Breaking: Bush and Blair Taking Questions

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

& Bush just mispronounced United States as United Steets...

[berner59]

1. so condescending...

He's "explaining" to the brits what the iraqi soldiers are being trained for...duh...you know other people read papers, unlike you!!!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. He's trying to control the whole thing... Answering for Tony

And making NO sense in a lot of his answers...

He's a dolt.

[dArKeR]

3. 'These are attacks against freedom. We're doing a good job tracking down

and killing them.' How many times have we heard that?

[Spentastic]

4. Anyway

How can you track down and kill suicide bombers?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

113. Very carefully?

:shrug:

[berner59]

7. How smug!!!!

God Bush's expression is beyond viewing!!! Someone please throw something at him!!!

If he says "we're going to stop them" one more time...just stop it!!!

[lindashaw]

9. God! Is he on drugs?

[Kat 333]

28. No doubt ...

chased with Jim Beam.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

11. I think if we were doing a good job

that there would be a lot of people alive in Turkey that just tragically lost their lives to terroist bombs.

If we had put half the energy and money that we put into the Bush vendetta against Saddam and the quest for Iraqi oil into finding and stopping Al Qaeda, the world would be a safer place and 10,000 Iraqi citizens would still be alive.

[truthspeaker]

34. amen!

You said it. Iraq isn't part of the war on terror, it's a distraction from the war on terror.

[leesa]

44. There IS no war on terror. That is nonsense. How can you fight

a military war against terrorism? Unjust militarism is what causes terrorism...it's just a way of fighting back. Bombing people's homes, friends, and families is what produces terrorism. Why do you even refer to such utter foolishness. The War on Terror is a scam to steal resources and land and make gobs of money through selling of arms and re-building contracts.

[CWebster]

45. You're on it!

And it just took a sentence or two. Whatever were they to do without the red scare to pin everything on anymore?

[Frontier]

48. Your Comment is Despicable

Unjust militarism is what causes terrorism...it's just a way of fighting back.

WTF are you talking about. Flying planes into buildings, bombing U.N. or Red Cross headquarters, PURPOSELY cutting to shreds innocent men, women and CHILDREN is NOT "just a way of fighting back".

Your sentiment disgusts me.

YOU, my friend, are enabling terrorism and terrorists by saying, "you're actions are acceptable."

Terrorism is NOT EVER acceptable. Not by any nation, not for any cause.

I can't even type anymore you've made me so angry.

[CWebster]

49. ...IRAQ WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 911!!!!!

And just because they don't have an official army to fight back the military take-over and occupation of their country-doesn't mean they are terrorists. After all, they didn't attack us, and they didn't ask to be attacked either. It is WE who terrorized them.

[Frontier]

52. Did I ever say...

... anything about Iraqis causing 9/11? Show me where?

Read _exactly_ what I said again. Terrorism is not an acceptable means to an end. Not ever.

There is no acceptable excuse for purposely bombinging U.N. headquarters, or bombing the Red Cross or killing innocent people (mainly Muslims mind you) outside of a synogogue. Or for blowing up civilians at the consolate...

or for capturing a French U.N. employee, killing them and filming it. Or for doing the same to a WSJ journalist, bombing a night clubs, flying planes into 100 story buildings, kidnapping Turkish engineers, blowing up bombs on church busses, or in restaraunts.

It is not acceptable. Saying it's just "another way of fighting back" disgusts me.

[Dead_Parrot]

60. Umm, Frontier...

you mentioned "Flying planes into buildings". In your response, you mention "flying planes into 100 story buildings". Now that sounds like 9/11 to me. If you're talking about a different event that we've all missed, please elaborate a little. Otherwise, stop jumping at people for making a connection.

As for the Iraqis: If my my country had just been invaded and my son killed by a cluster bomblet, I'd be pretty pissed too. I wouldn't like to give any guaranties as to my behaviour.

[Frontier]

65. Ummm Dead_Parrot

The message I responded to, for the third time, said terrorism is acceptable, "it's just another way of fighting back."

My response to that was to say no it isn't "just another way" and it is not o.k. The original message didn't say "Iraqi terrorism is ok". And I, for the fourth time, DIDN'T SAY IRAQ CAUSED 9/11... I have never said that.

I am saying flying planes into buildings (a-la 9/11) is terrorism, I am saying blowing up a consolate is terrorism, downing civilian aircraft, blowing up dining halls, busses, mosques, synogogues... all terrorism. And none of them are ok. Not ever.

It's a simple point really.

Either you agree with me or you don't. But responding with IRAQ DIDN'T CAUSE 9/11 is simply foolish. It's putting words in my mouth, and avoiding my point.

Capeish?

I don't know what I'd do either if my yet to be born son were killed by a cluster bomb. But what I _hope_ I wouldn't do is, drive up to the local Red Cross (where they were against the war and are handing out food to my starving neighbors) and blow up everyone inside.

