Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at former President George W. Bush, has been sentenced to three years in prison — sixteen months per shoe. The decision has already produced protests in Iraq where the vast majority of citizens view him as a hero for his act.
Al-Zeidi claimed a type of private necessity in claiming his innocence, explaining that p”what I did was a natural response to the occupation.” When he was hit with the lengthy sentence, al-Zeidi reportedly shouted “long live Iraq.”
This was actually the minimum sentence for the assault charge — a far shot from the 15 years in prison that he could have received.
He has now inspired not just a fashion craze but copycats who have thrown shoes at both the Chinese and Iranian leaders.
For the full story, click here.
34 thoughts on “Iraqi Journalist Gets Three Years For Throwing Shoes At Former President Bush”
Since the foundation of the dialogue about “respect” was the assault of a President, I assumed that you would make the connection without having to preface the word each time. It seems that this slip completely prevented you from explaining your reasoning or answering simple questions. My apologies for the confusion. I’ll try to be more clear next time.
I was assuming we both were using respect in the manner that everyone else does. My mistake.
Since I try and avoid arguing semantics, I’m just going to admit that we have VASTLY different definitions of the word respect. If you’re curious as to mine, I suggest Merriam Webster online.
I think that you completely understand my definition of respect in this instance being one that keeps us from assaulting a President. If I felt strongly that Obama’s policies were destructive, would that give me the right to assault him? Are your principles purely based on political loyalties?
Friends’ shoes and subpoenas can be sent to:
10141 Daria Place
Dallas, TX 75229
I’ve got to dash over to the Post Office with my p a c k a g e.
Since you’re making a claim (individuals having the right to determine who they respect leads to anarchy), you’ve got the burden of proof… or at least explanation.
I think I’m referring specifically to the kind of respect that prevents us from doing criminal activity. I realize there are degrees of respect. I believe that the office of a President, whether it is filled by Bush or Obama, should be respected to that degree.
Also Jill, I appreciate your comments.
Why does a lack of respect automatically turn into the will to commit violence? Lack of respect is, in my opinion, warranted beacuse bush committed war crimes. There is no anarchy in having a lack of respect for someone who doesn’t deserve it. Anarchy results when your govt. ignores your Constitution.
“Your truism is your opinion on the nature of a somewhat abstract idea (Justice) based on your religious beliefs.”
And your truism is based on pure, unbridled objectivity?
“I’m the ultimate authority as to how much of my respect a person has earned. Since any show of Respect is ultimately personal, any measure of how much respect is earned must be determined by on a personal level as well.”
Multiply that statement by several million and you have anarchy. Just to let you know, someone else who is far more zealous about his own “truisms” may attack our current President one day. Justice wouldn’t be too abstract on that day, would it?
I’m the ultimate authority as to how much of my respect a person has earned. Since any show of Respect is ultimately personal, any measure of how much respect is earned must be determined by on a personal level as well. I’ll never tell you that you shouldn’t show someone respect (although I might point out why I think he doesn’t deserve it), and for the same reason I’ll never tell you to show someone respect.
My truism is more acceptable because it’s my prediction about my actions based on my opinions. Your truism is your opinion on the nature of a somewhat abstract idea (Justice) based on your religious beliefs.
“but I for one refuse to show an elected official a shred more respect than they have earned.”
Are you the ultimate authority of determining who deserves respect? It seems your “truisms” are bit more acceptable than mine.
Yes, investigate Bush for war crimes. That is fine. He isn’t above the law. That is unrelated to the crime of attacking a foreign leader. If al-Zeidi is okay to issue out justice based on his opinion then how can we draw the line when someone feels strongly against President Obama?
Please keep your religion out of my justice, and I’ll keep my justice out of your religion. Making claims about God’s Justice adds nothing to the conversation unless everyone agrees on which God and which Justice. If you want to speak of your beliefs as having informed your view, say that they’re your beliefs. Please don’t state them as some truism that we all must accept.
I think that being conditioned to automatically honoring a person just because of their position can be a very important step to establishing a tyranny. I understand that sometimes it’s necessary, but I for one refuse to show an elected official a shred more respect than they have earned.
That’s a different Mike S. I think.
I have to ask as well what CCD and others above have said: should bush be investigated for war crimes? I also don’t understand how a position confers respect on a man. A position confers power. Respect is earned. Authorizing torture, illegally invading another nation, slaughtering their people and killing/maiming our people in the process, “justified” by proven lies, suspending our Constitution and spying on our people. What part of those actions do you respect?
I understand your point that he threw a shoe at someone so he should be punished. Punishment should fit the crime and I’m certain there is a punishment that fits the circumstances of this crime. Now I am hoping you will answer our questions on bush.
Comments are closed.