Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
"The Third Jihad" is a belief system though.
-
Terrorists are not limited to extremist Muslims.
-SW
-
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?
-
212, that makes no sense, please expand upon your statement.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Its amazing, extremist muslims have apparently become the only definition of terrorism. That didn't take long.
-SW
-
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
-
Yes, but cars aren't only Fords.
-SW
-
Muslim terrorist are the most visible type at present. I don't think anyone implied that they were the only terrorists in the world.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
Terrorism is terrorism, the body count doesn't matter.
-SW
-
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 :confused:
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 .....??? :rolleyes:
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 ???
-
Lizking - look up the stats about civilian deaths in Northern Ireland since the 70's and then repeat that statement
-
Sparks, look them up since 2000.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
what's he hoping to achieve by that?
Re-election.
-
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" ??
-
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.
-
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??
-
Okay, from now on I'll refer to it as WNGOGWSOEDUSA+TWSH.
-
Ok thats better ........ but need clarification on TWSH - must be missing something. :)
-
TWSH = Those Who Support Her.
Could be And her allies
But WNGOGWSOEDUSAAHA still sucks as an acronym.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :confused:
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 .....??? :rolleyes:
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Terrorists are not limited to extremist Muslims.
-SW
-insert applaud smiley here-
-
Link to the article?
I'll do quick google..
-nothing-
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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. :rolleyes:
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.
-
Originally posted by 212
Are they going to get Osama or what?
We already got him. Mark my words.
-
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"?...
:rolleyes:
-
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 .....??? :rolleyes:
..hey, hey, hey...i want to see Ireland but not in that way. ha ha
:lol :aok
-
There are valid governments in those countries with the capability of tracking down their internal terrorists, that is the difference.
-
Originally posted by 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" ??
Well, just in case you don't know - US started a big war in 1999 to support terrorists against police forces trying to fight them.
In Autumn, 1998, the US Senate declared Kosovo Liberation Army a "terrorist organisation". In Spring, 1999, NATO forces led by the US started criminal agression against Yugoslavia supporting the same KLA terrorist gangs.
The "war on terrorism" is nothing more then another "newspeak" slogan. US officials made statements supporting former Georgian regime that sheltered Chechen terrorists in Pankisi gorge. US department of state makes "consultations" with Chechen terrorists representatives. US supports Emir of Quatar, who openly hosts Chechen terrorists declaring them his personal guests. UK gives "political shelter" to Akhmed Zakayev, who is on NATO "known terrorists" list...
Conclusion: "war on terrorism" is nothing but another media propaganda slogan. Another example when all the steam goes into the whistle. Effort spent on rising this media hype is several times bigger then real actions in this "war".
Stay tuned and listen to this speaches that distract your attention when some people "up there" are making their dirty business.
I am surprised that so many intelligent people take everything that clowns from DC say so seriously. Just like in Soviet times: discussing the decisions of the latest Party congress.
-
Originally posted by 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" ??
Sparks, they do not care if you look at what has been repeatedly posted here: It happened outside of the US of A... it didn't happen, or if it did, we're just a bunch of n***oes : who the f***ck cares anyway?
Signed: The Rest Of the World (Tm)
-
We were going to call it, "The War against Radical Muslims who try and kill us", but it made for an awkward scroll-bar caption.
-
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.
Never mind. I re-read the original post and my comment was therefore unwarranted.