...and even if I did do that, I hope that my community wouldn't support it. I'd hope that people wouldn't come on DU and say, "job well done, you're just fighting back."

[samsingh]

72. let's all fight among ourselves

and let morons like shrub keep winning.

i'll take any of the dem candidates over bush.

[Lindacooks]

96. Sorry, you're wrong

Terrorism is what poor people use as a way to fight back against what they see as injustice. It's been going on since the beginning of time, and MORE bombing and violence is never, ever going to stop it.

And, for your information, dropping bombs on people also kills innocent children.

Now you're on ignore.

[Guaranteed]

117. Nope,

you're on ignore.

Supporting killing innocent people is a good way to marginalize yourself.

[Lindacooks]

131. Whatever

I did NOT say I support terrorism, and I do NOT. I simply stated that it is a tool used by disenfranchised and poor nations since the beginning of time. Grow up.

[Rex]

132. It's pointless with some people, they live in a black & white world.

And if ya call em on it they call you a terrorist or terrorist supporter. Nevermind the fact that the original post that started all this said UNJUST military action causes terrorism. This is a very complex issue that some people simply cannot grasp so why try?

Let them live in Happyland.

[chopper]

71. holy overreaction, Batman!

um, he didn't say Iraq caused 911. remember, the poster he replied to was talking about terrorism in general, and did not specify 'Iraqs fighting back against occupying forces type terrorism'.

given that, its safe to interpret that original post as implying that terrorism against e.g. civialian targets is okay, if you're responding to abject militaristic tendencies of another power/nation. which is why 911 was brought up, because by the original poster's logic, 911 was okay because AQ was just responding to an overly militaristic US.

which, as stated above, and with which i, for one, agree wholeheartedly, is complete bunk.

i don't care what the hell happened to you or your country, blowing up a synogogue is a despicable act. plain and simple. anyone who thinks that blowing up a civilian bus, or a red cross headquarters, or a synogogue or a mosque full of civilians is alright for any reason is a very bloodthirsty individual indeed.

[MaineDem]

50. Umm, the Iraqis didn't fly the planes into the buildings

No matter how hard Dick Cheney tries to convince us of the connection.

[Frontier]

53. Unreal

This is like some kind of laugh track response to something you don't agree with?

Hey I think the Matrix Revolutions was fantastic!

"IRAQ DID NOT CAUSE 9/11 !!!!"

Just like above, I never said they did. I suggest you read my comments again and then come up with a reasonable response.

[Don Claybrook]

51. You sound exactly like John Ashcroft

Or Rumsfeld, or Bush himself. It really makes one wonder where you get your talking points. So the other poster is enabling terrorists (giving aid and comfort) by exercising his/her right to free thought and free speech? I believe I heard that same line of reasoning from the religiously-insane control freak John Ashcroft shortly after September 11, 2001.

But you are right--terrorism is not ever acceptable, by any nation, for any cause.

So tell me why it is that the US is the world's largest, busiest, and most effective terrorist organization.

Let me guess: if it's depleted uranium from an M1 or a "smart bomb" from an F-16, that's not terrorism, right? Anxiously awaiting your answer to that one. And I guess the US bulldozing Iraqi homes (neat trick we learned from the IDF) isn't terrorism in your book either.

By the way, if it isn't unjust militarism, what DOES cause terrorism, in your analysis?

[Frontier]

54. Finally...

A reasonable response.

Listen, I appreciate your non hysterical response. Let me just say, again that terrorism is not ever acceptable, by any nation for any cause. (just as I said in my original post)

For Webster to call it "just another way of fighting back" is insane. He/She wouldn't think that if he had lost someone to one of those acts.

See what I'm saying?

By the way, if it isn't unjust militarism, what DOES cause terrorism, in your analysis?

I believe there are numerous causes of terrorism. One of them is surely the acceptance of the practice among your peers.

For example, there was no "unjust militarism" against Timothy McVeigh. But his group of peers said, "yes it's ok to do that...you're just fighting back for what's right, what's yours."

That's why Webster's words, in particular, disturbed me.

[mmm]

56. People do not commit desperate acts in a vacuum...

sometimes this thing you call terrorism is not only
justified - it is essential. Blowing up the Red Cross
is unjustifiable. Alternately, it would take a super human
not to attack US soldiers (using any and all means) after
you had seen your family wiped out.

[Frontier]

66. am I typing in Japanese?

mmm, attacking the Red Cross is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. I have mentioned that in each post... on the other hand I haven't said a thing about attacks vs. soldiers.

I don't care what kind of environment exists. Blowing up Red Cross employees, kid napping and killing U.N. aide workers, blowing up philanthrapists delivering scholarships, etc. etc. etc. (I've listed my precise examples too many times already) is not acceptable.

No amount of "IRAQ DIDN'T CAUSE 9/11" or "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE EVER GONE TO IRAQ" will make it acceptable.

[random]

69. might as well be...

