It's that time of year again. ie; 11 September.

[Bart Fishermans]

Well here we are again. It's another year since 9/11 and has anyone learnt anything? It sounds like Bush wants more of the same and so do many other people. That's right folks! Bush has not learnt a thing since 9/11.

[janahitwadi]

Almost all have not learnt a good lesson. Else by now all those 'Jihadis' would have been cleared out from this earth.

[Bart Fishermans]

Almost all have not learnt a good lesson. Else by now all those 'Jihadis' would have been cleared out from this earth.
I don't understand what you said.
I just want to make it clear that Bush and all the people that support him and the overindulgent way of life of the American people have caused a lot of the world wide problems that we see now at the moment.

[Calvin X]

Your poll is pathetic. You are so consumed with hate that you cannot bring yourself to provide an option for a simple no.

This type of nonsense seems common on this forum.

[von-Scharnhorst]

you cannot bring yourself to provide an option for a simple no.

I think there may be a point there. I do not understand the reason for the "but...".

[ThisAnarchistKillsNazis]

Yes, I beleive that Bush is a terrorist, but so is Osama. Both of these leeches feed off one another and feed off the misery and bloodshed they cause. The unfortunate thing is that Bush will be gone by January 2009, but Osama's influence upon religious Muslims means that he won't be truly disposed of for a long time.

[TellMeMore]

You could possibly say that Bush is associated with 9/11.
Now which days are associated with muslim atrocities? Oh, yeah, that's 365 every year, excepting leap years when it's 366.

[janahitwadi]

I don't understand what you said.
I just want to make it clear that Bush and all the people that support him and the overindulgent way of life of the American people have caused a lot of the world wide problems that we see now at the moment.
I simply said Bush is a terrorist but is a lesser evil than 'Jihadis' If Bush deals with them properly I am with him till the object is achieved.

[blacktory]

Bush is not a terrorist. yes ther lefty parade can hold up their banners and chant out the mantra of conspiricies, but this is why the West might lose the battle against the invasion of islam. instead of focusing on the real enemies we fight among ourselves. you never hear the muslims argue btwn themselves do you? Wake up people he might be a bastard but no terrorist!!:mad:

[von-Scharnhorst]

you never hear the muslims argue btwn themselves do you?
You ARE bloody joking right?

"Average 60 bodys per night found in Irak, due to inter muslim fighting", ring any bells?

Sunni and Shi'ite?

[blacktory]

:( yes they fight between themselves but when it comes to us they drop their luggage unite against the Western infidel. Shites and Sunnis are under one banner at the end of the day. As for us....well we focus our attention on Bush instead of realising that whether your a western christian or pagan, the mulsims are comming for you.

[von-Scharnhorst]

yes they fight between themselves but when it comes to us they drop their luggage unite against the Western infidel.
O.K, I will agree with that point.

The first important step is to stop the flood of immigrants from these countrys.

What party, besides the obvious, have said that?

[janahitwadi]

Every nation gives liberties to Muslims (else oil would not be available from middle east), offer privileges. If one is able to stop this and make them follow state rules instead of 'Shariat' rules the nuisance shall be stopped.

[claire]

I don't think that Bush is a terrorist; he's just a bad president.

[janahitwadi]

I don't think that Bush is a terrorist; he's just a bad president.
All actions of Bush had been those of a cowboy. He daily threatens some one or other. He picks up wars with other countries. He helps terrorist countries. So Why he cannot be considered as terrorists?

[von-Scharnhorst]

Because a terrorist does what he does without official government sanction. Bush, like him or not, did in theory win an election.

[Calvin X]

All actions of Bush had been those of a cowboy. He daily threatens some one or other. He picks up wars with other countries. He helps terrorist countries. So Why he cannot be considered as terrorists?

Because a terrorist does what he does without official government sanction. Bush, like him or not, did in theory win an election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist


"Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist (disambiguation).

Terrorism is the systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change.[1][2] Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.

Modern terrorism has come to be defined in part by the influential power of the mass media that terrorists co-opt in their efforts to amplify and broadcast feelings of intense fear and anger. As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism is designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization as opposed to subversion or direct military action.


President Bush waged conventional wars to conquer Afganistan and Iraq. Since then multiple free elections have been held in these countries. Our enemies have launched terrorist campaigns to try to derail these efforts and President Bush has responded with counter-insurgency efforts.

