what qualifies one to be branded a terrorist?is Bush one of them?

Question

My question is based on the fact that Bush is killing to many innocent Iraqis.I don,t see much difference between him and Sadaam or Osama

Answer 1

ter·ror·ism (tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on U.S. interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism.

(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.

Answer 2

I could give you the textbook definition that basically says that terrorists are those who use violence, etc.. to terrorize whomever it is that they oppose. A good example of a true terrorist would be a bully at a school. The bully uses fear of ones weaker than he is in order to get whatever he wants.

Now pay close attention because this is where my definition of terrorism differs from most. I'll explain.

I actually see the USA as the terrorist and the insurgents in Iraq as the victims that have decided to fight back in the only way they can. Like the bully example, the weaker kid can't take the bully head to head because he is stronger so in order to fight back he must become 'sneaky' etc...otherwise he must give up and let the bully continue to control his life.

Now before you get excited and say I am not a patriot or hate my country etc.. let me clarify that real quick: just because I see this truth does not mean I hate my country. It does not mean I agree with those trying to hurt us. It means that I see what is going on and want to fix/change it.

Many politicians and historians told Bush when he first started all this that he should instead be looking at what we did to make them hate us so much rather than use cowboy diplomacy to bully the world. He did not listen and now we are the brink of ww3.

If you listen to Bush, he says that the terrorist hate freedom and are Islamic Fascists. That is just something he made up to motivate the masses. Al Queda led by B.Laden spawned out of Afghanistan after a long war there against Russia. You see, we funded B.Laden in that war because we didn't want Russia to win. Then later we basically dropped B.Laden like a hot potato causing them a lot of despair after we were done using them.. there is a lot more but that is where their hatred for us came from.

Then you have the insurgents in Iraq. They are simply ppl trying to defend their country and their way of life from an occupation. Sure we may not agree with their way of life but wouldn't we do the same if the shoe was on the other foot?

Lastly you have Hezbollah and the Palestinians... this one goes deeper and farther back. This argument has no one side that is right and no one side that is wrong. This battle is all about who has the right to Jerusalem.

Now, if you examine each scenario I gave you, you see that what we are calling terrorist are those that do not have the military capabilities others have so in order to fight, they must resort to other means. Means much like our militia here used to defeat the British during the American Revolution. We could not take the British head to head on the battle field so we did what we had to do.

This is my opinion on terrorism. You may not agree but I do hope I helped you understand both sides.

Answer 3

1. In the Bush era, you are a terrorist if the Bush administration says you are. Once labeled a terrorist, you don't have any recourse -- no rights, no courts, no laws. You will be stashed away in some rat-hole as though you had vanished into thin air. The administration is the judge, juror and executor of your fate.

2. Yes, by a reasonable standard as being responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in an illegal, manufactured war.

Answer 4

Bush and his administration convinced the American ppl that going to war with Iraq was a neccessity and he had their approval. The difference was that Saddam was a dictator who killed his own people by the thousands to stay in power and warring with his neighbors like Kuwait and Iran for control of their oilfields. Osama thought he was fighting for Allah and killing of ppl even his own kind was justifiable in accordance with the Koran. Taking all the killings into consideration, there is not much difference, but then it depends on one's view as to whether the actions were justifable or not.

Answer 5

In my opinion yes, why the hell did America invade Iraq in the first place ? Just because Bush said that they have weapons of mass destruction ? And those weapons still weren't found after almost 4 years ! Not only is this war a failure but an unjustified act of aggression from America in order to get a little more cheap oil.

Answer 6

Iraqis and terrorists from other regions of the ME are killing too many innocent Iraqis and THEY are the ones who bare the responsibility for their continued demise, not us.

Answer 7

Why you lying? Your Al Queda brethren are killing Iraquis B! We know the lies you tell and aint it a shame we are too smart to fall for rubbish like you? Hah!

Answer 8

Why might he even ought to? he's nicely known, and there are nonetheless people who do like ie. suport him. all and sundry has enemies/haters, and not all and sundry is in the witness risk-free practices application doll.

Answer 9

specifically who did bush kill and how? you have no facts or basis for facts here so your question has no answer as it makes no sense. as you obviously have liberal slant, the real problem here is skewed reasoning. you dont see much difference...LMFAO..ROFL....
you need to stop reading the pelosi press releases and face reality.

Answer 10

Then Harry Truman was the biggest terrorist of them all. You are a leftist nitwit..get lost.