world

Iraqi who threw shoes at Bush jailed for 3 years

125 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

125 Comments
Login to comment

Fair Judgement, W. Bush and Muntadhar al-Zeidi got what they deserved. And both names will appear in the latest version of World History.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The speed of his trial—two relatively brief hearings—is likely to feed widespread suspicion among Iraqis that al-Maliki’s government orchestrated the process

He admitted his guilt. There's video of the incident. Were some expecting a 6-month trial?

although defense lawyers said they had no evidence of any interference.

I have a feeling that that's going to be worth repeating in the future...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still think his punishment should have been to endure Bush throwing his shoes back at him and then having to watch it over and over on YouTube.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush deserved a shoe to the face. This man should be hailed as a hero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about all those people in the west who throw cream pies at politicians' faces?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In basketball the term is "No harm = No foul". There was no injury and no intent to injure here. Three years for an "insult" in a country where people are still busy killing each other is a farce.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

W. Bush and Muntadhar al-Zeidi got what they deserved.

W deserves peaceful retirement to a luxury ranch and a hefty lifetime pension? No.

al-Zeidi deserves incarceration? No.

'Tother way round.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo: BINGO!

The only up side to this is that everyone still remembers the man as a hero, and a hero's welcome and treatment is what he's likely to get in jail for the next three years, if he's not released sooner. And imagine when he gets out! Well, everyone but 4 or 5 people on this site think he's a hero. Hell, if bush is smart even HE looks up to the shoe-thrower.

Anyway, the only thing that could possibly have made the shoe-throwing more proper is it at least one hit bush square in the face.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Three years in jail. Subtracting for sleep leaves a full two years he'll have to think about George W Bush.

Of course, one doesn't need walls to be imprisoned.

Two years would be roughly equivalent to having spent about six hours a day these last eight years or so obsessing about Bush - perhaps that explains why so many identify with Muntadhar the shoe-thrower.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He is a hero. But he still has to go to jail. He committed assault. He attacked Bush clear as day, even if there was no contact. Its assault, a crime. 3 years seems a bit much, but it could have been worse.

But he is still a hero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This sets a new precedent for shoe throwers everywhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This guy is definitely a hero! 3yrs for attacking a war-criminal, pathetic! I hope when he comes out he is still hailed a hero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If an Iraqi threw a shoe at Obama, Liberals whould be demanding life in prison for assualting the chosen one. I seriously doubt that Obama would be as nimble as Bush in avoiding the jihad shoe...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

3 years for a shoe throw? He didn't even hit him!

Still, he'll have a pretty cozy time in prison considering he's a hero in Iraq - the guards even bought him a birthday cake. That was so touching it made me cry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If an Iraqi threw a shoe at Obama blah blah blah

If Obama started a war of choice, he'd deserve the boot too. Goose, gander.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He didn't even hit him!

Maybe that's the crime he's doing time for. If he'd scored a bullseye, he'd be a free man and maybe the next PM of Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush deserved a shoe to the face. This man should be hailed as a hero."

Yet when I say I support a fight against those who killed my friends on 9-11 I am called a bigot.

Moderator: If another reader calls you a bigot, their message would be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet when I say I support a fight against those who killed my friends on 9-11 I am called a bigot.

Not by my colleagues and me, skip. We've been wanting to go after OBL in force for over seven years now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude,

thanks.

btw, I support this guy at the same time I support him getting jailed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I also would have liked to go after McVey too but they got to him before I did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "Yet when I say I support a fight against those who killed my friends on 9-11 I am called a bigot."

What did Iraq and/or the shoe-thrower have to do with Iraq? And who's calling you a bigot? Now that the troops are FINALLY starting to be diverted from Iraq, they can actually go after those responsible for 9/11. The only connection with that event and 9/11, in fact, is that they both happened on bush's dime and he indirectly bears responsibility (for 9/11... he bears far more for having a shoe thrown at him).

Anyway, skip, take it easy, man. No one is calling you a bigot for wanting to go after the people responsible for 9/11. Has nothing to do with Iraq, though, or this incident.

Moderator: Readers, enough please. We do not want to see the word "bigot" on this or any other thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A shoe was more than deserved in this incident, as 90% of posters on here agree, and probably 99.99999999999% of the world (and then some).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush wins, again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo: "al-Zeidi deserves incarceration? No."

An Iraqi court thinks otherwise. But, hey, what do they know?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An Iraqi court thinks otherwise. But, hey, what do they know?

So who died and made al-Maliki Pope? Since when have law courts (especially those run by puppet governments) been infallible?

If al-Zeidi deserves three years in prison for chucking a shoe at a man, missing him and harming no one, what does Bush deserve for chucking the might of the US military at a country and killing untold thousands?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe that's the crime he's doing time for. If he'd scored a bullseye, he'd be a free man and maybe the next PM of Iraq.

haha jail the shoe! not the man...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree that Muntadhar the Shoe Thrower will always be a hero with Khomeini's ideological heirs in Iran and with Al Qaeda sympathizers the world over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would stand on this publicity and open my own shoe store. -Zeidi shoes- The throwing styles would include the highly popular GB2. But look at what it did to that "Married with Children" guy -Al Bundy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo: "puppet governments"

You mean the Iraqi government is a puppet government? The Iraqi government which DEMANDED that U.S. troops get out of Iraq?

You don't like the Iraqi court's verdict, so in your eyes it's a "puppet" court.

"What does Bush deserve for chucking the might of the US military at a country and killing untold thousands?"

Or, what does Bush deserve for making the decision to liberate millions?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought this guy had received some endorsement from a certain footwear manufacturer? Air al-Zeidi?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Muntadhar al-Zeidi, 30, defiantly shouted “long live Iraq” as the sentence was imposed, according to defense lawyers. Some of his relatives collapsed and had to be helped out of the courthouse. Others were forcibly removed by guards after shouting “down with Bush” and “long live Iraq.”

hAHAHA... yeah 'bush wins again', alright; with a whole lot of people shouting 'down with bush' it's no wonder he can do naught but hide at his ranch. Not that the man would ever go and visit a country he helped destroy, anyway.

As I said before, though, this hero is going to be well treated in prison by both his fellow prisoners and guards alike. Definitely an unwarranted three years, but hey.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "You mean the Iraqi government is a puppet government? The Iraqi government which DEMANDED that U.S. troops get out of Iraq?"

That's correct... THAT puppet government. Moreso than Al-Maliki begging them to say and protect him, though, it's the PEOPLE of Iraq that demand the US out, and the various factions and tribal leaders.

"You don't like the Iraqi court's verdict, so in your eyes it's a "puppet" court."

No... it's a puppet court and puppet government because it is. The fact that people don't like this hero's sentence is in part because it was given by a puppet government, not vice-versa.

"Or, what does Bush deserve for making the decision to liberate millions?"

This tired old line never worked then, and doesn't work now. In fact, you're one of the few remaining bush supporters who hasn't stopped using his cowboy phrases and abandoned him altogether, as he should be. bush is a war criminal, and that's a fact. He killed hundreds of thousands, and possibly more than that. The end, which has yet to be written, does NOT justify the means.

I agree with you on ONE point... bush should have a chance to throw a shoe at this man for doing him wrong. Likewise, EVERY SINGLE dead Iraqi since the illegal invasion should be represented by a shoe thrown at bush, as well as those injured, etc. So, bush gets to throw a shoe, and a few million get to do the same for him. Sounds fair to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People, I believe "assault" means physical contact...maybe even injury. al-Zeidi did not "assault" Bush. Insulted him, for sure, but no harm done, and I think he's suffered enough. Bush should ask for leniency and release in a graceful gesture...I know, don't hold my breath.

Perhaps we should be grateful he was not sentenced to death or for life for this heartfelt, hardy heinous, action of his. In three years, or less, he'll be out, married, and running for office. I wish him a bright future!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps Obama can lobby for his release.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ranger_Miffy: People, I believe "assault" means physical contact

Depends. Legal definitions vary. This is from Wiki:

In some jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand, assault refers to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, while in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, assault may refer only to the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force.[1][2] On the other hand, in Canada, assault can be simply just touching another without their consent.

I happen to be American, despite some very unAmerican Americans who swear I can't be. In America, if he had made contact, it would have been legally termed "battery".

At any rate, he threatened the president with violence. He launched a violent attack. I cannot imagine that any country anywhere would let him go on the grounds of "he did not make contact". They will find something, whether its insulting someone in Iraq, disturbing public order in Britian, or assault in America. I happen to think the American "assault and battery" distinction is the best, and, judging by own posts, it probably has nothing to do with my being American. I only take the side of truth and justice. The American way is not something I uphold, save maybe in my own house.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No suspended sentences in iraq. i hope obama asks for leniency

skipthesong you ingot! just kidding :p

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, three years for "free speech".

Obviously they shouldn't have got a badge from the government for the incident, but three years is draconian.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Last laugh is Dubya's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollo,

That's three times you've written the same thing. You can't have a lot to say, old friend...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "That's three times you've written the same thing. You can't have a lot to say, old friend..."

Shhhh.... he's trying to convince himself of something... not sure what, though. haha.

Seriously, though, the truth of the matter -- that this man's a hero world-wide while his personal hero, bush, is considered the scum of the earth -- is a very hard fact for some to swallow. You would have thought they would have joined the rest of the Republicans in the US in distancing themselves from their past president's shameful legacy, but not quite ready yet, I guess.

Someday they'll just forget he existed, I reckon'. The shoe-thrower? Well, he'll be remembered for a good long time to come. Probably be able to run for PM in the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So instead of blowing himself up with explosives, killing scores, this guy chooses to make his protest in a non lethal manner and now has to pay the price for his choice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This man should be hailed as a hero.

You can consider him a hero if that's what you choose to do. As long as he's serving his sentence in jail for breaking the law then I don't have a problem with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Justice."

Heh, the record has become un-stuck.

Super - "As long as he's serving his sentence in jail for breaking the law then I don't have a problem with it."

Don't you think the sentence is a little harsh, given the events and the political fervour in occupied Iraq?

Looking at this sort of "non-violent" means of protest - and let's just use the Iraq bringers of "liberation" as a reference - do you think they would have received similar jail time for a protest such as this in the US or the UK?

Even the Brits (fathers4justice) that managed to get in to British parliament security to lob a condom filled with powder at Tony Blair only received a fine, and I saw Arnie get egged whilst grooming himself for office.....I doubt they got 3 years in a federal penitentiary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Iraqis don't like the verdict they will revolt. Muntadhar the Shoe Thrower is, like, a hero. He gonna be the PM some day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Throw shoes at the US suck-up judges. Free Muntadhar.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: Don't you think the sentence is a little harsh, given the events and the political fervour in occupied Iraq?

I really have no idea if it's harsh. I can't say we really have anything to compare it to. What do you recommend?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Free Muntadhar

He'll be freed. In about 3 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: I really have no idea if it's harsh. I can't say we really have anything to compare it to. What do you recommend?

In Canada, I believe this would be simple assault. There is an 80 percent chance he would have been fined and sent home. But if imprisoned, the average sentence for a single charge is 51 days. Not sure if it would be two charges though, one for each shoe.

If we call it assault with a weapon, 132 days, not even five months.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al-Zeidi, wearing a beige suit over a brown shirt and brown leather shoes

He should have thrown those shoes at the judge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Muntadhar the Shoe Thrower is, like, a hero. He gonna be the PM some day."

He's a hero to a lot of Iraqi's, and in turn, they don't like Geroge Bush or his occupation army. One would have thought at a time when the US is seeking to reduce it's military occupation of Iraq, which in turn wil be a test of an already tense situation, that getting people worked up over a silly incident might not be the sbest of ideas.

But then again, who am I to ponder about cause and effect? Let's just un-shakebly support our radical partisan views and to hell with the future!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" I can't say we really have anything to compare it to. "

I already compared it to a similar incident in one of the countries force-fully exporting it's way of life to the "new" Iraq - and they got a fine and a slap on the wrist. And then there's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw97LIBGbR4

Heh, you know how these johnnies can get worked up over next to nothing - I'm just saying it's a bit harsh for someone who is stupidly expression his opinion - even Bush himself handled this incident as gracefully as could be done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

stupidly expressing opinion.

whoops

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as far as i can remember he didn't even connect with bush's smug, grinning face. that's the greatest injustice i can see in this case

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jonyboy,

Well, at least then it could be considered "assault" and perhaps a brief jail term was necassary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He should have gotten a stiffer sentence. But I suspect he will be released within a few months.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Credit where Credit is due.

The 'Blame Bush' website nailed this.

Being pelted with shoes is considered a grave insult in Islamic cultures, but in the West only women and effeminate men throw their footwear when they're pissed off about something. So al-Zaidi's courageous outburst struck a chord with Progressives here in the states. The RethugniKKKans can have Joe the Plumber (and all his personal records back, too). At last, WE have a regular human being that WE can identify with, someone who puts a voice to our anger and speaks the words we have longed to be spoken, but that no one would hear. Best of all, he hasn't exploded in a crowded market or sawed someone's head off on the internet yet.

So here's to Muntadhar al-Zaidi, Man of the People. There's a Pulitzer Prize and a job waiting for him at CNN if he ever gets out of Bush's torture chamber.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2008/12/yes-virginia-there-is-a-muntadhar-alzaidi.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still don't understand the long term interest in this shoe throwing person. If he wanted to help the Iraqi people he could start some sort of nonprofit construction fund to rebuild businesses or a scholarship program for the countries youth, instead he throws a shoe and everybody is estatic about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion - Dontcha see? Bush is extremely unpopular for making the decision to liberate Iraq - therefore this guy is a hero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: Not only that, but bush also killed hundreds of thousands for a few bucks, and based it all on lies. Hell, he even got more than 4200 hundred of you American kids killed! They try to spin, spin, spin it as you guy still (poorly) attempt to do, and this man stood up for what the majority of Iraqis feel, and hence he is a hero. This is just your average Iraqi Joe, and now he is a world-wide hero who rightly threw shoes at a villain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: Not only that, but Bush liberated millions of Iraqis, and based it all on Saddam's still unbelievably being in power after he invaded a neighboring country. Hell, he even got more than a whole slew of terrorists who would torture and kill you, smith, without hesitation or remorse, killed! Al-Zeidi is just your average effeminate criminal who threw his shoes at a hero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To us 3 years seems harsh, but in the end it's really not that big of a deal to me. If that's what the Iraqis wanted to do then so be it. Maybe they'll release him early, who knows. I'm just glad the guy wasn't let off free when he obviously broke the law. I'd rather have a hard sentence handed out by a judge than no sentence at all handed out because of public opinion.

It's nice to at least be able to have this conversation as opposed to 2002 where this guy would have been dead and the same people here crying over 3 years would be telling us that the murder of him and his family isn't that big of a deal. So say what you want about 3 years....it's a big improvement over your previous position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"....it's a big improvement over your previous position."

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware my position had changed.

And anyway, under Saddam he wouldn't have been dead, he'd have probably been given a tinpot medal for doing that to W :p

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hehe yeah but you'd have to stand should to shoulder with Saddam praising this guy...and I don't really think that's the type of company you want to be seen agreeing with...is it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the event anyone happens to ponder to themselves, "How desperate are bush cultists, on a scale of 1 to 10, to somehow tie a victory to their complete failure of a deity?"

Iraqi who threw shoes at bush jailed for 3 years

rollonarte at 11:07 AM JST - 13th March bush wins, again.

My boy, rollonarte, proving once again, where there's a will to move the success goal post, there's a way.

Hey, I heard bush tied his shoes this morning...all by himself too: V I C T O R Y!

Here's hoping the shoe chucker learns to better channel his anger and energy (he is a journalist, he could have used the power of the pen) and gets out early for good behavior.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, I heard bush tied his shoes this morning...all by himself too: V I C T O R Y!

Now now young Taka, you know that's a vicious, malicious rumor. Laura only lets him wear slip-ons. She loves him too much to make him struggle with laces. And it upsets the dogs when he ties both feet together and falls flat on his face.

:-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind - 11:10pm

how dare you quote Chomstein on this matter :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll gladly throw my heaviest boots at the war mongering mass murderer bush. anyone who defends bushes actions in Iraq as liberation is a twat!! Iraq was not attacked to free the people, innocent people were murdered so that America could get more money and oil!! long live shoe throwers, may all war be as passive as that!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"and I don't really think that's the type of company you want to be seen agreeing with...is it?"

The only trouble with all that is that I'm not praising his actions in the first place buddy.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"In the West only women and effeminate men throw their shoes when they're pissed off at something."

buggerlugs: "I'll gladly throw my heaviest boots at the warmongering mass murderer bush"

Heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "smith: Not only that, but Bush liberated millions of Iraqis, and based it all on Saddam's still unbelievably being in power after he invaded a neighboring country. Hell, he even got more than a whole slew of terrorists who would torture and kill you, smith, without hesitation or remorse, killed!"

