George Bush: Worst American president in history

[mousecrazy 2]

Thank you, BJean, for a really interesting exchange.

The US is very different from Hussein. I do not believe that any US President, upon election, called all the members of his party in, identified 60 or so traitors, had them leave the room, and then had the remaining members go out and shoot them. I don't think any US President ruled by terror, killing millions of Americans, and causing families to fear that at any minute, one of their family members could be pulled out and tortured or killed...or their daughters or wives raped, tortured or killed. This was the way of life in Iraq under Hussein. There is a documentary on National Geographic Channel that covers this very topic, if you can stand to watch it. I am a wife and mother, too. I don't like war, but if that is what it takes to save people from THIS, then so be it. I just want our military to be allowed to perform the task they are trained to do; not be beat cops (not that there's anything wrong with that; I support the police, but it's a different job). If we need to destroy an enemy to protect ourselves, then let's get to it and quit pretending the job doesn't have to be done.

As for home grown terrorists...aren't they Muslim, too? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. For example, there was a failed bomb attempt at an OU football game last fall...unfortunately, the student killed himself. Fortunately, he was unable to gain entrance to the game, and didn't kill anyone else. This would be a homegrown terrorist, but he was Muslim. What type of homegrown terrorists, blowing stuff up, are you referring to, laurend?

[anonemouse 1]

As for home grown terrorists...aren't they Muslim, too? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. For example, there was a failed bomb attempt at an OU football game last fall...unfortunately, the student killed himself. Fortunately, he was unable to gain entrance to the game, and didn't kill anyone else. This would be a homegrown terrorist, but he was Muslim. What type of homegrown terrorists, blowing stuff up, are you referring to, laurend?

I am referring to people like Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma City bombers. I am referring to the whiter than white Christian extremists, the KKK, militias, etc. The thing I am most scared of is that while we are profiling for Muslim extremists, we overlook the Christian ones.

I agree that our country has to be ready to fight. Believe me, I am not a pacifist. I think we should go to war when it is warranted. I just don't think it is warranted now, at least not the war in Iraq. If we were fighting a war against Al-Qaida or the Taliban, more power to us. But we didn't attack Iraq because of Al-Qaida or the Taliban.

I don't think any US President ruled by terror, killing millions of Americans, and causing families to fear that at any minute, one of their family members could be pulled out and tortured or killed.

Really? What about the hundreds of Muslim men that were secretly arrested and held after 9/11? What about the Canadian man that we had deported to Syria and tortured? One of the things that gets my goat is that we, as a nation, say that we don't have to follow the Geneva Convention when we capture people or arrest them, because they are accused terrorists and "they aren't part of a uniformed army" or some such crap like that, and then we expect our soldiers to be treated fairly.

[mousecrazy 2]

How can I say this clearly? I hardly think that an isolated incident (if verifiable, and maybe it is) is equal in ANY WAY to the type of situation the Iraqi people endured over decades, with millions killed and more tortured.

Dare I say that there might be a tad, just a bit, of paranoia toward Christians on your part? I cannot dredge up a long list of terror attacks committed by Christians in the name of Jesus. On the other hand, I and others have produced several long lists of radical Islamic terror attacks. Can you not see the forest for the trees? Paranoia?

Alright then, what you are calling for is for Homeland Security to discontinue or reduce screening for terror plots from Muslim radicals (in which case we would have missed that big one in the UK), and start paying greater attention to the Christian radicals? This is the imminent threat you believe requires greater attention and focus? Are you serious?

Following this argument further, is there a presidential candidate out there at this point who reflects this point of view? I'm interested in who you might be supporting, but perhaps it is too early for that. I know I do not yet have a favorite.

[anonemouse 1]

I'm interested in who you might be supporting, but perhaps it is too early for that.

At this point, I like Biden the best. I like Obama as well, but I think that he doesn't have enough political experience yet. I'll vote for Hillary if she is the candidate chosen, but she rubs me the wrong way sometimes.

I hardly think that an isolated incident (if verifiable, and maybe it is) is equal in ANY WAY to the type of situation the Iraqi people endured over decades, with millions killed and more tortured.

The thing is, the Iraqi people weren't our business. We are not the police of the world, especially when we are cherry-picking the destinations of our troops. Was Saddam a horrible dictator, ordering the murders, rapes, and torture of his people? Doubtless. Was he a danger to us? No. Did he actually serve as a deterrent to his countrymen joining Al-Qaida? I think so. Is that deterrent in place now that he's dead? Nope.

