• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Terrorism Defined

The Rev

New member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
"The DOD definition of terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
- TERRORISM DEFINED, U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-20, Stability and Support Operations, (Final Draft), "Chapter 8: Combating Terrorism."

"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and 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.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)"
- FBI - Counterterrorism Threat Assessment and Warning Unit Counterterrorism Division, "TERRORISM in the United States 1999"


OK if we can agree with those definitions a country that funds rebels or attacks another sovereign nation unprovoked is in fact committing a terrorist act. Simple!

The Rev
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Rev said:
"The DOD definition of terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
- TERRORISM DEFINED, U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-20, Stability and Support Operations, (Final Draft), "Chapter 8: Combating Terrorism."

"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and 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.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)"
- FBI - Counterterrorism Threat Assessment and Warning Unit Counterterrorism Division, "TERRORISM in the United States 1999"


OK if we can agree with those definitions a country that funds rebels or attacks another sovereign nation unprovoked is in fact committing a terrorist act. Simple!

The Rev
Sounds exactly like what Bush did to Iraq.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Rev said:
"The DOD definition of terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
- TERRORISM DEFINED, U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-20, Stability and Support Operations, (Final Draft), "Chapter 8: Combating Terrorism."

"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and 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.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)"
- FBI - Counterterrorism Threat Assessment and Warning Unit Counterterrorism Division, "TERRORISM in the United States 1999"


OK if we can agree with those definitions a country that funds rebels or attacks another sovereign nation unprovoked is in fact committing a terrorist act. Simple!

The Rev
I like this one better:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.
 

The Rev

New member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
MiamiFlorida said:
I like this one better:
Well the DOD definition is simple; therefore we citizens are less likely to get caught by some fallacious logic. I'm not saying your definition is flawed, but the longer the definitions become the easier it is to deceive the readers.

I will make a prediction that this post doesn't get much discussion. It's a lot easier to forget about the truth than it is to face it. The American people support Terrorism as defined by the DOD. WOW now let’s all forget about it and support our troops.

We've been duped.

Rev
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,334
Reaction score
10,599
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Rev said:
Well the DOD definition is simple; therefore we citizens are less likely to get caught by some fallacious logic. I'm not saying your definition is flawed, but the longer the definitions become the easier it is to deceive the readers.

I will make a prediction that this post doesn't get much discussion. It's a lot easier to forget about the truth than it is to face it. The American people support Terrorism as defined by the DOD. WOW now let’s all forget about it and support our troops.

We've been duped.

Rev

You've been duped. Welcome to reality. Your freedoms haven't come and haven't been defended by the "gentlemanly art of war."
 

The Rev

New member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
GySgt,

So you're agreeing that America supports terrorism. I thought Terrorists were evil and the USA is against evil.

Rev
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,334
Reaction score
10,599
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Rev said:
GySgt,

So you're agreeing that America supports terrorism. I thought Terrorists were evil and the USA is against evil.

Rev

Well, if that's what you think.

America does what is in it's best interest. It always has. Try not to think of things as in terms of good and evil. It's them against us and if you have a problem deciding on which side you would rather be on and the lifestyle you want then you really don't understand terrorism.

Now, if you look for the last time Americans dropped a couple planes on a foreign city, or the last time Americans set off bombs after targetting civilians, or the last time Americans chopped off a few heads and video taped it to the glee of millions of other Americans..you won't find it. People tend to use the "connect the dots" theory when throwing their government into the same category as these animals.

I hear things like...
We helped Bin Laden repell the Soviet, therefore Americans encouraged 9/11.
or
We have kept the stability between Shi'ites and Sunni for the uniterupted flow of oil to the world (and us), therefore we encouraged Islamic extremism.
or
We armed Hussein aginst Iran, therefore we backed his slaughter of his own people.
or
We allied against Communism during WWII, therefore we encouraged a Cold War.
or
We support rebellions and place new leadership in government in South America because of the war on drugs, therefor when those individuals become worse on their people than the overthrown, we back terrorism.

The "connect the dots" theory is lame and it can be done with every nation that does what it must for it's people.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
You've been duped. Welcome to reality. Your freedoms haven't come and haven't been defended by the "gentlemanly art of war."
Actually america lost freedoms since the war started.
Since the pilgrims landed its been one war after another, with no gain except capital gains.

sorry I may not be a graduate of Harvard ,or of the upper crust, but I know what is real ,and what is propaganda.
how much freedom or capital gain = 1 dead marine
just for the record I would like to know
with all the american soldiers that have died over the last 100 years
how much freedom was actually bought
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,334
Reaction score
10,599
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Canuck said:
Actually america lost freedoms since the war started.
Since the pilgrims landed its been one war after another, with no gain except capital gains.

sorry I may not be a graduate of Harvard ,or of the upper crust, but I know what is real ,and what is propaganda.
how much freedom or capital gain = 1 dead marine
just for the record I would like to know
with all the american soldiers that have died over the last 100 years
how much freedom was actually bought
...and what freedoms have Americans lost? Please enlighten me. Let me guess...."The Patriot ACT"...right? Get real.

I think I'll just invite you to crack a history book and laugh at you. Enjoy your reading.
 

The Rev

New member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
It's no lie that the US Government supported Saddam Hussein and gave him the technology to make WMD's. The US supported the tyrant who murdered thousands of people.

"America does what is in it's best interest. It always has."

Who's America? I would never knowingly support Terrorism, but it seems like your OK with it as long as you get to be the side that’s doing it. I hope I just am misunderstanding you.

"Try not to think of things as in terms of good and evil."

Why would we not? Are you saying Terrorism isn't a sin; it isn't something we should loath. Don't you listen to the President?


Rev
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,334
Reaction score
10,599
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Rev said:
It's no lie that the US Government supported Saddam Hussein and gave him the technology to make WMD's. The US supported the tyrant who murdered thousands of people.

"America does what is in it's best interest. It always has."

Who's America? I would never knowingly support Terrorism, but it seems like your OK with it as long as you get to be the side that’s doing it. I hope I just am misunderstanding you.

"Try not to think of things as in terms of good and evil."

Why would we not? Are you saying Terrorism isn't a sin; it isn't something we should loath. Don't you listen to the President?


Rev
"Who's America? I would never knowingly support Terrorism" America is America. Whether you are aware of things or not, necessary things are necessary. Sure things could be done better, but everyone has their own ideas of how to do things for each and every situation. I would never partake in terrorism either, but your idea of terrorism seems way too broad when facing an enemy who embraces every form of violence against anybody not like them.

This is what I was talking about when I said the "connect the dots" theory. We gave him the means to repell the Iranians so we are guilty of what he did with them to civilians afterwards? I realize you are doing your best to hate, but get over it. If you give your son a BB gun and later he decides to walk up to someone point it at their eye and blind them...did you support that? Are you guilty of a crime? Did we "support" communism and the Cold War by not atacking into Russia imediately after WWII? Another way of saying "hindsight" is.....comfortable criticism.

I do my own thinking. You can listen to the President. He only tells you what we have been saying for two decades. The Middle East is a growing problem in which they are emersing themselves in an Arabic blasphemous form of Islam that is creating zealots. These zealots demand the deaths of Christians, Hindus, and "back-slidden" Muslims. Women and children are targets. If that is "evil" to you, then so be it.

I believe there is an evil presence on this earth and I believe it takes more than "gentlemanly" acts to defeat it. The Nazis were evil and so are the Islamic extrremists that target civilians for their god. BUT, when all is said and done...it still comes down to us or them. "Good and evil" are just words to seperate the players.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GySgt said:
"Good and evil" are just words to seperate the players.

You're forgetting something:
To these loons, GWB is 'evil' and the terrorists are 'good'.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,334
Reaction score
10,599
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
M14 Shooter said:
You're forgetting something:
To these loons, GWB is 'evil' and the terrorists are 'good'.

Yeah, I get that. I can tell from the overwhelming attempts to defend Saddam while trying to show America in the same light.

They are called "apologists."
 

The Rev

New member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Well I guess if you guys don't mind Fascism there is really no point in this discussion.

Later

Rev
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,334
Reaction score
10,599
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Rev said:
Well I guess if you guys don't mind Fascism there is really no point in this discussion.

Later

Rev

Fascism?....drama.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Rev said:
Well I guess if you guys don't mind Fascism there is really no point in this discussion.

