Giant Shoe Honors Journalist Who Targeted Bush

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Giant Shoe Honors Journalist Who Targeted Bush

Posted by samzenpus on Monday February 2, 2009 @05:54PM from the don't-get-no-respect dept.

A town in Iraq has unveiled a giant monument in honor of the journalist who threw his shoe at former US President George W. Bush. The statue, unveiled in former dictator Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, depicts a bronze-colored shoe, filled with a plastic shrub. Fatin Abdul Qader, head of an orphanage and children's organization in the town, said the one-and-a-half-ton monument by artist Laith al-Amiri was titled "statue of glory and generosity." This statue is the least expression of our appreciation for Muntazer al-Zaidi, because Iraqi hearts were comforted by his throw." Mission accomplished.

60 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Mr Shoe has been given the boot by wild_quinine · 2009-02-02 18:07 · Score: 1

Would anyone like to even take a guess at how much trouble Mr. Shoe Thrower is in?
1. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Skreems · 2009-02-02 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iraq-georgebush
  http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/12/2008121618330140949.html
  He's been imprisoned and tortured, possibly including having his hand broken. Then forced to write a "confession" in which he reveals that a well-known unnamed terrorist talked him into it (yeah right). Hooray for the new republic!
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
2. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  Good. Fuck that classless bum. So when are we going to be cheering for someone who threw watermelon, fried chicken, & chitlins at the current President?
3. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2009-02-03 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Some time after he invades a country for reasons which turn out to be fictional.
  
  --
  Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
4. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Kagura · 2009-02-03 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not trying to be a troll. How else can I express it than, "What did you expect from a society that can't even handle Saddam Hussein's execution in a humane and respectful manner?" With the exception of maybe the US and maybe a couple European nations, every single nation on earth has a torturing apparatus as an official or de-facto part of their government.
5. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by bluefoxlucid · 2009-02-03 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's sad really. Bush is like, "These things happen in a free society.. heh." The authorities there think different. Bush couldn't give half a shit who throws a shoe at him; if you come up to him fists in the air he'll probably try to go head on with you, and get slightly confused when the secret service jumps you. "Aww, what? I could'a took him!"
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
6. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Ocker3 · 2009-02-04 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  your lack of understanding of nations around the world astounds me. may I be the first of many from the Plethora of nations around the globe who don't allow torture to call you a nincompoop. "not the USA" and/or "Not in Europe" != freedom hating electrode-wielding prison officials. (no offense to electro-BDSM practitioners, just remember those safe words).
7. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Fat+Casper · 2009-02-04 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the US?
  
  Obviously you don't pay attention- the US doesn't torture because the Bush administration was allowed to legally define torture to exclude our "enhanced interrogation" techniques. No matter that under the Nuremberg Tribunal we convicted Nazis for using those same techniques; we don't torture because we use a moving definition of torture.
  
  The US is also directly responsible for Hussein's execution. We "can't" release many Guantanamo detainees back to their home countries because of fears they they would be mistreated there- but we gift wrapped Hussein for a "government" that understands due process even less than the Bush people who created it.
  
  But no, the US unequivocally does not torture.
  
  --
  I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
8. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Kagura · 2009-02-04 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sealand? I forgot about you. :)
9. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Kagura · 2009-02-04 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you don't pay attention- the US doesn't torture because the Bush administration was allowed to legally define torture to exclude our "enhanced interrogation" techniques. No matter that under the Nuremberg Tribunal we convicted Nazis for using those same techniques; we don't torture because we use a moving definition of torture.
  What techniques are alleged to be conducted at Gitmo that the Nazis were convicted for? I can't find anything online.
  
  The US is also directly responsible for Hussein's execution.
  Reread my original post, and read the end of the second paragraph here.
10. Re:Mr Shoe has been given the boot by Fat+Casper · 2009-02-07 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  A quick Googling doesn't come up with any German names attached to what the Gestapo called VerschÃrfte Vernehmung (enhanced interrogation techniques). Looking a bit farther brings you to the International Tribunal for the Far East (we took the Nuremberg playbook to Japan), and Japanese were convicted for waterboarding Americans.
  
