Attacks Reveal the Nature of Terrorism, Bush says ["terrorism violates every religion]

DoD - American Forces Press Service ^ | Aug. 25, 2003 | Jim Garamone

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Attacks Reveal the Nature of Terrorism, Bush says

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 25, 2003 - The terrorist attacks in Baghdad and Jerusalem will serve as an added spur in the war on terror, President Bush said during his radio address Saturday.

In both cases, the terrorists struck innocents in an effort to impose Taliban- like regimes on the world.

On Aug. 19, a truck bomb exploded outside the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. The blast killed at least 20 people. "The U.N. personnel and Iraqi citizens killed in the bombings were engaged in a purely humanitarian mission," Bush said. "Men and women in the building were working on reconstruction, medical care for Iraqis and the distribution of food."

The U.N. representative for Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello was among the dead. U.S. officials said the bombing was likely the work of former members of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Also on Aug. 19, a suicide terrorist in Jerusalem murdered 20 innocent people riding a bus, including five Americans. "The killer had concealed under his clothing a bomb filled with metal fragments, designed to kill and injure the greatest number of people possible," Bush said. "Among the 110 people hurt were 40 children." The Israeli police said the bomber was from Hamas.

Bush said the two bombings reveal, once again, the nature of the terrorists, and why they must be defeated. "In their malicious view of the world, no one is innocent," he noted. "Relief workers and infants alike are targeted for murder. Terrorism may use religion as a disguise, but terrorism violates every religion and every standard of decency and morality."

The president said the terrorists have declared war on every free nation. "Their goals are clear: They want more governments to resemble the oppressive Taliban that once ruled Afghanistan," he said. "Terrorists commit atrocities because they want the civilized world to flinch and retreat so they can impose their totalitarian vision."

Bush said the United States will not flinch in this war on terror, and there will not be a retreat. "From Afghanistan to Iraq, to the Philippines and elsewhere, we are waging a campaign against the terrorists and their allies, wherever they gather, wherever they plan, and wherever they act," he said.

"This campaign requires sacrifice, determination and resolve, and we will see it through," he continued. "Iraq is an essential front in this war. Now we're fighting terrorists and remnants of that regime who have everything to lose from the advance of freedom in the heart of the Middle East."

The president said that most of Iraq is making steady progress toward reconstruction and a stable, self-governing society. "This progress makes the remaining terrorists even more desperate and willing to lash out against symbols of order and hope, like coalition forces and U.N. personnel," he said. "The world will not be intimidated. A violent few will not determine the future of Iraq, and there will be no return to the days of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers and mass graves."

Bush said Iraqis are working with coalition forces to stop these assassins. Coalition forces acting on tips from ordinary Iraqis are increasing raids, seizing weapons and capturing enemy leaders. "The United States, the United Nations and the civilized world will continue to stand with the people of Iraq as they reclaim their nation and their future," he said.

The president said that all nations face a challenge and a choice. He said "terrorists are testing our will, hoping we will weaken and withdraw. Yet across the world, they are finding that our will cannot be shaken. Whatever the hardships, we will persevere. We will continue this war on terror until all the killers are brought to justice. And we will prevail."

[Concentrate]

Not surprisingly, the Islamists use your own argument in support of their killing of civilians.

The Germans killed lots of civilians, and so did the Japanese. Was it wrong to take out some of their cities or not?

Yes or no?

[Cultural Jihad]

Do you think that's possible? To eliminate terrorism completely?

While we are not able to eliminate sin because of free will, we can strive to assure it does not happen with impunity.

[Concentrate]

And neither are those who murder civilians for Allah really Muslims.

And neither were the Germans or Japanese who murdered civilians really Nazis or Shintoists, respectively.

[Cacophonous]

So how many dead Americans is it worth to you? 200? 2000?

[Concentrate]

And neither are those who murder civilians for Allah really Muslims

I don't see how you can say this while the Koran says to kill the infidel. If it weren't for the Koran, I could entertain your arguement seriously. Besides, who are you to decide who are and are not Muslims?

[Cultural Jihad]

As Rumsfeld said, either we fight them there or on American streets. You, apparently, have voted for American streets. Reason #34,764,343 that George W. Bush is President while you are impotently blustering on between your deleted posts.

[Cultural Jihad]

I don't see how you can say this while the Koran says to kill the infidel.

Reason #7,723,602 that George W. Bush is President while you are playing the blustery windbag.

[Cacophonous]

Again...how many dead Americans is enough for you? At what point will you call for greater action? Five thousand? Another WTC? Or is the piecemeal death of Americans more acceptable to you than a quick strike victory? Are you advocating genocide against Americans? Shall I alert the Admin Moderator?

[Cultural Jihad]

Again...how many dead Americans is enough for you? At what point will you call for greater action? Five thousand? Another WTC? Or is the piecemeal death of Americans more acceptable to you than a quick strike victory? Are you advocating genocide against Americans? Shall I alert the Admin Moderator?

Allow me to help you. Apparently this poster feels that a "quick strike victory" is something he's compelled to advocate here on FreeRepublic.

[Concentrate]

A blustery windbag? Oh thanks! I though noone had noticed!:)

BTW, aren't ad hominum attacks against the rules?

So, are you going to answer my question, or not?

Was the US justified in destroying the German and Japanese cities in question or not?

[Cacophonous]

I've read the rules, and I saw nothing prohibiting quick-strike victories. They are generally preferable to long, drawn-out affairs that wind of with lots of dead and no victors.

[Concentrate]

Well then it behooves you to make sound arguements as to why you are against "quick victories" in wartime.

Flesh it out in detail for all to see, rather than accuse others of all sorts of things and typing ad hominum attacks. Surely a person as witty as yourself can pull that off.

[Cultural Jihad]

It behooves one to know who one's enemies are. To advocate the destruction of holy cities because some are using religion as a cover for murder is not what I would call a sound argument.

[Concentrate]

But I wasn't saying that I advocated such. I truly want to hear you arguement as to why it would not be a prudent action. That's why I have been asking you questions regarding the distinction, if any, between WWII and the current war.

Please make your case. Was it justified for the US to destroy enemy cities in WWII? Would it be a justifiable course of action now or in the near future? If so, under what circumstances? What are the differences between the past and the present threats, if any? What are the similarities or differences?

[blackie]

Death To all Muslim Terrorists!

Be Well ~ Be Armed ~ Be Safe ~ Molon Labe!

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks, CJ. I went to bed and missed the fun. Knew I started this thread badly last night. After last week's scandalous press MIS-reporting on Iraq, ignoring every expert on the ground to destroy Pres. Bush, I was fed up with Freepers who should know better than to believe the press re. this war after 5 months.

I suspect that many on this thread do not understand what the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam Hussein. They do NOT want an Islamist nation, nor do they want to be under the rule of a despot.

Go back and read the DOD briefings, the quotes from the Iraqi people, the Iraqi Council meetings - government set up by the Iraqi people in cities across this country already.

We've made amazing progress in a very short time. I guarantee, that where there are pockets of regime loyalists or terrorists, our troops are not playing games. They are taking them out - with the help of the Iraqi people who are risking not only their own lives but that of their families to go after those who tormented them for decades.

What you see being hyped by the media daily is about as honest as taking the most crime-ridden neighborhood in America and calling THAT America. Come to think of it, when DID crime in the big cities of America (DNC country) make the national news?

The troops are asking for our help getting the truth out to the world. The press wants us to lose. That should shock the civilized world into addressing the power and accountability of today's mainstream partisan hacks.

[Cacophonous]

But in the end they ARE an Islamist nation.

Look here is the point I am trying to make: I think it's terrific that we are helping them, but I don't see anything that WE (the US) are getting out of this deal that is worth the life of one brave American soldier. I don't like putting Americans in harm's way when we are not there for oil, or conquest. Nations cannot survive by sending the best, brightest and bravest to die in altruistic causes. It is folly to think otherwise.

There is a quick way to end this thing, one that would both send a strong and irrefutable message, and one that would save American lives. It appears, however, that we are serious enough to send Americans to die, but not serious enough to get it over with quickly.

We are also setting ourselves up for a massive investment, in terms of money, to rebuild Iraq (when we reach that point). And for a country that is running massively in the red, it is bad policy.

[Concentrate]

I don't like putting Americans in harm's way when we are not there for oil, or conquest. Nations cannot survive by sending the best, brightest and bravest to die in altruistic causes. It is folly to think otherwise.

I disagree. We did it Europe, Japan and later, Korea, with excellent results.

[Concentrate]

There is a quick way to end this thing, one that would both send a strong and irrefutable message, and one that would save American lives. It appears, however, that we are serious enough to send Americans to die, but not serious enough to get it over with quickly.

You can't just bomb every major Islamic city in the world into smithereens, except as a last resort. We're just not at that point now, and hopefully won't ever be. The President's current strategy is working, or so it would seem. Besides, there is no real center of power in the Islamic world; it is dispersed.

[Concentrate]

We are also setting ourselves up for a massive investment, in terms of money, to rebuild Iraq (when we reach that point). And for a country that is running massively in the red, it is bad policy.

They can pay for it themselves with their oil reserves.