SG Broadband Community

JBrazen wrote:

Gixxer wrote:if your family was kidnapped and this guy knew where they were and you had "captured" him. what would you do?

personally, i would do what ever it took.

for that matter, what would any of you do?

What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody was kidnapped; it was just shoes.

jeremyboycool wrote:What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody was kidnapped; it was just shoes.

He's saying he believes that people might approve of waterboarding if their own families safety depended on it's use.

jeremyboycool wrote:What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody was kidnapped; it was just shoes.

Roody wrote:He's saying he believes that people might approve of waterboarding if their own families safety depended on it's use.

what he said i said.

the guy who threw the shoes got his ass beat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467504,00.html

Gixxer wrote:the guy who threw the shoes got his ass beat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467504,00.html

got his ass beat with a shoe?

Roody wrote:He's saying he believes that people might approve of waterboarding if their own families safety depended on it's use.

I understood what he was saying. He was dragging things out of context. I was dragging it back into context.

Gixxer wrote:the guy who threw the shoes got his ass beat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467504,00.html

"Muntadhar al-Zeidi suffered a broken arm and ribs"

Waterboarding is a form of torture.

I have ruled, now ye all shall obey!

downhill wrote:I'm guessing that they probably did. It would also have been a huge embarrassment to their country or at least some of them.

By Gixxer/// the guy who threw the shoes got his ass beat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467504,00.html

JBrazen wrote:"Muntadhar al-Zeidi suffered a broken arm and ribs"

You approve of that as retribution for throwing shoes?

*lobs size 11.5 boot at downhill*

Burke wrote:You approve of that as retribution for throwing shoes?

I do.. he threw something at our president regardless of who he is. I would have shot his left pinky toe off for it with my 9!!!

Burke wrote:You approve of that as retribution for throwing shoes?

Yep. And if some American idiot did something like that to say, the Pres. of France if he were visiting the US, he'd deserve his arms and ribs broken too. You say "throwing shoes" as if it were nothing. That heel hits you the right way and it's going to open you up, I'd know.

I don't care if you like him or not, but he IS the Pres. of the US and deserves some kind of respect and you have to expect to get hurt if you attempt to assault him in any way.

Will you tough guys give the same quarter to President Obama, then? Someone hurls a Jimmy Choo at his head, and you'll cheer the beating the person receives? Honestly?

JBrazen wrote:
I don't care if you like him or not, but he IS the Pres. of the US and deserves some kind of respect and you have to expect to get hurt if you attempt to assault him in any way.

He didn't get bones broken because he almost hit the President of the US with a shoe. He got bones broken because he didn't show proper respect for those tasked to protect the President. Those Iraqi security guys were more upset that someone challenged their dominance in a public place rather than someone tossing shoes at Bush.

Burke wrote:Will you tough guys give the same quarter to President Obama, then? Someone hurls a Jimmy Choo at his head, and you'll cheer the beating the person receives? Honestly?

Same goes for the next Pres. You hurl your size 10's at him, then you deserve a few snapped limbs.

brembo wrote:He didn't get bones broken because he almost hit the President of the US with a shoe. He got bones broken because he didn't show proper respect for those tasked to protect the President. Those Iraqi security guys were more upset that someone challenged their dominance in a public place rather than someone tossing shoes at Bush.

Either way, he deserved it.

Not sure it constitutes breaking bones, but I wouldn't have objected to him getting a bit of a smackdown.

JBrazen wrote:Same goes for the next Pres. You hurl your size 10's at him, then you deserve a few snapped limbs.



Either way, he deserved it.

So, some are more equal than others? Good to know.

JBrazen wrote:Same goes for the next Pres. You hurl your size 10's at him, then you deserve a few snapped limbs.



Either way, he deserved it.

You'll make a hell of a fascist.

Fascist? Hardly, but there are ways to protest without resorting to kid like antics and hurling shoes at someone, especially a world leader.

JBrazen wrote:Fascist? Hardly, but there are ways to protest without resorting to kid like antics and hurling shoes at someone, especially a world leader.

yep.. so Burke what are your ways of protesting besides tossing shoes?

JBrazen wrote:Fascist? Hardly, but there are ways to protest without resorting to kid like antics and hurling shoes at someone, especially a world leader.

