Harry’s Place

Edmund wrote:

“Muntadhar al-Zaidi’s ‘protest’ was juvenile and irresponsible and did nothing to further the cause of democracy and stability in Iraq.”

ahh but was it?

I think the sight of politicians, world leaders, ducking from shoes is funny

all of the secret service couldn’t defend George W Bush against a bloke with some shoes.

and it was a fairly peaceful way of protesting, better that, than say, bombs and bullet.

It made me laugh, more shoes, please, encore!

Excellent article-well said.

Outstanding post, needed to be said. The reaction to this incident in the Arab world (and the Guardian)– the hailing of the shoe-thrower as an Arab hero, whose shoes will become museum pieces and whose deed will become legendary, the fathers who rushed to offer their young daughters to the guy etc.etc. — all this no doubt did reflect popular sentiment in the region, which is rather depressing if you live in the Middle East…

p.s. I am (still) awaiting copycat shoe throwing against Assad, Ahmadinejad, Gaddafi, Chavez, Mubarak, various Saudi royals et al.

I am reminded of Galloway really telling it like it is to the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee. As with the shoe thrower, there is no serious risk in offending people who are not likely to kill you or your family if upset. Both Galloway and the shoe thrower failed to be as robust with Saddam Hussein, of course.

It is depressing that a journalist who hated Bush so much used his new freedom not to ask questions, but to throw shoes at the person who ended the dictatorship. And all around the middle east, people in countries where journalists are imprisoned for real reporting go out and celebrate this stupidity.

A medal of courage? A medal of courage if he had thrown a shoe at
Saddam; throwing a shoe at Bush is the easiest thing in the world…

I agree with Modernity, more shoe throwing please! Maybe next time Bush can take a leaf out of Prescott’s book and have a go back.

Goodness, someone here at HP has finally recognised Che Guevara for the slimeball he always was. But, have to say this is a first class article in general.

Yes, of course it was ‘planned’ and yes, of course the man who threw the shoes was a fool. had he done that (as has been said) against any of Saddam’s family or any of the left-adored tyrants he would never need shoes again, so the man was on fairly safe ground with his ‘protest.’

And as for all the one-brain-cell lefties applauding this action like it’s clever to be violent, let me remind them that Bush - hate him though you may - actually laughed it off. Nothing punctures the pompous like being laughed at.

Goodness, someone here at HP has finally recognised Che Guevara for the slimeball he always was.

Finally?

I look forward to Hamas “militants” adopting the new form of asymmetrical warfare and throwing shoes across the border from the Gaza Strip instead of launching Qassams.

shoe throwing is a good development for the Middle East, would we rather that he blew himself and others up?

or throw a shoe?

I hope that Hamas follow Muntadar al-Zaidi’s example, and stop firing rockets.

throwing shoes is less destructive and far more entertaining, if done in moderation :)

For all the authorities knew, al-Zaidi could have been a suicide bomber.

Oh come the fuck on! What suicide bomber attracts attention to himself first in a room crammed with security men? And are you telling me there is no frisking to access a Bush press conference in Baghdad?

If shoe throwing takes off as a method of political expression then that will sure piss off many Western “anti-imperialists”, it is far too peaceful

imagine the change, instead of beheading people or burning down schools in Afghanistan, that the Taliban throw shoes and get some thrown back at them?

surely an improvement?

would the Western “anti-imperialists” feel like shouting “we are all Hezbollah” if they had used shoes instead of rockets? I somehow doubt it

think of the money that Hamas would have saved, if they smuggled in shoes instead of armaments to use against the Israelis?

I say “Use Shoes not Bombs!”

I think thermaland has a point. Who would put a bomb in a shoe?

Oh wait…

When I first saw this story on the news, I thought “Harry’s Place is bound to have something really fuckwitted to say about this”. And here we are.

The pro-war brigade who live here have been unwavering in their refusal to accept any cuplability whatsoever for the humanitarian catastrophe which has unravelled in Iraq over the last few years. In contrast to this abrogation of responsibility, the evils of the antiwar crowd are damned every day after breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Even as the death-toll has climbed, the sole response has been to attack the usual targets on the Left with increasing vituperance.

And now a bloke no-one had heard of before a week ago has bunged a shoe at Bush. So yet again HP sets up camp on the moral high-ground, and the list of your domestic opponents is ceremoniously read out and condemned, yet again. The SWP, oh how terrible the are. The Guardian, what a treasonous rag. George Galloway, what an appalling man.

Whatever you do, don’t mention that when Saddam was executed, the room was chock-full with the gleeful chants of supporters of Al-Sadr, now elevated to positions of power and influence. That the Stoppers’ fault too, is it? (Nothing to do with you guv - that goes without saying.)

So no, sorry Edmund, you can’t have the moral high-ground all for yourself and your mates. If Al-Sadr and his like have increasing popular appeal in the Middle East, then it’s just not good enough to scattergun shite at the ‘progressive Left’, many of whom warned of the dangers of the invasion stoking anti-American feeling among Arabs and fuelling extremism: arguments you denigrated and ignored.

(And just for the record, and as a pre-emptive smear defence, I have no support at all for the Iraqi ‘resistance’.)

Yes but that was not my point.

MUNTADHAR AL-ZAIDI

DEC 14, 2008: INTERNATIONAL SHOE DAY

You are the Hero

Muntadhar Al-Iraqi

Muntadhar Al-Universe

SHOEicide is the symbol of Liberty

You have shown us the way

You are a journalist, teacher and writer

You have left an indelible MARK

You are brave, spiritual and protect weak

You flogged a dead horse

The echo was heard world over

You have the bark and the bite

Soon, you will be the PRESIDENT

Long Live You

Long Live Freedom

We are with you

Code PINK: Carry On

“scattergun shite” - is that a new weapon of the Mahdi army? I would prefer they stuck to shoes as well.

I think progress in iraq would undoubtedly have been made had al-Zaidi been wearing (and subsequently thrown) a pair of womens high heels.

“The home was decorated with a poster of Latin American revolutionary leader Che Guevara.”

Jesus Christ! How come we didn’t know about this before!? So not only do we find out that the protest wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment decision, it was something al-Zaidi had been thinking about for a long time (down with that sort of contemplation!), but we also find out that he has a poster on his wall, and an incredibly rare one at that (ask yourself this: when was the last time you saw a Che Guevara print?). Thanks Edmund, I thought we were going to have to take the hit on this one!

“I think progress in iraq would undoubtedly have been made had al-Zaidi been wearing (and subsequently thrown) a pair of womens high heels.”

That would indeed be “camp on the moral high ground”…

http://flash.vg.no/grafikk/2008/bush/kast_sko.html

Boo hoo, Muntadhar al-Zaidi nearly hurt Edmund Standing’s hero.

Boo hoo, resistor needs to get a life.

The tampon bloke said:

“If Al-Sadr and his like have increasing popular appeal in the Middle East, then it’s just not good enough to scattergun shite at the ‘progressive Left’, many of whom warned of the dangers of the invasion stoking anti-American feeling among Arabs and fuelling extremism.”

Thats why i started coming to this blog; and as Maven (I believe) once stated - thats why I keep coming back.

MattG

To clarify….because I didnt believe for a moment that most of the ‘progressive left’ were concerned about stoking anti-americanism.

They were busy indulging in it themselves.

MattG

The digested read

Iraqi throws shoes at Great Liberator, and becomes international hero. But public being duped. Iraqi is bad Iraqi because bad foreigners such as big bad dictator Chavez think Iraqi is good Iraqi. Also Iraqi once said something nice about bad cleric. Bad cleric is very bad. Good clerics too busy leading gay pride marches and building model liberal democracy to bother with boring stuff like shooting liberators. Real reason for throwing shoes is that Iraqi may in fact be showoff who wanted to star in bad poem. Colleague who went on poetry course with Iraqi says that Iraqi showed off to teacher (probably Jewish Islamo-Nazi Michael Rosen) and got job instead of him. Iraqi wears t-shirt of Che. Che tried to drop WMD on New York. Che is bad man. Like bin Laden and Jonathan Ross. Iraqi should have been shot like that Brazilian suicide bomber. Just in case, like.

