who is the bigger terrorist?

[d2d2]

who do u think is a bigger terrorist bush or al qaeda etc

i think it is bush he says he is stopping the war in terror but i think he is just making the war on terror bigger

[Tokoyami]

It depends on whos point of view it is. I chose both because maybe to those we call terrorist, we are the true terrorists.

And ive always thought this war on terror will get worse before it gets better.

[dragoneyes001]

its hard to say who's the bigger terrorist because it takes measuring the level of terror each has caused to other people.

al-qaeda has effectively scared the piss out of 300 million Americans but that's also do to how the Bush government has milked the 9/11 attack for additional support to do as he pleases.

now Bush on the other hand through his piss poor diplomacy and statecraft has probably scared as many moderate Muslims and then we can count how many civilians who have been scared during the Afghanistan and Iraqi bombing runs which don't distinguish between friend or foe a bomb is a bomb even if its dropped by laser guidance when it goes off its not a bullet it explodes and anyone within the blast area if affected so are those within the debris range.

i think the problem with Bush is the people he's scaring are not the al-qaeda which so many bush supporters seem to think he's doing and that is why his war on terror will fail miserably he's scaring the people he should not be. he's creating more reasons to want the al-qaeda to keep existing among the very people he should want to Allie with to get rid of them.

[재]

IMO is both of them... not really clear what he did, but as far as I know what he did isn't right..

[Jack Van Burace]

I voted both for the reason that it can't be measured. It's long gone the time to argue who started it, what to say about 'who did it more?' ? They're both terrorists, and they both killed a lot of inocents to get their points across. I know the US was responsible for training the terrorists during the cold-war, but it doesn't make Al Qaeda less a terrorirst than they. If they're such good students, I would say they're finally on the same level!

[Random Havoc]

Bush isn't terrorising... per se. I mean he announces a war and goes for it... where as actual terrorist attacks come by otal surprise which enhances the terror. Bush causes terror by overdoing things and creating more problems than there was to start with. It's not exacly terrorism.

[Chrono Detector]

You know, I think Bush shouldn't use war to solve world conflicts, it just fuels the fire. He should really use his brains, not always "launch an attack" on the enemy. Not just only that, he is causing grief for both sides.

[obvious troll]

there's no comparision between the two imo. Al Qaeda stroke with intent to kill civilians and provoke chaos, bush retaliated with intent to punish terrorists, even if there were side casualties. sure, retaliation is wrong, but wtf was he suppposed to do, sit on it and wait for Bin Laden to come to his doorstep apologizing?

[Megalomania]

Looking at this literally,

Al Qaeda is a multi-man operation,
Bush is only one guy.

Therefore, in mass, collective height, weight and volume,
Al Qaeda > Bush.

[VampyreLord]

There are too many spammy one line posts here, make them longer and explain your argument rather than just stating your point of view.

/Moved to informal debates

[M-50]

I vote for both of them. Firstly because when Clinton was in power, alqadea was still here but they were not attacking america. Then when bush comes into power alqaeda start attacking america and england.
Second alqaeda are terrorists because they are comitting terrorist attacks against america and england, iraq and afghanistan.

[athenaofstarlite]

Rule of Thumb - Violence seeds violence. Sure, in the end we need to confront terrorists, but this is not the right way. We had Osama at our fingertips and Bush pulls out troops from Afganistan to fight in Iraq. Inexcusible.

Although I wouldn't consider Bush a terrorist, he shouldn't be president. There are people much better qualified for his job.

[mooks]

Bush isn't terrorising... per se. I mean he announces a war and goes for it... where as actual terrorist attacks come by otal surprise which enhances the terror. Bush causes terror by overdoing things and creating more problems than there was to start with. It's not exacly terrorism.


I'm pretty sure that falls under the category of terrorism. I mean, if you terrorise...
what else can you be?

There IS such a thing as government sponsored terrorism, state funded terrorism, military terrorism, etc. There have been numerous books and essays written on the subject.

I think people are not looking at the literal definition of terrorism...

"Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism means to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization, as opposed to subversion or direct military action."

Correct me if I'm wrong- but more civilians died in Afghanistan than terrorists.
More civilians are dying in Iraq than insurgents, terrorists, and the like.
That falls perfectly under the category of terrorism. Not war. Although in the US the definition of war has been redefined and now also covers non-uniformed combatives and even potential combatives. Even non-combatives who have the potential to support or succumb to influence. In essence anyone is a potential, so they decide who is, and who isn't a potential. Is this still under the pretext of a war? or is it more under the pretext of unconventional war? Now i really wonder who is the bigger terrorist...

More afghanis and Iraqis are personally affected by the US army actions than Al-qaeda.
There are more civilian casualties in both countries individually than in the US. So i don't really see what americans are still scared of- If you ask me, if after all these years and bodies later, their thirst for revenge/justice isn't quenched and they still percieve themeselves to be the victims...

Even I am more scared of the US than Al-qaeda, not because i'm not american... but because the US is increasing their range and now with this legalization of torture, what non-american is safe?

[Mercurius]

Both, I mean Al quada starts a war...and then Bush continues and finishes it...

Both of them are crazy enough to start a full open war using Nuclear weapons against eachother

the only difference is that Bush ''fights for the peace of mankind'' and Quaida for teh ''freedom of my people''

But anyway luckily we will get rid of Bush after this

ctlFIGHTING FOR PEACE IS LIKE ****ING FOR VIRGINITY

[Arei]

The next presidential elections arent untill 2008. Meaning Bush won't be gone until the beginning of 2009 =P

I put both... Because it is a 2-sided conflict, both sides are throwing terror at each other's faces.

[mooks]

It seems the most common perception is that terrorism is an act committed by individuals from a middle eastern country against westerners...

And that the pretext of terrorism does not include civilians affected by military action that is questionable even in it's originating country.. instead it is simply 'misjudgement' or 'not practical'.

Why is that?

[thousand sakuras]

i see how much you hate bush...but is he really a terrorist? hes the leader of our country...so theres no need to put him in that poll...but anyways al queda was the only logical choice on that poll so i chose it...

[II Xion II]

Yare yare...ok, where to begin. The president is elected by the people and the state, he has a fixed term of office, he can be indicted by the House and removed by the Senate, he CANNOT make legislation nor propose it, and he certainly cannot declare war. Look...Bush is a moron, but he is certainly not a terrorist. The whole definition (a murky one at that) of terrorism involves the targeting of civilians in order to incite terror and usually involves small-scale civilian targets like specific buildings or modes of conveyance. Bush was able to get Congress to declare war on Iraq and the U.S.A. proceeded to bomb military and government targets in an attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government. Yes, civilians always die in such conflicts and it is especially tragic, but Bush is not a terrorist by the common logic that defines terrorism. Al Qaeda, however, is a different story, their work does damage not only to lives and infrastructure, but also to the whole Muslim religion. That terrorist group is the equivalent of the Crusaders of the Middle Ages and the Catholic conquistadores that invaded the Americas.

[Nightcrawler]

al qaeda is the greater terrorist.
bush is working for the good of the world and of the countries in which we live. america fights for democracy and peace, while terrorists terrorise because they can.

there are those innocents that die as a result of america's actions, but some must die for the greater good.

[Gunther Herrman]

al qaeda is the greater terrorist.
bush is working for the good of the world and of the countries in which we live. america fights for democracy and peace, while terrorists terrorise because they can.
there are those innocents that die as a result of america's actions, but some must die for the greater good.
I'm sorry but at this point it is not "a few innocents", and so far all the "greater good" has led to is two conflicts that have still not been resolved. I will not go so far as to say that President Bush is a terrorist, but in this case, neither has the high moral ground.

[Nightcrawler]

bush may not have acheived it yet, but only when you work towards a goal do you acheive it. he has stabilised the two countries iraq and afganistan and removed 2 dictatorial regimes, saddam and taliban. i think that he has higher moral ground than al qaeda

[Gunther Herrman]

bush may not have acheived it yet, but only when you work towards a goal do you acheive it. he has stabilised the two countries iraq and afganistan and removed 2 dictatorial regimes, saddam and taliban. i think that he has higher moral ground than al qaeda
So you call two countries full of insurgents "Stable"? At least the Taliban kept Afghanistan fairly peaceful and drug free. As for Iraq, it's almost a civil war.

[VampyreLord]

bush may not have acheived it yet, but only when you work towards a goal do you acheive it. he has stabilised the two countries iraq and afganistan and removed 2 dictatorial regimes, saddam and taliban. i think that he has higher moral ground than al qaeda

I'm with Gunther on this one.

Bush is a corporate crook, a liar, a hypocrite, a religious fanatic and an idiot. He chooses to ignore logical arguments and goes with his gut instinct. The invasion of Iraq was based on a transparent sheet of lies he and his neocon pals constructed, lies which cost more than half a million Iraqi lives, as well as the lives of 3000+ coalition troops and about a dozen foreign journalists. He supported Israel when they launched their obscene onslaught in the summer which claimed the lives of thousands of Lebanese civilians.

Bombing is terrorism
Arresting random people and jailing them on a remote island for no reason is terrorism
Occupying a country for 4 years and perpetuating an ongoing civil war is terrorism

Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.

[II Xion II]

I'm with Gunther on this one.
Bush is a corporate crook, a liar, a hypocrite, a religious fanatic and an idiot. He chooses to ignore logical arguments and goes with his gut instinct. The invasion of Iraq was based on a transparent sheet of lies he and his neocon pals constructed, lies which cost more than half a million Iraqi lives, as well as the lives of 3000+ coalition troops and about a dozen foreign journalists. He supported Israel when they launched their obscene onslaught in the summer which claimed the lives of thousands of Lebanese civilians.
Bombing is terrorism
Arresting random people and jailing them on a remote island for no reason is terrorism
Occupying a country for 4 years and perpetuating an ongoing civil war is terrorism
Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.

You do have a valid point. However, the fact that Bush cannot initiate any war, cannot make any legislation, and cannot directly control his executive agencies (like the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) means that he is not actually the one implementing those policies. Yes, he does support them and he does have some influence, but unlike Bin Laden, he cannot just call up some people and tell them to destroy an entire a community. Bush is commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and possesses executive authority, however, significant support from congressional and policy leaders is needed in order to enact such plans. Also, Bush believes (in a semi-idiotic and semi-fanatical sort of way) that what he is doing is for the good of humanity and besides I doubt that Bush intends to kill civilians. Bin Laden and other real terrorists have this as their priority however.

[Guy]

I have to agree with Xion. Bush is more of an idiot, and not an actual terrorist. He doesn't intentionally go around abducting innocent Arabs and make unreasonable ransom for their safe return. And, as Xion said, Bush is not in total control. Before, the Republicans had control of the house, but now, the Democrats do. It is likely that the war in Iraq will be different now.

[dr0))nedevil]

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17012
http://www.countercurrents.org/aus-polya251005.htm

It seems we only think of individual terrorism & not state sponsored terrorism which is much stronger than al queda could ever be. The united states goverment has been involved in overthorwing democratically elected goverments in iran/iraq/latin american countries that did not follow what america told them to since democracy is what america tells smaller countries to do & not their citizens.

Anyway you look at terrorism the united states has always had blood on their hands since its inception.

For the upcoming war with iran i must add we put in a dictator in place of the democratically elected president in iran with a uprising of us led rebellion because they were going to nationalize their oil to their people not let the corporations steal the money then give them scraps.

It must be added that iraq with saddam were there keeping iran in check and not lettin them get too powerful but since we have killed saddam there isnt a check now since there is a shi'a goverment along with shi'a iran. So it's only natural iran would have more pull in the region.

[EndlessSky]

Omg.... I can't beleive this is an actual topic.

Yea, I'm sure we are bigger terrorists than the guys decpating innocent catholic school girls for their beleifs, blowing up relgious statues (buddas etc,etc) and countless other sick crimes throughout the world, for example a man in India priest of a church in his community was ambushed by a arabic man with a machtee to cut his head off while he was on his way to his church, because he was an "infidel".


I'm sure we are worse than the Preisdent of Iran coming out and saying he wants to wipe Isreal and their supporters completely off the face of the earth and that he is developing nuclear weapons for this purpose. Ya, ok I guess fighting against the insurgents and criminals in iraq and rebuliding the country of iraqs economy, millitary, community, and countless other things make us the real terrorists.

I'm getting tired of these ignorant topics and discussions from kids that saw some documentary on tv, or getting their stuff from some website on the internet.

Ok, this is my last time on this section of the forums, I'm tired of this, it is frustrating and annoying dealing with you people.

[dr0))nedevil]

I must say the president of iran does not control the military in iran. In iran it is a democratic/theocracy/autocratic mix. Any official can say anything but saying and doing are two very different things. In iran the president is losing support and iran is moving their presidential elections to 08 instead of 09 since they cant stand how he is overlooking his people's needs instead going for world stage just like what g.w. bush has done.


I was taking this topic as united states as a whole not just george bush since you seem to forget in the early days of settling we created this country on cleansing the people already here, but it is also our history to deny it is to have it repeated.

Being mad at a topic of debate is a reason for debates to see the whole picture not just what you beleive is right/wrong.

[Guy]

After thinking about this subject more, I find this topic rather ludicrous. Many people accuse George Bush of killing innocent Iraqis, bombing homes, etc. Yes, I admit that is all horrendous and true, but really, you think Al Qaeda is not guilty of the same crime? In America, you can criticize Bush to your heart's content, but under Al Qaeda rule, you think you can criticize Al Qaeda? Lunacy...

[EndlessSky]

Yes, and I apologize about early, when my anger got the best of me.

Anyway, it is really hard to make a desicion because the topic nowadays is just so up in the air and crazy stuff scattered all over the place. So it is hard to seperate things and get a good idea on it. Honestly, I don't know what to make of it at this point until we get the hard truth and proof.

[dr0))nedevil]

it seems to me people are missing the point of george w. bush on the options since g.w. is an example of STATE terrorism http://www.terrorism-research.com/state/

If you havent noticed anyone saying bad things about the president are being investigated by the secret service then being called terrorists for disagreeing with him and holding all anti war protestors on their terrorist watch lists.

Now state terrorism is extremely larger than an al queda (bin laden) type terror which is individualistic. Since al queda is not very competent or have the drive as most people want to beleive.


During the cold war they said communists would kill us all but they were actually few & far between with very little success but the propoganda of the state told everyone in the population they were under every bed & rock.

So its been proven state terrorism is much more serious than an individual terrorist act. As a baseline arguement about the definition it could be argued that war IS terrorism.

[II Xion II]

it seems to me people are missing the point of george w. bush on the options since g.w. is an example of STATE terrorism http://www.terrorism-research.com/state/

If you havent noticed anyone saying bad things about the president are being investigated by the secret service then being called terrorists for disagreeing with him and holding all anti war protestors on their terrorist watch lists.

Now state terrorism is extremely larger than an al queda (bin laden) type terror which is individualistic. Since al queda is not very competent or have the drive as most people want to beleive.


During the cold war they said communists would kill us all but they were actually few & far between with very little success but the propoganda of the state told everyone in the population they were under every bed & rock.

So its been proven state terrorism is much more serious than an individual terrorist act. As a baseline arguement about the definition it could be argued that war IS terrorism.

I visited the link and read right through it. Guess what, it had nothing that would qualify the U.S. government as state terrorism. The U.S. government does not terrorize or suppress its own population as can be seen from the massive media demonstration denouncing the Bush admin and the tons of protests (come on, Cindy Sheehan isn't on the terrorist watchlist) against him and the war. Not to mention that the U.S. probably has the freest press in the entire world (much more so than govt-owned press like in France and other modern countries).

Also, there is no evidence that U.S. government committed acts of terror against its own population or groups "deemed harmful" to the government. Unless of course you believe the Bush admin committed 9/11 (in which case I wish you luck at the home).

And we do not supply terrorists in general, yeah, there was the Iran-Contra affair, the Fulgencio Batista-led coup, and a few other things (which I am not justifying), but every country in the world has done similar things. But, we do not supply people with materials to kill innocent civilians, like Iran and Syria do. Civilians may die as a result, but it is not intended.

Basically, the U.S. does not engage in terrorist activities, hell, we even started an investigation into Israeli-clusterbomb violations w/ potential sanctions (Israel used U.S.-supplied clusterbomb munitions in Lebanon against contractual terms and many civilians were killed). However, interestingly enough, based on that site, both Venezuela, Iraq (formerly), and even Iran would classify as state terrorists. Oh, and I cannot forget North Korea and even China.

[dr0))nedevil]

if you havent noticed neither north korea or china have inaded another country.

How can you say we do not support terror groups the dictaor from chile who died last year tortured his citizens and was a u.s. puppet there. So arent supporting dictators who keep their citizens in fear also terrorism. Do not forget united states gave saddam his gas weapons that he used on the kurds.

Do you forget of how g.w. bush used 9/11 to raise paranoia just like during the communist scare thinking they were constantly attacked so g.w. bush is not innocent. But of course dissolving habea corpus doesnt mean anything either nor anyone the president chooses is a "terrorist" is a terrorist without any proof indefinately.

[Guy]

Bush may be evil and stupid, but he isn't a true terrorist. Al Qaeda has commit much more heinous crimes. We can criticize Bush all we want, but go to the Middle East and try criticizing Al Qaeda.

[II Xion II]

if you havent noticed neither north korea or china have inaded another country.

How can you say we do not support terror groups the dictaor from chile who died last year tortured his citizens and was a u.s. puppet there. So arent supporting dictators who keep their citizens in fear also terrorism. Do not forget united states gave saddam his gas weapons that he used on the kurds.

Do you forget of how g.w. bush used 9/11 to raise paranoia just like during the communist scare thinking they were constantly attacked so g.w. bush is not innocent. But of course dissolving habea corpus doesnt mean anything either nor anyone the president chooses is a "terrorist" is a terrorist without any proof indefinately.

If you haven't noticed China has a huuuuuuuuge and sadistic record of human rights abuses against its own people, not just POWs. Also, there was a little area called Tibet which China easily invaded and claimed for itself. Let us not forget China's trade relations with the aggressor state North Korea and its destruction of a satellite w/ a missile against international agreement.

As for North Korea, well, they have never technically invaded another country (for good reason, they would be destroyed), but they internationally abducted people from China, Japan, and South Korea. Also, there is no freedom in North Korea at all and famine has taken the lives of up to 3.5 million people. They have consistently acted against international opinion as well by building nuclear weapons and by abandoning the Six Party Talks.

Augusto Pinochet (the "puppet" and a horrible dictator) was the leader of a U.S-supported coup d'etat against the communists in Chile, however, that was during the height of the Cold War (in which there were basically two main countries involved, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.) when fear was high and paranoia was rampant. China (PRC), North Korea, and all of these other "non-terrorist" countries you mentioned did not even exist stably (they did under abominable condition and extreme civil strife and war, while the U.S.A. has been stable for nearly 150 years, much longer than other "civilized" countries).

Although I am unsure of the verity of the statement that the U.S. supplied Saddam with gas, I can say that countries all over the world have exchanged arms with terrorists and rebel groups, and do you forget that the U.S. was friendly with Saddam before he invaded Kuwait? Hell, China has supplied North Korea with weapons for years now, and most European countries tend to have strict and freedom-suppressing laws against the sharing of such government data (like the British Official Secrets Act) that would otherwise be known (unlike in the U.S.A. where nothing is secret for long due to our constitutional rights and freedoms in such acts as the Freedom for Information Act and the Whistleblowers Act).

Your statements about 9/11 are unfair and untrue. 9/11 was world-shocking and unprecedented. Bush was a domestic president until 9/11 and for something like that never happening, he handled it pretty well (you cannot blame one man for the failure of a bureaucracy) and although 9/11 might have been handled better in a country like the U.K, that would only be because of the almighty and unchecked power of the prime minister and the majority party in Parliament. I do not agree with the suspension of habeas corpus by the new laws put forth by the president, but with a Democratic congress and two years left in office, his legacy and changes will be short-lived.

Bush is not a terrorist, he is a valid and elected president whose time as president will soon end. He is stupid, but he works towards what he believes is in the nation's and world's best interest, although it might not be. The U.S.A. as a nation is not a terrorist state either, quite the opposite. We are the freest and the most secure and comfortable nation on Earth, quite the opposite of the real "terrorist" and unruly nations like Iran and North Korea. And even more so than the other "powerful" nations like Russia (which uses terrorist tactics against its own people to start false wars and which engages in civil rights abuses) and China (which also still has some of the worst human rights abuses and repressed freedoms in the world). For the most-powerful and most free country in the world, the U.S. is as far away from a terrorist state as can be. I celebrate my longest and most time-consuming post yet.

[Guy]

If you haven't noticed China has a huuuuuuuuge and sadistic record of human rights abuses against its own people, not just POWs. Also, there was a little area called Tibet which China easily invaded and claimed for itself. Let us not forget China's trade relations with the aggressor state North Korea and its destruction of a satellite w/ a missile against international agreement.

What you are saying is what the government did. The communists of China alone are responsible for this. Terrorism is military action that was not approve by the government. Tibet is part of China, and by saying Chinese are terrorists for fighting rebels there is like saying Americans are terrorists for fighting against the Confederates in Civil War. Oh yeah, the satellite is China's OWN satellite. Please explain to me how is it terrorism to destroy your own property? Sounds like all this b.s. against China nowadays is just excuses made by America to ensure China forever stays as a third world country. China is getting better and better.

As for North Korea, well, they have never technically invaded another country (for good reason, they would be destroyed), but they internationally abducted people from China, Japan, and South Korea. Also, there is no freedom in North Korea at all and famine has taken the lives of up to 3.5 million people. They have consistently acted against international opinion as well by building nuclear weapons and by abandoning the Six Party Talks.

I am not pro-North Korea, but they have done some terrible things. Unlike China, North Korea has no regret (at least Kim doesn't) for her crimes, so I agree with you here.



Your statements about 9/11 are unfair and untrue. 9/11 was world-shocking and unprecedented. Bush was a domestic president until 9/11 and for something like that never happening, he handled it pretty well (you cannot blame one man for the failure of a bureaucracy) and although 9/11 might have been handled better in a country like the U.K, that would only be because of the almighty and unchecked power of the prime minister and the majority party in Parliament. I do not agree with the suspension of habeas corpus by the new laws put forth by the president, but with a Democratic congress and two years left in office, his legacy and changes will be short-lived.

Bush is not a terrorist, he is a valid and elected president whose time as president will soon end. He is stupid, but he works towards what he believes is in the nation's and world's best interest, although it might not be. The U.S.A. as a nation is not a terrorist state either, quite the opposite. We are the freest and the most secure and comfortable nation on Earth, quite the opposite of the real "terrorist" and unruly nations like Iran and North Korea. And even more so than the other "powerful" nations like Russia (which uses terrorist tactics against its own people to start false wars and which engages in civil rights abuses) and China (which also still has some of the worst human rights abuses and repressed freedoms in the world). For the most-powerful and most free country in the world, the U.S. is as far away from a terrorist state as can be. I celebrate my longest and most time-consuming post yet.

Pretty much everything else you say is true. Bush has made mistakes during his presidency, but it would be hard for him to make anymore, as his presidency is coming to an end. Actually, with Democrats in the house, Bush is pretty much powerless.

[pero_renji!]

there's no comparision between the two imo. Al Qaeda stroke with intent to kill civilians and provoke chaos, bush retaliated with intent to punish terrorists, even if there were side casualties. sure, retaliation is wrong, but wtf was he suppposed to do, sit on it and wait for Bin Laden to come to his doorstep apologizing?
Haha, how many people Bin Laden supposedly killed with the 9/11 attack that sparked the war? 3000? i know, it doesnt matter if there are 5 dead civillians or a million civillians, its too much, but America's retaliation was way too powerful.(63000 civillians dead, some sources say its up to 655000!)
But they didnt destroy, they liberated ^___^.
Oh, a "terrorist" leader is hiding in the house 10 feet from a marketplace! send in a laser guided bomb, the others dead are collateral damage anyway.

[hollow kitty]

Bush isn't a terrorist he's just nosey as hell like most everyone in America. Al Qaeda wants to take peoples lives because of their beliefs and take away peoples freedom and agency which is given from God..not man!

[Draco]

In my opinion its both. Bush is making things worse by pretty declaring war on every non-un, non-democratic nation in the world. True it started out seeking retribution for 9/11, but that was already done when hussien was executed. On the other hand Al Qaeda instagated the whole conflict with yhose terrorist attacks on the US. The consequences for that coarse of action is pretty severe.

[kLaZaM]

This is a very delicate issue but i think Xion handled it beautifully and everything he said is right.

Bush is not a terrorist, and no-one should think so. An idiot? Yes MAYBE so, due to the obligations of his status and to his country, keep that in mind. America had to make a response and though it was a very violent one, tell me oh bright ones that say he is a terrorist and a fool, what would you have done in his place? All i hear is Bush is n00b lawl, but no justification of a proper course of action.

By the way i'm not American i'm Australian, so don't think i'm being biased i'm not. Bush declared WAR which is a brutal thing and has never in our history been pretty, it is clear and OBVIOUS that civilians WILL die but the difference is the intentions, TERRORISTS like AL Queda target civilians, people in WAR focus on targets such as their opponents or in this case TERRORISTS and understand that civilian casualties will occur. If they had an easier way to do this and kill the terrorists openly, they would not have declared WAR. A declaration of war means if they kill civilians it is not because they desired too, and that's the truth. Bush can't be blamed for the Al Queda shielding themselves by using their own people and hiding in their sand holes. It's like the Vietnam war, where the enemy can spring from anywhere because they do not have the resources or the manpower to fight the old fashion open field game.

SO people learn what your talking about before you make your "opinions," Bush is not a terrorist but a leader who had to make a decision for his own people, and is also hungry for oil, who else isn't our cars don't run themselves. I was originally going to say yeah Bush is stupid, killing so many people yadi yada, but i realised what else can he do? However maybe there should be some relief in Iraq, some more info on numbers or something, he probably has done some serious overkill, but if he withdraws and America gets bombed again wouldn't that suck, you don't know what you enemy is going to do so quite the pickle he is in. My final opinion, i don't know, but to answer this poll Al Queda is a terrorist, Bush is a leader with obligations. If i get smacked down by some randoms on the street and my parents did nothing, i'm pretty sure i'd be worried about walking in the open with them next time.

P.S Some comment some guy made afta Xion talking about America making excuses and that's why China is third world?? You realise China is screwed up because of the governments communist economy, they are only recently getting better because of their change to capitalism. China is a corrupt place with corrupt officials.

[malfuncti0n]

To call Bush a terrorist or say he is "killing innocent people" is just plain ignorant, im sorry but it is just ill thought out logic and a scapegoat. You can not blame everything on Bush. I am not pro-Bush or anti-Bush per se, however America is not a monarchy or dictatorship blaming the president alone for all american problems just doesnt make sense.
If you are going to blame the american goverment then do it i dont care really, but blame the entire goverment not just the president. You can not only blame the president as the president does not hold all the power, infact his power is rather limited as anything he does can be overturned or vetoed. American gov. is based on checks and balances, there is a BALANCE of power between the electoral, judicial, and legislative branch, the president is only one branch.

[Guy]

P.S Some comment some guy made afta Xion talking about America making excuses and that's why China is third world?? You realise China is screwed up because of the governments communist economy, they are only recently getting better because of their change to capitalism. China is a corrupt place with corrupt officials.

If China is so screwed up, then pray tell, why does America see China more of a threat than North Korea or Iran? America fears China will take their place as number one in the world one day... Yes China is full of corrupt officials, but the numbers are declining considering so many executions recently...

To call Bush a terrorist or say he is "killing innocent people" is just plain ignorant, im sorry but it is just ill thought out logic and a scapegoat. You can not blame everything on Bush. I am not pro-Bush or anti-Bush per se, however America is not a monarchy or dictatorship blaming the president alone for all american problems just doesnt make sense.
If you are going to blame the american goverment then do it i dont care really, but blame the entire goverment not just the president. You can not only blame the president as the president does not hold all the power, infact his power is rather limited as anything he does can be overturned or vetoed. American gov. is based on checks and balances, there is a BALANCE of power between the electoral, judicial, and legislative branch, the president is only one branch.

Yes, finally someone else who noticed. Bush is in NO WAY a dictator, so how can he possibly be a terrorist? The UN has criticized groups such as Al Qaeda for murdering innocents, but has the UN labled Bush just as evil as Al Qaeda? No way. I'm going to tell everyone here a SURPRISING fact: innocent people do get caught up in wars and die. *gasps!* Shocking, isn't it? Just because some innocent Iraqis died in Iraq does not make Bush a terrorist. What makes Al Qaeda a terrorist group is because they TARGET innocent Jews and Americans.

[JeremyJay22]

Well Al Queda starts the conflict but Bush in his own way draws the conflict out. I wouldn't call Bush a terrorist but he irrationally just rushes into things. I also agree with the above poster who states that you cannot only blame Bush as everyone in the White House plays a small part in his decision-making.

[II Xion II]

If China is so screwed up, then pray tell, why does America see China more of a threat than North Korea or Iran? America fears China will take their place as number one in the world one day... Yes China is full of corrupt officials, but the numbers are declining considering so many executions recently...


Because of several reasons:

1.) China is A LOT more powerful than both North Korea and Iran. They also have nuclear weapons, the world's largest army, and the third (or fourth...its disputed) largest geographic area in the world. There also may arise tensions over Taiwan's independence.

2.) They have a history of serious human rights and ethics problems that persist to this day (Tiananmen Square, organ harvesting, extrajudicial executions, One-child policy, etc.; in fact go to Wikipedia to see a whole article on it). They also have some of the highest number of death penalties in the world compared to overall population and they have 68 punishable-by-death offenses, including for crimes such as embezzlement and tax fraud.

3.) They are the world's most powerful undemocratic and freedom-suppressing government. There is serious limitations on freedom of movement, political dissidence, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of privacy, etc. They have a heavily censored Internet as well and as recently as a month ago I remember hearing on CNN that China will try to "purify" the Internet. A euphemism meaning to increase censorship and to increase government propaganda.

Are those enough reasons for you? America is basically completely the opposite of China and represents totally different ideals. In China, it is the party that people must fight and die for, while in America it is the idealized freedoms that we feel are natural and God-given. True, America has had a checkered past and has an active capital punishment system, but most of the human rights issue in regards to our own citizens are in the past and we do not have 68 punishable-by-death offenses. I have only seen people get the death-penalty for murder and rape, hell, most criminals in this country do not even see jail time. Tax evasion in the U.S. is punishable by jail time, but only in theory, in practice, the people just pay a lot of money.

I am sorry if this is all a little off topic, but I am answering his question and it does pertain to the whole discussion of terrorism. Bush is not a terrorist, and neither are the leaders of China, I would not even consider Idi Amin a terrorist. Leaders of countries prefer the term dictator or grand supreme leader of great nation. ;)

[Guy]

Because of several reasons:

1.) China is A LOT more powerful than both North Korea and Iran. They also have nuclear weapons, the world's largest army, and the third (or fourth...its disputed) largest geographic area in the world. There also may arise tensions over Taiwan's independence.

This is so off-topic, but well, I can't just leave things like that. There is nothing wrong with China wanting to become more powerful. America wants to become more powerful, so why can't my people want to become more powerful? Also, I am Taiwanese and I don't support Taiwanese independence. Do you know that the current Taiwanese government is hopelessly more corrupt than the CCP is right now?