He does not deserve to be called a terrorist anymore than Churchhill or FDR, maybe even less considering the bombing of Europe.

There are real concerns to be discussed relating to the War on Terror, inaccurate word usage can only confuse the issue.

[janahitwadi]

Do you mean Mr. Bush did wedge wars with other countries based on sanctions of US Congress and hence he is not terrorist? Did you consider that there had been no approval from UNO for attacking Iraq? Or you mean to say USA is superior to UNO?

I believe in that all these question do need answer.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Or you mean to say USA is superior to UNO?
Bush seems to think so. THAT is the problem.

[janahitwadi]

There are real concerns to be discussed relating to the War on Terror, inaccurate word usage can only confuse the issue.

In my opinion 'finding who is responsible?' is part of real issues. Once we conclude that the responsibility is that of USA it is obvious that responsibility for solution must be shouldered by USA. At least USA should stop supporting terrorist nations.

[TellMeMore]

Once we conclude that the responsibility is that of USA

No no no no no no no. The UN is responsible, for their pussy-footing about and their refusal to take conclusive action against Iraq. It's utterly distasteful to see the way that France and Russia opposed real action against Iraq (distasteful but not unexpected, the French are a venal race and Russians are still peasants in their head). I think that the USA and UK went in without a clear end-game in mind and are now floundeing (mainly because they have one hand tied behind their back, with the world's press on their case), but I think they were right to go in.
Not even the UN, in fact let's call a spade a spade, if Saddam hadn't been a butchering monster who liked to grandstand there would have been no need for any of this.
(Hint - just because some people blame the USA for everything doesn't mean it is so!)

[claire]

Do you mean Mr. Bush did wedge wars with other countries based on sanctions of US Congress and hence he is not terrorist? Did you consider that there had been no approval from UNO for attacking Iraq? Or you mean to say USA is superior to UNO?

I believe in that all these question do need answer.

I think one of the biggest problems the United States faces is lack of communication with other countries.

[Calvin X]

Do you mean Mr. Bush did wedge wars with other countries based on sanctions of US Congress and hence he is not terrorist? Did you consider that there had been no approval from UNO for attacking Iraq? Or you mean to say USA is superior to UNO?

I believe in that all these question do need answer.

He is not a terrorist because he is not committing terrorism.


And there were plenty of UN resolutions threatening Iraq, but the UN could not bring itself to enforce anything, so the US and our allies did.

[von-Scharnhorst]

And there were plenty of UN resolutions threatening Iraq,
With getting their wrists seriously slapped?

Do that again, you will NEVER be able to buy Coca Cola again?

Bet they were TERRIFIED.

[Crowly]

He is not a terrorist because he is not committing terrorism.


Although he is a war criminal because he is breaking human rights acts and 'opting out' of the Geneva convention - I didn't even know you could do that. I bet it makes all those hanged Nazi slap their foreheads in hell and say 'Why didn't we think of that?'

I am, of course, referring to Guantanemo Bay.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Depends WHICH Geneva convention, but as far as I am aware, the Germans never ratified it in the first place. Or at least the nazi's didn't.

HOWEVER, Even THEY honoured it's spirit when applying to U.K, commonwealth and U.S troops.

Sure there were a few instances, such as Malmédy, where it was not adhered to. But 90% of the time it was kept strictly. Even by the SS. Allthough they were also the ones that when it was not kept, were those responsible for not keeping it.

[Calvin X]

Although he is a war criminal because he is breaking human rights acts and 'opting out' of the Geneva convention - I didn't even know you could do that. I bet it makes all those hanged Nazi slap their foreheads in hell and say 'Why didn't we think of that?'

I am, of course, referring to Guantanemo Bay.

So you agree that he is not a terrorist? Can we finally put that lie to rest?

[Crowly]

Not a terrorist, war criminal.

Or since it's not really war, as he says, maybe he can't be a war criminal.

Crimes against humanity, for sure.