The digested read, digested

Bush is popular folk hero. Saddam very bad. Chavez badder. Che worse than Saddam and Chavez. SWP worse than Saddam and Che and Chavez. Shoe thrower should join SWP. Mission Accomplished.

…in next week’s exciting episode of Last Decent Standing, Edmund exposes millions of other ungrateful bombed foreigners who should also join the SWP.

The New York Times reports that al-Zaidi has become a ‘hero’ in the Arab world… (List of assorted bete noires and ne’er-do-wells follows)

Given that this story seems to have been warmly received globally, I suspect that Mr. Al-Zaidi’s actions have entertained tens of millions of people, and that’s a conservative estimate. Paul Merton seemed to find it funny, for instance - does this mean that Mr. Al-Zaidi is fatally compromised by the support of the smartarse comedian demographic as well as the evil Chavez?

Muntadhar al-Zaidi’s ‘protest’ was juvenile and irresponsible and did nothing to further the cause of democracy and stability in Iraq.

I take it that constant harping on about long-finished British anti-war protests has become rather dull, so now an HP poster has decided to lecture the Iraqis on how they are permitted to protest visiting cretins. I’m not sure whether this represents an improvement or a fresh nadir, but one thing’s for sure - concern-trolling Iraqis for the tone of their objections to W. and his catastrophic incompetence looks like barefaced cheek to me.

I know I’m the cynical sort but I reckon that, had Mr. Al-Zaidi instead thrown himself at George W.’s feet and offered him a passionate sookie to show his immense gratitude, he might not have found himself suddenly tied to legions of goosestepping, clockwork Hitlers or smeared as a show-off, a sympathiser with terrorists and a godawful bloody Commie to boot.

Why, I bet he’d be praised and lionised as… well, as a “hero”.

Maybe this guy will get his proper bonus:
Head of Palestinian clan offers Iraqi shoe-throwing journalist a bride
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048258.html
Naturally it depends on the age of the bride, the quality of the lost pair of shoes.
Maybe the UN special rapporteur on human rights could comment about the difference between a camel and a young girl in the eyes of the opressed Palestinians.

If Ahmadinejad had been bombarded with shoes when he spoke at Columbia, would comrade Zin and Flying Rodent have been full of praise for the brave students?

Excellent article. More exposure and dissection of the infantile and self-aggrandising roots of Leftism, please!

Rather his shoes than his nickers.

More exposure and dissection of the infantile and self-aggrandising roots of Leftism, please! ~ ‘Dr Freud’

Physician, heal thyself.

I don’t know Mr Danger, but I would guess “yes”. On the other hand if Ahmadinejad had been shoed in Columbia and the shoe-thrower had then been carted off to jail, reportedly been severely beaten, and faced 15 years in prison, would HP print a lot of weasel words about it needed to be “put into perspective”?

The Madhi Army has been involved in the torture and execution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Iraqis – and many other Iraqis, especially women, who do not conform to its harsh, perverse interpretation of Islam …

Jeebus. As if there’s an “interpretation” of Islam with space for sexual minorities. Keep deluding yourself Petie - I don’t think we’re going to see Purple Jihad or Rainbow Caliphate franchises opening up in the Ummah anytime soon.

Harry Fleabag - if Ahmadinejad had been shoed in Columbia and the shoe-thrower had then been carted off to jail, reportedly been severely beaten, and faced 15 years in prison, would HP print a lot of weasel words about it needed to be “put into perspective”?

I would criticise the actions in the same way. I would have asked if he would have thrown his shoes at a news conference in Teheran where the monkey man was showing how he can verbalise words. I would have been horrified if I had heard reports that he had been beaten. I would have thought that 15 years was severe but 5 years would be acceptable.

I would have expected that many students would be offended that a ‘guest’, even if not completely human, had been dishonored at a reception to which he, the monkey man, had been invited.

I suggest that many on HP would feel as I do even though it still has some humor attached to it.

(Snigger)

Goodness, someone here at HP has finally recognised Che Guevara for the slimeball he always was.

PIG WITH LIPSTICK

Funny you should say that. His image reminds me a lot of Bin Laden.

I don’t know Mr Danger, but I would guess “yes”.

Given that comrade Zin seems perfectly happy to see a Cuban blogger threatened by the interior ministory for defaming the revolution, he doesn’t seem to to like journalists practicing journalism, let alone shoe throwing, when people on Chavez’s Christmas card list are involved.

From Al-Baghdadia’s website:

(rough translation)

Uday Al-Zeidi, the older brother of the Al-Baghdadia’s correspondent who was detained a week ago, met with Montather today. Montather told his brother that after the incident, he was beaten and kicked by the Iraqi security forces until he fainted.

Uday told Al-Baghdadia channel during an exclusive interview this morning that the Iraqi justice system allowed him to meet his brother for more than an hour and a quarter. He confirmed that Montather told him that he was tortured with electric shock after being stripped naked, and that he was continuously humiliated and tortured throughout the period of detention, and that he had bruises all over his face and body, and that members of the Iraqi security forces disfigured his face through beatings and cigarette burns. Montather also told his brother Uday that confessions were extracted from him by force, and that he would like to bring a lawsuit against everyone who participated in his torture. Montather told Uday that he did what he did for all the Iraqi orphans, widows, children and for all the Iraqi people who where wronged.

Montather said that if he could go back in time he would still do what he did to Bush again. Montather confirmed that he does not belong to any political parties, and that no insult was intended toward the Iraqi PM Al-Maliki.

Al-Zaidi’s brother speculated that the reason behind denying his family access to Montather during the past days was because the authorities were trying to hide what has happened to Montather because of torture.

Finally, Uday Al-Ziedi demanded a fair neutral medical evaluation of Montather’s health in detention.

Translation by Raed Jarrar

I don’t know Mr Danger, but I would guess “yes”. On the other hand if Ahmadinejad had been shoed in Columbia and the shoe-thrower had then been carted off to jail, reportedly been severely beaten, and faced 15 years in prison, would HP print a lot of weasel words about it needed to be “put into perspective”?

Granted this is only a guess, but I’d say, no.

I look forward to Hamas “militants” adopting the new form of asymmetrical warfare and throwing shoes across the border from the Gaza Strip instead of launching Qassams.

I look forward to a proportional response by Israel whereby they respond with the same number of missiles and mortars which are un-aimed.

I like the saner commentary from the USA that tries to explain the Arab psyche. It says that they are so impotent and embarrased at being battered by the West that any little incident like this unites them as if they had won some brilliant victory.

That they should celebrate the throwing of a shoe just demonstrates how insignificant they actually feel.

A half truth is worse than blah blah blah

So his broken arm has healed already?

They are preventing his family from seeing him — but his brother meets with him all the time?

Remember this? “The crusaders are slitting their own throats at the gates of Baghdad!” It’s in the same vein and just as credible.

and that members of the Iraqi security forces disfigured his face through beatings and cigarette burns.

Now I’m confused. I thought he was a Middle Eastern hero? Why are they doing this?

When I first saw this story on the news, I thought “Harry’s Place is bound to have something really fuckwitted to say about this”. And here we are.

It’s funny you should say that since when I first saw the story, I knew he’d become one of those crappy anti American global cause-celebs, and be especially loved by antiwar retards.

The irony is, people who supported the grim days of the ‘resistance’ would have gladly seen this man get a bullet in the back of his head for daring to attend government press conferences in the first place.

Thanks to the Americans defeating these people (edited), matey journalist here doesn’t have to worry about that anymore and instead can spend his time planning his shoe throwing exploits.

Physician, heal thyself.

I’ve always wondered why hardcore communists like yourself, Zin, never seem to go and live in these socialist countries you champion, preferring to remain in the imperialist West. Edmund’s brilliant article on butterfliesandwheels.com that he links to helps explain the riddle. Deep down you imagine yourself to be a secret agent for Chavismo, part of a heroic few in the imperial heartland, fighting a ceaseless propaganda war against an overwhelming enemy for a magnificent cause. It’s so much more exciting than actually going to Venezuela or Cuba and getting an ordinary job amongst all the other ordinary people, even though the latter is actually what building a socialised economy entails, isn’t it?