What everyone is expecting you to say is that 32,000 dead Iraqis is terrorism, pure and simple. Anything short of that is naive. But I suppose I'm probably preaching to the choir, you've probably tuned back into Faux News.

[Frontier]

86. random

Just so you know, the figure of speech "preaching to the choir" means that you are blathering on about something the person you're talking to already knows and/or believes.

That means, your above comment is saying, simultaneously, that I'm a right wing nut job who watches Faux News AND that I agree with all your points (thus making me a good progressive).

So which is it you are trying to say?

I really don't understand this backlash, at all. I said terrorism is bad, and all of a sudden I'm Rush, Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rice all rolled into one.


ps> for the record, killing 32,000 Iraqi civilians (especially on purpose) qualifies as terrorism in my book.

[Say_What]

82. Tell that to the thousands of dead at the hands of Uncle Sam around

the globe.

[Nlighten1]

92. They aren't dead you terrorist enabler...

they are "liberated" don't you know?

(/sarcasm)

[mumon]

111. Let's see...

<font=MS Mincho>‚±‚ê‚Í“ú–{Œê‚Å‚·�BŽ„‚Í“ú–{Œê‚Å‚©‚«‚邱‚Æ‚ª‚Å‚«‚Ü‚“�B“_‚͉½‚Å‚µ‚å‚©�H</font=MS Mincho>

[Alt2War]

136. Actually, it was waco.

Actually, McVeigh claimed he was protesting Waco, an act of Unjust militism.

[mmm]

55. Good, please stop typing and start THINKING!

your tunnel vision is giving me claustraphobia!

[Frontier]

73. thinking clearly over here

What exactly do you mean mmmm?

How is saying terrorism is an unacceptable tactic "tunnel vision". Your argument is making absolutely zero sense to me.

I am saying terrorism (i.e. blowing up the Red Cross) is unacceptable.

In response some are saying "IRAQ DIDN'T CAUSE 9/11" and you are saying I have "tunnel vision".

Who is not thinking in this debate?

[robbedvoter]

64. I will chime in: terrorism does exist and is bad

For all the tin foil theories, OBL caused 9.11 (and W is responsible for negligence/ stirring them with the Taliban negotiations).
There are acts of terrorism in Iraq and throughout the world and they are despicable.
There was no connection between Iraq and 9.11 - indeed no terrorism in Saddam's Iraq. There is now.
Military action may lead to terrorism (see what we accomplished in Iraq). So can building up insurgents to destabilize givernments (see Raygun building Osama). Many other reasons - religious fanaticism and even legitimate reasons. The response should differ accordingly (i.e- respond to legitimate causes, encourage exchange of information that leads to enlightenment)
Wars are no way of getting rid of terrorism.
Police action through collaboration of many nations is the right way My man Clark said it right after 9.11:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4257771-103677,00.html
One of the reasins I support him.


Saying that terrorism doesn't exist, that Cheney blew the WTC or that terrorists are good guys puts you in la-la-land in my book.

[Frontier]

75. Well Put

That's what I'm talking about robbed-voter. And I agree, Clark is supportable because of his stance.

[Nlighten1]

67. What do you want on your tombstone?

[Frontier]

76. What are you trying to say?

Are you saying that I'm going to get the boot because I said terrorism is unacceptable?

If you're right, and that happens I'd like "Good Riddance" on my stone, because I don't want to be associated with people who think killing Red Cross employees and U.N. workers is a good thing.

[Nlighten1]

90. You sound like a disruptor

[chopper]

95. wha?

pacifist==disruptor? since when did this turn into freeperland?

[Frontier]

103. stole my exact words

I really feal like I'm in bizzaro world.

I say: terrorism by any nation = bad.
They say: you Bush, you Aschroft.

if it wasn't so sad I'd be laughing.

[Rex]

104. No one called you Bush or Ashcroft because you said terrorism

is bad, but nice try. :eyes:

Good day to you.

[Guaranteed]

118. The guy's against terrorism,

NOT for the Iraq war, and you think he's a freeper? What the hell kind of board do you think this is?

[Rex]

70. Thanks Rush

nt

[chopper]

77. well hey...

if thinking that terrorist attacks against civilian targets is never appropriate makes me a dittohead, then ditto me up.

[Frontier]

79. Thank you chopper

n/t

[Rex]

80. Hi there dittohead.

His post sounds like something Rush would say...well would have said before his detox.

I guess you think leesa saying her mind makes her a terrorist "enabler" as well? That's such a giveaway BTW, but if you are a dittohead I guess it wouldn't be so nevermind.

[chopper]

84. his post?

"His post sounds like something Rush would say"

he said: "Flying planes into buildings, bombing U.N. or Red Cross headquarters, PURPOSELY cutting to shreds innocent men, women and CHILDREN is NOT "just a way of fighting back"."

sounds more like the words of a pragmatic pacifist to me, something which rush never was, and never will be.

