Indeed they are.

No, I feel that any opposition is merely anti-Bush or anti-american sentiments.

i think it's very different especially considering that the war against terrorism is just a front for an oil war.

Um. No. They're not anything like that. At all.

At the face of it one might think so but you are overlooking one crucial point. At least according to the average American as of 2007, those strongly opposed to terrorists are sometimes seen as Nazis due to their thirst and fervour for diminishing our rights and liberties far more effectively that the terrorists could even dream of doing. The twin towers collapsing was not a victory for terrorists, but the current paranoia in our airports and the draconian provisions of the Patriot Act are far more than they asked Allah to give them. Response to unit22 (7 Jul, '07) I do read the news, and I believe that the incompetent half-measures we have taken have done NOTHING to appreciably make s safer. We have been LUCKY! Now think about it.... - We are worried about terrorists crossing the MEXICAN border but have done little/nothing to secure the CANADIAN border.... WHERE THE 9/11 HIJACKERS ENTERED OUR COUNTRY FROM!! - We still do not inspect the majority of our incoming shipping containers. Granted, that would involve great expense and manpower, but considering the effort and expense we are already putting out on agitating the Middle East, inspecting our imports would be better all around. - There are NO checks and balances, oversight, or measures of accountability. Now suppose for a second that someone saw you buy some nitrate fertilizer and then fill your truck up with diesel fuel. Well, thanks to that little incident in Oklahoma City, that makes you a suspect. You are taken into custody. There are no charges. Nobody nows where you are. Nobody acknowledges your existence or whereabouts. You have no rights, will never get a trial.... If you think that is impossible, you need to wake up. The world is technically entirely at the mercy of the Executive branch of the US government (the White house, law enforcement, and the US military) and there is nothing Congress or the Supreme Court is doing about it. Terrorists want to restrict our freedoms and make us live in fear. Currently, how many people are afraid to fly now that had no fear six years ago? In theory there is nothing wrong with monitoring ALL communications in the off chance that we hear terrorist chatter and stop attacks. However the reality is that we are not entirely competent. Also, the terrorists only have to get through once. When you consider that not all of them use means/methods we expect to act or even communicate, the net effect is that we have created fear and paranoia with little/no actual increase in security. And that is not counting the potential for abuse... not that anybody would ever abuse their power or act beyond their authority mind you. Realistically, there are plenty of things we could do to increase our security that would be more cost-effective and less intrusive than what we are doing right now. But this isn't about keeping us safe from terrorism. Terrorism is merely a way to convince Americans to shift towards a dictatorship/police state. Sure, some sacrifices must be made for security but just like Iraq, the administration is following a bad strategy.

Yes they are clones. However they will change when an Islamo Fascist moves in next door. Of course it will be to late, but who cares.

No -- If you think about the question carefully, the analogy breaks down almost immediately. First of all, the actors in the two scenarios are almost entirely different. Nazi Germany was a nation-state that was using military and police powers to enact its evil ideas. The remedy for that was conceptually simple - Gather a great big army, invade their territory and force the government to surrender. In contrast, terrorists are individual actors who come from many places. This makes military force almost useless against them, unless you want to invade and garrison the entire world. Second, while a war against a nation-state (like Nazi Germany) has a rational process (fight with soldiers, see who gives up) a war against a tactic (terrorism) is nonsensical. That's akin to having a War on Small-Arms Fire, or a War on Ambushes. Abstract concepts like Terrorism, Ambushes and Small-Arms Fire are NOT corporeal entities that can be killed or forced to surrender. Finally, there is a HUGE straw-man implicit in this question. I believe the questioner is implying that those who criticize the Bush Administration's METHODS for opposing terrorism are against the CONCEPT of opposing terrorism. That is BLATANTLY untrue. I doubt you will find any American who says "We should just let the terrorists do what they want". There are, however, plenty of people who recognize that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON 9/11 (why 40% of Americans still don't understand this is beyond me...:-(...) and hence invading Iraq has about as much to do with opposing terrorism as (hypothetically) invading Bolivia in 1942 would have had to do with opposing Nazi Germany. People who commit acts of terrorism are criminals, not soldiers, and not leaders of nation-states. They need to be investigated, arrested and prosecuted as criminals, not as military targets. . . .

People oppose war period and it has nothing to do with terrorism.Anyway terrorism is not effected in any way by war.That has been shown in Afghanistan and Iraq.Your question supposes something that is not true.

Yes I do! This woman should run for president! Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady. "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all. I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and-you guessed it-I don't care !! If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add: "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope you forward all this. "If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." Also by.. Ronald Reagan One last thought for the day: In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out." Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you: 1. Jesus Christ 2. The American G. I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom. YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM. AMEN!

No, that is just fear mongering. Those who opposed entering WWII were short-sighted isolationists- they believed we should leave the problems of Europe to Europeans. It took an attack on our own soil- Perl Harbor, to cause us to enter the war. And when we did, we then joined an existing multi-national coalition. Our current situation is completely different- it began with an attack on our soil, and a justified war against Afghanistan. Nobody complained about going after Afghanistan. The nation was united against Osama Bin Laden. After that, it just got stupid. Bush got all power-crazy. He started ranting about an "Axis of Evil" that included North Korea. Granted, Kim Jong is rather evil, but he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any current activities involving the US. He attacked Iraq, another nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, based on faulty unverified intelligence even before the war against Afghanistan was over. And by doing all this, WITHOUT agreement and support from the UN, Big Bully Bush has proclaimed himself king of the planet. He operates under the philosophy of "might makes right". And what are the consequences of this? He ticks everyone else on the planet off. And then what do you think they do? They engage in terrorist activities against us. This "war on Terror" does nothing but feed the awful image of us in the mind of the Terrorists, thereby making MORE terrorists.

The Nazi's ARE getting their way and they are in BOTH parties. The current party is doing utterly nothing different than the last party did. You want us to believe only the left is guilty when the right is equally guilty. They BOTH keep us fighting over the few crumbs they toss out to keep us from killing them. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/15-6 Read it and weep dipshit. You might wake up, but I doubt it.

very well put and profound question...

I've noticed that those who are the most gungho for war, have never served in the military. No.

Pretty much

No, the other way round, Nazis are people who support a war against "terrorism" under the same pretext as they allowed a war against "those cheating non aryan Jews" and only realised there folly when they saw the bill, the loss of life and their head on the block next. Don't forget that terrorism is not something you fight it's a tactic, and employed when trying to cause or effect a political decision. It usually wins in the end as the politics takes over and the negotiation begins to bring the situation to a close. Every nation has a terrorism story to tell and almost every country has it’s own terrorist group. Even in history if we look back to the 17th century, America was born by terrorism by the actions of its naval officers and former British and European sailors when they attacked the superior British fleet and ransacked the coast in trying to persuade and weaken the Crown not to attack the then America while ensuring that enough damage was done to make it certain the were weakened . The British fleet would have wiped the floor with the American fleet and probably won the war of Independence were it not for those actions.