Jump to content
SubSpace Forum Network

Angry Iraqi throws shoes at Bush

CRe

By CRe
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Confess Newbie

Confess

Posted
Posted

This is truly the ultimate sign of disrespect towards our President of the United States of America. I do not find it funny, I find it disrespectful. On the other hand, it shows how much progress has been done in Iraq. It is through freedom that this man was able to throw the shoe, and it is through democracy that he will be tried for his actions.

 

I applaud Bush for his patience, however.

Blocks Newbie

»Blocks

Posted
Posted

Feel free to move this on over to the political forum.

 

This is truly the ultimate sign of disrespect towards our President of the United States of America.

I can think of many other actions and words that would "truly" be the "ultimate" sign(s) of disrespect toward a US president. Or would those then be "uberultimate"?

 

I do not find it funny, I find it disrespectful.

Lighten up, even Bush found it amusing. You saw the look on his face, it was like "Lol I just dodged a shoe."

Confess Newbie

Confess

Posted
Posted
I dont bring to question the 'shoe', rather I bring to question the symbolism and questions behind it...Such as, how was this person able to get so close to our president? Why did the shoe not 'blow up' before it came close to the president? Where in the world was the secret service?! Who's gonna get the beef for this? First a shoe...then a bullet.
Hakaku Newbie

Hakaku

Posted
Posted
Well Confess, when you're the world's most unliked president in someone else's country raging war on them, you can't expect everything to run smoothly and be as easy as stealing candy from a baby. And honestly, only a paranoid person would think up that a shoe could easily turn in a bullet in such a situation. The actual symbolism is that in Islamic countries, the sole of the foot represents the utmost insult upon someone else, hence why he says "here's your farewell kiss, you dog", and why George W. Bush doesn't understand because it represents two entirely different cultural point of views. And no, democratic rundowns did not give him any more freedoms to throw a shoe than under an islamic-based government: the difference is you don't hear about the others since our media is biased only towards things that relate to Americans abroad. So the only freedoms it gave were the freedoms for Americans to impede over other people's human rights.
FMBI Newbie

FMBI

Posted
Posted (edited)

I believe this was a lighthearted reenactment of the supposed assassination attempt in Georgia. Bravo, jolly Iraqi! Bravo! May all your countrymen gain your sense of humor!

 

edit - not that I'm endorsing this, by any means. Even the worst president of all time doesn't deserve to be assassinated - if you want him out of office, that's what impeachment's for.

Edited by Finland My BorgInvasion
Hakaku Newbie

Hakaku

Posted
Posted
Nice to see them using their free speech now though.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and Iraqis have been expressing their opinions since and before the war erupted. An Islamic-based government is not the same as Communism, and the American invasion did not better the living conditions in Iraq as nearly 5 million Iraqis have been displaced since 2003 (a figure quadruppling the displacement of refugees in any other war in Iraq), without counting the direct and indirect number of fatalities related to the invasion (~100k civilian deaths reported), and destruction of buildings and villages. The current constitution and government is a huge joke, incapable of sustaining itself without direct foreign assistance; and it's not like foreigners are going to abide by Iraq's constitution either, unless of course the media manages to dramaticize the story out of proportion rendering the government incapable of taking any major decisions on how to deal with the act without becoming a huge controversy leading to their political demise. So it's not the Iraqi excercising his freedom of speech, but rather western media's influencial ability to prevent any major actions taken against him. (Just look at Omar Khadr for instance)

Bak Newbie

Bak

Posted
Posted
One guy throwing his shoe isn't so bad, there's crazy people everywhere; it happens. The problem I see is when a majority of Arabs asked about it say his actions were acceptable and right. It pretty much reinforces a stereotype that Arabs are less civilized than westerners and ultimately hurts their image. If they want the world to care about their opinions they need to stop acting like children. There are grown-up ways to express disagreement.
Hakaku Newbie

Hakaku

Posted
Posted
One guy throwing his shoe isn't so bad, there's crazy people everywhere; it happens. The problem I see is when a majority of Arabs asked about it say his actions were acceptable and right. It pretty much reinforces a stereotype that Arabs are less civilized than westerners and ultimately hurts their image. If they want the world to care about their opinions they need to stop acting like children. There are grown-up ways to express disagreement.

That's a pretty low colonialistic approach if you consider your own more civilized than someone else. I suppose you still believe that Native Americans are souless savages too? And that everyone should be converted to Christianity through all repressive means possible? Fact is, maybe your perspective of Arabs isn't very high, but from an Arab's point of view, Americans are simply barbaric tyrants that they'd rather have out of their country (maybe 'uncivilized' from their perspective too). They can't be polite and say "please, would you possibly move out of my nation soon" : because face it, that's a horribly unrealistic way of getting the troops to pull out. They may not have their technology up to par with the United States, but there's simply no way you can consider another country more or less civilized.

