[luke warm]

The_Hog, on Dec 28 2006, 05:35 AM, said:

Jimmy, I can tell you honestly that I and many of my friends regard the present US administration as the most frightening one this world has seen. Many of us regard Bush as a terrorist.

i don't believe bush to be anywhere close to being a terrorist, although i also have been frightened by many of the new laws / executive decisions since 9/11... i believe our freedoms in this country have been whittled away, in the name of security, and i disagree with the concept... it will only get worse, i'm afraid

winston:

Quote

But if there is a legitamacy to their claims, I would think anyone would consider it important to understand what would drive a group to such violence and whether or not future generations could be prevented by the simple expedient of eliminating the injustices.

i'm sorry winston but this puts us back at the starting point... what injustices? what is 'just'? in whose eyes? since i haven't seen a definition (yet) of 'terrorist' that i like better than the one i gave, it's my view that courses of action based on an understanding of what drives such groups can only be implemented once the groups themselves are destroyed

[pbleighton]

"As for the election, the vast majority of the country either voted for the accused war criminal Bush or did not bother to vote at all. A non cast vote is just as guilty if think the guy is a War criminal or the worst administration you have "ever seen in the history of the world"."

Again, Mike, how is this relevant to whether Bush is.. well, anything?

Peter

[Winstonm]

I do not think Bush is a terrorist - War criminal, yes. Delusional, yes.

I agree we cannot pin the blame on Bush - it was the U.S.A. that put him in office, and that is all of us who have the right to vote.

I originally was in favor of the war as I believed the Bush/Cheney/Powell claims of WMD, etc. I really didn't think all of them would propogate such a massive lie - I was wrong.

I think there is some validity to Mike's idea concerning lack of citizenship - the most formative time in life is the early years and children can be cruel - I would imagine that there is some degree of "better than you" mentality in the children due to nationalization - the parents perhaps inadvertantly instill it with jokes and inuendos.

I agree with Jimmy that the laws passed since 9-11 are frightening. In my view these laws are a greater threat to freedom than any terrorist group ever could be.
The fact that the laws have been passed to me means the terrorists have already won - the new Congress I hope has the nerve to undo this madness.

Yet I still believe that in the acts of terrorism lie a basis of injustices - injustices in the eyes of the terrorists if not the world.

Perhaps if I gave a homegrown example my meaning might be better understood - the Oklahoma City Murrow Building bombing by McVeigh and Nichols.

That bombing was carried out as a result of the perceived injustices of the actions taken by the ATF, FBI, and the federal government against the Davidians.

I will save time by cutting to the chase - who or why the fire started is irrelevant - the point of Waco (if you have read extensively) was a trumped up charge in order to have a huge ATF victory filmed by the media just before Congressional budgets were to be finalized.

It was this usage of admitedly an "odd" group via police action for political gain that is the heart of the injustice - the way to prevent a future repeat of the OKC bonbing comes in a revamping of the actions of the ATF to make certain that rights are not trampled and all citizens, no matter how odd, are treated fairly and legally. It is not the ordinary joe who needs his rights protected - it is the one who is at the edge of society who has most need of the freedoms the Constitution grants.

If the ATF had not been so "hell bent" on headlines before the budget there never would have been a Waco tragedy and therefore no need for McVeigh/Nichols to look for revenge.

This is what I mean by understanding the injustices - terrorists have a motive and sometimes that motive can be genuine, although never justifying the terrorist act.
To reduce hostility in the world, the best bet is to reduce anger, and the best way to reduce anger is to treat all in fairness.

[mike777]

I have not seen the movie but there is a French movie out there that takes this European immigrant issue to an extreme conclusion. I am not sure of the title but I bet someone can google it, Block 17?

[the hog]

"This post explains alot to those of us who thought some of the posts(not yours) were close to insane."

Lol. Well thats something anyway. Whether you regard Bush as a terrorist or not depends on your definition of that word. It fits mine.

To digress a little: What I do want you to realise is that these comments are not "Yank bashing". Quite the contrary; I count some Americans among my very good friends.

I feel the same way about the current Australian Govt and our current Prime Minister who over the past 10 years has totally changed the face of this country to be a mean spirited caricature of itself. The generosity and welcoming attitude of Australians is a thing of the past. Many of us are ashamed of the inhumane incarceration of asylum seekers in this country. Yes you get the government you deserve; unfortunately I have this government and I certainly did not vote for it.

[Al_U_Card]

As previously mentioned, terrorism is as much timing as it is method and reason. The use of violence or intimidation or threat or lucre qualifies the individual for categorization as a terrorist until he has "won". Terrorists only exist as long as they have yet to win. Once they have won they can be reclassified as patriots or freedom fighters or warriors or mercenaries, as you will.

[Winstonm]

Came across this and thought it might add something to this thread:

"Now, Bush is broadening the war’s parameters yet again, depicting the goal of his Middle East policy as defeating “radicals and extremists,” categories that are even more elastic than the word “terrorist.”

At a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Dec. 7, Bush said, “I believe we’re in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists.” Bush has repeated this formulation in other recent public appearances, including at his news conference of Dec. 20 when he portrayed the fight against “radicals and extremists” as a long-term test of American manhood....

In other words, the war against “terrorist groups of global reach,” which became the “global war on terrorism,” now has morphed into what might be called the “global war on radicals and extremists,” a dramatic escalation of the war’s ambitions with nary a comment from the U.S. news media.

So, under Bush’s new war framework, the enemy doesn’t necessarily have to commit or plot acts of international terrorism or even local acts of terrorism. It only matters that Bush judges the person to be a “radical” or an “extremist.” While the word “terrorism” is open to abuse – under the old adage “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” – the definition of “radical” or “extremist” is even looser. It all depends on your point of view. "

[Al_U_Card]

We all know the meaning and import of "circus maximus". What we have here is a combination of linguistic legerdemain, mysanthropic mesmerism and bilateral belligerance. Unlike another type of "manhood" this little dick continues to follow the instructions of Big Dick.