NationStates Jolt Archive

So, looking over the HS rediness website more (you know, the one from the "gay" thread) http://www.ready.gov/kids/step3/index.html, i found something quite interesting:

Terrorism is the use of threat or violence to scare governments into changing their policies. A terrorist can be an individual or a member of an organization. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, are examples of acts of terrorism

Not only is this a horrible definition of "terrorism," but since they define it this way, i'll have to go along with them. Because what they forget to mention, is that this is exactly what the Bush Administration did in Iraq and Afghanistan. They used threats, then they used violence to force a government to change its policies. In this case, they changed the government for them, and now we're seeing the exact same thing in Iran.

And people say Bush isn't hypocritical ;)

Not only is this a horrible definition of "terrorism," but since they define it this way, i'll have to go along with them. Because what they forget to mention, is that this is exactly what the Bush Administration did in Iraq and Afghanistan. They used threats, then they used violence to force a government to change its policies. In this case, they changed the government for them, and now we're seeing the exact same thing in Iran.


Tasty is right!! *pssshhhh!!*

Well, I'm glad something came out of that thread.

That's obviously a definition meant for children. What I wonder is if the definition the Bush administration uses for adults differs in any significant way?

Well, I'm glad something came out of that thread.

That's obviously a definition meant for children. What I wonder is if the definition the Bush administration uses for adults differs in any significant way?
I doubt it. They probably had to come up with that so Bush would understand the concept :p

That's obviously a definition meant for children. What I wonder is if the definition the Bush administration uses for adults differs in any significant way?

http://www.photoduck.com/photo.aspx?id=26668

http://www.photoduck.com/photo.aspx?id=26668

You DO realize that was photoshopped, right?

You DO realize that was photoshopped, right?
this isnt (http://www.willthomas.net/images/Is_Bush_Nuts.jpg)

That particular definition reeks of Orwellianism to me. :(

You DO realize that was photoshopped, right?

Yup.. but that isn't :D ^ ^ ^

That particular definition reeks of Orwellianism to me. :(

*War is Peace*

this isnt (http://www.willthomas.net/images/Is_Bush_Nuts.jpg)


Not altered, eh? Personally, I've never seen a pair of binoculars that came with a floating red line around them.

You DO realize that was photoshopped, right?

*examines picture closely* Hmm... Yeah, seems it is. It's a good job, though.

Gee, Bush's administration is hypocritical. Whatta shock. I checked the site and found the material to be typical of child-marketed information: simplistic to the point of insulting the kid's intelligence. Eh, well; could be worse.

Not altered, eh? Personally, I've never seen a pair of binoculars that came with a floating red line around them.
http://www.theforum.gov.uk/events/presentations/metadata/bushbinoculars.jpg

*War is Peace*
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
--GWB, Washington, D.C., Jun. 18, 2002

Whoa... If you are gonna criticise Bush you need to use smaller words. You know so that Chaney can pronounce them when he is reading Goerge his bedtime story.

http://www.theforum.gov.uk/events/presentations/metadata/bushbinoculars.jpg
There's not a person here who doubts my loathing for Bush (or if there is, it's a n00b), but as Snopes points out, Bush isn't the first (http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp) and he didn't make the mistake for long. Hell, I've made that mistake before, but because I'm not the President and don't have cameras trained on me 24-7, no one saw it. There's plenty of better reasons to give him shit

http://www.theforum.gov.uk/events/presentations/metadata/bushbinoculars.jpg

Remind me to start adding tags around jokes so that people realize I'm not as stupid as I act. :rolleyes:

Remind me to start adding tags around jokes so that people realize I'm not as stupid as I act. :rolleyes:
well, there are a lot of crazy people on these forums and i guess i was too lazy to read your sig. anyways, i know bush wasn't the first to do that, but that was the first picture of him doing something stupid that popped into my head. Perhaps these are better...specifically the second one down.
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/incidents.shtml

There's not a person here who doubts my loathing for Bush (or if there is, it's a n00b), but as Snopes points out, Bush isn't the first (http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp) and he didn't make the mistake for long. Hell, I've made that mistake before, but because I'm not the President and don't have cameras trained on me 24-7, no one saw it. There's plenty of better reasons to give him shit
Like his constant harping on about democracy being the great peace. Not even GWB lives in a democracy. He dosnt even live in a representative republic in my opinion.

So, looking over the HS rediness website more (you know, the one from the "gay" thread) http://www.ready.gov/kids/step3/index.html, i found something quite interesting:



Not only is this a horrible definition of "terrorism," but since they define it this way, i'll have to go along with them. Because what they forget to mention, is that this is exactly what the Bush Administration did in Iraq and Afghanistan. They used threats, then they used violence to force a government to change its policies. In this case, they changed the government for them, and now we're seeing the exact same thing in Iran.

And people say Bush isn't hypocritical ;)

You should be glad that this is exactly what the Bush Administration did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You should be glad those terrorist attacks in the USA did not occur in your nation of origin.

Terrorism is the use of threat or violence to scare governments into changing their policies. A terrorist can be an individual or a member of an organization. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, are examples of acts of terrorism

Heh. So like, threatening Iran with invasion in order to scare their government into dropping their nuclear program would be terrorism, yes? Nuking two Japanese cities to scare their government into surrendering would be terrorism, yes?

Heh. So like, threatening Iran with invasion in order to scare their government into dropping their nuclear program would be terrorism, yes? Nuking two Japanese cities to scare their government into surrendering would be terrorism, yes?

By that definition ? Correct. But why deny terrorism can be for a good cause ? Most terrorist probably believe so..

By that definition ? Correct. But why deny terrorism can be for a good cause ? Most terrorist probably believe so..

Well, we're having a "War on Terrorism." It wouldn't do for us to be making war on something that can be used for a good cause, would it?

Micheal Collins was a terrorist, using terrorist tactics. Yet he get's a hero movie(good though). Even Jesus must have been seen as a terrorist once, subverting people to a heathen religion and threatening the roman state. Terrorism is a very odd term. On one side, it's called terrorism. On the other, heroism. How many times haven't we seen the heroic patriot sacrificing himslef to save the world? It happens all the time in Hollywood.

Remind me to start adding tags around jokes so that people realize I'm not as stupid as I act. :rolleyes:
Nah, why bother?
Give a poser on occasion. It makes for interesting low-level flamebait.
*nods*

You should be glad that this is exactly what the Bush Administration did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wrong. So what now?
You should be glad those terrorist attacks in the USA did not occur in your nation of origin.
WTF? The attack on the towers that started this f*cking juggernaut WAS in my nation of origin. How am i or anyone else here supposed to be glad about it?

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
--GWB, Washington, D.C., Jun. 18, 2002
*throws up*

And people say Bush isn't hypocritical ;)

He isn't. He'd only be hypocritical if he denied being a terrorist, and that'd be like denying the world is round.

He isn't. He'd only be hypocritical if he denied being a terrorist, and that'd be like denying the world is round.
That's quite a narrow view, and not one without evidence to the contrary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60779-2004Sep29.html

also ...
According to the White House the proposal would “restrict the president’s authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice”
In an extraordinary declaration of the brutality of American foreign policy, the Bush administration denounced a Senate vote to bar the use of torture against prisoners held by the US military. Responding to the passage of an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill—approved by an overwhelming 90-9 vote Wednesday, the White House said the proposal would “restrict the president’s authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice.”

The statement indicated that Bush would veto the entire appropriation, providing $440 billion to fund military operations for the next fiscal year, rather than accept the restrictions on interrogation techniques spelled out in the Senate amendment.

-
and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.
---
A case can be made that such threats of violent consequence ARE terrorist in nature.