Are George Bush & Tony Blair terrorists?

Question

The definition of a terrorist is someone who uses extreme violence to promote and further their own ideology - religious or political.
Iraq was not an immediate or direct threat to the security of the United Kingdom or the United States.
President Bush admited that he wanted 'regime change'. Tony Blair said that Iraq was a threat to international stability (in other words he wanted regime change).
Tony Blair and George Bush used Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to invade Iraq. But there were none. The leaders knew that the evidence for the WMD's was not reliable.
So the question is, did the two leaders invade Iraq to promote their own political ideology? If the answer to this is yes, then surely they have to be terrorists, dont they?

Corrections to some of the posts:
Islam is not a global threat. Some people calling themselves Muslims are a threat to innocent people.
It was well know by everyone except (apparently) Blair and Bush that there were no WMD's. They knew the evidence was unreliable.
They did bomb Iraq off the map - have you been there recently?
America supported Saddam Hussain during the Iran/Iraq was and gave him weapons.
America has slaughtered 600,000 iraqi men, woman and children in the name of what?

Saddam Hussein was evil and did slaughter his own people, but why didnt Blair or Bush ever use this as a reason for invasion?
America might not intentionally slaughter civilians, but it never checks to see if civilians are where the bombs drop - so they dont care - amounts to the same thing.
Bush did not have a democratic remit to represent the American people because in his first election he got less that 50% of the votes. Dictators also do not get voted for.

Iraq did NOT attack America.
America DID intentionally attack innocent people (600,000 of them) in Iraq to promote its christian values.
America uses arial bombs to bomb anything in its path.
America IS teaching children that killing is right because, America did not exhaust diplomatic means to deal with the problem.

So you believe that Iraq was supporting some terrorists?
What do you do?
Bomb it and kill 600,000 people?
What does a terrorist do? Kill people?
How do you challenge terrorists? Kill 600,000 people?

Answer 1

George Bush manipulated intelligence to get us into a war.

If you believe Congress has access to the same intelligence that crosses that desk in the Oval Office, you are mistaken.

Bush has lied to the American people about yellowcake, aluminum tubes, and UN inspectors on the ground.

2/3's of Dems did not vote to give Bush authorization to attack Iraq, a nation that never attacked the U.S. Every repub voted to give Bush this authorization.

Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney play kissyfoot with the royal Saudi family, a family that finances radical muslim schools throughout the world who teach the youth of the MidEast to grow up wanting to kill Americans. We must stop this continual indoctrination of MidEast youth, or we will forever have an inexhaustible supply of terrorists.

Bush will go down as one of the five worst presidents in U.S. history.

Answer 2

Yes I agree with each and every words of yours !!!

The only bombing where the the suspected milliatants were muslims in britian hisotry is 7/7 and it killed 54 peoples , 9/11 is inside job and i would give its credit to Bush and would add killing those innocent lives to bush crimes! the figure run in thousands Now what Bush and blair did is, they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.and killed millions of peoples, the innocent one...and proved that they are even worse terrosits........they are taking revenge of those 54 peoples by taking infinite lives.........and this is all just fabricated.the actual drama is something else and that is 'Oil" so the crime become even more worse that they are killing peoples for their economy !! See this is a price of human life these days....only one bullet !!! i don't know how do americans belive all that crap that america has invaded Iraq for war on terror, or for some lethal weapons etc while this time America itself is the biggest nuclear power and no one in the world can compete their atomic power !! they are not only killing millions of innocents but also misguding the world thorugh their strong media that muslims are terrorists.....making their crime disgusting.........as muslims are the victims and they are accused.....how pitty !

Answer 3

It has been proven beyond any doubt, that Iraq leadership was FINANCING terrorism through their oil profits. Some traced to Ben Laden and other terrorist organizations. Any Country that supports the killing of citizens, even in their own territories, as Iraq did, surely was part of the picture of terror. During any of our world wars, a nation would declare war on any they found supporting their enemy! In our day and age, it is surely some Muslims who suggest that anyone that is not of their faith should die. There is also evidence that Iran is and has been supporting terrorism through finances and even some Liberals suggested taking care of that situation! That is shocking as most Liberals are against any Republican President on any war issue! They make all a play for a vote and for politics no matter if the Nation or our people will suffer for it. We could suggest that they are not even American for some! So we cannot call Bush a terrorists when he is trying to stop it.. We must remember, it is worldwide and many Countries have suffered from murders and kidnappings from these animals...Earl

Answer 4

Both leaders and most Congress members in the US believed Saddam had WMD's. I watched Blair's address to parliment onPBS, arguing why GB should invade Iraq, and his logic was impressive. I wish Bush would have presented his case as well to the american public
.
Saddam himself believed he had WMD, since his military people either lied to him that they had them, or the WMD's made it out to Syria.
Bush can be faulted believing only what he wanted to, and not admitting he was somehow fooled.

