I hope the recent raid by the US troops on the Iranian consulate in Iraq won't add to the already dicey but dangerous relationship between the US and Iran.

I had thought that consulates/embassies are treated as areas where the foreign nations have total control over.

Or, is the US willing to do anything to keep the war raging or inviting new ones?

If for any reason the consulate needed to be checked for anything it should have been carried out by the Iraqis themselves not the illegal invaders and occupiers.

That is an awful act of disregard for any known norm in this world by people who always decietfully speak about conforming to laws and norms. AND, I must admit, this is the first I'm hearing of this.

Invading a country's consulate especially when it is not in your own country is nothing but a declaration of war. Why is the Bush administration such blood thirsty and hell bent on creating chaos in order to be able to influence and ultimately control the middle east region?

Na wa for this administration and it's gung ho tactics sha.

And the worst thing is that, they will say they based the raid on intelligence report, which in the end from experience usually turn out to be false. The US to me, usually causes the act of terrorrism from those nations they oppressed, a 'terrorist axis' they called them, a term they freely used nowadays to labelled those who do not dance to their tune, while themselves are theone that first perpetrate a 'legitimate terrorism' against the weak nations, as evidence in the recent attacks on Iran Consulate.

It seems there is no stopping Bush on his quest to wage wars on all fronts regardless of the implications or correctness of orders/directive he gives.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bush approved raids on Iranians in Iraq

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
47 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - An order from President Bush authorized a series of U.S. raids against Iranians in Iraq as part of a broad military offensive, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT




Bush issued the order several months ago, Rice told The New York Times as she prepared to visit the Middle East. She said the president acted "after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity" among Iranians in Iraq "and increasing lethality in what they were producing."

Five Iranians were detained by U.S.-led forces this week after a raid on an Iranian government liaison office in northern Iraq, a move that has frayed even further the relations between the two countries. The United States accuses Iran of helping provide roadside bombs that have killed American troops in Iraq, and a bitter standoff already exists over Tehran's nuclear program.

Rice, according to a story for the Saturday print editions of the Times, described the military effort against Iranians in Iraq as a defensive "force protection mission." Concerns that Iran was trying to further destabilize the country also motivated the raids, she told the newspaper.

"We think they are providing help to the militias as well, and maybe even the more violent element of these militias," she said.

The State Department said Friday that U.S.-led forces entered an Iranian building in Kurdish-controlled Irbil because information linked it to Revolutionary Guards and other Iranian elements engaging in violent activities in Iraq. There was no truth to reports that Iran was carrying out legitimate diplomatic activity at the site, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.

However, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended that the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate. In Iran, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the U.S. raid constituted an intervention in Iranian-Iraqi affairs.

On Friday, U.S. officials said there was no immediate plan to strike targets in Iran, but they also wouldn't rule out military action. Their comments came after Bush vowed in a prime-time address to the nation to go after Iranian terrorist networks feeding the insurgency in Iraq.

Bush's remarks Wednesday in a speech announcing his plan to boost U.S. forces in Iraq prompted questions from members of Congress about whether the U.S. is considering attacks on Iranian territory. Administration officials have long refused to rule out any options against Iran but said military action would be a last resort.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Friday told the Senate Armed Services Committee that while U.S. forces are trying to prevent Iran and Syria from disrupting U.S. forces in Iraq, there were no immediate plans for an attack.

"We believe that we can interrupt these networks that are providing support through actions inside the territory of Iraq, that there is no need to attack targets in Iran itself," Gates told the panel, adding that he continues to believe that "any kind of military action inside Iran itself, that would be a very last resort."

Pace said special operations forces are continually battling insurgents who are getting aid from Iran.

"I think one of the reasons you keep hearing about Iran is because we keep finding their stuff in Iraq," Pace said.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote to Bush on Thursday asking for clarifications on the administration's stance toward attacking Iran. Sens. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., and Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., raised the issue at a hearing Friday.

"The president seems to have placed diplomacy on the back-burner again," Byrd said.

In his speech Wednesday, Bush chastised Iran and Syria for not blocking terrorists at their borders with Iraq. He specifically blamed Iran for providing material support for attacks on American troops.

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," Bush said. "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

On Friday, White House spokesman Tony Snow called the suggestion that war plans were under way an "urban legend."

