Bush Compares War on Terror to WW2

[Lizking]

Property damge is bad, and add Greenpeace to that list, but it is local and not aimed at killing innocent civilians(mainly).  Do the math:  Muslim terrorists, what 5-6000?, all others less than a hundred(way less) in this new century.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Terrorism is terrorism, the body count doesn't matter.
-SW

[Sparks]

To liken the "War on Terror" to WW2 is absurd.  Even the phrase "War on Terror" was an invention to capture the hearts of the media guys so it could all be easily grouped under one banner on CNN and Fox.  Interestingly here in the UK news items in the middle East are either under Afghanistan or The War in Iraq.

Israel tries to align its actions against Hisbullah (not sure on spelling) as part of The War on Terror but the US reporting doesn't tend to uphold that view

To my mind AKSW makes a good point - if the Northern Ireland peace process collapses can we expect the 101st Airborne in Belfast hunting Republican or Unionist leaders ?? Are there US forces in Sri Lanka hunting the Tamil tigers........  perhaps a few Rangers in Nepal looking for Communist rebels .....???

The "War on Terror" seems to have a pretty parochial mission and it's becoming more and more so.  No one believes that Al Queda or any other Islamic extremist group is justified or shouldn't be faced but just how broad will the US administration actually take this "Terror" definition ??? What about Greenpeace activists - the French government had their own view on that.

As  a Brit I'd be interested whether any Irish-Americans on the BBS here think that a Republican setting off a bomb is a terrorist or fighter for a united Ireland ???

[Sparks]

Lizking - look up the stats about civilian deaths in Northern Ireland since the 70's and then repeat that statement

[Lizking]

Sparks, look them up since 2000.

[Pei]

Originally posted by Gixer
what's he hoping to achieve by that?

Re-election.

[Sparks]

Ahhhhh so terrorism only STARTED in 2001 - I seeeee,  this is the "The War on Terrorism but only since the year 2000".

So if any of the nutters who had their  ..........  um .....issues ....... running before 2000 decide to kick off again in  parts of the world you aren't bothered about, will that come under the title "The Other Local Tiffs that Started in Earlier Times" ??

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Gixer
Simply the US isn't at war with terrorism it's at war with a brand of radical Islam that are intent on destroying the US.

"Intent on destroying the United States"  those are the key words.

As Shakespeare questioned, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?

You are arguing that we shouldn't refer to it as a war on terror, but rather a was the "War on international non-governmental organizations and those governments who support those organizations efforts to detroy the United States of America"?

Kind of tough to fit on a campaign banner.

WNGOGWSOEDUSA ... doesn't even make a good acronym.

[Sparks]

Holden

You are arguing that we shouldn't refer to it as a war on terror,

Absolutely.  

When this catch phrase kicked off we were all informed that "you're either with us or against us"  ..... thats kind of a global statement.  Israel seem to thing suicide bombers in Jerusalem count as "Terror" as in the catch phrase and therefore align their response as joining in The War on Terror.  How do you see that situation??

[Holden McGroin]

Okay, from now on I'll refer to it as WNGOGWSOEDUSA+TWSH.

[Sparks]

Ok thats better ........ but need clarification on TWSH - must be missing something.  

[Holden McGroin]

TWSH = Those Who Support Her.

Could be And her allies

But WNGOGWSOEDUSAAHA still sucks as an acronym.

[Gunslinger]

again people in this thread are concentrating on the jist and not the content.

Bush comparing the war on error to WWII is like saying if we lay down and apease terrorists we will cease to exist.

Hitler probably would have found a way to bring the US to its knees in 1944 if we had not invaded......same thing w/ japan.  

Apeaseing the beast only calms it down until its hungry again.  This isnt just about Al queda....this is about radicals in this world that are using terror to get what they want....they have no country they fight behind yet some countrys support them.....they have no home base but yet they have bases all over the world.  

Terrorists need to be found....they need to be hit....and the coutnrys that support them need to be punished for doing so.

[StabbyTheIcePic]

Besides our troops and the victims of 9/11 noone in this country has sacrificed a thing for the war on terror. Comparing it to ww2 is pretty dumb unless you ask the general population to start sacrificeing.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
again people in this thread are concentrating on the jist and not the content.

Bush comparing the war on error to WWII is like saying if we lay down and apease terrorists we will cease to exist.

Hitler probably would have found a way to bring the US to its knees in 1944 if we had not invaded......same thing w/ japan.  

Apeaseing the beast only calms it down until its hungry again.  This isnt just about Al queda....this is about radicals in this world that are using terror to get what they want....they have no country they fight behind yet some countrys support them.....they have no home base but yet they have bases all over the world.  

Terrorists need to be found....they need to be hit....and the coutnrys that support them need to be punished for doing so.

That makes sense, except for one small detail. You can almost forget about any other type of attack against the U.S. No one has the military might to take us on toe to toe. From now until we cease to be the dominant world power you can expect most (if not all) attacks to be aimed at something soft and undefended (probably civilian).