CDRLabs.com

dodecahedron wrote:

dolphinius_rex wrote:The fact is, Bush is the single greatest terrorist threat in the world.

what unbelieveable BULLSHIT!

No, it's not bullshit at all. Bush is a big terrorist, Ariel Sharon from Israel is a slightly smaller terrorist,, and Tony Blair from England is a very small terrorist.

interesting that in your delightful list of terrorists you don't add such as:
Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden = El Qaida, PLO = Fatah, Hizballa, IRA, Badder Meinhoff, Basque movement in Spain (forgot their name), Red Brigades, these are just a few off the top of my head.
there are plenty more, especially in the 3rd world. but who remembers their names? because who gives a shit about what happens in the third world, right? (excpet when it actually affects you guys in the 1st world directly or indirectly)


like i said in a prevoust post, it appears you don't know the meaning of the word terrorism.
you need a dictionary or an education.

dodecahedron wrote:interesting that in your delightful list of terrorists you don't add such as:
Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden = El Qaida, PLO = Fatah, Hizballa, IRA, Badder Meinhoff, Basque movement in Spain (forgot their name), Red Brigades, these are just a few off the top of my head.
there are plenty more, especially in the 3rd world. but who remembers their names? because who gives a shit about what happens in the third world, right? (excpet when it actually affects you guys in the 1st world directly or indirectly)


like i said in a prevoust post, it appears you don't know the meaning of the word terrorism.
you need a dictionary or an education.

You forgot to add the Kim family in North Korea. They were able to kill 30,000 US troops and higher number of Korean civilians than the number of all the war victims in Japan during the WWII. China and Japan didn't care much even though they were the two closest countries. China sent troops only because the progress of US divisions to China-Korea border appeared to be threatening to them and Japan sold automobiles and other industrial products for their own profits. NK is one of the worst terrorist countries in the world even now. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, NK is somehow protected by the proximity of China with 1.3 billion people.

One of the two major presidential candidates in South Korea told the South Korean nation that he would go to jail for the money his party accepted from LG, Samsung, Hyundai, SK, and who knows whom else. It goes about 50,000,000,000 won but the exact number will never be fully revealed. The investigation has just been started. It's not that big money considering that a average South Korean president could earn US$1 billion just from bribery in the past. I can't think such things could survive this long without the continued presence of military threat from North Korea. And South Korean corruption helps North Korea keep their nationalist-communist dictatorshp. A grand win-win strategy.

terrorism

n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

-Dictionary.com

Again, look at Bush's Shock and Awe compaign... Also, Bush has a very strong agenda of *literally* forcing democracy on any nations not currently using it. That may sound great, but the fact is, he has *no* right to do that... and that again is a form of terrorism.

Why is he the biggest terrorist threat? He has the most nukes, and a passion for war.

dolphinius_rex wrote:

terrorism

n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

-Dictionary.com

Again, look at Bush's Shock and Awe compaign... Also, Bush has a very strong agenda of *literally* forcing democracy on any nations not currently using it. That may sound great, but the fact is, he has *no* right to do that... and that again is a form of terrorism.

Why is he the biggest terrorist threat? He has the most nukes, and a passion for war.

Forcing democracy is terrorism?

Ian wrote:Too bad this is going to boost Bush's approval rating. For awhile there, I don't know who was disliked more: Bush or Saddam.

That was easy for me to decide. who killed millions of his own people?


And as for Bush being a terrorist? Removing a ruthless genocidal dictator from power is terrorism?

As for the weapons of mass destruction missing:
Remember before the removal of Saddam, how they wouldnt let the weapons inspectors look around and how much time they had to hide the WMD?

Kennyshin wrote:Forcing democracy is terrorism?

Democracy can't be forced on anyone. Defeats the entire purpose.

Kennyshin wrote:

dodecahedron wrote:interesting that in your delightful list of terrorists you don't add such as:
Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden = El Qaida, PLO = Fatah, Hizballa, IRA, Badder Meinhoff, Basque movement in Spain (forgot their name), Red Brigades, these are just a few off the top of my head.
there are plenty more, especially in the 3rd world. but who remembers their names? because who gives a shit about what happens in the third world, right? (excpet when it actually affects you guys in the 1st world directly or indirectly)


like i said in a prevoust post, it appears you don't know the meaning of the word terrorism.
you need a dictionary or an education.

You forgot to add the Kim family in North Korea. They were able to kill 30,000 US troops and higher number of Korean civilians than the number of all the war victims in Japan during the WWII. China and Japan didn't care much even though they were the two closest countries. China sent troops only because the progress of US divisions to China-Korea border appeared to be threatening to them and Japan sold automobiles and other industrial products for their own profits. NK is one of the worst terrorist countries in the world even now. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, NK is somehow protected by the proximity of China with 1.3 billion people.

One of the two major presidential candidates in South Korea told the South Korean nation that he would go to jail for the money his party accepted from LG, Samsung, Hyundai, SK, and who knows whom else. It goes about 50,000,000,000 won but the exact number will never be fully revealed. The investigation has just been started. It's not that big money considering that a average South Korean president could earn US$1 billion just from bribery in the past. I can't think such things could survive this long without the continued presence of military threat from North Korea. And South Korean corruption helps North Korea keep their nationalist-communist dictatorshp. A grand win-win strategy.

I lived in Korea During Sept 11th 2001. I remember going to the Korean War Memorial in Seoul next to yongsan Army Garrison, and was really educated on the Korean War. The brutality of the North to civilians was as horrific as Saddam, or Hitler. I hope we can topple that regime and reunite all the people of Korea.


Calling Bush a terrorist is like saying someones a racist for arresting a black guy. You play that card so many times it loses its meaning. You can like or dislike someone, or disagree with thier polcies, but comparing Bush to Osama, or Hitler, Or Saddam insults every victim of the latter three.

When Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein made illegal acts of war, they were accused of it, and people can have a chance of rallying against them. When the U.S. commits a war crime, they make it legal because they are big and powerful, and the rest of the world cowers.

dolphinius_rex wrote:When Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein made illegal acts of war, they were accused of it, and people can have a chance of rallying against them. When the U.S. commits a war crime, they make it legal because they are big and powerful, and the rest of the world cowers.

EXCEPT Pres.Bush and Sec.of State Powell went to the UN before invading to gather support.I don't recall Saddam going to the UN before he invaded Iran or Kuwait.
If you read or watch the news the majority of Iraqis are glad that Saddam is captured and they are free.
@Kennyshin,
I agree with you on the Kim family,that is another brutal dictatorship that must end.Kim Sr. idea of invading South Korea and unify it into a communist dictatorship in 1950 was proof enough,his son is carrying on with his fathers demented policies.The day all of Korea is free and reunited and US troops come home will be a great day.

I think this says it all...

Top Vatican official feels pity for Saddam:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3727325/

So, showing a video of Saddam having his mouth examined warrants a stern condemnation, but the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam killed over the years aren't even worth a passing mention. Some people's sense of compassion is completely confused.

Of course, we also have from earlier:

The Holy See has learned with deep pain of the development of the latest events in Iraq. On the one hand, it is to be regretted that the Iraqi government did not accept the resolutions of the United Nations and the appeal of the Pope himself, as both asked that the country disarm. On the other hand, it is to be deplored that the path of negotiations, according to international law, for a peaceful solution of the Iraqi drama has been interrupted.

( http://www.indcatholicnews.com/hswar.html )

Saddam's actions were regrettable, but Bush's were deplorable???? How did this world lose it's way so badly and become so unable to discern right from wrong, good from evil?

I think the nations and peoples of the world who hold these types of views ought to get over their jealousy and envy of the United States and examine their real motives for unfailingly condemning anything the United States does as evil, and praising anyone who opposes the United States as heroic and good. Such thinking is uncritical, unrealisitc, and counterproductive to their stated goal of promoting world peace. It is time all took responsibility for their actions or lack thereof, and stopped childishly blaming the United States for all the world's woes.

cfitz

i agree with cfitz, however, it is not a great idea humiliate the enemy no matter what the enemy did, because some day, the enemy might get back at you.
Take WWI for example, Germany was forced to take all the blame and pay for the war, this was very humiliating, what happened years later? Germany attacked again and caused a lot of harm, even making France surrender in the same place that Germany surrendered at the end of WWI.

oh really, cfitz, come now...
you're expecting OBJECTIVE MORALITY from the VATICAN ???

might as well go looking for compassion from Senior Torquemada.

I wasn't accusing the Vatican in particular. I just got started when I saw that first article about feeling pity for Saddam. I thought that was pretty outrageous, but for the sake of balance and fairness I tried to search for a Vatican pronouncement that condemned Saddam. Not to say that such a condemnation doesn't exist, but all I came up with was the second statement. That's what drove me to post.

By the way, I also found a statement where the Vatican declared the latest war in Iraq to be unjust because, in part, it wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations. Since when does the Vatican look to the United Nations for moral guidance? That seems pretty backwards to me as well. I think most everyone would agree that there is a higher authority on right and wrong than the United Nations (without limiting that authority to any one religion).

cfitz

dodecahedron wrote:oh really, cfitz, come now...
you're expecting OBJECTIVE MORALITY from the VATICAN ???

might as well go looking for compassion from Senior Torquemada.

EXACTLY!
Where was the Vatican during WWII when millions of innocent people were being slaughtered?

BTW..I'm not anti-Catholic/Christian but the Vaticans hypocrisy makes me sick.

Saddam's actions were regrettable, but Bush's were deplorable???? How did this world lose it's way so badly and become so unable to discern right from wrong, good from evil?

I think the nations and peoples of the world who hold these types of views ought to get over their jealousy and envy of the United States and examine their real motives for unfailingly condemning anything the United States does as evil, and praising anyone who opposes the United States as heroic and good. Such thinking is uncritical, unrealisitc, and counterproductive to their stated goal of promoting world peace. It is time all took responsibility for their actions or lack thereof, and stopped childishly blaming the United States for all the world's woes.

Rich, Western nations (not just the US, although they are the largest and most powerful offender at this time) have a terrible record of bankrolling tyrants, when it suits them.

We in the West are far too complacent when it comes to our questioning of our own governments' motives. Yes, there are awful, evil dictatorships in this world, many, many more than Saddam. But many have been backed up by so-called free democracies (and speaking as a Brit I am all too aware of the hideous leaders my country has sought alliances with). Many more have been allowed to continue for reasons of convenience (the Taliban for a long while due to their crackdown on the heroin trade being one of the most recent). There isn't much we (the people) can really do about these countries directly if our governments turn a blind eye or act unethically (especially as most so-called "democracies" are two-party systems where both parties are as corrupt as each other). We can however start with Messrs. Bush, Blair, Chirac etc.

It will be very interesting to see what comes of the new "democracy" in Iraq. If the people vote for a Baathist representative, or a radical Islamist, will the West accept this? Or will it be a repetition of democratically-elected hard-left parties forcibly ousted in Western-backed coups once again? We will see.

I will also remind readers of where my esteemed leader (and local MP) comes from. He was initially active in the left-wing of this country's socialist Labour party (although he has since changed his spots). He was a member of CND, and his early politics weren't too far removed from what many Americans might consider "communism" (in favour of the state control of the utilities, the rail network, even our car industry). Yet this is the man who is now Bush's closest ally? If he'd become leader of a South American state in the early 80s with his views as they were, Reagan would have wanted him dead.

MikeTR wrote:

Kennyshin wrote:Forcing democracy is terrorism?

Democracy can't be forced on anyone. Defeats the entire purpose.

Quite right. "You will be free, whether you like it or not".

And in any case, for Western nations, the word "Democracy" is often used where "Capitalism" is what is meant.

Take the EU. Accepts countries like Hungary with open arms. Ignoring the appalling treatment of Roma people in that country. Ah, but they have a liberal economy, so everything's OK then. Makes you sick, doesn't it?

Great post,I must say.....


::Pranav::

No, it's not bullshit at all. Bush is a big terrorist, Ariel Sharon from Israel is a slightly smaller terrorist,, and Tony Blair from England is a very small terrorist.

It´s been a long time since my last post.....but i really loved this one COULDN´T AGREE MORE...

We´ll see if the godfather for "peace" will be so energic and efective in palestina for example

it's been a long time since you were here, Flyer 22.
i was pleasantly surprised to see your name on the last post...then i saw what your wrote, and now i feel it's too bad you came back.

you´re from israel or so right??

man i feel like the US are nothing but a lot of imperialists...atacking in the name of PEACE.... but ok....each one is untitled to its opinion right??


BTW.....sorry i was away for so long....school....and other portuguese foruns have kept me busy

CHEERS EVERYONE.... /me returns

pranav81 wrote:Great post,I must say.....


::Pranav::

I can't work out whether you're being sarcastic here....

@dodecahedron: I really don't like getting involved in debates about the Israel/Palestine issue, mainly because there is so much misinformation on both sides it's difficult to be objective about the whole thing.

Although given the news just coming through about the Israeli soldier who shot a British onlooker in the forehead, leaving him brain-dead, then tried to make out that firstly he was armed, then that it was a "warning" shot, and the evidence that this sort of action is far from being an isolated incident, I suspect that Isreal really needs to look again at the training of its armed forces. I accept that there is a need to take out terrorists in Palestinian areas, but the gung-ho trigger-happy attitude shown by many Israeli soldiers is leading to far too many deaths and injuries and is doing the Israeli cause no good whatsoever -- the mere fact that three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed in the last year of conflict demonstrates that either the Palestinians are grossly inefficient at terrorism or Israel is demonstrating a distinct lack of respect for innocents on the other side.

The question has to be asked, if British forces had responded to acts of terrorism, day in and day out, by shooting up residential areas, whether the US government would have backed us so loyally in our fight against terrorism? I suspect not -- in the incidents when our forces did act abhorrently (Bloody Sunday for instance, a disgusting example of what happens when overreaction to a perceived threat leads to unforgivable acts of terrorism by the so-called peacekeepers) we were rightly derided. It is far too convenient to dismiss such tragedies as the effects of a war, but no right-minded person could possibly see this as justifiable.

Hell,no sarcasm at all.It really is interesting to see some people supporting Bush and others calling him terrorist.


::Pranav::