"What the president was talking about is defending American forces within Iraq, and also doing what we can to disrupt networks that might be trying to convey weapons or fighters into battle theaters within Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis," Snow said.

had thought that consulates/embassies are treated as areas where the foreign nations have total control over.

You should have said this to the Iranians when they raided the American Embassy some years back while holding the occupants for 444 straight days. And for your information, it was the liaison office that was raided which is not anything near an embassy or consulate. I hope you know the difference.

I do not blame the U.S. for their action knowing the antecedents of the Iranians. These are the same people who fund a terrorist organisation as Hezbollah to install and operate military bases in civilian neighbourhoods. This and many more has shown that thier actions are never based on moral principles and guided by gentlemany conduct. I would raid any fronted liaison office which intelligence proves is being used to arm my troops.

Bush has nothing to lose anymore and will do all he can to reduce U.S. casualties in Iraq while trying to stabilise the government. Based on the reports, it is clear that there has been evidence of illegal activities in this liaison office for a while now, but the U.S. Administration's new policy effectively removes the limiting factors that hindered their ability to take proactive action against the insurgents being allegedly supported and armed by Iran.

TayoD:

You should have said this to the Iranians when they raided the American Embassy some years back while holding the occupants for 444 straight days. And for your information, it was the liaison office that was raided which is not anything near an embassy or consulate. I hope you know the difference.

Sure, I know the difference.

To begin with what the Iranians did was not what the US did.

The Iranians took US citizens hostage in the US embassy in Iran. Iran being the host country has ultimate sovereignty over any embassy in Iran.

The US raided the Iranian Laison office (which represents the country Iran) in Iraq. Iraq being the host country could have gotten away with such action because ultimate sovereignty rests with them and not the US, a foreign country that illegally invaded Iraq.

TayoD:

Bush has nothing to lose anymore and will do all he can to reduce U.S. casualties in Iraq while trying to stabilise the government. Based on the reports, it is clear that there has been evidence of illegal activities in this liaison office for a while now, but the U.S. Administration's new policy effectively removes the limiting factors that hindered their ability to take proactive action against the insurgents being allegedly supported and armed by Iran.

Well, while it is a given that Bush has nothing to lose anymore, it is totally unacceptable for him to continue to commit avoidable blunders.

For your information Iran is not supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Iran is supporting and backing the Shias, even though areas that are predominantly Shiites have fought bitter battles with the US forces, the insurgency is clearly being associated with the Sunnis and Iran cannot possibly be arming the Sunnis.

To begin with what the Iranians did was not what the US did.

You are definitely right here. The Iranians invaded the embassy during a time of peace while the U.S. raided a liaison office with possible links to the insurgency in a time of war.

The US raided the Iranian Laison office (which represents the country Iran) in Iraq. Iraq being the host country could have gotten away with such action because ultimate sovereignty rests with them and not the US, a foreign country that illegally invaded Iraq.

I didn't hear no such cries when other ambassadors and embassies were attacked and taken hostage by the iran-funded insurgency.

For your information Iran is not supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Iran is supporting and backing the Shias, even though areas that are predominantly Shiites have fought bitter battles with the US forces, the insurgency is clearly being associated with the Sunnis and Iran cannot possibly be arming the Sunnis.

That is the subtle diplomacy being payed out by Iran. Tey supply weapons and training to the insurgency on one hand to kill the U.S. troops, while they stand by their Shias brethren in solidarity to wield political influence. They are playing the game better than the U.S. is doing.

I do not want to get into an endless round tripping here.

US does not have any right to raid the laison office of a nation that is not in the US.

What the Iranians did and what the US did are miles apart.

Well, I do not think it is possible for Iran to fund the Sunni insurgency and Shia militants at the same time.

To avoid the endless tripping, perhaps you should start by changing the headline from Consulate to Liaison office.

Secondly, no country has any right to invade another's embassy. The Embassy operates under the rules and jurisdiction of her country and not of its host. That is shifting the goal post to accomodate the lawlessness of the Iranians.

And by the way, what do you expect to be done if based on good intelligence the u.s. knows that the Liaison Office is a front for attacks on the U.S. forces?

TayoD:

To avoid the endless tripping, perhaps you should start by changing the headline from Consulate to Liaison office.