Opinion in Iraq itself was mixed. Many Iraqis thought Mr shoe thrower showed them in a negative light, unable to handle democracy and civilised ways.

It has to be said, given some of the reaction in the US, this was a legitimate fear.

>> As if there’s an “interpretation” of Islam with space for sexual
>> minorities.

There apparently are a lot of muslims with a more positive view on homosexuality, it is true that the situation is very bad in the middle east, but it is infact slowly improving in many contries.

http://www.gaymiddleeast.com//news/article153.html

“Afterwards, veiled women, bearded men, the most religious types, came to me and apologised if they had said something offensive, if they had made me feel unloved or unsafe.”

See also;

http://www.helem.net/about.zn

Congratulations to Larry Teabag for putting the blogs resident chickenhawks firmly in their place.

You are spot on in your assessment that the title of the thread, like the title of most threads on this blog, is little more than a cover for a monotonous rant on the regular figures of hate, the Left, the Guardian, Che, Chavez etc

Oh, and the part about the bloke who went to journalist college with the shoe chucker, may be the most petty, pathetic thing I have ever read on these pages, which given the competition, is quite an acheivement

Teabag is a spoof, Bob. He’s taking the pee out of people like you that supported the terror that the Americans have stopped.

You lost, deal with it.

Congratulations to Larry Teabag for putting the blogs resident chickenhawks firmly in their place.

This coming from the man who describes the directing of a 13 year old boy to commit sacrificial murder as fighting with the only weapons “they” have. Where ya posting from? Kandahar? Jenin?

Oh, and the part about the bloke who went to journalist college with the shoe chucker, may be the most petty, pathetic thing I have ever read on these pages

Ironic

Maybe someone could arrange for this guy to tour around the Arab world throwing shoes at leading political figures. I’m sure Ghadafi, Mubarak, Asad, etc. would take it in good part.

For all the authorities knew, al-Zaidi could have been a suicide bomber.

I think you can guarantee that if someone has a bomb strapped to their belly and is intent on blowing himself up, he isn’t going to announce his presence first by flinging shoes around the room. Indeed, the Iraqi authorities would be much better off going after all the people sitting quietly and looking entirely innocent. It’s bound to be one of them.

Muntadhar al-Zaidi’s ‘protest’ was juvenile and irresponsible

Yes. And also hilarious and brilliant, like when Phil Woolas got pied. As per comments above: MOAR!

“The pro-war brigade who live here have been unwavering in their refusal to accept any cuplability whatsoever for the humanitarian catastrophe which has unravelled in Iraq over the last few years. In contrast to this abrogation of responsibility, the evils of the antiwar crowd are damned every day after breakfast, lunch, and dinner.”

The evils of the “anti-war crowd” are the glorifying and romanticising of the very people who unleashed chaos, death and destruction on Iraq - the so called “resistance” who “write their names in the stars” and other such bullshit.

The “war” ended in little over a fortnight. Saddam was toppled and it could have eneded there. Instead Iraqis are blown up in job queues, or the market place, or executed in the streets for wearing the wrong clothes, or riddled with bullets in restuarants… almost every day… all courtsy of “the resistance” who are fighting for what?

I think you can guarantee that if someone has a bomb strapped to their belly and is intent on blowing himself up, he isn’t going to announce his presence first by flinging shoes around the room.

Good point, never get bombs in shoes do you?

He could have been an Iranian stooge. We just don’t know.

>> As if there’s an “interpretation” of Islam with space for sexual
>> minorities.

There apparently are a lot of muslims with a more positive view on homosexuality, it is true that the situation is very bad in the middle east, but it is infact slowly improving in many contries.

http://tinyurl.com/83cu65

“Afterwards, veiled women, bearded men, the most religious types, came to me and apologised if they had said something offensive, if they had made me feel unloved or unsafe.”

See also;

http://www.helem.net/about.zn

Mike, I honestly think Larry T is bona fide.

Whatever you do, don’t mention that when Saddam was executed, the room was chock-full with the gleeful chants of supporters of Al-Sadr, now elevated to positions of power and influence.

As with your shoehorning in postulated responses of assaults on Ahmadinejad, I haven’t seen owt which suggests this.

(And just for the record, and as a pre-emptive smear defence, I have no support at all for the Iraqi ‘resistance’.)

That’s good. Maybe you should now reflect on the paradox of your exculpating yourself of any blame whilst pinning association with the post-invasion policy misjudgements/disasters on the authors on a webpage, none of whom were even tangentially connected to it. Bit of a ying and yang thing going on, the combination of reasonableness with hysterical accusations.

You’ve been “teabagged,” Latchford.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who think it was “hilarious and brilliant” and want an “encore” are the same people who thought Ross and Brand’s phone pranks are “hilarious and brilliant”, and for much the same reason.

Point is that surely noone in the murky world of Middle Eastern politics acts as a free agent. He must be a member of some group or another, I read the al-Sadr Brigade. Anyway, you expect to get roughed up in their goals, it’s part of their culture.

Brett,

The “war” ended in little over a fortnight. Saddam was toppled and it could have eneded there.

And that illustrates exactly the attitude which was adopted at the time, and and which resulted in such disaster.

Unless you have some very good plans about how you’re going to deal with that situation, then you maybe shouldn’t go charging in there, at all. And if you do go charging in without any plans, then I’d say it was the people in power who made that decision who deserve blame for the consequences, rather than a ragbag assortment of powerless trots and cranks, however unsavoury their views may be.

Oops.

Try again:

Brett,

The “war” ended in little over a fortnight. Saddam was toppled and it could have eneded there.

And that illustrates exactly the attitude which was adopted at the time, and and which resulted in such disaster.

That unthinking, unrealistic idealism has proved infinitely more destructive than anything the SWP or the Stoppers could ever dream up: failing to stop and consider that if you invade a country (any country, but particularly one brimming with violent sectarian tensions and anti-Western feeling), then you are bound to face backlashes, opportunistic score-settling, and complex mess of violently pursued agendas. Add to that large-scale destruction of infrastructure, and “happily ever after” starts to look slightly less likely.

Unless you have some very good plans about how you’re going to deal with that situation, then you maybe shouldn’t go charging in there, at all. And if you do go charging in without any plans, then I’d say it was the people in power who made that decision who deserve blame for the consequences, rather than a ragbag assortment of powerless trots and cranks, however unsavoury their views may be.

If Ahmadinejad had been bombarded with shoes when he spoke at Columbia, would comrade Zin and Flying Rodent have been full of praise for the brave students?

Point is that surely noone in the murky world of Middle Eastern politics acts as a free agent. He must be a member of some group or another…

He could have been an Iranian stooge. We just don’t know.

Funnily enough, if you’re looking for people involved in that situation who would’ve stood up for Ahmadinejad or who have with dodgy ties to the Iranians, Nouri Al-Maliki would be a good bet.

He’s the guy standing next to George W. in the clip.

Funnily enough, if you’re looking for people involved in that situation who would’ve stood up for Ahmadinejad or who have with dodgy ties to the Iranians, Nouri Al-Maliki would be a good bet.

That would be the US puppet government, would it?

That would be the US puppet government, would it?

Why, am I on record as saying that?

Whatever - as I’m sure you know, they certainly owe their current existence to the Americans, but Maliki’s Dawa Party owes just as much to the Iranians, who provided them with sanctuary in the eighties and whose Islamic revolution they enthusiastically supported.

These comments boxes are tempremental about links, but if you do a Google image search for Maliki Ahmadinejad you’ll get a whole slew of those Gotcha! images HP posters like to wave about whenever they’re cursing Kofi Annan or some such character -

Wait a minute! This is one of those weirdo twenty-question distractions that you guys pull every time an illogical and spiteful HP post is getting brutally fragged into space dust, isn’t it?

Damn, you got me again!

I am fully aware of the background and tied of the Iraqi government, thank you. I, like the Americans, supported the secular nationalist Allawi’s party in the Iraqi general elections. Unfortunately they lost the vote - the Iraqi people have spoken and we must respect their wishes.

