Trial date set for Iraqi
- Thread starter Will E Worm
- Start date
Well in Iraqi culture, this was the biggest disgrace to anyone. Think about it this way the ground is considered filthy, and what do you walk on... shoes. Personally I think the former President handled himself pretty well after the incident, but for trial... hey it is their country. Let them do what they think is correct.
Unfortunately ...
I hope the Iraqi's can find a way to pardon him while deterring anyone who does something like that again. I mean, imagine if he was shot, because security thought he had some weapon in his shoes.
There's gotta be a way to do it. Preserve political protest while deterring anyone from doing the same, as it's a serious security risk.
No offense, but for all you beatniks that thing this wasn't serious, it is very serious. There could have been a serious device in those shoes that would have taken out both leaders.
That's why such action needs to be deterred. Otherwise, the next person who does it should expect to be shot. I'm surprised it didn't happen this time, but I think W. (among others in several, American administrations since the '70s) has always realized that you can't make martyrs out of people.
Unfortunately, yes. Because what was just shoes could be a bomb or other device next time. That's the problem.
I hope the Iraqi's can find a way to pardon him while deterring anyone who does something like that again. I mean, imagine if he was shot, because security thought he had some weapon in his shoes.
There's gotta be a way to do it. Preserve political protest while deterring anyone from doing the same, as it's a serious security risk.
No offense, but for all you beatniks that thing this wasn't serious, it is very serious. There could have been a serious device in those shoes that would have taken out both leaders.
That's why such action needs to be deterred. Otherwise, the next person who does it should expect to be shot. I'm surprised it didn't happen this time, but I think W. (among others in several, American administrations since the '70s) has always realized that you can't make martyrs out of people.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Re: Unfortunately ...
I don't believe it is. He was just protesting.
And, that would be a bad thing?
I don't believe it is. He was just protesting.
And, that would be a bad thing?
What type of precedent would that set if Iraq was to allow a foreign leader/dignitary to be assaulted by a citizen?(Luckily Bush has good reflexes)
Why would dignitaries want to visit if they feel as if though Iraq wasn't absolutely serious about that leaders protection/well being.
If someone here in America was to assault Putin/Kim Jung IL or whomever I am certain the penalty would be severe & not relegated to some simple assault like a common barroom scuffle. Why would dignitaries want to visit otherwise or see us as a peaceful friend? If the guy had simply raised a poster/banner saying "Goodbye Bush you dog" instead of shouting it as he assaulted the man maybe I would be a bit more sympathetic.
Though I am certainly not a fan of Bush he ,as a foreign dignitary, deserved more respect than that.
Why would dignitaries want to visit if they feel as if though Iraq wasn't absolutely serious about that leaders protection/well being.
If someone here in America was to assault Putin/Kim Jung IL or whomever I am certain the penalty would be severe & not relegated to some simple assault like a common barroom scuffle. Why would dignitaries want to visit otherwise or see us as a peaceful friend? If the guy had simply raised a poster/banner saying "Goodbye Bush you dog" instead of shouting it as he assaulted the man maybe I would be a bit more sympathetic.
Though I am certainly not a fan of Bush he ,as a foreign dignitary, deserved more respect than that.
Re: Unfortunately ...
No offense but trust me when I say to get into a building like that they (persons coming into the press release) would be searched a few times, espically over there. I know, you might or might not been over there and seen it, but trust me. These guys wouldn't let any device of that nature over there come even remotely close to the site.
No offense but trust me when I say to get into a building like that they (persons coming into the press release) would be searched a few times, espically over there. I know, you might or might not been over there and seen it, but trust me. These guys wouldn't let any device of that nature over there come even remotely close to the site.
Obviously ...
I mean, the agent cannot assume that the shoes were scanned and are clean. The agent may also assume there might be something they could miss (and do often according to TSA's own, internal studies).
The point wasn't whether or not someone could sneak something in. The point is that the next time this happens, an agent cannot assume that the shoes are harmless.
Obviously you don't know the definition of and the entire context of my use of the term "deterrence." It's a real problem, especially after someone did something that was "harmless." Next time, agents may assume it's not.
We used to think Box cutters were harmless too. That was until the TSA demonstrated how deep and how easily a simple box cutter can totally cut a major artery and basically render someone not on incapacitated in seconds, but very likely to die even with medical attention.
Obviously you haven't dealt with some rather "interesting" devices in shoes these days. It's good that they scan shoes now, but that doesn't remove the "split second" decision an agent must make.
I mean, the agent cannot assume that the shoes were scanned and are clean. The agent may also assume there might be something they could miss (and do often according to TSA's own, internal studies).
The point wasn't whether or not someone could sneak something in. The point is that the next time this happens, an agent cannot assume that the shoes are harmless.
Obviously you don't know the definition of and the entire context of my use of the term "deterrence." It's a real problem, especially after someone did something that was "harmless." Next time, agents may assume it's not.
We used to think Box cutters were harmless too. That was until the TSA demonstrated how deep and how easily a simple box cutter can totally cut a major artery and basically render someone not on incapacitated in seconds, but very likely to die even with medical attention.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
He'll probably just get a slap on the wrist. Fine/Warning something like that.
Then a pat on the back behind the scenes.
Actually in that shit hole country he'll probably be put to death.
Re: Obviously ...
This isn't a box cutter, or something that simple. I know TSA is full of people who 'know security' but I even chuckle while in uniform going through TSA checkpoints. I bet you do at times as well. Don't compare TSA operations to something like this, it's like comparison of waffles to waste disposal. My main point, yes a deterrence is a great thing, but would a negative outcome (overreaction to threat) be better? Like is stated before it takes .2 seconds to execute, and 5 years to tear it apart. Also, don't forget there is a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, not a UN Mandate... just thinking out loud for you.
You'd be amazed at what I've encountered, but you like to quote TSA. This isn't a TSA secured area. This was Iraq. Trust me, better to be safe than sorry. Security is paramount in what I do for a living, and even more paramount in Iraq. It always will take .2 seconds to execute a decision, and 5 years to tear it apart, but that is the inherit beauty of a hind sight of 20/20.
There are a few options for this 'deterrence' as you put it. Let's put this in perspective since you know the Afgan Area, and from previous posts you should know that I know this area. What kind of message would this present if one agent used lethal force on this guy in Afghanistan, now picture Iraq? My :2 cents: use something less than lethal, rubber bullet, bean bag, you name it... That way 2-3 people don't get wounded from one bullet, simple ballistics 101. Then guess what, you still have one guy you can take back, alive for questioning, and no collateral damage. Also, for security, don't you think something like this wouldn't be screened more than once, and just imagine the amount of support something like this would have.
This isn't a box cutter, or something that simple. I know TSA is full of people who 'know security' but I even chuckle while in uniform going through TSA checkpoints. I bet you do at times as well. Don't compare TSA operations to something like this, it's like comparison of waffles to waste disposal. My main point, yes a deterrence is a great thing, but would a negative outcome (overreaction to threat) be better? Like is stated before it takes .2 seconds to execute, and 5 years to tear it apart. Also, don't forget there is a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, not a UN Mandate... just thinking out loud for you.
Technically it is necessary because he did throw a shoe a president/foreign leader...
But in my opinion, he was just expressing his feelings :dunno:
Similar threads