  Our legal system (military and civil) has dealt with and rejected waterboarding repeatedly. From the court martial of Major Edward Glenn, to United States v. Parker et al, to individual convictions overturned because of waterboarded confessions. Moving on to the Bush administration, it suddenly became specificaly authorized. Before they gave interrogaters legal protections, videos of interrogations at Guantanamo got "lost."
  
  So we do waterboard, but we changed our definition of torture to exclude waterboarding. So we still don't torture.
  
  Looking forward, Alberto Gonzales wrote that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on terror. In 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel mustered identical arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers. Our prosecutors at Nuremberg cited his calling the Geneva Convention "obsolete" as an aggravating circumstance and got the death penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946. And yes, I'm looking forward to seeing Americans punished for torture.
  
  You want me to reread your post and link to a statement that there were no Americans in the room when Hussein was executed. Reread my post- I explained that the reason given for not releasing many Guantanamo detainees are the same reason that we should not have released Hussein into Iraqi custody.
  
  I also reread the part of your post where you said you weren't trying to be a troll. Try harder.
  
  --
  I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Fits by Mysteerie · 2009-02-02 18:08 · Score: 1

If the shoe fits... So what happened to the guy?
1. Re:Fits by rolfwind · 2009-02-02 18:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  So what happened to the guy?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntadhar_al-Zaidi#Trial
Giant Shoe monument was taken down 1 day after. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 18:08 · Score: 0

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/30/shoe-monument-in-iraq-taken-down-one-day-after-it-was-unveiled/
Really big shoe by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 18:12 · Score: 0

Really big shoe
Food for thought by Stormwatch · 2009-02-02 18:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

What if someone had tossed a shoe against Saddam Hussein?

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
1. Re:Food for thought by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 18:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Yeah, what if someone had tossed a shoe against another dead dictator, like Mussolini?
  What, so the US and Iraqi governments have the standard set at Saddam Hussein, and doing slightly better means we should be satisfied?
2. Re:Food for thought by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 18:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  He would have been tortured, forced into a sham trial, and executed.
  Contrast to nowadays, when he is being tortured, forced into a sham trial, and probably not executed.
  Progress!
3. Re:Food for thought by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 19:09 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  He would have been tortured, forced into a sham trial, and executed.
  You call that torture? Try: major fractures, deep burns by fire or corrosive products, amputations, eye-gouging, being thrown alive into an industrial-sized grinder... and don't bother with a trial at all.
4. Re:Food for thought by sumdumass · 2009-02-02 19:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well, Actually in America, assaulting a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person is subject to a fine plus three years imprisonment unless they use a uses a deadly or dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily injury, then it becomes a fine plus ten years imprisonment in the US. If he would have been just harassing him, then it would be six months and a fine.
  If the person is a US official, inside the US, then an assault could get fines and imprisoned for one year if it's a "simple assault" and up to eight year and a fine if it is more. If they use a dangerous or deadly weapon, it jumps to a fine and 20 years.
  So yea, the US already has it covered quite well, the Iraqi government is a little strict but as the parrent said, what would the punishment of that country's former leader been like?
  BTW, It is a fair comparison to look at the former leadership of a country when all of the current leaders have lived and suffered the penalties of the former leadership. It will take time and probably a few generations before people realize how strong laws and punishment don't need to be.
5. Re:Food for thought by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 20:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  According to a Mistress of Saddam's, he also liked to watch videos of his enemies being tortured. During the viewings he'd be smoking a cigar and wearing a cowboy hat while laughing out loud.
  It's not much of a stretch to think that he did something similar when he gassed a lot of Kurds...
6. Re:Food for thought by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 22:27 · Score: 0
  
