Not sure whether the following two entries from the Uncyclopedia are anti-semitic or merely the work of those self-hating Jews. One thing I'm sure of, guv: Atzmon had no part in it:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wi...com/wiki/
Israel
http://tinyurl.com/5vdv2t
When the Shoe hits your eye
Like a big-a pizza pie
That's amore
The BBC site handily has slow motion footage of the FMDs (Footwear of Mass Destruction)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
7782774.stm
Muntazir Az-Zaydi is a Leftist.
Lest US media portray him as Al-Qa`idah supporter, As-Safir reports that the shoe throwing Iraqi journalist, Muntazir Az-Zaydi, is a Leftist. He believes in the hammer, sickle, and shoe.
Posted by As'ad at 4:01 PM
I didn't read the 'Land of the Jews' entry, but the section called 'Death of Hopper' is apropos. Every character he's played has died (except in Apocalypse Now?). It's pretty funny how he did the screenplay for Easy Rider and killed himself off.
I miss you!! (And I think that Ali Abunimah's suggestion that we bronze the shoes like they do to baby booties is so far the best!!!)
WELL SAID!!
And if Saddam was such an angel why did the Iraqis whack his statue with their shoes when he was toppled?
Former Saddam Khalil al-Dulaimi says Bush is "the tyrant criminal who has killed two million people in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Er, no, more than three quarters of those who have met a violent death in Iraq since 2003 have been killed senselessly by Islamic terrorists, not Yankee soldiers.
Of course the USA opened the can of worms - but alittle respect for the truth would not go amiss even on your blog.
I don't like answering posts like this, but it has to be said: You can and must blame the US invasion for every death in Iraq since 2003, even if the killers were not directly allied to the US. Even if there was no evidence that a certain level of sectarian violence is part of the strategy of controlling Iraq, not every sectarian killer has the benefit of what passes for law and order swept away by an outside invasion.
As bad as the US is, if the whole administration, military, and police were abolished by an outside force, I don't doubt this place would be just as much of an open-ended death trap.
There were other ways Saddam could have fallen. The latest occupiers of Iraq were not any more interested in Iraqi life than the Mongols or the British, or Saddam even.
He "made off" with the money for "Jewish causes"
Mooser - i've had lots of emails on this madoff business. "Madoff" - what a name for someone who made off with $50 billion.
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/I...q/
10267624.html
Arab bloggers had a field day after the "shoe heard around the world" incident. "Today (Sunday) is the day that 'Angry Arab' has been preparing itself for three years and finally it happened" remarked one blog.
love to see you around here. please hang out more often. we're running a nice little cheider.
Hulkagaard, I can't say that. It would be considered bragging.
BBC
16 Dec 2008
Muntadar al-Zaidi has suffered a broken hand, broken ribs and internal bleeding, as well as an eye injury, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC.
Yes, but if the great Muntadar had've done this to Saddam, he would've been much worse off.
So this is actually a good example of some of the benefits of being under American military occupation brings to their Iraqi victims.
ps
One of the undead on Lenin's Tomb posted this. I thought jsf-ers might appreciate it -
US anti-kidnap expert kidnapped
BBC Americas
16 Dec 2008
but thanks
"So did Iraqis have that under tyrant Saddam?
And if Saddam was such an angel why did the Iraqis whack his statue with their shoes when he was toppled?"
Actually, they didn't have a whole lot of freedom under the former regime. Perhaps, (for that reason among others) it wasn't such a good idea for us to militarily intervene in support of that tyrant Saddam, when he was in danger of being overthrown by the avenging Iranians after he had invaded their country (back in the 1980's).
You see, when one invades another country on the pretext of liberating it from its tyrannical ruler (at a time when he hasn't invaded another country), after having previously intervened militarily to keep that same tyrannical ruler in power (when he had invaded another country), one exposes himself as a hypocrite, who is imposing his hegemony through wars of aggression.
By the way - the Iraqi people didn't have any more or less freedom when we were keeping Saddam in power that when we were romoving him.
p.s. - that was well stated andrew.
Commenting by HaloScan