However, just because Maliki has links with Iran doesn’t mean they are Iranian stooges - they wouldn’t have worked with the Americans and recently signed the security pact allowing the Americans to stay on for awhile, if that were the case. The Iranians have also played a somewhat unhelpful role in supplying various terror groups with arms and funds; indeed, Seamus Milne’s contact claimed that Iran has even funded Al Qaeda. So though their are ties and they want friendly relations, it would be simplistic to claim they are stooges.

But we just don’t know about this journo guy. He could be an agent of the Iranian state.

This is one of those weirdo twenty-question distractions that you guys pull every time an illogical and spiteful HP post is getting brutally fragged into space dust

Yes, your claim that HP would hail Zaidi as a hero if he prostrated himself in front of Bush really did blast this post to smithereens.

Well done!

No, evasion is when someone points out that you wouldn’t have celebrated shoes flung at Ahmadinejad, and you respond by talking about Maliki.

So I guess by your logic that means you’ve just admitted your arguments got brutally fragged into space dust.

Damn, how does it feel to be illogical and spiteful?

Rodent’s barely keeping the sanity-lid on, I see.

…In Syria, Mr. Zaidi’s picture was shown all day on state television, with Syrians calling in to share their admiration for his gesture and his bravery. In central Damascus, a huge banner hung over a street, reading, “Oh, heroic journalist, thank you so much for what you have done.”

This is anti-Syrian balderdash and NOT true. Syrian TV news showed the clip no more or less than any other ME ’state’ broadcaster. The banner must have been invisible because it didn’t appear anywhere in Damascus.

Zaidi’s colleagues in Baghdad, where he had worked for three years, said he had long been planning to throw shoes at Bush if ever he got the chance.

“Muntazer detested America. He detested the US soldiers, he detested Bush,” said one on condition of anonymity.

Oddly, the sources cited from al-Baghdaadiyyah were ‘anonymous’ and elsewhere, openly, the channel is supportive, working for his release.

A day after the incident, al-Zeidi’s three brothers and one sister gathered in al-Zeidi’s simple, one-bedroom apartment in west Baghdad. The home was decorated with a poster of Latin American revolutionary leader Che Guevara, who is widely lionized in the Middle East.

This strikes me as odd, not the least because there is no comment on this and reports about the ‘poster’ vary; elsewhere, it’s reportedly a small picture. Why WOULD he be smeared with Che hmmm?

Also, elsewhere, his ‘frail’ mother is described as being in the apartment and there is no mention of the rest of the family.

Che isn’t widely ‘lionized’ in the ME as this article would have us believe: I think some crafty fellow has used the literal translation of his brother’s name (Dirghaam - ضرغام) to create some vivid prose. Dirghaam was also reportedly arrested in January for ties to militants.

A number of jihadi forums have denounced az-Zaydi and excommunicated him for his reported ‘far-left communist’ leanings.

Under Saddam, such abuse would have been only a prelude to further torments, quite possibly extended to al-Zaidi’s family as well. This is something those who cheer on the Iraqi ‘resistance’ would do well to remember.

Actually, the pro-war gang should be grateful to al-Zaidi, since he has highlighted the only bright side of the US invasion: that Iraqis can now throw shoes at G.W.Bush without being killed (if the event is broadcast live, anyway).

Let’s see:

-Under Saddam there existed a vibrant Christian community in Iraq. Under the Americans this community is rapidly disappearing through “encouraged” emigration.
-Under Saddam gays were not massacred. Under the Americans they’re customarily raped and killed. They’re fleeing — to Jordan!!!!
-Under Saddam Iraq was Iran’s principle regional foe. Under the Americans, Ahmadinejad payed a historic visit to Baghdad, where he was given a hero’s welcome.
-Mixed neighborhoods have been ethic-cleansed.

The evils of the “anti-war crowd” are the glorifying and romanticising of the very people who unleashed chaos, death and destruction on Iraq - the so called “resistance”

The chaos, death and destruction were unleashed by the Americans’ crazy policy of dismantling the Baathist security forces after the invasion, instead of recycling them into democratic bodies. That’s what happens when you let amateurish nation builders invade countries without having a clue.

“Unless you have some very good plans about how you’re going to deal with that situation, then you maybe shouldn’t go charging in there, at all.”

Funnily enough, that’s what I argued at the time. But I didn’t subsequently go on to pretend that there was a “glorious resistance” in Iraq.

But I didn’t subsequently go on to pretend that there was a “glorious resistance” in Iraq.

Neither did I.

“Neither did I.”

If someone is mugged or raped because they ignore your advice about walking home a particular route, it is admittedly hard to stop yourself blurting out “I told you this would happen!”, but ultimately, the *moral* responsibility is with the mugger and the rapist, not the victim.

Perhaps the victim had too naive or trusting a view of human nature and it has taken some act this ugly to wake us up to how present the danger is to all of us. The American, in this instance, are guilty of naivité, but they have inadvertantly exposed how big and how real the threat from clerical fascism is. Nevertheless, some people would have us believe that the Islamist and the Taliban sorts are like wasps or hornets, that they’ll leave us alone as long as we don’t go poking their nests with a pointed stick. In my view, this is a cheuvenist western racist idea that denies these people moral agency, and reduces them to mere insects. Admittedly, the same people tend to think muggers and rapists have no moral agency.

The long and the short of it: its the people who plant bombs in marketplaces who are the enemy.

Yes, but you did plough in here with the suggestion that any criticism of Zaidi and his motives on HP is beyond the pale. Why?

Because

The pro-war brigade who live here have been unwavering in their refusal to accept any cuplability whatsoever for the humanitarian catastrophe which has unravelled in Iraq over the last few years.

…evasion is when someone points out that you wouldn’t have celebrated shoes flung at Ahmadinejad, and you respond by talking about Maliki.

I thought it was such a stupid question I didn’t see any point in responding to it myself, but if it will make you feel better…

…I would not like it if somebody threw shoes at Ahmadinejad because he is my best mate and, like, I totally want to hold his hand and kiss him on the lips, because he is teh AWESOME.

Happy?

…your claim that HP would hail Zaidi as a hero if he prostrated himself in front of Bush really did blast this post to smithereens.

That’s what my people would call a “joke” - not a very good one, but a joke nonetheless.

The point being that, for a site that advertises itself as defending the liberty to tell people what they don’t want to hear, there’s a lot of precious, pernickety pearl-clutching when some unknown Iraqi disses the American President. Fair enough if these were reasonable, well-argued objections, but they’re not - they’re nasty, silly smears based on rumour, conjecture and guilt-by-association.

See Edmund, above, lecturing the Iraqis on how they should register their objections - not in the style of their choosing, but in a manner that doesn’t offend his sensibilities.

That’s before we get to the risible attempt to tie the shoe-thrower to all manner of personae non grata, despite the fact that half the planet thinks this is hilarious, or the truly feeble I had that that anonymous Badhdad informant in the back of my taxi the other week, you’ll never guess what he told me…schtick. And if that doesn’t work, well, just call the bloke a Che-loving Commie and hope that nobody notices how ridiculous it all is. It’s some pretty pathetic stuff, really.

(Funnily enough, the only other people I’ve seen online spewing this childish, pissy nonsense are some of the nastier American wingnuts. Are any of you perhaps related?)

How much have you drunk tonight ,Brett?That is one of the stupidest things you have ever spouted.
“in my view, this is a cheuvenist western racist idea that denies these people moral agency, and reduces them to mere insects.”
puh-leeeze!!!

Neither did, in fact, the overwhelming majority of people who opposed the war. What I can’t understand is why the handful of loudmouths who do take that view are deserving of never-ending forensic examination, whereas the larger and more powerful group of people who are actually responsible for the events in Iraq are given a free pass.

I guess it all depends on whether you rate the opinions of individuals as being more or less important than the military actions of countries.

But as the Rodent says, I’ve been sidetracked here.

I don’t think it was suggested that it was “beyond the pale”.Rather,entirely predictable,even if sickening.

(I posted that last comment before I saw Brett’s latest about the non-existent hordes who think that terrorists and rapists have no moral agency.)