"I guess you think leesa saying her mind makes her a terrorist "enabler" as well? "

not at all. i just don't like it when people try to defend terrorist attacks against civilian targets, because i believe that they are inherently indefensible.

like when some douchebag blows up an Egged bus in Tel Aviv, and some idiots on DU come out of the woodwork apologizing for the actions, saying in effect that it's alright to blow up civilians if you have a good enough reason to be pissed off.

i guess that's good enough for some people. to me, its despicable.

[Rex]

98. So now leesa is an idiot for saying the war on terror is a sham?

Prove that she is defending terrorism, she merely stated that we need to get to the ROOT of why people perform acts of terrorism instead of just bombing away indiscriminatly whenever a bus or building is blown up. Are you to blind to see the difference?

[chopper]

123. here you go...

Prove that she is defending terrorism

"Unjust militarism is what causes terrorism...it's just a way of fighting back"

blowing up a civilian bus is 'just a way of fighting back'? against who, the evil bus drivers?

she merely stated that we need to get to the ROOT of why people perform acts of terrorism

no she didn't, she said terrorism was merely 'fighting back'.

[Frontier]

89. A question for you

Rex, Instead of personally insulting me (again). And personally isnulting chopper, or anyone else. How about you adress my point.

I say terrorism BY ANY NATION is not acceptable. I say ROOTING for more, is again, unacceptable.

Do you realize what you're attacking? You're attacking a person (me) who says he deplores violence, especially against civilians.

So I ask you, where do you stand on this issue? Are you FOR or AGAINST terrorism. You can supply a one word answer if you wish.

Your response will reveal you for who YOU really are, without the need for me to hurl childish insults your direction.


Good day.

[Nlighten1]

91. You are comparing apples and oranges

The down-trodden don't have the money to build an army so terrorism is their weapon.

Injustice breeds terrorists.

[Frontier]

101. Dodge Ball

I have answered every one of the countless questions hurled at me by numerous people. All while they (and you) hurled slurs at me. The least you can do is be courageous and courteyous enough to answer my one simple question.

I will repeat it for you:

Are you FOR or AGAINST terrorism. You can supply a one word answer if you wish.

[Nlighten1]

115. Your black and white view on life gives you away.

You want a one word answer for your canard.

[Melinda]

93. Root cause:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." - Sir Issac Newton


Why did 9/11 happen?

[chopper]

94. ask a question, get two non-answers

i guess nobody who believes that there are circumstances when its okay to kill civilians in terrorist attacks wants to fess up.

its either 'well, what else are they supposed to do', or 'the US kills people too'.

[Melinda]

97. Your ethnocentrism is telling.

I'm a pacifist who abhores violence on all levels, but I am also a realist who understands exactly what the USA (and her allies) has wrought across the world and the resultant desperation and desperate acts. Shall I post some photos of the Bush* cabals terrorism for you?

And since you semi-responded to me, why not share your opinion on 9/11?

Why do YOU think 9/11 happened?

[chopper]

125. ethnocentrism?

do you even know what ethnocentrism is?

"Shall I post some photos of the Bush* cabals terrorism for you?"

not necessary. i believe the murder of innocent Iraqis as Bush has done to be just as much a terrorist act as the actions i used as examples above.

"Why do YOU think 9/11 happened?"

a bunch of people are/were extremely pissed at the US's foreign policy, coupled with a fanatical religious worldview which convinced them that civilian murder is a-ok.

of course, by the logic you are defending, well hey, Al Qaeda were merely 'fighting back' against an unjust military apparatus. in no way do i believe that 911 was any kind of legitimate response to any kind of action by the US. it was murder.

is there a reason why 911 happened? of course. did the US deserve it? of course not.

[Melinda]

129. Your perceptions are faulty yet again.

"do you even know what ethnocentrism is?"

From an anthropological standpoint, vis a vis cultural perceptions and life experiences, short answer- yes. You do not understand that you do not understand, and I do.

You demonstrate faulty assumptions and assertions throughout this thread, the most recent being this little gem:

"of course, by the logic you are defending, well hey, Al Qaeda were merely 'fighting back' against an unjust military apparatus".

I'd like to know how you made this froggy leap - care to share?

[chopper]

138. nice argument.

"From an anthropological standpoint, vis a vis cultural perceptions and life experiences, short answer- yes. You do not understand that you do not understand, and I do."

"short answer- yes. You do not understand that you do not understand, and I do."

your sophistic reasoning is astounding.

"I'd like to know how you made this froggy leap - care to share?"

once again, here is the quote in question, which caused all this consternation:

"Unjust militarism is what causes terrorism...it's just a way of fighting back"

that is, terrorism is merely a response to unjust military tactics, and is merely a way of fighting back.

by this logic, 911, which was just such a terrorist attack, was just a way of fighting back against unjust US military aggression. Al Qaeda have even said as much, citing US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and other actions which they consider 'unjust militartism'.

now, there are many people who support that, who believe that Al Qaeda were merely 'fighting back' in the only way that they could. i personally do not believe that murdering 3000 civilians is any kind of legitimate response to anything. but then again, i think murder is wrong. i guess i'm in the minority.

