News Horrific Attack in Iraq - Al Qaeda Denies Involvement

[Hurkyl]

Wow, apparently you read 49 more words than Evo.

You think this is likely to be accurate? If so, does this have relevance to anything?

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Boston Tea party was a non-violent act of revolt, I don't recall any civilians being killed. I don't believe that anyone was killed.

So you now attempt to change the definition of what it is to terrorize?

Evo ... you're stooping to new lows.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You think this is likely to be accurate? If so, does this have relevance to anything?

THE STORY OF ALI ISMAIL ABBAS

WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?
No child on Earth deserves this - war is evil no matter the cause.
Ali's story is not unique...there are hundreds more Iraqi children just like him.

30 Miles from Baghdad on March 30th a U.S. bomb changed 12 year old Ali's life forever. When the bomb struck, Ali was sitting on his pregnant mums lap. Sixteen family members including his mum, the unborn baby, his dad, his brother, three cousins and an aunt were killed. Ali lived but lost both his arms and suffered 60% body burns.

Ali Ismail Abbas received world attention and became 'the poster child' of the Iraq war. His nurse even wrote a letter to Bush and Blair asking for Ali to be airlifted out to save his life. Ali said he will go anywhere for treatment except the U.S. "because they did this to me." On April 16th, Ali was flown to Kuwait and had his first surgery and skin grafts. Ali will live. Untold numbers of children left behind in Baghdad, and elsewhere throughout Iraq, will not.

Sorry, Hurkyl, I am having problems finding anything in the above story that indicates anything but a description of the event and the subsequent actions that followed.

Even this, "Ali said he will go anywhere for treatment except the U.S. "because they did this to me."" is a quote of the boy himself.

What followed was links to 15 news articles and an appeal for funds to help the victims of war ... not 'American war' ... but war. It even states that war is evil no matter what the cause.

Are you manifesting some form of guilt?

 

[Hurkyl]

Huh? How did you get from "Hurkyl appears to have read 49 more words than Evo" to "Hurkyl is manifesting guilt"?

 

[Evo]

Why don't you click page down once and follow the 15 links to news sites then?

Because no one here should have to. In the future, post the link to the news source you wish to reference and skip the personal opinion sites.

I also didn't post in reference to your request but the request of another who wanted to read about the details with relevence to the definition of Terrorism I placed earlier.

And the site you linked to failed to do that.

Does this not equate to the aspect of 'propaganda' in the definition supplied?

What you posted most certainly would be considered propaganda.

Why do you consistently perform Ad Hominem attacks on sites rather than addressing the evidence supplied there?

Nothing of the sort, I requested that you link directly to a valid news source. I suggest that you stop making things up. Other members have asked you to stop this also.

 

[mathwonk]

i was afraid of that. (re post 76.) apparently you would rather argue.

 

[Evo]

So you now attempt to change the definition of what it is to terrorize?

Evo ... you're stooping to new lows.

We're discussing "terrorists" under the current definition, not the dictionary definition of the old meaning of the word terrorize. Two hundred years ago the word didn't carry the same meaning.

 

[Archon]

Wow. Your entire post veritably reeks of generalizations and racism.

Today’s use of the word “terrorist” universally evokes an image of a Muslim with a bomb strapped to his torso and is considered a despicable individual. In the Muslim world, no real sense of horror is felt but rather an image of a martyr doing the work of Allah. To get a feel for how the Muslim thinks, do search for, (I’m not kidding!) “Ask the Imam” or “Muslim advice” or similar. My favorite hit is:

Is it OK to have SEX with my SLAVES?

Do you seriously believe that the majority of the Muslim world supports the actions of terrorists, Muslim or otherwise? After you've (hopefully) answered this, consider another question: do you believe that more Muslims were in favor of terrorism before the attack of Iraq, or after?

