All over Latin America they called Bush the world's biggest terrorist. Are they wrong?

Question

His war in Iraq is worse than 200 9/11s.

Brilliant, TE. I guess by your logic Hitler didn't kill anyone either.

Fraginal - do you really want to be the last one in America who thinks Iraq was aiding al Qaeda?

Real Estate - would you believe that Brazil and Venezuela don't need our money or technical help? Why don't you travel the world a bit instead of just whinging about fur'ners.

tajunajcw, you are entitled to your opinion that America should fight Israel's wars for it, but that it is a minority view even among "progressive" Democrats. In any event, the war is illegal under international law and that is certainly relevant under some definitions of terrorism.

Under the definition YOU provided us with, however, "the threat of deadly force for the purpose of achieveing [sic] a political, economic, or social outcome", Bush is prima facie guilty, since he not only threatened but used deadly force against Iraq, including of course Iraqi civilians, to achieve his preferred political, economic, and social outcomes.

Moreover, since the Saddam regime inhibited the sectarian conflict that has been stimulated by Bush's invasion, it is entirely appropriate to blame him for that violence as well.

This takes us upwards of 650,000 violent deaths in Iraq since 2003, per the Lancet study, which is why the war is worse than 200 911s.

Answer 1

Uh, well he did start a war and made up the reasons to do so. If any other world leader had done this they'd be tried as a war criminal. It amazes me the things this guy does!

Answer 2

Yes, they're wrong. Even though I disagree with Bush and I think he is incompetent , I don't think he is a terrorist. He isn't like Hitler nor is his war a genocide. His intentions were good though mislead by faulty information and those people in Latin America are led by Socialist presidents. Most of them don't even know the whole complex issue about Iraq nor why did we go in the first place. They have no right to criticize our president (though I don't like him) because they're not U.S. citizens and aren't living here. You should stop acting like a loony hippie and get serious.

Answer 3

No he's not. You can call him a dunce, idiot, retard, even a war monger (although I don't agree).

He put this war in motion, and yes there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths, but not at Bush's command, the insugients have no affiliation with Bush or the US. Heck, they're not even there to help the Iraqi people. If a kid needs your help and you go over to help them and another kid who doesn't like you goes and hits him, is that your fault?

There are no commands going out to target and kill innocent civillians, nor are there any orders for our troops to go into a crowded square to blow themselves up with the goal of killing as many people as they can.

The war itself is over. We're policing there now, slowly succeeding in bring insugient violence down. Our troops are building schools, recreation centers, providing medical aid to Iraqi's. I saw on the news today that a new medical facility opened up in Baghdad. Is it common for a "terrorist" to counteract their "terrorism" for the people their bringing terror to?

Beyond that, by definition, a terrorist is a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities; and isn't affiliated with the government. And the terrorists that are there are there because they oppose what we're trying to establish, most Iraqi's don't.

Bush is the president, and with the backing of congress invaded Iraq. As mistimed as it was and as poorly as it has been plan and executed by our leaders (and our troops are awesome as their doing well with such poor leadership from our pres), it was an act of war, with defined rules of engagement, and a somewhat defined goal (one that's not just kill whoever you can until they've had enough and sucumb or die).

But as you've pointed out, much of the insurgients are there because of the US invasion. They're not going to go away. So is it less of a "terroristic" act to just leave the Iraqi's to the wolves after drawing them there?

Answer 4

I am a progressive Democrat and no Bush fan...well, not that kinda bush. Anyway, your premise is actually sort of bizarre...and very, very wrong.

We first have to agree on exactly what makes one a terrorist. For me, the definition is: The intentional targeting of non-combatants with deadly force, or the threat of deadly force for the purpose of achieveing a political, economic, or social outcome.

By this standard, it impossible to classify Bush as terrorist, unless you ignore the realities of war.

As for the Iraq War being "worse than 200 9/11s"...this is almost not worth responding to, but I'll take a crack at it.

No WMDs should have been required to justify attacking Iraq. It was stupid of the administration to base its entire argument on that. There were plenty of other reasons to attack Sadaam. For example, he actively paid and supported terrorists in Israel (this is undisputed). He actively called for the destruction of Israel. He invaded two neighboring nations. He committed the worst act of environment terrorism in all of human history. You breathed in the particulate from the oil fires which took more than a year to extinguish, the smoke encircling the globe dozens of times. He massacred his own people.

The list goes on and on.

So, the removal of Hussein was, in my view, more than justified. Now, what has transpired since the end of the initial phase of the war is unfortunate to say the least, but Bush is not to blame. Every time a terrorist straps on a bomb he is making a conscious decision to perpetuate the violence. Bush is not forcing him to do it. So, one may not rightfully blame Bush for the insurgency. Remember, most of the terrorist attacks there are Shia vs. Sunni (or the other way around).