[Rex]

99. No, I merely pointed out the obvious about you.

If the truth hurts, than so be it.

I am against unjust violence. Read into that whatever you may.

[mumon]

112. War IS terrorism.

And a "war against terror" is an oxymoron.

[Alt2War]

137. Terrorism is a loaded word.

Terrorism is a loaded word used by the Strong to discredit and demonize the weak.

All forms of violence is bad. Especially violence of the strong upon the weak. Not just the weak upon the strong.

[Frontier]

78. ...more of the same...

So now, instead of addressing my point (terrorism is unacceptable and we shouldn't root for more) you're just going to hurl personal insults at me?

Not only calling me a right winger, but a drug addict as well.

I, for my part refuse to stoop to that level. I won't insult you back and give you the satisfaction of having my account dissabled.

What I will do is challenge you to actually respond to my actual point, instead of simply calling me names.

Up to that challenge?

[Rex]

83. No that wasn't your point, you called leesa a terrorist 'enabler'

because she called this, "war on terror" a sham. Republicans just LOVE to talk like that; maybe you did not know that so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Also, please point out how ANYONE here has rooted for terrorists? Challenge? I do not even see you as being able to mount a challenge. You do, however, know some good rhetoric.

[chopper]

88. no,

he called her a 'terrorist enabler' because she said that terrorist attacks (referencing those in the main story, that is, synogogues et al) were okay because they were just 'fighting back'. and while i personally wouldn't call her an 'enabler', such an indifferent attitude towards such despicable actions does not bode well for the fight against such actions.

the western world cannot be indifferent or apologetic towards terrorists' murdering of civilians, for any reason, whether the aforementioned terrorists are groups, individuals or states.

i would think that more people on this site would share such a view.

[Rex]

100. terrorist enabler is a wonderful term coined by the right wing,

I would think you and your friend would know that by now.

[chopper]

127. you should really read posts first.

maybe you missed the part where i said "and while i personally wouldn't call her an 'enabler'"

"terrorist enabler is a wonderful term coined by the right wing,"

yes, and assuming someone's wrong because they use a term of the opposite political persuation is also something coined by the RW.

"oh, that's a term LIBERALS use. you must be one of them"

besides, if the best argument you have is that he used a term that the RW uses, you really don't have much of a leg to stand on.

[Frontier]

102. Clarification

I did not _exactly_ call leesa an enabler, and besides that wasn't my major point. I am not here to send personal insults, but to discuss the issues. So, for the record, I will take back my use of that exact word in its context.

I would change the phrase to, "your support for terrorism is making it more likely to occur, not less."

But my major point (read through the posts again) remains the same. Terrorism is not an acceptable tool for any nation or group. I have said that repeatedly through multiple posts while people hurl countless insults at me.

My almost use of the word "enabler" does not make me Rush, or Condi or Shrub... and it also doesn't make my point any less valid or true.

[MUAD_DIB]

81. Terroism is never acceptable, but lies are?

One more time. Just for those that missed it. With amenity to all.

There is NO proven Osama Bin Ladin/Sadam Hussein/Iraq connection.

There is NO proven connection between Iraq and the WTC attack.

There are also NO WMD's that have been uncovered after 6 months.


..now go take a breather....

[Zhade]

114. Everyone is overreacting.

Frontier DID NOT state, infer, or imply that Iraq was responsible for 911.

Frontier DID use 911 as an EXAMPLE of terrorism. Then he went on to explain that terrorism from ANYONE is unacceptable.

He is quite correct. The targeted killing of innocent noncombatants is NOT acceptable. Ever.

The easiest way for people to understand that terrorism is not acceptable: if the U.S. were to be invaded, would it be okay for, say, Texans to blow up a school to try to get the invaders out?

Of course not. That would be killing our own. Likewise, it would be wrong to bomb any international agencies in America that simply wanted to provide humanitarian relief.

People (this is addressed to everyone), Frontier is not spewing right-wing talking points. He's making an excellent point that terrorism against civilians is not acceptable. Makes sense to me.

[donotpassgo]

108. The British might have called the American Revolutionaries terrorists

n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

121. ;-) we still do! n/t

[iam]

116. Context here

The US in WWII bombed and nuked civilian targets that include lots of school buses and churches. This was acceptable because we were defending ourselves. Do "terrorists" believe they are defending themselves? Can "terrorists" make the case that they are defending them selves? I believe the Palestinians can, they are fighting Israeli occupiers. Those who were responsible for 9/11 can't. If those planes were flown by Palestinians into Israeli buildings, would it be self-defense?
Now I believ if the Palestinians were to march 100,000 strong to Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem and sit down on main Street and begin a hunger strike I think the Israelis would be out of the occupied territories within a year.

[Dead_Parrot]

119. Note to self, Frontier et al....:

Having had a beer and a reflection, I think we're tying ourselves into knots over definitions - mainly those around "terrorist" and "freedom fighter": 9/11 was an act of pure terrorism, and none us here will argue with that. If the bastards weren't dead, I'll kill 'em myself. But I think we're all lumping this act together with the post-occupation bombs in Iraq, which is over-simplifying things. OK, what the RC bombing was about is anyones guess, but attacks on the 'weak-spots' of the US/UK, such as the british consulate this morning, are no worse that the attacks carried out by the French resistance in WWII, and compared to 'our' bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima they're positivley benign.

One mans terror attack is another mans blow for freedom: what you call it depends on where - and when - you are. The Freepers probably think dropping a cluster bomb on a Bagdad maternity hospital, on the grounds it may have weapons in it, is perfectly acceptable: The parents of the Iraqi kids probably think it's murder.

We're too close to the events to write the history just yet. Some extremists view 9/11 as a blow for freedom: we can dissagree, but it's too soon to say for certain how history will judge events.
:D Of course Frontier, myself and the Iraqis all want shrub kicked out, so maybe we're not lost yet.

Frontier: It's not Japanese, and I cry Pax...

on edit-Everyone else: Frontier can't be a Freeper. He thinks too much... :D

[Alt2War]

135. Justice?

"Flying planes into buildings" is unjust.

Dropping bombs on Innocent Civilians is?

"bombing U.N. or Red Cross headquarters" is unjust.

Permanantly contaminating previously inhabitated zones with Depleted Uranium is? (Iraq cancer and lukimia rate up 1400%, Birth defects up 600%)

"PURPOSELY cutting to shreds innocent men, women and CHILDREN"

Both sides do this.

"YOU, my friend, are enabling terrorism and terrorists by saying, 'you're actions are acceptable.'"

You, my friend, are using terrorism to enable Wholesale Imperial Slaughter and Looting.

"Terrorism is NOT EVER acceptable. Not by any nation, not for any cause."

Terrorism is a loaded word used by a powerful force to discredit and demonize a weaker one.

You want to stop seeing young men and women falling pray to religious fanaticism? You want to stop suicide bombers? You want to keep your homeland safe?

Then stop pushing desperate and suffering people into a corner. Stop trampling on their dignity. Stop destroying their means of survival. Stop adding to their suffering. it's just that simple.

[cliss]

63. Leesa: I agree 100%.

You captured exactly how I feel, and you did it with just a few sentences.

By the way,Frontier, you need to go back and read the rules of posting here at the Democratic Underground. You're breaking some - you never attack the person, and you've done that.

[CWebster]

46. But haven't you heard?

They are back to pushing the case of a connection between Saddam and bin Laden and now will attempt to poison Europe with fear-mongering. The Bush-Blair monster threatens world stability more than anything on earth. Had our closest ally stood up to us in the face of this lie, Bush would be out on his ass.

[MUAD_DIB]

74. Tracki'n down and killi'n them thar Eye-Wrackie varmits!

How eloquent can our duly :eyes: elected chimp be?

Could he at least say "bring them to justice" just once so as to make him seem just a little bit respectful of diplomatic language?

Oratory is not one of his finer points. Come to think of it does he have any finer points?

[dArKeR]

5. LOL 'We are there just to steal their oil and land. You know that's a lie'

[Jacobin]

15. One of those "elephant in the room" moments

I noticed them both squirming at that lie.

[lindashaw]

6. This is embarrassing...somehow I can't imagine FDR or JFK

giving such simplistic and nothing-burger answers. If I hear one more time that the terrorists hate freedom...*sigh*

[dArKeR]

8. Look at the IDIOT face on Bush when Blair is speaking. What a disgrace!

[Jacobin]

13. Very "Churchilian" of Smirk, doncha know?

/sarcasm

[0007]

20. I know what ya mean

Mass graves, gotta level the playing field, freedom loving people must be free.....yuk!

[soothsayer]

23. the poodle nods like a bobblehead whenever the chimp speaks

ick

[Kolesar]

10. reporter: Guantanamo detentions...belie all your talk about "freedom"

Ok, that is a shortened paraphrase.
Blair answer is bullshit.
Bush* "these are illegal combatants picked up on a battlefield" :wtf:
"as for British citizens, we are working with the British gov't"

[Cocoa]

57. when Blair was in Washington, Bush's answer was awful

he said "I know these are bad people."

The reporter came back with "doesn't an answer like that make us question even more whether the detainees are going to get justice?"

[PsychoDad]

58. illegal combatants

Used to be called partisans.

[Jacobin]

12. Blair: "IF we are able to bring stability and democracy to Iraq"

Doubt creeping in to the invincible pair of warmonger's lexicon.

Very defensive. Very telling

[dArKeR]

14. I think there are video monitor teleprompters in the podiums. See Chimpy

keep looking down.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FunBobbyMucha]

42. What a missed opportunity

for Chimptastic to channel Dirty Harry again:

"Bring it on...again...err, some more...um...continue to bring it on."

