Do you consider George Bush a terrorist?

[Maestro Minded]

Considering that he've attacked two countries without valid reasons.

1. He attacked Afghanistan because they refused to hand over Bin Laden, a man USA was suspecting for the bombings. A country should have the right to deny a request like that from any other country.
2. He attacked Iraq, because he believed Sadam Hussein had mass destruction weapon. Obviously he didn't, which must mean that the 'proof' USA had couldn't have been strong enough.

25'000 innocent victims in Iraq have been killed because of George Bush.

-----------------------------
i will only respond to serious posts, it doesnt matter what you vote, just justify your answer

[Don Jacob]

you can make a case for iraq....


but we had no reason to attack Afghanistan??

[UAK]

George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are equals to me.

[Low Key]

The Afgahnistan government should have handed over Bin Laden. They didn't, so the US went in and tried to get him themselves. Whether it was him or some other person in Al Queda, someone was responsible for murdering 5,000 people and injuring several thousand more.

Dubya entered Iraq because of a grudge. Saddam was a menace, but I didn't think it was particularly necessary to do what Bush did.

[Elevz]

I actually think both wars George Bush started can be justified. Of course Afghanistan should have handed over Osama immediately. Since they didn't, Bush had to go hunt after Osama himself. What's wrong with that? You're saying they should've let Osama go, so he could plan some more major attacks?

The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible. That's the only thing a terrorist is up to: making as many people fall victim as possible. Bush is only trying to better the world, by trying to free us from terrorism. Of course Bush wasn't actually out to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he came there to take Saddam off his throne. That's a good deed, hence Saddam was like a terrorist himself, killing people in his own country at random. Bush ain't out for that, he's trying to free the people from terrorism. You just can't fight a war without innocent people falling victim. Just don't blame Bush for intending to do so.

[ABN]

The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible

fuck the intent, Bush is killin tens of thousands of more people then Osama will ever be responsible for killin. tell the innocent people in Iraq who has been victims of George Bush politics about a fucking intent. bottom line is that both Bush and Osama are killers in one way or another but the only difference is that one of them is killin a whole lot more innocent people then the other and has a whole fucking army to back him up. now the war in Iraq might´ve been justified coz Saddam was far from a good leader and he treated people like shit but is that worth killin even more people then he(Saddam) would´ve killed when he´s not even a threat to the world. and justifying killings with killings is just stupid. how tha fuck is people gonna go and complaining about a lot of people losing their lives in the WTC towers(R.I.P. to those killed)and talk about "we can´t accept attacks on innocent" and then go to another country and attack and kill innocent people. IMO both of them are terrorists in a way but i can understand both Osama and Bush to a certain degree but i don´t see how you can justify either one of their actions towards innocent people and i hope that both of them pays when they gonna try to tell god why they killed so many innocent people coz Bush claims be a christian but he certainly isn´t just the same way Osama isn´t a muslim.

[Maestro Minded]

you can make a case for iraq....


but we had no reason to attack Afghanistan??

bin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind it

[Elevz]

The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible

fuck the intent, Bush is killin tens of thousands of more people then Osama will ever be responsible for killin. tell the innocent people in Iraq who has been victims of George Bush politics about a fucking intent. bottom line is that both Bush and Osama are killers in one way or another but the only difference is that one of them is killin a whole lot more innocent people then the other and has a whole fucking army to back him up. now the war in Iraq might´ve been justified coz Saddam was far from a good leader and he treated people like shit but is that worth killin even more people then he(Saddam) would´ve killed when he´s not even a threat to the world. and justifying killings with killings is just stupid. how tha fuck is people gonna go and complaining about a lot of people losing their lives in the WTC towers(R.I.P. to those killed)and talk about "we can´t accept attacks on innocent" and then go to another country and attack and kill innocent people. IMO both of them are terrorists in a way but i can understand both Osama and Bush to a certain degree but i don´t see how you can justify either one of their actions towards innocent people and i hope that both of them pays when they gonna try to tell god why they killed so many innocent people coz Bush claims be a christian but he certainly isn´t just the same way Osama isn´t a muslim.

Bush doesn't aim for civilians, at least that's not his goal. Whenever there's a war, you know there's people going to be killed. Difference is, Saddam and Osama were out to kill the innocent, and Bush accidentally killed innocent people trying to stop Osama and Saddam. It's true, he should have been way more careful with his "shock and awe" attacks on Iraq. Thing is, if Bush didn't attack Iraq and Saddam would still be reigning, we don't know what would have happened. He might have killed just another million of his own civilians. Imagine if that would have happened, the entire world would have been screaming "why didn't Bush do something against Saddam?". Now that Iraq was freed from Saddam, this will never happen again and people will be blaming everything that goes on there on Bush. It's a fucked up situation. Of course, Bush has made some major mistakes (think of Iraq AFTER the war, and the many innocent victims) but that doesn't make him a terrorist.

[Low Key]

The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible

fuck the intent, Bush is killin tens of thousands of more people then Osama will ever be responsible for killin. tell the innocent people in Iraq who has been victims of George Bush politics about a fucking intent. bottom line is that both Bush and Osama are killers in one way or another but the only difference is that one of them is killin a whole lot more innocent people then the other and has a whole fucking army to back him up. now the war in Iraq might´ve been justified coz Saddam was far from a good leader and he treated people like shit but is that worth killin even more people then he(Saddam) would´ve killed when he´s not even a threat to the world. and justifying killings with killings is just stupid. how tha fuck is people gonna go and complaining about a lot of people losing their lives in the WTC towers(R.I.P. to those killed)and talk about "we can´t accept attacks on innocent" and then go to another country and attack and kill innocent people. IMO both of them are terrorists in a way but i can understand both Osama and Bush to a certain degree but i don´t see how you can justify either one of their actions towards innocent people and i hope that both of them pays when they gonna try to tell god why they killed so many innocent people coz Bush claims be a christian but he certainly isn´t just the same way Osama isn´t a muslim.

I understand where you are coming from, but Bush isn't sending troops into Iraq so they can kick in civilians' doors and kill them. The civilians that have been dying are a result of them being in the wrong place at the wrong time or just a case of mistaken identity. That doesn't make it okay, but Bush has no intention of mass murdering people that don't have anything to do with the uprising that is going on. And there are Iraqis that have strapped bombs to themselves and killed their own people just to take out US troops. I'd be more outraged by that than anything. Certainly, there is more going on behind the scenes than the US government would like you to believe (just like in any government), but the general intentions are to clear out all the tyrants, rebuild, and leave. And the thing is, Bush isn't over there himself shooting innocent people. The troops there are just like you and me. I'm pretty sure they don't want to kill more people then they possibly have to, unless it's the losers that sign up for that reason, and there are alot less of those than you might think.

Now Osama, on the other hand, would like nothing more than to watch me and other Americans die. We never did anything to him, yet he wants to murder innocent people. The people he wants is the government, but to him, it doesn't matter. That's what makes him a terrorist.

bin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind it

But he is still a suspect. When the cops have a suspect in a murder case, they want that guy brought in for questioning. After that, they'll determine if he did it or not. That is how the system works.

[Maestro Minded]

The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible

fuck the intent, Bush is killin tens of thousands of more people then Osama will ever be responsible for killin. tell the innocent people in Iraq who has been victims of George Bush politics about a fucking intent. bottom line is that both Bush and Osama are killers in one way or another but the only difference is that one of them is killin a whole lot more innocent people then the other and has a whole fucking army to back him up. now the war in Iraq might´ve been justified coz Saddam was far from a good leader and he treated people like shit but is that worth killin even more people then he(Saddam) would´ve killed when he´s not even a threat to the world. and justifying killings with killings is just stupid. how tha fuck is people gonna go and complaining about a lot of people losing their lives in the WTC towers(R.I.P. to those killed)and talk about "we can´t accept attacks on innocent" and then go to another country and attack and kill innocent people. IMO both of them are terrorists in a way but i can understand both Osama and Bush to a certain degree but i don´t see how you can justify either one of their actions towards innocent people and i hope that both of them pays when they gonna try to tell god why they killed so many innocent people coz Bush claims be a christian but he certainly isn´t just the same way Osama isn´t a muslim.

Bush doesn't aim for civilians, at least that's not his goal. Whenever there's a war, you know there's people going to be killed. Difference is, Saddam and Osama were out to kill the innocent, and Bush accidentally killed innocent people trying to stop Osama and Saddam. It's true, he should have been way more careful with his "shock and awe" attacks on Iraq. Thing is, if Bush didn't attack Iraq and Saddam would still be reigning, we don't know what would have happened. He might have killed just another million of his own civilians. Imagine if that would have happened, the entire world would have been screaming "why didn't Bush do something against Saddam?". Now that Iraq was freed from Saddam, this will never happen again and people will be blaming everything that goes on there on Bush. It's a fucked up situation. Of course, Bush has made some major mistakes (think of Iraq AFTER the war, and the many innocent victims) but that doesn't make him a terrorist.

Lets say that bush was killing his own people. Would it be ok for lets say Iraq (if they were strong enough) to attack USA to kill George Bush, accidentally killing 25'000 innocent americans?... would you consider him a hero?

And if bush attacked Iraq to free the people from oppression. Why didn’t he do it earlier? Why didn’t ANY american president do it earlier? Saddam have been oppressing Iraq for decades. Don’t you find it strange?

[Maestro Minded]

bin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind it

But he is still a suspect. When the cops have a suspect in a murder case, they want that guy brought in for questioning. After that, they'll determine if he did it or not. That is how the system works.

So you're saying that since he was a suspect, USA had the right to
1. Invade the country
2. Take down the Taliban’s
3. Take over the country

Let’s say threat bin laden ran to Russia, and Russia refused to hand him over.. Would USA do the same thing? I think not, cause USA only attacks countries that they know don’t stand a chance.  Terrorist organizations only attacks targets that can’t defend themselves.... I see a connection here.

[mauzip]

I actually think both wars George Bush started can be justified. Of course Afghanistan should have handed over Osama immediately. Since they didn't, Bush had to go hunt after Osama himself. What's wrong with that? You're saying they should've let Osama go, so he could plan some more major attacks?

The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible. That's the only thing a terrorist is up to: making as many people fall victim as possible. Bush is only trying to better the world, by trying to free us from terrorism. Of course Bush wasn't actually out to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he came there to take Saddam off his throne. That's a good deed, hence Saddam was like a terrorist himself, killing people in his own country at random. Bush ain't out for that, he's trying to free the people from terrorism. You just can't fight a war without innocent people falling victim. Just don't blame Bush for intending to do so.

[Low Key]

Lets say that bush was killing his own people. Would it be ok for lets say Iraq (if they were strong enough) to attack USA to kill George Bush, accidentally killing 25'000 innocent americans?... would you consider him a hero?

And is bush attacked Iraq to free the people from oppression. Why didn’t he do it earlier? Why didn’t ANY american president do it earlier? Saddam have been oppressing Iraq for decades. Don’t you find it strange?

If Bush was a maniac like that, I'd rather see him out of power. Just because he hadn't killed me yet doesn't mean my time wasn't coming. 25,000 casualties is a lot less than 1,000,000. Just because you don't think so doesn't mean you are right.

Bush's father, along with a coalition of other countries went in and stopped him from killing his own people. They should have arrested him right then and there, but they didn't. That was probably the biggest mistake they made. Now Bush Jr. went in to finish the job.

bin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind it

But he is still a suspect. When the cops have a suspect in a murder case, they want that guy brought in for questioning. After that, they'll determine if he did it or not. That is how the system works.

So you're saying that since he was a suspect, USA had the right to
1. Invade the country
2. Take down the Taliban’s
3. Take over the country

Let’s say threat bin laden ran to Russia, and Russia refused to hand him over.. Would USA do the same thing? I think not, cause USA only attacks countries that they know don’t stand a chance. Terrorist organizations only attacks targets that can’t defend themselves.... I see a connection here.

Yes, the US had a right to find the person that senselessly killed 5,000 innocent people on US soil outside of declared war. And no matter where he went, if the government there was harboring a suspect that may or may not have committed an act of terror like that and refused to give him up, you best believe the US would have went in there and strong armed them just like they did with Afghanistan.

[ABN]

yea i can see what y´all are sayin but just like how Bush aint out in Iraq killing people Osama aint out in America killin people himself. and yes Saddam killed his own people but if you ask most of the people he killed(not the dead people but y´all know what i mean)most of them will tell you that they are happy that he´s gone but not at the pice they along with millions and millions of iraqis has had to pay. and what Bush is doin is justifying killings with killings and if he really believes in god then he knows that he´ll burn in hell for what he´s done coz the bible doesn´t grant America or any other country special rights to kill people that haven´t done anything to them*looks forward to they day when both Osama and Bush will burn in hell*

[Elevz]

yea i can see what y´all are sayin but just like how Bush aint out in Iraq killing people Osama aint out in America killin people himself.

Osama is not doing it himself, but he's sending people in there to kill innocent people for him. Same difference.

Come on man, someone had to take Saddam out of his place - he was torturing people as a hobby, just because it turns him on. He would've kept going if Bush Jr. hadn't stopped him now. Indeed, they should have done that in '91 and they didn't. That's the biggest failure here. Bush Jr is just doing what his father SHOULD have done back then. He's correcting a mistake that was once made; too bad there's so many people suffering from it now. They probably should have been more careful so there would've been less people killed in Iraq, but really... It had to happen.

I even think the war on Afghanistan was more justified than the Iraq war. For as long as Osama's walking around on this planet, Al Qaeda will be planning attacks like they did in NY, DC, Madrid and London. Even today, Al Qaeda executed (at least) two suicide bombings in Iraq. Innocent people are getting killed on purpose, on a daily basis. Now that's why they had to invade Afghanistan to hunt for Osama.