Hmm, so the problem is now changing the headline even when I have used the words Laison ofiice at least two times? There is certainly no limit you can go when clearly losing an arguement. Maybe being wrong over and over again means nothing to you.

TayoD:

Secondly, no country has any right to invade another's embassy. The Embassy operates under the rules and jurisdiction of her country and not of its host. That is shifting the goal post to accomodate the lawlessness of the Iranians.

Another statement from the wind. I need not go into who has ultimate sovereignty in any nation, it would a total waste of time.

TayoD:

And by the way, what do you expect to be done if based on good intelligence the u.s. knows that the Liaison Office is a front for attacks on the U.S. forces?

What I expect to be done is immaterial, what is obvious and the crux of the matter is that the US is wrong in raiding a laison office of another country when the host nation is not the US.

Hmm, so the problem is now changing the headline even when I have used the words Laison ofiice at least two times? There is certainly no limit you can go when clearly losing an arguement. Maybe being wrong over and over again means nothing to you.

Losing an argument? I am not here to lose or win an argument. I am here to stand for the truth as far as my conscience permits me. I can see you do not mind lying to win your argument with yourself. There is a difference between a Laison Office and an Embassy and I'm sure those who've sided with your wrong premise did so without realising the subtle lie you brought into it. If you agree it is a Liaison Office and not a Consulate or Embassy, why not change it and be accurate in your submission. I guess you don't have to as long as your innacuracy promotes your agenda.

Another statement from the wind. I need not go into who has ultimate sovereignty in any nation, it would a total waste of time.

As long as you regard your submission that brought my response as only a wind with no matter or substance, then I guess I'm in agreement with you. You will be wasting your time indeed to try and prove the unprovable. You will do better to spend that time in changing the obvious lie you've posted.

What I expect to be done is immaterial, what is obvious and the crux of the matter is that the US is wrong in raiding a laison office of another country when the host nation is not the US.

And I guess your opinions too are immaterial and very much ill-conceived. You are vey much sounding like the Democrats. all they do is react to Bush's action. They condemn everything done without proposing any alternatives because they have none.

Don't have time for blind arguement.

It seems you are having a difficult time realising that what the people of US last November was the best route for the US, keep whining about the democrats or the alternatives Afam will offer the clueless Bush.

Enjoy your life as the president you are bent on supporting inspite of his many wrong actions has since been deserted by many nations, his people (based on the mid term elections) and lately Britain.

Even the best spin doctors and bombs have failed to project the man or his actions in good light, so don't worry, you are engaged in a project that has already failed.

Don't have time for blind arguement.
It seems you are having a difficult time realising that what the people of US last November was the best route for the US, keep whining about the democrats or the alternatives Afam will offer the clueless Bush.
Enjoy your life as the president you are bent on supporting inspite of  his many wrong actions has since been deserted by many nations, his people (based on the mid term elections) and lately Britain.
Even the best spin doctors and bombs have failed to project the man or his actions in good light, so don't worry, you are engaged in a project that has already failed.

It is obvious that you have a problem separating issues from personalities. How does you lies connect with Bush or the election in the U.S.? Like I said, you have nothing to say other than attack personalities. Keep reveling in your new found love for Bush bashing. I can see the famous Bush Bashing Syndrom is also expressed in the form of outright lies.

I cant remember who give US the power to sack any government of any nation by any reason she can justify. Has ayone continue to ask yourself why Saddam Hussein government was sacked? All reasons the US adduced to his being sacked despite the restraint by UN at that time has been retracted, the WMD, a link with Alqaeda etc. So the truth is US caused the problem in the first instance.

TayoD:

You should have said this to the Iranians when they raided the American Embassy some years back while holding the occupants for 444 straight days. And for your information, it was the liaison office that was raided which is not anything near an embassy or consulate. I hope you know the difference.

The US embassy at that time in Iran is being used by US for espionage. The US is using the Shah of Iran to continue to oppress the Iranians, so can you blame the Iraninans for taking their own destiny in their hands by sacking the puppet regime of Shah of Iran?

TayoD:

I do not blame the U.S. for their action knowing the antecedents of the Iranians. These are the same people who fund a terrorist organisation as Hezbollah to install and operate military bases in civilian neighbourhoods. This and many more has shown that their actions are never based on moral principles and guided by gentlemany conduct. I would raid any fronted liaison office which intelligence proves is being used to arm my troops.