Later

Rev
Well you wouldnt mind totalitiariansm for you would permit the rediculous opinion that america is no different that the terrorists. But in fact there is a grave huge difference between us and the terrorists. There is no comparison.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Capitol Hill Blue, the Washington, D.C., publication that cultivates relationships with White House staffers, reports one White House aide saying, "It's like working in an insane asylum. People walk around like they're in a trance. We're the dance band on the Titanic, playing out our last songs to people who know the ship is sinking and none of us are going to make it."

"If POTUS is on the road, you can breathe a little easier," says an aide. Otherwise, it is one temper tantrum after another from Bush, whose "cakewalk war" has turned into interminable conflict, whose idiocy in diverting funding for New Orleans' levees to war in Iraq was disastrous for the famous city, and whose Social Security privatization has been rejected by the electorate.

Even rah-rah Republican Newt Gingrich says the White House is surrounded by failure.

No member of the White House staff wants to deliver news to Bush, because the news is bad. Bush demands sycophancy and equates bad news with disagreement and disloyalty.

Little wonder that Condi Rice was dispatched to Princeton last week to inform the university that democracy comes out of the barrel of a gun. U.S. military force, said the secretary of state with a straight face, is required to force democracy down the throats of the Muslims in order to save future American generations from "insecurity and fear."

Condi obviously doesn't want Bush to put her in the "against us" camp. She told Princeton that she agreed with Bush "that the root cause of Sept. 11 was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East."

Every American should be scared to death that a secretary of state can make such an ignorant and propagandistic statement.

Many Middle Eastern countries are ruled by puppets on the American payroll. Even the Saudis are under American protection. If there is oppression in the Middle East, it is because U.S. puppets and protectorates are doing what the U.S. government wants, not what the people they rule want.

The Middle East is in despair because almost a century after the First World War freed Arabs from Turkish occupation, they still cannot get free of U.S. and British occupation. The reasons Osama bin Laden has a cause among Muslims are (1) U.S. military bases in the Middle East and (2) Israeli practices such as stealing the West Bank and herding Palestinians into ghettos.

What kind of fool believes that the way to bring democracy to a country is to invade, destroy cities and infrastructure, and kill and maim tens of thousands of civilians, while creating every possible animosity by aligning with some members of the society against the others?

Condi Rice's speech at Princeton has branded her the greatest fool ever to be appointed secretary of state. The same day that she declared, Mao-like, that democracy comes out of the barrel of a gun, Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of the National Security Agency during President Reagan's second term, a scholar with a distinguished career in military intelligence, declared Bush's invasion of Iraq to be the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history."

No one can impugn Gen. Odom's patriotism. When I wrote on April 1, 2003, that "the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a strategic blunder," the hate mail poured in from bloody-minded Bush supporters, who assured me that the war would be over in one week. Only a liberal pinko Bush-hating commie could fail to see that the war was won, they jeered.

Two and one-half years later with rising casualties and instability, no one can dispute Gen. Odom. As all news reports make clear, there is no trained Iraqi army. Consequently, says the U.S. commander in Iraq, the hopes that some U.S. troops could be withdrawn next spring is forlorn.

The Democratic Party is no help. Its warmongers are pushing legislation to increase the available U.S. troops by 80,000 in order that the U.S. can keep the war going in Iraq.

Many of these troops, too, will perish in the interminable conflict.

Meanwhile the U.S., which cannot occupy Baghdad or control the road to the airport, is making more threats against Syria. The Bush administration is blaming Syria and Iran for its failure in Iraq. "Our patience is running out," declared U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.

The Israelis have told their U.S. puppet that if the U.S. doesn't use force to destroy Iran's nuclear energy programs, then Israel will undertake to bomb Iran. This despite the announcement by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency that two years of unfettered access to Iran's nuclear programs has failed to turn up any sign of a weapons program.

When will Americans notice that the threats flow from the U.S. to the Middle East? No Middle Eastern government has made any threat against the U.S. or initiated any hostile action. In contrast, the U.S. has invaded two Middle Eastern countries and is threatening to attack two more.

Terrorism is not an activity of Muslim states. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who dares not return to his homeland.

