And this will forever be emblazoned in history books everywhere to capture the gist of Bush’s legacy.
So you think a two year prison sentence is fair for a shoe throwing (even missing)? Bush didn’t even seem very affected by it, waving it off. It’s not like it’ll scar him. If you started locking up people for offenses of that magnitude your prison population would be many times larger.
Yes.
Two Bush, One Cup
Sounds about right for that part of the world. A little on the harsh side, maybe. The point is that this has to be off limits. You do it and you’re life will be interrupted and it will be unpleasant. The fact that he missed is almost immaterial. If this were between two countries where the relationship was a powder keg ready to explode, something like this could do it. Fuck that. And fuck this asshole supposed journalist. Let him think about his dumbfuck stupidity for a couple of years.
And just to address your last sentence, people can just throw shoes or toasters at each other all day. Just don’t do it at a Head of State. It’s mind-boggling that this needs to be explained.
So it would be OK if he threw his shoe at you or me, but it’s a serious crime because he threw his shoe at Bush?
No, the crime should be exactly the same. Misdemenour assault.
I honestly hope the torture stories aren’t true, but to dismiss the story because it would be incredibly fucking stupid to torture the guy doesn’t mean the story isn’t true. When you create a culture where torturing detainees is routine anybody who ends up in jail for any reason can end up tortured by the authorities whether it makes sense or not. The torturers always end up being guys who torture for fun, because normal people don’t like to do it and prefer to delegate the task to the sadists. And that means prisons always have a couple of sadistic torturing guards who have to be kept happy.
If you push or punch a cop, is it the same as if you punch the guy in accounting? Throw a shoe at Joe Blow, the worst that happens is a bump on the head. Well, actually a fight can ensue, and if there’s a crowd, a melee, which can get quite out of hand. But throw a shoe at a Head of State and things have greater ramifications. Now, if you’d like to allow the Head of State’s beat the shit out of the guy in lieu of the HoS, I might be persuaded to reduce his prison term a little.
Let me see if I follow this: Prisons will necessarily have torturers. Torturers need to torture. We don’t want people tortured. Therefore we shouldn’t send people to prison, because if we do, they will be tortured. Is that right?
And who is dismissing this story? I opined on what should happen to the guy and why. Whether he was tortured or not is a different issue. For the purposes of this discussion we should just assume no torture is involved, unless you can point to a poster who is advocating that type of treatment.
I think in the sense that attacking an ordinary person or doing something to them is quite different than doing it to say an officer of the law or say THE PRESIDENT of the United States.
If you tried to kill me, you’d be charged with attempted murder. You try to kill a cop, that’s a much more severe penalty. You try to kill the PRESIDENT, that’s terrorism, and a whole slew of other things.
So yeah, it’s not so much that he threw it at Bush, but that he attacked the Leader of a Nation. Like it or not, the Office itself carries some degree of weight more than the average layman.
Well said. Better than I.
Here’s the thing with the shoe. Most places, throwing things at someone is just a general expression of anger. But to a Muslim, showing the soles of your shoes or feet, or especially throwing your shoes, is a grave insult. It says something like, “I walk on the filthy ground with these. I step in trash and shit with these. You are worth no more to me than any of those things.”
You are misreading what he said, probably on purpose. He was pointing out OUR prisons will have torturers, because we are a society that tortures. As is our puppet government in Iraq; between us and Saddam it’s not like they have a good role model for non-barbaric behavior. And the obvious solution is to STOP TORTURING PEOPLE. Not to just let all prisoners go like your strawman.
But it is much more effective to do something that would insult your target rather than what is insulting to you.
Sure, but the shoe thrower probably didn’t stop to think much about it.
But that makes even less sense. He is not in our custody. WE are not torturing people. Certainly not in pour prisons. He will not even be in one of our prisons. And as I pointed out, please point to one poster in this thread who is advocating either that this guy be tortured, or torture in general. Talk about a straw man! Whew!!!
:dubious: You don’t think Iraqi prisons are our prisons? It is a puppet government, you know, and will remain so so long as U.S. troop presence remains noticeable.
We don’t torture people? Have you been living in a cave? On Mars?
Or do you mean we don’t torture people except those who deserve it, like captured terrorists?
Not quite.
In any prison system where torture is routinely used to extract information, there will be torturers. Torturers need to torture, they don’t care if the people they torture are guilty or innocent or whether they are accused of a serious crime or a minor one. Therefore, if we don’t want people accused of minor crimes to end up tortured, we need to ban torture absolutely, even on people who are suspected of a major crime. Even if they are terrorists.
We should ban torture and put torturers in prison, not because terrorists don’t deserve to be tortured, but because even if we stipulate for a moment that some people deserve to be tortured, other people don’t. In a system where torture is winked at or encouraged anyone who ends up in prison for any reason can be tortured. Thefore, duh, stop torturing prisoners even if you really really want to.
No, they’re not. If you have proof to the contrary, provide it. Also, feel free to provide proof that this guy will be tortured, regardless of who is in charge. Hint: it’s not the Americans. And most important, please provide the reasoning as to why torture is even part of this discussion. Has anyone advocated he be tortured? Has anyone even advocated torture in general?
It’s getting cold out. There are cows in North Dakota who would kill for some good straw.
Oh, really? And you know this how?
Oh my goodness. What a bold and and strange statement to make—oh wait, it would be, IF people in this thread were defending torture, to even a small degree. But I can’t seem to find them. Maybe you’d be so good as to point them out.
Maybe not. (Plus you’re a little late.) See post #131.
I hear as punishment, they’re going to make the guy sit through replays of eight years of George W. Bush’s speeches, news conferences and any other public spectacles starring Dubya.