Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Do you consider George Bush a terrorist?
Maestro Minded:
--- Quote from: $ on July 15, 2005, 04:18:34 AM ---
--- Quote from: Maestro Minded on July 15, 2005, 04:13:16 AM ---bin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind it
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Elevz the #1 blunt roller on July 15, 2005, 03:11:05 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Low Key:
--- Quote from: Maestro Minded on July 15, 2005, 04:24:47 AM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Maestro Minded on July 15, 2005, 04:31:28 AM ---
--- Quote from: $ on July 15, 2005, 04:18:34 AM ---
--- Quote from: Maestro Minded on July 15, 2005, 04:13:16 AM ---bin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind it
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Pissin' On The Throne on July 15, 2005, 08:09:39 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version