[janahitwadi]

Once we conclude that the responsibility is that of USA
No no no no no no no. The UN is responsible, for their pussy-footing about and their refusal to take conclusive action against Iraq. ..... (Hint - just because some people blame the USA for everything doesn't mean it is so!)
The reason put forward by Mr. Bush had been Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. In none of the checks supporting evidence was found. Then logically there had been no reason to occupy Iraq on account of weapons of mass destruction. The real reason may be known to Mr. Bush alone or USA. France and Russia did show correct approach. I won't blame them.
He is not a terrorist because he is not committing terrorism. And there were plenty of UN resolutions threatening Iraq, but the UN could not bring itself to enforce anything, so the US and our allies did.
What more do you need to commit terrorism? Nuke Iraq? UNO never passed any resolution to invade Iraq. Mistake is mistake. Should be accepted.
I think one of the biggest problems the United States faces is lack of communication with other countries.
I feel USA wish all others must say 'yes' to whatever decision taker by her. USA is not bothered about others' opinion and hence does not believe in a dialogue.
Bush seems to think so. THAT is the problem.
That is the pity. Just because office of UNO is in USA does not mean it is part of Government of USA

[von-Scharnhorst]

That is the pity. Just because office of UNO is in USA does not mean it is part of Government of USA
What the HEL has the geographical position of the offices got to do with it?????

If they were on the fukin moon, Bush would STILL feel superior to the U:N.

[Nicholas]

I don't understand what you said.
I just want to make it clear that Bush and all the people that support him and the overindulgent way of life of the American people have caused a lot of the world wide problems that we see now at the moment.

Another apologist. George Bush in my mind is fighting a war the west HAS to win. look at what Bill Clinton did to the east when he appeased the Arabs at every turn and left the US' intelligence service in dribs and drabs. Yes you guessed it 9/11. Bush realises that this a war against opposing ideologies just as was the case with the cold war and Ronald Raegan.

[janahitwadi]

Yes Mr. Bush has created problems in world, but Muslims have aggravated those problems to such an extent that Mr. Bush can go caught free. Why Muslims in other countries than in Muslim countries are forcing 'Shariyat' laws? Don't they understand state laws get precedence over all other laws?

[von-Scharnhorst]

Because they see themselves as "The super race", and we know what ends up to people who think THAT, don't we?

[Crowly]

They almost conquer the world.

[claire]

I love how everyone calls him Mr. Bush on here. lol.

[von-Scharnhorst]

When I am not refering to him under his stage name "Boy", George Bush.

[janahitwadi]

I love how everyone calls him Mr. Bush on here. lol.
You are among gentlemen here, interesting in contributing experience. So Bush is Mr. Bush. :)

[von-Scharnhorst]

You are among gentlemen here,
Speak for your self Sir. :D

[zoobee2]

IMO, a person who wishes to be addressed by a title should earn that title. Therefore, I will call Bush, Bush. What I would like to call him is inappropriate for civilized conversation.

Bush is not a terrorist by the definition of a terrorist. He has managed to commit terrorist-like acts under the disguise of being an elected gov official (note i did not say leader). He has managed to completely ignore the rest of the world. I dont see how anyone outside of the US could like him, seeing as how he is stepping on all of you. Our gov is participating in the torture of prisoners under his so called leadership.

You can play the blame game if you like and blame Clinton for not removing ppl like Hussein earlier. Or you can blame Rice for not heeding to the strategic plan left by the Clinton administration to address Al Queda. Or the CIA for not taking the threat of 9-11 seriously. Let's blame the ppl in the buildings for not getting out faster. Or the passengers on the planes for not taking action.

My point is that blame is pointless. It doesnt solve the prob. If we, as a nation, took all that wasted energy on playing the blame game and focused it on a solution, well, wouldnt that be nice. I dont like Bush, or any politician for that matter, bc they seem to completely lack the ability to say Yes, I screwed up. Now lets work on fixing it.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Churchhill, and many pliticians of his, and later generations, DID admit to cock ups. (unlike Clinton :D. Sorry, very British joke), but NOW, if they fart out of tune, look at the secretary in an "innapropriate way", Have one glass of champgne to many, they are screamed at from all corners to resign.

They know for a damn fact, they may as well stick it out to the end. Because they will not be given chance to repair the damage, they will just be shipped off to their particular version of the Gulag's.

It is like a Country that gives the death penalty for double parking. Why not shoot the traffic cop as well?

There is no longer any incentive to truth in politics.

