World's most dangerous terrorist...?

You read the articles? :wink:

More on Georgie's frog-exploding activities:
Someone asked me for the source on young George W.'s frog-exploding experiments, so I did some searches and came up with some ... interesting stuff. Interesting? How about terrifying? This is a real life horror story. It ain't no Stephen King movie. The real life Dubya inspires images of the devil's child in the movie "The Omen". Or worse.

In biographical sketch of Bush in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff quotes Bush's boyhood friend Terry Throckmorton as saying, "We were terrible to animals." When the frogs came out after a rain, the kids would get BB guns and shoot them, Throckmorton said, or worse. "Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up."

To really stoke your fears of this guy's capacity for psychopathology, check out "Shrub Bush's Pathological Focus On Saddam Hussein" by Alvin Wyman Walker, PhD, PD, PC.. It refers to the frog assassinations, among other things.

This was the son of the head of the CIA we are talking about. Try to grok that for a second.

The article I had on file for the frog anecdote was in an article by Myriam Miedzian, called "Growing up is hard to do," originally published in the Baltimore Sun, September 12, 2000.

Here's a key section:

So when he was a kid, George W. enjoyed putting firecrackers into frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up. Should this be cause for alarm? How relevant is a man's childhood behavior to what he is like as an adult? And in this case, to what he would be like as president of the United States?

Cruelty to animals is a common precursor to later criminal violence. But in rural West Texas, where George W. grew up, it was not uncommon for some boys to indulge in such cruelty....

His blowing up frogs or shooting them with BB guns with friends does not have the same significance it would have if, for example, a city boy blew up the family cat. In fact, George's childhood friend, Terry Throckmorton, openly and laughingly admits, 'We were terrible to animals.'

But there were surely many boys in George's hometown of Midland, Texas, who would have been repelled at the thought of blowing up frogs. So how much importance should we attribute to this early behavior?

Is boy George's lack of empathy and cruelty not just childhood insensitivity, but rather a personality trait still present in the man? If so, we have much to be concerned about.Source

Suddenly the anti-French rant at the start of the Iraq invasion makes sense. Frogs=French in that tiny mind.

George W. Bush!!!

What about the rest of the gang, you cant just blame Bush alone

That's pretty scary when you consider Bush more dnagerous then bin laden or the rest of the militent islamisc terrorists.

Compare the death tolls they're responsible for.

What, exactly is scary about it? So far, Mr. Bush seems to be in the lead. Thousands dead in Iraq and Bin Laden is still at large somewhere in Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever. We haven't heard much of him lately.

Are we looking at the deaths of civilians due to terrorism? Are you going to compare those people who died during the war? We should make sure to seprate those killed by coalation troops and terrorists.

From what I know, we partially judge military success by how few civilians are killed. Terrorists judge success by how many were killed
Here's an interesting site. Not quite the 100,000 claimed by 1 study
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/#position
Here is to the one that claims the high number, make sure to look at the different studies comparisons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

These are the words of a terrorist. Never once have I heard Bush utter anything close to it.

source

You call it a war and I call it an attack! Iraq did not attack the US, yet the people responsible are still at large. Something is seriously wrong with this picture!

We used to have Spy v Spy in Mad magazine, now we have Terrorist v Terrorist. It just depends on where you stand.

Hi Baldi

If I'm killed by terrorism or killed by an army fighting terrorism, or WMD, or liberating my country (or whatever the reason is this week) I am still dead - through no choice of my own.

So no, I am not separating deaths who killed who.

Then you would be ignorant of facts. That makes you no better then the extremists and the uneducated. The US hasn't targeted civilians with the express purpose of killing them. There have been accidents, which is the big difference. We try to miss civilians and they don't.

Aren't you on the way to Iraq any minute Baldimo? that's what you've been saying for months. I'm not trying to pick a fight or make an accusation so don't get me wrong. I just don't understand the hold up, although if it was up to me you wouldn't have to go at all.

So Baldi - if a terrorist kills one innocent intentionally and a soldier kills 50 accidently, which one is more dangerous?

Accidents, sure, some have been - but if I was in another country with a rifle and body armour knowing my nuts could blown off any moment I'd be leaning toward the 'shoot first, ask question later' option. My original statement holds - if Bush hadn't ordered an attack on spurious everchanging grounds - the poor soldiers wouldn't be in that bloody awful sitatuation. He is responsible for deaths; civillian, insurgent, Iraqi military and US military.

Or maybe he's just pro retrospective abortion?

A lesson for A2K newbies - when baldie says this:

It simply means that he acknowledges that you don't agree with him. It may seem hurtful the first time but you come to learn it's just the cute little fella's way of showing affection :wink: