2006-08-20 11:51:22 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
one mans terrorist is one mans freedom fighter one mans freedom fighter is one mans terrorist.
2006-08-20 11:57:58 · answer #1 · answered by BCOL CCCP 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, President Bush is not a "terrorist". For our own empowerment, we need to be careful in the use of words. The term "terrorism" is problematic, to be sure, but we further confuse already befuddling political problems with militancy (and unilateralism, etc., etc.) when we fail to recognize the essential untenability of nonstate militant defense of human dignity (or some value being placed above human dignity). If terrorists are not, by definition, nostate actors, we will have difficulty in organizing these political issues semantically and philosophically, Noam Chomsky notwithstanding.
2006-08-20 12:09:34 · answer #2 · answered by voltaire 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
undergo in techniques that he would not write his very own speeches. We on no account pay attention what he rather thinks. that's in all threat as a results of fact with an IQ so low, no longer plenty thinking happens. So he's basically spouting words written for him by utilising his puppet masters. despite the fact that, this does supply us an concept of what his puppet-masters are thinking, and that i rather like your concept. We primary that they use him as a front line liar as a results of fact he has no expertise approximately something, so we acquire the full effect of their lies. specific, his puppet masters are the terrorists and non secular radicals - luciferians in fact.
2016-12-17 14:17:27 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective.
So you decide. In other words this is an uneducated leftist question.
2006-08-26 02:27:03 · answer #4 · answered by fire_side_2003 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Actually, when congress was defining terrorism they had to rewrite the definition many times because they were having trouble with a definition of terrorism that didn't include actions that the U.S. has done.
2006-08-20 11:58:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. He lied just so he could go to war with Iraq. Not only have thousands of our troops died fighting HIS war, but also thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have also died as a direct result of the war. And many many more Iraqis live in fear for their lives because of the insurgency that has sprung up in Iraq as a direct result of Bush's war.
2006-08-20 11:58:33 · answer #6 · answered by HULK RULES!! 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why because innocent people get killed in war? That is a sad, but consistent part of all wars. By your logic FDR, Trueman, and Abe Lincoln are terrorists as well.
2006-08-20 11:59:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
not all by himself ,he uses soldiers,and he takes his orders from the illuminati . the Bilderberg group and the round table .
they are the brrains behind the slaughter .and we have seen nothing yet .the Agenda calls for a reduction in world population by 60%,this can hardly be done in a none terrifying way
2006-08-20 11:59:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
To the people he is fighting in the Middle East he is.
2006-08-20 14:46:55 · answer #9 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, although he is in denial.His main problem is that he does not listen to any advice and just "stays the course".What course? Gos help us!
2006-08-20 12:03:30 · answer #10 · answered by jimbo 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