nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation?

sxt

In your opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Cookie_Monster

not the most extreme, probably second behind Israel though.

Dravokivich

Terry wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was a commie?

There were links that Al'Quida were being harboured in Iraq.

Terry wrote: »

Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to America?

Harbouring Al'Quida... yeah... I honestly didn't believe in the WMD's and thought that was a weak excuse...

Terry wrote: »

Did Vietnam declare war on America? How about Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq?

Vietnam.. Russians spread commuinist influence...

Korea.. Russians spread commuinist influence...

Afghanistan... Taliban were harbouring Al'quida...

Iraq... were harbouring Al'quida...

Rothmans

davrho wrote: »

It makes it legal. If it is not made legal then it is illegal. If it is illegal then it is terrorist action.

So your 2 above examples are acts of terrorism as International law dictates.

The problem there is that nobody/no nation can actually dictate international law, unless every single nation on the planet was in agreement as to what constitutes an 'official' war and what doesn't. This has never happened or never will. Whatever about the UN, who gave them the power to dictate internatinal law? By your logic there never has been, nor, in all likelyhood, never will be an 'official war'

davrho

Rothmans wrote: »

A shocking amount of Muslims actually support taking over the rest of the world to impose Islam and Sharia law.

No they don't. Most Muslims just want to get on with their life like the rest of us.

Same pish could be said about Jews, Catholics and any other faith.

johnmcdnl

How many people have America killed in say the past 50 years compared to how many American citizens have been killed by the so called terrorists?

Dravokivich

johnmcdnl wrote: »

How many people have America killed in say the past 50 years compared to how many American citizens have been killed by the so called terrorists?

What are you suggesting with that statement?

[Deleted User]

Dravokivich wrote: »

Threat of the spread of comuinism.

American hatred of Communism replaced by the love of inexpensive goods "Made in China."

Rothmans

davrho wrote: »

No they don't. Most Muslims just want to get on with their life like the rest of us.

Same pish could be said about Jews, Catholics and any other faith.

Well, it's your choice whether you believe the source or not, but he's a down-to-earth professor at Oxford. He seems pretty reliable to me tbh

sxt

davrho wrote: »

No they don't. Most Muslims just want to get on with their life like the rest of us.

Same pish could be said about Jews, Catholics and any other faith.

That is true. The problem is when people start to believe the propaganda. In America for instance, there is a big stink up about muslims opening a Mosque three blocks away from the site of the the twin towers. Just because you are a muslim, does not mean that you are a "terrorist", or that you ever want to be a "terrorist".

davrho

Dravokivich wrote: »

Didn't the Brits go in on it with them?

Are they Terrorist too?

Falklands? Who endorsed that?

Yes. And ,yes, law dictates they are a terrorist nation too for their actions.

Argentina attacking a soveriegn nations land was act of illegal aggresion and was met with the legal response.

Rothmans

sxt wrote: »

That is true. The problem is when people start to believe the propaganda. In America for instance, there is a big stink up about muslims opening a Mosque three blocks away from the site of the the twin towers. Just because you are a muslim, does not mean that you are a terrorist, or that you ever want to be a terrorist.

True, but the problem is that some Muslims interpret the Koran too literally and are prepared to do some serious damage ( and have done so in the past).

Terry

Rothmans wrote: »

Now I'm no big fan of Richard Dawkins, but he illustrates how extreme a sizeable chunks of Muslims are-
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-god-delusion/4od#2919496

A shocking amount of Muslims actually support taking over the rest of the world to impose Islam and Sharia law. Now, as far as I'm concerned, they're never going to be able to do that as long as the US is there to stand in their way.

I'm not too worried about Muslims, to be honest.

As it stands, we're only emerging from the clutches of the Catholic Church. Sharia law will never take hold in any EU country, and we don't need the help of America to prevent that.

If you honestly believe that America is touring the Middle East to prevent sharia law being imposed, then why have they not invaded Saudia Arabia?

These recent invasions have been carried out to prevent oil being traded in Euros instead of Dollars. It's all in their own interest and has nothing at all to do with religion.
The only reason any Eurozone countries joined them in these wars was because they wanted to keep on good terms with the Americans with regards to trade relation. You'll notice that their biggest partner in these wars were the British, who are not in the Eurozone.

