It's May 11, 2024, 07:58:19 AM
Total Members Voted: 20
The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible
you can make a case for iraq....but we had no reason to attack Afghanistan??
Quote from: Elevz the #1 blunt roller on July 15, 2005, 03:11:05 AMThe difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possiblefuck 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.
bin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind it
Quote from: Pissin' On The Throne on July 15, 2005, 03:44:02 AMQuote from: Elevz the #1 blunt roller on July 15, 2005, 03:11:05 AMThe difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possiblefuck 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.
Quote from: Maestro Minded on July 15, 2005, 04:13:16 AMbin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind itBut 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.
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.
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?
Quote from: $ on July 15, 2005, 04:18:34 AMQuote from: Maestro Minded on July 15, 2005, 04:13:16 AMbin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind itBut 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 to1. Invade the country2. Take down the Taliban’s3. Take over the countryLet’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.
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.