[dArKeR]

16. I can't believe either of them can joke and smile back and forth! 450

have just been killed or wounded!

[dArKeR]

17. YES!!! 'Why do they, English, HATE you! Bush'

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

19. "Why do they hate you in such numbers?"

And Bush's best come back is "I believe in freedom."

What a jerk.

[maddezmom]

26. "don't know that they do"

was the other response. idiot.

[maddezmom]

21. "freedom is beautiful"

too bad we are losing it in the USA

[berner59]

22. Terrorists cause terrorism....

Brilliant Tony, BRILLIANT!!!! Of course they attacked BRITISH targets because of Bush being there...face it guys, you're responsible for thousands of innocent lives...murder!!!

[FlashHarry]

24. Freedom comes from the Almighty???

WTF?

[0007]

25. Can't talke to those people they hate us for our freedom

gotta kill 'em.

What a worthless fucking press conference.

[rusty charly]

27. bored with it

CNN cuts away

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. reporter to bush "how does it make you feel to know that you are hated

by everyone and why are you so hatedby so many?" ....and then asked blair "how does it make you feel to know that the bombing and deaths of so many in turkey today is because of your alliance with bush?"...bush just chuckled and answered "yuck yuck i don't know that i am...yuck yuck freedom is beautiful" ...that's all he said.......he he makes me fucking :puke:...the arrogant basturd!!!!

what statesmanship and compassion :grr: :grr:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

31. That question was the highlight of the "press conference."

I wish we could get him into more unscripted conferences. He never fails to make an ass out of himself. Hell, even the freeps would have had to wonder about him saying "The United Steets... er, states."

[chenGOD]

33. That's right when I tuned in on CNN international....

just about started to projectile :puke: when I heard him talk about Iraqis being able to protest. Notice he didn't mention how the Iraqi protestors got shot at afterwards.

He doesn't know that he's hated cause of the protective bubble around him. Talk about out of touch. Or maybe it's cause he's high an the cocaine all the time. Inflated ego is one of the major side effects of the yayao....

[hippiechick]

30. OMG did anyone catch CNN ...

Chimpy visited with FAMILIES of fallen Brit soldiers yesterday ??


WHERE is the outrage that nobody from this Admin has visited or offered condolences to the families of OUR fallen ??


:nuke:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

32. Too many families. It'd be bad press. Besides, all the Moms and Dads

aren't really happy with him and he'd have to keep reaffirming how much he loves freedom of speech.

[hippiechick]

36. Oh I know it's a PR nightmare ... but that's the POINT

....the hypocrisy of him going to meet with Brit families, but KKKarl keeping our dead/injured as a dirty little secret to protect Chimpy's poll numbers ...

We need to be on this like stink on shit !!



:hippie:

[Maeve]

37. SELECTED families only

Several high-profile parents were most assuredly NOT invited since they aren't exactly friendly to the pResident.

[It was not a pretzel]

40. they were selected

Sky News had two fathers of dead soldiers on who are very critical of B & B. They said the families were selected from each branch of the military and then only 1 member from each family. They suspect only quietly spoken, polite and non-critical people will be chosen.

[Maeve]

CBS also covered some of the "unselected" last night

Mustn't burst Dubya's bubble!

[chiburb]

47. CBS News also reported this morning...

That many families refused to meet with Bush. This is significant because they didn't HAVE to say that, but chose to in a 4 minute report at the top of the hour (radio).

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

133. Thank god some are still reporting news.

It looks like it's going to be the Year of the MJ for a while as far as broadcast news goes here in the States.

[Francis]

61. WTC victims

I think he spent time with the families of British people that died on 911.
He laid a wreath honoring fallen service men

[Malva Zebrina]

35. this whole trip has been a smack in the face

not only to the families of the American dead and wounded, but to the British dead and wounded and to the Iraqi dead and wounded civilians. There has been unspeakable mayhem and utter suffering on the part of our young who were sent to die on a lie of this despicable AWOL prick while he dresses in tails and frumpolump dresses in curtains and chandelier necklaces with white gardening gloves on, and the Queen and Blair are just so thrilled to take the two all over, feed them at banquests and pose for the photo ops that tell what a good time is being had by all. There is something obscene about the whole thing--something morally pornographic. Bush needs to be taken out of the White House--

Here is his smirk as Blair is talking

[hippiechick]

38. he looks like a corpse

a pasty, bloated, drunken corpse with bad funeral parlor makeup.






:hippie:

[ninkasi]

43. Marianne, I agree 100%

You said "There is something obscene about the whole thing--something morally pornographic. Bush needs to be taken out of the White House--"

The whole thing is shameful.

[Sideways]

85. I've Always Loved You But This Clinches It For Me

"this despicable AWOL prick while he dresses in tails and frumpolump dresses in curtains and chandelier necklaces with white gardening gloves on"

Good fucking Gawd I said almost the same thing this morning when I said to Ray "Shit she is wearing the carpet and donning gloves."

