Bush, pretzels and a bruise to the side of the head.

the fnj

http://www.skynews.co.uk/skynews/article/0,,30000-1040844,00.html

Well it looks like G W Bush has let a pretzel get the better of him.

And people wonder why he is an international laughing stock?

adnans

why is this so funny? this is no laughing matter! why just the thought of that poor old man trying to wash his whole pretzel down his throat with an imported beer. grasping his neck with both his hands and those beady little eyes asking anyone near him for help. i find it just sad. it isn't funny people. that just isnt

on the other hand, the leader of the free world chokes on a pretzel watching football with his dogs.... god help us all

adnans

Dustaz

Does anyone actually believe this? When was the last time your face looked like that after falling 3 feet onto carpet.

Remember alex higgins face after he was 'kicked by a horse'? and Robbie Keanes knee injury brought on by 'changing the channels on the tv and dropping the remote'.
Pull the other one.

Victor

And Harry's bodyguard thinks he might have hassle .....

Typedef

Maybe hitting his head knocked a little sense into him :rolleyes:

President Bush has shrugged off the large bruise on his left cheek, picked up when he choked on a pretzel, fainted and fell off his sofa while watching American football on television

You know what they say lads, "where there's no sense, there's no feeling", I'm sure his noggin will recover, thank god, we wouldn't want some foolish nutter with his finger on the button for all of those nukes.

Sand

So he choked on a pretzel, must have been a slow news day.

adnans

Originally posted by Sand
So he choked on a pretzel, must have been a slow news day.

not really, a bunch of "battlefield detainees" got transferred to Cuba. some news sources mentioned that they were treated unjustly according to the Geneva convention. but the pretzel story is more exciting and more sitcom like.

adnans

Typedef

Originally posted by adnans

not really, a bunch of "battlefield detainees"

After all they're "terrorists" not prisioners of war, that's why they are facing military trial, because they weren't military men. It makes sense really if you think about it, Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist therefore he gets a civil trial, Taliban "detainees" were part of the "terrorist" harbouring government of Afghanistan and even though the same men were taken captive during a war and were members of an army, they're not prisoners of war, but "terrorists" and therefore should have military trials. See how this works if you are an American terrorist you get civil trial, but if you are Afghani, you get secret military trial, which is the sort of trial non-military criminals get, so all the rest of the non-military crimes in the US will be tried by military courts, whilst former and serving military men like Timothy McVeigh will get civil trial, simple. Beautiful symmetry don't you think?

Hobbes

Apprantly the pretzel was part of a terrorist cell working out of a bag recently bought from stop n shop.

They believe the culprit to be hiding out in pepperidge farms and have demanded that they hand over all suspected pretzels (and a case of beer) or they will commence bombing them back into the stone age. But not before air dropping cases of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the poor civilians who have to live with the salty taste.

TBH I believe he choked on a pretzel as much as I believe any other annoucement. I'd take it with a pinch of salt (and a cold beer).

Sand

Geneva convention only applies to armies or recognisable militias from what Ive heard. They were terrorists. So they can stop crying about being treated unjustly.

Hobbes

The Al-Quida are, the Taliban were not (at least not in the sense that would deny them access to the geneva convention)

Actually now that I think of it Al-Quida would be classed as Prisoners of War if you declared war on terrorism.

Dustaz

I cant believe that this board, which is usually full of paranoid conspiracy theories is buying the spin on bushs injuries:)

Evil Phil

lol. Serves him right.

GoneShootin

he's had worse

seamus

Originally posted by Dustaz
Does anyone actually believe this? When was the last time your face looked like that after falling 3 feet onto carpet.

Looks like a carpet burn to me.........As for those prisoners - how the fúck would anyone know how they are being treated? Surely they're not allowed conatct anyone, for fear of contacting other Al-Queda members? I think some other muslim is just being petty (as usual) and trying to make the Americans out to be evil (as usual).

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Geneva convention only applies to armies or recognisable militias from what Ive heard. They were terrorists. So they can stop crying about being treated unjustly.

But didn't everyone call the Taliban a militia. Didn't it act like a militia? Likewise with Al Quada (who were / are residents of Afghanistan)? Either they are terrorists and treated under criminal law or they are soldiers treated under military law, not a mish-mash of both / either to suit one's needs.

Remember Ben Affleck's character in the movie Pearl Harbour. Would he be an illegal combatant? And all the other Americans in WWI & II during the periods 1914-1916 and 1939-1941?

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus


Looks like a carpet burn to me.........As for those prisoners - how the fúck would anyone know how they are being treated?

Well, isnt that part of the problem. The US are not allowing anyone to see how they are being treated on "security reasons". So no international observers, no press, and no nothing. In the meantime, the press (and others) are receiving unofficial and unconfirmed reports about insufficient levels of treatment. In fact, a military official in the Pentagon described the conditions before the event and took the line of "its good enough for them - theyre used to living rough".

What is interesting is the language being used. The US is steadfastly ignoring questions on the condition and nature of the living conditions, and instead discuss how the amenities (healthcare, food, exercise facilities) are sufficient.

I also note that the press reported that the second load of detainees were loaded onto a plane with their heads covered. Prior to that there had been much reporting about how keeping ppl in such a condition would again conflict with the Geneva Convention, (which applies to all those engaged in an armed combat taken as prisoners, incidentally). I assume that brief periods (like from building to plane) is reasonable, but if they were kept hooded and/or were sedated as a precautionary measure, again the GC would be breached. Unfortunately, the US refused any indepedant witnesses on board the plane for security reasons, so we will never know how these detainees were treated.

One important thing to remember in all of this is the applicability of the Geneva Convention. The only people who are arguing that it does not apply are the US officials, and unfortunately it wont be up to them.

It is also worth pointing out that the only possible people the US can "legitimately" take to Guantanamo are the Al Qaeda members. There are many reports of foreigners making up many of the detainees - Australians, Brits, and so on. It has been pointed out that these are more likely to have been members of the Taliban, and that the US may be violating international laws and treaties by detaining these men in the current fashion, and refusing their national governments information and/or contact rights.

As for Bush...apparently his rigorous workout schedule means that his heart at rest neats slower than normal (good physical condition I guess). The official reason offered was that this condition makes him more prone to falling inconscious from oxygen loss. I am no doctor but this sounds like its the wrong way around to me - he should be more resistant to oxygen deprivation. Occy - can you enlighten us?

jc

Hobbes

They had pictures of the conditions. It's pretty bad.

Am I the only one who finds the humour in Sands advocating the very thing that he claims the US claim to be destroying?

Victor

Originally posted by Hobbes
Am I the only one who finds the humour in Sands advocating the very thing that he claims the US claim to be destroying?

Which bit is that?

Krusty_Clown

Bin Laden has assumed responsibility for the snack-food incident.
Apparently it was an Iraqi pretzel.

:rolleyes:

Victor

Originally posted by Krusty_Clown
Apparently it was an Iraqi pretzel.

In breach of the UN embargo?

adnans

Originally posted by Dustaz
I cant believe that this board, which is usually full of paranoid conspiracy theories is buying the spin on bushs injuries:)

of course it's a cover up. personally i think the wife cought him watching football again and kicked his ass back to work.

what do you think happened?

adnans

tools

The comedy value of the word "pretzel" should not be overlooked. His next speech should begin "Make no mistake, we are a pretzel loving nation..." Watch his popularity surge. They'll have to get rid of Bush's atrocious "wild west" speechwriter first though.

Panda

This guy picked up on it aswell, hes updated the site a lot aswell.

www.zefrank.com