 

If anything, you reinforce the stereotype that Westerners can't learn to adapt to different cultures in the world, and if you'd have to have a go at it again, you'd still ridicule yourself by going back and fight in 'Nam. Afterall, there surely are grown-up ways to express disagreement.

Bak Newbie

Bak

Posted
Posted
That's a pretty low colonialistic approach if you consider your own more civilized than someone else.
Are you honestly claiming that all cultures (over all history) are equally civilized?

 

that's a horribly unrealistic way of getting the troops to pull out.
throwing a shoe at the president is a better way of getting the troops out? who's being unrealistic?

 

Also, nice assumptions about my views (natives are soulless savages, everyone should be a christian, I want to go back to vietnam). you're really good at arguing against beliefs that you make up.

Hakaku Newbie

Hakaku

Posted
Posted
Are you honestly claiming that all cultures (over all history) are equally civilized?
Define "civilized".
Reclaimed from savage life and manners; instructed in arts, learning, and civil manners; refined; cultivated.
having a high state of culture and development both social and technological

 

throwing a shoe at the president is a better way of getting the troops out? who's being unrealistic?

No, he's throwing it out of anger at Bush. Obviously that's a realistic action if you ask me.

 

Also, nice assumptions about my views (natives are soulless savages, everyone should be a christian, I want to go back to vietnam). you're really good at arguing against beliefs that you make up.

No, I'm pointing out the fact that your view of Arabs is comparably the same view as the colonialists who came to North America had of Native Americans. And your idea of "they should act more like grown ups" is completely unfounded if not ridiculous. I'm sure you could find thousands of stories in the news where people "should act more like grown ups" back home in North America, but people simply don't act like monotonous ordely upper class robots. People are different, and so is culture, beliefs, and religion.

PoLiX Rookie

PoLiX

Posted
Posted

Well, what the real definition of civilization or civilized is, most the middle east is not.

 

I'm not really taking either side on this, as I do believe they are not savages, but by what the definition of civilized is, as I said, they are not.

FMBI Newbie

FMBI

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wrong. The middle east is civilized, and has been, in one form or another, for milennia - and I'm not even going to get into the whole "SUMER AND PERSIA STARTED IT ALL" thing.

 

However, under the repressive and autocratic governments of the 20th century, which have been run either by religious extremists or corrupt businessmen, it's not quite a surprise to see a breakdown in culture. Compare Jordan to Saudi Arabia - Jordan's people are far more likeable and logical from what I've heard, though I haven't been there myself (going in 2 years, though).

 

Additionally, in a tit for tat comparison of the incident, remember that the vast majority of the US's population was screaming about bombing the ragheads and sandniggers after 9/11 - and we did, whereas the Arabs are just supporting one shoe-throwing journalist. You can't call someone "not grown up" simply because they support a gesture like this.

 

However, Hakaku, relativism is a load of bullshit, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't bring it into play. Not to mention your immediate attack on Bak with relation to the Native Americans and whatnot.

Edited by Finland My BorgInvasion
Hakaku Newbie

Hakaku

Posted
Posted
However, Hakaku, relativism is a load of bullshit, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't bring it into play. Not to mention your immediate attack on Bak with relation to the Native Americans and whatnot.

I'm not talking relativism (or cultural relativism for that matter), I mentioned that "Bak's perspective", aka generalization is just as 'bullshit' as his condescending tone towards Arabs. Hence the harsh tone in my reply, because the term "civilized" is far overrated, and I would have thought people better than to pursue this colonialistic perspective of the world, as along with its antonym, savage, they were terms widely used by Europeans to describe first contact nations in the Americas; a racist perspective that has persisted until the late 1950s in North America. If we were simply talking about disrespectful manners, then that's a different story; but it shouldn't be equated with a people being more civilized or not.

FMBI Newbie

FMBI

Posted
Posted
One guy throwing his shoe isn't so bad, there's crazy people everywhere; it happens. The problem I see is when a majority of Arabs asked about it say his actions were acceptable and right. It pretty much reinforces a stereotype that Arabs are less civilized than westerners and ultimately hurts their image. If they want the world to care about their opinions they need to stop acting like children. There are grown-up ways to express disagreement.

 

 

That's a pretty low colonialistic approach if you consider your own more civilized than someone else. I suppose you still believe that Native Americans are souless savages too? And that everyone should be converted to Christianity through all repressive means possible? Fact is, maybe your perspective of Arabs isn't very high, but from an Arab's point of view, Americans are simply barbaric tyrants that they'd rather have out of their country (maybe 'uncivilized' from their perspective too). They can't be polite and say "please, would you possibly move out of my nation soon" : because face it, that's a horribly unrealistic way of getting the troops to pull out. They may not have their technology up to par with the United States, but there's simply no way you can consider another country more or less civilized.

 

If anything, you reinforce the stereotype that Westerners can't learn to adapt to different cultures in the world, and if you'd have to have a go at it again, you'd still ridicule yourself by going back and fight in 'Nam. Afterall, there surely are grown-up ways to express disagreement.

 

You replied to an argument which he didn't make, and then threw in some serious personal attacks for no reason. Along with a dose of relativism that is, ironically, biased against those of European descent, whereas his was more of a sympathetic lament for the Arabs. Requoted for ease of reading:

 

It pretty much reinforces a stereotype that Arabs are less civilized than westerners and ultimately hurts their image. If they want the world to care about their opinions they need to stop acting like children. There are grown-up ways to express disagreement.

Fact is, maybe your perspective of Arabs isn't very high, but from an Arab's point of view, Americans are simply barbaric tyrants that they'd rather have out of their country (maybe 'uncivilized' from their perspective too).

. . .

If anything, you reinforce the stereotype that Westerners can't learn to adapt to different cultures in the world, and if you'd have to have a go at it again, you'd still ridicule yourself by going back and fight in 'Nam. Afterall, there surely are grown-up ways to express disagreement.

Hakaku Newbie

Hakaku

Posted
Posted

Here, let me break it down even simpler:

Arabs are less civilized than westerners
That's a pretty low colonialistic approach if you consider your own more civilized than someone else

That's the gyst of the argument. Like I said, the rest of my paragraph was harsh, but I don't take condescendence over another people as a matter that should be joked upon any more than Confess finds the shoe being thrown funny. I'm not making invalid statements, as I clearly re-explain them in the following two posts, but I am changing his position to make his main statement easier to attack (aka the straw man argument).

 

It pretty much reinforces a stereotype that Arabs are less civilized than westerners and ultimately hurts their image. If they want the world to care about their opinions they need to stop acting like children. There are grown-up ways to express disagreement.
If anything' date=' you reinforce the stereotype that Westerners can't learn to adapt to different cultures in the world, and if you'd have to have a go at it again, you'd still ridicule yourself by going back and fight in 'Nam. Afterall, there surely are grown-up ways to express disagreement.[/quote']These are both arguments that attack the person rather than the reality. In the last sentence however, I reiterate Bak's argument to demonstrate its fundamental weakness by pointing out that not all disagreements are dealt with talks or 'grown-up ways to express disagreement'. The Vietnamese War is afterall, one of the biggest American failures. And if Americans are so "civilized" and always deal with disagreements in a "grown-up way", then I question how such a tragedy among others could have occured if all decisions taken were non-childish.

 

ironically, biased against those of European descent
I would say that the bias I wrote towards Westerners is the same as that towards Arabs; but it's not. Fortunately I'm capable of self-criticism, since I include myself (and those close to me) in this geographical statement, so I hardly call this a bias.

 

from an Arab's point of view, Americans are simply barbaric tyrants that they'd rather have out of their country (maybe 'uncivilized' from their perspective too).
Once again, relativism is hardly my main statement. If you're truly bothered by differences in opinions, then there's not much I can add since it's a biological and psychological fact that no two people are alike. But I'll leave these quotes speak for themselves:

 

"Strike them and strike evil so that evil will be defeated" - Sadam Hussein

 

"We will push those crooks, those mercenaries back into the swamp" - Iraqi Information Minister

 

Bush is a very stupid man. The American people are not stupid, they are very clever. I can't understand how such clever people came to elect such a stupid president. -IIM

 

Please, please! The Americans are relying on what I called yesterday a desperate and stupid method. - Mohammed Saeed Sahaf

Bak Newbie

Bak

Posted
Posted
I'm sure you could find thousands of stories in the news where people "should act more like grown ups"
That's why my first sentence says that individually there's a lot of crazy people, but the support by large chunks of Arabs of such childish behavior was what I found alarming.

 

I reiterate Bak's argument to demonstrate its fundamental weakness by pointing out that not all disagreements are dealt with talks
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was trying to say that throwing a shoe out of anger is childish, not that the USA has never done anything stupid. Vietnam hurt the USA's world image, just like supporting shoe-throwing is hurting the Middle East's world image.

 

Also, admitting you're applying a "straw man argument" is admitting that you're misrepresenting my positions, not refuting them.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...