[Calvin X]

Churchhill, and many pliticians of his, and later generations, DID admit to cock ups. (unlike Clinton :D. Sorry, very British joke), but NOW, if they fart out of tune, look at the secretary in an "innapropriate way", Have one glass of champgne to many, they are screamed at from all corners to resign.

They know for a damn fact, they may as well stick it out to the end. Because they will not be given chance to repair the damage, they will just be shipped off to their particular version of the Gulag's.

It is like a Country that gives the death penalty for double parking. Why not shoot the traffic cop as well?

There is no longer any incentive to truth in politics.

I agree, real public discourse has been replaced with shouting matchs. In this enviroment any hint of weakness would be seen as nothing but blood in the water. IMO

[Shatter Resistant]

Meaning :

Terrorism = n. the use of force and violence to intimidate, subjugate, etc.., esp. as a political policy - terrorist n., adj.

So ask yourself,

1) Is America going around intimidating countries because it wants to terrorize people

2) Are they quelling countries which threaten world peace

3) Do they have a financial motive/policy (oil) and they are simply using force to gain, thus becoming terrorists.

4) If someone uses force to protect themselves, they are not a terrorist.

Unless you have clear evidence that America, or any other country, is going around using force in a terrorizing way, I can't see the point of this thread.

[claire]

Nobody is questioning whether America is a terrorist, only George.

[Calvin X]

Nobody is questioning whether America is a terrorist, only George.


And Shatter just listed a number of questions that indicate President Bush is not a terrorist.
President Bush is our leader, people will refer to the actions of America and President Bush interchangablely.

[von-Scharnhorst]

There comes a stage where you can not blame the nation for it's leader.

No matter what they said to get voted in, after that they have free reign. And there is bugger all the Nation can do about it for at least four, or five years.

[zoobee2]

I do find it interesting that Clinton was impeached for screwing around and lying, while Bush has free reign to participate in illegal wire taps, lie to Congress to get support for war (or at least fudge around w the truth a little), sanction the use of and defend the use of torture to prisoners (even before he could interpret the Geneva Conventions *sigh*), walk his way around constitutionality and the supreme court, and yet, no impeachment. I suppose politically, that might ruin the repubs. What happened to doing what is best for the country? esp internationally.

it is to the point where i hesitate to tell ppl that i am american outside of the USA. it is almost embarrassing.

When I was in London last year, I was talking to a cop outside of the Parliament building who asked me if Bush ignored those ppl in New Orleans (this was just a week or so after Hurricane Katrina) bc they were black. It is disgusting that anyone should have to ask that kind of question about the supposed most humanitarian country on the planet, that this is the kind of impression our gov gives the world.

[janahitwadi]

Just check yourself why USA invaded many countries all over the world, why supported/supporting dictators all over the world, why breeding and supporting separatists groups all over the world, why helping terrorist groups like 'Taliban' in past. Just answer these and similar questions and you will have an answer yourself. No need to ask others.

[zoobee2]

because it was perceived to be the most beneficial to the US at the time. bc we have a bunch of narrow minded leaders.

[janahitwadi]

because it was perceived to be the most beneficial to the US at the time. bc we have a bunch of narrow minded leaders.
USA cannot think for distance future. You like quick results. That is understood. A young nation it happens like that. However, wisdom lies in learning from past mistakes and modifying the policy.

[zoobee2]

that wisdom thing seems to be in short supply around these parts lately. I would say for about 6 years or so.

[hallowedwarrior]

overindulgent way of life of the American people
Dont presume that the ppl you see on T.V. in some conservative backwater town yelling that all the towel heads should die and that the war in Iraq was justified is somehow the majority of americans. Also dont associate our Hollywood actors who voice their political voice to somehow stand for us either, HELL dont even let our POLITICIANS tell you that they speak for us. DONT EVER make GENERALIZATIONS unless you want backlash. I dont act like the British ppl I see in movies or on the telly somehow speak for all of britain when they espouse their views. Sorry if I offended I just dont like being lumped in with Bush supporters. ACTUALLY many ppl are fed up with bush and the republicans. Right now we are going through an election for our Legislative body. Most ppl surveyed are voting democratic as they are fed up with the republicans. Not that democrats are any better, we can only hope they can straighten this crap out however.