9/11 not a military attack in anyway. It was 100% terrorism. I will concede that if an official war had been declared by Al Queda, then the Pentagon was a legitimate target because of its command and control function. However, the use of a civilian aircraft loaded with non-combatants is unforgiveably evil and makes that attack an act of terrorism. And, the only reason Bin Laden has ever given for the attack was the presence of the "infidels" on Saudi soil. Hardly a reasonable explanation for taking innocent lives.

He was referring, of course, to our military advisors and troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia as a result of, ironically, the actions of Sadaam Hussein in attacking Kuwait. In other words, the seeds of 9/11 were sewn in August of 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

In sum, Bush a terrorist? Absolutely not.

Bush an idiot? (especially on domestic policy) Absolutely.

I think you need some more clarity in your historical vision.

Good Luck!

;o)

Rebuttal to "Longhair":

First, I did not advocate fighting Israel's wars, they are more than capable of doing that themselves. However, Israel is our most important ally in the region and merits our protection. Numerous polls indicate strong support for Israel among Americans (45-78%). So, if you do not support Israel, than yours is the minority view.

Second, you cannot reasonably suggest that we INTENTIONALLY target non-combatants. Do we sometimes kill civilians? Yes. But do we spend a lot of time, money, and effort to minimize "collateral" deaths? ABSOLUTELY! We have come a long way from the indiscriminate carpet bombing (and nukes) we used in WWII.

Third, although sectarian violence was predictable at the outset of the war, it is still not the fault of the American administration...it is exclusively the fault of the purpetrators.

Finally, if you are going to justify, or not justify a conflict based solely on the number of casualties irrespective of the righteousness of the cause, then probably no war would be justified in your view. Are you a pacifist?

Do you understand and agree with Edmund Burke?

"For Evil to triumph, it is only necessary that the Good do nothing." Yes, I paraphrased it.

Personally, I believe that if you have the power to stop evil, then you also have the moral obligation to do so.

We have the power, like it or not, we have the power.

Answer 5

In 1984 the small u . s . of latest Zealand asked traveling American ships of conflict to declare any radioactive cloth that could desire to reason an twist of fate in a clean Zealand Port so the needed amenities might desire to be on stand bye.. the U. S. government of the day refused and NZ refused to enable ships in without putting forward their shipment, which incorporate u . s . vessels of conflict. The reaction for this little island international locations stance replace into to shrink off all of latest Zealand exports and additionally dictate to them, international locations that they might sell to.. It almost bankrupted New Zealand on the time and forced the folk to have "no motor vehicle days" as there replace into no money obtainable to import oils.. New Zealand suffered dearly in this time, exceedingly harmless people, the medically based ones who did no longer have the life giving drugs to maintain them alive. sure the united states replace into and nonetheless is an business terrorist while it fits them.. it rather is gloomy to this very day.

Answer 6

No, they are right. That opinion now prevails around the planet. He is scaring the by jeebies out of people so bad at one stop in Latin America, some Priests or Holy Men came to purify and cast out the EVIL from the spots where he stood or sat....Mary

Answer 7

They are correct. He is aware of the mass murders resulting from his decisions. Examples of his terror are plentiful.
Saddam, along with his dead sons, is now a confirmed martyr because of Bush. Saddam showed he defended himself against those trying to murder him, many bankrolled by the USA.

Bush is a moron. He has directly provided aid to Colombia to murder its own citizens. Surely his father (GHWB) told him of the aid to Iraq and the murders in that country - which was aided for years before (man bites dog) it was attacked in search of phony WMD, and NOT related to 911.

Chavez is correct in that Bush is an embodiment of evil, a living devil, albeit aided by his feeble minded ignorance.

Answer 8

Well, I've seen zero evidence that Bush has targeted civilians for death bombing civilian structures with the pure intent of inflicting mass civilian casualties, have you?

Inflicting massive civilian casualties, ON PURPOSE AND BY INTENT (Not as a byproduct) is the very definition of "terrorism".

Again, where, and when, has Bush targeted civilians, ON PURPOSE, to cause mass civilian casualties?

Answer 9

No they are not wrong !! Exactly ! War in iraq is worse than 9/11.......

Answer 10

Wrong use of the word, Bush's intent is not to terrorize anybody.

His heart is in the write place by he keeps messing up. However, terrorist he is not. Although the wars he initiated have killed in excess of 300,000 people terrorism was never his agenda. He would be better labeled as a war monger.