Author Topic: Bush Compares War on Terror to WW2 (Read 956 times)

Gixer · « **on:** June 02, 2004, 05:33:16 PM »

I think that's totally wrong, what's he hoping to achieve by that? To gain the same sort of support for the war on terror as in WW2?

Terroism isn't a belief like Communism, fascism, socialism, capitalism, etc. Terroism is a means to an end.

From the dictionary.
Terroism - the intentional use of violence against civilian populations in order to achieve political ends.

So to Bush that means We are at war with the people seeking those ends That's like declaring war on murder. Simply the US isn't at war with terroism it's at war with a brand of radical Islam that are intent on destroying the US. Terroism is the means that they use.

So if the US is at war against Terroism does that mean that if the IRA decided to blow up a pub in England that the US would then send in troops to Ireland?

I just think the war on terror label is misguided and incorrect. And comparing it to WW2 is wrong.

~~...-Gixer~~

Lizking · « **Reply #1 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:37:01 PM »

That is a valid point, except for the fact that 99.97 percent of the terror in the world today is driven by one idealogy.

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:37:18 PM »

WW2 was fought against facist.

Terrorist could be considered facist if you prefer to call it that because they are a group of people who believe that their group is better than another.

Toad · « **Reply #3 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:39:03 PM »

"The Third Jihad" is a belief system though.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #4 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:40:53 PM »

Terrorists are not limited to extremist Muslims.
-SW

Jester · « **Reply #5 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:41:31 PM »

Actually I think it is worse.

At least the Japanese attacked a "MILLITARY" target on Dec. 7th. These vermin attacked and killed helpless civilians (more were killed there than at Pearl Harbor I might add) just to further their aim.

IMHO they should be hunted down like the vermin they are
ANYWHERE they hide and ANY country that shows them support should be fair game.

Would you feel the same Gixer if those airliners had plowed into some buildings in downtown Auckland and killed as many people?

Lizking · « **Reply #6 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:41:47 PM »

212, that makes no sense, please expand upon your statement.

Shuckins · « **Reply #7 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:42:41 PM »

Gixer,

I don't think we can safely write off terrorists as just a bunch of murderous, brainless, religious fanatics. Indeed, they have a political agenda with several goals.

1. The expulsion of western powers from the Middle East.

2. The overthrow of Middle Eastern governments with ties to western nations.

3. The subjugation under Islamic theocracies of the rest of the nations of the world.

They firmly believe that, given enough time and money and patience, that they can achieve all three.

Lizking · « **Reply #8 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:43:20 PM »

AKW, you are correct, but in answer, I would say that other than the radical muslims, any terrorism is local and specific. It is also extremely rare.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #9 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:44:25 PM »

Its amazing, extremist muslims have apparently become the only definition of terrorism. That didn't take long.
-SW

Gixer · « **Reply #10 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:44:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jester
Actually I think it is worse.

At least the Japanese attacked a "MILLITARY" target on Dec. 7th. These vermin attacked and killed helpless civilians (more were killed there than at Pearl Harbor I might add) just to further their aim.

IMHO they should be hunted down like the vermin they are
ANYWHERE they hide and ANY country that shows them support should be fair game.

Would you feel the same Gixer if those airliners had plowed into some buildings in downtown Auckland and killed as many people?

I wasn't saying that the act of 9/11 was worse or less then Pearl Harbour and WW2. I'm arguing the fact that declaring war on terroism "the means" is incorrect. Compared to declaring a war on a ism like communism or facisim etc.

~~...-Gixer~~

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #11 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:45:46 PM »

Yes, but cars aren't only Fords.
-SW

Shuckins · « **Reply #12 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:49:56 PM »

Muslim terrorist are the most visible type at present. I don't think anyone implied that they were the only terrorists in the world.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #13 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:51:34 PM »

As far as local, or homegrown, terrorism being rare - Earth Liberation Front has caused almost $100 million dollars in damage nationwide since 1996.

Other homegrown terrorist groups:
Army of God
Creativity Movement
National Alliance
and Aryan Nations.

Just saying, the war on terror is supposed to be encompassing ALL forms of terrorism... not just the ones from the Middle East, otherwise it should be the "War on Extremist Muslims" or "War on the Jihadists".
-SW

212 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:52:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizking
212, that makes no sense, please expand upon your statement.

Sorry for misunderstanding. Just that allI hear on the news is elections and Iraq. I never hear about Afganistan much anymore. Are they going to get Osama or what?