I'm still waiting for you to explain, sarge, why if it was such a good thing to oust an evil dictator and why it was the original reason for illegally invading the US hasn't done it to any of the other dozens of countries with evil dicators. Why haven't they, sarge? I mean... besides the real reasons, of course (which is to say, none of what you mentioned).

What's more, sarge, is that there are a hell of a lot more terrorists today that would 'kill me without sideways remorse'... errr... 'for looking sideways at teenagers for being without remorse...' errr... 'without remorse sideways...' (damn, what is it you always paste?) than there were before bush invaded a country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11 or AQ (but does now in regards to the latter!).

Anyway, what do you think of my earlier suggestion? bush gets to throw a shoe or two at the man in return for having it done to him, and the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and millions injured, slaughter thanks to bush are represented by others who get to throw their shoes at bush. Then we can call it all even. Those who don't want to throw shoes at bush don't have to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the US hasn't done it to any of the other dozens of countries with evil dicators.

Obviously each country would need to be looked at due to their unique circumstances.

Anyway, I don't think you really support an "invade everyone or no one" philosophy. You just tend to not think things through before you speak is all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This dude was already punished the instantaneous moment Bush laughed and brushed him off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obviously each country would need to be looked at due to their unique circumstances.

A list of circumstances unique to Iraq: 1) They got oil. Would it not be neat to choke off that supply while selling ours to the military at inflated prices? Nobody will see that coming. Especially after we tell them they got enough oil to pay for their own reconstruction! 2) He tried to kill my daddy. 3) After a decade of sanctions, there is no way their military can stand up to ours. 4) Our press has really got the masses worked up about Saddam. In fact, he has bumped Satan down to the number 2 spot on the "Evil name" survey. 5) Thanks to #4, all our lies will be believed, no matter how ridiculous. WMD. Al-quaida connections. Nuclear bomb programs. Mobile sarin factories. You name it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "Anyway, I don't think you really support an "invade everyone or no one" philosophy. You just tend to not think things through before you speak is all."

Speak for yourself, in terms of the 'don't think things over before you speak', part. After all, you're still one of the 'Iraq had WMDs' crowd, and believe the war is justifiable.

You're right, though, I don't believe in illegally invading any countries at all for the purpose of regime change. My point to sarge and the likes of those who think that this is what Iraq was all about is: a) that was only the third of fourth on a long list of reasons, most of which were lies, fed to the American public; and b) if you REALLY believe ridding the world of an evil dictator was what it was all about, how come none of you can seriously answer the question as to why the US isn't rushing into NKorea, Iran, and all the other countries it's branded as 'evil' (in particular in the last 8 years)? Instead all you guys seem to be able to do in such cases is try insulting the poster (see your post again).

"Obviously each country would need to be looked at due to their unique circumstances."

So, tell us the 'obvious' circumstances that required Iraq to be invaded before the others. I mean, NKorea is actually a threat, as Iran is gearing up to be, so what made the non-threatening Iraq such a priority?

Face it, 'Lib... it was never about deposing Saddam and ridding the world of a dictator. That's one of the many ends the bush goverment and his few remaining die-hard fans use to justify the means, and one reason why this man was justified in throwing his shoes at bush. If any other leader did the same as he, I would hope they get shoes thrown at them as well -- it's not just a bush thing. The man deserves a little bit of time in the slammer for the 'assault' (if you can call it that), but not three years. But as I said, since he got the unjust sentence, I admit once again I'm happy he'll at least receive a heroes welcome and treatment behind bars, and the puppet government in Iraq will be under pressure to let him off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin: "This dude was already punished the instantaneous moment Bush laughed and brushed him off."

You mean the 'deer caught in headlights' look bush had for a few seconds after? Or when he finally realized he had to do SOMETHING and, hands shaking while the shoe-thrower was getting beaten, he decided to open the same yap that got him into this mess?

Sorry, but bush trying to cover his own gaffes and crimes with a little chuckle is punishment to none.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis: Damn! You beat me to it while I was typing!!

Thanks for pointing out the same flaws in SuperLib's 'obvious' reasons post. Perhaps now he can tell us which ones on your list, if not all, he personally subsribed to.

Anyway, there are far more posters on here defending the man and pointing out the lack of justification in the three year sentence than the three or four people who have come on here to defend their former master. This is just a microcosmic reflection, of course, of how the world at large things of the subject, but it's proof they are in the extreme minority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, SmithinJapan, I mean when Bush laughed and shrugged it off.

What dya think woulda happened if Mr. al-Zeidi had tossed his shoes at Saddam or al-Zarqawi?

That's right. Somebody hand that man a mop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

During Thursday’s proceedings, chief defense attorney Dhia al-Saadi moved that the charges be dismissed, saying al-Zeidi’s act was “an expression of freedom” and was not a crime.

Oh, the absolute irony in that defense of for his actions.

Oh and the blather here about his sentence being to harsh.

Court spokesman Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar said al-Zeidi received the minimum sentence for the charge, which could have sent him to prison for 15 years. His lawyers said they would appeal.

I guess some folks would think 15 years to be a little stiff. Glad he got the MINIMUM sentence the court had to impose on him instead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my neck of the islands, al-Saadi's "expression of freedom" is a legal thingie we call "assault".

You're right though: Human beans left of center don't get the irony or the blessin's of that child's behavior.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

His throw was pretty good IMO - Bush was pretty artful to dodge 'em, which is the only tragedy in this instance. He must be sitting in his cell fuming....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, he's sittin' in jail praisin' his new Christian god that his head is still atop his shoulders and will mostly likely remain there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: how come none of you can seriously answer the question as to why the US isn't rushing into NKorea, Iran, and all the other countries it's branded as 'evil' (in particular in the last 8 years)?

I did answer the question. Reread my post to you.

smithinjapan: Face it, 'Lib... it was never about deposing Saddam and ridding the world of a dictator.

Face it, 'mith....for some people, including me, it was. You can side step the issue when you talk to Bush, but you're talking to me.

and one reason why this man was justified in throwing his shoes at bush.

And it's justified that he's in jail now. So it looks like everyone is happy. What's the problem?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "I did answer the question. Reread my post to you."

No you didn't... you simply said, 'It's a case by case basis' to which you could not answer what the criteria you describe as 'obvious' was in the case for Iraq. And if it was indeed 'to depose the world of an evil dictator' as you state you think the reason was in your next line, then again: why not attack all the other countries with evil dictators, simply for that reason, since it's so good for you?

The truth is, again, you simply cannot answer what singled out Iraq as being so 'obvious' a target when your criteria for legitimizing it would put so many other countries in the exact same crosshairs and yet have not been attacked. You couldn't address similar points made by likeitis, either.

"Face it, 'mith....for some people, including me, it was."

Well, those people were, sorry to say, those who cannot admit they were incredibly and easily duped and instead chose to believe it was for that reason alone all along. It's even funnier given that you've come on here in the past and chided people for pointing out there were no WMDs in the first place.

Anyway, feel free to actually address the questions/'obvious' criteria likeitis and I mentioned (instead of saying, "well... obviously it depends on the country"). I won't hold my breath. It would be nice, though, if you guys really could say how a dictator who doesn't pose a threat to the US is more dangerous to the US and the world than dictators who DO pose a threat.

"And it's justified that he's in jail now. So it looks like everyone is happy. What's the problem?"

Well, glad you agree he was justified in throwing his shoes at bush, at least. Won't make sarge happy, but hey. And I also think it's justified he's in jail, though it should be a shorter sentence, since he didn't even hit the dope.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

u know, i am not a big bush fan, we all know about the bogus WMD's and all. however, this guy trowing the shoe, didnt just assaulted bush, as many poeple sees ir, in my eyes he disrespected our president, our country , disrespected americans, i dont care who you are or how pissed u are , you just dont disrespect a world leader , and some of you try to shield it with free speech...they wouldnt be no free speech for that guy if we werent there. was he going to trow a shoe to sadam? dont think so buddy. i been wondering someting imagine if, we didnt go to iraq, and just focused in afganistan like we are about to do, so there were no claims of WMD and all, how long would it take for iraq to get involved one way or another in the conflict? or do you think sadam was just going to sit tight while we run around i the region? i dont think so, but thats just me, my humble opinion and after all, what do i know. later!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: No you didn't... you simply said, 'It's a case by case basis' to which you could not answer what the criteria you describe as 'obvious' was in the case for Iraq.

Well obviously there is a case by case cost/benefit analysis. Taking out North Korea would including losing all of Seoul, which means other countries are affected. Taking out Zimbabwe doesn't have the same consequences. I'm not going to go through a list of every single country, obviously. My point is to say that each situation is unique and I'll leave it at that.

I also don't have a list as to which countries should be first or last for reasons X, Y, and Z. We're speaking in general terms for the sake of conversation. I said I thought dictators should be removed forcefully but each situation is unique. I wasn't drawing up battle plans and making firm dates.

Well, those people were, sorry to say, those who cannot admit they were incredibly and easily duped and instead chose to believe it was for that reason alone all along. It's even funnier given that you've come on here in the past and chided people for pointing out there were no WMDs in the first place.

We've been over this before. Everyone thought he had a WMD program, even the head UN inspector. The question was what to do about it. I've commented in the past at your inaccurate statements when you talk about people "knowing" Saddam had no WMDs, and I'd rather not get into that again. Last we spoke I believe I asked you to produce evidence from 2003 that verified Saddam had no WMDs and you've yet to produce anything. If that changes we'll address the topic again.

if you guys really could say how a dictator who doesn't pose a threat to the US is more dangerous to the US and the world than dictators who DO pose a threat.

You don't understand my opinion. I don't think a dictator has to be a threat to the US or Canada or "the West" to be removed. Being a threat to his own people is good enough. The leaders of Sudan aren't a threat to me, but it's not like I'm willing to let them go on killing forever as long as it doesn't affect me. I think that type of attitude is what allows dictators to stay in power and kill more over a long enough period of time than an invasion will. That's an attitude I'd like to see changed.

Well, glad you agree he was justified in throwing his shoes at bush,

When you drop to Sushi's level it makes me completely uninterested in talking to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

drunksailor: "i been wondering someting imagine if, we didnt go to iraq, and just focused in afganistan like we are about to do, so there were no claims of WMD and all, how long would it take for iraq to get involved one way or another in the conflict? or do you think sadam was just going to sit tight while we run around i the region?"

Yes! how long until Iraq hypothetically stopped 'sitting on its hands' and did something about the US being in Afghanistan?! Better attack Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Armenia, and all the other countries in the area because you never know if they might be offended in the future. You present the worst 'logic' for going into Iraq that I have ever seen. I mean, at least people like SuperLib, sarge, and rollonarte don't actually believe the lies they are told -- you seem like you honestly believe attacking Iraq was justified because Saddam might have eventually become upset the US was in not immediate vicinity.

"...in my eyes he disrespected our president..."