“How much have you drunk tonight ,Brett?That is one of the stupidest things you have ever spouted.”

If you can’t see that the subtext of much of criticism of America’s strategy in Iraq is that they should have known that the various actors there were like forces of nature, exhibiting no moral agency, then the stupidity is all yours.

the larger and more powerful group of people who are actually responsible for the events in Iraq are given a free pass.

If you mean the violent car bombings and indiscriminate slaughter of Iraqi civilians that occurred after the defeat of Saddam that’ll be Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Iranians and Baathist die-hards then. Who else is to blame ?

Larry,I am often stunned into a goggle-eyed coma by Brett and his remarkable insight,but that last outburst was unusually amusing even for him.I may need electro-convulsive therapy.

I suppose hornets and other insects could be seen as “forces of nature”,but I think you are pushing it Brett.

See Edmund, above, lecturing the Iraqis on how they should register their objections - not in the style of their choosing, but in a manner that doesn’t offend his sensibilities.

You think assault is an acceptable way of registering an objection?

News just in:Thousands of Iraqis protest against “juvenile” shoe attacks,which they fear will cause further instability in Iraq.(!?)
“For all the authorities knew, al-Zaidi could have been a suicide bomber.”

“Iraq is still a volatile country and in the current climate throwing any kind of missile(!!?!) at the President of the USA is unlikely to be taken lightly.”

…the subtext of much of criticism of America’s strategy in Iraq is that they should have known that the various actors there were like forces of nature, exhibiting no moral agency, then the stupidity is all yours.

Brett, can you confirm whether you’ve ever heard of any of the following famous historical events - the Vietnam War, the First Russo/Chechen War, the Battle of Mogadishu, World War I, the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, the seige of Beirut, the Northern Irish Troubles or the French anti-insurgent campaign and withdrawal from Algeria? Most of them are quite well-known.

Because much as you might like us to believe otherwise, Iraq was not the first time that a pushover war took a sudden, wildly unstable lurch into a horrific bloodbath. The twentieth century was full of such events - it would be fair to say that horrible guerrilla wars in which civilian deaths outnumber combatants have been the norm for almost one hundred years, and that those few whizz-bang WWII’s and Israel/Egypts filled with cool aerial dogfights, tank battles and commando raids are the exceptions.

If you’re telling us that the coalition bears no responsibility for the carnage that followed the invasion because it marched into a fractious, heavily-armed country with only shit-eating grins and Snickers bars by way of a plan, well… You can probably see the problem here.

No Brett, that argument was abysmal sophistry when it was first made several years ago.

It’s quite simple. People often behave in ways which can be predicted. To make that claim is not, by any stretch of the imagination, to deny those people moral agency.

To redo your rapist analogy… Tony’s in the pub with his mates. His girlfriend calls and asks: “I’m in the park, which way should I walk home?” He tells her: “go through the Badlands Estate.” People all around him shout out: “What? Are you mad? That hell-hole is rape-central - renowned for the gangs and psychos who hang out there!” Tony completely ignores them, and insists to the girl that she should go home that way, giving her directions through the very dodgiest bits of the whole city. She follows his instructions. She gets raped. The next evening, Tony reappears in the pub: people have heard what happened and are furious with him.

Without showing a moment’s contrition he tells them “Ultimately, the *moral* responsibility is with the the rapist, not with me at all. Unless you think that rapists have no moral agency, do you? Well? At worst I am guilty of slight naivety. But at least I have inadvertantly exposed how big and how real the threat from rape is. Frankly, I think you should all be grateful.”

Larry, your position would appear to boil down to the argument that you, a commenter on a blog and an opponent of the invasion, are not in any way responsible for the subsequent conflagration; whilst other commenters on a blog and proponents of the invasion (which don’t, as I recall, include Brett) do have a shed load of karma.

May I suggest you’re an idiot?

Rodent, nobody predicted that Al Qaeda would be bombing mosques and massacring Shiite civilians in the manner which they did, that sparked a civil conflict.

Anyhow, at least you and Teabag passionately supported the Americans and the Iraqi authorities in defeating this menace. Many others call for the troops to pullout before the job was done, which would have left Iraq a cross between Somalia and Rwanda.

Certainly,high-minded proponents of the war who talk of “death squads” and so on may be reluctant to google “john negroponte” and “el salvador option”…

Larry< I am at one with you with regard to the predictable fuck-up. My gripe is with the people who glorify those doing the actual killing as “the resistance” and pretend the American’s are the actual killers as “the occupation”.

I also find it quite odd that a person who might glibbly suggest that Saddam should have left in power because he had the strongman credentials to keep these forces of chaos in check would think twice about suggesting that say, Ian Smith, ought to have been left in power to prevent the chaos that accompanied Mugabe.

Or, hundreds of thousands of South Africans have died post-Apartheid because of unchecked violent crime and a disasterous HIV/AIDS policy. Anyone volunteer to stand up and denounce the ‘naivité’ of those westeners who helped bring about regime change there, leading to this situation? Or do these neo-utilitarian arguments only apply when we want them to?

Last week I wrote about all the “told you so” right-wingers with regards to Zimbabwe and South Africa. Now the left is echoing this stance. It’s a bit sick-making.

Of course, I’m as guilty, because as I said, I anticiapted a fuck up - but because I thought the very worst of the people involved. I didn’t, like George Galloway, get a tear in my eye as I composed off the cuff poetry about the “glorious resistance”.

…nobody predicted that Al Qaeda would be bombing mosques and massacring Shiite civilians in the manner which they did, that sparked a civil conflict.

THis is patently false - both British and American intelligence warned their governments that the invasion could increase terrorism and spark sectarian conflict, as a brief Google search will show. From the WaPo, as a small example -

“Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 26/5/2007″

That’s before you consider what I said in my last post - i.e. that vague familiarity with modern wars would tell you that they can be wildly unpredictable, fought between massive superpowers and small guerilla forces and, unfortunately, extremely lethal for civilians.

…which would have left Iraq a cross between Somalia and Rwanda.

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention Michael, but that is a good description of the way Iraq actually has been for the last three years or so, and that the current (very violent) relative calm has been achieved by putting the same people doing much of the bombing and head-chopping on the American payroll.

All of this information is publicly available and can be accessed by internet search engines, you know.

Indeed Brett - I think the phrase “disgusting and vile hypocrisy” applies here (IIRC) :)

Rodent - Right Wingers predicted that Zimbabwe would end up in a dire disaster if black were given power and they were right (unfortunately). Should that have stopped progressive people being against the removal of white-only rule in Zimbabwe ?

“THis is patently false - both British and American intelligence warned their governments that the invasion could increase terrorism and spark sectarian conflict,”

“could” is the word there Rodent. We should never do anything correct but potentially destabilising (ie removing Saddam) because of possible bad consequences. Is that your view ?

Rodent, were these the same intelligence agencies which we’re told were in hock with the Taleban? Did the C.I.A. progress from bad to good guys when it went from Latin America to Iraq, French intelligence from sinking Greenpeace ships to Iraq?

THis is patently false - both British and American intelligence warned their governments that the invasion could increase terrorism and spark sectarian conflict, as a brief Google search will show.

Really, you should be able to provide better sources than a blunt Internet search. And find out what “could” means.

Like rubber ducks in the bath, More Media.

Should that have stopped progressive people being against the removal of white-only rule in Zimbabwe ?

MMN, we’ve had this argument at very, very great length before and I’ll diplomatically say that it wasn’t your finest hour. If you really want to, you can type “regime change and unintended consequences” - the name of the post you wrote - into the top right search box to find out how it went the last time.

No, Rodent, you’re making the classic Chomskyite error of viewing historical analysis and multi-faceted political events to be manageable algebraic equations which provide a neat true/false response. To make matters worse, you’re lazy about it and don’t provide the necessary ‘proof’, but expect others to do a google.

Then you proceed to demand that others abase themselves in front of you, for the sin of disagreeing with you on a blog. Has anyone got the whisky? This is going to be one good night!

