The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Geekis_Khan
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Resolved: That President George W. Bush is a terrorist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,164 times Debate No: 3985
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (10)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

First I would like to define terrorism:

"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

dictionary.com

Also, we are talking about the current President of the United States of America, George W. Bush.

I will prove why GWB is a terrorist through two contentions.

CONTENTION I: Lies to America.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, eight top White House personnel have lied in 935 public statments about Iraq. President Bush led the pack with 260 false statements about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. In fact, the Bush Administration tried to scare the American people to support the War in Iraq. When U.S. troops got into Iraq, there were no WMDs. This fits the definition because he tried threats and intimidation to get support for the war.

Stories from MSNBC and CNN about the lies and a statment from Ron Paul about the War: Part 1 of 3 (http://youtube.com...)

More information about the study (http://www.washingtonpost.com...)

CONTENTION II: Bombing Iraq.

9/11 was the second 'terrorist' attack on the US, the other being Pearl Harbor. If this fits as a 'terrorist attack', then bombing Iraqi hospitals and homes fit too. About 3,000 people died on the 9/11 attacks. That's terrible, we all agree. What I fail to see is how people justify bombing Iraq and killing 90,000 Iraqis to date. Bombing and gunning down Iraqis fits under the definition as violence, just as crashing planes does.

Thank you, I now await my opponent's rebuttal.
Geekis_Khan

Con

Thank you for starting the debate.

I'll counter both of your contentions individually.

1.) Lying is not a threat, nor is it the use of violence. Furthermore, in this context, it did not intimidate. It does not fit the definition that you offered for terrorism.

Furthermore, even if you accept that lying is terrorism (which it isn't), you still haven't proven that the administration lied. They were going off of CIA intelligence reports that they believed to be true. Saying something false when you are not aware that it is false is not lying.

2.) First, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of those casualities of Iraqi civilians were not made by US troops. They were made by Islamic terrorist groups in the region. Of course, some were made by US troops, but mistakes will happen. These mistakes do not qualify as terrorism, as they did not have any goal of intimidation or coercion. Mistakes do no have any goals, for that matter.

Moreover, the bombing of Iraq did not have the goal of intimidation or coercion. It had the goal of defeating an enemy. Initially, this enemy was Sadam Hussein. Now it is the various terrorist groups in the area. The goal is the defeat of these enemies. We do not want to coerce them into a compromise. We do not want to intimidate them into backing off. We want to destroy them. Therefore, this does not meet the definition of terrorism.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

I will go line-by-line to start:

1) <>

That was not the point I was getting at. I said he used those lies to get support for the war. Those lies were the wrong reasons to go to war. Furthermore, those lies were use to intimidate Americans with phrases like 'weapons of mass destruction', 'mushroom clouds', and frequently using Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as symbols of THREATS to America.

Unfortunatley, they were wrong, as per the 935 lies. They even admitted it.

2) <>

I disagree. Lying is to tell an untruth. That's exactly what they did. Even if they didn't know, they still did.
Furthermore, he's the freaking PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! He should know about this stuff. When one report about a terrorist comes to his desk, he's not going to immediately say 'INVADE IRAQ!' No, these things should be checked, thousands of times, and made sure that a decision is the right one. That's not what he did.

3) <>

First off, 90,000 Iraqis have died from the US. The civilian casualties caused by terrorist organizations have been much higher than that, almost reaching 500,000. I'm not putting my money on that though, there have been a wide range of estimates.
This shows the Iraqi body count project, which documents US led deaths since the war began, which is currently around 90,000.

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
(http://www.iraqbodycount.org...)

Also, even if the US troops didn't DIRECTLY cause it, they sill ignited conflict. A lot of those terrorist organizations want the US out, and they are willing to kill them for it. That's why we call it a 'war.'

However many, it doesn't change the fact that the US bombed them. If they do it ONE time, that is terrorism. It is the exact same as what we did to them. If crashing planes into buildings is terrorism in America, it is the same in Iraq.

4) <>

This proves my point. Exactly, the US wants to DESTROY THE ENEMY. That's exactly what the people that hijacked those planes on 9/11 were thinking.

No matter how you put, it is still terrorism. As I said, terrorism is using violence to coerce.

Coerce: "to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition."

The Iraqis don't want to be dead. They don't even want the US in there. The US is using violence (bombing & troops w/ guns) to coerce (get their way without consideration of Iraqis).

Re-establishing my offense:

Here is a definition from THE FBI:

"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or
any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

GWB violated the U.N. charter, which stated that one country cannot attack another without the U.N.'s authority. Bush started an unlawful use of force.

GWB wanted to change the government and implement a more American-like society with democracy. That is a coercion of a government and a civilian population. That is also a political and social goal.

GWB sent thousands of American troops in a short period of time. The US annihilated Iraq and showed how the US could INTIMIDATE a whole country.

(http://tvnewslies.org...)

This is the GOVERNMENT'S definition of terrorism, and they fit it.

This may be a great definition, but the greatest definition is in our minds. We all know, we all call, and we all hear terrorism associated with 9/11. Terrorists crashed into business-places on 9/11. We've been purposely blowing up hospitals, schools, and business-places for 5 years now. THAT'S terrorism.

Finally, going back to lying, there is only one thing I can say: President Bush threatened America, saying that another 9/11 is to invade Iraq. We all believed it, and the troops invaded. There were no WMDs. Hmm... what's a threat again? An empty promise of pain? Oh yeah...

Thank you for reading this debate and thanks to my opponent for debating me. I await my opponent's final rebuttal.
Geekis_Khan

Con

Geekis_Khan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Pluto, could you please provide sources for your body count numbers other than wikipedia and iraqibodycount.org. Neither of those two sources are especially credible. Furthermore, even if those numbers are correct, they were not killed deliberately for the purpose of political coersion, and therefore still do not satisfy the definition of terrorism.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
WHY DID GEEKIS CLOSE HIS ACCOUNT?!!?!?!

Wasn't he like 25-2?

Wonder if he did it or if he broke the terms of service :(
Posted by Chaotiklown 9 years ago
Chaotiklown
Other things I MIGHT have. I'd be happy to throw around some thought with ya. However- Good luck in the existing debate in the meantime:-)
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
chaotiklown, I'd be intrested in hearing what the other things you have to support this are when this is over.
Posted by Chaotiklown 9 years ago
Chaotiklown
Interesting to see how this one goes. Pluto, I do believe you'd have been better off throwing a few more examples in than just two... That is a large claim to support with so little evidence. Not that I'm saying there's more... :-)
Posted by HellKat 9 years ago
HellKat
That probably didn't make any sense whatsoever. Oh well.
Posted by HellKat 9 years ago
HellKat
While I do think that Bush does some terroristic things, I think so far Gheekis Khan is proving the oppoosite better, although when you say "we want to destroy them", that is terrorism, but was not defined as by Pluto2493.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by timothykcct 8 years ago
timothykcct
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Hypnodoc 9 years ago
Hypnodoc
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by p1mp1na1n7eazy 9 years ago
p1mp1na1n7eazy
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dbershevits 9 years ago
dbershevits
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Pluto2493Geekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30