I'll spare you a long-winded answer, but your reply shows your ignorance of the meaning of the act. It's an enormous insult meant to display his anger toward whom he believes is responsible for thousands of deaths. Instead of it being left at that, you're all for the guy having limbs broken for daring to allow his anger to be expressed. If you can justify that, then I can easily see you approving of strong-arm tactics on American citizens who express a similar point of view.

Burke wrote:I'll spare you a long-winded answer, but your reply shows your ignorance of the meaning of the act. It's an enormous insult meant to display his anger toward whom he believes is responsible for thousands of deaths. Instead of it being left at that, you're all for the guy having limbs broken for daring to allow his anger to be expressed. If you can justify that, then I can easily see you approving of strong-arm tactics on American citizens who express a similar point of view.

My god you're dense. His "insult" would be assault here in any other civilized country. Try to justify it however you want, but if you ASSAULT a world leader, then you deserve a beating.

Burke wrote:I'll spare you a long-winded answer, but your reply shows your ignorance of the meaning of the act. It's an enormous insult meant to display his anger toward whom he believes is responsible for thousands of deaths. Instead of it being left at that, you're all for the guy having limbs broken for daring to allow his anger to be expressed. If you can justify that, then I can easily see you approving of strong-arm tactics on American citizens who express a similar point of view.

so you are saying that if someone is angry then assault is ok?

I get your point Burke, but it was an attempt to assault the President and he would have done so if the President hadn't been quick on his feet. As much as you attempt to condone that action due to another persons beliefs on how to handle such a matter it was still the wrong way to go about it. He would have been better served to have stood up and commented that the President has been an embarassment to the U.S. and the world as a whole, but instead he did very little to help his cause except strengthen the views of those who already support him.

White House press secretary sports black eye
Posted: 01:25 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Perino joked reporters are no longer able to wear shoes to press conferences.



(CNN) – Who knew being White House press secretary was such a dangerous job?
While President Bush emerged from the weekend's now-infamous shoe attack in Iraq without a scratch, press secretary Dana Perino appears to be a little worse for wear.
Perino was sitting to the side of the president when an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at him Sunday. She was inadvertently hit by a microphone as the president's Secret Service agents responded and officials scrambled to wrestle the journalist to the ground.
Watch: Bush ducks shoes in Iraq
The full effects of the accident were clear at Tuesday's White House daily briefing, where Perino sported a bruise below her right eye and scratch just above the eyebrow.
"The shoe check-in and check-out policy will begin tomorrow," Perino joked.

Gixxer wrote:White House press secretary sports black eye
Posted: 01:25 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Perino joked reporters are no longer able to wear shoes to press conferences.



(CNN) – Who knew being White House press secretary was such a dangerous job?
While President Bush emerged from the weekend's now-infamous shoe attack in Iraq without a scratch, press secretary Dana Perino appears to be a little worse for wear.
Perino was sitting to the side of the president when an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at him Sunday. She was inadvertently hit by a microphone as the president's Secret Service agents responded and officials scrambled to wrestle the journalist to the ground.
Watch: Bush ducks shoes in Iraq
The full effects of the accident were clear at Tuesday's White House daily briefing, where Perino sported a bruise below her right eye and scratch just above the eyebrow.
"The shoe check-in and check-out policy will begin tomorrow," Perino joked.

[sarcasm]
That's okay man because after all the journalist was just expressing his frustration with the President. By doing so he clearly is allowed to present a possible dangerous situation to others.

[/sarcasm]

Roody wrote:I get your point Burke, but it was an attempt to assault the President and he would have done so if the President hadn't been quick on his feet. As much as you attempt to condone that action due to another persons beliefs on how to handle such a matter it was still the wrong way to go about it. He would have been better served to have stood up and commented that the President has been an embarrassment to the U.S. and the world as a whole, but instead he did very little to help his cause except strengthen the views of those who already support him.

President Bush was IN....Iraq. He was not IN the United States and therefore nobody owed him United States Constitutionally protected civil acts of free speech/protest...keep that in mind. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

This one man's act pales in comparison to the amount of security mistakes that were made. In all actuality, they are both lucky to be alive. Bush should be thankful to God that those shoes were not some sort of improvised device....and the man should be thankful that both the Secret Service and the Iraqi Security Services are both either impotent or well disciplined in restraint. Use of force in that instance could have involved lethal means.

