[Kevin]

Nazism, or Terrorism?

Discuss.

[Buckaroo]

You should have made it a poll.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Nazism, or Terrorism?

Discuss.

Interesting question. There is/was reluctance to address both. Both made their intentions clear. One could easily separate the hostile elements from the military elements. For this simple reason, I believe terrorism is a greater threat. That said; terrorism is not a greater threat to me.

[Kevin]

While Mr. Bush continues his U.S. campaign to rally support for his Iraq engagement, Mr. Lewis provides some dramatic context for why Americans ought to pay attention. U.S. officials, many of whom served during the Cold War, have likened the Mideast challenge to the democratic transformation of the former Soviet bloc. Mr. Lewis instead compares the threat to Europe at the beginning of World War II.

He believes the threat in some respects is greater than even that of the Nazis, as radical Islam is fanatical, violent, global in its reach and enjoys significant support. Beyond that, the terrorists have suicidal tendencies and nuclear potential. Another difference: The world's will to stand together is much more lacking now than it became then. "If Churchill and his team had to face the same sort of opposition as does President Bush, Hitler might well have won the war," he says.

Thinking Global - WSJ.com

[OldManMac]

To even attempt to compare the two in scale of destruction wrought, number of deaths, and the number of adherents to each side's philosophies shows a clear lack of understanding of the issues involved. Bernard Lewis is a tired old neocon, who, like his pals Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, et. al., are frustrated old liberals who think that America has some divinely inspired right to march willy nilly across the world stage and bring democracy (which they don't even understand) to the poor unfortunate masses, who are just yearning for it. To top it all off, if they were honest with you, they'd have to tell you that it has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with returning America to its "rightful" place as the world's superpower, while they and their ilk conveniently benefit the most.

[Chuckit]

Nazism. Germany was an oppressed nation with a powerful, well-equipped, well-trained army and a great deal of unity. Terrorism consists of a bunch of unconnected morons blowing themselves up at random.

[Orion27]

and everything to do with returning America to its "rightful" place as the world's superpower,

"Returning"? We are the world's superpower, like it or not.

[lpkmckenna]

Terrorism is a tactic. Nazism is an ideology. Apples, oranges.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

To even attempt to compare the two in scale of destruction wrought, number of deaths, and the number of adherents to each side's philosophies shows a clear lack of understanding of the issues involved. Bernard Lewis is a tired old neocon, who, like his pals Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, et. al., are frustrated old liberals who think that America has some divinely inspired right to march willy nilly across the world stage and bring democracy (which they don't even understand) to the poor unfortunate masses, who are just yearning for it. To top it all off, if they were honest with you, they'd have to tell you that it has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with returning America to its "rightful" place as the world's superpower, while they and their ilk conveniently benefit the most.

Ah so basically a ad-hominem. Thanks for your input.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Nazism. Germany was an oppressed nation with a powerful, well-equipped, well-trained army and a great deal of unity. Terrorism consists of a bunch of unconnected morons blowing themselves up at random.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Terrorism is a tactic. Nazism is an ideology. Apples, oranges.

What does that have to do with what threat is greater?

[OldManMac]

Struck a nerve, huh? You asked a question, I gave my answer. Don't take it personally, unless it fits. You've already decided what the answer is to your question, based on the response you gave to me, and Chuckit and no doubt what you'll give to others. You really don't want to debate. You're just looking for affirmation of your beliefs. At least be honest with yourself.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well it's a good thing marden's banned. He's already brought this topic up a bazillion times.

What was the cost of Nazism again? Countries conquered, 60 million dead, enough money spent to bankrupt continents, and the creation of two competing superpowers? Jeez. Terrorism better get crackin'.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Struck a nerve, huh?

No not really. Should it have?

You asked a question, I gave my answer.

No, you attacked the person in the article.

You've already decided what the answer is to your question, based on the response you gave to me, and Chuckit and no doubt what you'll give to others. You really don't want to debate. You're just looking for affirmation of your beliefs. At least be honest with yourself.

No I want debate. What I don't want is ad-hominem attacks.

Something BOTH your posts here have been.

Cut it out.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What was the cost of Nazism again? Countries conquered, 60 million dead, enough money spent to bankrupt continents, and the creation of two competing superpowers? Jeez. Terrorism better get crackin'.

greg

I said which THREAT is/was greater. Not who has done more damage so far.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

"Returning"? We are the world's superpower, like it or not.