Basically we have here the surreal situation of people arguing that for the achievement of being able to only suffering a savage beating for embarrassing a new Iraqi leader, it was worth all the unimaginably suffering that we inflicted, & worth all the costs it has cost us, & worth all the consequences that we are still reaping, and probably will continue reaping for generations.

So hands up which HP “Humanitarianist” would be willing to shoot a group of Zimbabwean children in the head to get rid of Mugabe, or some Cuban kids to get rid of the Castro brothers; to get rid of Kim Jong Il, how many North Korean children would any HP “Humanitarianist” willingly kill, 1, 5, 50,500, 5,000, 50,000, 500,000, 5,000,000 ?

Perhaps if they don’t have to do it themselves, and they don’t have to see the suffering & deaths, then maybe from the comfort of their deluded self-righteous inverse fantasy world, the can say “it’s worth the cost” & give themselves a pat on the back for being “on the good side”, and then come to Blogs like this to reassure each other that everybody else is wrong in thinking that they are mass murdering supporting cunts.

And could can naff right off as well, Half-inch.

““regime change and unintended consequences”

So now you’re saying the American’s “intended” the consequences of their removing Saddam. That’s a new development!

THis is patently false - both British and American intelligence warned their governments that the invasion could increase terrorism and spark sectarian conflict, as a brief Google search will show.

It’s not patently false at all. Of course we expected there to be tensions as the Sunnis lost their position as the privileged minority, but nobody predicted that Al Qaeda would start blowing up Mosques, bombing out the aid agencies and funeral matches. You will be unable to contradict this. That is what led to the melt down.

That’s before you consider what I said in my last post - i.e. that vague familiarity with modern wars would tell you that they can be wildly unpredictable, fought between massive superpowers and small guerilla forces and, unfortunately, extremely lethal for civilians.

In most of those wars the majority of the native population did not support the foreign intervention, very unlike Iraq. But even in those cases I don’t think they were doing the sort of thing that we have seen in Iraq. Not at all.

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention Michael, but that is a good description of the way Iraq actually has been for the last three years or so

No, I agree that it was heading that way, but fortunately the Americans stood firm and put the future of Iraq first. As I say, you’re not like some others who opposed this and would have allowed Iraq to completely collapse. Like the Iraqis, you supported the need for the troops to stay and sort out the security situation, support the democratic institutions and train up enough Iraqi troops so they can take care of themselves. I commend you for this support.

Let me just state for the record that I fully support the ongoing democratisation of Iraq and the shi’ah crescent theory. That said, there are rather more pressing concerns than Comrade az-Zaidi:

The Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI) is the country’s flagship criminal justice institution. Yet it is an institution that is seriously failing to meet international standards of due process and fair trials. Defendants often endure long periods of pretrial detention without judicial review, and are not able to pursue a meaningful defense or challenge evidence against them. Abuse in detention, typically with the aim of extracting confessions, appears common, thus tainting court proceedings in those cases.

Cartoon trans: One of them is suspected of involvement with al-Qa’idah.

You can be extremely proud of what was done in your name.

So Rodent again you have no answer to a perfectly straightforward question, obviously because you can’t face the consequences of your contradictory “views” (scare quotes because your ranting drivelling style makes it very difficult to work out what you’re on about).

MMN, we’ve had this argument at very, very great length before and I’ll diplomatically say that it wasn’t your finest hour. If you really want to, you can type “regime change and unintended consequences” - the name of the post you wrote - into the top right search box to find out how it went the last time.

Ah yes that was the time you ranted on forever in your normal bizarre way about how Iraqis couldn’t have democracy and then claimed a “victory” when everyone else went elsewhere.

But that’s just my view. I’m sure others will make up their own minds if they read the thread.

“So hands up which HP “Humanitarianist” would be willing to shoot a group of Zimbabwean children in the head to get rid of Mugabe”

How many German schoolkids would you have been willing to accept would be killed in bombing raids to stop Hitler?

MMN - We should never do anything correct but potentially destabilising (ie removing Saddam) because of possible bad consequences. Is that your view ?

My view would be far closer to We should never do anything stupid because of a very high probability of very bad consequences.

If you considered what I said above rather than immediately blowing it off, you’d take into consideration the fact that the Americans had fairly recent experience in places like Somalia, Beirut and even Vietnam that eloquently make this point for me.

MMN - I’m sure others will make up their own minds if they read the thread.

I hope they do take a look - maybe they’ll try to spot who was trying to give honest, open answers and who was tossing around some pretty daft and embarrassing smears.

Alec - Did the C.I.A. progress from bad to good guys when it went from Latin America to Iraq, French intelligence from sinking Greenpeace ships to Iraq?

It’s fair to say that I regard the C.I.A. as “Guys” rather than “Bad or Good Guys”.

Alec…find out what “could” means.

Until such time as they rename themselves the Clairvoyant Intelligence Agency, we’re stuck with “could” and “maybe”. In my experience, “will” and “shall” are the preserve of high-profile dunces, but I’ll note that we Scots, of all people, should have cause to be wary of anyone who spells out a plan to us that involves a step called And then the people will join our side and help us out.

The step after that usually involves gibbets, axes, flying entrails etc.

Alec..you’re lazy about it and don’t provide the necessary ‘proof’, but expect others to do a google.

As I’m sure you’re aware, HP usually eats comments with links in the belief that they’re spam. I’m not typing all this crap then crossing my fingers.

Alec - Then you proceed to demand that others abase themselves in front of you, for the sin of disagreeing with you on a blog.

Oh Christ, here we go again. Keep going, I’ll join in at the chorus.

Brett - So now you’re saying the American’s “intended” the consequences of their removing Saddam. That’s a new development!

Those aren’t my words, Brett - they’re the title of a post by MMN posted at this website. The website you post at yourself, in fact.

Given there seems to be some kind of grisly Decent Gang-Bang in the offing, I’ll sign out on that, much as I’d like to sit here swatting forty questions a minute. I don’t think I can take another round of Psychoanalysis Hour with Doctor MacPherson Phd (Home Economics).

“How many German schoolkids would you have been willing to accept would be killed in bombing raids to stop Hitler?”

Not a very sensible comparison, but a very telling desperate diversionary indicator, as remember, Iraq was not at War with us.

We should never do anything stupid because of a very high probability of very bad consequences.

“a very high probability of very bad consequences” is what Right Wing Ian Smith supporters said about Zimbabwe if Mugabe took over. So my point stands.

Given there seems to be some kind of grisly Decent Gang-Bang in the offing,

More bizarre “insults” (I think) from the master. Perhaps that one will end up in the “Decentopedia”.

I think when Rodent comes out with:

THis is patently false - both British and American intelligence warned their governments that the invasion could increase terrorism and spark sectarian conflict, as a brief Google search will show.

… and then:

Until such time as they rename themselves the Clairvoyant Intelligence Agency, we’re stuck with “could” and “maybe”.

… the rest of us should take another wee dram and put our feet up.

And it’s a lower-case P.

you’d take into consideration the fact that the Americans had fairly recent experience in places like Somalia, Beirut and even Vietnam that eloquently make this point for me.

Or the Balkans, Afghanistan, the first gulf war and the successful invasion of Haiti to restore democracy in the early 90s.

Afghanistan is probably the most significant factor in those previous conflicts. They had just overun the Taliban with some light bombing and a few troops on the ground. In hindsight we needed a much larger occupation force in Afghanistan; that’s what directly led to the mistake of not having enough troops for Iraq.

“Not a very sensible comparison, but a very telling desperate diversionary indicator, as remember, Iraq was not at War with us.”

Yeah, we declared war on Germany, too remember. Because they attacked Poland, not us. It it is a perfectly sensible comparrison because your argument appears to be that we shouldn’t stand up to tyrants if it means being unavoidably responsible for any civillian casualties. Perhaps you’d like to clarrify this.

Not a very sensible comparison

Translation -

A comparison that I’m not willing to address because it makes my previous “point” look tendentious.

Good Michael Gove article on Iraq…

‘Triumph of freedom over evil’

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/12700/Michael-Gove-Triumph-of-freedom.4812256.jp

No, not a sensible comparison, because in WW2 we ended up in not just war, but in a situation of “Total War” with Germany, which meant that we were fighting for our national survival. In no way can a legitimate & intellectually honest comparison be made between WW2, & the launching an aggressive unprovoked war on a Country that was not attacking, or even threatening to attack to us.

an aggressive unprovoked war on a Country that was not attacking, or even threatening to attack to us.

