Comments on: A short post

By: This is going to be unpopular… « random babble…

This is going to be unpopular… « random babble… — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:47:20 +0000

[...] believe deeply in non-violence. Like bfp said in this post, I prefer to find a non violent way to approach things. I believe that spanking teaches children [...]

By: ansel

ansel — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:04:15 +0000

To all the people saying that al-Zaidi acted in an extreme way, that "assault" is not a legitimate form of expression and other such nonsense - what about the amazing level of restraint he showed? I think if anything, he demonstrated an incredible commitment to non-violence. He could have thrown something sharp or something with acid in it. He probably could have networked with actual armed groups to use access to the press room to inflict real harm on the despicable man who led the invasion and destruction of so much of his country. Who's to say even that would have been wrong? But he didn't. I think he was brilliantly restrained and passionate about it at the same time. His brother says he went to the market and bought a pair of shoes (size 9, not 10 as Bush joked) made in Iraq. He thought through his protest and made it. The guy is a hero and anyone who suggests he should be punished or should have expressed himself differently can screw off. You're so right, bfp. He definitely didn't deserve this: "Muntadar al-Zaidi has allegedly suffered a broken arm, broken ribs and internal bleeding, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC."

By: Isabel

Isabel — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:31:43 +0000

I… wow. Some people really lack in what I might generously term “imagination required for some attempt at empathy” and ungenerously term “a soul.” While Bush was making wisecracks, the journalist was being dragged out proclaiming this was for the widows and children of those killed. And people are upset about… a shoe. You’re right; there are no words except “because.”

By: bfp

bfp — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:11:37 +0000

yeah, take a gander at some of the more popular feminist blogs. The argument is being made repeatedly (not be the bloggers themselves, but in comments) that this was an assault, that prison time is justifiable (although horrors, the beating the reporter took at the conference itself, was not), that it was offensive that the reporter called bush a dog (specism my friends)–etc etc.

As a citizen of the U.S.–the only thing I was even remotely pissed off at was the fact that the secret service won’t let me within 3 miles of a venue where bush (or any president) is speaking, but in a known war zone, somebody can get not one, but two shoes launched at the president? This either shows an incredible arrogance of bush/the secret service, or an incredible *failure* (or both). Either way–Whoever was on secret service detail oughtta be fired. I am paying them too much of my tax dollars.

By: Isabel

Isabel — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:03:22 +0000

wait, what? people are actually talking about this like it’s anywhere comparable to actual violence whose intent is serious physical/emotional harm and not the symbolic expression of rage? I mean I consider myself to be pretty anti-violence, though not necessarily a pacifist (I believe violence in self-defense or the defense of others can be justified, which hardcore pacifists I think don’t) but like, this is so not what I would term “violence” at all. That’s like saying those kids who pied Ann Coulter in the face were being violent. Like if he’d SHOT Bush, then yeah I’d be against that my very strongly negative personal feelings about Bush aside, because I don’t believe in going around assassinating. But like… it’s a shoe. He’d be… fine.

By: Cara

Cara — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:52:17 +0000

*cheers*

By: Chuckie K

Chuckie K — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:29:19 +0000

“the same word – violence – for throwing shoes and for blowing large numbers of people (including children) to bits.+ SA, did you read the background on this man. Because if you didn’t, you nailed it exactly. He was reporting from Basra when the U.S. was bombing the city in support of the domestic occupying troops sent by al-Maliki. What amazing restraint, to confine yourself to a effectively symbolic act when face-to-face with a murderer.

And I was just thinking about the willingness, even the obligation, to stand with struggles even when we disagree on strategy or tactics. I was thinking about Rosa Luxemburg. How the the newly founded Communist Party in Berlin advised the militant workers that that in the winter of 1918-1919 a revolutionary uprising could not win. But the workers rose up. The Communists went with them. And the government murdered Comrade Luxemburg for it. Large or small, when the call is just, the choice should be simple. And the choice should not be to support the cops and courts.

By: bfp

bfp — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:35:12 +0000

I couldn’t agree more SA. SOme of the crap I’ve seen running around blogland–it’s Ok to imprison the reporter until his trial, it’s ok to put him on damn trail to begin with, it’s offensive that he used ‘dog’ as a slur, he was committing an assault, blah blah blah blah blah….my magnificently huge mexican ass is waiting for all those fuckers to come kiss it.

It’s incredible to me, the way some anti-violence/”pacifist” folks become so vociferously anti-violence/’pacificst’ at times that just happen to center around ’sandal throwers’ and black kids and mexicans marching for immigration rights…

By: Heqit

Heqit — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:35:01 +0000

THANK YOU, bfp. More power to him (”him” in this specific instance, “her” also whenever applicable) — literally, please — and I don’t even want to hear anything about “I don’t know what his beef was.” PLEASE.

By: SA

SA — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:20:21 +0000

Throwing a pair of shoes doesn’t even *count* as real violece. Even if he’d hit him, it wouldn’t have done any damage besides a bruise.

It seems so wrong that people use the same word – violence – for throwing shoes and for blowing large numbers of people (including children) to bits.