Not for much longer, and it has nothing to do with whether you, or I, or anyone else, likes it or not, but that's another debate. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Not for much longer, and it has nothing to do with whether you, or I, or anyone else, likes it or not, but that's another debate. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Where did you get your crystal ball at Karl?

BTW

It was vintage Lewis--reading the sources, in this case a marginal Arabic newspaper published out of London, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, in February of 1998--to come across a declaration of war on the United States by a self-designated holy warrior he had "never heard of," Osama bin Laden. In one of those essays that reveal the historian's eye for things that matter, "A License to Kill," Mr. Lewis would render into sublime English prose the declaration of bin Laden and would give it its exegesis. The historian might have never heard of bin Laden, but the terrorist from Arabia practically walks out of the pages of Mr. Lewis's own histories. Consider this passage from the Arabian plotter: "Since God laid down the Arabian Peninsula, created its desert, and surrounded it with seas, no calamity has ever befallen it like these crusader hosts that have spread in it like locusts, eating its fruits and destroying its verdure; and this at a time when the nations contend against Muslims like diners jostling around a bowl of food. . . . By God's leave, we call on every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for reward to obey God's command to kill the Americans and plunder their possessions whenever he finds them and whenever he can."

Three years later, the furies of bin Laden, and the cadence and content of his language--straight out of the annals of older wars of faith--would remake our world. There would come Mr. Lewis's way now waves of people willing to believe. They would read into his works the bewildering ways and furies of preachers and plotters and foot soldiers hurling themselves against the order of the West. Timing was cruel--and exquisite. The historian's book "What Went Wrong?" was already in galleys by 9/11. He had not written it for the storm. He had all but anticipated what was to come. This diagnosis of Islam's malady would become a best seller. In a different setting, Mr. Lewis had written of history's power. "Make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future." We were witnessing an epic jumbling of past and present. It was no fault of this historian that we had placed our bet on the death of the past.

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I disagree.

OK, then answer me this simple question. Nazism was a carefully organized movement with a leader. That leader was Adolf Hitler. Who is the Adolf Hitler of terrorism?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

OK, then answer me this simple question. Nazism was a carefully organized movement with a leader. That leader was Adolf Hitler. Who is the Adolf Hitler of terrorism?

Allah and



But really, it could be anyone. Osama gets killed, someone takes his place.

No so with the Nazis. Another reason terrorism is more dangerous.

They don't follow ONE MAN, but ONE IDEAL.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Allah and



But really, it could be anyone. Osama gets killed, someone takes his place.

No so with the Nazis. Another reason terrorism is more dangerous.

They don't follow ONE MAN, but ONE IDEAL.

An ideal is not enough to create an effective army, otherwise college liberals would have taken over the world by now.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

An ideal is not enough to create an effective army

What is happening in Iraq?

Either an ideal is not enough to create an effective army, or everything is peachy in Iraq.

Which is it?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What is happening in Iraq?

Either an ideal is not enough to create an effective army, or everything is peachy in Iraq.

Which is it?

What's happening in Iraq is that differing factions are killing each other. That has nothing to do with terrorism.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

What's happening in Iraq is that differing factions are killing each other. That has nothing to do with terrorism.

That isn't all that is happening KarlG

But lets say this is true.

Would you say, I don't know ... being the first to not only ATTACK the US continent itself in the last 100 or so years, but bring down two of the largest buildings on the planet while killing THOUSANDS of people?

I'd say that is pretty damned effective.

Do I really have to go on?

To say Islam extremism doesn't have the numbers or the ability to be effective is a joke.



Nazi Germany was one place on the planet.

Islamic terrorism is everywhere. And effects everyone.

I remember reading about the large group of people that claimed we should have never gotten into WWII. We should have stayed out of it.

They look like jack-asses now I am sure.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Do I really have to go on?

If you are seriously trying to draw a comparison to the Nazis, then you have to keep on going for quite a while.

[dcmacdaddy]

Nazism, because of its unified underlying ideology of global conquest.

