journalist who attended a journalism training course with al-Zeidi in Lebanon.
Ahmed recalled that al-Zeidi spoke glowingly of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose followers organized protests Monday to demand his release.
"Regrettably, he didn't learn anything from the course in Lebanon, where we were taught ethics of journalism and how to be detached and neutral," Ahmed said.
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20081215/NEWS/812150271/1144?Title=Family__Shoe_thrower_hates_both_U_S___IranWhat's tw gonna do come January?
Put some shoes on. It's too cold in January to protest.
Code Pink members attended a meeting held by Iraqi Ambassador to the US, Samir Sumaida’ie, and interrupted to demonstrate for the freedom of shoe-thrower al-Zaidi. The Ambassador proceed to pwn them.
[youtube]ElEN4i2V9v8[/youtube]
Now the ladies here, clapping, I -- let me -- allow me please to address. Thank you for attending this meeting. I see you are carrying a plaque defending Mr. al-Zaidi, who attempted to assault President Bush in Baghdad. Let me take this opportunity to make a couple of remarks, here.
It's very clear, in our culture, throwing somebody's shoes at someone is an insult, is a big insult. Two comments. One: Mr. al-Zaidi is a very, very lucky man. It was Mr. Bush and Mr. Malaki and not Mr. Saddam Hussein. Because had it been Mr Saddam Hussein, you would be carrying a different plaque right now. That's number one.
Number two, in our culture, I know people have told you that throwing shoes at someone is a big insult. But it's a bigger insult to the host, not the guest. In our culture, anybody who insults a guest, is insulting the host. To a double degree.
So even if it had been a local, tribal leader, he would not have stomached that behavior. So, in our culture, we believe that what Mr. al-Zaidi did was reprehensible.
Code Pink member shouts: What about what Mr. Bush did?
I -- let me just finish my remark. It was reprehensible. It was -- not representative of the way we behave as Iraqis. It diminished us as a nation. We are better than that. We have issues, whether it is with Mr. Bush or with other people, but we believe that we should always behave in a dignified manner and in the correct manner. And if we have differences, we express them in the right way. But as I said, and as Mr. Bush said himself, these are the fruits of freedom; everybody gets the fruits of the freedom, even those who don't know how to handle them or how to make use of them. So that's all I'm going to say on that. (applause)
I'm not sure there's really a guest-host relationship there.
I think its great that he stood up and did what he felt was the right thing. He defended his "guest" in his "house."
I'm not sure there's really a guest-host relationship there.
It all really misses the point. George Jr never needed shoes. He needed the boot.
"The greatest regret of my presidency was the lack of intelligence"
Fixed if for you Mr Bush.
You misunderstand the man. He's not stupid, he's an arrogant bastard that will never admit making a mistake. He's surrounded himself with people who make sure he's only seeing their agenda and will never have a clue.
Iraq Parliament clashes over fate of man who threw shoes at Bush
BAGHDAD: A session of the Iraqi Parliament erupted in an uproar on Wednesday as lawmakers clashed over how to respond to the continuing detention of an Iraqi television reporter who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush during a Baghdad news conference earlier this week, people attending the parliamentary meeting said.
As Parliament began to discuss legislation on the withdrawal from Iraq of armed forces from nations other than the United States, a group of lawmakers demanded that the legislature instead take up the issue of the detained journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 29. After his shoes narrowly missed Bush's head at the news conference on Sunday, Zaidi was subdued by a fellow journalist and then beaten by members of the prime minister's security detail.
The legislative session became so tumultuous that it prompted the speaker of Parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, to announce his resignation, according to The Associated Press. A spokesman for Mashhadani, Jabar al-Mashhadani, refused to confirm whether the speaker had tendered his resignation, although he would not deny it. Some in Parliament say the government should release Zaidi immediately, while others say the judiciary should decide his fate.
How badly injured Zaidi was by members of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's security detail is not clear. He has not appeared in public since his arrest, and his family members and his legal representatives say they have not been permitted to visit him. On Wednesday, Zaidi was scheduled to appear before a judge, but it was unclear whether that happened.
I wonder what should happen to him. Should he be given a medal or stoned to death?
Neither. He should be charged with attempted assault or disturbing the peace or whatever it is when you do something that is momentarily frightening, but ultimately harmless.
Stoned to death?
This guy threw a shoe, not a bomb. Unless the Iraqi government wants to insult Bush as well, he should get a reasonable non physical harming punishment. Although I assume he will get a harsh symbolic punishment to prevent anything like that in the future but if he does get out, he will probably be treated as a hero.
Heh. That shoe was a million times too small, is all. Size does matter folks. ;)
Once a speaker's face was threatened by lemon pies. Today we use empty shoes. Violence eventually escalates. However, the pies were thrown by paid professionals.
Once a speaker's face was threatened by lemon pies. Today we use empty shoes. Violence eventually escalates. However, the pies were thrown by paid professionals.
Clowns?
Clowns?
No. Those were his advisers - his royal court - who knew that Saddam had WMDs because he must.
Why does the shoe get more attention that 'shock and awe'? Maybe because it was aimed at a real threat.
No, because in the western world we don't see people throwing shoes about at news conferences, so it was funny.
Humour is entertaining. Another conference with Bush talking about Iraq is not.
Bush actually looked like he was amused by it during the actual tossing. I think he thought it was fun. A welcome diversion from a typical boring news conference.
Bush actually looked like he was amused by it ...
... just like the good old days drunk in a bar.
... just like the good old days drunk in a bar.
I didn't know you were a drunk that hung out in bars? gay bars? :lol2:
Bush actually looked like he was amused by it during the actual tossing. I think he thought it was fun. A welcome diversion from a typical boring news conference.
I agree. I think he was like damm this dude is a really bad shot. He didn't even have a chance to actually deflect one. He must have been thinking, " Dude your aim sucks and I can't understand a single word you are screaming, so you fail." :D
I didn't know you were a drunk that hung out in bars? gay bars?
Prettiest waitresses in town. Zelda's - a gay bar in Boston.
Prettiest waitresses in town. Zelda's - a gay bar in Boston.
Only you and Sheldon would know....
Hmm maybe Sheldon is tw's alter ego.
hmm
*shuts mouth gaping open*
Some bars just aren't gay at all. Now the average coffeehouse -- chain or independent -- there is cheer. It's the difference between alcohol and caffeine.
Shoe thrower is about to be released to a hero's welcome. He's being showered with gifts, including a brand new house and brides.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-09-10-shoe-thrower_N.htm
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi TV journalist who threw his shoes at then-president George W. Bush will be showered with gifts including a four-bedroom house — and at least one potential bride — upon his imminent release from jail.
Muntadhar al-Zeidi, 30, is scheduled to be freed Monday after spending nine months in prison for assault, according to Dhiya al-Saadi, his lawyer.
Al-Zeidi hurled both shoes at Bush during a Baghdad news conference last December to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq. Bush ducked twice and was unhurt; the incident was replayed numerous times on TV.
Sheikh Ahmed Jowda, a tribal leader in the West Bank, said he plans to send a young woman from his family "loaded with jewels and gold" to Iraq as a candidate for marriage.
"There are many Palestinian girls who want to marry Muntadhar," Jowda, 75, said by telephone from Nablus. "He chooses the one he likes."
"All Arab people ... hope to get the chance of doing what (al-Zeidi) did," he added.
The journalist's brother, Maitham Mehdi Jbarah al-Zeidi, said he has fielded phone calls "every single day" offering cash and support. "What (he) did was heroic and deserves all this appreciation from people who hate occupation," al-Zeidi said.
The owner of the Cairo-based al-Baghdadiya TV network has continued to pay Muntadhar al-Zeidi's salary and also bought him a fully furnished two-story villa in a posh section of Baghdad, according to station manager Abdul Hameed al-Sayeh.
"All Arab people ... hope to get the chance of doing what (al-Zeidi) did," he added.
The journalist's brother, Maitham Mehdi Jbarah al-Zeidi, said he has fielded phone calls "every single day" offering cash and support. "What (he) did was heroic and deserves all this appreciation from people who hate occupation," al-Zeidi said.
Fuck them all - every one. . . Let them eat sand.
Fuck them all - every one. . . Let them eat sand.
So because a few Iraqis reportedly are offering "rewards' to the guy, you want to condemn them all?
I wonder if you would feel the same if your country was invaded and occupied by a foreign power, who on more than one occasion, abused your fellow citizens in gross and illegal manners or imposed what many Iraqis perceive as a puppet government to the US.
Fuck them all...every one...let them eat sand! An over-reaction?
In some respects, isnt it like the talkng heads (Limbaugh/Beck et al) and bloggers applauding Congressman Joe Wilson for shouting out that Obama was a liar...and
calling him a hero and encouraging people to "reward" him by donating to his re-election campaign.
Fuck them all...every one...let them eat sand! An over-reaction?
Maybe that's an over-reaction. I read it as aimed at those who were offering rewards. :confused:
In some respects, isnt it like the talkng heads (Limbaugh/Beck et al) and bloggers applauding Congressman Joe Wilson for shouting out that Obama was a liar...and calling him a hero and encouraging people to "reward" him by donating to his re-election campaign.
Fuck them all, let 'em eat lawn clippings. :haha:
Thanks Bruce - at least someone got it right.
SO you think the assholes "rewarding" Joe Wilson should get fucked as well?
There are assholes in every country...what a surprise.
...
Fuck them all, let 'em eat lawn clippings. :haha:
Hold the french or Italian dressing....tainting the grass like that that would be un-american.
Hold the french or Italian dressing....tainting the grass like that that would be un-american.
Not to mention elitist...
Thanks Bruce - at least someone got it right.
I dont condone the shoe throwing incident.
I dont condone rewarding the guy and making him out as a hero.
I do understand how more than a few Iraqi might still be little pissed off after seeing their sister and wives raped by American soldiers, their sons and brothers humiliated and their religion defiled by American prson guards.
While we know it was the rare exception, rather than the rule, it happened and locals respond emotionally.
SO you think the assholes "rewarding" Joe Wilson should get fucked as well?
The people who have the power to reward or replace him will have just that opportunity very soon - thats how it should be.
Oh and yeh I think what he did was worthy of a "buttfucking in the mouth"
There are assholes in every country...
... and on the cellar.
I do understand how more than a few Iraqi might still be little pissed off after seeing their sister and wives raped by American soldiers, their sons and brothers humiliated and their religion defiled by American prson guards.
Back away from the Koolaid.
I just had to save that quote to expose what you think about American Soldiers and the job they are doing overseas. Thanks for your support Dick.
Back away from the Koolaid.
I just had to save that quote to expose what you think about American Soldiers and the job they are doing overseas. Thanks for your support Dick.
Oh excuse me.
There were not RARE exceptions (as I noted) of raping young girls, murdering civilians in cold blood, and abusing and humiliating prisoners and defiling their religion....lets pretend it never happened.
My mistake, dick.
What ever, you have been exposed.
What ever, you have been exposed.
I get it.
You have no interest in understanding or discussing why some (many) Iraqis might have deep-seated resentments about the US....even if we don't agree with those resentments and think they are emotionally driven, rather than factually-based.
A very constructive approach!
Maybe because your opinion of the US soldier is as shitty and INCORRECT as theirs. Well here is a hearty FUCK YOU to you.
Boy you wanna wait for the facts to come out on your ACORN SCUM friends, but will criticize and degrade the mean and women of our armed services????
WOW.
I point out that on RARE occasions, members of the US armed forces have acted outside the law and been convicted of crimes of rape and murder as well as abusing and degarding prisoners...and conceivably that is one reason why many Iraqis have resentments against the US...even though I made it clear that I dont share that "shitty" opinion.
You guys have lost all perspective here.
I would suggest that you get a grip on your emotions.
Hmmmm...
Merc wants to expose me. (Post #69 :eek:)
Classic wants to heartily
FUCK ME.
Sorry, guys, I dont go that way....
"not that there's anything wrong with that."Hmmmm...
Merc wants to expose me. (Post #69 :eek:)
Classic wants to heartily FUCK ME.
Sorry, guys, I dont go that way...."not that there's anything wrong with that."
I would just say fuck off.
I point out that on RARE occasions, members of the US armed forces have acted outside the law and been convicted of crimes of rape and murder as well as abusing and degarding prisoners...and conceivably that is one reason why many Iraqis have resentments against the US
There were not RARE exceptions (as I noted) of raping young girls, murdering civilians in cold blood, and abusing and humiliating prisoners and defiling their religion....lets pretend it never happened.
My mistake, I'm a dick.
Which is it? Rare or not rare?
Which is it? Rare or not rare?
Start with the first time I made the point and I think you know what I meant:
While we know it was the rare exception, rather than the rule, it happened and locals respond emotionally.
And no, you still cant
FUCK ME.
I wouldn't fuck you with Tommy's dick. Sorry to disappoint you.
I think its comical how you guys just lost it completely at the end here.
I honestly thought that trying to understand the emotions (right or wrong) of some Iraqis might be helpful to understand the shoe throwing act and the later "rewards"......not justify it or condone it...but understand it.
IMO, its still important to understand that resentment, as long as we have one troop on the ground there...where they face potential backlash every day from the average Iraqi citizen who may have a grudge against the US.
Merc and Classic aren't interested in gathering greater understanding of them. Just as they aren't interested in gaining a grater understanding of why someone might choose to commit a crime. It's not such an unusual stance. Understanding requires empathy; which can easily be confused with agreement or justification.
Rapes by US soldiers (and by UK soldiers) have happened in Iraq. They happen in pretty much every conflict, why on earth would you think that US soldiers are unique?
A former soldier received five consecutive life sentences today for his role in the rape and murder of an Iraqi teenager and the slaying of three of her family members.
What the defendant did was horrifying and inexcusable," US District Judge Thomas Russell said in sentencing to Steven Dale Green, 24, of Midland, Texas. "The court believes any lesser sentence would be insufficient."
A civilian jury in western Kentucky convicted Green in May of raping Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, conspiracy and multiple counts of murder.
Green shot and killed the teen's mother, father and sister, then became the third soldier to rape her before shooting her in the face. Her body was set on fire March 12, 2006, at their rural home outside Mahmoudiya, Iraq, about 20 miles south of Baghdad.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ex-us-soldier-jailed-for-iraqi-rape-and-murders-1785694.html
Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.
Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.
The graphic nature of some of the images may explain the US President’s attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published.
Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.
“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.
“The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.htmlI made light of it at the end of this weird exchange but at a deeper level, it is very troubling that there are folks out their with such unwillingness to acknowledge the less than honorable actions of our government (and of a very small number of military personnel) without casting aspersions on the patriotism of those who believe it is always in our best interest to be open and willing to discuss such actions and incidents.