US is even more guilty of this than any country in the world. They have their secret army everywhere, they armed Saddam, using him against the Iranians at that period, supplying him arms and everything, before he later go against them. Are the US not using Israel to quash any seeming upheaval of any country in the middle east? Of recent Israwl is threatening to bomb target in Iran, are you sure it is israel who is making the threat? The recent Israeli-Lebanese war, we all known it is a proxy war for US. Who says, US is the only country that can protect its interest anywhere in this world? but because they control the press and spread the propaganda that any opposing country to its seeming posture to be the police of the world are terrorist, people like you are brainwashed. If iran train people to protect its interest which lies with the shia in Iraq, can you blame them?

@Twinstaiye,

Thanks for pointing the obvious issues to this guy.

I believe he has already sold his soul to anything US or Israel regardless of what these two countries do and it is very obvious in all his submissions and comments.

I am happy that more and more people now have access to information and are making up their minds based on what they read and not being teleguided by politicians or the mainstream media.

@Twinstaiye,

The problem I have with your submissions is just the same as others. You look at issues from very narrow-minded and biased point. I'll prove this to you.

I can't remember who give US the power to sack any government of any nation by any reason she can justify. Has ayone continue to ask yourself why Saddam Hussein government was sacked? All reasons the US adduced to his being sacked despite the restraint by UN at that time has been retracted,  the WMD, a link with Alqaeda etc.  So the truth is US caused the problem in the first instance.

If Saddam was indeed building WMDs as the United State's faulty inteligence suggested, then the U.S. and the world at large had every right to stop such an action since we know the guy used WMDs to kill his own people.  As regards to link with Al-quaeda, it has not been disproved that he encouraged and trained terrorists in his country.  And by the way, WMDs were found in Iraq, but only on smaller scale than anticipated.

The US embassy at that time in Iran is being used by US for espionage. The US is using the Shah of Iran to continue to oppress the Iranians, so can you blame the Iraninans for taking their own destiny in their hands by sacking the puppet regime of Shah of Iran?

The U.S. Embassy like every other embassies are used as tools for espionage in every country. How did the U.S. oppresss the Iranians? That the U.S. supported the legitimate government in power does not mean it approves of every action of that government.  That the U.S. is in support of the Obasanjo Administration does not mean they condone every action of the man. We know the U.S. supports the Monarchy in Saudi Arabia, but the country has been listed (by the U.S. State Dept) as one of the top five abusers of human rights (especially to worship) in the past 5 years or so. The U.S. have used the cordial relations to effect changes through diplomacy as we've seen in the last few years. It's so funny that when the U.S. uses diplomacy, you accuse her of oppressing the people and when she uses force you accuse her of arrogance and lawlessness. Nothing the U.S. can does will ever satisfy your prejudice abi?

US is even more guilty of this than any country in the world. They have their secret army everywhere, they armed Saddam, using him against the Iranians at that period, supplying him arms and everything, before he later go against them. Are the US not using Israel to quash any seeming upheaval of any country in the middle east? Of recent Israwl is threatening to bomb target in Iran, are you sure it is israel who is making the threat? The recent Israeli-Lebanese war, we all known it is a proxy war for US. Who says, US is the only country that can protect its interest anywhere in this world? but because they control the press and spread the propaganda that any opposing country to its seeming posture to be the police of the world are terrorist, people like you are brainwashed. If iran train people to protect its interest which lies with the shia in Iraq, can you blame them?

You talk as if Isreal is not an independent country in itself. People say the Isrealis control the United State's Government and here again you accuse the U.S. of directing the affairs of State of Isreal. Can you guys please make up your mind?
Isreal have always stood alone to fight their battles. The 1948 War was fought with men and women who routed the Arab Armies and defeated the Russians who fought alongside the Arabs. Can you tell us when the U.S. fought alongside the IDF?
If Iran trains people to fight the U.S. then they have got to be ready for the consequences, chikena.

I must give it to you at least. You have tried to deal with issues unlike Afam, who as usual tried to reduce this into a personality bashing.

Afam:

Sure, I know the difference.

To begin with what the Iranians did was not what the US did.