[hallowedwarrior]

you never hear the muslims argue btwn themselves do you?
Im gonna really try to not rip into you on this one, but I only have a few words for you. Iraq: Suni's, Shi ites, Afghanistan: Taliban, Warlords, Muslims have a history of fighting themselves over religious differences, much like the Northern Ireland conflict between protestant and catholic irish.

[zoobee2]

I am voting democrat not because I believe them to be any better, but because I am tired of the lack of a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances here, but with the way the country is so divided and polarized, republican politicians have blindly supported their party agenda. I am sick of it.

[janahitwadi]

IMO, a person who wishes to be addressed by a title should earn that title. Therefore, I will call Bush, Bush. What I would like to call him is inappropriate for civilized conversation.

Bush is not a terrorist by the definition of a terrorist. He has managed to commit terrorist-like acts under the disguise of being an elected gov official (note i did not say leader). He has managed to completely ignore the rest of the world. I dont see how anyone outside of the US could like him, seeing as how he is stepping on all of you. Our gov is participating in the torture of prisoners under his so called leadership.

You can play the blame game if you like and blame Clinton for not removing ppl like Hussein earlier. Or you can blame Rice for not heeding to the strategic plan left by the Clinton administration to address Al Queda. Or the CIA for not taking the threat of 9-11 seriously. Let's blame the ppl in the buildings for not getting out faster. Or the passengers on the planes for not taking action.

My point is that blame is pointless. It doesnt solve the prob. If we, as a nation, took all that wasted energy on playing the blame game and focused it on a solution, well, wouldnt that be nice. I dont like Bush, or any politician for that matter, bc they seem to completely lack the ability to say Yes, I screwed up. Now lets work on fixing it.
All in the world hate Mr. Bush except Pakistan. The reason is without his help Pakistan cannot survive. Pakistan also knows how to blackmail Mr. Bush

[Bart Fishermans]

Dont presume that the ppl you see on T.V. in some conservative backwater town yelling that all the towel heads should die and that the war in Iraq was justified is somehow the majority of americans. Also dont associate our Hollywood actors who voice their political voice to somehow stand for us either, HELL dont even let our POLITICIANS tell you that they speak for us. DONT EVER make GENERALIZATIONS unless you want backlash. I dont act like the British ppl I see in movies or on the telly somehow speak for all of britain when they espouse their views. Sorry if I offended I just dont like being lumped in with Bush supporters. ACTUALLY many ppl are fed up with bush and the republicans. Right now we are going through an election for our Legislative body. Most ppl surveyed are voting democratic as they are fed up with the republicans. Not that democrats are any better, we can only hope they can straighten this crap out however.

Sorry that I made a generalization but even though you may not be overindulgent in your consumeristic ways , most americans take for granted their opulent way of life which in fact harms the rest of the world and causes wars. Isn't that true?
Anyhow the rest what you said above is good.
Welcome to the forum! :)

[Crowly]

Kyoto now, mr Hallowedwarrior, Kyoto now.

[janahitwadi]

Politicians first aim is survive in politics. If people of USA want a better man for president ship, they should put characteristics of ideal man as they see. It can be easily published on Internet and I am sure there would be response in a big way. You might get a person of your liking. Just don't leave it to unknown.

[zoobee2]

so then the way to solve the problems of politics in the US is to post what I would like on the internet? and this whole time i thought it would be more complicated. silly me.

[Calvin X]

All in the world hate Mr. Bush except Pakistan. The reason is without his help Pakistan cannot survive. Pakistan also knows how to blackmail Mr. Bush

Janahitwadi,
It is interesting to me that you have so much of a problem with President Bush. The primary policy of President Bush that has upset so much of the world has been his War on Terror. This has primarily been aimed at muslims of various sources. You seem to have a fairly negative opinion of Muslims yourself from what I have read in your posts, probably worse than President Bush himself.

You seem to be understandablely fixated on Pakistan, however I think you should consider that most of the people who you are joining in with on attacking the President do so because they either disagree that the growing influence of muslim extremists is a global problem or that confronting it is necessary.

In this, the most important question of our time, I think you and the President are actually on the same side.

[Calvin X]

Sorry that I made a generalization but even though you may not be overindulgent in your consumeristic ways , most americans take for granted their opulent way of life which in fact harms the rest of the world and causes wars. Isn't that true?
Anyhow the rest what you said above is good.
Welcome to the forum! :)

Bull.