Most Muslim states are too impotent to stamp out independent terrorists and too fearful that terrorist networks will be organized against them. Ignorant U.S. officials equate weakness with intention and demonize Middle Eastern governments, including our own puppets and protectorates, as "state sponsors of terrorism." Isn't it ironic? The U.S. damns vulnerable Middle Eastern rulers for not stamping out terrorism when all the troops and violence the U.S. can muster cannot stamp out terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The implication of a recent CIA report is that the U.S. itself is a state sponsor of terrorism. According to the CIA, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has created a terrorist training ground for al-Qaeda where no previous terrorists existed. The U.S. is creating more terrorists in Iraq than the rest of the Middle East together. Why is President Bush spending $300 billion running a terrorist training ground in Iraq?

Why does Condi Rice think that democracy would wipe away the hatreds that the U.S. and Israel have created in the Middle East? How does she know that Middle Eastern democracy would not uphold terrorism against Israel and the U.S.? In the U.S., democracy is upholding an illegal war based on deceit. In Israel, democracy is upholding crimes against the Palestinians. Does Condi Rice really believe that democracy, a mere political form, ensures that people and their governments never behave wrongly, immorally, or violently?

If America is going to preach democracy, shouldn't it lead by example? According to all the polls, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with Bush and Rice that democracy comes out of the barrel of an American gun. They do not support Bush's goal of using American blood and treasure to force democracy on the Middle East or anywhere else. The majority of Americans want the war over and the troops home. Why do Bush and Condi Rice oppose the will of the majority? Why don't these two who preach democracy practice it?

The Bush administration is the administration of deceit and hypocrisy. It is the antithesis of democracy. All democracy rests on persuasion, which implies disagreement. Yet Bush and Condi regard dissent as disloyalty. They glorify coercion.

They believe in their will alone. Where have we seen that before?

http://www.rense.com/general67/dossa.htm

when politicians Don't listen their best military men ,why does any American citizen trust the bush triad of nitwits over him


triad of nitwits = BUSH cheney rice
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,334
Reaction score
10,599
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Canuck said:
Capitol Hill Blue, the Washington, D.C., publication that cultivates relationships with White House staffers, reports one White House aide saying, "It's like working in an insane asylum. People walk around like they're in a trance. We're the dance band on the Titanic, playing out our last songs to people who know the ship is sinking and none of us are going to make it."

"If POTUS is on the road, you can breathe a little easier," says an aide. Otherwise, it is one temper tantrum after another from Bush, whose "cakewalk war" has turned into interminable conflict, whose idiocy in diverting funding for New Orleans' levees to war in Iraq was disastrous for the famous city, and whose Social Security privatization has been rejected by the electorate.

Even rah-rah Republican Newt Gingrich says the White House is surrounded by failure.

No member of the White House staff wants to deliver news to Bush, because the news is bad. Bush demands sycophancy and equates bad news with disagreement and disloyalty.

Little wonder that Condi Rice was dispatched to Princeton last week to inform the university that democracy comes out of the barrel of a gun. U.S. military force, said the secretary of state with a straight face, is required to force democracy down the throats of the Muslims in order to save future American generations from "insecurity and fear."

Condi obviously doesn't want Bush to put her in the "against us" camp. She told Princeton that she agreed with Bush "that the root cause of Sept. 11 was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East."

Every American should be scared to death that a secretary of state can make such an ignorant and propagandistic statement.

Many Middle Eastern countries are ruled by puppets on the American payroll. Even the Saudis are under American protection. If there is oppression in the Middle East, it is because U.S. puppets and protectorates are doing what the U.S. government wants, not what the people they rule want.

The Middle East is in despair because almost a century after the First World War freed Arabs from Turkish occupation, they still cannot get free of U.S. and British occupation. The reasons Osama bin Laden has a cause among Muslims are (1) U.S. military bases in the Middle East and (2) Israeli practices such as stealing the West Bank and herding Palestinians into ghettos.

What kind of fool believes that the way to bring democracy to a country is to invade, destroy cities and infrastructure, and kill and maim tens of thousands of civilians, while creating every possible animosity by aligning with some members of the society against the others?

Condi Rice's speech at Princeton has branded her the greatest fool ever to be appointed secretary of state. The same day that she declared, Mao-like, that democracy comes out of the barrel of a gun, Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of the National Security Agency during President Reagan's second term, a scholar with a distinguished career in military intelligence, declared Bush's invasion of Iraq to be the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history."