Dare I say that there might be a tad, just a bit, of paranoia toward Christians on your part? I cannot dredge up a long list of terror attacks committed by Christians in the name of Jesus. On the other hand, I and others have produced several long lists of radical Islamic terror attacks. Can you not see the forest for the trees? Paranoia?

It depends on what you consider terrorist attacks. Were the Crusades terrorist attacks? Were the attacks on Native American villages terrorist attacks? I am sure the people killed thought so. Ask an Irish person if Christians commit terrorist attacks. I am pretty sure they would agree that they do. On the other hand, I've never seen a Buddhist terrorist.

Alright then, what you are calling for is for Homeland Security to discontinue or reduce screening for terror plots from Muslim radicals (in which case we would have missed that big one in the UK), and start paying greater attention to the Christian radicals?

I am not saying that they necessarily reduce the screening, but I do think they should start screening people of other nationalities and religions.

This is the imminent threat you believe requires greater attention and focus? Are you serious?

Well, you tell me. Which is the more imminent threat? The people who know they are being watched and screened for? Or the people who know that our backs are turned and that we aren't looking for a blonde, blue-eyed man or woman?

[anonemouse 1]

Jihad: Struggle, the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history.

It's pretty much been a constant of Christianity, too.

[BJean 16]

So the answer to my first question would be, no? The answer to my second question would be, yes?

I just want to make sure I understand your lengthy answer.

And to answer your question, no, I have not read the Geneva Convention. I have a pretty good grip of some of the items, but I do not have a copy in my hip pocket. I could go online and find it and read it but why bother? Our administration doesn't believe it is valid anymore.

[mousecrazy 2]

The Geneva convention (and I don't have one in my purse, so I'm paraphrasing) applies to uniformed and declared military combatants. It does not and has never applied to "guerilla" or terrorist, un-uniformed combatants.

This is not some weird interpretation of the Bush administration.

I am open to being educated about a war where the Geneva Conventions were held to apply to insurgents. We are, in reality, in a war with Iran, who is supporting, funding, and supplying the insurgency. I gues it's called a war by proxy. Iraq is just a place this battle is being waged...you are going to have to forget country boundaries and affiliations in this modern conflict...it is all about the ideology; country affiliations are irrelevant in this regard. Does a river know through which country it is flowing?

Re: Christian radical terrorists...if one has to reach back to the Crusades, I just don't think one is going to get a lot of traction currently in light of the pressing danger presented by jihadis the world over.

[anonemouse 1]

A few examples of Christian terrorism in the name of Jesus:

1940s - Terrorist organization Christian Identity is formed on the West Coast of the United States. Followers believe Armageddon will take place as a race war between Aryans, the "pure" people, against Jews, Muslims, and non-whites (including non-white Christians).

1969-2001 - over 3000 people are killed in Ireland and the United Kingdom as a result of bombings and other violent acts between the predominently Roman Catholic Irish nationalists on one side, and the predominantly Protestant Unionists and secular British Crown forces on the other. More than 1800 of those killed in "The Troubles" are civilians, many the victims of sectarian attacks.

1983 - Posse Comitatus militia member Gordon Kahl kills two Federal marshals in North Dakota. Three others are wounded.

July 27, 1996 - Christian Identity terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph bombs Centennial Olympic Park. Kills 1, wounds 111.

January 16, 1997 - Christian Identity terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph bombs a gay nightclub.

October 2, 2004 - Christian terrorist group kills 44 Hindus, wounds 118 in Northeast India.

Clayton Waagner, the man who was convicted of sending over 550 anthrax threat letters to clinics in 2001, signed many of his threat letters with the Army of God. He also posted threats to kill 42 individuals working at abortion clinics on the Army of God website

Army of God member James Kopp, alias Atomic Dog, was convicted for the fatal shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian in 1998. Also thought to be linked to Kopp are shootings that injured Dr. Garson Romalis in Vancouver, BC, on November 8, 1994, Dr. Hugh Short in Ancaster, ON, on November 10, 1995 (Kopp is charged with this shooting), an unnamed physician in Rochester, NY, on October 28, 1997, and Dr. Jack Fainman in Winnipeg, MB, on November 11, 1997.

In 1984, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun received a death threat through the mail from the Army of God. Also in 1984, several abortion clinics as well as the offices of the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union were bombed. The name Army of God was found at one of the crime scenes. Michael Bray, Thomas Spinks, and Kenneth Shields were responsible for the crimes and spent time in prison.

[BJean 16]

Hey Jack. Whoa there. I did scan your document. It was of interest to me. I suppose I did not read it with the same eyes that perhaps you thought I should.

I didn't mean to offend you or be thick-headed.

I was just wanting to know if you think that diplomacy NEVER works and I wanted to know if you think that war is the best and perhaps the ONLY way for the U.S. to resolve conflicts.

From everything that I have read that you've posted, it seems to me that you believe strongly that diplomacy doesn't work. And whenever someone posts something about the negativity of this war, you give examples of why it is the only way to resolve the issues of jihad as it relates to the U.S. or perhaps anywhere in the world.

In fact, you give example after example of reasons why you believe that those of us who are against this war and those of us who favor diplomacy are wrong. What I'm wondering is if you think that War is the only way and Diplomacy has no chance EVER of solving any world problems?

I shouldn't really have asked for examples. I was just wondering if your views are all encompassing.

[mousecrazy 2]

Thanks for that list, laurend. I hope I did not give the impression that I believe that ALL people who say they are Christian are perfect and sane; obviously that is not the case. Still, the Christian religion does not, as a matter of course, put all their kids in schools that teach them to kill themselves and as many Jews, Muslims, and Catholics as possible, in the name of Jesus. This is what happens in Muslim schools. I just do not see the equivalency of the danger to the United States in the two situations.

Some definitions from the Geneva conventions:

COMBATANT:

...including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

NON-COMBATANT:

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

ANOTHER SPECIFICATION:

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

[mousecrazy 2]

BJean, sorry to interrupt the exchange with Jack, yet I think we are both asking why "your side" thinks that diplomacy WILL work?

Example after example, case after case shows that with certain types of "true believers"...certain ideologies...there can be no diplomacy because there actually is NO satisfactory offer that can be accepted by the other side. None. There is nowhere to go from that position. Negotiations, real negotiations and not just a handshake for the cameras, must involve two positions from which both parties can agree to move. The "kitman" situation Jack described earlier has bit us in the behind many times already. It is perfectly okay to say one thing, all the while never meaning to actually do it. We are having trouble with Maliki, even though we support his government, right now with that sort of thing....he must suppress the sectarian violence, and why is he not?

Okay, sorry to butt in...thought I might have something to add in the way of clarification.

[BJean 16]

Thanks, Mouse. I was under the impression that the Geneva Convention pertained to all prisoners of war. My bad.

Since this is about terrorists, we can grab suspects and do whatever our laws say we can to them. Oops. That can't be what we're doing. We don't have laws that say we can hold prisoners indefinitely without charging them. Our laws say that we cannot torture people. We must be operating under one of the recently enacted Bush laws. Those would probably come right after the laws he enacted that replace the ones saying the government can't wiretap, discriminate and the other stuff.

What you and Jack seem to be telling us is that because there are terrorists all over the world and because of 9/11, all bets are off and forget diplomacy, forget conventional rules of the land, do whatever Bush says is the only way to combat terrorism. Afterall, we don't want those Muslims coming over here and making us get on our knees and pray to Allah. Thank goodness we have someone with balls who won't let them get us.

[BJean 16]

Mouse this is an open forum. You aren't butting in. Ever. Those are, of course, good points. And they are reasons why you and Jack feel the way you do. You have told us over and over.

We have said over and over why we pray that there can be some peaceful end to the war in Iraq. We would like to think that there are some people with enough intelligence to represent the United States, who can deal with those people, even knowing what they are, to stop the killing. To stop the bombing. To put an end to the loss of American lives. Are there no qualified people willing to try? It's okay if it doesn't work immediately. No one expects a quick and easy solution.

But if we just keep saying that War is the only answer to dealing with extremeists, we will have to build lots and lots more bombs. The killing will never end. We just don't think that more and more killing will bring an end to it. We think that either we need to stop killing and get the heck out, or wipe out the entire Middle East. Completely. No little cells in caves. No civilians. Flatten it into a vast wasteland. Then war might work.

[anonemouse 1]

Still, the Christian religion does not, as a matter of course, put all their kids in schools that teach them to kill themselves and as many Jews, Muslims, and Catholics as possible, in the name of Jesus. This is what happens in Muslim schools.

That is what happens in SOME Muslim schools, not all. If I can't lump all Christians in with the nutjob extremist Christians, then you can't lump all Muslims in with the nutjob extremist Muslims.

[mousecrazy 2]

The fish tank is a good analogy because it demonstrates natural behavior.

A point of information: The US President does not rule by decree. The Venezuelan president does, but here in America, we have a Congress, and other than Commander-in-Chief duties, actual laws must be passed by Congress. Sometimes when I read about "Bush laws" I wonder if that detail is forgotten. Why not be angry and hateful toward the senators and congressmen/women? Some of them are even running for President in 2008.