http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Geez... I've been up *way* too many hours in a row to make sense of that giant spreadsheet... I'm just gonna go ahead and assume it more or less corroborates what I said. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I never understood why when people take offense to the reason and politics behind why we are at war, some people take it as an attack against our troops. I am sorry but that offends me. We went into war with the al qaeda. Then some how we focus on iraq with supposed connections to al queda. Then we are after saddam's WMA's. First of all al qaeda has connections everywhere. Why didn't we attack kashmir? Where are the WMA's? Why is that so quickly hushed over when it came to light that none were found. Not even evidence that they were there. My problem with war against terrorism is that we are not really against all "terrorist" that have attacked or are planning an attack on american soil. I don't think we have enough troops for that. I am going to draw a line here and it might offend some (that isn't my intent) but I want to promote honest thinking here. If some part of our government with bush knowledge decides that they want to punish these "terrorist" using tortur and death. How would you know exactly? Media? Leaked soldier report? Escaped prisoner? I do not want to presume to know what is going on and that is the problem. We cannot really understand what is going on and what are troops were put into. The most disturbing part is that I am not even sure about the "why" part. We are aware of the meaning of terrorist but the USA's war on terrorism is really after a specific group. Language is kept vague on purpose and it is shocking how most people seem to think it is ok. The really sad part, and it is strong where I live, Is when you ask someone what a terrorist looks like and they actually give a description. And normally an ethnicity/ skin tone is involved. It is very powerful using subsitute terms. Take for instance it carries a different weight when it is reported that an israli neighboorhood (US media) is attacted and an israeli settlement (every where else) is attacked. What is the difference between a jew and a terrorist? sorry for long post

A terrorist, BY DEFINITION, is an ACTIVE part of a military or military-like organization. A Jew, while having the capacity to be a member of a military or military like organization, is not required to be. I can't believe you're legitimizing Hitler. Do you realize that? Is the world so crazy that people are willing to legitimize the wanton murder of twelve MILLION people, just to delegitimize a political figure they don't like? I hate Bush more than you do, trust me, but using dishonest tactics like you are doesn't help anything.

A terrorist by definition is anyone who commits or promotes terrorism. No military training is needed.And it is really hard to describe what a jewish person is. Is it their faith, nationality or race? And I am not justifying hitler at all. I am pointing out parralells to the german people and our situation today. When you mention WWII to people it seems as iff they believe every german was some jew hating soldier with a gun. I see it more about control of information and perception. The german people werent stupid I am pretty sure some knew what exactly was going on and opposed it. But as far as many others they felt as if their country did no wrong. An enemy was pointed out and their leaders were acting to protect its people. I am trying to point that out here. If more people actually knew what was going on. (which I do not even know for sure) would we all agree? Is it fair to hold our country responsible as a whole if some horrible things are commited without our knowledge? A lot of the world seems to think that we are "united" in everything we do including the acts that go on over seas.

Terrorism is a military-like act. You don't need training to be part of a military-like organization. Please, please, PLEASE stop being so blatantly offensive. By "pointing out parralells to the german people and our situation today," you are committing a Godwin, and by default have lost the argument. The ridiculousness of your statements will serve no purpose but to paint a more radical, unrealistic view of the left wing. And even worse, you're defending Kwaad, who just said he loves Hitler. He just said he loves Hitler. Think about that, and then tell me how your statements are at all applicable to this conversation.

That's why he had Rommel. (He was a pretty shitty painter, too.)

.

Now that I'm a mod, I feel it would be best for me to choose a signature a little less controversial. I abhor censorship, but as I no longer only represent myself on this forum, maybe a little self-censorship is in order.