No one can impugn Gen. Odom's patriotism. When I wrote on April 1, 2003, that "the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a strategic blunder," the hate mail poured in from bloody-minded Bush supporters, who assured me that the war would be over in one week. Only a liberal pinko Bush-hating commie could fail to see that the war was won, they jeered.

Two and one-half years later with rising casualties and instability, no one can dispute Gen. Odom. As all news reports make clear, there is no trained Iraqi army. Consequently, says the U.S. commander in Iraq, the hopes that some U.S. troops could be withdrawn next spring is forlorn.

The Democratic Party is no help. Its warmongers are pushing legislation to increase the available U.S. troops by 80,000 in order that the U.S. can keep the war going in Iraq.

Many of these troops, too, will perish in the interminable conflict.

Meanwhile the U.S., which cannot occupy Baghdad or control the road to the airport, is making more threats against Syria. The Bush administration is blaming Syria and Iran for its failure in Iraq. "Our patience is running out," declared U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.

The Israelis have told their U.S. puppet that if the U.S. doesn't use force to destroy Iran's nuclear energy programs, then Israel will undertake to bomb Iran. This despite the announcement by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency that two years of unfettered access to Iran's nuclear programs has failed to turn up any sign of a weapons program.

When will Americans notice that the threats flow from the U.S. to the Middle East? No Middle Eastern government has made any threat against the U.S. or initiated any hostile action. In contrast, the U.S. has invaded two Middle Eastern countries and is threatening to attack two more.

Terrorism is not an activity of Muslim states. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who dares not return to his homeland.

Most Muslim states are too impotent to stamp out independent terrorists and too fearful that terrorist networks will be organized against them. Ignorant U.S. officials equate weakness with intention and demonize Middle Eastern governments, including our own puppets and protectorates, as "state sponsors of terrorism." Isn't it ironic? The U.S. damns vulnerable Middle Eastern rulers for not stamping out terrorism when all the troops and violence the U.S. can muster cannot stamp out terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The implication of a recent CIA report is that the U.S. itself is a state sponsor of terrorism. According to the CIA, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has created a terrorist training ground for al-Qaeda where no previous terrorists existed. The U.S. is creating more terrorists in Iraq than the rest of the Middle East together. Why is President Bush spending $300 billion running a terrorist training ground in Iraq?

Why does Condi Rice think that democracy would wipe away the hatreds that the U.S. and Israel have created in the Middle East? How does she know that Middle Eastern democracy would not uphold terrorism against Israel and the U.S.? In the U.S., democracy is upholding an illegal war based on deceit. In Israel, democracy is upholding crimes against the Palestinians. Does Condi Rice really believe that democracy, a mere political form, ensures that people and their governments never behave wrongly, immorally, or violently?

If America is going to preach democracy, shouldn't it lead by example? According to all the polls, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with Bush and Rice that democracy comes out of the barrel of an American gun. They do not support Bush's goal of using American blood and treasure to force democracy on the Middle East or anywhere else. The majority of Americans want the war over and the troops home. Why do Bush and Condi Rice oppose the will of the majority? Why don't these two who preach democracy practice it?

The Bush administration is the administration of deceit and hypocrisy. It is the antithesis of democracy. All democracy rests on persuasion, which implies disagreement. Yet Bush and Condi regard dissent as disloyalty. They glorify coercion.

They believe in their will alone. Where have we seen that before?

http://www.rense.com/general67/dossa.htm

when politicians Don't listen their best military men ,why does any American citizen trust the bush triad of nitwits over him


triad of nitwits = BUSH cheney rice
You know, it's funny how we have been ignored regarding terrorism and the problems in the Middle East since the mid 80's but, now that it gives people a chance to bash a President they don't like, all of a sudden we're worthy of attention.:roll:

By the way, this opinionated article is weak. It does not shed light on the entire problem and is only focusing on things that the writer seems to be able to understand, which is not much. It is clearly just an individual's half ass attempt to present facts and bash the administation no matter what the costs. If it were not, the writer would have mentioned that the problems stemming from the Middle East have been there long before the "triad of nitwits."
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom