Bush fits his own definition of terrorist?

Bush admitted at a the Coast Guard commencement ceremony today, that since the war started Al Qaeda has moved into or tried to move into Iraq, and use it as a staging ground for attacks on the United States. Which means, as a direct result of his actions, going to war, it has emboldened terrorists to set up in Iraq, and plan attacks on American soil, according to even him. And according "Thomas Sanderson, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies…Iraq would not have become a training ground for Al Qaeda had the United States not invaded. “We created the biggest terrorism training ground known, which is Iraq,” he said. "

Bush has made it clear time and again that he makes no distinction between terrorists and those who help terrorists.

Hence, according to his own definition, “those who help terrorists”, he is a terrorist…that since the war, by his own admission, Al Qaeda has been emboldened to enter Iraq and the utter chaos has made it easier for them to do so, and according to specialists terrorists have taken the opportunity of the chaos in Iraq to rally.

QED

What do terrorists want?

world peace (enslaving the world under their thumbs)

an end to “global warming”

higher taxes on the “rich” (of course if you earn one penny more than minimum wage, you are rich)

free health care

everyone eating the right foods

no smoking (unless it is pot)

among others…

-Imp

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Wait, aren’t terrorists more like…
Extremely conservative theocratic dictatorships?

How about we stay on the topic at hand, that our president has emboldened and empowered our enemy with a war that he originally claimed was specifically about fighting this very same enemy.

Can it be that it is better to open the can of worms in order to let them reveal themselves,instead of letting them be bottled up? :unamused:

sorry, the only ones who have emboldened and empowered the enemy are the cut run and surrender democRATS.

mark my words, when the next terrorist attack hits an american city, not if, but when, the targets will be the terrorists and the democRATS. civil war is right around the corner.

-Imp

I don’t think the definition of terrorist matters. We know who our enemies are.

How has he Emboldened or empowered them? Those people just want someone to hate. They hate our very standard of living. They would conspire do kill and terrorize whether or not we invaded. They think americans are FILTH.

Okay, now that we have your brilliant psychological analysis of people you’ve never met nor spoken too out of the way, lets look at what is actually fact. As a direct result of the war in Iraq, “We created the biggest terrorism training ground known, which is Iraq,”. So while terrorists may hate us, this does not change the fact that the war in Iraq has allowed them to infiltrate and use Iraq to further their “hate”.

So, Using your understanding of terrorists, before Bush’s war in Iraq, we have a group of people that hate us, but are prevented from setting up and recruiting in Iraq. After Bush’s war in Iraq, we have a group of people that hate us, but have now been allowed to “create the biggest terrorst training ground known” in Iraq.

You like to repeat yourself?

I don’t know what else to say to you, the quote I provided proves the point I’m making.

"Thomas Sanderson, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies…Iraq would not have become a training ground for Al Qaeda had the United States not invaded. “We created the biggest terrorism training ground known, which is Iraq,” he said. ".

I know nothing of this “Thomas Sanderson”. So i will have to do some research. I dont just take facts from what 1 man says. I have no idea what his background is or let alone how much he says is truth. You have not supported your argument. all you do is repeat yourself.

“Iraq would not have become a training ground for Al Qaeda had the United States not invaded.”

I repeated myself because your “refutation” about “terrorists hate” was irrelevant or missed the point completely, which means you completely misunderstood what I was saying, so excuse me for trying to clarify my position in a way that you could understand. Next time I will attack you for misunderstanding, because that seems to be what you desire.

As for “just take facts”, that is all we can do in a discussion like this. Rely on experts, because none of us have the resources, training, nor access to the information that would allow us to “know” for ourselves.

Between the 9/11 comission, what Bush himself admits, and the quote I provided, the position of people who are in a position to know is clear.

It was a win-win move. It encouraged terrorists to move into Iraq, but made Iraq the staging ground for any attacks, instead of North America. Even if the barbarians set up camp, they’re still outside the gates.

Which suggests that Bush et al. aren’t supporting their troops by this action because they are using them as a meatshield for the US, right?

I suppose. It’s actually more the civvies in Iraq and Afghanistan that are the human shields.

Alright, my friends, let’s keep it civil. Insulting any person or group is considered ad hominem, and is not conducive to dialogue. Try to be respectful with your criticism.

Obvious solution: nuke the hell out of Iraq.

Good point.

Though it does clearly put our soldiers in harm’s way. Not that I mind that too much, it is the job of a soldier to fight, which they are doing.

However, I do disagree with the notion of ‘fighting them there to keep them from here’ because it assumes a finite amount of terrorists in the world. If that were true, then the logic would follow. Now, taking actions that do demonstrably create more terrorists as well as making the terrorists more effective (better trained, more experienced) does seem to create a much greater danger than not taking actions that demonstrably create more terrorists.