Bush Compares War on Terror to WW2

[Gunslinger]

hitting us were we are soft does not justify their actions nor does it make any response less resonable  I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but....oh well.  no one on this board is going to convince me that targeting woman and children for a cause is worth while by any means.

It's like saying we deserved a sneak attack on PH in 41 because the japonese had no other options left.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but....oh well.  

I'm saying that the war on terrorism will be without end.

I'm not attempting to justify anything. Terrorism is a tool, not an ideology.

[NUKE]

Bush, in that speech, was also spreading the evil message of bringing freedom to the Middle East. I wondered if anyone would post this speech, because it's great.

Bush has an evil goal of fighting terrorists and bringing freedom to the Middle East. What a terrible message by an evil man.

And terrorism can be fought and declaring war on it does not equate to declaring war on murder. Terrorists can be fought and their organisations can have war declared on them. Countries that harbor them can be liberated and rid of them. It is a war.

[Steve]

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?

DOLT!

I heard the speech.  He compared WWII w/ our war on terror by saying both were started by dastardly, sneak attacks, i.e. pearl harbor and the WTC.  You're a ******* for trying to read any more into it.

[Rino]

Originally posted by 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 ???

     Maybe the US should decide who our enemies are?  Or are
you suggesting we run the list by you first?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm saying that the war on terrorism will be without end.

I'm not attempting to justify anything. Terrorism is a tool, not an ideology.

totally agreed

[212]

What I meant to say was that we should have gotten Osama first. Iraq is a very debatable subject so I'll leave it to the experts to debate that.

[Hawklore]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Terrorists are not limited to extremist Muslims.
-SW

-insert applaud smiley here-

[Hawklore]

Link to the article?

I'll do quick google..

-nothing-

[Jester]

Originally posted by 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.

Except maybe for all the families of those troops that were killed or wounded during operations in Afganistan and Iraq. Not to take into account all those families who's lives were disrupted when their family members were called up to serve their Country.

Congrats, that is about one of the MOST STUPID statements I have ever seen on this board.  

[StabbyTheIcePic]

Originally posted by Jester
Except maybe for all the families of those troops that were killed or wounded during operations in Afganistan and Iraq. Not to take into account all those families who's lives were disrupted when their family members were called up to serve their Country.

Congrats, that is about one of the MOST STUPID statements I have ever seen on this board.  

When i stated our troops i implied the familes of the troops. The average american has given up nothing to help fight the war on terror.

[Monk]

Originally posted by 212
Are they going to get Osama or what?

We already got him.  Mark my words.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Steve
DOLT!

I heard the speech.  He compared WWII w/ our war on terror by saying both were started by dastardly, sneak attacks, i.e. pearl harbor and the WTC.  You're a ******* for trying to read any more into it.

9/11="Day of infamy"?...

[101ABN]

Originally posted by Sparks
[
To my mind AKSW makes a good point - if the Northern Ireland peace process collapses can we expect the B]101st Airborne[/B]  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 .....???

..hey, hey, hey...i want to see Ireland but not in that way. ha ha

[Lizking]

There are valid governments in those countries with the capability of tracking down their internal terrorists, that is the difference.