Muntazer al-Zaidi (Bush Shoe Thrower) Gets Three Years

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by és:, Mar 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #1
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/iraqi-shoe-thrower-trial-resumes

    Utterly ridiculous amount of time. Three years for throwing a shoe but no time for killing hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
     
  2. Burnsey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    I think the number is in the million, and this excludes the number of americans and soldiers from other countries killed, or the billions of dollars spent. Those shoes should have at least hit Bush.
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    They have it backwards, Bush should be the one in jail.
     
  4. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #4
    I agree everything you've said es. My only contribution to this is that the man started something! Look at all the shoe throwing incidents since!
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
  6. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #6
    it seems that Bush isn't the only president to have had a shoe tossed at him.....article from the Guardian

     
  7. Burnsey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #7
    ahahahaha serves him right, he's screwed his country over with his rhetoric and economic and social policies, all the while constantly focusing on the failings of other people/countries.
     
  8. és: thread starter macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #8
    Yep, I normally (actually, always have previous) used the 'over a million' with various studies to back it up. I just thought using the many 'upon hundreds' sounded more dramatic :D
     
  9. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #9
    I disagree with the general sentiment here that this is too harsh because what Bush did was worse. That's not how justice works. I am in agreement that Bush's actions are horrible, but this shoe-throwing chap should not be judged less guilty based on that standard. If I murder someone who happens to be a murderer, that doesn't make me less of a murderer, nor does it mean I should receive less punishment.

    That being said, three years sounds about right, but a little on the lenient side. Switch it around - were it the Iraqi PM, or Queen Elizabeth, or some other foreign head of state, visiting the U.S., I would expect (perhaps) a somewhat harsher punishment for the same crime.

    Doesn't matter if he's tossing the shoe at Ghandi or Mugabe, it's still an assault.
     
  10. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #10
    Should have gone with green custard. That always gets a laugh :D

    [​IMG]

    Seriously though, three months would be a far more reasonable amount. Nobody was hurt and it's even debatable whether the "assault" was pre-meditated.
     
  11. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #11
    So its ok to assault a visiting head of state? There enough people out there that hate the US, it does not matter who is president to them. Suppose it was Obama that got shoes thrown at him, here in the states or elsewhere? Would three years still be too long?
     
  12. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12
    Jeez fella. Talk about over-sensitive, but in my opinion, yes.

    Three months in an Iraqi prison or a fine would have done the trick as far as I'm concerned, but what do any of us know about Iraqi judicial and sentencing guidelines?
     
  13. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #13
    Not being oversensitive. Just playing devils advocate.

    If I was being oversensitive I would complain about how my post about Pelosi abusing the USAF mysteriously disappeared.
     
  14. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #14
    Threads that are just info dumps based on BS where the OP doesn't even bother to engage or reply are a waste of everybody's time, and constitute trolling. And don't bother telling me you haven't been logged on to reply.

    No more on this, thanks.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    HE THREW A GODDAMN SHOE!

    HOW is that worthy of three years?!

    Some people honestly continue to astound me.
     
  16. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #16
    With any luck, he'll be treated like a hero in prison, and it won't be that bad....

    Bush should still be held accountable for what he did, however.
     
  17. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #17
    too short of time

    you dont attack political figures and expect to get off easy. i dont care who you are or what political figure he is
     
  18. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    :rolleyes:

    What an attack! He might have even gotten.... a bruise!

    Its terrible that someones status can be used to get harsher penalties.
     
  19. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #19
    EXACTLY. It does not matter if it is Bush, Obama, or any other head of state.
     
  20. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #20
    just because you dislike bush doesnt mean this behavior should be allowed or that he should get off easy. it was an attack on a political head of state.

    seriously:rolleyes:
     
  21. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #21
    If a reporter threw a shoe at a White House press conference at, say, the Chinese president (and missed), what do you think he'd get as punishment in the law courts of DC? About the same?
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    I think 3 years for throwing a damn shoe is ridiculous regardless of who the hell it was.

    Notice how I said nothing about bush.....
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    Agreed. If somebody's going to prison for throwing a shoe, surely the Bush administration should be investigated as well.

    And again- three years is too long no matter who the head of state is- Bush, Obama, whoever.
     
  24. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #24
    you are implying that an attack on an average joe should be treated the same as an attack on the President. please:rolleyes:

    .....exactly, when its an attack on a President, expect to get harsher penalties than an attack on say billy bob....
     
  25. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #25
    I do think there's a house of cards kind of argument that applies here that does not apply to other visits by heads of states.

    al-Zaidi was punished by a puppet government that, even if it has some noble intentions, was still put in place in a way that is inconsistent with international law. George Bush was in Iraq as a visiting dignitary only as a result of overthrowing a government that would not have sanctioned his visit and replacing it with a government that would, a result that was achieved by engaging in war crimes. Under international law, Bush should not even have been allowed to continue to be a national dignitary, let alone be in Iraq. His presence there, as part of an unlawful occupation, should certainly play a mediating role in evaluating whether what al-Zaidi did could be considered a crime.

    The analogous situation is not another situation where a dignitary from a state at peace visited a state with whom they were also at peace and had legal and civil relationships. The analogous situation would be much more like if we were unlawfully occupied by another nation prosecuting a war of aggression, and one of our civilians had attacked a leader of the occupation. It might certainly be prosecuted as a "crime" by the occupying force, but we would not accept it as a crime under prevailing notions of what constitutes crime.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page