You could argue that their current campaigns are a de facto war against the Eurozone countries in order to save their own economy from collapsing even further due to a far stronger Euro.

Yes, there are other aspects, but don't be fooled by the anti-Muslim propaganda.

They are essentially bullies. Look at their stance on trade with Cuba. They still impose sanctions because Cuba is a communist country, but have absolutely no problem trading with the country which has the largest population on the planet, which is also a Communist country. They are afraid of the big guy, but are still picking on the small guy.

Clawdeeus

Actually, both south vietnam and South korea were invaded by their communist neighbours prior to US intervention (at the request of the respective governments.)

davrho

Rothmans wrote: »

Well, it's your choice whether you believe the source or not, but he's a down-to-earth professor at Oxford. He seems pretty reliable to me tbh

How can a "down-to-earth professor at Oxford" have a fecking clue how the normal Muslin thinks? How the feck would he know the down to earth opinions of the hundreds of millions of Muslims world wide?

Dravokivich

davrho wrote: »

Yes. And ,yes, law dictates they are a terrorist nation too for their actions.

Argentina attacking a soveriegn nations land was act of illegal aggresion and was met with the legal response.

Alright then, enlighten me, what makes a war legal?

[Deleted User]

Dravokivich wrote: »

There were links that Al'Quida were being harboured in Iraq.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, or ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. It was all erroneously manufactured by GW Bush, Cheney, and Powell to justify and scare the US Congress and and American public into going to war:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

Clawdeeus

davrho wrote: »

How can a "down-to-earth professor at Oxford" have a fecking clue how the normal Muslin thinks? How the feck would he know the down to earth opinions of the hundreds of millions of Muslims world wide?

Approximation of the generalised opinion of big groups of people is common academic practice. Polls, surveys and inerviews with influential members of the community are usually used. Jsut because you dont agree with the assessment, does not mean it isnt without merit. Obviously he never said "All Muslims wish to implement Sharia"

Clawdeeus

Dravokivich wrote: »

Alright then, enlighten me, what makes a war legal?

UN approval. By definition.

sxt

Whenever you hear about The U.S.A wanting to "liberate" a country and promote "democracy", just think of the dictactorship that The U.S.A are bankrolling, Namely Egypt

Egypt are NOT the only authortarian regime /non democractic regime in the middle east that the U.S.A have bankrolled with billions !

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/02/egypts-mubarak-israel-and-obama/

Rothmans

Terry wrote: »

I'm not too worried about Muslims, to be honest.

As it stands, we're only emerging from the clutches of the Catholic Church. Sharia law will never take hold in any EU country, and we don't need the help of America to prevent that.

If you honestly believe that America is touring the Middle East to prevent sharia law being imposed, then why have they not invaded Saudia Arabia?

These recent invasions have been carried out to prevent oil being traded in Euros instead of Dollars. It's all in their own interest and has nothing at all to do with religion.
The only reason any Eurozone countries joined them in these wars was because they wanted to keep on good terms with the Americans with regards to trade relation. You'll notice that their biggest partner in these wars were the British, who are not in the Eurozone.

You could argue that their current campaigns are a de facto war against the Eurozone countries in order to save their own economy from collapsing even further due to a far stronger Euro.

Yes, there are other aspects, but don't be fooled by the anti-Muslim propaganda.

They are essentially bullies. Look at their stance on trade with Cuba. They still impose sanctions because Cuba is a communist country, but have absolutely no problem trading with the country which has the largest population on the planet, which is also a Communist country. They are afraid of the big guy, but are still picking on the small guy.

An interesting insight. Anyhow, as someone else already said, I'm glad we're on their side ( we're neutrel I know, but you know what I mean)

davrho wrote: »

How can a "down-to-earth professor at Oxford" have a fecking clue how the normal Muslin thinks? How the feck would he know the down to earth opinions of the hundreds of millions of Muslims world wide?

Look at the video. It changed my view on things, especially that Joe Cohen fella.

Clawdeeus

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

There were no weapons of mass destruction, or ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. It was all erroneously manufactured by GW Bush, Cheney, and Powell to justify and scare the US Congress and and American public into going to war:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

Thats true, Al'Qaeda gained a foothole AFTER the disastorous invasion.