The liberal press knows well how to structure a sentence to evoke the desired mental image from their readers and now refer to the terrorist as an insurgent to avoid the automatic “Muslim-terrorist” connotation. The liberal press/individual does not favor one religion over another, deeming all religions to be an obstacle in the path of global socialism / Marxism. Right now Christianity is perceived to be the more dangerous of the two. The complete destruction of all traditional values is the goal of the liberal as the smallest deviation from socialist dogma is destructive to the system.

Continue to use “terrorist”, everyone in the western world knows to what it refers despite the efforts of the liberal (aka Marxist) to replace the image of the psychotic Muslim bomber with that of a coalition soldier doing his duty.
...

Remarkable. I am truly at a loss for words. Before I formally respond to this, could you perhaps confirm my suspicions regarding your post? You seem to be saying that liberals are all, somehow, in league with the terrorists, and that they necessarily believe that all religions are equally is evil (But Christianity more so. Of Course.) and that any hint of nonconformity is destructive and horrible.

WHAT?!?

I am a liberal by any standard, and from my perspective, this is a fair description of many conservatives I have known and seen (minus the part about Christianity). I hope you were being sarcastic.

Edit: Forgot to attribute quotes. My apologies.

 

[Evo]

I have no idea to whom you are referring, but the modern use of the word terrorist has nothing to do with muslims, in my opinion, if you think that, you are sadly mistaken.

The IRA bombers are terrorists. Anyone that takes it upon themselves to randomly harm innocent people to further their own cause is a terrorist.

 

[mathwonk]

this is sad.

 

[Evo]

this is sad.

Yes, it's sad, and that was the point of the thread, originally. Unfortunately the original intent has been lost and people would prefer to argue over who's loss is greater and why.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Because no one here should have to. In the future, post the link to the news source you wish to reference and skip the personal opinion sites.

And the site you linked to failed to do that.

What you posted most certainly would be considered propaganda.

Nothing of the sort, I requested that you link directly to a valid news source. I suggest that you stop making things up. Other members have asked you to stop this also.

Pardon!?

The site I directed the person to simply stated fact as I posted on this site. See post #93

The site I posted was an appeal for donations to help the victims of war and stated nothing of political bias.

I will also point out to the other folks here that Evo has 'officially warned' me by IM and I now have a six rating.

Apologies to those of you who have personally written and offered support but I doubt I will be around much longer. You will have to weigh your fears over upsetting Evo and not getting help because you think she will hold a grudge and expressing your own opinions.

When a site allows 'mentors' to monitor sites and express opinions and condemn based on those opinions ... to delete posts contrary to those opinions and leave their responses well, I guess we have something akin to the Bush administration rules for the press corps.

I am sad Evo that you can put yourself into this position and control others who would like to express a contrary opinion to you. It says great things about the power you weild here.

 

[Evo]

I will also point out to the other folks here that Evo has 'officially warned' me by IM and I now have a six rating.

It's your decision, you can either conform to forum guidelines or not.

Langauge Guidelines:

Any foul or hostile language used in Physics Forums will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed. It is better to walk away from a possible confontation and come back with constructive arguments.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Huh? How did you get from "Hurkyl appears to have read 49 more words than Evo" to "Hurkyl is manifesting guilt"?

Well, since the site is politically neutral stating that 'all war is evil' ... that it states the facts in the case that you requested ... I can only assume that both you and Evo are projecting something onto this site that is not stated there.

There is merely a two paragraph discription of the event and then 15 links to new services and yet becasue it is a plea for contributions for funds to treat children injured in war, you have both condemned it as a biased site.

Why?

 

[Hurkyl]

you have both condemned it as a biased site.

I haven't evaluated it for bias, so I certainly can't condemn it as a biased site. Why would you think I have?

Even if I thought it was biased, it would have been counterproductive for me to condemn the site -- it would just give you a red herring to chase.

Well, since the site is politically neutral stating that 'all war is evil'

Um... I hope there's a typo in there...

 

[Evo]

Well, since the site is politically neutral stating that 'all war is evil' ... that it states the facts in the case that you requested ... I can only assume that both you and Evo are projecting something onto this site that is not stated there.

There is merely a two paragraph discription of the event and then 15 links to new services and yet becasue it is a plea for contributions for funds to treat children injured in war, you have both condemned it as a biased site.

Why?

Neutral? And you're making stuff up again, I am warning you to stop. Neither Hurkyl or I "condemned" this site. I asked you to post to a news site.

Look at the very first line at the site "WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?"

Yep, real neutral.

 

[GENIERE]

...Do you seriously believe that the majority of the Muslim world supports the actions of terrorists, Muslim or otherwise?

No.

do you believe that more Muslims were in favor of terrorism before the attack of Iraq, or after?

Whether 5%, 10% or 50%, it matters not one iota to me, 9/11 occurred, it was not met with unqualified condemnation from the Muslim community then nor now

...Remarkable. I am truly at a loss for words. Before I formally respond to this...

If only that were true.

I’m not in any way interested in the typical liberal response, but I will read it on the slight chance you may offer something different than the usual rant… Of all the posters I believe to be on the far left, only Vanesch has provided anything I thought worthy of consideration and he does it in less than 100 words. As a supporter of most of the Presidents policies I obviously have only a low IQ brain and believe “majority” means more people voted to elect the president then the other guy (what’s his name, you know the great rebater). I know of no genetic sequence that synthesizes proteins to endow the mind of man with the esoteric concepts of fair, humanity, equality, and other blathers. I am aware that the mind of man most definitely does posses the genetic trait of “fight or flight” and the man will do either contingent on circumstances. Don’t bother me with your nurtured cerebral, reflexive, responses; they’ll likely always differ from mine

 

[Archon]

I’m not in any way interested in the typical liberal response, but I will read it on the slight chance you may offer something different than the usual rant…

Read closely. I wasn't ranting: I was asking a question in an attempt to clarify your post, which, it seems to me, is far closer to a rant than mine. This was not out of malevolence. I'm trying to figure out what exactly your position is.

Of all the posters I believe to be on the far left, only Vanesch has provided anything I thought worthy of consideration and he does it in less than 100 words.

In the future, I'll try to conform to your exceptionally high standards.

As a supporter of most of the Presidents policies I obviously have only a low IQ brain

I've searched my post, and I can't find any trace of an attack on your intelligence.

and believe “majority” means more people voted to elect the president then the other guy (what’s his name, you know the great rebater).

My definition of "majority" is the same. Now, if only a majority of voters had actually chosen our current president both times he ran for office.

I know of no genetic sequence that synthesizes proteins to endow the mind of man with the esoteric concepts of fair, humanity, equality, and other blathers. I am aware that the mind of man most definitely does posses the genetic trait of “fight or flight” and the man will do either contingent on circumstances. Don’t bother me with your nurtured cerebral, reflexive, responses; they’ll likely always differ from mine

No argument here. But I was hoping for that clarification I asked for. Do you actually believe everything you wrote about liberals in your last post?

Also, if you plan to respond with more "subtle" attacks, please refrain. I'm still hoping that this thread will get back on track.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Neutral? And you're making stuff up again, I am warning you to stop. Neither Hurkyl or I "condemned" this site. I asked you to post to a news site.

Look at the very first line at the site "WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?"

Yep, real neutral.

Evo, you didn't ask me to post anything. I posted in answer to another person's request.

You have chosen to insert yourself into this exchange.

"WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?" is an attempt to get people to think of how the child would be helped if the Child was American. What are you reading into it?

In no place does this site blame America for what happened other than naming who dropped the bomb which is a fact.

It then states what the reprocussions were of the bomb including the deaths and the child's injuries.

It then states the fact that he is not alone in Iraq in his injuries and that many children like him will not be as 'lucky' as him in his treatment.