Terrorism is a tactic used around the world by a variety of groups to achieve a variety of different ends. Some terrorists groups are bent on global conquest--but have nowhere near the capability of the Nazis to do so--but most of them are simply employing terrorism to stir up region-specific conflict which could achieve specific regional goals (usually involving some form of independence for a specific cultural/geographic group).
Groups like the IRA, ETA, FARC, Zapatistas, Chechens, IJ (in Egypt), Shining Path, Hamas and Hezbollah, Lord's Resistance Army (in Uganda), and many others are all using terrorism to inspire region-specific conflict.

A group like Al Qaeda is using terrorism to inspire fear within certain Western populations. And, whereas some Al Qaeda factions have made claims to seek global domination. none of them are even a fraction of the size necessary to carry out such a plan. So yeah, had I lived during the 1930s I would have been much more afraid of what the Nazis could/would do than I am now with regard to terrorists and what they could/would do today.

[Wiskedjak]

Terrorism is a much greater threat than Nazism. In fact, there is absolutely nothing threatening about Nazism.

Having said that, IMO the Nazis were a much greater threat to the world than the Islamic terrorists (I'm assuming you're referring to Islamic terrorists when you say "terrorism"). The Nazis were more organized and much better equipped.

While I feel the Nazis were a greater threat, Islamic terrorists are much more difficult to fight, but greatest threat they pose is in how we choose to react to their attacks.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That isn't all that is happening KarlG

But lets say this is true.

Would you say, I don't know ... being the first to not only ATTACK the US continent itself in the last 100 or so years, but bring down two of the largest buildings on the planet while killing THOUSANDS of people?

I'd say that is pretty damned effective.

Do I really have to go on?

To say Islam extremism doesn't have the numbers or the ability to be effective is a joke.



Nazi Germany was one place on the planet.

Islamic terrorism is everywhere. And effects everyone.

I remember reading about the large group of people that claimed we should have never gotten into WWII. We should have stayed out of it.

They look like jack-asses now I am sure.

Once again, you blow things out of proportion, and you fail to see that there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. What happened on 9/11 was horrendous, no doubt. You've unfortunately bought into the story that Islamic terrorism is going to affect your life, which just isn't true. You're going to die of any number of things before you ever are affected by terrorism. Islamic terrorism is not everywhere; it is, however, everywhere that the news media chooses to sensationalize, and because you see that on the news, it must be true. If you take the number of people killed in any given year by true terrorist acts, it is still a miniscule fraction of the number of people who will die in other fashion, such as car accidents, disease (a huge number), murder, suicides, and on and on. It's much easier to believe that terrorism is a threat to you, because you can see that on the news, because that's sensational, and that's what some people want. The news would be pretty boring if they read a list of the people who died every day in car accidents, and then read the list of those who commited suicide (over 30,000 annually in the U. S. alone), and then the list of those who died of cancer, heart attacks, etc. There are much greater issues this world needs to face other than terrorism; they're just not as sensational.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

If you are seriously trying to draw a comparison to the Nazis, then you have to keep on going for quite a while.

Good thing I am not doing that.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Nazism, because of its unified underlying ideology of global conquest.

Islamic terrorist have the same goal. Global conquest for Allah.

Terrorism is a tactic used around the world by a variety of groups to achieve a variety of different ends. Some terrorists groups are bent on global conquest--but have nowhere near the capability of the Nazis to do so--but most of them are simply employing terrorism to stir up region-specific conflict which could achieve specific regional goals (usually involving some form of independence for a specific cultural/geographic group).
Groups like the IRA, ETA, FARC, Zapatistas, Chechens, IJ (in Egypt), Shining Path, Hamas and Hezbollah, Lord's Resistance Army (in Uganda), and many others are all using terrorism to inspire region-specific conflict.

A group like Al Qaeda is using terrorism to inspire fear within certain Western populations. And, whereas some Al Qaeda factions have made claims to seek global domination. none of them are even a fraction of the size necessary to carry out such a plan. So yeah, had I lived during the 1930s I would have been much more afraid of what the Nazis could/would do than I am now with regard to terrorists and what they could/would do today.

I believe you underestimate the power of these brainwashers.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I believe you underestimate the power of these brainwashers.

While you possibly overestimate it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Once again, you blow things out of proportion, and you fail to see that there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

What the hell? When did I say there was? PAY ATTENTION KARL!

'What happened on 9/11 was horrendous, no doubt. You've unfortunately bought into the story that Islamic terrorism is going to affect your life, which just isn't true.

How do you know this Karl? You'd have probably said the same thing to those killed in 9/11 before it happened as well.

I am afraid it might take an attack a bit close to your "home" to wake you up.

You're going to die of any number of things before you ever are affected by terrorism.

Unfounded and baseless. You don't know. I don't know.

Islamic terrorism is not everywhere; it is

I've seen it spread farther than Nazism.

however, everywhere that the news media chooses to sensationalize, and because you see that on the news, it must be true.

No, that isn't the case Karl. It they aren't making up things that they are doing. They are just reporting it. Over doing them maybe. But those events are happening.

If you take the number of people killed in any given year by true terrorist acts, it is still a miniscule fraction of the number of people who will die in other fashion, such as car accidents, disease (a huge number), murder, suicides, and on and on. It's much easier to believe that terrorism is a threat to you, because you can see that on the news, because that's sensational, and that's what some people want. The news would be pretty boring if they read a list of the people who died every day in car accidents, and then read the list of those who commited suicide (over 30,000 annually in the U. S. alone), and then the list of those who died of cancer, heart attacks, etc. There are much greater issues this world needs to face other than terrorism; they're just not as sensational.

What a straw-man. What does this have to do with the comment that they aren't effective?

I wish you'd stay on topic or quit rambling on about irrelevant things Karl.

Back in the mid 30s the Nazi party was a little puppy. Things grew.

Things are growing now in the terrorists faction.

it's not what HAS been done, it's what is coming.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

While you possibly overestimate it.

No I probably underestimate it as well.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I've seen it spread farther than Nazism.

...if by "spread farther," you mean "there's some people way over there who might be terrorists"?

Nazism/fascism controlled all of Europe and swaths of Africa and the Middle East. When you can start naming Islamic terrorist countries, get back to me.

Back in the mid 30s the Nazi party was a little puppy. Things grew.

Whenever I argue with you it's usually over your lack of historical knowledge, and your absolute willingness to freely display this lack of knowledge. This comment is one such example. You think the Nazi party was a "little puppy" by the mid-1930s, and that means you have no idea what you're talking about.

it's not what HAS been done, it's what is coming.

...ahhhhhhh yes. I suppose all these terrorists are going to pop up from their infiltrated hiding places and conquer Europe. Blow a couple of those suckers up in Paris and I'm sure the French will be on their knees in surrender.

The complete lack of logistics and/or reasonable methods of Islamic terrorist domination make your argument very, very weak.

greg

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...if by "spread farther," you mean "there's some people way over there who might be terrorists"?

Nazism/fascism controlled all of Europe and swaths of Africa and the Middle East. When you can start naming Islamic terrorist countries, get back to me.


Whenever I argue with you it's usually over your lack of historical knowledge, and you absolutely willingness to freely display this lack of knowledge. This comment is one such example. You think the Nazi party was a "little puppy" by the mid-1930s, and that means you have no idea what you're talking about.


...ahhhhhhh yes. I suppose all these terrorists are going to pop up from their infiltrated hiding places and conquer Europe. Blow a couple of those suckers up in Paris and I'm sure the French will be on their knees in surrender.

The complete lack of logistics and/or reasonable methods of Islamic terrorist domination make your argument very, very weak.

greg

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Where did you get your crystal ball at Karl?

BTW



OpinionJournal - Featured Article

So? BBC NEWS | Middle East | From hope to despair in Baghdad

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Islamic terrorist have the same goal. Global conquest for Allah.

Of course, with your intense Christianity focus you consistently fail to recognize the link between "global conquest for Allah" and "somehow striking out at my oppressors and those who won't give me what I want slash a better life."

If it was just for Allah, there wouldn't be anything we could do. Unfortunately for your argument, the proportion of terrorism that doesn't have anything to do with local conflicts, regional disparities, nationalistic enmity, etc. etc. – and everything to do solely with "conquering the world for Allah" – is pretty minute.

greg

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Nazism, or Terrorism?

Discuss.

GWB, so I'm voting (a).

[subego]

Which was the greater threat?

Naziism.


Which is the greater threat?

Terrorism.


This seems unanswerable as any other way, but I'm assuming this isn't really the answer to the question you're asking.

Isn't the question really "is the threat of Naziism during WWII as big as the threat of terrorism now?"

Sorry to be nitpicky, but I can't tell if you are asking a legit question or are just baiting people into saying stupid ****.

Not that it matters, I am equally entertained by both, and you are double-plus good at baiting people into saying stupid ****. Don't think I don't notice.

P.S. I think other people have made a good point. Terrorism is a tactic, so it may be better to shift the question more ideologically.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What does that have to do with what threat is greater?

If you can't compare, then there is no point trying … 
Terrorism is not a unified movement, just a tactic that may be used by groups and even states to accomplish specific goals. You never fight `terrorism', but always a specific group that uses terrorist tactics. There is really no such thing as the `War On Terror', but only `Wars Against Specific Terrorist Groups' such as Al Quaeda.

So you should rephrase your question into something like `What group was more dangerous, Nazis or Al Quaeda?'

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

An ideal is not enough to create an effective army, otherwise college liberals would have taken over the world by now.

[Kevin]

I can and WILL compare. I am comparing the dangers of it to come.

Sadly, it is going to have to really hit someone you love, for some of you to wake up.

All for partisan reasons.

We will see

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Sadly, it is going to have to really hit someone you love, for some of you to wake up.

My cousin was almost killed in the Madrid bombings, so no need to remind me
But I don't blame `terrorism' but Al Quaeda … 

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

My cousin was almost killed in the Madrid bombings, so no need to remind me
But I don't blame `terrorism' but Al Quaeda … 

And they practice... terrorism!

BTW "almost killed" isn't a lose.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well it's a good thing marden's banned. He's already brought this topic up a bazillion times.

Ah, then the way this thread went makes a lot of sense then. Can't have anyone agreeing with marden.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And they practice... terrorism!

… and you still fight the group and not the means they use.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

BTW "almost killed" isn't a lose.

So I have no right to bring that up unless he were seriously injured or killed?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… and you still fight the group and not the means they use.

When many many many many groups are using the same means...

So I have no right to bring that up unless he were seriously injured or killed?

A loss is a loss.

I do find it amusing that those that are in the know and make a great argument more so than anyone in this thread believes the same thing I do.

But hell, what does he know. They don't post on internet boards!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And they practice... terrorism!

So you do want us to compare an ideology with a tactic.

Well the answer is still terrorism, but it's not like I'd answer Naziism if the question was:

Which threat is/was greater?

Naziism, or Getting Hit Over the Head?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego 

So you do want us to compare an ideology with a tactic.

Their ideology and tactics. Both are what is and will be EVEN more dangerous to the world as a whole.

That is if it's not taken a bit more seriously.

Like I said, I HOPE a dem gets in the whitehouse that is tough on terrorism.

That way something can actually be done with out all the Partisan RAH RAH.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When many many many many groups are using the same means...

… still doesn't mean you can fight `terrorism'.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

A loss is a loss.

Have you lost a relative to a terrorist attack?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Their ideology and tactics. Both are what is more dangerous to the world as a whole.

Okay.

I think the situational nature of tactics makes the ideology part more important.

Lemme think about it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… still doesn't mean you can fight `terrorism'.

What does this have to do with my question?

Have you lost a relative to a terrorist attack?

Nope. Not even "almost"

But I don't NEED something like that to happen to see the danger.

Not that it matters. This thread was dead from the start. Had I known marden made a thread like this, I'd have never posted it.

People take sides against marden just to be doing so. And you can't really contradict yourself now.

As for me, I will continue to take advice from those that actually KNOW about the subject.

He believes the threat in some respects is greater than even that of the Nazis, as radical Islam is fanatical, violent, global in its reach and enjoys significant support. Beyond that, the terrorists have suicidal tendencies and nuclear potential. Another difference: The world's will to stand together is much more lacking now than it became then. "If Churchill and his team had to face the same sort of opposition as does President Bush, Hitler might well have won the war," he says.

He has been studying this for decades.

But you guys know better.

BTW same man was pissy and disagreed with Bush about staying so long. He thinks we should have handed Iraq it's government and left sooner.

But what does he know, he is just a shill of Bush's right?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What does this have to do with my question?

It means that you want to compare apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But I don't NEED something like that to happen to see the danger.

Yes, same here: you were trying to argue that `if I knew the pains, I'd change my opinion' -- nonsense. Even if something did happen back then, I would still be of the same opinion: that you are comparing things that can't be compared.