So you answer is "I dont want to answer your question because you didnt ask the question I wanted you to ask", correct?


Who is stopping you from doing that?

How do you know that? Do a search...I have been on here for years, and have participated in several threads which ask that same question almost verbatum. Unlike you, I am not afraid of answering questions.

George Bush.

Give me an example of how Bush is a terrorist or has supported terrorism.

btw...why exactly did you not include a link to your source for that definition? I always get suspicious when people refuse to provide their sources.

No, Bush does not fit that definition.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Here is the link, I gave you the name of website dictionary.com I'm sure it would be hard to look it up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

So I'll use your definition.....use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group to coerce a country often for ideological reasons.

Bush is a terrorist by using force against Iraq in order to enforce democracy upon them.

Before you jump on me for being anti-American try to prove using the definition you gave that he is not.

The administration has picked the word terrorism so that they can have justification to attack anyone they want and you play right into......because terrorism bad....Bush good.

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

Actually, it could be argued that Bush does qualify. "Do X or we may/will attack you/bomb you" fits. That is quite clearly a threat by W to use force against a sovereign country's property with the intention of coercing them to do what he wants. Hence, it fits the definition perfectly.

That's not to say I like the definition much. Because any threatened use of force, even in self defense, with the intention of coercing a society or government would be terrorism. I simply don't agree that it is. But if you accept that definition W is indeed a terrorist.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Yes, that was subsidizing (and thus supporting) terrorism. However, the terrorism was being perpetrated against Israel, not the United States, and so was not justification for intervention. This isn't anti-Semitism; this is simply a matter of our military's responsibility, which doesn't extend beyond our borders. I might add that America's government was quite active in supporting terror in Indonesia in the 1960's and in El Salvador in the 1980's.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

And in Afghanistan in the 1980's, as well.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

So you are saying that Bush violence against the People of iraq if they refused to have democracy "forced" on them.

Give me an example of something he said that you consider to be such a threat. Quote him.

I do not really care whether or not you are anti-American in the context of this discussion. I am taking issue with your definition, not your politics.

I do not believe the definition applies to Bush, because Bush has never threatened the Iraqi People with violence if they refuse to do what he wants.

If it is so easy, why didnt you post it?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

One nation attacking another nation is not terrorism.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

That is not necessarily true. It extends to our allies as well. Israel is a Non-NATO ally.

However, this was never the reason for the invasion. And the invasion was never the subject of this thread. Certain liberals on this forum have a problem answering questions without going on tangents (or even answering them at all, because the answers do not support their ideology).

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Hey! I answered your question. You never said that I couldn't go off on a tangent.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Argued wrongly, yes.

The word "terrorism" is not applied to conflicts between nations. Only to conflicts between individuals or ideological groups.

No, that is a threat made by AMERICA against another nation. Bush does not have dioctatorial powers, therefore the decision is not only his.

It doesnt really matter whether or not you like it. Your definition is wrong either way.

Then explain to me why we do not call people terrorists who threaten in self defense.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?