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."

[Cacophonous]

I'm not advocating mass murder, or genocide. I am advocating the saving of American lives through means at our disposal; for which there is an historical precedence. Or are we so wrapped up in touchy-feely PC fears of offending someone that we cannot bring that sort of thing up?

[Cultural Jihad]

Or are we so wrapped up in touchy-feely PC fears of offending someone that we cannot bring that sort of thing up?

You are free to bring up the advocacy of your desire to destroy cities filled with people with the owner of the forum or with his agents.

[Sir Gawain]

I'm having a little trouble finding any third world country that is ruled by Christian extremists where they use the Bible to behead people, chop off their hands, and enslave their women. Maybe you could help me. Any ideas?

My statement stands: Christianity is not morally equivalent to Islam, and Christian extremists are not morally equivalent to Muslim extremists.

[Cacophonous]

Geez, I guess it's a good thing Truman didn't have to consult with you.

[Cultural Jihad]

Islam is in a revivalist phase. In the lands where it is predominant, there is often little tolerance of rival religions seeking the conversion of Muslims. So it is that Falwell, Robertson and Graham, too, have a point. Between militant Islam and Christian fundamentalism, there is an unbridgeable chasm of belief, and in the Islamic world, devout Christians are citizens under suspicion – just as Jews and Muslims were in Isabella's Spain and Catholics were in Elizabethan England.

Yet, in his sense that we must avoid war with militant Islam, lest we find ourselves at war with all Islam, President Bush is surely right.

In the last century, America was threatened by a global communist revolution. Avoiding all-out war, we outlasted it. And we can outlast this Islamist revolution. What we must avoid is a war of faiths, a war of civilizations between Islam and America. And those who propagandize for such a war are the unwitting or willful collaborators of Osama bin Laden.

--Patrick J. Buchanan, December 2, 2002

[Valin]

Why?

[Cacophonous]

So what's your point? Buchanan has written, and I agree with him, that we never should have been in the Middle East to begin with. But as long as we are there, let's not pussyfoot around; why set up our soldiers to be targets. Smack 'em hard, knock 'em down, wipe 'em out. This piecemeal stuff only puts more brave American soldiers in harm's way.

I have to emphasize: American soldiers will do what they are told, proudly, willingly, completely, magnificently. My argument is not with them. I don't like seeing them used for cannon fodder.

[Concentrate]

My question to you would be if you think it was OK for us to do it in WWII.

(1) Was the destruction of Berlin, Tokyo Nagasaki and Hiroshima justified in order to win the war?

(2)Was it justified in order to save our men at the expense of the enemies' civilians? Why or why not?

(3) And additionally, would such an action be justifiable today to win the "War on Terror"? Why or why not?

But of course, you've already answered the last question, so why not?

[Valin]

Islamic extremists are simply following the Koran as it was meant to be followed.

WRONG

[Cacophonous]

I didn't think (just my opinion, unpopular it may be) that Hussein posed a threat to the US. I figured he had WMD, but was not a threat to us unless we attacked him. Thankfully I was wrong there, but then I had to wonder if he was ever a threat to us at all (I still think we'll find WMD, btw). His connection to 9-11 was not established.

I think it's a bad idea to fight altruistic wars of liberation; no great nation in history EVER fought that way and survived. If we had gone in for oil (or some other form of material gain), I would have loved it. But we were constantly told that's not the case, and I was called unAmerican for suggesting it.

I also felt we were setting ourselves up for another long-term, no-end-in-sight occupation, in a region where the people didn't want us, and where the cultural divide was immense. So far, I'm right on that one. I felt that after the initial wave of celebration, we would be in for a long, drawn out guerilla conflict.

In short, it was Bill Clinton in the Balkans all over again, and I opposed it for the same reasons.

[Cacophonous]

I've asked him the same questions, and haven't gotten an answer (except he accused me of advocating mass murder). Maybe he'll answer you.

[Cultural Jihad]

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

[MJY1288]

Christians who blow up abortion clinics and murder abortion doctors can be easily be called morally equivalent in my opinion.

It doesn't matter what method of killing is advocated, Murder in the name of religious or political beliefs is the same whether you're a Muslim or a Christian

[Concentrate]

And we can outlast this Islamist Nazi/Shinto revolution. What we must avoid is a war of faiths, a war of civilizations between Islam the Axis Powers and America. And those who propagandize for such a war are the unwitting or willful collaborators of Osama bin Laden Hitler and Hirohito.

Maybe. Maybe not.

[Cacophonous]

Christians who blow up abortion clinics and murder abortion doctors...

...are not Christians.

[Cultural Jihad]

Of course, in the 20th Century we didn't go to war against all Germanic or Asiatic societies because of what Hilter or Hirohito did.

[Cultural Jihad]

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

[MJY1288]

Well!, we both know that, but they claim to be Christians just as Muslims who murder in the name of Allah. An extremest is an extremest, no matter how they choose to worship

[Cacophonous]

Of course, in the 20th Century we didn't go to war against all Germanic or Asiatic societies because of what Hilter or Hirohito did.

No, that would be genocide. We did eliminate Shintoism, though; why can't we eliminate Islam?

I'm not suggesting genocide; there are plenty of non-Muslim Arabs I have no problem with, and many non-Arab Muslims who could pose problems.

[Cacophonous]

So it looks like we're back to just getting rid of terrorists. Do you think that's possible? To eliminate terrorism completely?