  > According to a Mistress of Saddam's, he also liked to watch videos of his enemies being tortured. During the viewings he'd be smoking a cigar and wearing a cowboy hat while laughing out loud.
  No wonder Bush didn't like Saddam...
7. Re:Food for thought by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Before, during or after they hanged him?
8. Re:Food for thought by Ninnle+Linux · 2009-02-03 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  So yea, the US already has it covered quite well, the Iraqi government is a little strict but as the parrent said, what would the punishment of that country's former leader been like?
  So the torture and beatings are okay because Saddam would have done worse? And this is what is supposed to be the claimed moral high ground?
9. Re:Food for thought by sumdumass · 2009-02-03 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  What the hell are you talking about? The journalist hasn't been tortured or beaten. He was ruffed up when he was arrested but that was because he resisted his arrest and the security (provided by Iraqi's) needed to get him under control. Sure, you can say he just threw a shoe now but at the time, no one knew what he was just doing or what he was capable of and proceeded as if he was a serious threat.
  And yes, that is the high and moral ground. It appears that if anything was actually done to him inappropriately, it will come out in court and they will be punished according to Iraqi law. And yes, that is likely more then what would have been done under Saddam. This guy is getting far more of a chance at justice then anyone under Saddam would have. Furthermore, his trial for an offense that he already admitted to in a court is postponed so he can argue that his actions as an insult instead of an assault in order to drop the maximum potential sentencing from 15 years to 3 years. That is something I would consider a moral high ground for the country that never would have happened under Saddam.
10. Re:Food for thought by Ninnle+Linux · 2009-02-03 09:11 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  What the hell are you talking about? The journalist hasn't been tortured or beaten.
  What the hell are YOU talking about? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iraq-georgebush
  
  Bush shoe-thrower 'tortured into writing letter of apology'
  
  The investigating judge in the case said last week that Zaidi, who will stand trial on 31 December, was beaten around the face and eyes.
  
  So that's both torture and beating.
11. Re:Food for thought by sumdumass · 2009-02-03 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are YOU talking about? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iraq-georgebush
  
  Didn't you get the Memo? Nothing supports those legations including the condition of the Prisoner. He wrote the letter of apology in attempts to get out of a sentence and that was just an excise given for being a chicken when it mattered. All of his injuries were acquired during his initial arrest except for the reports of Cigurete burns which isn't apparent if they even exist.
  
  So that's both torture and beating.
  
  No, that is not torture or beating. That could very well be containing the suspect. He resisted arrest and attempted to flee, the law enforcment has an obligation to use anything other then lethal means to capture him where appropriate. That doesn't mean it was torture or beatings. There has been an investigation and it says all of his injuries was suffered when he was attempting to allude capture. Here is the difference between that and torture or beatings, they didn't control him, they didn't know the full level of threat he possessed and he wouldn't follow lawful orders. The cops, in Iraq, the US, Russia, or anywhere are faced with that, they are obligated to use as much force as necessary to subdue the suspect and ensure they no longer pose a threat to anyone. That is a legitimate law enforcement goal where as torture and beatings are done after the suspect is controlled and the threats are known and neutralized.
  Do you see the difference there? Striking someone in the face while they are attempting to escape capture is different from striking someone in the face who is hand cuffed and completely controlled by the cops. Tazing someone who is threatening to kill someone right beside him is totally different then tazing someone who is hand cuffed, face down on the ground and just cussing at the cops. Because it is bad in one situation doesn't mean it is bad in the others. Now grow up and quit being an ass. The guy was not beaten outside attempts to capture him.
Torn down already by TiberSeptm · 2009-02-02 18:36 · Score: 4, Informative

This has already been torn down by order of local authorities as of Jan 30th. They didn't even care that it was built with the help of orphans- although maybe they were taking a tough stance against child labor.
1. Re:Torn down already by Dun+Malg · 2009-02-03 01:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This has already been torn down by order of local authorities as of Jan 30th. They didn't even care that it was built with the help of orphans
  The issue was that it was erected on the grounds of a state-run orphanage. Officials determined that overt political statements ought not be on government property.
  