Terry

Dravokivich wrote: »

There were links that Al'Quida were being harboured in Iraq.

There is no evidence to support that.
They were actually against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Harbouring Al'Quida... yeah... I honestly didn't believe in the WMD's and thought that was a weak excuse...

Ok. They're in Pakistan now. Why have the Americans not invaded Pakistan?
Oh, that's right. Pakistan has nukes. They're able to stand up to the bully.

Vietnam.. Russians spread commuinist influence...
Korea.. Russians spread commuinist influence...

So the Americans decided that their form of government was better and decided to impose that on a foreign nation.
The people of both countries did not deserve to die because America and Russia were having a bitchfest.

Afghanistan... Taliban were harbouring Al'quida...

No proof.
Also, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have differing ideals and did not really get along.
The Taliban were also armed by the Americans and British.
Just like Cuba, things didn't work out the way the yanks and British planned, so...

Iraq... were harbouring Al'quida...

No, they were not.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Actually, both south vietnam and South korea were invaded by their communist neighbours prior to US intervention (at the request of the respective governments.)

Again, this brings in the bitchfest between America and the U.S.S.R. People who were not Russian or American died because of this.

sxt

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Thats true, Al'Qaeda gained a foothole AFTER the disastorous invasion.

That is more propganda rubbish. America wants the world to belive that.

[Deleted User]

Rothmans wrote: »

( we're neutrel I know, but you know what I mean)

We (Ireland) are not neutral, because we allow the US Military the use of Shannon as a major staging point in their wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clawdeeus

sxt wrote: »

That is more propganda rubbish .America wants the world to belive that.

Em... why would they think people knowing this is a good thing? maybe you should read my post again, slowly this time. And do you have any proof of this, or just like to believe it?

Dravokivich

Clawdeeus wrote: »

UN approval. By definition.

They had notified the UN their intentions and resons at the time for invading.

So the UN didn't approve...

...Please advise me of current issue's that the UN do approve of were there is a State affectively holding another state at bay by means of military enforcement?

Clawdeeus

And there is plenty of proof Taliban harboured Al'Qaeda, they admitted Osama bin ladin was in the country on 9/11. Several of the armies units were explicitly desiganted as under al'qaeda command.

davrho

Dravokivich wrote: »

Alright then, enlighten me, what makes a war legal?

The law. Check it out....................

Thank you Clawdeeus for pointing this out.

Clawdeeus

Dravokivich wrote: »

They had notified the UN their intentions and resons at the time for invading.

So the UN didn't approve...

...Please advise me of current issue's that the UN do approve of were there is a State affectively holding another state at bay by means of military enforcement?

Afghanistan. Iraq was not and is "illegal". NATO intervention in Kosovo was UN sanctioned. Cant tihnk of many, id say you could jsut google it.

Terry

Clawdeeus wrote: »

UN approval. By definition.

Indeed. The problem is that the U.S. tend to veto anything that goes against their own interests (generally sanctions against Israel).
Our own politicians are corrupt, but they don't have a patch on the yanks.
The moral coruption employed by Jewish lobbyists is beyond belief.
This is heading into CT territory, so I'll stop here.

sxt wrote: »

Whenever you hear about The U.S.A wanting to "liberate" a country and promote "democracy", just think of the dictactorship that The U.S.A are bankrolling, Namely Egypt

Egypt are NOT the only authortarian regime /non democractic regime in the middle east that the U.S.A have bankrolled with billions !

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/02/egypts-mubarak-israel-and-obama/

Not to mention the fact the the most authoratarian regime in the Middle Eat is Saudia Arabia, but they have lots of oil.
They're as bad as, if not worse than, Iran.

Rothmans wrote: »

An interesting insight. Anyhow, as someone else already said, I'm glad we're on their side ( we're neutrel I know, but you know what I mean)

I, personally, am not on the side of any country engaged in the murder of innocent civilians.

I forgot to add this in my last post, but it'll do here.
Where is the intervention in the oil free rogue state of Somalia?

Oh yeah. I answered that in the question.
The Somali people are suffering far more atrocities than any other nation on the planet (apart from Iraq and Afghanistan), yet the so called saviours of democracy don't seem to be interested in the slightest.