«Home

Should George Bush Also Face Trial?

Now that Saddam Hussein has been sentenced for the massacre of Iraqis, I think President George Bush should also be arraigned for ordering and permitting the slaughter of several thousand innocent Iraqi civilians, including men and women.

He lied to the whole world that Iraq had nuclear capability when all he was after was a hidden agenda. If George Bush did not order several American soldiers to attack Iraq, thousands of Iraqis will be alive today.

If George Bush did not sanction an attack on Iraq, Iraq would not be a terrorist haven today.

If George Bush did not sanction an attack on Iraq, Iraq will not be subjected to daily suicide bombings as it obtains today.

If george Bush did not sanction an attack on Iraq, several Iraqis Molested and tortured by American servicemen would have been spared the torment.

If George Bush did not sanction an attack on Iraq, Iraqis will have electricity, running water and functional hospitals today.

I think George Bush(man) should be brought to book as well

Avatar
Newbie
237 answers

Why should Bush be tried?

How many of Nigerians Leadersmurders have been tried?

What have we done to the killers of the Abiolas, Harry marshall, Dikibo, Dele Giwa etc., despite the fact that we Nigerians claim to know the

perpetrators,instead; we are clamouring for the trial of BUSH just because of the war against terrorism.

Whether WMD was found in Iraq during the invasion or not, the fact remains that Saddam had once used such weapons on his people.

Also we should not forget in a haste, the big elephant in the house, " the sept 11 attack". Any resposible government have to do anything

within her power to protect her citizens.Undoubtedly, the Bush administration was under pressure to weed out all the terrorist networks,

whether in Iraq or in Afghanistan. But unfortunately, innocent civilians are always engulfed in any kind of war.

To buttress my point, Bush owes nobody any apology. The Islamic fundamentalists called for the war, the US congress approved the

war, and Bush delivered the packege.

0
Avatar
Newbie

So Bush has stopped islamic fundamentalism, do you even watch the News.

Islamic fundamentalism is alive and well in Iran at least, Lol !!

Seriously man try watching the News and stop making a fool of yourself.

0
Avatar
Newbie

How many of those African leaders, save for a few who have already faced tribunals, have sanctioned as many deaths as George Bush did?

Did parliaments in other countries face trial when their bad leaders did?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'm also hopeful that George Bush will be tried some day. . . even post humously.

He is an absolute slowpoke who has wrought havoc and destruction on the fabrics that the world should exist peacefully upon

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yes, that man should be tried and jailed!

0
Avatar
Newbie

those who believe America as a democratic nation watch this please http://www.documentarywire.com/obama-and-the-global-elite

0
Avatar
Newbie

I am trying to say that most african presidents have done worse than bush. So If Bush goes, they follow.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why not he is responsible for all our lost troops he would never be forgiven for that

F, K BUSH

0
Avatar
Newbie

If he face trial then almost all african presidents should face trial.

If he face trial, then congress should follow him.

plus, who is gonna put him on trial.

then UN? the last time i check the UN was based in NYC and America hardly listen to them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why should BUSH be tried?

He's done nothing but free the world from the grasp of growing islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. He's made the world a safer place,and for that your unborn generations will remember him.

0
Avatar
Newbie

GEORGE BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE KILLING OF SO MANY INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN. HE DESERVES EXECUTION. I REMEMBER LOOKING AT PICTURES OF CORPSES OF INNOCENT FAMILIES IN LEBANON NOT SO LONG AGO AS IN ABOUT 2006 I THINK AND THE CHILDREN WERE SO BEAUTIFUL AGED 2 AND UNDER LYING THERE DEAD. WHY? BECUASE THE ISRAELIS AND THE AMERICANS KILLED THEM. THERE ARE THOUSANDS AND THOUSAND THAT DIED, SHAME ON THAT DEVIL. HE IS THE LIVING ANTI CHRIST.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The man suppose hang sef

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Txlonghorn

You are given the Job just because the people who employed you, see you has sufayo like we use to say when we are kids watching war films.

You just be Zombi like fela say,

Bufalo soldiers

all of una wey they sopport american na Malu, Zombie

i know say na drug una they sell for there or shop with

peoples creditcards you still they see drugs sells thats why the place they shack you like heaven.them go still inject una and deport una

come back nigeria, the few people i know wey they support american like dis na alagbo close and kirikiri them end up.

0
Avatar
Newbie

George Bush suppose face tribunal for the murder of several thousands of Iraqis including men and women, some of whom were pregnant.

George Bush no go die better

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ topic: i don't see why not. u forgot to incluce tony blair for WAR CRIME

0
Avatar
Newbie

Your response is based on a wrong premise: that the poll you posted here is a definitive representation of the views of Iraqis.

This is not so and that was why I stated that it takes on the average 4 months or more for you to see a poll like this and the frequency of such polls does not help the issue at hand.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@4Play,

I will suggest you return home and join politics.

Your response is a clasiscal political response that seems like its coming from Orji Uzo Kalu himself.

Seriously though, for the simple fact that the reasons for the illegal invasion of a soveriegn nation have been found to be manufactured and mere lies and the resulting illegal invasion responsible for death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and even coalition troops, Bush under normal circumstances and in a just world would have been sitting in a cell at the Hague waiting for lawyers to get him out of a very clear case of murder and chaos in another man's land.

We all know that the world is not just and that no such trial will take place but for public commentators on discussion forums like this one if Bush does not qualify to be tried for the heinous crimes against humanity then no one qualifies to be tried for such.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Are you unhappy that twice as many Iraqis prefer living under Maliki than under Saddam?You would prefered that they say they are unhappy

If a plurality of Iraqis prefer this situation,then so be it.It is irrelevant that Bush might be happy .This is where the so-called Bush Derangement Syndrome .If a situation might make Bush happy then it is preferable that a contrary situation obtains which will make Bush unhappy eventhough that contrary situation makes millions of people unhappy

Many people delight in the suffering of Iraqis because they think that is a blow to the Americans and to Bush in particular.That is really sad indeed

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Easyy

You are an intelligent man and any intelligent man will see that there is nothing contradictory in the 2 polls we published.

Lets summarise what the 2 polls tell us

Most Iraqis feel less safe than in 2005 and have no confidence in the Coalition forces forces.86% fear for the safety of their family members .All these are hardly surprising

However,bearing in mind that this thread is about trying Bush for invading Iraq,the most remarkable thing is this excerpt from one of the polls-

Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

Now according to you and Afam,Bush should be tried for bringing about a situation which a plurality of Iraqis-a ratio of 2 to 1-prefer .

Another thing is that the 2 polls show that most Iraqis don't think that their country is engaged in a civil war.

I was watching the BBC News this morning and they also mentioned that the poll shows that only a third of Iraqis want Coalition Forces to immediately depart .That is to say,two-thirds of Iraqis don't want Coalition troops to immediately depart

Whatever we gleaned from the two polls,we know this.The views of most Iraqis are not as clearcut as most people make out.Most people will have you believe that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis will prefer life under Saddam

The most important thing which is relevant to this thread is that there are no grounds for saying we should try Bush when on a 2 to 1 ratio most Iraqis prefer the situation which Bush has brought about to the situation which obtained before  

Why people should insist on Bush being tried for removing Saddam in the light of Iraqi opinion is baffling

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Easyy,

Ok, take care and all the best.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Afam,

Thanks. I've been quite busy in recent time. We were changing schools for my son in Nigeria and it's not been easy shuttling between here and Lagos.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Easyy,

Thanks for those posts, where have you been?

Let us wait for his usual maradona style of response and see how he can manage to swim out of this one just as Bush stated that the most difficult part of his job is trying to link the invasion of Iraq to the war on Terror,

0
Avatar
Newbie

4play, You do bring subjective polls and opinions here.

Check the latest here  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm

Pessimism 'growing among Iraqis' 

Iraqis have become less optimistic about their future, the poll suggests

A new survey paints a pessimistic picture of Iraqis' confidence in their own government and in coalition forces.

Only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops, while opinion is almost evenly split on whether to have confidence in Iraq's government.

About 86% of those questioned expressed concern about someone in their household being a victim of violence.

More than 2,000 people were polled, which was commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today.

The survey was conducted by D3 Systems.

The latest findings contrast strongly with the outlook among Iraqis in 2005, when respondents to a similar survey were generally hopeful about the future.

Asked whether they thought reconstruction efforts in Iraq had been effective, some 67% said they felt they had not.

Religious divide

The poll paints a picture of an increasingly polarised Iraq, with acutely diverging views between Sunnis and Shias - Sunnis appearing more pessimistic.

Pessimism is most keenly felt across central Iraq, including Baghdad, where Sunnis are most numerous.

Religious differences are particularly displayed in attitudes towards the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Sunnis questioned largely regarded the manner of the former Iraqi leader's death as inappropriate and unlikely to help the cause of reconciliation; Shias predominantly took the opposite view.

No one however wanted Iraq divided along sectarian lines.

Full details of the poll will be available on this website at 1200 GMT on Monday.

0
Avatar
Newbie

And this,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464629.stm

In Baghdad, the most common sound you hear in the streets today is the insistent racket of small private generators.

The most common sight, apart from police and army roadblocks, are the black banners on walls and fences announcing people's deaths.

And the most common feeling you come across is a kind of slow-burning, gloomy anger.

These things represent a major failure of the hopes and expectations which many Iraqis entertained four years ago.

The generators are there because the Americans and successive Iraqi governments have failed to sort out the power situation. And the deaths happen because they have not established peace here.

'They will help us'

It is easy to forget how high the expectations once were.

"I don't like the feeling that my country has been invaded," a shopkeeper in Haifa Street told me, a day or so after the fall of Baghdad.

"But thanks to God that it is the Americans who have done this. They are the richest country on earth. They will help us."

But they did not. They did not even protect the ministries and public buildings and museums from being looted.

We filmed as people shouted "Do something!" at an American soldier, while thieves were running out with valuable medical equipment from the hospital behind us. He just shrugged his shoulders and turned away.

Iraqis were infuriated by the gross mismanagement and open theft that American contractors and Iraqi politicians carried out in the first year after the invasion.

They had little but contempt for the feeble administration of Paul Bremer, the American proconsul whose only previous senior job had been as US ambassador to the Netherlands.

Then and now

When I went to see the shopkeeper in Haifa Street in May 2003, I walked there on my own.

There was the occasional rattle of small-arms fire, and groups of people sometimes looked at me angrily. But I did not feel my life was in any kind of danger.

A couple of days ago I went back to Haifa Street. It has recently been the scene of a series of battles, with Sunni gunmen being winkled out of their positions by the Americans and the Iraqi army.

It is difficult for an unarmed Westerner to go there now, and I had to travel in an unmarked van with dark curtains at the windows and two British security men to protect me.

The shopkeeper I had met four years before had long gone. There was no-one to ask: all the other shops in the row had closed down as well.

Early next day, I went to film at a big city hospital. During the hour I was there, six bodies, found in the streets that morning, were brought in. All had obviously been tortured, and one had had his feet sawn off. It was just a normal morning.

After Baghdad fell, I would satellite reports back to London about attacks in which one or two people were killed. It was big news in those days. Last Thursday, a bomb exploded near the end of the street in central Baghdad where the BBC has its office. Eight people were killed and 25 injured, and we had rather good pictures of it.

But I did not ring London to offer a report about it. To get on the news, or the front page of the newspapers nowadays, a lot of people have to die. I would say the current figure is 60 or 70; and it certainly wouldn't be the lead.

This is not because editors do not care; it is because it happens so often it scarcely seems like news.

Cynicism and anger

After four years of occupation, this is a dangerous, callous, frightened, anxious city.

Its people are wearily sceptical about the current dip in violence which the current American troop "surge" seems to have brought.

Two separate bombs in Baghdad killed at least 10 on Thursday

They mostly believe that the various warring militia will keep their heads down while the surge lasts, then come out again when the Americans have left.

But cynicism and anger are not the only emotions.

At the hospital I visited, I interviewed a vascular surgeon who had succeeding in patching up a young girl's arm after a bomb attack.

"You must get sick of all this," I said. "Are you tempted to leave the country, like so many of your colleagues have?"

"No," he answered, "Even if I knew I was going to be killed tomorrow, I would stay here. It's my duty."