2.) They have a history of serious human rights and ethics problems that persist to this day (Tiananmen Square, organ harvesting, extrajudicial executions, One-child policy, etc.; in fact go to Wikipedia to see a whole article on it). They also have some of the highest number of death penalties in the world compared to overall population and they have 68 punishable-by-death offenses, including for crimes such as embezzlement and tax fraud.

Only Tiananmen square was a tragedy. I don't believe that organ harvesting continues to this day. I admit, it may have happened before, but to this day, I do not believe it. If so, please give a link. Wikipedia is usually not the best reference, as any member can change it.

3.) They are the world's most powerful undemocratic and freedom-suppressing government. There is serious limitations on freedom of movement, political dissidence, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of privacy, etc. They have a heavily censored Internet as well and as recently as a month ago I remember hearing on CNN that China will try to "purify" the Internet. A euphemism meaning to increase censorship and to increase government propaganda.

They are getting better. You think China today is undemocratic? Geez, China 50 years ago is like... *shudders to think* China cannot possibly become democratic overnight. However, elections are held in local villages for village officials. Although Hu Jintao was never chose by the people, this does show a sign of change. Compared to other communist country in this world, I'd say China is the most democratic one, especially compared to countries like North Korea and Cuba. I've been there; trust me, I've not been persecuted.

Are those enough reasons for you? America is basically completely the opposite of China and represents totally different ideals. In China, it is the party that people must fight and die for, while in America it is the idealized freedoms that we feel are natural and God-given. True, America has had a checkered past and has an active capital punishment system, but most of the human rights issue in regards to our own citizens are in the past and we do not have 68 punishable-by-death offenses. I have only seen people get the death-penalty for murder and rape, hell, most criminals in this country do not even see jail time. Tax evasion in the U.S. is punishable by jail time, but only in theory, in practice, the people just pay a lot of money.


I admit that my people have committed atrocious crimes before, but it is improving, and just because it doesn't meet Western standard of democracy YET does not mean it is a vile and evil country. Also, I see nothing wrong with having death penalty, and with 1.3 billion people, it would be hard to control crime without it.

God, I hope a mod won't warn us for going off topic...

[Aerias]

Bush is just as much a terrorist for one reason: innocent lives are lost in his attempt to "right" things.

Think about this : If a school bully provoked you, are you going to go beat the crap out of him and destoy everyone who gets in the way? Or are you take steps to take the bully down without hurting anyone else in the process.

There were certainly many ways Bush could of handled the situation without resorting to terrorist methods.

[Guy]

*sighs* OK, regardless of what anyone says, the topic here is who is the BIGGER terrorist. Nothing Bush has done is anywhere close to as hideous as what Al Qaeda has done. If you insist on believing Bush as a terrorist, then fine, but I see no proof as to why he is worse than the entire group of Al Qaeda.

[Aerias]

Well, lets put it this way...Which is worse? One major bombing (9/11) and a large amount of suicide bombings caused by Al Qaeda, or a very large amount of airborne bombs dropped on or near civillian areas that are said to hold terrorists by Bush. Along with the constant bombings of civilians, there is also accidental causalities caused simply from accidents in the field from our army. If you take a look at the death tolls, I pretty sure the deaths in the war that our president supported are larger by far then the ones that Al Qaeda caused. Sure, they drew first blood, but Bush is still reverting to terrorist tatics to...kill the terrorists.

[Guy]

Civilians die in war. It is a fact. This is why wars suck and we all must do what we can to prevent it. Bush does not go to Iraq and target innocents on purpose; Al Qaeda does.

[Aerias]

Civilians die in war. It is a fact. This is why wars suck and we all must do what we can to prevent it. Bush does not go to Iraq and target innocents on purpose; Al Qaeda does.


Thats true Guy, I never thought about that. After reading that post I would have to agree that Al Qaeda is the bigger terrorist, because they did target civillians from the start, while the civillians Bush has killed are casualities of the war that Al Qaeda started (though that still doesn't make it right to bomb areas that civilians are known to live in).

[malfuncti0n]

Ok firstly bush did not kill any civilians. Bush does not tell the military which targets to attack, bush does not tell the military which tactics to use, and bush has virtually no say over the military. The U.S. presidents power is infact rather limited, as anything he says or does can be overturned and/ or vetoed by one of the goverments other 2 branches, get it checks and balances. It is the foundation of american democracy.
The president is merely a political face, the entire government, that is the legislative, executive and judicial branch can all be held responsible for wrong doings and can all be praised for good doings. Bush probally doesnt know shit about what is going on in Iraq, and you know what even if he did it wouldnt make a difference, he does not have supreme authority or anything like that. The U.S. isnt the old monarchy of england or nazi germany or dictarship cuba. Bush cannot take all the blame, blaming him is merely narrow minded and ignorant, it is just people needing a scapegoat to point the finger at.

[II Xion II]

The world's in a sad state of ignorance when Al Qaeda has an equal votes with George W. Bush in regards to "who's the bigger terrorist." People unfortunately use their emotions to make their decisions instead of their heads. Either that or they are very young and immature.

Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists are blowing themselves up in crowded markets to kill their fellow denizens. They are "brainwashing" their children and demanding their wives to follow them to "Paradise" and to go out and hate and kill. They have absolutely no sympathy for the lives of people different from them (and even those that are similar) and believe whole-heartedly in a fallacious doctrine of hate, death, and tears. Those are terrorists.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States of America, is no more a terrorist than Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair, Romano Prodi, Ehud Olmert, or any other head of state of a modern nation. He doesn't go out and cut Muslims' heads off. He doesn't sanction that either. Contrarily, a U.S. soldier will follow an Iraqi boy in order to help him and will instead be shot dead by the boy's father in an elaborate plan where the boy acts as bait. That's how terrorists act. No compassion, no sympathy; just self-righteous bullshit and ignorance of the most profound kind.

I bet George W. Bush at leasts prays at night that things will go well in the world, that is more than can be said for these inhuman beasts that wallow in their Lethean state while preaching death and destruction.

[VampyreLord]

The world's in a sad state of ignorance when Al Qaeda has an equal votes with George W. Bush in regards to "who's the bigger terrorist." People unfortunately use their emotions to make their decisions instead of their heads. Either that or they are very young and immature.

Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists are blowing themselves up in crowded markets to kill their fellow denizens. They are "brainwashing" their children and demanding their wives to follow them to "Paradise" and to go out and hate and kill. They have absolutely no sympathy for the lives of people different from them (and even those that are similar) and believe whole-heartedly in a fallacious doctrine of hate, death, and tears. Those are terrorists.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States of America, is no more a terrorist than Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair, Romano Prodi, Ehud Olmert, or any other head of state of a modern nation. He doesn't go out and cut Muslims' heads off. He doesn't sanction that either. Contrarily, a U.S. soldier will follow an Iraqi boy in order to help him and will instead be shot dead by the boy's father in an elaborate plan where the boy acts as bait. That's how terrorists act. No compassion, no sympathy; just self-righteous bullshit and ignorance of the most profound kind.

I bet George W. Bush at leasts prays at night that things will go well in the world, that is more than can be said for these inhuman beasts that wallow in their Lethean state while preaching death and destruction.

Self righteous bullshit and an ignorance of the most profound kind? That is EXACTLY how I would describe Bush, you know? He arrogantly assumes that if we lie about WMD to excuse toppling some tinpot dictator who we set up in the first place, we'll be greeted as liberators, pump lots of lovely oil, and live happily ever after. Now thousands of people are dying.

[Habanero]

I guess Bush isn't really that bad a person, so it's a bit hard to call him a terrorist. But that man sure ain't too bright either, and putting that sort of person in charge of the most powerful nation in the world is just reckless. Dreads me to think that he's capable of blowing up the whole world in 20 minutes at any given time.

Terrorists aren't really that much more religiously brainwashed than average american, the message is just a "bit" different. I'm in no way a religious person, and to me it seems most idiotic to think that harming others would be of god's liking. That applies to both Bush and the terrorists.

Maybe bush is just stupid enough to actually believe his own words of the justification of all the wars in middle east. The single biggest reason for 9/11 is U.S government's foreign policy after Clinton's season anyway.

But the fact is that it all boils down to oil, when it comes to the wars in the middle-east. No matter what the U.S government says. And Bush should be well aware of that too. If causing pain and suffering for money is terrorism, then he is the biggest terrorist in the world. But then again, money's the way the world goes round.

[II Xion II]

Self righteous bullshit and an ignorance of the most profound kind? That is EXACTLY how I would describe Bush, you know?

I am not saying that Bush is the smartest man alive, but he sure doesn't go around intending to kill innocent civilians. Funny, everyone just points out Bush's wrongs and his errors, while never focusing on Al Qaeda and the barbaric acts they have committed.

He arrogantly assumes that if we lie about WMD to excuse toppling some tinpot dictator who we set up in the first place, we'll be greeted as liberators, pump lots of lovely oil, and live happily ever after. Now thousands of people are dying.

I do not agree with the Iraq War, but I recall the Iraqis celebrating as Saddam's statue was toppled. Everything went to hell once the Iraqis decided that they couldn't get along with each other. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, but now that everything is getting destroyed, we have chosen to stay (at the cost of many American lives, trillions of dollars, and massive disapproval) in order to maintain some stability in the region.

pump lots of lovely oil, and live happily ever after

Yep, that's the classic neo-liberal, pseudo-pacifist defense. We did not go to Iraq to get their oil, nor did we expect it to be easy. We spent trillions of dollars there to get a few billion barrels of oil? I do not even see how that is even pragmatically possible, considering all the media coverage and political overtones that such an event would engender. And Bush does not actually declare war, that's Congress's doing with widespread support from national and international intelligence agencies (although they may be wrong).

I do not like Bush, but he is a human being who I am sure did not want death and destruction to be his legacy. The terrorists are different, as they seek such things out. Bush and the nation were deeply affected by 9/11 and its occurrence was very unexpected. Bush and the nation may have acted impulsively, but I do not think that anything was done with malicious intent. Also, I do not think that simplifying such a complicated matter down to a single sentence is appropriate. That ignores all of the key and experienced military personnel involved, plus the legislators, public sentiment, and international diplomacy.

[VampyreLord]

I am not saying that Bush is the smartest man alive, but he sure doesn't go around intending to kill innocent civilians. Funny, everyone just points out Bush's wrongs and his errors, while never focusing on Al Qaeda and the barbaric acts they have committed.

