Iraqi shoe thrower offered millions

[pkd]

Iraqi shoe thrower offered cars, homes and a wife
Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who famously threw his shoes at George W Bush in a fit of rage, has been inundated with offers of cars, wives and money in the run up to his release from prison
Zaidi has won the adulation of millions, who believe his act of defiance did what their leaders had been too cowed to do.

His message to Mr Bush: "This is your farewell kiss, you dog. This is for the widows and orphans of Iraq" is still celebrated by the Iraqi people.

Now, in preparation for his release, the offers are rolling in, the Guardian reports.

A new four-bedroom home has been built by his former boss. A new car – and the promise of many more – also awaits. Pledges of harems, money and healthcare are pouring in to his employers, the al-Baghdadia television channel.

"One Iraqi who lived in Morocco called to offer to send his daughter to be Muntazer's wife," said editor Abdul Hamid al-Saij.

"Another called from Saudi offering $10m for his shoes, and another called from Morocco offering a gold-saddled horse. After the event, we had callers from Palestine and many women asking to marry him, but we didn't take their names. Many of their reactions were emotional. We will see what happens when he is freed."

From his prison cell, Zaidi has a sense of the gathering fuss, but not the full extent of the benefactors and patrons preparing for his release.

Zaidi has been prepared to be shot by Mr Bush's bodyguards when he threw the shoes Maitham al-Zaidi, his brother, told the paper: "He always thought he would die as a martyr, either by al-Qaeda or the Americans. More than once he was kidnapped by insurgents. He was surprised that Bush's guards didn't shoot him on the spot."

Muntazer al-Zaidi has told Maitham, and another brother, Vergam, that he was planning to open an orphanage when he leaves prison and will not work again as a journalist.

"He doesn't want his work to be a circus," said Vergam. "Every time he asked someone a difficult question they would have responded by asking whether he was going to throw his shoes at them."

 

[fhassan]

He should be made president of Iraq.

 

[TruthSeeker]

He should be made president of Iraq.

Well, just remember that he did not actually strike Bush. So, if the Iraqis make him President, they will have chosen a lousy shoe thrower. (No pun intended. )

 

[Silverfalcon]

Another called from Saudi offering $10m for his shoes

was kinda expecting this from a Saudi

 

[gambit]

No one expected Iraqi journalists to kow-tow to the US. Our Presidents are used to having hostile relationships with the media. Tough questions, yes...But violence in a professional setting...No. Professionals knows what he did was wrong. Sad day for Iraqi journalists and Iraqi journalism.

 

[Beskar]

No one expected Iraqi journalists to kow-tow to the US. Our Presidents are used to having hostile relationships with the media. Tough questions, yes...But violence in a professional setting...No. Professionals knows what he did was wrong. Sad day for Iraqi journalists and Iraqi journalism.

Is that so? Because the people of Iraq hailed Zaidi as a national hero. If anything, Muntazer was imitated and praised by journalists around the world.

Respect is earned, not forced. Shoes were hurled at quite a number of leaders after the whole Al-zaidi episode, but ex-president Bush was the most deserving candidate, IMO.

 

[gambit]

Is that so? Because the people of Iraq hailed Zaidi as a national hero. If anything, Muntazer was imitated and praised by journalists around the world.

Respect is earned, not forced. Shoes were hurled at quite a number of leaders after the whole Al-zaidi episode, but ex-president Bush was the most deserving candidate, IMO.

It is indeed a sad day for Iraqi journalists and Iraqi journalism. Where were their shoes when Saddam was in power? Oh...So sorry...Saddam had heavy steel toe combat boots that he rammed upside Iraqi journalism and made Iraqi journalism his bi-atch. Saddam deserve respect but not Bush who liberated Iraqi journalists to be free and true to their profession, which is to extract the truth and inform through words.

 

[Comet]

It is indeed a sad day for Iraqi journalists and Iraqi journalism. Where were their shoes when Saddam was in power? Oh...So sorry...Saddam had heavy steel toe combat boots that he rammed upside Iraqi journalism and made Iraqi journalism his bi-atch. Saddam deserve respect but not Bush who liberated Iraqi journalists to be free and true to their profession, which is to extract the truth and inform through words.

Please explain this term......

I hope your definition of "liberation" doesn't include killing thousand of innocents and stuff like Abu Gharib Jail etc

 

[gambit]

Please explain this term......