Fucking shit woman you look like you got dressed at a gargage sale. What TRASH.

The despicable prick thingy is always the first thing out of my mouth when I see the fuckwiitage's face.

I am not a violent person and generally not an angry one. Friends and family would most likely describe me as loving.

But when I see ass-hat on my TV I become enraged. To the point where I must let myself go outside and howl in the wind.

[PaDUer]

107. He's probably shocked

that the poodle can speak without reading a written speech for him..Might be thinking to himself that the poodle isn't dumb like him but that he screwed him over big time..those smerks on his puss say so much!

[MaineDem]

39. "reiNterate"

He actually mispronounced a lot of things.

Was it just me, or did this guy slur almost everything he said? He sounded - and looked - horrible. Even more horrible than usual.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

41. I heard that one, too. Compared to Blair, he came across like "Floyd

tha barber" of Mayberry fame.

Get a tape of this and count the "uh's" he sputters. I'll bet there's at least a couple of hundred there.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

59. Transcript of the best question and link

<snip>
QUESTION: What do you say to people who today conclude that British people have died and been maimed as a result of you appearing here today, shoulder-to-shoulder with a controversial American President?

And, Mr. President, if I could ask you, with thousands on the street - with thousands marching on the streets today here in London, a free nation, what is your conclusion as to why apparently so many free citizens fear you and even hate you?

BUSH: I'd say freedom is beautiful. It's a fantastic thing to come to a country where people are able to express their views.

QUESTION: Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?

BUSH: I don't know that they do. All I know is that it's - that people in Baghdad, for example, weren't allowed to do this up until recent history. They're not spending a lot of time in North Korea protesting the current leadership. Freedom is a wonderful thing, and I respect that. I fully understand people don't agree with war. But I hope they agree with peace and freedom and liberty. I hope they care deeply about the fact that when we find suffering and torture and mass graves, we weep for the citizens that are being brutalized by tyrants.

And, finally, the Prime Minister and I have a solemn duty to protect our people. And that's exactly what I intend to do as the President of the United States, protect the people of my country.


http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031120/API/311200736

[calimary]

62. AMAZING that someone actually asked this. AMAZING!!!

Maybe we HAVE won a small victory.

Our pansy-ass press wouldn't dare. But SOMEONE out there does. And, thankfully, it seems to be getting coverage.

WHY aren't we asking the First Crap-Meister stuff like this - EVERY HOUR ON THE HOUR?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

87. Why aren't we asking? No. 1, Colin Powell's son runs the FCC and

No. 2, Our reporters know what kind of retribution the Bush Junta is capable of and they are justifiably afraid.

Kinda dark & cynical, isn't it.

[Nlighten1]

68. "we weep for the citizens that are being brutalized by tyrants."

Is he weeping for the protestors in Miami now? I bet he isn't

[grasswire]

105. who asked that question?

on edit: I see that a Brit reporter named Nick asked the question.

My hero.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

106. Yes. He was a British reporter.

He spole English. I was surprised that Bush could understand him.

[Aries]

110. Similar to a scene in the current movie "Love Actually"

which I saw last night...except in the movie press conference Hugh Grant as the British Prime Minister slaps down Billy Bob Thornton as the President of the U.S.A. for making America the bully of the world, and says Britain's not going to stand for it. Billy Bob stands there dumbfounded, while the (British) press corps cheers.

It was kind of a dream sequence....

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. It was Nick Robinson

reporter for ITN (supplies news programmes to ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, ie all 3 broadcast independent channels).

[newsjunkie]

109. Why are these people still LYING?

We all know it wasn't 'Al Qaeda' that attacked us on 9-11...even the chimp admitted that one day! These liars make me want to hurl!:puke:

Tony Blair--{{Let us be very clear: America did not attack al Qaeda on September the 11th; Al Qaeda attacked America, and in doing so, attacked not just America, but the way of life of all people who believe in tolerance and freedom, justice and peace.}}}

[Zhade]

120. Where did he say this?

"We all know it wasn't 'Al Qaeda' that attacked us on 9-11...even the chimp admitted that one day!"

I'm very interested in knowing where he said this - seeing as how I already believe the "war on terrorism" is a front for a different agenda.

[newsjunkie]

122. I just meant

they are still using(though in a vague sneaky way) 9-11 to justify their collaboration on the illegal attack on Iraq. Sorry, I didnt make that very clear.I meant 'Saddam',not Al queada.

[Zhade]

124. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I gotcha.

Damn. Would have been nice to hear him admit what I think. But he didn't, so oh well.

[0007]

126. Tony Blair was indeed impressed with junior's 'Road Map to Peace!

Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group may be the road to terrorism.
Ethnocentrism

[newsjunkie]

128. Thats great..

:cry: its sad too.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

134. Just watched it on CSPAN...* really has the authoritarian fear mongering

rap down.