As most members of Congress initially supported the war and have not admited they were also duped, there must have been convincing evidence that Iraq had WMD's. These are our elected leaders, supposedly the best and brightest Americans! Bush is not very convincing by himself.

Answer 5

No, they are not. But that's not the answer your looking for. Training camps were in Iraq, that's a fact. Saddam Hussan HAD used biological weapons on his people. Fact. Iraq was ignoring sanctions put on them by the UN. Fact. How much more were we supposed to ignore from that dictator? War sucks. We all agree. But we were attacked by radical Muslims and Iraq was harboring terrorists. When will Americans realize that Radical Muslims hate us, they will continue to try to kill Americans until they realize we will not let them. "The definition of a terrorist is someone who uses extreme violence to promote and further their own ideology - religious or political" We are not beheading people. We are not using roadside bombs to kill anything in its path. We are not intentionally attacking innocent people to promote Christian values or our way of life. We are not building churches, but we are building schools. I do agree we need to make changes in this war or the terrorists will win. Oh, and one more thing, we are not teaching our children that killing is right. Go ahead start with the thumbs down on my answer, I'm expecting it LOL.

Just thought I'd add this, Our armed forces, specifically, the men that control and administer air strikes, do check their targets and check them again. Satilletes, runners, intelligence all let them know about a specific target. Unfortunatly, civilians do get caught in the crossfire when terrorists knowingly hide in areas where civilians are. Many times civilians are placed in these areas to make us look bad or for the terrorists to hide. How do I know this? Because I have spoken with these men that control airstrikes. When civilians are killed, it is more likely caused by the terrorists themselves.

Answer 6

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! This is just Liberal and anti U.S propaganda........ok ill explain this too you simply because you are a freaking moron. It is the 21st century.The U.N was created to preserve world peace. Well they dont do a damn thing. There is no reason why the U.N FOR YEARS should have let Saddam use his own chemical weapons ( and sorry buddy but it has been proven about ten years ago that he used chemical weapons) on his own people, he let his sons rape and kill hundreds of woman, he is just an all around evil person. Seems like you get all your twisted information from the news.....does the news ever tell you of the hospital and schools and mosques built for the Iraqi people ? How about the fact that the french ( illegaly mind you) sold the Iraqi's weapons and equiptment, seems to me that the U.N had sanctions on that. So how about you stop spreading your hippie BS and go educate yourself you stupid peice of sh1t.

Answer 7

George Bush is NOT a terrorist!! President Bush has a genuine concern for the Iraqi people, and is trying to bring them freedom. I'd say that you've never been to Iraq? Have you ever even talked to an American Soldier that has been to Iraq? If not, I suggest that you talk to one of them about what really goes on there. For your information, WE FOUND 500 CHEMICAL WARHEADS, THAT IS WMD's! I would guess that the reason that it wasn't reported, is that it would prove Pres. Bush to be RIGHT!

Answer 8

I don't subscribe to your definition of a terrorist.A terrorist main goal is to frighten and terrorize people.I was against the invasion and consider it illegal but if terror was what Bush and Blair wanted to achieve they could have just bombed Iraq of the map.

Answer 9

No, they are not terrorists, the U.S. and U.K. do not intentionally target civilians. Remember during the 19 day invasion how the power stayed on?

Answer 10

by the dictionary definition -- yes

if we were serious about eliminating terrorism, the most logical first move would be to bomb washington, dc into submission, bomb ourselves

in reality, the word terrorist means someone who is not our friend, or not obeying orders. that's all.

when saddam obeyed orders, he was our friend.

when osama obeyed our orders, he was our friend.

et cetera. it has nothing to do with anything else.