1. We are not forcing anyone to sell us anything.

2. We pay for the stuff we do buy with hundreds of billions of dollars, do you really believe people want us to stop giving them our money?

3. Everyone wants to be better off materially. Is there a nation in the world where the leaders do not strive to enrich their nation, and when they do then boast about it to their people?

4 And name me a war caused by our freakin lifestyle!

[zoobee2]

You seem to be understandablely fixated on Pakistan, however I think you should consider that most of the people who you are joining in with on attacking the President do so because they either disagree that the growing influence of muslim extremists is a global problem or that confronting it is necessary.

In this, the most important question of our time, I think you and the President are actually on the same side.

I find that funny because my dislike of him has nothing to do with that. There are so many other reasons to dislike him, for example, that he just steps on the Geneva Conventions, does away w silly things like habeas corpus at his leisure, condones torture, participates in illegal wire taps, ignores the Kyoto agreements, openly lies to the public, american and otherwise, puts his own agenda before important things like improved healthcare, social security, and welfare, -- well i could keep going but i think that i have sufficiently illustrated my point.

[janahitwadi]

Janahitwadi,
It is interesting to me that you have so much of a problem with President Bush. The primary policy of President Bush that has upset so much of the world has been his War on Terror. This has primarily been aimed at muslims of various sources. You seem to have a fairly negative opinion of Muslims yourself from what I have read in your posts, probably worse than President Bush himself. You seem to be understandablely fixated on Pakistan, however I think you should consider that most of the people who you are joining in with on attacking the President do so because they either disagree that the growing influence of muslim extremists is a global problem or that confronting it is necessary. In this, the most important question of our time, I think you and the President are actually on the same side.
Hello Mr. Calvin X,

I do not hate any one. I hate one's thinking and actions which are harmful to world peace. So you might find the conflicting views. Like I always believed 'no religion on this earth is superior or inferior to any other religion' I believe in this. I visualise problems realised by the developer for peace. He/she made rules keeping in view those obstacles. So that had been, I say had been the best solution for that group, place and people. With changes in parameters modification to rule is needed. This is applicable to all religions including Islam or Christen or any other.

This is applicable to my thinking about Mr. Bush too. Hope I have been able to clarify.

[Calvin X]

that he just steps on the Geneva Conventions,

Our enemies are not conventional soldiers, they are not covered by the geneva convention.


does away w silly things like habeas corpus at his leisure

Not the first time this has happened in a war.



, condones torture

Debatable.


, participates in illegal wire taps

You don't want to listen in on your enemy in a war?


, ignores the Kyoto agreements,

We didn't agree to it.


openly lies to the public,

Mistakes are not lies.


puts his own agenda before important things like improved healthcare,

Prescription drugs.

social security,

Tried to start a debate on it, but democrats demogued the issue and Republicans ducked the debate.

and welfare,

Screw welfare.


-- well i could keep going but i think that i have sufficiently illustrated my point.

I was talking to someone else anyway.

[Calvin X]

Hello Mr. Calvin X,

I do not hate any one. I hate one's thinking and actions which are harmful to world peace. So you might find the conflicting views. Like I always believed 'no religion on this earth is superior or inferior to any other religion' I believe in this. I visualise problems realised by the developer for peace. He/she made rules keeping in view those obstacles. So that had been, I say had been the best solution for that group, place and people. With changes in parameters modification to rule is needed. This is applicable to all religions including Islam or Christen or any other.

This is applicable to my thinking about Mr. Bush too. Hope I have been able to clarify.

The problem of Islamic Fundamentalism predates President Bush and will continue after his term of office. Before President Bush the response of the rest of the world to this danger was primarily to ignore it, by pretending each incedent was an isolated crime instead of a war.

THere was not world peace before President Bush, merely a lack of acknowledgement of the state of war.

President Bush was merely the one to state what became obvious, ie that the world was under attack.

If President Bush and/or his methodes are discredited and the world goes back to the way it was, which seems to be the goal of many who attack him, it will not be peace.

This is the question: Do you believe that Islamic Fundamentalism is waging a war on the rest of the planet?

[zoobee2]

Our enemies are not conventional soldiers, they are not covered by the geneva convention.

So then, I guess torture and inhumane treatment is completely acceptable in what is supposed to be a civilised society.

Not the first time this has happened in a war.

