I would like you all to throw some light on the following statement that bush delivered in one of his victory speeches..
I Quote:-
“ I would motivate and convince my ** European Allies* to take a more proactive approach to the war on terror , After all we are Facing a Common Enemy*…”
For the naive mind it is easy to understand that bush is talking about fighting the so-called war on terror and religious extremism, which “incidentally” is the main reason for invading Muslim countries.
Lets weigh the words with respect to the mouth they were delivered from:-
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that Bush himself is a Very religious man and that was one of the main reasons for him to be re-elected. A very religious man who encourages religious fundamentalism in his own religion but disapproves of it in the Islamic faith? What does this tell us? It brings us to the conclusion that it’s not a war against terror rather a war against people who follow the faith that Bush believes leads to terrorism, a war against Islam.
Hence the “common enemy” in his statement are Muslims.
Ask the people of Madrid and Bali who the common enemy is.
Crap like this inflames things, which of course is what you are trying to do here.
Until 9/11, Bush could have cared less about OBL. OBL was an annoyance who should have been hunted down, but not the centerpiece of foreign policy. What do you think was happening on Sept 10th 2001 that was a War on Islam? Palestine? Pretty small war on Islam. Iraq? Sanctions were first proposed as a PEACEFUL resolution to Saddam.
Of course during the 90's we had that Bosnia/Kosovo conflict where we came to the DEFENSE of Muslims. (now how do you explain THAT?)
Firstly I wouldn’t have been able to inflame Daffy Duck if I would have been saying Crap…
Secondly I do agree that before 9/11 America did come for the rescue of Bosnian Muslims …and THANK YOU for that
But don’t you think so, that after 9/11 bush started blaming the religion as he went deeper and deeper into war on terror. Maybe his mental switch flipped or something…
.(Iraq, Afghanistan)VS (Bosnia,_________ )
OK if bush fills the above blank with either Chechnya or Kashmir then I would retract my comments and say that the guy has an even handed policy. Fair enough!!!
OK its quite late at night here, and until now our country has been saved from night bombing raids , so I can safely sleep…yet.
well they cant fight a crusade with no soldiers around. Here is an interesting copy-paste from a US soldier:
4 more years America
If you voted for Bush, didn’t vote, or voted no on gay marriage, I hope you get drafted.
I hope they stick you in my unit, and you go with me to Iraq when my unit goes back in September. I will laugh when you see what soldiers in that country face on a daily basis. I hope you work with gay soldiers too. I did. One of them saved my life. Think he shouldn’t have the right to get married? **** you. He fought just as hard as I did and on most days, did his job better than me. Don’t tell me gays don’t have the same rights you do.
Think the war in Iraq is a good thing? I’ll donate my M-16 to you and you can go in my place.
Good point UTC, but Bush has already used the word crusade on 9/18/01 while talking to reporters in Washington DC. So there is no surprise here.
“This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.”
When they say that Bush is man of his words and he speaks from his heart, they might be right. He exactly knew what he was talking about.
I don't know about Bush specifically, but the evangelical christians, the group Bush belongs to has openly declared the Muslim faith as the enemy. Their religious leaders believe that Muslims need to be cleansed from the holy lands. If you don't believe me then just listen to talk radio in the U.S.
You can read the whole article below, here is an excerpt from the article:
*Among the goods that the United States blocked last winter: dialysis, dental, and fire-fighting equipment, water tankers, milk and yogurt production equipment, printing equipment for schools. The United States even blocked a contract for agricultural-bagging equipment, insisting that the U.N. first obtain documentation to “confirm that the ‘manual’ placement of bags around filling spouts is indeed a person placing the bag on the spout.” *
a UNICEF official, Anupama Rao Singh, made a presentation on the deplorable humanitarian situation in Iraq. Her report included the following: 25 percent of children in south and central governorates suffered from chronic malnutrition, which was often irreversible, 9 percent from acute malnutrition, and child-mortality rates had more than doubled since the imposition of sanctions. *
*A couple of months later, a Syrian company asked the committee to approve a contract to mill flour for Iraq. Whereas Iraq ordinarily purchased food directly, in this case it was growing wheat but did not have adequate facilities to produce flour. The Russian delegate argued that, in light of the report the committee had received from the UNICEF official, and the fact that flour was an essential element of the Iraqi diet, the committee had no choice but to approve the request on humanitarian grounds. The delegate from China agreed, as did those from France and Argentina. But the U.S. representative, Eugene Young, argued that “there should be no hurry” to move on this request: the flour requirement under Security Council Resolution 986 had been met, he said; the number of holds on contracts for milling equipment was “relatively low”; and the committee should wait for the results of a study being conducted by the World Food Programme first. Ironically, he also argued against the flour-milling contract on the grounds that “the focus should be on capacity-building within the country” – even though that represented a stark reversal of U.S. policy, which consistently opposed any form of economic development within Iraq. The British delegate stalled as well, saying that he would need to see “how the request would fit into the Iraqi food programme,” and that there were still questions about transport and insurance. In the end, despite the extreme malnutrition of which the committee was aware, the U.S. delegate insisted it would be “premature” to grant the request for flour production, and the U.K. representative joined him, blocking the project from going forward. *
During the elections when they were interviewing religious group in States, many of them said this war was a crusade and thats why they will vote for Bush.
It is clear, if OBL is an Islamic extremist and terrorist, Bush is a Christian extremist and terrorist. Is there any difference between them. Absolutely not. Both take delight in killing innocent people, one in US the other in Afghansitan and Iraq.