  --
  If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Freedom of speech? by jonaskoelker · 2009-02-02 18:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Let's go to Iraq and export our democratic American values"
"Hey, they're building a statue that says something that offends us"
"Hey, that statute reminds us of violent attacks on rulers"
"Let's tear down this statue, we don't like what it says"
Export democratic values my $DONKEY
1. Re:Freedom of speech? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 19:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Let's go to Iraq and export our democratic American values"
  I thought the real reason for going to Iraq was to look for WMD's... ...and they finally found one! Phew, think about the smell of that one...
2. Re:Freedom of speech? by sumdumass · 2009-02-02 19:28 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Like many people in your situation, you are infering too much.
  First, the US didn't tear down the shoe, Iraq did. Second, it isn't like the same hasn't happened elswhere in the world when the things are created on other people's propery, without permits, unsafe and so on.
  Bush is out of office. You can drop the act now.
3. Re:Freedom of speech? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 19:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It is not an act. It is full-blown BDS. I fear it cannot be cured. Even the healing touch of the Obamessiah may be unable to lift such an affliction.
4. Re:Freedom of speech? by vux984 · 2009-02-02 20:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  First, the US didn't tear down the shoe, Iraq did.
  What's the difference. The Iraqi government was established by and exists at the sufferance of the US.
  If we didn't like what they were doing, we'd topple it and install someone else.
  Indeed, that is PRECISELY what happened to the last Iraqi government.
5. Re:Freedom of speech? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 21:20 · Score: 0
  
  if the Irakis had the freedom we claim we've given them, we would have been kicked out of their country a long time ago.
6. Re:Freedom of speech? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  True. Really sad, but true.
7. Re:Freedom of speech? by regexgreg · 2009-02-02 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  The Burning Bush smiles , his heart is black and oily, brown shoe flies in vein!
8. Re:Freedom of speech? by regexgreg · 2009-02-02 21:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Whats the difference Between George W and a thong? At least with the thong u can see the C*nt behind the Bush!
9. Re:Freedom of speech? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 23:52 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  "The Iraqi government was established by and exists at the sufferance of the US."
  Sounds like the West German government after WWII.
10. Re:Freedom of speech? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Where exactly was Bush mentioned? And on behalf of everyone who is NOT acting when they do actually mention Bush in a negative light: FUCK YOU
11. Re:Freedom of speech? by sumdumass · 2009-02-03 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, no. The Iraqi government exists at the sufferance of the people of Iraq. The Iraqi populace put the government in place and elected every individual serving. The US provided the frame work for a Democratic Government to emerge instead of a dictatorship with the provisional government but that has been long gone. The Iraqi government that created the constitution was even not only elected, the constitution itself was put to the people to approve. Your a complete and total fool if you think otherwise.
12. Re:Freedom of speech? by John+Bayko · 2009-02-03 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  "Elected" (or "referendum") does not mean "democratic" in all places, least of which is Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was often "elected" with 100% of the vote.
  Hamas was also "elected". And also shot all opposition in Gaza.
  What the people of Iraq voted for, in all likelihood, was "It's getting worse, God make it stop, I'll do anything - sacrifice a chicken, donate to the mosque, vote 'yes' to this complex political document which I, who have never read it, am probably not literate enough to understand if I saw it". In that situation, I bet they could have been convinced to vote for anything or anyone.
  Iraq was terrible under Saddam Hussein, and it's terrible now. Those were not the only two choices, and I'm sick of those who act like they are. The Russian plan sounded better, for example.
13. Re:Freedom of speech? by sumdumass · 2009-02-03 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  "Elected" (or "referendum") does not mean "democratic" in all places, least of which is Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was often "elected" with 100% of the vote.
  Hamas was also "elected". And also shot all opposition in Gaza.
  
  And that doesn't really mean jack here. There were multiple candidates, multiple news organizations reporting on them and as of now, multiple elections as their own sovereign nation.
  
  What the people of Iraq voted for, in all likelihood, was "It's getting worse, God make it stop, I'll do anything - sacrifice a chicken, donate to the mosque, vote 'yes' to this complex political document which I, who have never read it, am probably not literate enough to understand if I saw it". In that situation, I bet they could have been convinced to vote for anything or anyone.
  
  Actually, no. At least not on a large scale. The constitution originally was a provisional one that they voted in effect while the elected leaders drafted a real constitution. Both of them were published in almost every news paper as well as discussed in depth on news programs and so on. Mosques even held readings on it and held discussions from their POV. They understood it, and while not everyone agreed with it, enough to make it happen did and your probable ignorant of the history surrounding it or you have some malicious intent in claiming they were forced or tricked somehow. The Iraqi people were no more dumber then the Americans when they created their country.
  
