The American Mind

“It’s an awful phrase, not because it’s too divisive and “contributing to isolating communities,” but because “terror” is an abstraction.”

Huh?

Is the name “Sean Hackbarth” an abstraction?

Is the phrase “Web blog” an abstraction?

Give me a freaken break. Enough with the, “We are not at war with terrorists” malarky for a change.

This is a “Global war on Terror” (PERIOD) whether you like the term or not.

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to say, “Global war on Terror,” instead of “Global war on Islam” because this is a war on terror.

What happens in the future if hateful secularist group starts bombing American Cities for political reasons?

Should America not go after them because they are Secularist?

This Global War is about setting things right on our policy towards (ALL) parties of the world that engage, have ever engaged, or plan to engage in acts of Terror.

Just because everyone doing it is ISLAM doesn’t mean that 1000 years from now that will still be the case.

Also, Timothy McVeigh, I don’t believe, was not an Islamic Convert (imho).

Doesn’t his action (Oklahoma City Bombing) count as an act of Terrorism?

Shouldn’t we be at war with that as well?

Or can we start excusing the next Timothy McVeigh for Linquistical reasons now?

One more thing.

What about the Puetro Rican Terrorists who bombed restaurants and other places in New York City during the time frame of the late 80s, early 90s?

I’m not so certain that they were Islamic, or at least doing what they did for Islamic reasons.

If we are going to start treating this war as a “Global war on Islamic Fascism”

then we are doing a grave injustice to the American People because there are far more dangers than just Islamic Fascists.

Everyone mentions the CHICOMS as a threat for good reason and I believe they are secularist.

Sorry to post again.

Is North Korean President KIM JUNG ILL an Islamic?

Was HITLER an Islamic?

Heads of State can easily be said to be terrorists when they engage in terrorism.

Kim Jung Ill sending weapons, or God Forbid one day a Nuke to Terrorists is a head of state acting as a terrorist.

And Hitler acted as a terrorist head of state to the Jewish People.

If Americans can’t get serious about understand what this war is about then why are we bothering to fight it?

Oddly enough, I agree with Jeff on this one. There are plenty more terrorists than just the Muslim ones.

You can’t win a war against a method. In World War II war wasn’t declared on the blitzkrieg or surprise attacks. The U.S. declared war on Germany and Japan. More specifically it was declared on Nazi German and Imperial Japan.

We’re not at war against evil, disgruntled white Americans or Puerto Ricans. We’re at war against those who want to see the West fall to an Islamic caliphate.

There are plenty more terrorists in the world and will be until the end of time, but for now Islamists declared war on us with Sep. 11 so that’s the war we have to fight.

If the U.S. really was fighting a global war on terrorism the Tamil Tigers and the Basque separatists would be on President Bush’s radar screen. We haven’t even declared war on eco-terrorists inside the U.S. Bush is confusing things by not defining who the enemy is.

Except Chet, you only agree with this notion in the sense that you want America to surrender to the Islamic Fascists in favor of pursuing “Other Things” which don’t require ground invasions.

Sean,

The enemy is “Terrorists.”

The Word “Terrorist” does not denote a method, it denotes a type of people associated with the method of “terrorism.”

Declaring war on Eco-Terrorists is rather silly.

President Bush didn’t say, “We will use the same method in Afghanistan and Iraq to go after all froms of Terror and all Terrorists groups.”

President Bush made it clear that every situation requires a different method for confronting it.

Last time I checked, Eco-Terrorism is “Illegal” and depending on the extent of the terrorism one can be put on Death Row.

Just as one can be put on Death Row for bombing an Abortion Clinic.

This is a GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM and not simply a Global War on Islam.

Just as we don’t war with a “Method,” we also don’t war against a “Religion.”

We war against those (anyone) who engage in Terrorist Activities (period).

Like I said… As long as American Citizens continue to not understand what President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address really means, we are in big trouble as a nation.

“Bush is confusing things by not defining who the enemy is. ”

*Shrug* I don’t feel confused in the slightest.

“Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.”

What did President Bush in his 2002 State of the Union Speech mean by (…and regimes who seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons…)?

Not all regimes (North Korea) are seeking them for Islamic Religious reasonings.

If this is a war on a Religion, then we should be watching as President Bush hand delivers Kim Jung Ill a Nuclear Weapon.