One day, that kind of attitude will turn this back into a vibrant, effective country again. But it will not happen for a while.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Well, it seems it takes on the average 4 months to get a single poll that supports this view, very interesting.

The poll will no doubt make Bush very happy just as it has made the poster's day.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Bush Haters

For the umpteenth time,another poll has come out showing the people of Iraq do not share the belief of most war critics,that they would be better off under Saddam and better off if the war was not conducted.-http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece

I suspect this poll will not get much play from those who think that Iraqis should still be living under Saddam.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hmmm,

US will not go into Sudan because it lacks the will to do so and Sudan is not important in its scheme of things.

Why did the US lead a coalition of the willing when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Did Iraq break any law by invading Kuwait?

If you are able to answer the 2 questions above sincerely, then you will be closer to admitting the obvious.

As to your comments on obligation versus law I need to remind you that the constitution of Iraq supercede laws like the war crimes or violation of human rights that some countries have come up with and are trying to impose on other sovereign nations.

As a matter of fact, Saddam was sentenced to death for signing the execution order after some people were tried via the Iraqi courts and sentenced to death just as the present president of US has been signing execution orders and in fact kept doing so while the governor of Texas.

It seems we are ready to turn logic on its head just to make a very clear issue appear complex.

You may want to tune to some of the news channels right now in the USA as Koffi Annan is delivering his farewell speech and has criticized some of Bush's policies. I respect the man for being a fearless and courageous UN Sec Gen.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Since when did obligation become law?  

I am not surprised by the lack of support from the veto wielding super powers in the security council.  I am sure the support is not unconnected with some clandestine moves with regards to the the oil for food programme.   It is obvious that economics, not law, sanctity of human life, nor honour that guide the votes at the UN security council.

I've asked this question before with no answer from anybody.  What if Bush went into Sudan without the UN's blessing to stop the genocide, would you all still cry illegality?  Is the inaction of the US in Sudan justified as long as they abide by the indecision of the UN?

What if the US goes into Sudan and got rid of the irresponsible Government and a situation arises in Sudan where the different ethnic groups continue to kill each other like we have in Iraq. Would you still blame the U.S. for that?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Illegality of the invasion of Iraq.

Countries under the UN do have obligations not to attack one another.

That explains why you have the security council. Major decisions concerning countries especially wars, sanctions are usually discussed and agreed upon by the members with 5 having veto powers and permanent status.

On Iraq, the US tried to lobby the other members that had veto powers but succeeded in getting only Britain side them with Russia, China and France threatening to veto the move.

When the US sensed that they won't get the other countries on their train they threatened to go ahead anyway and infact warned the IAEA inspectors in Iraq to leave immediately as the US will not guarantee the safety of the inspectors as the US has already decided to wage the war.

Koffi Annan clearly called the invasion an illegal one on CNN and that was the UN Sec Gen speaking.

I do not know why we are playing around with words here trying to twist and confuse issues even when unnecessary.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@nilla,

Can you please prove what laws that Bush illegally violated in toppling Saddam? You keep giving us your biased opinions that can not be backed by any law, international or otherwise. Easyy has shown over and over again that there is absolutely no basis to have Bush tried in a court of law, but you keep spewing out your hatred in uninformed verbiage.

0
Avatar
Newbie

what does this statement mean?

"Make no mistake I don't think the Bush adminstration is anywhere near competent in its handling of Iraq."

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Nilla

In so far as most Iraqis say that the toppling of Saddam was worth it,at least at the time of the invasion,it is not for u a Nigerian to say that it was wrong.Maybe u are trying to separate the invasion from the toppling of Saddam.One could not have happened without the other.

I still don't get what the content of a prosecutors case against Bush will be.It is in impractical,pointless and without precedence.

Maybe some of this energy should be diverted towards people like President Al-Bashir of Sudan

0
Avatar
Newbie

The Iraq people decide that. Not me, not Bush.

What exactly are you trying to prove?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who decides what is wrongful on Iraq?You or the Iraqi people?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ 4 Play,

The toppling of Saddam (or the approval of the toppling of Saddam) does not justify the wrongful invasion of Iraq. Thats my opinion sha.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The basis for my submission on what I would like to be told by you and a few other BBS who have expressed their 'bushy' opinions is such remarks as you made earlier ;

"Make no mistake I don't think the Bush adminstration is anywhere near competent in its handling of Iraq."

