2006-09-29 11:49:36 · 14 answers · asked by JUDGE DEATH 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
~Gee, but for the terrorists of 1776, the US wouldn't be the problem for the rest of the world that it is, and anti-American "terrorism" wouldn't exist. Pull your brain out of your butt and shove your chauvanism up there, look at the reasons terrorism exists in the first place, vote for people that understand the concept and maybe, just maybe, it'll die a natural death. But, with folks like the ones who are answering your question pulling the levers, that's not apt to happen soon.
As to Hitler, maybe you should do a little reading. First, Hitler had nothing to do with terrorism, or anything else, outside the Reich and its conquests. Second, within the Reich, terrorism was rampant. What you really want is a Mao and a Cultural Revolution or a Stalin and an across the board purge of anything that moved.
2006-09-29 12:04:14 · answer #1 · answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, we would all be too intimidated and fearful of the consequences. Not so in the good, old U.S.A. We are more concerned with the terrorists comfort and freedoms. He would be free to kill, maim and torture because you looked at his cross-eyed or you had a less than perfect child or he simply didn't believe you had a right to life, liberty or happiness.
Hitler would truly be the Satan released on the face of the earth.
WE need to wake up and really consider the consequences of those we elect into office.
2006-09-29 11:55:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We do have a modern gay Hitler. His name is Bush, and he is running a fascist state, which, through the secret services, is reponsible for most of the world's terrorism.
2006-10-01 22:31:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess it all depends on who the terrorists are: "us", "hitler", one of "our" allies, or one of "hitler's" allies...The word "terrorist" is ill-defined and overly used. It needs to be made clear in each instance what people mean when they use this word. People (especially the media) should not get away with using that word without qualifying it in some way. Otherwise, it's just too easy to categorize anyone you don't like or don't agree with as a "terrorist".
2006-09-29 11:56:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We'll soon find out since the United States of America is slowly turning into a dictatorship.
2006-09-29 12:33:47 · answer #5 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran has some million martyrs which will value into conflict unarmed just to make the opposing rigidity dissipate all their ammo. They did this very efficiently in the Iraq conflict. The Iranian protection rigidity would desire to be wiped out, yet how do you defeat 7million lunatics? besides nukes or bio weapons. i desire we don't locate out
2016-10-18 05:26:24 · answer #6 · answered by janski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam killed 100,000-180,000 Kurds in his "Round Up" campaign and his killed many more in prisons before he was overthrown so he could be considered like Hitler.
2006-09-29 11:58:08 · answer #7 · answered by Yit 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Was Hitler a problem? Wasn't he a terrorist himself? You people, your questions...... absolutely narrow.
2006-09-29 11:53:23 · answer #8 · answered by woody sims 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We do, the President of Iran. He hates Jews. Denies the Holocost.
2006-09-29 11:51:01 · answer #9 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
hitler could be considered the biggest terrorist of all time, he killed anyone he didn't like (jews.poles,russians,blacks, actually anyone who wasn't white,christian and german)
2006-09-29 11:54:10 · answer #10 · answered by luv78779 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