In the end, I think the interpretation will be dictated by whichever side of the political fence you reside. Sad but true.

UOD wrote:President Bush was IN....Iraq. He was not IN the United States and therefore nobody owed him United States Constitutionally protected civil acts of free speech/protest...keep that in mind. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

This one man's act pales in comparison to the amount of security mistakes that were made. In all actuality, they are both lucky to be alive. Bush should be thankful to God that those shoes were not some sort of improvised device....and the man should be thankful that both the Secret Service and the Iraqi Security Services are both either impotent or well disciplined in restraint. Use of force in that instance could have involved lethal means.

In the end, I think the interpretation will be dictated by whichever side of the political fence you reside. Sad but true.

exactly
i cannot believe that he did not get shot. i know i woulda put one in him.

Gixxer wrote:so you are saying that if someone is angry then assault is ok?

No. Our vigilante/vengeful mindset is what continues the cycle of violence.

How do you think the horrors of Abu Ghraib affected recruitment of Al Qaeda in Iraq?


Saying that the guy deserved a beating for protest helps to justify throwing shoes at world leaders. At some point, someone has to be bigger and show restraint commensurate with the act....and our words and voices need to reflect the same.

It was a security blunder and the man deserved to be restrained by all means necessary to maintain security.

It showed some serious flaws in security without question. The whole thing was disturbing. I also understand where they were at, but now they are whining because they didn't like how security chose to deal with the threat to the President. Again if that is how the journalist wanted to do things then that's his call, but whining because of the fact that Iraqi's also chose to deal with it by breaking his ribs seems like a double standard. Like UOD said when in Rome.

A company should start making shoes safe for throwing at press conferences

YARDofSTUF wrote:A company should start making shoes safe for throwing at press conferences

Roody wrote:It showed some serious flaws in security without question. The whole thing was disturbing. I also understand where they were at, but now they are whining because they didn't like how security chose to deal with the threat to the President. Again if that is how the journalist wanted to do things then that's his call, but whining because of the fact that Iraqi's also chose to deal with it by breaking his ribs seems like a double standard. Like UOD said when in Rome.

If his arm and ribs were broken because the journalist failed to comply with physical restraint....if he fought back, then his own actions are to blame for his injuries. In that respect, one could argue that he "deserved" the outcome.

But what I feel Burke is suggesting is this whole cowboy, F U attitude that we project no matter the circumstances. And then we wonder why people take to the streets and want to blow us up. Our words and actions enrage people.

But when we go around saying that a man deserved to be beaten for displaying a form of accepted protest in a country that we supposedly LIBERATED.....it shows us to be friggin hypocrites. But then again, we like to taser people for just being vocal lol.

UOD wrote:If his arm and ribs were broken because the journalist failed to comply with physical restraint....if he fought back, then his own actions are to blame for his injuries. In that respect, one could argue that he "deserved" the outcome.

But what I feel Burke is suggesting is this whole cowboy, F U attitude that we project no matter the circumstances. And then we wonder why people take to the streets and want to blow us up. Our words and actions enrage people.

But when we go around saying that a man deserved to be beaten for displaying a form of accepted protest in a country that we supposedly LIBERATED.....it shows us to be friggin hypocrites. But then again, we like to taser people for just being vocal lol.

Under the current Administration we have been to aggressive. I don't question that at all. That said the beating was administered by Iraqi security as the story tells it. If Iraqi's are allowed to throw shoes at people because it's there way of doing things then I suppose the security force is allowed to beat him down. Can't say I agree with that, but that's apparently how it's done.

better that than what would have happened had it been saddam.

Roody wrote:Under the current Administration we have been to aggressive. I don't question that at all. That said the beating was administered by Iraqi security as the story tells it. If Iraqi's are allowed to throw shoes at people because it's there way of doing things then I suppose the security force is allowed to beat him down. Can't say I agree with that, but that's apparently how it's done.

Iraqi Security were trained by us. They didn't beat him down.....they attempted to restrain him and he resisted which elevated the use of force. The outcome is that he sustained injuries.

When we as Americans say beatdown and deserve in the same sentence, it's viewed as being inflammatory.

Gixxer wrote:better that than what would have happened had it been saddam.

Hard to say....might not have ever happened for fear of being executed.