Fucking hell, Flashy. Bush caused Saddam to be dug from a hole and be hung on camera. How's that for an assault?
Bush got off lightly by being only symbolically insulted. In fact that's why I condone the actions of Muntadar al-Zaidi, precisely because it was shoes that were thrown, not grenades. To me, he's more like the guy who stood in front of the tank in Tianneman Square with his shopping bags, as opposed to the maniacs who attacked the WTC or the London Underground or Mumbai. An outraged citizen, not a terrorist.
You want the USA to lead the world by example, or by fear?
1. Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with anything. Saddam was given ample opportunity to leave Iraq before the war. he did not. he was given the chance to surrender. he did not. Saddam Hussein ordered an assassination plot against the President of the United States. That is an assault.
George W. Bush did not order Saddam's death. Period. He ordered his capture and demanded surrender.
2. Getting off "lightly" by being attacked is hardly scot free, is it? The man was reckless, irresponsible, could have seriously injured Bush and could have caused others to be hurt had security services acted with lethal force to protect Bush and the Iraqi standing at the podium.
Insults and assaults are two different things, aren't they?
Assaults are never symbolic. They are still assaults. The man attacked him because he wasn't man enough to confront him on facts.
If the man wanted to symbolically insult him, he could have showed him the soles of the shoes. He could have held up a sign.
instead, he chose to endanger people, both Bush, the Iraqi leader next to him, and others in the audience.
have you ever been hit in the head with a shoe, thrown full force from 10 feet away? Would you like to volunteer yourself or a loved one to be on the receiving end to see the possible damage that could occur, from the hard heel of a shoe, contacting the eye, or the forehead, the temple, the ear?
it can leave a lasting permanent injury.
not to mention he endangered *EVERYONE* in that room, by putting the security on high enough alert where they may have felt the need to use deadly force to prevent something they had a split second to react to.
3. You condone his actions because they were shoes, huh? So can i throw shoes at your mom or dad, or siblings or children because i disagree with them?
so what if someone had been injured by the shoe? what if the Iraqi leader to his left had been hit in the face, and his glasses shattered, sending shards into his eye causing him to lose sight?
4. He put everyone in that room in danger, because nobody *KNEW* they were shoes, genius until afterwards...if this had happened outside at a larger event, and a sniper on security detail had seen that man move to do this, he would be under orders to fire...a sniper assigned to cover the president, would see a man reach to hurl something at the president while shrieking...a shoe is the last thing on a security specialists mind.
the first thought is grenade or bomb...not shoe.
5. He is nothing like the man in tianamen square.
that man was a hero and a symbol. He used peaceful non-violence, he attcked nobody, he had no weapons, he stood in front of a 25 ton tank with nothing but courage, and dared them to run him over.
this man is a coward and an idiot, who assaulted the President of the United States and you condone that.
So i assume that when someone decides they don't like something, they should be able to hurl a shoe at Gordon Brown, or Queen Elizabeth?
you have no right to assault *ANYBODY*
6. If he was such an outraged citizen, he should have picked a more constructive, legal way to express his outrage.
considering his family was *JAILED* twice by Saddam, i expect i might have a bit more of an appreciation for the fact that Saddam was dead.
you want to protest? Make a sign. Be creative. But you have no right to assault people, no matter how angry you are.
It IS CHRISTMAS after all:redface:
