Who is the #1 Terrorist in the World?

[Donald]

If someone were to ask you who the #1 terrorist in the world was, you would no doubt immediately answer "Osama Bin Laden." Your reasoning for that response would be simple: Bin Laden is directly responsible for the death of innocent people around the world, is an Islamic terrorist and is the most wanted man on planet Earth.

That is, unless you were one of the 4,000 people that marched through the streets of the German city of Mainz yesterday. You see, they were protesting the visit by President George W. Bush. They were carrying signs, that said, among other things (you guessed it) "#1 Terrorist."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050223/photos_wl_afp/050223190639_dt9mo4go_photo0

Assuming that since George Bush is not very popular in Germany, it would be safe to say that this opinion is shared by a large number of the German people. For example, check out this quote from one of the disgruntled: "I'm disgusted by the war in Iraq Bush started that has cost thousands of civilian lives. Now he's trying to normalize relations with Europe. It must be stopped." No word if he was similarly disgusted by the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam Hussein murdered in a campaign of genocide.

It is one thing to disagree with the administration's policy, but to call George Bush a terrorist means you are forecasting to the entire world that your IQ matches your shoe size. Incidentally, in his first term alone, President Bush has freed over 50 million Muslims from Saddam Hussein and the hate-filled Islamic ideology of the Taliban.

Perhaps Germany is still bitter over their defeat in World War II.

[Kevin]

God forbid hate-filled ideology.

[LindaP]

[Donald]

Well said.

[Donald]

So what was the highlight of President Bush's trip to Europe this week? If you ask CBS, it was these very same protesters of ideology in Germany!....so says The Media Research Center report:
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050224.asp#1

Its the template.

[LindaP]

Gracious...

[Kevin]

Why would one need the so-called "Media Research Center" to tell what CBS said? If you care what they say... is it that hard to see CBS?

Why would one want the MRC to tell them anything? Can you say information pollution (or maybe just 'infollution'?) ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

"In July of 2002, MRC and subsidiary Parent's Television Council (PTC) paid an out-of-court settlement ending a lawsuit which had been launched by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) in November of 2000. The WWE alleged 13 instances of defamation, copyright infringement and interference with prospective business relations after PTC produced a fundraising video using unauthorized WWE footage, falsely claimed WWE was responsible for the murders of four children, and falsely claimed advertisers had pulled their commercials from the show. MRC paid $3.5 million.[1]"

MRC can't meet the truth standards of World Wrestling Entertainment. Now that's impressive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/07/12_mrc.html

"It's an Orwellian irony: Conservative pundits can only justify their overwhelming domination of the news media if they can prove that Liberal Media Bias exists. Right-wingers need not present an opposing point of view as long as Liberal Media Bias ensures that left-wing thought is well represented.

"Fox balances ABC. Rush balances CBS. The Wall St. Journal balances NBC. It's only fair - but only if you can prove that Liberal Media Bias is alive and well.

"Enter the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell's media hit squad for the right, running on a healthy dose of Scaife money..."

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=203

[Donald]

Since you decided to venture off track from the thread, KM, at best this is a reply of minor interest with regard to liberal and media bias... and its certainly not a huge scandal nor has it anything to do with the #1 terrorist of the World, OBL. In fact, the only reason Democrats and the mainstream media are keeping it going is because they honestly have nothing else to talk about. It includes Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who has agreed to sign on, as has Teddy Kennedy and JK, and is more than a bit ridiculous regarding the recent media's coverage of Jeff Gannon.

The complaints by the left about Gannon seem to be one or all of the following:

How did a reporter with an assumed name gain access to the White House?
Who knows...perhaps the same way all of the other reporters with assumed names gained access? You know, as in through the front door?

What was a partisan, political journalist doing asking questions in the White House press corps?
I don't know...maybe the same thing the other partisan, political journalists in the press were doing...asking questions?

What was someone who moonlighted as a gay hooker doing in the White House press room?
Wait a minute...I thought the left were supposed to be the tolerant ones. Sexual orientation shouldn't matter! It certainly didn't matter when we found out that a gay prostitute was using Congressman Barney Frank's home as a base of operations. And oh, by the way, shall we tear apart the private lives of the others in the room for comparison?

After the media can agree on just who is the #1 Terrorist in the World, is it too late for them to open an investigation into Ted Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick?

[rikilabellevie]

is obl terrorist #1 ?

just don't get that top 10 mentality

is hamas worst than hezbollah ?

it's meaningless to even compare that sorts of a**holes

and to throw chappaquidick in the mix doesn't make it clearer


to explain germans shouting bush is a danger is based on how many civilians were killed in iraq (not because they think (i hope) he's a real terrorist ) just like kissinger is not very popular in europe (carpet bombing chile and all ...)

[Donald]

Riki, let me try my response here utilizing the new and improved forum etiquite as posted here today by the DC:

[rikilabellevie]

i may be from europe but i know what chappaquidick ( incident ) is

what i didn't get was how it got involved with the terrorist thread

so the kennedys are evil


can u explain me what bush did during the vietnam war (except defending texas ), surely mexico was threatening it

how come this freedom loving citizen didn't join the [/u]real army to defend his ideas ?

george herbert bush did fought in WW2 war hero ;no ? like jfk

[Richard Haut]

"about 30 some odd years ago, there was a member of this high profile family that was out riding drunk one night and......no he was intoxicated......and .........well.... maybe we should let the media tell the rest of the story.... someday"

yea, I thought that Donald meant Dubya.

easy mistake to make.

[LindaP]

touche!

[SDR]

When posters spew hate-filled rhetoric in defense of others who are themselves the targets of (supposedly) hate-filled rhetoric, it can get a little. . .confusing!