And to further understand why there are many around the world who no longer hold us in such high standing.
We, the US and UK, are supposed to be leaders of the free world. Not just the governments, but the people as well. One can only wonder why some are so afraid to allow us to display our warts along with our empathy and compassion for others...and to demonstrate that we are just simple human beings like any other in the world.
To be fair, Redux, a lot of that comes from people who have an emotional investment in the forces.
To put it in a lighter context, I can get very defensive if people diss a show I have invested in emotionally:P Magnify that by a huge factor for people who've experienced the incredible unity and emotional connection that comes from serving in the forces.
Shoe thrower is about to be released to a hero's welcome. He's being showered with gifts, including a brand new house and brides.
So what do you get when you call the President a liar?
To be fair, Redux, a lot of that comes from people who have an emotional investment in the forces.
To put it in a lighter context, I can get very defensive if people diss a show I have invested in emotionally:P Magnify that by a huge factor for people who've experienced the incredible unity and emotional connection that comes from serving in the forces.
Dana, I accept that and agree completely, particularly regarding other Cellar folks and their personal connection to the military, of which I know very little. Just as they know very little about my support for our men and women in uniform.
But there are many out there for whom it is an ideological war and to question their agenda or the actions of the government somehow makes one unpatriotic.
Oh, I don't doubt that for a second, Redux. But the thing about ideology is it's usually founded on a set of beliefs and assumptions which are central to the individual's sense of self. It goes deep. That's not to say some people haven't manipulated the landscape a little to make it difficult for people of a different set of beliefs to question/criticise the actions of a government/party/military action. But for most people, ideology is at least as much an emotional commitment as it is a political one.
I dont expect the ideological differences to end. It is the stridency of the "debate" and the venomous personal nature of attacks that, IMO, is a relatively new phenomena.
Or maybe I am just getting old.
*chuckles*
Maybe a little of both :P Times have changed. In many ways politics is less respectful, and less 'gentlemanly'. But I think it was always filthy behind the scenes. And people have always got very heated about politics. Look at the McCarthy era. Look at the ordinary, child-rearing, loving mothers and fathers who screamed hatred at the civil rights activists. Those weren't all 'bad' people. But they were reacting, at least in part from a fear that their society was going down the pan. We've now had several years of heightened sensitivity to the threat of terror and the 'islamist threat'. If people feel that their country and way of life is under threat then they are likely to react emotionally rather than seeking a deeper understanding: others wanting to seek a deeper undestanding become a part of the threat.
Not a reason to stop making the case of course.
McCarthy? Hey, I'm not that old!
I worked in the US Senate during the Reagan era and while there were significant ideological differences, there was civility.
Then again, we dont have anything like a weekly Prime Ministers Questions...but I want it!
I think the sheer availability of 24 hr a day news coverage may also be a factor.
McCarthy brought back memories.
Time for a personal story :)
My great uncle was a victim of McCarthyism. He has been recognized as probably the greatest harmonica player of the 20th century and spent much of his life in the UK, where he performed for the royal famiily and as a backup on a couple of Procol Harem tracks.
His bio in cartoon!
http://www.procolharum.com/99/larry_adler.htmAhhh....now I see why you hate America! :P
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the communist party!
Damn...I have...
Actually, I haven't. But I was in the Socialist Workers Party.
You guys have it, me anyway, all wrong.
But there are many out there for whom it is an ideological war and to question their agenda or the actions of the government somehow makes one unpatriotic.
I would never support that notion.
Merc and Classic aren't interested in gathering greater understanding of them. Just as they aren't interested in gaining a grater understanding of why someone might choose to commit a crime. It's not such an unusual stance. Understanding requires empathy; which can easily be confused with agreement or justification.
Oh please, you don't have a fucking clue.
McCarthy brought back memories.
Time for a personal story :)
My great uncle was a victim of McCarthyism. He has been recognized as probably the greatest harmonica player of the 20th century and spent much of his life in the UK, where he performed for the royal famiily and as a backup on a couple of Procol Harem tracks.
His bio in cartoon!
http://www.procolharum.com/99/larry_adler.htm
Damm! So they never hung him? That evil Americika!
Damm! So they never hung him? That evil Americika!
You're a bitter angry little man.
You have my sympathy.
Oh please, you don't have a fucking clue.
You're quite right. I can only come to conclusions based on what you post in the cellar. It's a two dimensional picture, but it's all I have with which to reach such conclusions.
Merc and Classic aren't interested in gathering greater understanding of them. Just as they aren't interested in gaining a grater understanding of why someone might choose to commit a crime.
Please do not confuse me with someone who is not willing nor able to listen, read, debate and gain a greater understanding of the world. You quickly lumped me into a preconceived notion of yours which I find not only offensive, but completely wrong.
kthxbai
You guys have it, me anyway, all wrong.
I am still trying to figure out how suggesting that we try understand that there may be resentment in Iraq against the US, in part, because of the horrific way a few of our troops treated Iraqi civilians, can draw a conclusion from you that:
[INDENT]"(my)opinion of the US soldier is as shitty and INCORRECT as theirs." [/INDENT]
when I made it clear that it was not my opinon....it was suggestion that we try to understand their opinion
followed by the emotional:
[INDENT]"Well here is a hearty
FUCK YOU to you!
"....will criticize and degrade the mean and women of our armed services????"[/INDENT]
Who did I degrade other than the few specifically refered to as convicted or raping and murdering Iraqi women and abusing Iraqi prisonsers.
You got some 'splainin to do, dude or I would suggest the reaction to your post was appropriate.
Please do not confuse me with someone who is not willing nor able to listen, read, debate and gain a greater understanding of the world. You quickly lumped me into a preconceived notion of yours which I find not only offensive, but completely wrong.
kthxbai
I am prepared to accept I may be wrong. I certainly don't think you are incapable of listening or gaining a greater understanding of the world. I do get the distinct impression you have no wish to gain a greater understanding of why someone might hate Bush enough to throw a shoe at him and why others may feel the same way and consider him a hero. In the thread about paedophilia you said you don't care why someone is like that (whether they are sick, victims of previous abuse, just made that way).
Someone suggests that there may be a reason for these people to feel strong antagonism to America and points out that (as in any war) some of them may have witnessed and been victims of cruelty and violence at the hands of soldiers, in this case US soldiers, and you shout down his throat about his view of US soldiers: as if he believed them all to be rapists and murderers.
I based my assumption about you on what appears to be an unwillingness to engage in understanding and empathy in these two very difficult areas.
I apologise if that offends you. But I only have the words you type from which to draw conclusions.
You quickly lumped me into a preconceived notion of yours which I find not only offensive, but completely wrong.
Looking back on the exchange, I should not have made light of it and it certainly did not contribute to any further productive discussion with those of opposing views for which I apologize.
I simply should have responded by saying that I found your characterization of my opinion of the troops to be offensive and completely wrong...and the expletive to be offensive and unworthy of response.
Redux - I read your post as written not as you meant it. I thought we covered that in the explanation you gave previously. I apologize for what I "said" publicly. I thought - well you already know what I thought. - ANYWAY....
Dana, When it comes to "sex with children" and the attitude that "positive childhood sexual experiences with adults do occur" You are correct, I am not interested.
When it comes to other cultural beliefs, attitudes and political systems... that is a whole different discussion. If I wasn't interested in other thoughts or ideals or the discussion of these, why the hell would I be here on such a liberal-slanted site? Since you don't get it, I'll tell you - I realize that I am in the minority here with respect to my political views. One very important reason that I am here is to listen to, read, share and exchange differing views. Sheesh! You are such a manc tart!
Fuck them all - every one. . . Let them eat sand.
To me, you seem like the type who would offer a reward to someone who threw their shoe at Qadafi or Ahmadinejad. You might even throw your shoe at one of them yourself. Am I mistaken?
Classic...thank you for your response.
Now I would like to know if you think it matters how citizens of other countries perceive the US as a nation and the president as a world leader?
While it is not the primary role of the president to play to the world stage and world public opinion, IMO, the perception is important and impacts us at every level....from anti-terrorism efforts to trade negotiations to tourism to the perception of US troops stationed around the world.
Look at a recent Pew poll on global attitudes about the US (and please dont go for the Merc cop-out on polls).
I would hope the results would give you pause for thought:
The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama. In many countries opinions of the United States are now about as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office. Improvements in the U.S. image have been most pronounced in Western Europe, where favorable ratings for both the nation and the American people have soared....
....Signs of improvement in views of America are seen even in some predominantly Muslim countries that held overwhelmingly negative views of the United States in the Bush years. The most notable increase occurred in Indonesia, where people are well aware of Obama's family ties to the country and where favorable ratings of the U.S. nearly doubled this year.
However for the most part, opinions of the U.S. among Muslims in the Middle East remain largely unfavorable, despite some positive movement in the numbers in Jordan and Egypt. Animosity toward the U.S., however, continues to run deep and unabated in Turkey, the Palestinian territories and Pakistan.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1289/global-attitudes-survey-2009-obama-lifts-america-image
Even more striking is the perception and confidence of the US president as a world leader:
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Does it matter to you what others outside the US think about us?
Could it be that these drastically more positive perceptions just might be in the US best interest..without compromising our own national interests in any way? Particularly in the regions of the world where we might face the greatest threat.
Beyond the general perceptions, look at it from the perspective of
another discussion here, in terms of Iran (even though Iran is not included in the poll). Some dont see the value of one last attempt to negotiate with Iran and I assume would prefer a more belligerent US position. Is that more in our interest?
When did it become a bad thing to being liked AND respected beyond our own borders?
Sheesh! You are such a manc tart!
True dat :P
You're a bitter angry little man.
You have my sympathy.