The Iranians took US citizens hostage in the US embassy in Iran. Iran being the host country has ultimate sovereignty over any embassy in Iran.
The US raided the Iranian Laison office (which represents the country Iran) in Iraq. Iraq being the host country could have gotten away with such action because ultimate sovereignty rests with them and not the US, a foreign country that illegally invaded Iraq.

The above highlighted statement from you smacks of plain ignorance! Iran being the host control has NO sovereign right over any embassy in Iran! I'm sure you must have heard of what is known as a DIPLOMATIC RESIDENCE!
That compound is under the sovereignity of the country that owns that consulate! That is why you dont have Nigerian soldiers or policemen running amok at the US and British embassies in Lagos! Neither can President Bush order the arrest of the Iranian ambassador to the US!

What Iran did was terrorism! plain and simple!

TayoD, I still stand by my views no matter how narrow-minded you claimed it was. Besides, we all don't look issues from US point of view like its apologists like you.

davidylan:

What Iran did was terrorism! plain and simple!

Davidylan, I respect your views, but this is way out of it, unless of course you admit that the US do engage in act of terrorism too, but that there is no one to hold them responsible for their actions because they are the world super powers for now. If US can invade any country on any pretext, bomb certain target like they did in somalia and later on telling the world that the Alqaeda target they intend to kill was not there, was that not an act of terrorism or like you chose to call it "legitimate terrorism". Is that not sending a dangerous signal that the US or its proxy war monger Israel can bomb any country where they THINK there is an al-qaeda and apologise later, that the al-qaeda they wanted dead has escaped, even though there is no al-qaeda target their in the first instance.

@Tayod,

I believe you have been able to demonstrate that when it boils down to issues you are completely lost.

This forum is not a substitute for real education, you can't have it both ways.

Take your time and learn what you don't know else you end up ridiculing yourself in a public forum.

davidylan:

The above highlighted statement from you smacks of plain ignorance! Iran being the host control has NO sovereign right over any embassy in Iran! I'm sure you must have heard of what is known as a DIPLOMATIC RESIDENCE!
That compound is under the sovereignity of the country that owns that consulate! That is why you don't have Nigerian soldiers or policemen running amok at the US and British embassies in Lagos! Neither can President Bush order the arrest of the Iranian ambassador to the US!

Well, it may be plain ignorance on my part but I cannot be too daft and stupid to make the submission you made. Education does not equal knowledge and with your posts I need not go far to find out how true that statement is.

davidylan:

What Iran did was terrorism! plain and simple!

And because you say so, we must agree or we become ignorant people, very interesting way of thinking.

@ Afam,
I would recommend you take a cue from Twinstaiye who marshalls his points even though in opposition with panache and a great deal of composure.

When your goofs are pointed out to you, you try to hide under a banner of insults! I am ashamed to be trading words with a small minded individual like you.

You made a huge error and labeled it as fact, it was pointed out to you but in your usual style you couch it by using insulting words. kudos to you.

Coming from a 22yr old, it can be excused. Hope you don't continue this way as you grow older else you will become a disaster.

@Afam,

Issues you have not discussed.  People you have begun to attack.  Not only have you made erronous statements on this board,  you have shown you can not defend such submissions when scrutinised.

It is not my fault that you have to be so acidic when intellectually challenged. I'm sorry I spoiled your U.S. bashing party by pointing out the folly of your statements. It is not my fault that I do some thinking before writing, and I can clearly point out lies and bullshits from sweetly coated balderdash that a Liar like you disguise as truth on the world wide web.

I would have recommended an Anger Management Class for you but I don't think they can help you. You need some classes in self-esteem and assurance. Your insults to everyone opposed to you only lends credence to the fact that you are insecure in yourself.

Keep reveling in your self delusion and continue to surf the web for news that feeds your need to bash the U.S. I'm sure you'll find lots of company out there.

Happy surfing.

@twinstaiye,

TayoD, I still stand by my views no matter how narrow-minded you claimed it was. Besides, we all don't look issues from US point of view like its apologists like you.

You have every right to stand by your views even though I have shown it to be absolutely ludicrous. I will only wish you can present facts to support your stand as your views can only be considered truthful if they are factual. Now you are calling me names. I am not a U.S. Apologists but one who stands by the truth. If you find me lying, please point out the lies as I have done in the case of Afam and lately you. It's funny that everyone who does not agree with your biased view of the U.S. must be termed an Apologist.