That doesn't make it right.

Debatable.

That is not really debatable. He has no reason to want to interpret the conventions unless his motive is to work outside them, ie torture.

You don't want to listen in on your enemy in a war?

Yes. But not illegally. All he had to do was get an order from the court, which takes all of 10 mins for a President, and has only ever been denied once. Then it would be LEGAL. It is the ILLEGAL part that bothers me bc mr. Bush just thinks he is above the law.

We didn't agree to it.

That was my point.

Mistakes are not lies.

Unless you refuse to admit that you made a mistake and instead try to cover it up by changing your story. Then its a lie.

Prescription drugs.

Drugs = improved healthcare? Nice to see that drugs are the answer for everything.

Tried to start a debate on it, but democrats demogued the issue and Republicans ducked the debate.

Because Bush's plan was to privatize it, which is not an improvement. How is ducking the debate commendable.

Screw welfare.

I suppose that is your answer when you dont have a real answer then.

I do not discredit Bush for waging war. I discredit him for not attacking Al Queda with more force in Afghanistan, for pretty much ignoring them everywhere except Iraq, and for trying to make the world believe that he was in Iraq for anything other than his own agenda. Sure, good came of it. However, he went in half cocked, with no real plan for fixing it, only for taking it over, and look where that has gotten us.

[Eschew_Obfuscation]

I just saw this thread because it was in the 'new posts.' I'm sorry, but what a biased poll/opening post. If you're going to address this issue you have to consider President Bush isn't a terrorist.

[janahitwadi]

I discredit him for not attacking Al Qaeda with more force in Afghanistan, for pretty much ignoring them everywhere except Iraq, and for trying to make the world believe that he was in Iraq for anything other than his own agenda.
I totally agree with you.

[pplrblind]

i wouldnt call him a terrorist, a monster maybe . would you call hitler a terrorist.
look at the big picture bush has done some terrible things. so has every american president. look at cambodia what a state that country is in after being carpet bombed during the veitnam war, they were not at war with the states but they were communist so would support the viet kong so they were destroyed. this sort of thing has gone on all throughout history.
wars are not waged for the good of the people it all about money.
sadam was a very bad man but most counties leaders outside europe are. there were many reasons to go into iraq, weapons of mass destruction was not one of them. the un sent in there weapons inspectors who said there was nothing but that wasnt good enough, bush wanted in so they made false inteligence spewed propaganda to the american people to make them think iraq was a threat (laughable). who knows the main reason, oil, personal ( tried to kill bush senior).

the war on terror is not a legal war your enemy must be a state or a people. it is like a war on drugs how can you wage war against a none existing army? who are you trying to defeat?

bush has commited multiple crimes against humanity but will never face charges because we (the west) make the laws.
after ww2 there were no laws in which to prosecute the nazis so laws were made, this is called post facto law and how we decided what wass illegal and what wass not is if the nazis did it and we didnt it is illegal. this is why it is not illegal to bomb civillian centres becuase the allies did it more than the nazis.

there has been alot of dirty play from the top people in the american gov. and british for a long time it wont change anytime soon just wake up people they just want money and lots of it.

[janahitwadi]

No one has right to say that I will kill people because so and so committed crime against mankind. Go and kill the culprit, why innocent people?

Secondly don't think some religion is superior to some other. All are equally good and bad. All religions have outdated their purpose. Spread new religion which addresses present time, present people and their present location.

[von-Scharnhorst]

bush has commited multiple crimes against humanity but will never face charges because we (the west) make the laws.

after ww2 there were no laws in which to prosecute the nazis so laws were made,

The result of these two statements is illogical, UNLESS you think the Nazis were Far Eastern steppe bandits, or something.

[pplrblind]

bush does things to the people of the east and in that respect laws are made in the west.
the bit with the nazis is just to show that the victors make the laws.

[Spades]

bush does things to the people of the east and in that respect laws are made in the west.
the bit with the nazis is just to show that the victors make the laws.

Thats how it goes, if you are victorious you kind of have to make at least some laws, especially in a case like iraq. Associating this to nazi's is really just stretching the truth so that it encompasses your point.

Secondly, i thought i told you the War on Drugs is a media coined term. Not an actual war.

Third, look at the link posted in the other forum we are debating in about the Lie you seem to cling to as your whole crutch in your argument.

We are waging the War in Iraq and terroists organizations which are people.

As for your argument on the nazi's, the world is changing and the laws, rules, policies have to adjust to adhere to the world. I am not going to say oh there are no laws against genocide guess you get off scott free.

You cannot generalize, and make up facts without proof. Saying we did it for the oil is a meaningless statement because all you have is motivation. If thats all it takes for you to convict somebody then i feel sorry for anyone that has you on their jury.

[pplrblind]

Thats how it goes, if you are victorious you kind of have to make at least some laws, especially in a case like iraq. Associating this to nazi's is really just stretching the truth so that it encompasses your point.

Secondly, i thought i told you the War on Drugs is a media coined term. Not an actual war.

Third, look at the link posted in the other forum we are debating in about the Lie you seem to cling to as your whole crutch in your argument.

We are waging the War in Iraq and terroists organizations which are people.

As for your argument on the nazi's, the world is changing and the laws, rules, policies have to adjust to adhere to the world. I am not going to say oh there are no laws against genocide guess you get off scott free.

You cannot generalize, and make up facts without proof. Saying we did it for the oil is a meaningless statement because all you have is motivation. If thats all it takes for you to convict somebody then i feel sorry for anyone that has you on their jury.

Two post ago I actually said, "who knows the main reason". What facts have I made up?
A terrorist is not a people like an Iraqi, Brit or an American, these terms tell you what people they belong to. A terrorist is more like an occupation.

Motivation, and they kept changing their story. Thats makes me suspitious, especially when I dont believe their story in the first place.
My argument about the nazis was just to point out that Bush and co. would never face any charges.

[Spades]

bush wanted in so they made false inteligence spewed propaganda to the american people to make them think iraq was a threat (laughable). who knows the main reason, oil, personal ( tried to kill bush senior).

the war on terror is not a legal war your enemy must be a state or a people.
bush has commited multiple crimes against humanity but will never face charges because we (the west) make the laws.

there has been alot of dirty play from the top people in the american gov. and british for a long time it wont change anytime soon just wake up people they just want money and lots of it.

Most things in these statements are well, just do not have any supporting things. Note: i said most things in this statement are not correct.

[Phantom]

Yes, I beleive that Bush is a terrorist, but so is Osama. Both of these leeches feed off one another and feed off the misery and bloodshed they cause.

----- Very well said. Majority of then people feel that way. Prior to the 9/11 incident and television coverage that continued for days- the name of 0sama and his being any war hero was never broadcasted and not known to anybody. Its only after all this broadcasting and newspapers articles that people started to investigate and what did they find out??? Surprising for all--that 0sama is CIA n USA brainchild supported by weapons and used to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan-a second question is cropping in the mids of people too--who are the gainers of all these "Terror: wars-- the "Arms" dealers/factory owners mwho are putting heavy commision to the concerned Authorities.Any doubts???????



The unfortunate thing is that Bush will be gone by January 2009, (QUOTE)

-----The popularity of Bush is dwindling as had been the case of Blair who had to under pressure from the British Parliamentarians(Representatives of the British Citizens) finally bow out andn hand over the reigns to Brown. The Citizens of USA are gradually wakening up to stark realities no the futile war in Iraq-- infact shocked by the news- (there was no weapons of mass destruction). So to clear their conscience they wouldnt vote Bush to power.

but Osama's influence upon religious Muslims means that he won't be truly disposed of for a long time.

----- 0sama as mention earlier(read above) is an identity discovered by people after 9/11 incident and none is so exuberant about him except the Westerners-- who wish to keep 0sama alive for continuing with destructive foreign policies. He has no influence whatsoever on Muslims whose only belief is one 0ne God and that Prophet is the Messenger.- He is only an individual- and as yet the Muslims are not sure whether at all such individual exists- as such he andn his Alquaida will sonn fizzle out-- this is something the WEST must understand -- also thatey must accept the fact that its a wrong Western propoganda that " Killing ensures a place in Heaven" -- if one sees the Movie "Missippi is Burning"- they will realize that white terrorists who used to kill the Blacks used this propoganda too-"kill a black and go to heaven"--lucky that there were saner whites who opposed and fought this terror groups- LET THE WEST NOT FORGET THEIR OWN HISTORY before they term others as Terrorists.