So my sua sponte definition varies greatly from that? I think it actually fits pretty well. I even noted that Germany acted on a massive scale and that terrorists usually act on a smaller scale. I even mentioned religion.

Germany: Radical employing terror? Check. It started out with small terrorist acts like the failed Beer Hall Putsch, but eventually grew into a massive political movement. Check. Uses religion as cover. Well they invoked ancient pagan ideas and modernized them into Nazism and they also used other religions as scapegoats.

I actually think Germany, although admittedly massive, fits that definition.

Germany did not use terror as a political weapon, only as a defensive strategy in occupied territories. Every invading power in history has done that. When Germany went on the offensive, it attacked, i.e., used military forces to invade. Germany never terrorized the Allied nations, which were led by strong leaders in Churchill and Stalin and had strong propaganda apparatuses. Terrorism involves using terror as a weapon, especially when the attacking party has no military capability, whose objective is to cause emotional or political damage to their opponent.

What about the people that Germany rounded up and exterminated, for instance Jews in Poland and in all the countries that they gained control and of Jews within Germany proper?

Look, the Nazis weren't terrorist, no matter how many times you close your eyes and wish on a star. The ONLY reason you're even bothering to make this stupid argument is to apologize for Bush's moronic statements.

Fine, then Bush fits rather nicely into your definition of a terrorist as well. Let's proceed from the question of why you continue to support and defend a known terrorist.

And here is Obama hanging the albatross of the Bush administration around McCain's neck:

"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days, " Obama told about 2,000 voters at a town hall-style meeting in a livestock barn.

Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism."

During his swing through South Dakota, the Democratic front-runner said he had intended to focus on rural issues, but felt compelled to respond to the criticism from Bush and McCain.

"They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits," said Obama. "But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year."

McCain had no problem talking to Hamas a year ago or so. Now he (and Bush) criticize Obama for saying he will do so when he has actually said the exact opposite.

The republicans think that if they repeat a lie long enough (WMD in Iraq!) people will believe them. I think that time has passed.

Actually he didn't quote me read the thing again it says your name not mine under quote. Also look above in my post those words aren't in it. It is yours so I am not sure what you are talking about.


The Nazi's goals with the Jews wasn't terror but extermination. Maybe they terrorized them in sadistic manner because they hated them, but their goal was to get rid of them. Terrorism is to scare some and demoralize them which isn't really what the Nazis were doing. Keep going with these analogies you are talking to a history major here who knows what he is talking about.

George Bush has a Master's degree in business from Harvard and, as Beeble has noted many a time, he drove all the business he ever ran into the ground.

Oh, btw, I have a minor in history and a major in political science, if you are insisting on getting into some sort of pissing match. Also, I think I know more history than you, though it is possible I am wrong, but your statistics from the 2004 election, regarding Louisiana, lead me to think I am correct. I disagree with none of what you said, I simply reach a different conclusion; that the Nazi's were part of a terrorist state. You disagree, which is perfectly rationale and well reasoned.

I honestly just misremembered about Louisiana, I am not perfect. I can't remember ever stat besides history isn't about meaningless statistics like that anyway. I have better knowledge of European, the American Civil war, colonial and Ancient history than I do of recent history. I am not going to keep arguing about Nazi Germany being a terrorist state though. I do think if you said that to 99% of Germany history professors they would laugh in your face though.

One person's Freedom Fighter is another's Terrorist.
For a decent breakdown of what exactly defines terrorism click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

For those of you claiming Nazi Germany was a terrorist state are just plain wrong. Hitler used external attacks on Germany to solidify his power in the early 1930's. Most notably was the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 by a deranged Dutchman that allowed Hitler to declare war on terrorism and gain legitimacy as leader despite not recieving a majority in the last election.

Bush and McCain are just spouting falsehoods in hopes of scaring the American public into voting for them and sadly, I'm afraid a majority of people will believe them. As long as the Dem's are fighting amongst themselves the republicans will continue to trudge ever forward towards November and middle America will blindly follow suit.

You should ask for a refund.



By your definition, Bush is a terrorist. You haven't explained yet why you continue to defend and support a terrorist regime.

And whether or not the Nazis were terrorists (they weren't), you still haven't addressed Bush's overall assertion, that merely talking to such leaders, as opposed to giving them the proverbial Sudatenlan, constitutes appeasement. If that is true, then both Bush and McCain certainly have a lot of explaining to do, don't they?

Or could it be that your harping on the definition of terrorism is a way of evading that particular topic. I can't say that I blame you.

Actually, I addressed that a while ago. I said I agree with Obama that we should talk to the Iranians. It can't hurt and it's not like we have to enter into an agreement with them. So the implication, ala appeasement, is that I disagree that negotiating with Iran = appeasement.

I do not think Bush is a terrorist because I do not think his motive is to instill fear in a segment of a population. As for my degree, you forgot to mention what part of the history herein discussed was incorrect.

Heh. I just read this post and it made me laugh out loud! It is smart, funny, and true. Tremendous writing, Beeblebrox!!!

Wow, that you have a degree in anything is amazing. Bush isn't trying to instill FEAR?! Are you kidding? Bush said that electing Democrats would lead to another attack on the US!

Bush's entire domestic and foreign policy agenda is based on instilling fear from attack of the ISLAMOFASCINAZITERRISTS in order to expand government power via suspension of habeas corpus, and authorization of torture, wire-tapping without court oversight, and indiefinite detention of American citizens, just to name a few of his extra-Constitutional policies.

Again, if the Nazis are terrorists, Bush is a terrorist.

I find it quite rude and downright OFFENSIVE that you are questioning his degree and intelligence.

Obviously, to all here, YOU are the one that lacks the intelligence.

Come on, no personal attacks. Being confused on one thing doesn't make someone an idiot, and Kidrock is not an idiot.

Spot on. The RNC needs to wake up and realize that. A Republican that runs against the mold on fascism would corner the election in no time.

Perhaps I am naive, but I do not believe that any U.S. national politicians, of either party, have such base motives as those to which you ascribe to Bush. I like this quote that you early directed to Munk-E:

As for my degree, I agree, as we debated a number of months ago, that education in the U.S. is dismal.

Yes, you are naive. Politicians on both sides DO engage in fear, some of it more justified than others. But fear-mongering is NOT terrorism, which was my original point. And as I said earlier, whether or not any of this is terrorism is not particularly germaine to Bush's idiotic comments anyway. Let's just celebrate the fact that we both agree that Bush was absolutely wrong in both his facts and his rhetoric.



Unlike Munk, who actively WISHES something bad will happen to America, I can't say the same about Bush because I don't know. That's different than Bush engaging in fear-mongering, which I think is pretty indisputable.



I honestly do apologize for my disparaging of your education. It was completely unnecessary and irrelevant.

You're right about the personal attacks and I apologize.