[Revised] Why is the U.S. at a War on Terror instead of a War on Those Who Use Terror?

Question

ter·ror ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr)
n.
Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
Informal. An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.

ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.

Again - we were at war with the Axis, not with Blitzkrieg or naval warfare.

We were at war with the British, not with the way they waged war.

Answer 1

I think your question is quite clear and I'm going to give my personal observation instead of a knee jerk reaction to discredit the question. In my own opinion I am seeing a hidden agenda by President Bush to fool the American people . I believe he's using this whole terrorist situation to further his own political powers , not to hunt down and stop those performing the terrorist acts so much as to give the appearance of doing so. With a war on terrorism he can paint scenario's to frighten people , and he can paint with a very broad brush as he is doing in order to gain more power than any other president in history. For example I'll mention his new terrorist detainee bill which gives him the power to arrest Americans believed to be terrorists? It specifically states they can be denied any a day in court and be detained for an endless period.There were already laws in place for dealing with this and they were used successfully against Timothy McVeigh when he blew up the federal building killing hundreds of people. Denying an American citizen a day in court may allow him to use his broad explanation of terrorism to include any American who should disagree or question his judgment. Without a day in court , an innocent party wouldn't have an opportunity to defend there self. This would give them the opportunity to expose him and his grandiose plan to gain power previously not constitutionally afforded a president. I obviously may not speak for everyone but I now question this presidents every move. I ask why he has turned his war on terrorism inward , doing so by wiretapping our phones, bank accounts and such . While I truly hope there is a legitimate reason , I recognize it as a tactic used by dictatorships around the world and I feel an obligation to question it. I've emailed the united states attorney general and my congressman, I await an answer. Wiretapping can be used for political gain also as seen in the Nixon era . Is there reason to let down our guard now to this possibility because of 911? In my opinion the answer is no. I disagree that the American people are willing to give up all personal rights to privacy , freedom of expression , and freedom of the press in this fight on terrorism. I feel to do so would be a slap in the face to all who have fought and died in the past to protect these rights. I'm seeing a man who has decided this should be done for our own good? I believe him to be a worst case example of a president. I truly feel he is a megalomaniac (1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur ) . The untruths and disregard for the constitution is continuing virtually unchecked . This goes beyond the boundary of political affiliation , I feel any president should be put in question under these circumstances . If president bush wishes to further democracy he should show a much better example of it instead of allowing or causing it to erode on our own soil.

Answer 2

There has been an extended historical past of civilians with out uniforms combating steady infantrymen, relationship again good earlier than the treaty. As an instance: ' Minutemen have been contributors of the American colonial defense force in the course of the American Revolutionary War. They vowed to be capable for struggle towards the British inside one minute of receiving become aware of.' "Most Colonial defense force items have been offered neither hands nor uniforms and needed to equip themselves. Many easily wore their possess farmers' or workmans' garments, whilst others had buckskin looking clothes. Some further Indian-form touches to intimidate the enemy, even adding struggle-paint" Were those the eighteenth century variant of the Iraqi insurgents?

Answer 3

Same difference basically. Specifically we are at war with miltant Islamic terrorists. These people are the problem, and they have been a problem for decades.

Not really sure what your questions point is.

Answer 4

It sounds like you are a "nit picker!"

You seem to like to split hairs. Perhaps it would helpful for you to know that most Human Beings don't like this.

I wish you well my friend.

Best wishes and Good Luck

Answer 5

One in the same, for those who use terror are the terrorist.

Answer 6

you really have to be related to Forrest Gump.