Al Qaeda are barbarians, true, but we don't need to point that out. Bush is the most powerful man in the world. I think it is fair to say that we should expect a much higher standard of behaviour from him, don't you agree?

The gulag which he has set up on Cuba to torture and imprison suspects, out of reach of international law, is simply outrageous.

I do not agree with the Iraq War, but I recall the Iraqis celebrating as Saddam's statue was toppled. Everything went to hell once the Iraqis decided that they couldn't get along with each other. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, but now that everything is getting destroyed, we have chosen to stay (at the cost of many American lives, trillions of dollars, and massive disapproval) in order to maintain some stability in the region.

Well, the Iraqi's sure aren't cheering now. No one could have predicted the calamity it would turn out to be, but the obvious lack of planning on the half of the United States government really hasn't helped.

Yep, that's the classic neo-liberal, pseudo-pacifist defense. We did not go to Iraq to get their oil, nor did we expect it to be easy. We spent trillions of dollars there to get a few billion barrels of oil? I do not even see how that is even pragmatically possible, considering all the media coverage and political overtones that such an event would engender. And Bush does not actually declare war, that's Congress's doing with widespread support from national and international intelligence agencies (although they may be wrong).

I'm not a liberal and I'm not a pacifist. I despise liberalism. And for what it's worth, Neo Liberals are right wingers like Margaret Thatcher or Milton Freedman. I'm sure they were rabidly in favour of the war.

The war wasn't directly about seizing oil, but it's oil that makes Iraq important. There are countless dictators who are more cruel than Saddam, who support terrorists and who try to get WMDs, like Kim Jong-Il for example. So why did we pick Iraq? These other countries are unimportant, but Iraq's massive oil reserves make it a strategically important nation, which is why Bush wanted a pro US government there.

I do not like Bush, but he is a human being who I am sure did not want death and destruction to be his legacy. The terrorists are different, as they seek such things out. Bush and the nation were deeply affected by 9/11 and its occurrence was very unexpected. Bush and the nation may have acted impulsively, but I do not think that anything was done with malicious intent. Also, I do not think that simplifying such a complicated matter down to a single sentence is appropriate. That ignores all of the key and experienced military personnel involved, plus the legislators, public sentiment, and international diplomacy.

It's the attitude of Bush that matters.

It's the whole gung-ho attitude to war and aggression and violence, and the way he condones the bombing of an entire village because a suspected Taliban truck was parked there 3 hours earlier. It's the carelessness and casual disregard for civilian casualties, and the idea that violence is always the best solution.

That's what matters. In that sense, he and the terrorists are no different.

Bush doesn't have people beheaded and he doesn't use suicide bombers because he doesn't need to. Terror/insurgent tactics are almost exclusively used in conflicts by the weaker side.

[malfuncti0n]

Bush is the most powerful man in the world. I think it is fair to say that we should expect a much higher standard of behaviour from him, don't you agree?
Ok i have said this twice in this thread now,bush is not the most powerful man in the world, he is the president of the most powerful nation in the world.

The U.S. presidents power is infact rather limited, as anything he says or does can be overturned and/ or vetoed by one of the goverments other 2 branches, get it checks and balances. It is the foundation of american democracy.

So as such he is not all powerfull he is not a dictator, he is not a king, he is not a all saying leader. Period.

The war wasn't directly about seizing oil, but it's oil that makes Iraq important. There are countless dictators who are more cruel than Saddam, who support terrorists and who try to get WMDs, like Kim Jong-Il for example. So why did we pick Iraq? These other countries are unimportant, but Iraq's massive oil reserves make it a strategically important nation, which is why Bush wanted a pro US government there.
There is more to the iraq war than oil, ther always has been. I am not saying oil wasnt a factor, because it was. But the US gets very little of its oil from iraq, we get alot of our oil from canada and south america.

It's the whole gung-ho attitude to war and aggression and violence, and the way he condones the bombing of an entire village because a suspected Taliban truck was parked there 3 hours earlier. It's the carelessness and casual disregard for civilian casualties, and the idea that violence is always the best solution.
That's what matters. In that sense, he and the terrorists are no different.
Whether he condones it or not is not an issue, why because he doesnt give the orders, he doest have a say. Civilians die in war, always have, always will. In WW2 britian purposly bombed Berlin, a NON-MILITARY TARGET, the US bombed tokyo, a NON-MILITARY TARGET.
Now of course these wars are very different. And as such cannot rightfully be compared. But are you actually trying to say that the US military is purposly targeting civilians and waging total warfare, because thats what it looks like your saying to me. In any and every war civilians are going to die, mainly because they are living close to military targets, which is usually the case. This cannot be prevented.

I have said it before and i will say it again, bush is not a terrorist, bush is not responsible for all that goes wrong in american politics. Peopl just want a scapegoat and what better a scapegoat than a man who is the president.

[Guy]

Nathan, you bring up some good points, but Al Qaeda is guilty of any crimes you point at Bush. Also, Al Qaeda "delibrately" (sp?) targets innocents. Bush does not, although it's true innocents have gotten caught up in the war and die. Al Qaeda continues to target innocents, while Bush is directing an army.

[VampyreLord]

Ok i have said this twice in this thread now,bush is not the most powerful man in the world, he is the president of the most powerful nation in the world.
The U.S. presidents power is infact rather limited, as anything he says or does can be overturned and/ or vetoed by one of the goverments other 2 branches, get it checks and balances. It is the foundation of american democracy.
So as such he is not all powerfull he is not a dictator, he is not a king, he is not a all saying leader. Period.

Oh right, so the leader of the most powerful nation in the world isn't the most powerful man in the world? Bush is powerful and influential, and the President of the United States is the most powerful and influential man in the world. Period. And for what it's worth, Bush's powers are almost identical to the constitutional powers of the British Monarch. You know why? The American system was based on the British system of government, except with an elected president rather than a hereditary monarch.

If Bush isn't the most powerful man in the world, then name someone more powerful.

But this is all detail. You have completely ignored the point. He is a very powerful and influential man and as such we should hold him to a higher standard of behavior than we do a bunch of rag tag extremists living in caves.

There is more to the iraq war than oil, ther always has been. I am not saying oil wasnt a factor, because it was. But the US gets very little of its oil from iraq, we get alot of our oil from canada and south america.

Agreed, this isn't really in dispute. I was just saying that oil was a factor.

Whether he condones it or not is not an issue, why because he doesnt give the orders, he doest have a say. Civilians die in war, always have, always will. In WW2 britian purposly bombed Berlin, a NON-MILITARY TARGET, the US bombed tokyo, a NON-MILITARY TARGET.
Now of course these wars are very different. And as such cannot rightfully be compared. But are you actually trying to say that the US military is purposly targeting civilians and waging total warfare, because thats what it looks like your saying to me. In any and every war civilians are going to die, mainly because they are living close to military targets, which is usually the case. This cannot be prevented.

The department of defence claims that it has a system to protect innocents. What this system is is that an airstrike likely to kill more than 30 civilians must first be approved by Donald Rumsfeld. By 2004, more than 50 such attacks had been proposed, and Rumsfeld authorised all of them. (See "The President of Good and Evil", by Peter Singer).

Like Israel, the US government has no concept of relativity, and whether getting a single Talban truck is worth putting 30-50 civilian's lives in fatal peril. In short, if they see a target, they go for it, no matter what the civlian cost.

I have said it before and i will say it again, bush is not a terrorist, bush is not responsible for all that goes wrong in american politics. Peopl just want a scapegoat and what better a scapegoat than a man who is the president.

Yeah, what better scapegoat than the man responsible? I mean, it's SO unfair to blame the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military for the military disaster in the Middle East, the torture in Guantanamo bay, and the careless attitude with which US troops treat civilians, isn't it?

Nathan, you bring up some good points, but Al Qaeda is guilty of any crimes you point at Bush. Also, Al Qaeda "delibrately" (sp?) targets innocents. Bush does not, although it's true innocents have gotten caught up in the war and die. Al Qaeda continues to target innocents, while Bush is directing an army.

True, but they also target military targets. I have said before, in war the weaker side is almost always the one which has to resort to terror tactics. Bush doesn't deliberately target civilians because he has more direct methods at his disposal. These terrorists have to use whatever tactics they can.

But I am quite sure that if Bush found a situation in which killing civilians would be tactically sound, he would do so. He has aready demonstrated how little civilian life means to him.

Like I said, it's the attitude that matters. Bush and the terrorists are both religious fanatics who care nothing for innocent lives and believe that violence should always be the first solution.

[malfuncti0n]

Wow i cannot belive you actually called american democracy to the old british monarchy, that is beyond laughable.

You are actually trying to compare a system of government where the people of the country elect officials, where the government is split into 3 branches that have the power to override anything done by the other branches, that is based on checks and balances, that was specificaly designed so that NO ONE MAN CAN GAIN SUPREME POWER to a monarchy where one man has all saying power, where one man is born into power, where people have no say, wow, just wow. I do not even need to debate that as it is ignorance at its fullest.

Bush is not the most powerful man as i stated before american government was created with the main basis being to prevent one man from becoming to powerful, in this day and age there is no "most powerful man" in the world. Modern government prevents this.

To blame the president and only the president is complete ignorance in american government, simply put it is a rather narrowminded way of thinking. Now of course i am not saying you shouldnt blame the president because you can but the fact that ALL blame is placed on him is just plain stupid. If you want to blame the government then do so, i dont care quite frankly, but blame the entire government not just one man.

Presidents come and go rather quickly and sure bush has not had the greatest run, sure he wasnt one of the best, but he is DEFINATLY not one of the worst, there has been much worse presidents who did worse things and were not called "terrorists", people just want someone to blame.

[mooks]

I think people should wake up and smell the corruption.... American Politics are as crooked as Owen Wilson's nose. Just the fact that the validity of voting machines, to campaign funds, slander advertising to misconstruing facts of the opposition... are common among US elections. Exactly how is this a free and fair system?

Back on topic... Who is the bigger terrorist? Just by logical deduction i would have to say Bush. Just because there have been worse Presidents than him does not nullify any of the actions he has made.
The blame is pretty easy to pinpoint: Whoever has more innocent blood on there hands- is the one.

Yes, Al-Qaeda are evil and should be annihilated the quickest way possible-
But that does not excuse the fact that War was waged on a couple countries because of a terrorist organization. Not to mention the reasons are so vague that anyone can find they're own reasoning for war within the default rhetoric that is commonplace in this situation.

Who has killed more innocent people?
Al-Qaeda or the US?
Whoever rings up the bigger death toll among innocent people are undoubtedly the bigger terrorist.
It is that simple.
And shame on you if you dare say that the deaths of the people are necessary sacrifices for YOUR own safety and security.

[malfuncti0n]

I think people should wake up and smell the corruption.... American Politics are as crooked as Owen Wilson's nose. Just the fact that the validity of voting machines, to camapaign funds, slander advertising to misconstruing facts of the opposition... are common among US elections. Exactly how is this a free and fair system?
Well i think the cynics among us need to stop telling people what they need to do.

I am not saying american politics is perfect, hell nothing is. But it is not some buisness controlled conspiracy type situation either. Yes big buisness fund campains, but that does not mean they are puppetering the politicians. Sure they may gain a slight advantage in there favour, but compared to the time when labor unions were outlawed and child labor was good i'd say we have it pretty dam good.

And slander is just that slander, noone intelligent pays attention to it, any voteing citizen could easilly look up there politicians the fact that they dont is there fault, not american politics.

There is problems and corruption in EVERY countrys politics, as long as there is man there will be war and corruption, but i for one think that politics have come a long way when compared to not even 100 years ago.

I dont see why people seem to be claiming bush is the one killing the civilians, do you honestly think he is telling the military "go bomb the civilians here", or telling the officers "dont do that, i think we should do this and kill these innocent non-combatants". He may support these actions, he may not, we have no way of knowing unless he states his opinion on the matter.

Terrorism has nothing to do with death counts, terrorism is the act of inspiring terror, plain and simple. Who uses scare tactics to intimidate their opponents to get their demands across. That is your terrorist. Bush does not order soldiers to kill all who oppose him, bush does not use "total warfare", Bush does not purposly target large civilian concentrated centers or cities, can you say the same about our enemy, i think not.

[Guy]

I am still appalled by the fact that people are so lenient toward Al Qaeda. They target innocent people on purpose. Bush does not. Don't give me this crap about, "well, they don't have the money or chance to build up a real military, therefore, it's alright for them to kill innocents" crap. It doesn't matter how tragic Al Qaeda members' lives are; it does NOT give them the right to kill innocents.

[renniw]

I am still appalled by the fact that people are so lenient toward Al Qaeda. They target innocent people on purpose. Bush does not. Don't give me this crap about, "well, they don't have the money or chance to build up a real military, therefore, it's alright for them to kill innocents" crap. It doesn't matter how tragic Al Qaeda members' lives are; it does NOT give them the right to kill innocents.
I understand that Bush isn't purposely killing innocent people but you have to see that through this war, which has no reason to take place, bush is indirectly killing more Innocent people than Al Qaeda has at least against the U.S. . Not to mention how the lives of those who haven't been killed are affected ( There was a video on CNN showing young children running to school amidst armed men ).

Now I am not saying that this justify Al Qaedas actions in any way but the reason you gave for being "appalled by the fact that people are so lenient toward Al Qaeda." doesn't really work for me.

As for who the biggest terrorist is - I would say both. We have to see that the general views of what is going on differs from place to place. For example, In the middle east you presumably only hear of the atrocities and sins of the west, while in America the general consensus is that terrorism spawns in the middle east, so if you are from the middle east you might view America to be the bigger terrorist, maybe due to censorship of news etc.. which leads you to be ignorant of what is going on in your own area. his also goes for America. (Don't think that American news isn't completely censored .. )

[Guy]

I understand that Bush isn't purposely killing innocent people but you have to see that through this war, which has no reason to take place, bush is indirectly killing more Innocent people than Al Qaeda has at least against the U.S. . Not to mention how the lives of those who haven't been killed are affected ( There was a video on CNN showing young children running to school amidst armed men ).

Yes, Bush has INDIRECTLY caused more deaths. I never said Bush wasn't evil. I don't really care if anyone else calls Bush a terrorist, but come on. There is a big difference between intentionally killing someone and accidentally killing someone. The differences are manslaughter and murder. People do die in a war, which is why wars suck, and that's a fact. The fact that Al Qaeda purposely targets innocent individuals make them more of a terrorist in my view.

Now I am not saying that this justify Al Qaedas actions in any way but the reason you gave for being "appalled by the fact that people are so lenient toward Al Qaeda." doesn't really work for me.

Well, by calling Bush a bigger terrorist certainly is being too lenient to Al Qaeda, and I do know that's not what you think, but there were other people beforehand that believed this.

As for who the biggest terrorist is - I would say both. We have to see that the general views of what is going on differs from place to place. For example, In the middle east you presumably only hear of the atrocities and sins of the west, while in America the general consensus is that terrorism spawns in the middle east, so if you are from the middle east you might view America to be the bigger terrorist, maybe due to censorship of news etc.. which leads you to be ignorant of what is going on in your own area. his also goes for America. (Don't think that American news isn't completely censored .. )

All countries have censorship. In some communist or totalitarian government, the government censors stuff. Places like America, the news company themselves censor stuff. They are private companies, so they can publish w/e they think appeals to the public the most.

[VampyreLord]

Well i think the cynics among us need to stop telling people what they need to do.

I am not saying american politics is perfect, hell nothing is. But it is not some buisness controlled conspiracy type situation either. Yes big buisness fund campains, but that does not mean they are puppetering the politicians. Sure they may gain a slight advantage in there favour, but compared to the time when labor unions were outlawed and child labor was good i'd say we have it pretty dam good.

And slander is just that slander, noone intelligent pays attention to it, any voteing citizen could easilly look up there politicians the fact that they dont is there fault, not american politics.

There is problems and corruption in EVERY countrys politics, as long as there is man there will be war and corruption, but i for one think that politics have come a long way when compared to not even 100 years ago.

I'm a US citizen, but I live in England, and I think American politics is disgustingly corrupt. In Britain, we have spending limits on elections to prevent the best funded campaign from winning, we have electoral watchdogs, and we vote on ballot papers, not machines made by a company (Diebold) which is OPENLY BIASED in favour of the GOP. You might as well get Fox News to count our votes!

In America we've seen bribery, nepotism, dishonesty etc in the very highest levels of American politics (DeLay, Wolfowitz etc). Now let's take a look at Britain. In 10 years, we've only had one charge of corruption against a politician (still unresolved), and that was the current issue of whether certain businessmen were made Lords for lending money to the Labour party.

I dont see why people seem to be claiming bush is the one killing the civilians, do you honestly think he is telling the military "go bomb the civilians here", or telling the officers "dont do that, i think we should do this and kill these innocent non-combatants". He may support these actions, he may not, we have no way of knowing unless he states his opinion on the matter.

Terrorism has nothing to do with death counts, terrorism is the act of inspiring terror, plain and simple. Who uses scare tactics to intimidate their opponents to get their demands across. That is your terrorist. Bush does not order soldiers to kill all who oppose him, bush does not use "total warfare", Bush does not purposly target large civilian concentrated centers or cities, can you say the same about our enemy, i think not.

Actually, Bush doesn't give a damn about civilian casualties, he's like Israel. He has no sense of proportionality. Israel seemed to think that having two of their soldiers kidnapped justified massacring thousands of civilians.

Bush takes a similar policy. Civilian lives are never taken into account when attacks are launched. If a single suspected Taliban truck parked in a village for an hour, Bush authorises the bombing of the entire village. So yes, he doesn't specifically target civilians, but he clearly doesn't care at all how many do die (as the war on terror has made so evident), so that argument is of little merit. Clearly civilian lives mean as little to him as they do to Bin Laden.

[SteadyChaos]

Bush a Terrorist? Im glad to hear that people think one of the world leaders can be classifide as a terrorist... Gf, was close and all that junk. But for all of us in america your the ones that elected the jackass to office and he in no way should be called a terrorist

As for the Civilian lives? Ok so you would rather him risk OUR troops OUR family and friends just for a few civilains? JUST so you can classify him as a terrorist?

nice one

[Guy]

@Nathan: Very good points, but unfortunately, you can only call him a cruel and tactless man. That does not make him a terrorist. If Bush does what you say, then it is not a violation of international law. In war, you do what is necessary to win, even if civilians get caught in the middle of it, you must gun them down. It's cruel, and I hate it, but don't flame me, because I didn't make the rules of war. I just know that's how things work. If a few civilians get caught in a heated battle, then the person responsible for the battle is not a terrorist.

[mooks]

Maybe I should refrain from the aggressive rants... i apologize

Lemme put it this way:

There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a 'literal approach' taking the topic seriously or a 'propagandist approach' construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each caseit is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what consitutes terrorism

Concepts of political discourse are hardly models of clarity, but there is general agreement as to what constitutes terrorism: lets take the official United States Code: " 'act of terrorism' means an activity that -
(A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violationif committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. "

The concept is not precisely delimited. First the boundary between international terrorism and aggression is not always clear. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the US and its clients: if they reject the charge of aggression in the case of some act of international violence, we will take it to fall under the lesser crime of terrorism. There is also disagreement over the distinction between terrorism and retaliation or legitimate resistance, to which we return.

A U.S. Army manual on countering terrorism defines it as "the calculated use of violence or threatof violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear" Still simpler is the characterization in a Pentagon-commissioned study by terrorologist Robert Kupperman, which refers to the threat or use of force "to achieve political objectives without the full-scale commitment of resources"

Kupperman, however, is not discussing terrorism; rather low intensity conflict (LIC), a central doctrine of the Reagan administration. Note that as the description indicates and practice confirms, LIC- much like its predecessor "counterinsurgency" - is hardly more than a euphemism for state-directed international terrorism, that is, reliance on force that does not reach the level of the war crime of aggression.

The point is recognized within the scholarly discipline, though with the usual doctrinal twist. One Israeli specialist, Professor Yonah Alexander, observes that "state-sponsored terrorism is a form of low intensity conflict that states undertake when they find it convenient to engage in 'war' without being held accountable for their actions".


Oh yeah, Professor Yonah Alexander restricts his attention to the Kremlin conspiracy to destabilize the West with "surrogate groups" with examples as "extensive PLO training programme... I don't know what you had in mind, though... certainly not the Kremlins! "United States Code Congressional and Administrative news 98th congress 2nd session, 1999 Oct. 19th Vol. 2; par.3077 (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.

US Army Operational Concept for Terrrorism Counteraction (TRADOC pamphlet No. 525-37

[..::Mr 999::..]

i think both of the is the biggfr terrorist in this world, coz they have many company anywhere

[backwardsnemo]

I belive both are terrorists but bush more so. He is so politicaly powerfull that no other country dares to impede him. In the words of botat to the american people "I support your war of terror"

[Guy]

Al Qaeda is still the bigger terrorists because they specifically target innocents and individuals. The 9/11 event is proof.

And shame on you if you dare say that the deaths of the people are necessary sacrifices for YOUR own safety and security.

Yeah, well, you obviously don't know what war is. People die in wars, yes, including the innocents that got wrapped up in between politics. That is a fact of life. However, just because US bombings may have blown up a few innocents in a mission to eradicate the terrorists does NOT make US a terrorists by international law. War is cruel and harsh.

War crimes are specifically targeting innocents and killing them. Hijacking a CIVILIAN airplain and crashing into Twin Towers IS terrorism, therefore, Al Qaeda is GUILTY. If Bush's troops bombed some civilians but also blew up some terrorists, then he is guilty of nothing. Yes, shame on him. But he is not guilty of anything.

[II Xion II]

Al Qaeda is still the bigger terrorists because they specifically target innocents and individuals. The 9/11 event is proof.
Yeah, well, you obviously don't know what war is. People die in wars, yes, including the innocents that got wrapped up in between politics. That is a fact of life. However, just because US bombings may have blown up a few innocents in a mission to eradicate the terrorists does NOT make US a terrorists by international law. War is cruel and harsh.
War crimes are specifically targeting innocents and killing them. Hijacking a CIVILIAN airplain and crashing into Twin Towers IS terrorism, therefore, Al Qaeda is GUILTY. If Bush's troops bombed some civilians but also blew up some terrorists, then he is guilty of nothing. Yes, shame on him. But he is not guilty of anything.

So very true.

I seem to remember an event called the Dresden Firebombing in WWII, it is one of the most controversial attacks in the war (if not the most, since the atomic bombings had far more justification than these bombings). Tens of thousands of civilians died in a primarily non-military city.

Did that make the Allies in Europe terrorists automatically?

Besides, Bush is elected and will go into obscurity in about one year. Only coming out to participate in charity events along with his father and Clinton.

Seriously, I want to know how any educated person can call Bush a terrorist. Please, enlighten me!

I don't see people referring to Vladimir Putin as a terrorist. Despite the fact that Russia, under him, has squelched democracy, murdered countless journalists even outside of the country (Litvinenko...cough...London), and has orchestrated terrorist attacks in order to suppress and control Chechnya. And I say that being a quarter Russian.

There are many leaders that have done FAR worse things than Bush. But they are usually celebrated as heroes. Let us not forget Vlad III the Voivode of Wallachia (better known as Vlad the Impaler and still a hero to Romanians), or Mao Zedong who starved millions to death under his rule in China, or the Young Turks triumvirate which orchestrated the Armenian Genocide, or Josef Stalin, or Pol Pot, etc, etc.

Everyone points to Bush because he is the leader of the world's most powerful country, if the leader of, say, Switzerland did something bad no one outside of it would care since it holds relatively little influence.

I don't like Bush at all, but referring to him as a terrorist is like saying that Michael Moore produces unbiased, impartial films or that Loose Change is completely right. It's ridiculous and without base.

It is simply influenced by hatred towards his policies and attitude. Which entitles you to hate him, but is certainly not indicative of a terrorist.

I just think that the U.S.A. has to distance itself from more radical countries like Israel, because when it supports countries like Israel AND Lebanon and then Israel destroys Lebanon, it puts itself into a precarious situation.

[mooks]

Al Qaeda is still the bigger terrorists because they specifically target innocents and individuals. The 9/11 event is proof.
Yeah, well, you obviously don't know what war is. People die in wars, yes, including the innocents that got wrapped up in between politics. That is a fact of life. However, just because US bombings may have blown up a few innocents in a mission to eradicate the terrorists does NOT make US a terrorists by international law. War is cruel and harsh.
War crimes are specifically targeting innocents and killing them. Hijacking a CIVILIAN airplain and crashing into Twin Towers IS terrorism, therefore, Al Qaeda is GUILTY. If Bush's troops bombed some civilians but also blew up some terrorists, then he is guilty of nothing. Yes, shame on him. But he is not guilty of anything.


Y'see, this is where we will never agree... and probably have to agree to disagree.

The US did not bomb a FEW innocents, it was ALOT... maybe you should revise the casualties caused in Afghanistan or Iraq. Look, there alot of stories that do not make headlines in the US because of the obvious negative effect it would have on the public... They have bombed schools, hospitals you name it... and (google it, there are dozens of articles) when you look at the literal definition of terrorism or terrorist... American foreign policy falls directly into that line...

When innocent people become abused, killed or terrorised- it usually falls under that description.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

You can give a million different reasons to justify the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people... The fact that you had to resort to such measures is the same.

Maybe its because we have had different upbringings... but i have become familiar with people from countries that are grossly affected by the actions Mr. Bush and his policies have made. And there is no way to justify such actions- even if its war. Its a war on an invisible enemy that usually relies on the benefit of the doubt of the situation or the person. Its the first 'war' of its kind (unless you count jimmy carter's "war on drugs" was that also a war?) Its ridiculous in concept and every respected intellectual has said so (Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Richard Wolin, Jimmy Carter, Samuel Kobia, Shirin Ebadi, Kim Dae Jung, Pope Benedict, Queen Elizabeth and british royals, etc).
Every Nobel Peace/Literature Prize Winner as well have condemned these actions.
Bush has been Indicted for War Crimes in 7 different countries (USis one of them, but i doubt that holds any significance) Not to mention the ICC has officialy recognized the wars as illegal.
So how can you say this is a legitimate war when the world is saying its not?

[Guy]

@Mooks: I think Xion may have covered some of the loopholes that I may have missed. Anyways, if Bush has violated international law, then why isn't he impeach? Don't make up stuff saying America needs to protect him; the Democrats are in control of both the HOUSE AND THE SENATE. I'm sure all of them are dying to find the slightest reason to kick Bush out of office. I find it odd how Bush is still in power... Look, don't look at me as though I'm some Bush supporter(I'm not, in fact I hate him just like everyone else). I just don't believe Bush is a terrorist because if he is, then he should have long been impeached and kicked off the role as president of the United States.

[mooks]

@Mooks: I think Xion may have covered some of the loopholes that I may have missed. Anyways, if Bush has violated international law, then why isn't he impeach? Don't make up stuff saying America needs to protect him; the Democrats are in control of both the HOUSE AND THE SENATE. I'm sure all of them are dying to find the slightest reason to kick Bush out of office. I find it odd how Bush is still in power... Look, don't look at me as though I'm some Bush supporter(I'm not, in fact I hate him just like everyone else). I just don't believe Bush is a terrorist because if he is, then he should have long been impeached and kicked off the role as president of the United States.


Well not necessarily, Bush is not the first and probably not the last US President to have committed grave crimes against Humanity. And just because your an evil dicator, doesn't mean you will face the ICC... look at all the scum starting from the 70's in South America, South east asia and Africa... how many of them have been prosecuted?
There's a reason China, India and the US have not signed or even convened with the ICC ever, not surprising considering its an extension of the UN.

Vladimir Putin has been charged 12 times by the ICC, but since Russia revoked its affiliation in 1998... there just words on paper.


I mean, you should know its not as easy as that, especially not in politics. Henry Kissinger won a Nobel Peace prize for crying out loud. (although it is no longer in effect; it sill happened). I really don't find it odd at all that Bush is still in power- regardless of the Democrats positions of the house or senate. It is simply irrelevant. Its not an issue of political affiliation, its an issue of politics in general.

Their going to try and prosecute for war crimes, but just like the numerous presidents before- its not going to stick because of the difference between American and International Law.

There's President Eisenhower who despite his impressive resume, authorized Operation Ajax.

There's the first Bush, who created and destroyed Manuel Noriega, with his invasion of Panama.. The coup d'etat in Peru and Bolivia

I mean, the list is endless... I'm not saying every President, but certainly in the past 50yrs the foreign policy the US has imposed, especially on South America are tremendous. And only a president can ratify or authorize foreign policy actions and operations. Clinton got impeached when he hadn't committed a crime. I think you put too much faith in the judiciary system and justice.
Although the official report for the illegal invasion of Iraq is not set to come out till 2009.

All this can be found on the ICC website

[kisuke-san]

Bush isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. and I'm being serious. but i still voted Bush.

why hasn't bush been kicked out yet? cause everyone is on his side. why is the war going on? it makes him and everyone on his side money. he has stocks in different weapon-making companies. America is a war-like country. they need to have a war every so often, to make a profit. it's all about the guns. a bullet costs less then 50 cents, for example. or how about the fact that America spends something like 30 billion US on weapons. some of this is funded from them borrowing money from other countries, most of all china. but the majority of these funds comes from America's civilians.
why do you think America's health care system sucks so much? much of the money goes into weapons.

[mooks]

Bush isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. and I'm being serious. but i still voted Bush.

why hasn't bush been kicked out yet? cause everyone is on his side. why is the war going on? it makes him and everyone on his side money. he has stocks in different weapon-making companies. America is a war-like country. they need to have a war every so often, to make a profit. it's all about the guns. a bullet costs less then 50 cents, for example. or how about the fact that America spends something like 30 billion US on weapons. some of this is funded from them borrowing money from other countries, most of all china. but the majority of these funds comes from America's civilians.
why do you think America's health care system sucks so much? much of the money goes into weapons.


That is a valid point you make... an interesting outlook, but I tend to focus on the literal definition of terrorist... which is
"systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."

Although the terminology is changing
Webster 2006 version:
"a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities"

Right now, terrorism, or a terrorist is a muslim extremist hellbent on the destruction of freedom and justice... or America.
More recently is the use of terminology such as 'Islamofascist' to encompass everything from hamas to hezbollah... from sunni radicals to shiite rebels in Pakistan... this overt generalization of terminology further condones activities that otherwise may be regarded as outside the scope of "war on terror" as we all recognize now... it is actually a war on Islamofascists...

[dawin45]

it's bush, because he wanted for the us army to the test they're new sonic and bombs somewhere, and the afganistan was already in rumble so the us army wanted live human guiny pigs, which could feel the efects of the bombs, so that's why you start a war...

[RobTheShow]

I'm gonna have to vote for Bush. (First time ever lol) This guy is on a power trip, he sends our troops away to go to war, because he knows that even if America doesn't support him, they will support their friends and family that get sent over seas. I will admit im not completely educated on the subject, i dont watch the news because most of it are lies. I heard from a guy at work they might be calling back all the vets that have retired in the last 6 years, and if we arent out of there in a couple months or so, they will reinstate the draft. And I believe that the election will be suspended untill this is resolved. So Bush will be in office longer than he is supposed to be.

sorry if this is off subject at all by the way lol

[II Xion II]

I'm gonna have to vote for Bush. (First time ever lol) This guy is on a power trip, he sends our troops away to go to war, because he knows that even if America doesn't support him, they will support their friends and family that get sent over seas.