:lol2:
I am prepared to accept I may be wrong. I certainly don't think you are incapable of listening or gaining a greater understanding of the world. I do get the distinct impression you have no wish to gain a greater understanding of why someone might hate Bush enough to throw a shoe at him and why others may feel the same way and consider him a hero.
So are you willing to accept in the same level of understanding that someone might hate Obama enough to oppose him and his policy in public, on a forum, or as one of the 75,000 who protested against him this week on the Mall? Or do you just push that off as another group of racists?
In the thread about paedophilia you said you don't carwhy someone is like that (whether they are sick, victims of previous abuse, just made that way).
Someone suggests that there may be a reason for these people to feel strong antagonism to America and points out that (as in any war) some of them may have witnessed and been victims of cruelty and violence at the hands of soldiers, in this case US soldiers, and you shout down his throat about his view of US soldiers: as if he believed them all to be rapists and murderers.
And you are willing to defend a Child Pedophile but not a soldier. WOW, that speaks volumes.
So are you willing to accept in the same level of understanding that someone might hate Obama enough to oppose him and his policy in public, on a forum, or as one of the 75,000 who protested against him this week on the Mall? Or do you just push that off as another group of racists?
It is not an issue of understanding that there are millions of Americans who oppose Obama's policy. That is a given.
It is an issue of showing even a very minimal level of personal respect to those with whom you disagree.
Clearly, you have no interest in doing that.
Enjoy your rampage across the political forum. I really hope it does make you feel better about yourself.
Now I would like to know if you think it matters how citizens of other countries perceive the US as a nation and the president as a world leader?
Not one fucking bit.
Look at a recent Pew poll on global attitudes about the US
Oh Look everybody, a Poll!!!!
Even more striking is the perception and confidence of the US president as a world leader:
Who frigging cares?
Does it matter to you what others outside the US think about us?
Absolutely not. It is not important.
When did it become a bad thing to being liked AND respected beyond our own borders?
Never. But when it becomes so important that you worry about what others think you have lost perspective about what is important for your own country and others that you were elected to represent. And anyone who forms policy on what others think is a total idiot. Obama, can you hear us?
It is an issue of showing even a very minimal level of personal respect to those with whom you disagree.
Like, by, uh.... throwing your shoes at them?
Like, by, uh.... throwing your shoes at them?
Nah...telling me to fuck off, calling me an asshole, making crude remarks about my family....that was telling enough.
You find that to be acceptable behavior for an adult? Would you accept that from your children? Would you raise your children to respond to those with whom they disagree in that manner?
It is not an issue of understanding that there are millions of Americans who oppose Obama's policy. That is a given.
Well he and the others in Congress had better start to pay attention...
It is an issue of showing even a very minimal level of personal respect to those with whom you disagree.
Oh please, those people can fuck off and just look back at 8 years of Bush hate as an example of what Obama should be treated like.
Enjoy your rampage across the political forum. I really hope it does make you feel better about yourself.
It is not about me. It is about the Demoncrats who have been in charge of Conress for over two years and every thing they have done or failed to do. It goes along with the job. Too bad, so sad...
I honestly though we could get past the personal attacks.
Obviously not.
You find that to be acceptable behavior for an adult? Would you accept that from your children? Would you raise your children to respond to those with whom they disagree in that manner?
I'm sorry, are you actually...
preaching at me??? You're bringing my children into your argument???
I'm sorry, are you actually... preaching at me???
Nope...just asking simple straight forward questions.
Bullshit. Own your words.
Hey...if thats how you feel, fine!
:rolleyes:Well imagine that...
Nah...telling me to fuck off, calling me an asshole, making crude remarks about my family....that was telling enough.
You find that to be acceptable behavior for an adult? Would you accept that from your children? Would you raise your children to respond to those with whom they disagree in that manner?
:eek:
Originally Posted by Redux
Now I would like to know if you think it matters how citizens of other countries perceive the US as a nation and the president as a world leader?
Not one fucking bit.
Cool. [Withdraws troops from Afghanistan]
Cool. [Withdraws troops from Afghanistan]
Yea, I have made my feelings about that situation known.
Clearly, you have no interest in doing that.
Enjoy your rampage across the political forum. I really hope it does make you feel better about yourself.
One thing everyone should understand is Redux's central motivation is capital-letter White Liberal Guilt. It underlies everything he writes about politics. He imagines this neurotic misbehavior to be the road of virtue. It is not. Were it virtuous, I would practice it. Instead, I hew to the opposite, and thus can oppose tyranny more successfully than he, which is of course the more virtuous road, and one he'd
much rather I didn't take. I'm pretty loud and clear about it too.
So Redux's little sneer at the end of his post is really pretty hollow stuff, intended solely to make himself feel good about his second-rater life choices. This kind of posturing is why I am neither leftist nor Democrat: I am too grown up and too solid of spirit for this kind of playing around.
One thing everyone should understand is Redux's central motivation is capital-letter White Liberal Guilt. It underlies everything he writes about politics. He imagines this neurotic misbehavior to be the road of virtue. It is not. Were it virtuous, I would practice it. Instead, I hew to the opposite, and thus can oppose tyranny more successfully than he, which is of course the more virtuous road, and one he'd much rather I didn't take. I'm pretty loud and clear about it too.
