Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Do you consider George Bush a terrorist?
ABN:
--- Quote from: Elevz the #1 blunt roller on July 15, 2005, 03:11:05 AM ---The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Fear and Loathing in Bakersfield on July 14, 2005, 08:34:10 PM ---you can make a case for iraq....
but we had no reason to attack Afghanistan??
--- End quote ---
bin laden was only a suspect at the time.. we didnt know for sure if al quaeda was behind it
Elevz:
--- Quote from: Pissin' On The Throne on July 15, 2005, 03:44:02 AM ---
--- Quote from: Elevz the #1 blunt roller on July 15, 2005, 03:11:05 AM ---The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Pissin' On The Throne on July 15, 2005, 03:44:02 AM ---
--- Quote from: Elevz the #1 blunt roller on July 15, 2005, 03:11:05 AM ---The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- 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.
Maestro Minded:
--- Quote from: Elevz the #1 blunt roller on July 15, 2005, 04:15:25 AM ---
--- Quote from: Pissin' On The Throne on July 15, 2005, 03:44:02 AM ---
--- Quote from: Elevz the #1 blunt roller on July 15, 2005, 03:11:05 AM ---The difference between George Bush and Osama bin Laden is that Bush doesn't intend to kill as many civilians as possible
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version