So by your definition of terrorist, any leader of a country in the entire world is a terrorist, correct?


I will admit im not completely educated on the subject, i dont watch the news because most of it are lies.

So where do you get your information for most of the world's events? Please don't say any conspiracy forums or Loose Change.

I heard from a guy at work they might be calling back all the vets that have retired in the last 6 years, and if we arent out of there in a couple months or so, they will reinstate the draft.

So, your friend at work is either in contact with 400+ congressman or works personally for them all?!

You do know that the draft is probably the single most hated piece of legislation is the entire country and that any senator or congressman in his right mind would not vote for it if he wanted to keep his job. A law requires a majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to approve and has to survive a president's veto.


And I believe that the election will be suspended untill this is resolved. So Bush will be in office longer than he is supposed to be.
sorry if this is off subject at all by the way lol

Wow, you are serious?

Maybe you should watch the mainstream news, it will bring you down to Earth.

[Habanero]

I'm gonna have to vote for Bush. (First time ever lol) This guy is on a power trip, he sends our troops away to go to war, because he knows that even if America doesn't support him, they will support their friends and family that get sent over seas.So by your definition of terrorist, any leader of a country in the entire world is a terrorist, correct?

Euhm... There's quite a few country leaders that do not send troops away to go to war :winking56

Getting rid of both Al Qaeda and mr. Bush would make the world undoubtedly a better place anyway. Next year's presidential election will be interesting :redbiggri

[T_Ichigo]

I can't see how in the world wide it can be Bush .. it is Al-Qaeda, that is a fact.

[II Xion II]

Euhm... There's quite a few country leaders that do not send troops away to go to war :winking56


True...but all have that power depending on the government of the country.

So, by that definition, every leader who could send troops is a terrorist. Which completely goes against all logic.

The people who think Bush is a terrorist seem to be the same people who think 9/11 was an inside-job and that New Orleans flooded because the government blew up the levees.

When there is evidence to support that argument, perhaps I will look at it.

And...1000 posts FTW!!!

[snow dog]

I am so new so i do not mean to step on any toes here but, it is true that by that definition any country sending troops would be a terrorist but it is the intent of those troops that make them into terrorist or simply armed forces fighting a war. The guise that America went in to free the people of Iraq is fine, if one they had wanted our help in the first place and second if we actually did that. We have in fact done more to push the country into more war and more struggles and more pain and suffering than we did help. Since American’s interference in Iraq terrorist group have doubled if not tripled in size and support. Also the fact that the America government is selling off pieces of the green zone to the highest bidder and those same companies still claming to need to charge $3.50 at the pump all speak of the greed and negative intension that the American government and its fiancées had when they went into this war. Not to mention the fact that the secretary of defense resigned during a war that if it was right and true could have made his career.

I am not a supporter of Al-Qaeda I see the horrible things they are doing, I am just saying that America is the bigger terrorist because they push already existing terrorist to more terrorism with their dirty, greedy, and self-serving action.

The Middle East has always been bad but we are making it worst.

[mooks]

True...but all have that power depending on the government of the country.
So, by that definition, every leader who could send troops is a terrorist. Which completely goes against all logic.
The people who think Bush is a terrorist seem to be the same people who think 9/11 was an inside-job and that New Orleans flooded because the government blew up the levees.
When there is evidence to support that argument, perhaps I will look at it.
And...1000 posts FTW!!!



I resent that remark... The problem with conspiracy theories is because the majority of them are completely ridiculous- and should not even be classified as conspiracy, or theory- that goes for aliens, shadow governments, who shot kennedy, 9/11 and secret CIA experiments and so on. There is even a conspiracy theory on conspiracy theories, its ridiculous (I blame X-files).

But in all seriousness, it is a dangerous outcome- for the conspiracy theories that DO exist- such as The Tuskegee Study Group and their secret study of syphillis in the black population. They almost escaped prosecution in 1972 because of it being labeled a "conspiracy". Not to mention any illegal activity that co-operations (Mitsubishi in Brazil) or government organizations (CIA)- are not even considered sound simply because of the relations such words and subjects have to paranoid fiction created by people who do not even study politics, foreign affairs or any subject related to their passionate conspiracy.


I firmly believe Bush is a terrorist, solely based on his actions and the definition of terrorism (the fact that a definition is needed for the enemy during a war- is reason enough). Not every leader who sends troops is considered a terrorist, but if you look at the history of warfare- you will find that those who do not have an adequate defense or proof, those who act alone without support, and those who pre-emptively invade and attack civilian areas... are considered terrorists, dictators, tyrants, or whatever.

The fact that the ICC in the Hague (International Criminal Court) and Phillipe Kirsch himself, are already drafting a pre-trial draft against George Bush is more than enough. And the fact that the US managed to push for the exclusion of terrorism, drug trafficking and the use of weapons of mass destruction from the Court's jurisdiction. The government of India, said it best when they expressed concern that “the Statute of the ICC lays down, by clear implication, that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not a war crime. This is an extraordinary message to send to the international community.”

[KingKong]

The fact that the ICC in the Hague (International Criminal Court) and Phillipe Kirsch himself, are already drafting a pre-trial draft against George Bush is more than enough. And the fact that the US managed to push for the exclusion of terrorism, drug trafficking and the use of weapons of mass destruction from the Court's jurisdiction.

On top of that there is the "THE HAGUE INVASION ACT": any US service member (military, political) held in custody and awaiting trial at the International Criminal Court is to be freed "by any means necessary".
I can't wait to see US marines land on the beaches of Scheveningen to bust their compatriots out of prison; 1 km away from my old house.

Mooks knows too much to be taken serious... Rational argument doesn't count, we are either with or against.

No but seriously, on topic, in terms of numbers/statistics enforcers of US ideology are terrorizing far more people than any radical islamic fundamentalist group. Bush takes all the heat now, where it is actually neo-conservative strategy that went way too far. The country will pay the toll.

[Dr. Walker]

I can't see how in the world wide it can be Bush .. it is Al-Qaeda, that is a fact.

I completely agree with you.

I think, that people are a confused a little bit, mixing up "terrorist" and "douche bag."

See, its obvious that Al Qaeda are the terrorists, simply because what they do follows the definition of the word...erm, word for word.

Bush, is more or less a douche bag masquerading as a hero under the influence of current political instability. He thinks terrorism is to blame for everything, so he focuses his everything on getting rid of terrorism while neglecting the other problems.

That, plus his stupidity (ala Bushisms), technically define him as a Douche Bag, NOT a Terrorist.

[crs010]

Al qaeda is crazy am not cool with people beheading others and yet bush is not that squeaky clean he went to war for oil and put the country under bigger problems so to me they are both terrorrists

[ProtoFunc]

Wow, in all honesty when i read some [or most] of these posts, i realize how adolescent some of us really are. Sorta like that the vibe that we're [and note when i say "we're" i in no means am including myself, i'm just try to be nice by not saying "you guys"] are just pretending to be adults.

Bush is by no definition a terrorist. Yes, you can manipulate reason all you want but when it all boils back down to logic - is bush intentionally murdering innocent American's and human beings alike? I mean actually consider the question, is he intentionally sending out troops to iraq with the sincere motives to have them kill innocent people, and/or be killed themselves? Don't think too hard on it because the answer is NO. And again in all honesty, if you can't comprehend that, then stop reading right now because you're not gonna get the rest of this.

Bush [and moreover i dare say America] has been pushed into a corner. For the first time in decades we were attacked on our own soil. If you approach that from the whole "violence only fuels violence," perspective, why not then go as far as to look at it from the whole "if you let somebody pick on you the first time, what's gonna stop them from doing it the second time?"

Bush is just trying to fix a wrong with the limited knowledge of himself and his advisors [and all our inteligence agencies]. He doesn't want anybody to die. This is the bottom line peeps. Trust me, if everything just miraculously just fixed itself over night in iraq, our government would be thrilled to pull our troops out of that sand box and end the war in a heart-beat.

Al Qaeda on the other hand. To them people aren't innocent or valuable precious lives - they're just in the way; sacrifices; obstacles; expendable. Bush doesn't drop a bomb in a bar just because a couple of insurgents are in there along with an assload of civilians. Al Qaeda does. This is the difference between terrorism and leadership [<--that is possibly abused]. This is the difference between bush and Al Qaeda.

Bush is not a terrorist, he's just a guy trying to do his job.

[Dr. Walker]

Wow, in all honesty when i read some [or most] of these posts, i realize how adolescent some of us really are. Sorta like that the vibe that we're [and note when i say "we're" i in no means am including myself, i'm just try to be nice by not saying "you guys"] are just pretending to be adults.
Bush is by no definition a terrorist. Yes, you can manipulate reason all you want but when it all boils back down to logic - is bush intentionally murdering innocent American's and human beings alike? I mean actually consider the question, is he intentionally sending out troops to iraq with the sincere motives to have them kill innocent people, and/or be killed themselves? Don't think too hard on it because the answer is NO. And again in all honesty, if you can't comprehend that, then stop reading right now because you're not gonna get the rest of this.
Bush [and moreover i dare say America] has been pushed into a corner. For the first time in decades we were attacked on our own soil. If you approach that from the whole "violence only fuels violence," perspective, why not then go as far as to look at it from the whole "if you let somebody pick on you the first time, what's gonna stop them from doing it the second time?"
Bush is just trying to fix a wrong with the limited knowledge of himself and his advisors [and all our inteligence agencies]. He doesn't want anybody to die. This is the bottom line peeps. Trust me, if everything just miraculously just fixed itself over night in iraq, our government would be thrilled to pull our troops out of that sand box and end the war in a heart-beat.
Al Qaeda on the other hand. To them people aren't innocent or valuable precious lives - they're just in the way; sacrifices; obstacles; expendable. Bush doesn't drop a bomb in a bar just because a couple of insurgents are in there along with an assload of civilians. Al Qaeda does. This is the difference between terrorism and leadership [<--that is possibly abused]. This is the difference between bush and Al Qaeda.
Bush is not a terrorist, he's just a guy trying to do his job.

Wow.

Yet another person whom I totally agree with. But, you were being a little harsh towards everyone.

If people think Bush is a terrorist, let them. But that doesn't necessarily make them seem immature. If people want to think of Bush as a terrorist, its simply because those are the kinds of vibes Bush is giving out to them.

People call on what they see, and with what people have seen regarding that sad little man, you can't exactly blame them.

[mooks]

Wow, in all honesty when i re