I hope your definition of "liberation" doesn't include killing thousand of innocents and stuff like Abu Gharib Jail etc

No...It does not. What make you think we believe it does? What make you believe violence is part of a journalist's creed? This is about journalism at large and Iraqi journalism in particular. Not about how the US screwed up here and there in Iraq. So why are YOU avoiding the question -- Where were Iraqi shoes, journalist or not, when Saddam was in power?

 

[Comet]

No...It does not. What make you think we believe it does? What make you believe violence is part of a journalist's creed? This is about journalism at large and Iraqi journalism in particular. Not about how the US screwed up here and there in Iraq. So why are YOU avoiding the question -- Where were Iraqi shoes, journalist or not, when Saddam was in power?

I agree with you that no Iraqi journalist threw a shoe on Saddam.

You are comparing Saddam with Bush. The difference between the two is that one was Dictator and the other Aggressor. United States considered Saddam as the aggressor and went to Iraq to LIBERATE it.

Tell me, does any Iraqi invited USA to come and rescue them? Who asked USA to attack Iraq in the first place? For one Saddam, USA killed a lot of innocents. USA could have let them solve their problem but it intervened.

The very message by the shoe thrower was, "you are not welcome".

 

[afriend]

I don't think Mr.Bush's aim was to FREE iraqi people. That is a left over argument being raised now. Well, professionalism or not, this is shoe throwing episode was just a manifestation of the arab worlds frustration towards bush's policies.

So chiping in the question of professionlism is not at all relevant. He might not be alive if he threw his shoes at saddam. But we are talking about the hate that Bush have generated for himselves in the arab world.

And bush unfortunately tried to intervene in iraq without understanding the dynamics of that country. I hope now US stays there and achieve their late argument of democarcy and freedom for iraqis.

 

[pkd]

President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush

 

[gambit]

President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush

THAT story was debunked, believe it or not, by theological Christians a looooong time ago. If B43 realllly realllly realllly believe that Iraq was one of the pair of Biblical demons, as a theological Christian, he would have left the ME alone as a facilitator of prophecies, not a preventer of them. God does not need human help in bringing miseries and suffering upon this world. He did it by Himself well enough in the past. Human interventions into God's business is as effective as spitting against the hurricane wind.



So here are the facts...

t r u t h o u t | A Little Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog

In 2003, University of Lausanne theology professor Thomas R mer received a telephone call from the Elys e. Jacques Chirac's advisers wanted to know more about Gog and Magog ... two mysterious names pronounced by George W. Bush while he was attempting to convince France to enter the war in Iraq at his side. In its September edition, the University of Lausanne's review, Allez savoir, reveals this story that could seem fantastic did it not, as Allez savoir's Editor-in-Chief Jocelyn Rochat emphasizes, reveal the religious underpinnings of Bush's policy.

Got that?

The story seems fantastic to the gullible, like yourself, that Bush spoke to Chirac and mentioned Gog and Magog. The truth was that Bush mentioned the demons in a conversation and Chirac was clueless on what they are and asked a Christian theologian, Thomas Romer of University of Lausanne, about the demons. But in no way does that equal to an interpretation that there are some kinds of -- religious underpinnings of Bush's policy.

 

[gambit]

I agree with you that no Iraqi journalist threw a shoe on Saddam.

Why not? This is the inevitable question to the one that you continue to avoid.

You are comparing Saddam with Bush.

So? We all are.

The difference between the two is that one was Dictator and the other Aggressor.

All dictators are aggressors. But not all aggressors are dictators.

United States considered Saddam as the aggressor and went to Iraq to LIBERATE it.

Not only that. The overall consideration was Iraq under Saddam Hussein became an aggressor state, proven by the invasion of Kuwait, and in pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iraq became an unstabilizing element in the region that the world would prefer to have stability.

Tell me, does any Iraqi invited USA to come and rescue them?

No. Did any Kuwaiti invite Iraq to retake Kuwait under the belief that Kuwait originally belonged to Iraq? Did any Kuwaiti asked Saddam Hussein to take over Kuwait oil?

Who asked USA to attack Iraq in the first place?

No one. But no one has to ask. Does anyone has to ask you to save, or to assist, in saving someone in danger? If you have to be asked, what does that say about you?

But seriously...Prosperity require peace and peaceful relations among nation-states, even as childishly quarrelsome nation-states like those in the ME, benefits everyone. Once Iraq invaded Kuwait for oil, not for any historical grievances as many naively believed, Iraq proved beyond any doubt to be untrustworthy. Remember that we were merely one hundred miles away from Baghdad in Desert Storm. It was outsiders who decided and asked US not to proceed with the original goal of removing Saddam Hussein. Outsiders, the regional muslim regimes, all petty despots, spared Saddam Hussein his life and unwittingly imposed an even worse fate for ordinary Iraqis later when Saddam took out his anger upon his own people.

Here is the uncomfortable truth -- In international relations, outsiders do have interests and will take it upon themselves, when they feel their national interests are threatened, to forcibly remove a regime. Look at Africa for a recent example. Who asked to impose a violation of Iraq's sovereignty with the UN nuclear inspecton regime? Outsiders. You are naive if you think that under a dictatorship, the people have any say on how their country is managed, exploited, abused and represented on the world stage. I suggest you do some reading on recent UN rulings that endorses external interventions when a failed or an aggressive state threaten regional stability. UN Security Council is what but outsiders to many? And this body does not impose its will upon individual nation-states?

The same is applicable to US, or against US as well. If the rest of the world believe the US is a threat to regional and global stability and peace, then by all means organize a global military force and invade US. Canada and Mexico are excellent candidates as both peoples knows US very well. Make sure this global force is nucleared. Hugo Chavez can be your leader in this venture...Inshallah.

For one Saddam, USA killed a lot of innocents. USA could have let them solve their problem but it intervened.

It is amazing that you can say that with a straight face. I guess history and books are not your strong suit.

The very message by the shoe thrower was, "you are not welcome".

And by US not having the man killed, we say to the Iraqis -- YOU are free.

 

[Comet]

Why not? This is the inevitable question to the one that you continue to avoid.

So? We all are.

All dictators are aggressors. But not all aggressors are dictators.

Not only that. The overall consideration was Iraq under Saddam Hussein became an aggressor state, proven by the invasion of Kuwait, and in pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iraq became an unstabilizing element in the region that the world would prefer to have stability.

No. Did any Kuwaiti invite Iraq to retake Kuwait under the belief that Kuwait originally belonged to Iraq? Did any Kuwaiti asked Saddam Hussein to take over Kuwait oil?

No one. But no one has to ask. Does anyone has to ask you to save, or to assist, in saving someone in danger? If you have to be asked, what does that say about you?

But seriously...Prosperity require peace and peaceful relations among nation-states, even as childishly quarrelsome nation-states like those in the ME, benefits everyone. Once Iraq invaded Kuwait for oil, not for any historical grievances as many naively believed, Iraq proved beyond any doubt to be untrustworthy. Remember that we were merely one hundred miles away from Baghdad in Desert Storm. It was outsiders who decided and asked US not to proceed with the original goal of removing Saddam Hussein. Outsiders, the regional muslim regimes, all petty despots, spared Saddam Hussein his life and unwittingly imposed an even worse fate for ordinary Iraqis later when Saddam took out his anger upon his own people.

Here is the uncomfortable truth -- In international relations, outsiders do have interests and will take it upon themselves, when they feel their national interests are threatened, to forcibly remove a regime. Look at Africa for a recent example. Who asked to impose a violation of Iraq's sovereignty with the UN nuclear inspecton regime? Outsiders. You are naive if you think that under a dictatorship, the people have any say on how their country is managed, exploited, abused and represented on the world stage. I suggest you do some reading on recent UN rulings that endorses external interventions when a failed or an aggressive state threaten regional stability. UN Security Council is what but outsiders to many? And this body does not impose its will upon individual nation-states?

The same is applicable to US, or against US as well. If the rest of the world believe the US is a threat to regional and global stability and peace, then by all means organize a global military force and invade US. Canada and Mexico are excellent candidates as both peoples knows US very well. Make sure this global force is nucleared. Hugo Chavez can be your leader in this venture...Inshallah.

It is amazing that you can say that with a straight face. I guess history and books are not your strong suit.

And by US not having the man killed, we say to the Iraqis -- YOU are free.

Dear Gambit:

The problem with USA is that it considers itself as the world leader and savior (for whatever reason). In all the anger and rationale against Saddam Hussein, you are forgetting one thing. USA first approved Saddam's regime by providing him with weapons to fight against Iran.

USA first uses people then it Dumps them. Example: Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Mujahideen(Terrorist) of Afghanistan( Had a small amount of money spend on schools in Afghanistan after Soviet Defeat, the situation would have been completely different) etc.

Its not USA's sole responcibility to bring justice in the world. UN should be sought for resolutions. But USA always opt for military solutions. why? I don't remember UN giving 'Go' Signal to USA to attack Iraq. Leave UN aside, How many countries were with United States when it attacked Iraq? UK and ???

USA is not fair in attack against Iraq and it is this unjust that has caused this shameful act of shoe throwing by a "Journalist" to a "President".