And? Your president DESERVED to have the shoe thrown at him. He disrespected Iraq, the area, the US, and the world, not to mention disrespecting the office of the President itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I reckon that like a lot of big tough Lefties out there ol' Muntadhar - reportedly a big fan of the t-shirt revolutionary Che Guevara - wanted to go to jail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollonarte: "I reckon that like a lot of big tough Lefties out there ol' Muntadhar - reportedly a big fan of the t-shirt revolutionary Che Guevara - wanted to go to jail."

Well, it probably is safer than walking around on the streets in freedumized Iraq, yeah.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"freedumized Iraq, yeah"

Yeah, the situation in Iraq with a dictator running the place into the ground was much better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laugh at the contortions by some of the anti-liberation crowd here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: Glad to see you going back to making good posts, though we disagree on a number of things.

"Last we spoke I believe I asked you to produce evidence from 2003 that verified Saddam had no WMDs and you've yet to produce anything. If that changes we'll address the topic again."

It's not up to those who wish another country not to attack to prove that something that doesn't exist does not exist. The onus is on the person using something as a rational for attacking to prove that said something actually exists and is a justified reason. Saddam himself said he would allow complete transparency and inspectors to check everything in the days before the war -- bush would not listen. The UN begged for more time to verify that what wasn't there might be there -- bush would not listen.

The idea that you can prove something like this doesn't exist with concrete evidence is just plain silly.

"Well obviously there is a case by case cost/benefit analysis."

What were the benefits in the case of Iraq? Still waiting to hear that one, too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Yeah, the situation in Iraq with a dictator running the place into the ground was much better."

Still waiting for you to tell us how Iraq posed an actual threat to the US, and how it was a priority compared to nations with evil dictators that DO pose a threat. Needless to say, I'm not going to hold my breath. Feel free to address the 5 or 6 times said questions were posted to you on this thread alone, and the dozens of other times, if not hundreds, you've been unable to answer it in the past as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib: Everyone thought he had a WMD program, even the head UN inspector.

This is as wrong as saying that the U.S. Congress voted to invade Iraq. You are twisting and shortchanging so many facts to arrive at this conclusion that it is thoroughly ignorant and totally misleading. It is the work of a simple mind that cannot tolerate a single ounce of ambiguity (though I am only accusing you of believing it and not creating it.)

Moderator: Back on topic please. Whether or not Iraq had WMDs is not relevant to this particular discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bang on, likeitis. Another great posting. Its just too funny watching the few remaining bush supporters try and change the topic.The whole world LOVES this man for throwing his shoes at a certain failed president, shoes that SHOULD HAVE hit said president in the head even though like Ghandi I am against violence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What were the benefits in the case of Iraq? Still waiting to hear that one, too.

You already know them. Te removal of a dictator, the creation of democracy, ending the threat to his neighbors, failure to abide by agreements that ended the previous conflict, etc. I think your point is that the evidence isn't enough to justify the invasion, not that the evidence doesn't exist. But I'll let you decide how you want to handle it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gombei424Canada: Bang on, likeitis. Another great posting. Its just too funny watching the few remaining bush supporters try and change the topic.The whole world LOVES this man for throwing his shoes at a certain failed president, shoes that SHOULD HAVE hit said president in the head even though like Ghandi I am against violence.

I'm a fan of your work... ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis: This is as wrong as saying that the U.S. Congress voted to invade Iraq. You are twisting and shortchanging so many facts to arrive at this conclusion that it is thoroughly ignorant and totally misleading. It is the work of a simple mind that cannot tolerate a single ounce of ambiguity (though I am only accusing you of believing it and not creating it.)

People usually tell me I'm completely wrong when I say that. Then I ask them for verification in 2003 that Saddam had disarmed. That's usually when they change the topic to something else.

Anyway, I'll ask you the same question. Since you feel the case is so cut and dry please present it. Given the level of shock you have over my words my guess is that the evidence you have must be overwhelming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "People usually tell me I'm completely wrong when I say that. Then I ask them for verification in 2003 that Saddam had disarmed. That's usually when they change the topic to something else."

Clearly it's not just me you are asking to prove with something that a certain nothing exists. Proof that they do not exist is in the fact that they were never there, and were never found after the invasion. bush back then was another fan of the 'prove they aren't there' line when he couldn't prove they were, and look where that got you guys. Simply amazing.

"You already know them."

And I ask you again, then, that if these are the benefits that come from illegally invading a sovereign nation, why then not do it to every other country with a dictator? You made a half-hearted attempt to answer it before, but you still justify Iraq by means that would be the same with any other dictator deposed, save perhaps it might be in a country that actually poses a threat to the US.

But hey, I guess I was wrong in asking you to point out the 'obvious', in your words, benefits to invading Iraq that make it a priority over all other dictatorships.

The invasion of Iraq was wrong, bottom line, and even bush said he regretted it in his interview before leaving office. Any grounds for invading was based on lies, and you guys use the 'we rid the world of an evil dictator' reason as an excuse for being duped and unable to admit it. And then you guys express revulsion at a man who throws his shoes at the man who decided to do it all, and wonder how people can see him as a hero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who was/is anti-liberation should be adult enough to recognize their 'argument' is now with the people of liberated Iraq. They have bravely held two free elections. In neither did they vote for a return to the past, in whatever form.

Likewise, if you are so silly as to think throwing shoes at the democratically elected leader of a foreign country makes someone a hero and should absolve him from laws crafted by a free people who are his compatriots you cannot, in good faith, say you believe in democracy, non-violence or the necessity of civil society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They have bravely held two free elections. In neither did they vote for a return to the past, in whatever form.

Ah yes. Those wonderful, democratic elections. Let's not talk about the tens (hundreds? who knows?) of thousands of free Iraqis who didn't get to vote in those wonderful elections because they were dead. (Lemme see, vote to return to the past in which I was ruled by a despot but I was alive, or vote for the status quo in which some people get to vote, but I'm eternally dead. Tough choice?)