What you should say is “an eventually successful attempt by force to remove a vile dictatorship and install a fledgling democracy”.

Get your facts right, half wit liar.

No, not a sensible comparison, because in WW2 we ended up in not just war, but in a situation of “Total War” with Germany,

Placing that in double-inverted commas and capitalizing both words makes it sound like a Creative Assembly game.

which meant that we were fighting for our national survival.

A situation which was not known in September 1939, of course. Better to have left the Poles to their fate rather than risk a greater conflagration. After all, Czechoslovakia had been sacrificed.

“Good Michael Gove article on Iraq…”

LOL ! Better get over there quickly & post some supporting comments, as all the comments so far are claiming that he is a typical HP sort of loony.

@MoreMoronicNonosense, Why on earth should I repeat that particularly nauseating lie ? No, the reason that Blair used to get the HOC to agree to the War, was to do with sexed-up student dossiers, and shameless scaremongering about “45 minutes” .

@DumbAlec, I think I’m going to have to change my pet name for you, as “dumb” just doesn’t give your stupidity the recognition it deserves. The merits of our involvement in WW2 have no bearing on the pro-war “humanitarian” justification for murdering the civilians of Countries because we don’t like their Leaders, especially when they are not threatening us, or even our Allies that we are bound by treaties to protect.

I also find it quite odd that a person who might glibbly suggest that Saddam should have left in power because he had the strongman credentials to keep these forces of chaos in check would think twice about suggesting that say, Ian Smith, ought to have been left in power to prevent the chaos that accompanied Mugabe.

Brett, you are a true goldmine of bizarre, dodgy-as-hell arguments.

Let me put it this way: I am equally distrustful of people who say”we should always stand up to tyrants because…” and “we should never stand up to tyrants because…”. Both bear the hallmark of a dangerously deluded ideologue. So no, sorry to disappoint, but there is no one size fits all prescription for how to deal with vile regimes.

Any sensible approach must make some allowance for individual circumstances. In particular: what the available options are, what will happen if we stand up, what will happen if we don’t stand up, what “standing up to tyrants” involves in this particular case (there’s a big difference between sending in an invading army minus a plan, quietly supporting local democrats, or bankrolling one bloodthirsty bastard to oust another), and most importantly the likelihood of bringing about a successful conclusion according to some measurable, realistic criterion within a feasible time-frame.

I’m not going to get bogged down in trying to apply these commonsensical considerations to every historical coup and invasion you put to me.

But anyway. Since you’ve again absolved the leaders of the Iraq war of every responsibility for the consequences of their roles in recent international warfare, I guess you’re free to get back to the more important business of the fragmentation of tiny leftist grouplets in the East End of London.

“No, not a sensible comparison, because in WW2 we ended up in not just war, but in a situation of “Total War” with Germany, which meant that we were fighting for our national survival.”

But should be not have predicted this outcome before butting our nose in a conflict betwen Germany and Poland?

“In no way can a legitimate & intellectually honest comparison be made between WW2, & the launching an aggressive unprovoked war on a Country that was not attacking, or even threatening to attack to us.”

Iraq attacked Kuwait. We intervened to help liberate Kuwait. This begs two questions:

(1) Were we morally justified in killing Iraqi civillians in this conflict, which Iraq started.

(2) As a post-war settlement Iraq, the aggressor, was required to submit to periodic weapons inspections. Could the 2nd Gulf War not have been averted if Saddam had not tried to call our bluff and played silly buggers with the inspectors, thus appearing to be a threat?

Halfie, you are under no obligation to read or post to this blog. If you cannot adopt a civil tone, at any point, try punching the nearest wall repeatedly. It’ll cheer the rest of us up.

The merits of our involvement in WW2 have no bearing

Of course you believe it does. Had it had *no* bearing (180o is a bearing), you would have not commented upon it. Yet you attempted to draw a distinction.

Rhetoric ain’t you’re strong point.

“But anyway. Since you’ve again absolved the leaders of the Iraq war of every responsibility for the consequences of their roles in recent international warfare, I guess you’re free to get back to the more important business of the fragmentation of tiny leftist grouplets in the East End of London.”

Dear Larry, perhaps I have to say this thrice. I agree with you with regard to the folly of prosecuting this war. I disagree with those who falsely portray the killers in Iraq as “glorious resistance writing their names in the stars”, absolve *them* of all blame - when they are chiefly responsible - and indeed, it seems, sometimes make alliances with these same killers on the basis of their supposed “anti-imperialism”, and of course deny the democratic legitimacy of the present Iraqi government and demand an “end to the occupation” without appearing to engage in the hard strategic thinking they demanded of the Americans with regard to what this might mean for ordinary Iraqis - particularly the more vulnerable: women, gays, religious minorities…

Herman:
Good point, never get bombs in shoes do you?

If they thought there were bombs in the shoes, wouldn’t it be the shoes they went after? Indeed, wouldn’t a shoe bomber become significantly less dangerous if he flung his shoes away? Do you see the mistake you’ve made?

Dr Freud:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who think it was “hilarious and brilliant” and want an “encore” are the same people who thought Ross and Brand’s phone pranks are “hilarious and brilliant”, and for much the same reason.

I fucked George Bush’s grandaughter!!!

Mike:
Good Michael Gove article

Funniest comment so far.

I agree with you with regard to the folly of prosecuting this war. I disagree with those who falsely portray the killers in Iraq as “glorious resistance writing their names in the stars”

I do understand this, and indeed enthusiastically agree with both points.

Where we differ - and what I can’t understand - is the relative weight that you put on these two: seemingly very little on the first, except occasional, mild-mannered expressions of disagreement, with enormous amounts of time and energy going into ferociously attacking the second almost daily.

But it seems to me that since the first involves large numbers of national figures and international leaders, and people actually going to war, it should be counted as more important than the second, which entails a handful of largely powerless trots and assorted cranks, not doing much more than making objectionable pronouncements.

From the Gove prattle:

We’re only nine years in, but George Bush’s declaration in 2003

Erm?

I am the sound of a rabbit being run over by a truck.

LOL ! Better get over there quickly & post some supporting comments, as all the comments so far are claiming that he is a typical HP sort of loony.

Oh no! You mean the usual morons in the comments, like the 9/11 truther loons you get under every CiF article on foreign affairs, disagree with Michael Gove’s piece? You shock me.

Job well done

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/article2053657.ece

Hear, hear.

I like the saner commentary from the USA that tries to explain the Arab psyche. ……
This can be seen in their own books like the non-sanitized translation of the Arabian Nights. He called Bush a ‘dog’ also and what about the bullet holes in the Koran Story, which seem to have faded from view . The people who say we should win their hearts and minds miss the fact they arabs treat each other in a sub human way! Arab Street is like the pre-rabid mangy Pi dog you find all over the middle east, cowardly , timid, if you offer your hand it will attempt to bite it , offer a hand with a big stick and it will lick it and grovel!

wety

Some would say that the Arab psyche you describe would explain the attraction the Nazis held for the Arabs, the old “either at your throat or at your feet” German syndrome.

If that’s the saner commentary from the USA, I can’t imagine what the less sane commentary is like.

Maven,

“I like the saner commentary from the USA that tries to explain the Arab psyche. It says that they are so impotent and embarrased at being battered by the West that any little incident like this unites them as if they had won some brilliant victory.”

I think the US has been impotent and embarrassed at being battered in Iraq by some serious failures that any little incident like this unites them as if they had actual won in Iraq.

BTW, America came to liberate Iraq not batter.

If they thought there were bombs in the shoes, wouldn’t it be the shoes they went after? Indeed, wouldn’t a shoe bomber become significantly less dangerous if he flung his shoes away? Do you see the mistake you’ve made?