  Iraq was terrible under Saddam Hussein, and it's terrible now. Those were not the only two choices, and I'm sick of those who act like they are. The Russian plan sounded better, for example.
  
  Russia wasn't involved in Iraq. They didn't get a say in the matter. The people of Iraq did and it's really that simple. The idea was to set up a democracy so that whatever government formed was because the people wanted it. It had no requirements to remain a democracy nor did it have any requirements to remain friendly with the US. The Current leader of Iraq has more then often spoken out against the US and he played a pivotal role in requiring times lines on the US involvements after the UN mandate expired in 2008.
  You can cry that this system would have been better or that system is worse, the bottom line is that the current system has the blessing of the Iraqi people and was built by them as well as they are free to change it at anytime they wish.
wrong shoe by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 19:00 · Score: 0

that's a sneaker
the "shoe heard round the world" was one worn with a suit, not a basketball uniform
Too bad by Mistshadow2k4 · 2009-02-02 19:24 · Score: 2, Funny

It would've been better to leave the statue up. It would have served to scare away giant cockroaches and other crawling insects.

--
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
1. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  It wasn't torn down, someone stole it as part 2 of the shoe throwing plans.
  Expect to see Bush crushed beneath it within days.
Throwing a shoe is worst Arab insult. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 19:34 · Score: 0

Quote from a BBC article: "... the dirty and degrading implication of the sole of a shoe crosses all religious boundaries in the Middle East".

However, show-throwing is mild compared to this, or this.
Journalists are supposed to be neutral by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 19:48 · Score: 0

...so I am glad it got torn down, if the reports are accurate.
almost always by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 19:59 · Score: 0

what a shame he didn't have teh better aim.
1. Re:almost always by macshit · 2009-02-02 20:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  what a shame he didn't have teh better aim.
  From what I remember, he threw pretty well -- but Bush also did a good job of ducking.
  
  --
  We live, as we dream -- alone....
2. Re:almost always by bluefoxlucid · 2009-02-03 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Bush can keep his wits about him in a fist fight. Why would a shoe pose a problem?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
3. Re:almost always by kayditty · 2009-02-03 15:58 · Score: 0
  
  except he aimed for the head--an amateur mistake in Quake 3. .......uh. nevermind.
4. Re:almost always by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-04 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  well its not as hard for him- he's only got half of them.
UCSD by ShakaUVM · 2009-02-02 20:56 · Score: 1

At UCSD, we already have one of those things.
It commemorated Bush's catline reflexes 12 years before it happened. UCSD is very progressive.
http://stuartcollection.ucsd.edu/StuartCollection/Murray.htm
1. Re:UCSD by Muad'Dave · 2009-02-03 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  UCSD is very progressive.
  Yeah, but your artists suck. I thought is was a red rubber ducky.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Freedom and US Soldiers by qbzzt · 2009-02-02 23:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Doesn't the same apply to Germans and Japanese? Yet IIRC there is still a large US military presence in both countries. And in Iceland. And in a bunch of other places.
I suspect many Iraqis prefer to have US soldiers than a civil war. I haven't taken a scientific poll, so I can't prove it.

--
-- Support a free market in the field of government
1. Re:Freedom and US Soldiers by thej1nx · 2009-02-03 03:14 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I suspect many Iraqis prefer to have a Saddam than US Soldiers. I haven't taken a scientific poll, so I can't prove it.
Translatio n of statue's title by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 01:19 · Score: 0

The artist title for the piece roughly translated as "Smelly missile to drive back the great Satan".
+5 wishful troll by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 06:01 · Score: 0

Sometimes I wish there was a non-american version of Slashdot, so that we won't have to read another fox-enlightened hillbilly commenting on non-farming issues.
one thing I took away from this incident by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 07:33 · Score: 0

During /. discussions of various Bush administration actions the question of Hanlon's razor come up regularly. But when I saw how skillfully Mr. Bush avoided that first shoe, my assessment of him moved a couple of notches away from the "village idiot" side toward the "evil genius" side.