You have also chosen to tell me what I can and can not reference:

In the future, post the link to the news source you wish to reference and skip the personal opinion sites.

Well, I am sure you aware that most news sites and stories fall off the net after a time (this happened over 2 years ago) and often permanent web sites are the only places where news incidents are referenced.

Why are you creating rules to tie my hands?

 

[The Smoking Man]

It's your decision, you can either conform to forum guidelines or not.

Langauge Guidelines:

Any foul or hostile language used in Physics Forums will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed. It is better to walk away from a possible confontation and come back with constructive arguments.

Any chance there might be something said in the area of the current exchange between Archon and GENIERE?

Or how about Here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=71256&page=3

You might want to start from message #35

So why has this thread turned into one big ad hominem attack?

and read backwards.

But yeah, if you think it is more important to stop me posting links to War Victim Charity sites, I can see your point.

 

[Evo]

Evo, you didn't ask me to post anything. I posted in answer to another person's request.

You have chosen to insert yourself into this exchange.

First of all, this forum is open to all and personal conversations are for PM, not for the forum. Second, I am the mentor here and I am responsible for keeping the forum on track.

["WHAT IF THIS WAS AN AMERICAN CHILD?" is an attempt to get people to think of how the child would be helped if the Child was American. What are you reading into it?

Exactly what you just stated. It is suggesting that Americans don't value the lives of non-Americans as much as they value one of their own. Why would an American child be helped any more than any other child? It is revolting to even suggest such a thing!

In no place does this site blame America for what happened other than naming who dropped the bomb which is a fact.

It's a war. No one is denying it was a war casualty. What's your point?

You have also chosen to tell me what I can and can not reference:

You were asked to give background information on what specifically caused the injuries to determine if it was an act of terrorism. It was not an act of terrorism.

Well, I am sure you aware that most news sites and stories fall off the net after a time (this happened over 2 years ago) and often permanent web sites are the only places where news incidents are referenced.

But that's not the case and you had no reason to post that link.

Why are you creating rules to tie my hands?

Actually I have been cutting you a LOT of slack. You have not been adhering to forum guidelines. You are aware of the guidelines, I suggest you decide if you wish to remain posting here.

 

[Evo]

Any chance there might be something said in the area of the current exchange between Archon and GENIERE?

Worry about your own behavior, I will take care of the forum. It is not for you to know what disciplinary action is taken with other members.

 

[Danger]

Evo, you know how much I love and respect you, but I have to side with Cancer Man on this. Anything done by Yanks in the mid-East is an act of terrorism because they have no right to be there in the first place. It is not a 'casualty of war' because there is no war. There is an illegal invasion of another sovereign state. Any deaths resultant of that are murder. It goes back to the Penguin objecting to me calling your ******* pilot Schmit a prick for deliberately murdering 4 Canuk soldiers and costing another his limbs even though his AWACS controller ordered him to break off because there were only 'friendlies' in the area. He had the firepower and wanted to use it on someone (preferably someone who wouldn't shoot back). To this day, he has not only not apologized, but continues to blame the innocent dead soldiers for their own demise. My beret is off to the rest of the US military who staged a very moving memorial to our lost bretheren. You'll notice that the afforementioned prick wasn't in attendance.
Your president is in the same boat. Someone who illegally took power in the first place, since he clearly lost the election, went on a power trip. How he got elected for his second term is a mystery to everybody on the planet outside of the US. I'm certain that the only reason he attacked Iraq this time was to get revenge for his old man screwing it up so badly during his term in office. And the only reason Bush Sr. did it was because he saw the oil fields on fire and realized that there would be nothing left for the US to profit from if it continued.

 

[The Smoking Man]

First of all, this forum is open to all and personal conversations are for PM, not for the forum. Second, I am the mentor here and I am responsible for keeping the forum on track.

By on track, you mean the 'quality' of the external links? Subject matter? Bias? What?

Exactly what you just stated. It is suggesting that Americans don't value the lives of non-Americans as much as they value one of their own. Why would an American child be helped any more than any other child? It is revolting to even suggest such a thing!

Exactly ... that is what I said, you have read something into the statement. You have imprinted your personal bias. The site states nothing of the kind but attempts to solicit funds for the treatment of the injured FROM AMERICANS because they have big hearts :!) .

It's a war. No one is denying it was a war casualty. What's your point?

Now you are refusing to look at the facts and that the incident was OUTSIDE of Bahgdad by 30 miles with no legitimate target in the area.

You were asked to give background information on what specifically caused the injuries to determine if it was an act of terrorism. It was not an act of terrorism.

I'm sorry ... dropping a bunker buster in a residential area outside of Bahgdad isn't terrorism?

But that's not the case and you had no reason to post that link.

Again, I am asking you if I am constrained anywhere in this site as to what I must link to? I chose this site because to me it appears neutral and has 15 links to various news sites. Unlike you, I believe people should be capable of clicking further links from within a referenced sites since the words BBC and Guardian or prominent in their listing on that site.

Actually I have been cutting you a LOT of slack. You have not been adhering to forum guidelines. You are aware of the guidelines, I suggest you decide if you wish to remain posting here.

Yes, I have read the guidlines but more important, I have observed the postings of people like Townsend who seems to get away with murder because he posts in sympathy with the bias I sense from the mentors here.

He even declared a site to be 'garbage' and non-DOD but when it was proved as such he changed his tune but still condemned the contents out of hand with no reference to the actual facts other than it all contradicted his opinion.

Even you were forced to appologize in regard to the source of a posting relative to the 'official' disposition on the Columbia werbsite.

Now I watch as pitched verbal battles are being waged in various boards here and I am getting trashed for posting a link to a legitimate site and rules are being made for me to only post links to news sites.

Why am I defending myself against attacks like this:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82327&page=5&pp=15

Oddly enough, I do wonder what you believe actually happened in Boston that day. What has your government told you? Were we throwing babies overboard as well? Did we burn people alive? And exactly what does it matter what the Iranians think? For a nation that retaliated with their own chemical weapons and kidnapped US citizens, i don't think their opinion should matter much.

Interesting ... most of my education came from textbooks printed in the USA and then continued at Trinity College for my Masters.

What are you assuming is "your government"?

You don't believe he was referencing the fact that I live in China? You don't believe that this was a personal attack?

 

[Art]

My details of the US attack are fuzzy, so I apologize if I make any gross errors.


Basically, the fundamental principle I use to condemn the Iraqi suicide attack does not apply to the US attack. The objective was not "Let's blow up a humvee", it was "Let's blow up a humvee once it's surrounded by children"^*.

However, the objective of the US attack was "Let's destroy this vehicle", not "Let's destroy this vehicle once it's surrounded by people".

Are you suggesting then that the suicide bomber's target was the children and the american armour was 'collateral damage'? This hypothesis seems somewhat unlikely and definitely unprovable.
It is fruitless (other than for propaganda purposes) to speculate on what the suicide bomber 'thought' as it is impossible to know as he is now dead; whereas it would be interesting to ask the pilots of the helicopters what was going through their minds after they had made 2 passes over the target saw it was surrounded by civilians and yet still opened fire. Note they not only used missiles which were more than adequate to destroy the humvee but also opened fire with cannon which suggests the civilians were indeed targeted in what would appear Prima Facie to be a cowardly act of spite.

The two events are clearly unequal, whether or not the US attack is justifiable.

On the inequality we agree but based on the actual facts available, the US attack was worse due to their proven premeditation (ref the 2 passes over the vehicle) as opposed to the unproven intent of the suicide bomber to kill civilians.

To state all this another way that I think is relevant: just as the ends do not justify the means, the ends do not condemn the means.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you saying that the american end goal of destroying an already wrecked vehicle did justify the killing of the civilians?

Ok, let me try it more bluntly: killing yourself while performing a condemnable act does not make it any less condemnable.

In this we agree as I have already stated unequivocally I find both actions equally repugnant and yes the horrific end is not ameliorated in the least by the bravery or cowardice of the attacker. However this is a separate discussion about the character of the perpetrators. I wonder would the US pilots have pressed home their attack if they knew the cost of successful completion of their mission was their certain deaths?
BTW I appreciate your answering the question I posed. I am surprised by the silence emanating from those so quick to jump on the bandwagon to demand condemnation of attacks upon civilians from TSM.
As I posed before is it possible for people here to be fair minded enough to condemn all acts of savagery and murder irrelevant of the flag the perpetrators commit them under?

 

[Happeh]

The complete destruction of all traditional values is the goal of the liberal as the smallest deviation from socialist dogma is destructive to the system.
...

The activities you describe are going on all right. You are blaming the wrong people. That is the goal of Israel. The deviation is not from socialist doctrine, it is deviation from zionist propaganda.

 

[alexandra]

is anyone interested in a moment of silence for all innocent victims harmed in this conflict, of all nationalities?

Well said, mathwonk - I think people often lose sight of the issue when discussing current events. In my opinion (for what it's worth), there is no justification for killing and maiming civilians, no matter who is doing the killing and maiming. It's plain and simple: no violence against innocent civilians is acceptable, not under any circumstances, not by any 'side'. Killing and maiming children is completely barbaric, and whoever is responsible for carrying out such acts (and I mean whoever/whichever side) has already, by my books, crossed the line between 'human' and 'monster'.

 

[vanesch]

Killing and maiming children is completely barbaric, and whoever is responsible for carrying out such acts (and I mean whoever/whichever side) has already, by my books, crossed the line between 'human' and 'monster'.

Oh, well, I don't see what's so special about children: after all it is statistically proven that THE BIG MAJORITY of all corrupt politicians, terrorists and criminals 20-50 years from now ARE ALL CHILDREN now. So that's where we should strike if we want a more secure world tomorrow

 

[alexandra]

Oh, well, I don't see what's so special about children: after all it is statistically proven that THE BIG MAJORITY of all corrupt politicians, terrorists and criminals 20-50 years from now ARE ALL CHILDREN now. So that's where we should strike if we want a more secure world tomorrow

 

[The Smoking Man]

I am surprised by the silence emanating from those so quick to jump on the bandwagon to demand condemnation of attacks upon civilians from TSM.
As I posed before is it possible for people here to be fair minded enough to condemn all acts of savagery and murder irrelevant of the flag the perpetrators commit them under?

Cheers. It's nice to see a couple of people appreciate the direction I come from!

I would also like to point out at this time that the Japanese Class A War Criminals and the Nazi Administration were executed for Crimes Against Peace established because they violated http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kbpact/kbpact.htm aka The Multilateral Pact - "Renunciation of War".

I do hope that Yale Law's Avalon Project is still a suitable source.

With all other things that have been brought to the fore, this one document, created in the USA and ratified by 55 nations:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.

WHEREAS a Treaty between the President of the United States Of America, the President of the German Reich, His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, the President of the Republic of Poland, and the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotontiaries at Paris on the twenty-seventh day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, the original of which Treaty, being in the English and the French languages, is word for word as follows:

THE PRESIDENT OF THE GERMAN REICH, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN IRELAND AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY, HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC,

Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind;

Persuaded that the time has, come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated;

Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its ts national interests by resort to war a should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty;

Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this humane endeavor and by adhering to the present Treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their peoples within the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus uniting the civilized nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy;

Have decided to conclude a Treaty and for that purpose have appointed as their respective

This 'pact' was enough to condemn the people who broke peace in the world during WWII to death.

There has been a grave violation of this peace in Iraq.

The original document was created at the instruction of Herbert Hoover, President of the USA.

What a pity it seems to be used as toilet paper in the oval office now.