Gregg, how did you get this stupid? If someone starts screaming and shouting and throwing things at the leaders of two countries in a country where suicide attackers and bombers are a regular occurance, security people don’t sit around pondering things like “oh well he wouldn’t scream before threw things, that wouldn’t make sense” or “i suppose he could be a shoe bomber, but he’s got no shoes now so that’s all right”.

Honestly, are you trying to scoop the Moron Comment of the Year Award with the few days left in the year?

It is true that pundits and experts warned that things in Iraq could go wrong.

Its also true that pundits and experts warn against virtually everything. Experts warned the US would get bogged down trying to liberate Kuwait, that the British intervention in Sierra Leone would get bogged down, about Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc etc.

So I don’t find it all that scandalous that people “ignored warnings”. The only way to never get anything wrong is to never do anything.

Also, I wonder what people make of the 49% of Iraqis who think going to war was the right thing? And the fact that excluding Sunnis, who of course benefitted from the old order, the percentage is far higher?

Harry’s Place is really a very poor site indeed. ‘Shoe throwing? Tsk How jolly irresponsible’ and all that stuff about ‘if Saddam had been in power he’d have been executed’ instead of just being beaten senseless. He threw shoes at Bush, not Saddam so the analogy is just purile. You lot put the anal into analogy.

Well the ’shoe stunt’ could be a new form of product displacement
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/21/europe/shoe.php

The shoe’s from Turkey, the day arabs are capable of making their own shoes, then.

Mr Danger, yes, in any venture of this kind there will be people warning of possible dangers and sometimes it is the right thing to do to go ahead anyway, taking heed of the risks which have been highlighted and ensuring you have a plan for tackling them. That’s not the same as just disregarding the warnings altogether and blundering ahead without any meaningful long term strategy.

Oh, and get over yourselves - he threw a shoe for FFS, he should have been removed from the press conference and politely told not to come back in future and that should have been the end of it.
I’m one of the majority who had a laugh at it. I can just about get those who tut-tutted and muttered stuff about being impolite to guests and all that. But writing a 1,500 word smear article about him?
Larry T is right - it’s the bizarre sense of priorities that really gets me about this site sometimes.

Also, I wonder what people make of the 49% of Iraqis who think going to war was the right thing? And the fact that excluding Sunnis, who of course benefitted from the old order, the percentage is far higher?

Let’s see: 10% of the population has left the country, which means that actually only 44% of Iraqis approve of the invasion. And why do you want to exclude the Sunnis? Back in 1960, 70% of Alabamans believed segregated buses were OK, and the figure was even higher if you excluded blacks.

Andrew, by throwing a shoe, he should be treated as anyone else who commits such acts of assault once the identity of the target (any visiting foreign dignitary, let alone the Potus) has been considered. Whatever that may be. Personally, I’d treat him no more sharply that the spawn of Brian Ferry.

However, the title and reporting of the event suggests he has been elevated to a level far beyond a mere thrower of shoes. When that happens, it is incumbent on those responsible to substantiate this and refute any claims to the contrary.

And why do you want to exclude the Sunnis? Back in 1960, 70% of Alabamans believed segregated buses were OK, and the figure was even higher if you excluded blacks.

Moron.

We should be grateful Alec - at least he’s managed a post that isn’t about Israel.

well said it a about time.

@Brett, if you still can’t see the difference between a World War, and attacking an innocent Country that was no threat to us, then what can I say apart from more fool you.

Re Kuwait, no of course we were not justified in killing Iraqi civilians, only a totally immoral or deluded self-righteous fanatic could possibly think otherwise.

Iraq’s fate was sealed the moment the present Bush was elected, as documents are now proving; you’ll find that it was more the US than Iraq that was playing “silly buggers” with UN Inspectors, as they themselves have repeatedly reported to all those that are interested in the facts behind the Neocon Pro War propaganda & lies.

@HypocriticalDumbAlec, firstly you yourself are in no position to complain about people being uncivil, secondly exceedingly dense fucks like yourself would tire the patience of a Saint, thirdly it’s just not possible to be too rude to mass murder supporting scum like yourself & your fellow HP cunts.

Lastly, it wasn’t me that brought up the meaningless comparison with WW2, but one of your fellow thick moron HP chums, but expecting you to follow a debate would naturally be expecting too much.

Alec,

Andrew, by throwing a shoe, he should be treated as anyone else who commits such acts of assault once the identity of the target (any visiting foreign dignitary, let alone the Potus) has been considered. Whatever that may be. Personally, I’d treat him no more sharply that the spawn of Brian Ferry.

I’m not arguing with that but I would hardly call it an act of assault and personally I think that removing him from the event and banning him from future ones would have been quite sufficient for him or anyone else who did a similar thing.

However, the title and reporting of the event suggests he has been elevated to a level far beyond a mere thrower of shoes. When that happens, it is incumbent on those responsible to substantiate this and refute any claims to the contrary.

Bush is both very powerful and extremely unpopular, it was inevitable that al-Zaidi would become somewhat of a “folk hero” for some people for having a pop at him, and his subsequent treatment in custody no doubt contributed to this. It doesn’t mean that he was ultimately more than a thrower of shoes but that he expressed the views of a great number of people. I can’t say that this is something that particularly bothers me.

@Mike, sure, it’s not you & your fellow band of “Humanitarian” Mass Murder Supporters, but the World that is wrong. Sounds like a Conspiracy Theory to me, just hope you’ve got your tin foil at hand.

It still gave a bonny good insight into his mindset, Mark.

Now, whilst pointedly personing the attention seeking coward, Halfie:

I’m not arguing with that but I would hardly call it an act of assault [...]

ANDREW ADAMS

Yet it was, and exacerbated by the identity of the target. I was verbally abused in the street recently and then subject to a flying kick, which made contact (for wearing a fedora) - thus, it could be argued that battery also occurred. I didn’t hesitate to report it and, although I emphasised that I didn’t wish for any formal charges, I did request that my assailant be spoken to; which did happen.

So, whatever it [the investigation/punishment] may be.

and personally I think that removing him from the event and banning him from future ones would have been quite sufficient for him or anyone else who did a similar thing.

That would be negligible discomfiture for someone who would be highly unlikely to wish to attend similar events. He’s obtained the fame he sought. Let him experience a few weeks, or even a month or two, in detention and then feast off a subsequent career of adulation.

I can’t say that this is something that particularly bothers me.

It would bother me if he received a length sentence akin to that once intended simply for the symbolism of burning a U.S. flag. I hardly think he would have done so against a random patrolling soldier. And not because he’d have been liable to be immediately shot.

Like ‘protesters’ in this country who then argue they should receive no more than a breach of the peace (and whom I can now imagine trying similar), and sometimes not even that, if there’s no willingness to accept some inconvenience, the act becomes vain and empty.

Bush is both very powerful and extremely unpopular,

So the victim should be tried and not the offence? If you or I were assaulted by a random homeless man, compared to whom we are very powerful, how would you feel if it received mitigating in that it were minor and, anyway, there was a load of other homeless men who would do the same?

Very sorry to hear that you were fedora-persecuted.Glad to hear that neither you nor anyone you know were roasted alive with white phosphorous.

That happened in an episode of Numb3rs. Next, care to tell me when I endorsed such activity (or when white phosphorus has been used as an anti-personnel weapon) and whether al-Zaidi was?

That’s right, I haven’t and he wasn’t!

Mr. Danger:
Gregg, how did you get this stupid?

Vodka and Chinese food?

If someone starts screaming and shouting and throwing things at the leaders of two countries in a country where suicide attackers and bombers are a regular occurance, security people don’t sit around pondering things like “oh well he wouldn’t scream before threw things, that wouldn’t make sense” or “i suppose he could be a shoe bomber, but he’s got no shoes now so that’s all right”.

Exactly. You have learned your lesson well, son. You may pull your trousers up and leave now.

Honestly, are you trying to scoop the Moron Comment of the Year Award with the few days left in the year?

Oh, please - the competition is far too stiff for that. My money is on John P getting it as usual, but Maven has been trying very hard this year.

http://s163.photobucket.com/albums/t317/drdoj/?action=view&current=bitch.jpg

this is how stupid a person can get. she got owned by bunch of teenagers because we believe that Muntadhar al-Zaidi was brave