“Anyhow, it appears that what you are arguing is that preemptive war should have been declared, as with Iraq, and that anyone arguing against preemptive war is wrong.”
This is patently false. What I have quoted has nothing to do with the value of pre-remptive war, a completely different topic.
“This is silly. Hitler and the Nazis were an aggressive militaristic nation out to conquer large sections of the world. The threat of terrorism is not easily tied to nations and military aggression.”
Nonsense. Terrorists are radical ideologues that want to replace the current state of the world with one that suits their interests and beliefs (Shia law), and they want to do so by conquest. This, in substance, is no different than Hitler wanting to extend his Reich - they are one and the same.
The fact that terrorist organizations are not always easily tied to state sponsors doesn’t change their goals. Terrorists are simply shrewd fighters - they use the Western adherence to the law of war as a weakness to exploit. Just because Al-Qaeda doesn’t have tanks and conventional troops doesn’t make them less of an aggressive military force.
“However, go ahead, seek out the parallels, taking into account the timelines and attempt to show that preemptive military strikes are the best policy in all occasions. History is not repeating itself today – the threat of terrorism as warfare is somewhat of a new concept.”
There are parallels, obvious ones. And though we ‘never step in the same river twice’, the parallels provide for great instruction going forward.
And, your terrorism as warfare comment is useless. How war is conducted is not as important as why. It was a ‘new concept’ when American minutemen broke from traditional British marching engagements. The tactics of war will always change - terror is the new weapon, and though it represents a cowardly new direction - the motives are the same as we have seen in history. Hitler and OBL are cut from the same cloth - they want to reconquer what they thought was taken from them in the name of an ideology. Hitler wanted to reunite the German territories and re-establish dominance in Europe; OBL wants to reclaim Andalusia and the tracts of the Muslim empire, along with conquering Western infidel lands. Saddam Hussein was a wannabe Hitler, invading Kuwait.
OBL declared war on the US. The state of war that existed with Saddam never elapsed.
“Disagreeing on how to combat it does not make people weak, pacifistic or otherwise fit into stupid labels”
It may. If someone claims that the only to win this war is to reach out to the Middle East and love them, I’d consider that weak and pacifistic.