So Redux's little sneer at the end of his post is really pretty hollow stuff, intended solely to make himself feel good about his second-rater life choices. This kind of posturing is why I am neither leftist nor Democrat: I am too grown up and too solid of spirit for this kind of playing around.
i'm very content with my life :)
Not to say there are not a few things I would do differently in retrospect, but not the core values that broughtt me to where I am today.
I just came here for the infotainment, to exchange opinions and ideas, not engage in personal attacks, but I guess you play the hand you're dealt here.
SO deal the cards, dude and perhaps for once, you can respond to the issues and my direct rebuts to your posts (the corrupt Bush DOJ - remember that one?, the failed neo-con policies, and the most bizarre of all - your contention that gun control leads to genocide) and not the personalities of those who dont share your views.
What is so hard about focusing on issues and opinions and not character assassination?
Start with
this one on the concept of creating democracy by force of invasion/occupation....or
this one on the JPFO basis to oppose even reasonable gun control.
I've been waiting for you. ;)
Or will it just be another hit and run?
My dear boy, you can't convince me there was ever such a thing as a failed neocon policy. The greater part of their policy ideas weren't even tried, and the few that were had a fair measure of success. GWB was never considered one of their own by the neos. Do some more objective reading.
Looks like this is the thread I should put my demolition of your ignorant assertion that connecting gun control to genocide is somehow bizarre. Good enough.
So are you willing to accept in the same level of understanding that someone might hate Obama enough to oppose him and his policy in public, on a forum, or as one of the 75,000 who protested against him this week on the Mall? Or do you just push that off as another group of racists?
Oh I can see why people might hate him. I don't necessarily think opposition to Obama is race-based (I don't know that it isn't either).
And you are willing to defend a Child Pedophile but not a soldier. WOW, that speaks volumes.
As opposed to some other kind of paedophile? :P Does it also speak volumes that I am a regularly attending and paid up member of the Royal British Legion? Through which organisation I have many veteran soldier friends, of all ages. Some from recent conflicts and some old soldiers.
This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about Merc. It's unreasonable to leap so easily to condemnation or defence. Soldiers are not gods nor are paedophiles monsters. They're all just people. Soldiers can and do commit crimes, paedophiles can and do commit good acts. the very thought that someone might have paedophile desire renders them subhuman in your view, regardless of if they've ever acted on those thoughts, yet you cannot see how someone might have seen their daughters or wives suffer at the hands of soldiers and feel aggrieved.
I don't condemn soldiers. I do more than the average person to support them. But nor do I deify them. In war, terrible things are done and crimes are committed. Some soldiers rape and kill innocents. It happens in every major conflict, in every warzone, in every occupied land. Yea even unto the dawn of humanity. Recognising that fact and understanding how that might impact upon the victims of it is not a condemnation of all soldiers.
But hey: you stay comfortable in your little bubble, where hero soldiers do no harm.
Just as an aside: we're getting too hung up on the soldiers who have committed these acts. The fact is that even if a soldier is doing his job well, that doesn't mean the average person in Baghdad is going to feel it is fair enough if his family are wiped out by a bomb. To us it might be collateral damage: to them it is the wholesale slaughter of their nearest and dearest. In effect it must feel little different to the slaughtering of innocents by Saddam. When we bombed Baghdad back to the stone age; did we really think that ordinary people caught up in that bombing would welcome us? Might they not instead feel as if we'd dropped bombs all over their city? When one of our soldiers makes an understandable human error and mistakes a wedding party for a bunch of insurgents and bombs said party, might not the friends and relatives of those killed come away with an abiding hatred of us and our troops and see us as the enemy? Whatever our reasons for being there it was not at the request of the ordinary people of Baghdad: to many of them we were aggressors and our leaders warmongers. Even those who may have wanted assistance removing Saddam from his perch, doesn't mean they wanted their homes destroyed in the process. If you had a problem with rodents, and the exterminators blew up your house, you would not calmly thank them for ridding you of your rats. You might even throw something at them.
Just as an aside: we're getting too hung up on the soldiers who have committed these acts.
That was the point.
The fact is that even if a soldier is doing his job well, that doesn't mean the average person in Baghdad is going to feel it is fair enough if his family are wiped out by a bomb. To us it might be collateral damage: to them it is the wholesale slaughter of their nearest and dearest. In effect it must feel little different to the slaughtering of innocents by Saddam. When we bombed Baghdad back to the stone age; did we really think that ordinary people caught up in that bombing would welcome us? Might they not instead feel as if we'd dropped bombs all over their city? When one of our soldiers makes an understandable human error and mistakes a wedding party for a bunch of insurgents and bombs said party, might not the friends and relatives of those killed come away with an abiding hatred of us and our troops and see us as the enemy? Whatever our reasons for being there it was not at the request of the ordinary people of Baghdad: to many of them we were aggressors and our leaders warmongers. Even those who may have wanted assistance removing Saddam from his perch, doesn't mean they wanted their homes destroyed in the process. If you had a problem with rodents, and the exterminators blew up your house, you would not calmly thank them for ridding you of your rats. You might even throw something at them.
I can't disagree.
To me, you seem like the type who would offer a reward to someone who threw their shoe at Qadafi or Ahmadinejad. You might even throw your shoe at one of them yourself. Am I mistaken?
Yes
So what do you get when you call the President a liar?
I figure I'll try to answer since Redux apparently refused to do so himself. A lot of "noise" from all the left leaning media and his opponent gets money. Is that about right?
Now I would like to know if you think it matters how citizens of other countries perceive the US as a nation and the president as a world leader?
Matters? Yes it does, to a degree. I think that is a very basic concept.
Some dont see the value of one last attempt to negotiate with Iran and I assume would prefer a more belligerent US position. Is that more in our interest?
When did it become a bad thing to being liked AND respected beyond our own borders?
I never said it was a bad thing, but I also do NOT think it should be the primary reason to determine U.S. policy.
I figure I'll try to answer since Redux apparently refused to do so himself. A lot of "noise" from all the left leaning media and his opponent gets money. Is that about right?
What appears likely is a "resolution of disapproval" presented on the floor of the House today. While I personally think it is political showmanship, the act did violate the formal and written rules of the House and to have the Congressional Record reflect that (since his apology was not done on the floor and thus not in the Record) is not all that bad of a precedent.
And the "resolution of disapproval" is far less harsh then the "resolution of censure" that the Republicans brought to the floor several years ago against MoveOn.org because they referred to General Petreaus as General BetrayUs.
Both resolutions represent the silly side of politics-- although one is expressing a disapproval of a violation of the "company" rules and the other is censuring free speech -- so maybe one was a just a little sillier.
Matters? Yes it does, to a degree. I think that is a very basic concept.
I never said it was a bad thing, but I also do NOT think it should be the primary reason to determine U.S. policy.
Yep..thats what I said. It should never be a major factor in policymaking that could compromise or adversely affect national interests or national security in any way.
Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004
MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."
Is that rhetoric appropriate?
SEN. REID: I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt. I think to take that issue, Tim, to take the most poisonous substance known to man, plutonium, and haul 70,000 tons of it across the highways and railways of this country, past schools and churches and people's businesses is wrong. It's something that is being forced upon this country by the utilities, and it's wrong. And we have to stop it. And people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.
h/t Brian Walsh
More, via Tim Grieve, from a 2005 Rolling Stone sit-down:
RS: You've called Bush a loser.
HR: And a liar.
RS: You apologized for the loser comment.
HR: But never for the liar, have I?
Whatever your personal opinion of what he said may be, this is not the first time its happened... nor the last.
What was Reid's punishment? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Whatever your personal opinion of what he said may be, this is not the first time its happened... nor the last.
What was Reid's punishment? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
I dont condone these types of attacks by our top elected officials, but it is a different playing field completely.
Reid's remarks were not on the floor of the Senate where such actions are prohibited.
Both were in poor taste, but only one went a step further and violated the commonly known and accepted policies of the organization as they apply within the physical boundaries of the organization.
Both were by elected members - I find them equally distasteful and unacceptable.
Where it was said matters MUCH less to me than what was said.
Both were by elected members - I find them equally distasteful and unacceptable.
Where it was said matters MUCH less to me than what was said.
OK, but there is a place for rules as well and consequences if you violate those rules.
OK, but there is a place for rules as well and consequences if you violate those rules.
Does "ok" mean you agree? Is this the first time this has ever happened in this situation? If so, I'm surprised.
What is the "rule" you mention?
Does "ok" mean you agree? Is this the first time this has ever happened in this situation? If so, I'm surprised.
What is the "rule" you mention?
I agree that comments by both were in poor taste and both should apologize.
The rules of the House are adopted each session, but there are standard protocols of decorum that go back to the very early days of Congress.
This is from the Republican side of the House Rules Committee referring to decorum and civility on the floor of the House :
The precedents of the House allow a wide latitude in criticism of the President, other executive officials, and the government itself. However, it is not permissible to use language that is personally offensive to the President, such as referring to him as a “hypocrite” or a “liar.” Similarly, it is not in order to refer to the President as “intellectually dishonest” or an action taken by the President as “cowardly.”
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Educational/Read.aspx?ID=5
Oh..and turn your cell phones off!
Fuck them all - every one. . . Let them eat sand.
They all outta crawdad?
From Redux's link.
The offending Member may obtain unanimous consent to withdraw the inappropriate words or the demand may be withdrawn. Following such a withdrawal, the Member proceeds in order. However, if the Member’s words are ruled out of order,
they may be stricken from the Congressional Record by motion or unanimous consent,
and the Member will not be allowed to speak again on that day except by motion or unanimous consent.
After all thats been said and done ... move on.
