You all remember the pathetic Iraqi news reporter that hurled a shoe at President Bush. Well seems the guy was set free and decided to throw a shoe at some US troops on patrol. Bad bad move on the guys part:
\"An Iraqi man who witnesses said shouted abuse before throwing a shoe at a US army vehicle was shot dead on Wednesday in what the American military said was a suspected grenade attack.
Residents told an AFP reporter in Fallujah that Ahmed Latif, 32, whom they said was mentally disturbed, insulted the soldiers as they patrolled in the centre of the city, and then hurled a shoe at them\"
No really. Don't throw ★■◆● at an army unit, anywhere, unless you want to die.
I didn't read any of the articles, but right off-hand I don't find it to be anything to be happy about. This is a man's life we're talking about. He probably had a family, maybe even children. I think it's extremely regrettable. I don't think I would blame the guys who shot him down, though.
I applaud the man... I wish he clocked Bush 2 for 2.
I doubt this is true, but if it is, he got what was coming to him. Doing that to any world leader is incredibly disrespectful...the fact that anyone in the United States supports his actions is completely indefensible.
Stroodles, you think torture is OK? Perhaps you will be on the receiving end of it one day and maybe learn whats really right and wrong. Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses and his policies killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. If the roles were reversed and this was happening in your country could you honestly blame the man? I think condoning torture is what is indefensible.
Umm getting shot for throwing a leather slipper is so appropriate. And your links show that 1.3 million Iraqi people have died as a result of this invasion and no one thinks this is a bad thing? Wow am I glad I can still think and feel.
Stroodles…Mostly the people who thought throwing a shoe at a world leader was a good thing, are the same ones that find calling Obama a liar, outrageous…(mostly)
Personally…I think they both got what they deserved. (the looks on both their faces, was priceless) Bush was able to duck, poor Obama, just has his supporters to run interference. (feigning victimhood)
Canuck wrote:Umm getting shot for throwing a leather slipper is so appropriate. And your links show that 1.3 million Iraqi people have died as a result of this invasion and no one thinks this is a bad thing? Wow am I glad I can still think and feel.
have you ever been in a combat zone where you can't tell the enemy from the civilians? Then you would understand why they are a bit edgy. But hey, feeling bad for someone that hates the US is easy.
Spidey wrote: Stroodles…Mostly the people who thought throwing a shoe at a world leader was a good thing, are the same ones that find calling Obama a liar, outrageous…(mostly)
I don't notice that. For example, the shoe thrower and Joe Wilson were both wrong but don't deserve punishment. I would think differently if it continued.
Regardless of what you think of the Iraq war or President Bush, here's the simple fact:
throwing an object that could conceivably be an explosive (grenade, IED, etc.) at armed troops and/or the US President in Iraq is Darwin-Award caliber stupid.
It's certainly way more stupid/dangerous than, say, strapping an assault rifle on your back and standing outside of an Obama town hall. Considering how hard this board came down on that guy, I'm kind of surprised to find anybody defending either shoe-thrower. There have got to be less dangerous ways to protest.
I think in his culture hitting someone with the bottom of ones shoe is way beyond a protest it is considered both a physical assault and delivery of severe humiliation to the target so he wasn't just protesting he was throwing himself on the enemies sword in both cases considering he had to know Bush would be protected by security forces and a tank is a tank is a tank in any ones army.
well yeah. It's a high insult. That's what was going on when you saw the images of guys hitting statues of Hussein with the heel of their shoes.
I'm sure you're not inferring this is some sad cultural misunderstanding. I mean if you throw something at heavily armed soldiers that are known and advertise Zero tolerance aggression is wanting to be martyred.
I wanted to expand on something Bettina mentioned:
The guy didn't \"deserve\" to get shot. I agree with that. Someone running out into the street doesn't \"deserve\" to get hit by a bus, either. But both running out into a busy street and throwing things at armed troops who regularly face insurgents dressed like civilians throwing explosives... both behaviors have possibly deadly consequences, and as such, both behaviors are bad ideas at best.
For those who didn't follow the above links, the guy lived. After the US military shot and disabled him, they took him to the hospital. I consider him lucky -- he very likely could have been shot to death.
Lothar wrote:...throwing an object that could conceivably be an explosive (grenade, IED, etc.) at armed troops and/or the US President in Iraq is Darwin-Award caliber stupid.
Agreed.
Lothar wrote:It's certainly way more stupid/dangerous than, say, strapping an assault rifle on your back and standing outside of an Obama town hall. ... There have got to be less dangerous ways to protest.
[Sorry, that last sentence just amuses me, given the reference to the other thread.]
------------------
What I'm curious about is how this is being portrayed over there. This guy was hailed by some for the original shoe-throwing. Is he still seen as a hero?
Some people do some don't. The ones that don't usually belong to the puppet Government or have never known hunger, they are embarrassed by his actions.
I applaud the man... I wish he clocked Bush 2 for 2.
I doubt this is true, but if it is, he got what was coming to him. Doing that to any world leader is incredibly disrespectful...the fact that anyone in the United States supports his actions is completely indefensible.
My Post was badly worded, so let me clarify...
"I doubt this is true"-I don't doubt the BBCworldnews, I meant the original article.
I think showing that much contempt for a leader is indefinsible, he made policy maybe, but that doesn't excuse it. I think there's MUCH better ways to get your message across.
"Got what was coming to him"-Throw things at a guy whos guarded by guys with guns? Bad move. Throw things at the guys with guns? That's just....astoudingly bad judgement.
This story also shows that he can't be taught by the law system. He gets out of jail, and immediatly re-commits the original crime. Clearly, he didn't learn his lesson. He was lucky the first time, that the Secret Service didn't think it was a bomb or something.
