Is George W. Bush a Terrorist?

Answer 1

In a way, but terrorists are usually smarter.

Answer 2

I challenge anyone to find a reasonable definition of "terrorist" that does not describe George W. Bush. Let's look at two examples.

First, the classic definition of a terrorist as anyone who seeks to induce terror in a populace. You might remember hearing the term "shock and awe" when the war with Iraq started. It was an American military tactic intended to frighten Iraqis with awesome military power. By ordering attacks of this nature, Bush made himself a terrorist.

Second, the FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." No one can deny that Bush used force and violence against Iraq, intimidated and coerced its government and its population. Some might deny that Bush did this in furtherance of political or social objectives -- they would say he did it for personal profit, revenge, or just because he's a lunatic. In that case, he's not a terrorist, but he does have other problems for which he needs serious help. Now to whether his actions were unlawful: even if he was entirely within his right according to United States law (a proposition which seems tenuous), his attack on Iraq probably violated Iraqi law, and most certainly violated certain international laws. So even according to the FBI, George W. Bush is a terrorist.

Now, if you define a terrorist as a muslim with a rocket launcher, I guess Bush does not fall into that category (as far as I know), but that would not be a reasonable definition.

Answer 3

I dont think so, otherwise he might not be the leader of the US .. um .. but in the words of comedian Bill Bailey, if you see a terrorist or speak to a terrrist you are a terrorist .. however, whether this is true or not who knows,all I can say is I think George W Bush is innocent in that respect anyway. Ill leave your imagination to figure out the rest.
Mel
x

Answer 4

The only reason people call the President a terrorist, murder and every other negative name they can think of is because there have been Innocent people killed while fighting the war terror. People go on about the innocent civilians that have been killed in Iraq since this war started, but that is what happens in war. It's sad and it's tragic, but it's what happens. But the reasons these innocent people are being killed are because of the cowards that are hiding behind them, or putting them in harms way. It's not like our troops are going up and just blowing innocent civilians away! You don't have to like the President, and you don't have to even agree with this war, but to compare him to a terrorist is horrible. When they showed on the news where the President was being told about 9/11, I will never forget the look on his face when he was sitting in that classroom. He was as devastated as any other American was that day. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.That man was in a no-win situation from the moment that first plane hit the World Trade Center. If he didn't do enough, people were going to ***** about it, and if he took a stand and did do something, people were still going to *****! Everyone talks about all the innocent people that have been killed in Iraq, but what about all the innocent people that were killed on 9/11? Don't they deserve for someone to fight for them? And plaease don't anyone twist my words! I'm not saying that anyones who was killed on 9/11 is somehow more valuble then those who have died in Iraq, but it just seems like people are forgetting how bad 9/11 really was. Also, you talk about the innocent that have died, our troops and and every other country who's troops have gone in there to fight are also innocent. None of them deserved to die either. They were doing a job that many of us would never have the guts to do.

Answer 5

Legal definition of terrorism: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Bush has used force and violence to intimidate and coerce governments and populations, and there are questions about the legality of some of the actions he has taken. But under a fairly strict legal definition, the answer is probably no.

Good discussion of the meaning of "terrorist"
http://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/terrorist-definition.htm

Terrorism Defined:
http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedia/terrorism.html

Answer 6

the answer would be yes. bin laden orders the attacks never being there, he's a terrorist. bush with his own agenda, ego and power thinking he's above the law, threw the constitution out the door by enacting war when only congress has that power. whoever strikes first is a terrorist. the other is considered defending. we struct iraq as bush claimed wmd. nothing found, then his excuse is they needed democracy. our country is over 200 years old and we don't even have democracy, so he is going to do it to a country that for a thousand years is muslim and have their ways. he's admitted that as its his final term, he doesn't care what the american people think, he does as he wants to and congress, and the supreme court are a joke as they never stopped him or impeached him for going against the law. he thinks he's above the law and its only for us to obey.

Answer 7

terrorist (plural terrorists)

1) One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; originally applied to an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

Answer 1) In this instance: No. as he is not governing by this method, and it would be ridiculous to apply this to anyone who faces someone who is intimidated, such as calling my brother a terrorist because he is looming over me.

2) Anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle, frequently in an attempt to coerce a more powerful opponent, such as a government.

Answer 2) No, as this is not a political struggle in the sense meant, nor is he trying to threaten harm to innocents in order to coerce obedience.

Your question is based on a total lack of understanding of the dictionary meaning, like asking:

"Is President Bush an orange?"

If you totally ignore the meaning of words, anything can be anything.

Thankfully, most of the United States still uses the dictionary and a common language.

Join us.

Answer 8

No.

He doesn't go after innocents, he/we don't behead people and tape it. We don't send threats, we send promises. We help build schools, helped liberate women in Afghanistan, and build hospitals. He's a bit on the goofy side but his hearts in the right place which is more than I can say for the radical Islamists.

Have you ever met an radical Islamist? I went to college with a group of 10-12 of them and there is no middle ground. They used to sit in the common areas and shout "American whore dogs!" at me and my fellow female classmates. We reported them because their behavoir was agressive and threatening but the school did nothing because they were afraid of them. This was in 1998.

Answer 9

No the ACLU and the Dem's far left are the internally ones. They will do anything anti Bush the hell will the U.S. Just maybe people will wakeup and see

Answer 10

By definition yes but it depends on how much money you are making off of this whole thing. Money has always been able to make the square pegs fin into the round holes.