2007-01-09 16:04:30 · 13 answers · asked by Major Haroon 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I don't think that either of them can be defined as a terrorist. I was taught that the definition of a terrorist is one who engages in acts of terrorism and the definition of terrorism is :
Terrorism is a term used to describe certain violent or otherwise harmful acts or threats of such acts. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), deliberately target "non-combatants", and are not conducted by a "legitimate" government. However, some definitions include state terrorism, and in many cases the determination of "legitimate" targets and the definition of "combatant" is disputed (especially by partisans to the conflict in question).
As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing the severity of a grievance, or drawing attention to a neglected cause.
I don't believe they fall under that category. Saddam is an insane dictator ( or was) and Bush is the President of the United States.Osama is a terrorist.
2007-01-09 16:15:26 · answer #1 · answered by bunnydlh 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Saddam - read the news from all over the world. People fought for the right to hang him. Now that is evil & a terrorist.
Who's picture are you using? You are way to undisciplined to be a major.
2007-01-09 16:11:49 · answer #2 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would have to say Bush. Bush allows religion to influence his actions, much like the stereotypical terrorist. Saddam was a secular leader.
2007-01-09 16:12:31 · answer #3 · answered by The Maestro 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Saddam Hussein can't be a terrorist - you would have to say that he WAS a terrorist, since he is not alive.
2007-01-09 16:08:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your bitterness over Bush makes you look petty and childish. Get over it. All Liberals have in their arsenal is the tired rhetoric of how much they dislike Bush. A bunch of radical Islamists attacked our country and we are fighting back. What is so difficult to understand about that? If Clinton were in the White House would you be asking for his head too? The answer to that is NO. Clinton would have understood their pain and then sat on his hands. So please find another argument. Because yours is getting really old really fast
2007-01-09 17:24:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Saddam is of course, fortunately he is the type of terrorist we like.
Dead and rotting
2007-01-09 16:08:44 · answer #6 · answered by Stone K 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Saddam WAS.
2007-01-09 16:13:32 · answer #7 · answered by 2007 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Saddam " was".
2007-01-09 16:11:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
saddom libs you name it
2007-01-09 20:37:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You?
2007-01-09 17:12:44 · answer #10 · answered by Sedit 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