Davidylan, I respect your views, but this is way out of it, unless of course you admit that the US do engage in act of terrorism too, but that there is no one to hold them responsible for their actions because they are the world super powers for now.  If US can invade any country on any pretext, bomb certain target like they did in somalia and later on telling the world that the Alqaeda target they intend to kill was not there, was that not an act of terrorism or like you chose to call it "legitimate terrorism". Is that not sending a dangerous signal that the US or its proxy war monger Israel can bomb any country where they THINK there is an al-qaeda and apologise later, that the al-qaeda they wanted dead has escaped, even though there is no al-qaeda target their in the first instance.

And do you realise the legitimate government in Somalia santioned and encouraged this atack by the U.S. Are you telling us the U.S. has no right to find and kill the terrorists who killed hundreds of kenyans and other Africans just so they could kill only four Isrealis?

Tayo D I think George Bush has enough aides to defend his failed foreign policy yours is an excercise in futility. Dont know why you are trying to defend a policy Condolezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld or these days Rob Gates cant defend.

Bush is the terrorist by the true sense of the word.

TayoD:

@twinstaiye,
You have every right to stand by your views even though I have shown it to be absolutely ludicrous. I will only wish you can present facts to support your stand as your views can only be considered truthful if they are factual. Now you are calling me names. I am not a U.S. Apologists but one who stands by the truth. If you find me lying, please point out the lies as I have done in the case of Afam and lately you. It's funny that everyone who does not agree with your biased view of the U.S. must be termed an Apologist.
And do you realise the legitimate government in Somalia santioned and encouraged this atack by the U.S. Are you telling us the U.S. has no right to find and kill the terrorists who killed hundreds of kenyans and other Africans just so they could kill only four Isrealis?

Oh sure the US has 'legitimate' right to hunt down 'illegitimate' terrorist. But when those the US branded terrorist decided to hunt down those who terrorise them, the world would rise and branded them TERRORIST. The truth is your US determined who is a terrorist, they defined who a terrorist is and they have right to brand anyone they like a terrorist, just as they are not in their good book. Take for instance, suppose all the acts of pipeline explosion are by terrorist in Nigeria, and those responsible escape to neighbouring countries, does Nigeria has power to hunt them down in those countries they escaped to? but because your US are untouchables, they control the propaganda, they can make the world believe anyone they wish is a terrorist.
Well just like you said, they can bomb anywhere in this world and apologise later, I just hope your loved ones wont be among the casualties of their just terrorism. The dangerous signal is that, they can rise up anyday and quash any opposition as they are presently in Hugo Chavez, the new Ecuador president (i have forgotten his name now) and of course Ahmedinejad of Iran, those 3 are glaring stiff opposition of US aggressive foreign policy.

McKren:

Tayo D I think George Bush has enough aides to defend his failed foreign policy yours is an excercise in futility. Dont know why you are trying to defend a policy Condolezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld or these days Rob Gates can't defend.

Bush is the terrorist by the true sense of the word.

I have made it clear to him before but what do you expect from someone that has already been completely and dangerously brainwashed.

I hope people like him never have anything to do with Nigeria, let them stay back and continue to live in confusion, lies and misinformations.

@Mckren,

Bush is the terrorist by the true sense of the word.

How many civilians has George Bush deliberately planned to kill and maim? How many times has he planted bombs in buses, churches, mosques, markets etc in the hope of killing as many civilians as possible knowing fully well that there is no single enemy combatant at those locations? These are the marks of a terrorist.

If you can prove any of the above, then you have my support. If not, you are just another person with enough propaganda to encourage sadistic people like Afam.

@twinstaiye,

The truth is your US determined who is a terrorist, they defined who a terrorist is and they have right to brand anyone they like a terrorist, just as they are not in their good book.

Please give us examples of groups and people that the U.S. have labelled terrorists that shouldn't be on the list. And please give us the reasons why you have come to that conclusion. I have told you I am not interested in your biased view but in facts. Back up your views with facts and I'll concede my wrong notion.

Take for instance, suppose all the acts of pipeline explosion are by terrorist in Nigeria, and those responsible escape to neighbouring countries, does Nigeria has power to hunt them down in those countries they escaped to?

The situation you are talking about has nothing in common with that of the U.S. Those responsible for the pipeline explosions are vandals and criminals who can be hunted down across international borders by INTERPOL. Besides, if you have lived in Naija for long enough, I am sure you'll realise that Nigeria has raided across the Benin Republic borders before to apprehend some criminals that operate in naija. You need to stop giving us scenarios that don't apply and produce facts.

@Afam,

I hope people like him never have anything to do with Nigeria, let them stay back and continue to live in confusion, lies and misinformations.

No wonder you are such a fustrated human being. You have embrassed unrealistic hopes all your life and are inundated with broken dreams. What information are you talking about? You cannot produce facts and you are saying someone else is uninformed? Wake up from your sleep. Your nightmares are feeding your hopelessness.

Tayo D I saw you coming up with an argument like this that was why I included the clause "by the true sense of the word"

Intimidating others into doing your bidding is in itself terrorism. It does not matter how you go about it.
Those who are planting bombs are using tools available to them to perpetrate acts of terrorism which is largely to intimidate others to do their wish. Geoge Bush on his part is also using tools available to him to terrorise others to do their bidding and these tools include illegal invasion and lobbying the UN to impose sanctions on those who dont do their bidding. Saddam Hussein as a freind of the west commited as much atrocities as when he fell out with America so why was he not removed all the while.

TayoD go and do more research cos you dont understand the least bit about what world politics is about.

@Mckren,

Tayo D I saw you coming up with an argument like this that was why I included the clause "by the true sense of the word"
Intimidating others into doing your bidding is in itself terrorism. It does not matter how you go about it.
Those who are planting bombs are using tools available to them to perpetrate acts of terrorism which is largely to intimidate others to do their wish. Geoge Bush on his part is also using tools available to him to terrorise others to do their bidding and these tools include illegal invasion and lobbying the UN to impose sanctions on those who don't do their bidding. Saddam Hussein as a freind of the west commited as much atrocities as when he fell out with America so why was he not removed all the while.
TayoD go and do more research because you don't understand the least bit about what world politics is about.

You see yourself in public? You are making me laugh in ten different Nigerian languages. Am I not vindicated now that all you guys just hold on to a biased view with no facts to back up your prejudice? You have at least given in to the fact that at no time has George Bush "ever deliberately planned to kill and maim, nor has he planted bombs in buses, churches, mosques, markets etc in the hope of killing as many civilians as possible knowing fully well that there is no single enemy combatant at those locations?" If at all there is a war in history where no single civilian was killed, then I will at least say the U.S. has gone overboard, but there is none.

Now going by your definition that intimidating others into doing your bidding is terrorism, then we must accuse the entire United Nations of terrorism. All resolutions and sanctions placed on any nation to get them to do the right thing must be classified as terrorism. Infact, the U.N is terrorising Iran at the moment.

Now this gets Sweeter. If we consider that the goverment who voted for these sanctions against Iran are carrying out the wishes of their people, then every citizen of the nations represented in the U.N must be terrorists. In other words, you don't need to look to the U.S. to consider her President as terrorist. Just look in the mirror and you find one staring right back at you.

Can you now see the foolishness of your definition? How I wish y'all will think clearly without bias in arriving at a conclusion. This is a classic case of shoting yourself in the foot while indiscriminately aiming your gun at another.

TayoD:

You have at least given in to the fact that at no time has George Bush "ever deliberately planned to kill and maim, nor has he planted bombs in buses, churches, mosques, markets etc in the hope of killing as many civilians as possible knowing fully well that there is no single enemy combatant at those locations?" I

That is unfortunate, and I myself dont support such, this goes to show that the war on terror (this time, note that 'terrorism' is applicable to US too) is far from over. For as long as the US terrorises opposition (under the camouflage of fighting terrorism) with its might and power which is by far greater than that of opposition, they might resort to any means to get back at US. And I hate it when you continue your non admittance that Bush is not a terrorist, as long as human life is lost as a result of his action, my friend, he is a terrorist.

ter·ror·ism   (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)  Pronunciation Key     
n.   The[b] unlawful use [/b] or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

That is one of the dictionary definitions of terrorism.
Tell me how the unlawful invasion of Iraq is not terrorism even when they invaded Iraq without UN permission. TayoD grow up and stop abusing people.