With such a statement, you're either indicating that George Bush is daft in his approach or he deciced to decimate Iraq for some reason.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Nilla

I linked a scientific poll of about one thousand Iraqis across the 18 provinces of Iraq,you on the other hand linked a clip of on an interview of 5 Iraqis in a Baghdad market.

How can u be arguing whether a poll is a better barometer of public opinion than a TV interview.Why then are millions of dollars spent on polling when u can just walk into the nearest market and grab 5 people.

Polls take into consideration the diversity which exists in every country .Imagine if someone walked into a market in Gusau and showed a clip of the traders calling for Sharia law and claimed that was conclusive proof that Nigerians want Sharia law.

0
Avatar
Newbie

why should i then attach any weight to your own link??

We keep digressing from the topic.

What Bush did was wrong.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Nilla

The Iraqi people are a diverse range of people of different religious sects,ethnicities and culture.In many ways Iraq is like Nigeria,it is merely a georaphical expression.

Why should I attach any weight to your You Tube Link when earlier I linked a poll which showed that 77 percent of Iraqis thought the toppling of SADDAMM was worth their suffering.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Afam

I have realised the futility of arguing with an ignorant nitwit.I will not advice u to stop posting since with a brain like urs, NAIRALAND represents ur best chance of a scholarship.

"U will like to be told".With that attitude u will can never form a balanced opinion of this issue.

The first 6 words of your post summarise what is wrong with your analysis of the situation.You see and hear only what u want to hear.When Nilla linked a You Tube clip,u liked what u saw and that to u was weightier evidence of the topic,much better than the scientific polls I referenced from the Brookings Iraq Index(The Brookings Instituition was against the Iraq war)

No one has met my challenge earlier to show me a poll in 2006 where Iraqis say that the toplling of Saddam was not worth it.

I don't claim that the Iraqi people want the US to stay .

My point is  that given,as even Afam was prepared to admit,that the Iraqi people said that the toppling of Saddam is worth it,what is Bush to be tried for?For doing what at the time most Iraqis approved of?For subsequently staying in Iraq when he had obtained unanimous UN approval ?

Beyond that,what is the legal basis for a trial.None

I still maintain that the only reason people are interested in this conflict in the first place is because of their dislike for the US in general and Bush in particular.Where were the calls for a trial of Saddam in the 90s when he committed mass murder against the Shia and the kurds?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Easyy

your welcome.

@ 4 Play

The iraqi people are telling you their mind, but you won't hear it because they are in some market in Baghdad.

0
Avatar
Newbie

nilla,

God bless you for that link.

I like the fact that the interviews were with rwal ordinary Iraqis. Not just some alienated few given biased opinions to favour anyone.

It's suprising that Blind Bush Supporters (BBS) still have a difficulty accepting what is coming straight from real Iraqis. I suppose they'd rather have opinions which some American organisation has sponsored.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have been away for a few days because I've been quite busy.

Startling to realise that there are Bush apologists; and then there are religious fanatics turned Bush apologists. The question is whether or not George 'war monger' Bush deserves to face trial for what he has, either knowingly or unknowingly, brought upon the ordinary citizens of Iraq.

It appears a few people here seem to believe that the lives of Iraqis are less important than that of Americans simply because majority of Iraqis are non-christians. Some others seem to be blindly willing to follow Bush wherever he goes (probably cos he rescued them from their paths to destruction while they were in Nigeria).

I'd like to be told either that George 'war monger' Bush intentionally decided to obliterate the nation of Iraq or that he is an absolute daftie who thought he knew everything while most reasonable people all over the world were telling him what they thought of his planned attack at the time.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@4Play,

I did advice you to face your studies so you don't lose both ways.

When you lack basic understanding of short statements I wonder what one can do to make you understand statements that span pages.

Your sense of reasoning is totally disgusting and you never fail to display it anytime you have the opportunity to do so.

You may even forgo the education and get a good danfo to drive in Lagos, it will be a better idea. Education does not equal knowledge, the sooner you realized this the better for you.

0
Avatar
Newbie

As much as i dislike Saddam, the only sane course of action is to punish him appropriately for his "sins", give him his old job back and US most profound apologies. He is the only guy in Iraq that speaks the kind of language those shiites and sunnis understand.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Ghettolove

If Bush can be tried for invading Iraq then Clinton together with all the NATO member nations leaders at the time can also be tried for what Afam called "illegal invasion",a new concept in International law AND EVEN IN LAW.

Some BDS people so hate Bush,that they are willing to invent legal concepts to hang him.This violates one of the most fundamental principles of law-nulla poena sine lege(no punishment except in accordance with the law).U can't invoke prosecution unless there is a clearly defined law which stipulates for legal proceedings in the event of its breach.

Behind the calls for Bush to be tried is a mountain of hate driven logic and hysteria.

P.S-Given that Bakkasi Peninsular has been declared part of CAMEROUN,won't those Nigerian leaders who sent Nigerian troops there be guilty of this "illegal invasion " concept.HUNDREDS of lives would have been saved if we had not intervened militarily ab initio in what the ICJ has ruled to be Camerounian territory all along

0
Avatar
Newbie

Everyone has really contributed to this tread but what is certain is that history will never forgive OR forget all those who are responsible for the destruction and distabilisation of IRAQ. What i find difficult to comprehend are in two folds;

1) The reason why the so labelled 'terrorists and insurgents' are murdering thier fellow citizens

2) The reason why US troops are still fighting 'WHO' in Iraq.

My heart cry profusely for women and children killed every second in Iraq and there seem not to be a helping hand from no where. I am also helpless in this matter but what can i do, imagine the trauma an ordinary person goes through in that country.

I do not like the terrorist though, but when you look closer you may sometimes wonder if there is anyone one to challenge the super power, then you may almost be convinced that only if thses bad guys can target these super powers directly, people i need help here, as i post, a bomb might have just been detonated in iraq.

RELATIVELY

You are familiar with the niger delta militant, i am sure if these guys are not well checked now we might have to fight the menace for a very long time. Imagine a boy born in palestine that knows no other thing but fight and fight isreal, the orientation of some people may be very difficult to change.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@TayoD,

The issue of losing control of the houses is clear, it is not something people do out of fashion, there must be a reason and it is either the populace approve or oppose the government. Either way, it is the people that decide based on what they think is important to them.

On US, terrorism etc, another thread will suffice because the issues involved are not as simple as politicians want us to believe.

Have you wondered why the US all of a sudden lost the sympathy it had after 911?

If the US had concentrated on finding the man responsible for 911 the problems we have today would not have been this great.

However, why provide a reason for someone that hates you to justify it?

The US by its miscalculations is providing the reasons that are used to justify attacks on the US.

Israel on its own by over reacting turns public opinion against itself and that does not help their case.

The last Hezbollah/Israeli conflict showed this very clearly, Israeli soldiers were attacked, kidnapped and some killed. Now, this clearly shows that the aggressor in this regard is Hezbollah. But what did Israel do? Wage war on a nation, kill innocent people and in no time Israel was seen as the trouble maker.

Even at that, ultimately, the root causes of these problems must be tackled before we have any hope of seeing the end of terrorism because every terrorist has a story to tell and when people or countries provide enough justifications for terrorist acts then it becomes too difficult to condemn totally the actions of the terrorist since things may have been different if situations were different.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You are deceived to think that the majority of the world will love the U.S. once she dances to what they perceive as justice and fairplay. How much bending over backwards will the U.S. have to do before the likes of Osama and Mohamed Attah declare peace? What did George Bush do pre-911 that brought about that disaster? At least, majority now want us to believe that Bush is what is wrong with America, and by extentsion the rest of the world.

There is an ideology out there fueled by faith in the apocalyptic prophecies of Islam which is the major cause of what is going on in the world today. Granted, the U.S. does go overboard sometimes. But in the words of Malcolm X, "You can't put me on a burning stove and be upset by what I say" (paraphrase). That is the positiion of the U.S. right now. The U.S was put on a burning stove on 911 and the world expect to be at rest?! That is ridiculous. As long as there remains a credible threat to the U.S on the scale of 911 we will continue to witness these events either during or post Bush Administration.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.