And how many of those who did vote, would have voted for a return to the past if it had included the (impossible, because they're dead) return of their loved ones?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Likewise, if you are so silly as to think throwing shoes at the democratically elected leader of a foreign country makes someone a hero and should absolve him from laws crafted by a free people who are his compatriots you cannot, in good faith, say you believe in democracy, non-violence or the necessity of civil society."

Hmmm... evidently rollonarte thinks you can't say that you believe in democracy if a person is not allowed to express themselves, gets beaten and tortured, and locked away for an excessive amount of time for it. Hm....

"They have bravely held two free elections. In neither did they vote for a return to the past, in whatever form."

Yep... brave, alright. Under lock and key, curfews, and with barbed wire, and with some barred from doing so (under the curfew, since they therefore could not make it to polling stations). And of course, as Cleo pointed out, the thousands and thousands dead who cannot vote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo: "Let's not talk about the tens ( hundreds? who knows?..."

It's tens.

"... of thousands of free Iraqis who didn't get to vote in those wonderful elections because they were dead."

Let's not talk about the millions of Iraqis who didn't get to vote in any kind of legitimate election for decades before the liberation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's tens.

Oh well that's all right then. Who cares about mere tens of thousands of dead people.

Let's not talk about the millions of Iraqis who didn't get to vote in any kind of legitimate election for decades before the liberation.

Or we could talk about the millions of people in other countries (eg North Korea springs to mind) who don't get to vote in any kind of legitimate election, are governed by a crackpot dictator running the country into the ground doubtless from his opulent palaces and dead set on developing nuclear weapons. And perhaps you could explain why the downtrodden masses of NKorea under Kim were/are less deserving of freedumb than the downtrodden masses of Iraq under Saddam. (Apart from the lack of oil and the very real threat that a military that hadn't been ground down by wars and a decade of sanctions might actually fight back).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Or we could talk about the millions of people in other countries ( eg North Korea springs to mind ) who don't get to vote in any kind of legitimate election.."

Perhaps on another thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S invaded Iraq and took Saddam out of power for a very simple reason

It was doable after 9/11.

End of debate

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is to blame for Islam's centuries-old Sunni versus Shia rivalry?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollonarte - Yeah, see, this rivalry was brutally but effectively suppressed until the cowboy Bush decided to liberate the place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin: "Cleo, why doesn't your nation take care of North Korea for the world then?"

I doubt Cleo is for illegal regime change, as you support. She was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of people like yourself, who say Iraq was invaded to rid the world of a dictator, and it was not a mistake, but can only say, "Why don't YOU invade!" when it's pointed out that if that's truly what you believe the same logic should be applied in other cases.

Face it, you guys know for a fact that was not the reason for invading, and you were utterly and completely duped, and you just can't hack it when people point out the obvious lies you were fed and how wrong the invasion was to begin with.

Didn't you hear about bush's new library being built? They aren't even touching on the Iraq issue in the 'bush museum' section because they're afraid it's still going to turn out as a disaster (and bush himself regretted it, until pressure over the comments made him change his tune 180 again), and was a massive mistake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SmithinJapan, no need to over-think this.

The current conflict in Iraq is a continuation of the original Gulf War.

Forget your spin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: and were never found after the invasion.

Right. After the invasion. Yet you seem convinced that everyone (except me) knew that was the case before the invasion.

bush back then was another fan of the 'prove they aren't there' line when he couldn't prove they were, and look where that got you guys.

Saddam had WMDs after the first war. The UN made the condition that he must verify that he destroyed them. The "prove they aren't there (anymore)" was exactly the situation. Surely you know about this.

And I ask you again, then, that if these are the benefits that come from illegally invading a sovereign nation, why then not do it to every other country with a dictator?

And now the circle is complete. I've explained why the "invade everyone or no one" philosophy is bunk, and one that you probably don't support, and I've also given reasons why Iraq was invaded. The problem is that when I answer one you switch back to the other question.

And then you guys express revulsion at a man who throws his shoes at the man who decided to do it all, and wonder how people can see him as a hero.

Express revulsion? I think you're confusing your passion for making him a hero with my simple belief that he broke the law and should be put in jail. You can call him a hero if you want. I really don't care. But personally I think allowing a judge to throw out the rule of law because you support political messages by those who break the law isn't a good situation. I'm betting you'd agree if it weren't for the uncontrollable emotions that cloud your judgment when the word "Bush" is included in the topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollonarte: and should absolve him from laws crafted by a free people who are his compatriots you cannot, in good faith, say you believe in democracy, non-violence or the necessity of civil society.

That pretty much sums up the issue when you strip away all of the obsession.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: Let's not talk about the millions of Iraqis who didn't get to vote in any kind of legitimate election for decades before the liberation.

Plus the hundreds (not tens) of thousands killed by Saddam in Iraq and surrounding countries. But for some those dead people never seem to count.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo: Or we could talk about the millions of people in other countries (eg North Korea springs to mind) who don't get to vote in any kind of legitimate election, are governed by a crackpot dictator running the country into the ground doubtless from his opulent palaces and dead set on developing nuclear weapons.

Feel free to remind us again and again about the brutality of dictators. But please don't forget that if you had your way we'd have one more of them in the world today. Your position seems to be that if we can't remove all of them then we should remove none of them. The fact that you're the one fighting to keep them in power is lost on you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "But personally I think allowing a judge to throw out the rule of law because you support political messages by those who break the law isn't a good situation. I'm betting you'd agree if it weren't for the uncontrollable emotions that cloud your judgment when the word "Bush" is included in the topic."

I never said the man deserves no jail time, and in fact said he needs to be punished. I DID say three years was excessive. My point, overall, is that this man is regarded as a hero by probably every single Iraqi, and millions more world-wide, because he stood up to the rationale you guys use to try and defend the war.

"...Right. After the invasion. Yet you seem convinced that everyone (except me) knew that was the case before the invasion."

You edited out the first part of my comment when pasting. YES, of course they knew there were none after invading (and when they had to come up with the 'we ousted an evil dictator' excuse), and they DIDN'T know there were ANY before invading, because there was ZERO evidence. When Hussein said he would allow everyone in to check it out pre-invasion, bush did not listen; he had his mind set on the attack, and that's that. So you see, back to the part you chose not to paste in, proof that there were no weapons there was in the inability to gather evidence that there were WMDs. bush was given heaps of chances to verify, and turned them all down.

"Feel free to remind us again and again about the brutality of dictators. But please don't forget that if you had your way we'd have one more of them in the world today. Your position seems to be that if we can't remove all of them then we should remove none of them. The fact that you're the one fighting to keep them in power is lost on you."

You're lost again. Cleo was saying the same thing I, and anyone else with a brain, has said to you in dozens of cases; that your logic in supporting the invasion is extremely flawed and hypocritical. She's not fighting to keep dictators in power at all, rather I believe she is against the war in Iraq and in particular the rush to start it, and she's pointing out that the reasons you guys use for being the only reason for invading Iraq are equally applicable to many other countries.

At least you didn't take USARonin's mindless tact and suggest Cloe herself attack NKorea after she points out the same as above.

We just want you guys to admit that it was wrong, because it was. Suggesting it was right because there is one less evil dictator not only denies the real reasons for going in, but also opens you up for the arguments that, if that's really your attitude, then why not rid the world of all the other dictators. But we've been through that, and you cannot answer it except to say 'obvious pros/cons' and then point out very UNobvious reasons for attacking Iraq, so we'll just end that one for now, eh?

You are one of the better posters of your ilk on here, to be fair, but you still let pride get the better part of you when you know you are wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My point, overall, is that this man is regarded as a hero by probably every single Iraqi

Um, yeah. Every single Iraqi. Why speak in such terms? I've seen you rail on others for doing it.

When Hussein said he would allow everyone in to check it out pre-invasion, bush did not listen;

There was zero evidence that he destroyed the WMDs that were known to exist after Kuwait, a condition that he agreed to. The burden of proof was on Saddam, not the UN. We aren't debating whether he complied or not. He didn't. We're debating what should have been done about his non-compliance. He had 12 years to produce evidence but he did not. His choice.

the only reason for invading Iraq are equally applicable to many other countries.

But the consequences are not. Therein lies the difference.

You are one of the better posters of your ilk on here, to be fair, but you still let pride get the better part of you when you know you are wrong.

OK, smith. I'll just respond in kind. I'm right and you're wrong but you're too stubborn to admit it so you and your ilk just keep pretending you're right. Now I guess it's your turn.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. We have already ruled that references to Saddam and WMDs are not relevant. The subject is the shoe thrower.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I disagree with this sentence. Who's gonna pay for this guy's food and housing for the next three years? He should have simply been slapped upside the head ( OK, apparently he was ), made to endure the humiliation of Bush throwing his shoes back at him, and ordered to pay Bush compensation and court costs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"He should have simply been slapped upside the head ( OK, apparently he was ), made to endure the humiliation of Bush throwing his shoes back at him, and ordered to pay Bush compensation and court costs."

Agreed... and bush should have two shoes thrown at him for every death that occurred since the invasion. I think that's fair enough. Won't bring back the thousands and thousands of dead, but at least the family can get a shot at the man who murdered them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many shoes to the face or slaps 'upside the head' for those who finance jihad and kill their fellow Mohammedans? Bombs don't grow on trees or come up through the ground. What punishment do the mullahs in Iran and their whackjob president A'jad deserve for financing the murderous "insurgents" in Iraq and providing the IEDs?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the guy should go to jail for 3 years and Bush should retire. Looks like I won't have much frustration over the way things are playing out. Too bad for others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder if Dumbya even knows of this guy's fate.

Shore would be nice if we could get us a link with his reaction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollonarte: Sure! Let's show bush the video on YouTube of the guy throwing his shoes, and see what bush thinks. I'm sure he wants to be reminded yet again of the summary of his job.

bush is a laughing stock, and those videos on YouTube will be remembered and watched for years and years to come, while bush is written in the books as the worst president in US history... errr... maybe not number one worst, but he'll definitely slip from number four worst -- or is it only seven?

The shoe-thrower? Well, he'll get out of prison to the biggest welcome you can imagine (probably something like bush lied that the Americans would get when they illegally invaded: rose petals and what not).

So anyway, rollonarte, do tell us bush's reaction when you get the chance. I personally doubt he wants to relive the extreme humiliation again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another miss.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This guy just missed the joys of living in a murderous dictatorship. They should have sentenced him to life in North korea, not 3 years in Iraqi gaol, where he will have to emerge into a free society and be reminded of Bush every time he gets to vote, or freely express his opinion or not have his wife/daughter/sister snatched off the street by Uday or Qusay.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TravelingSales, look man. Bush and our other leaders botched the occupation. This guy was as grateful as everyone else that Saddam was gone, but the chaos that replaced him was worse than he was. Instead of having Uday kidnapping and killing a few, they had thousands killing and maiming other thousands, including people blowing themselves up in the marketplace, including men, women and children.

If you give me a thousand dollars I will grateful. But if you think my gratitude will be so great that you can push my car off a cliff, guess again. Throwing shoes at you will be the least I do to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites