It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why G Bush is the World's Leading Terrorist!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
WHY GEORGE W. BUSH IS
THE WORLDS LEADING TERRORIST!

Analysis by TvNewsLIES.org

"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." - US Federal Bureau of Investigation

Read the sentence carefully. You didnt hear it on any corporate media newscast since 9/11. Its the official US FBI definition of terrorism. In its official definition, the FBI does not limit terrorism to stateless individuals or groups. In its official definition, the FBI does not suggest that terrorism cannot be perpetrated by the leader of a nation state. But even more amazing is that the official FBI definition of terrorism describes exactly what George Bush did in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11!

*
George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.
*
The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.
*
The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership. These motives were unquestionably political and social.

So, what part of the FBI definition of terrorism do the voters of the United States not understand? And what acts of terrorism as defined by the FBI do the voters of the United States not recognize? Is there any doubt at all that the Bush administration committed acts of terrorism when it unlawfully used force and violence against the nation of Iraq to intimidate and coerce its government and the civilian population, in furtherance of the Bush/PNAC political and social objectives.

Therefore, by any definition, if George W. Bush is guilty of terrorism, he can accurately be identified as a TERRORIST. And if he is truly a terrorist, it is only fitting that George W. Bush be scrutinized in terms of his success in that capacity. What is his standing among the other murderous terrorist activity in the world today? Is it possible that George W. Bush actually has claim to being the very BEST at something during his reign in office? Lets look at the figures.

Much more in full article:

www.tvnewslies.org...



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Very good post Scarlet. I usually don't read posts that have such huge claims in the title because they are usually full of partisan tripe, but I read this, and it's made me think. I don't like Bush, but never would have branded him a terrorist, but hey, if the shoe fits....



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Hmm,

Actually if u/anyone else call/agree Mr. Bush is a terrorist, so for these ppl what would be the definition for Bin Laden or S. Hussein ?
Im sure in this case the correct word for these 2 has not been invented yet.

U/anyone cant say that a person/country which has act in defense for one of the most cruel acts in the world history is a terrorist.
It simply wrong.

There is a diference beetwen kill innocent ppl on purpose and when they die in the middle of a war.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
This is blatant anti-American propaganda and it is especially egregious considering that the remains of 3000 Kurdish men, women, and children are being exhumed from a mass grave in Iraq.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by scarlet
*
The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.
*


" Most frightening and powerful use of force and violence in recent history"
You have to be kidding you really dont know much about wars in the recent history do you. They didnt even take out the lights and power in Iraq. They didnt drop the MOAB a new bomb which would have been the perfect weapon to intimidate people.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Man, the old tripe never stops being tossed about, does it?

And it is still garbage.

The attack against the defacto government in Iraq was not not an act of terror, it was IAW the U.N. all the way back to the end of the first war in Iraq, and as it was not a sudden attack against innocent civilians but a strategic assault against the forces of Hussein after months of warning, I'd say it was nowhere near terrorism. Such stupid garbage as this would label all the campaigns in WWII as terrorism.

Shock and Awe was as strategic as lazer surgery, directed at Hussein's CnC, commo, air defenses, ministries, palaces, etc., and not the people, and so again, that statement was total propaganda.

As a matter of fact, I see again that PNAC is the evil villain according to this article.

I'm sorry, where did I misplace my tinfoil hat. Maybe this garbage will make sense to me if I wear the proper protective gear when reading online.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   
When we take action for being atacked, were Evil. When we go after a murder who was threatening us, his naghbors, and killing his own people, were Evil. If we stood back, and did nothing. We're cowards and still Evil.
Evil to some=Justic and Liberty to others



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Scarlet,

This is a very nice and well-written post, and dont worry about the anti-American tag, you know what you stand for.

The meaning of terrorism is a very truth one and it applies to our president.

Yes you are right the country of Iraq never declared war against US and never attacked US either, yes under bush disregard international laws to take the leader of a sovereign country.

You are right, this president used all the force he could use to attack another country because the leader was a brutal dictator and had MWDs, on the first count it was not enough to go into a conflict on the second count the intelligence was not reliable enough too and it was not an imminent danger that it could not wait until it was verified, the imminent threat was a lie created by bush.

Yes you are right also on the enforcement of democracy and US approved interim PM that does not reflect the Iraqi majority.

Yes bush and company did a good job into confusing the America people into believing that it was a link between Saddam and 9/11 to justify the illegal invasion.

And I agree with you what bush has done to the sovereign country of Iraq and to the Iraqi people was a terrorist attack.

Fantastic post Scarlet.



[edit on 13-10-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is blatant anti-American propaganda and it is especially egregious considering that the remains of 3000 Kurdish men, women, and children are being exhumed from a mass grave in Iraq.


Ironic isnt it? Does it surprise you? But then again it is nice to see that the freedom thing works....



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Uh huh, well, that may be true, however, tell that to the U.N., apparently they aren't powerful enough to bring justice to this "terrorist".

Go talk to the U.N. and politely ask them to "disarm" the U.S. I would love to see the U.N. do that - that would be quite a show.


-wD



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Yes WeBDevil, you are right not country is going to get bush into trial, US have most of the UN countries in his financial hold.

Edsinger and Grady Yes you are both right on the death of so many Kurds, but that is something that neither Bush Jr. and Clinton did anything about it when it happened, if they had taken action then lives would have been saved.

And I will suggest that you watch the turn around of the "democracy " in Iraq when the Kurds in the north will declared that they are not part of Iraq anymore I wonder if US will submit into accepting Iraqi democracy and "elected" president or PM in January.:lol



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Let's not forget that the kurd body count was grossly exagagerated. And if that's the reasons for invading, then we have a lot more countries to invade.

I think our forefathers would be sad to see what we have become. It's not even so much what we're doing, it's how. I don't like bullies. Being a war monger is what is anti-american. In my opinion.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
You are correct Scarlet, Iraq is one issue. The other issue is the people of The United States of America, they have been a target of the Bush administration from day one; 911, anthrax, and DC sniper were all terrorist acts against the American people. The Bush administration has done nothing but try to scare the hell out of us. If George W Bush was not appointed as President by the Supreme Court, there would have been no 911.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
hey LEO, you mind telling me how bush was especially involved in the DC sniper? what leap in sound logic have you made to come up with that one?



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Physiological operations against the American people, Its actually George Herbert Walker Bush running the show, its pretty deep Astroblade.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LEO J
You are correct Scarlet, Iraq is one issue. The other issue is the people of The United States of America, they have been a target of the Bush administration from day one; 911, anthrax, and DC sniper were all terrorist acts against the American people. The Bush administration has done nothing but try to scare the hell out of us. If George W Bush was not appointed as President by the Supreme Court, there would have been no 911.


YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
(go ahead mods, give me the warning)

To link Bush with Anthrax, the DC sniper, and ESPECIALLY 9/11 is pathetic and shows that you have ZERO rational thought.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
There's one problem with the defintion. It doesn't fit the case.


*
George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.


It depends on your perspective. Bush claims that he attacked in self-defense. The beautiful thing about words is that they can be stretched and re-cast. If a Palestinian kids so much as throws a peanut on American soil we can annihilate him and his entire country in a holy maelstrom of nuclear war ... in the name of self-defense. It's the perspective that grants validity to the term. And the UN charter has no provision for establishing if a country acted in self defense or not.



*
The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.


War is ugly. War is violent. War is not only designed to intimidate, but, yes kiddies, it's designed to kill too. This charge is silly.



*
The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership. These motives were unquestionably political and social.


That was a purpose, of many, of the invasion. This is unquestionably the best way to "reform" foreign nations. Democracy has a subtle way of prying a mother country's legs open to capitalistic ... "affection." The Bush modi operandi is Secure American .... by any means neccessary.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is blatant anti-American propaganda and it is especially egregious considering that the remains of 3000 Kurdish men, women, and children are being exhumed from a mass grave in Iraq.
And 30,ooo now dead in Iraq is a better deal, right? Not to mention our own-

Deny Ignorance



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   



It depends on your perspective. Bush claims that he attacked in self-defense. The beautiful thing about words is that they can be stretched and re-cast. If a Palestinian kids so much as throws a peanut on American soil we can annihilate him and his entire country in a holy maelstrom of nuclear war ... in the name of self-defense. It's the perspective that grants validity to the term. And the UN charter has no provision for establishing if a country acted in self defense or not.




No you are wrong bush attacked Afghanistan in self defense from 9/11 Iraq was invaded, Iraq did not attack US, and that is a fact.




War is ugly. War is violent. War is not only designed to intimidate, but, yes kiddies, it's designed to kill too. This charge is silly.



Bush never declared war against the Iraqi people and the "ugly causalties of war are iraqi people that did not had anything to do with 9/11 and the taliban, remember "it was a war of liberation not desimation"

Not matter what color you paint it it is an illegal war with not provocation from the country that US invaded.





That was a purpose, of many, of the invasion. This is unquestionably the best way to "reform" foreign nations. Democracy has a subtle way of prying a mother country's legs open to capitalistic ... "affection." The Bush modi operandi is Secure American .... by any means neccessary.



May I ask to secure US from whom? Sadam was not a thread to the US, and he was not the one behind the 9/11.

While the bin ladden goes free and is keeping US on high alert on "terror" bush got his head stuck in the Iraqis oil. Because at the end is was all for the oil.



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by LEO J
You are correct Scarlet, Iraq is one issue. The other issue is the people of The United States of America, they have been a target of the Bush administration from day one; 911, anthrax, and DC sniper were all terrorist acts against the American people. The Bush administration has done nothing but try to scare the hell out of us. If George W Bush was not appointed as President by the Supreme Court, there would have been no 911.


YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
(go ahead mods, give me the warning)

To link Bush with Anthrax, the DC sniper, and ESPECIALLY 9/11 is pathetic and shows that you have ZERO rational thought.
No idiots post here. Just someone who sees the TRUTH and isnt afraid to speak.
Unleash the ugly Americans 4 more years and see the total destruction of the USA. Reduced to powder because of Bush policies and crimes against humanity.
STUPID? i DONT THINK SO. Realistic, yes.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join