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; } } }

Child Item

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

sxt

In your opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rothmans

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

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.

Yeah, that's what I meant, Ireland were never truely nuetrel but we like to convince ourselves that we are.

El Diablo 101

America is not the most extreme Terrorist Nation. People love to jump on poor ol' America.

Firstly, we do rely on American protection to an extent. American companies contribute a massive amount of money and jobs on our little island, and whether you like it or not, a strong-ish America is good for us. We need America. I for one have no time for this 'neutrality' debate either. Letting planes use a runway is a small price to pay for good relations with America.

Secondly, as a poster said here, they are not a terrorist nation, they are just extremely aggressive when it comes to their patriotism, and it shows when they were attacked. They went into Afghanistan having been attacked.

I suppose some of the liberal army would prefer to see westerners and women mutilated in Afghanistan? America is imposing nothing on that country, except for some basic human rights. Women are getting to go to school now. But I suppose the Taliban should be let do what they want right??

Also, the US don't see themselves as some World Police. If they did, they would jump into conflicts in South America and Africa. They went into Iraq and Afghanistan having been attacked, and they were invited into the wars in Vietnam and Korea. They get involved with North Korea and Iran because Israel and South Korea have mutual protection agreements.

Wompa1

Easy answer. No they are not. That is all

Rothmans

Terry wrote: »

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.

That's a shame alright. I've been told by far left nutjobs that even peacekeepers who go to countries in turmoil (not talking about Somalia in particular) are invading these countries and supporting imperialism. I'm talking about Irish soldiers on peace-keeping missions in Chad being called imperialists because they are intervening in another countries internal affairs! Complete bull****! There are alot of differing opinions when it comes to foreign affairs. But yeah, the UN should intervene again and do it properly this time (ie the soldiers should actually be given permission to actually PROTECT innocent people)

Clawdeeus

Terry wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Any security council member vetos stuff that is not in their own interest, the US is hardly special in doing this. Its kind of why they have a veto.

There were numerous attempted interventions in Somalia, see Black Hawk Down. Of course the main reason a country intervenes is first and formost their own interests, Do you people honestly think this is just a trait of the big bad US? Please.

[Deleted User]

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

They went into Iraq and Afghanistan having been attacked

Iraq attacked America? No. Just the opposite.

Clawdeeus

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Iraq attacked America? No. Just the opposite.

He didnt say that.

sxt

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

America is not the most extreme Terrorist Nation. People love to jump on poor ol' America.

Firstly, we do rely on American protection to an extent. American companies contribute a massive amount of money and jobs on our little island, and whether you like it or not, a strong-ish America is good for us. We need America. I for one have no time for this 'neutrality' debate either. Letting planes use a runway is a small price to pay for good relations with America.

Secondly, as a poster said here, they are not a terrorist nation, they are just extremely aggressive when it comes to their patriotism, and it shows when they were attacked. They went into Afghanistan having been attacked.

I suppose some of the liberal army would prefer to see westerners and women mutilated in Afghanistan? America is imposing nothing on that country, except for some basic human rights. Women are getting to go to school now. But I suppose the Taliban should be let do what they want right??

Also, the US don't see themselves as some World Police. If they did, they would jump into conflicts in South America and Africa. They went into Iraq and Afghanistan having been attacked, and they were invited into the wars in Vietnam and Korea. They get involved with North Korea and Iran because Israel and South Korea have mutual protection agreements.

The U.S.A killied one million ( 1,000,000 iragi civilian.) They destroyed the the entire infrastruture of Iraq., they have econnomically sanctioned the entire country so they will continue to be impoverished for generations to come. They will do this to Iran too, if they think that Iran threathen their postion of influence in the middle east, they will be quick to "liberate" them too...

Nodin

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

Actually no, there were none whatsoever.

Star Bingo

i've always seen americans sorta like them lizards from that show V in the '80s, a supposedly harmonious multiracial people wearin sun visors and caps offering 'peace', 'prosperity' etc they just want or resources and to colonize the world! and to eat us :eek: just watch.. but there's the occasional trustworthy one like willy and martin

i'll be ham tyler, you can be donavan we show em some insurgency with our inferior gunz!

El Diablo 101

No Blue Lagoon, Iraq itself didn't attack America. But their were beliefs that al-Qaeda were operating freely in Iraq. I don't know, I don't work for the CIA, or MI6, what I do believe though is that Saddam Hussein wasn't the nicest of men, what with his genocide like killings of the Kurdish people. I suppose the world is better off without people like him in charge.

sxt

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

No Blue Lagoon, Iraq itself didn't attack America. But their were beliefs that al-Qaeda were operating freely in Iraq. I don't know, I don't work for the CIA, or MI6, what I do believe though is that Saddam Hussein wasn't the nicest of men, what with his genocide like killings of the Kurdish people. I suppose the world is better off without people like him in charge.

Do you think that when the occupying forces retreat from Iraq, that the Warlords that run the country will give up their guns for the ballot paper?

[Deleted User]

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

No Blue Lagoon, Iraq itself didn't attack America. But their were beliefs that al-Qaeda were operating freely in Iraq. I don't know, I don't work for the CIA, or MI6, what I do believe though is that Saddam Hussein wasn't the nicest of men, what with his genocide like killings of the Kurdish people. I suppose the world is better off without people like him in charge.

When trying to scare the Americans into the 2nd Gulf War, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell proclaimed that there were both weapons of mass destruction (which no one found after the American occupation of Iraq), and collaboration with al-Qaeda (which is now denied by a recent Pentagon study):

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"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/

In other words, the GW Bush administration manufactured false evidence to justify their war against Iraq.

El Diablo 101

sxt wrote: »

Do you think that when the occupying forces retreat from Iraq, that the Warlords that run the country will give up their guns for the ballot paper?

Perhaps not, I don't know. But whether they do or not, I will still respect America for trying to establish a secure Iraq.
(They are doing this by allowing their military train the Iraqi military. They cannot go on a mission unless specifically asked for, and accompanied by Iraqi forces.)

Lets not all stay apathetic to the Taliban regime, or the horrors that were done to the Kurdish people under Saddam's reign. What happened has happened and we must move on, but SOME good has been done.

I do accept some bad has happened yes, and I am not a blind America-follower. All friends on boards.ie yes?

[Deleted User]

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

What happened has happened and we must move on, but SOME good has been done.

How may tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children died during Shock and Awe, or during the years of civil unrest and unsanitary conditions that occurred after the American occupation of Iraq? With no weapons of mass destruction found, and no al-qaeda collaborations established (per the Pentagon report given in an earlier post), both of which were used to convince Americans to go to war against Iraq by GW Bush, Cheney, and Powell, these former American leaders should be arrested and tried for war crimes in an international court.

sxt

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

Perhaps not, I don't know. But whether they do or not, I will still respect America for trying to establish a secure Iraq.
(They are doing this by allowing their military train the Iraqi military. They cannot go on a mission unless specifically asked for, and accompanied by Iraqi forces.)

America are interested in maintaining control in the middle east.If Iraq was not an oil rich country,) A potential threat to economy of the U.S.A) America would not have "liberated" them and mercilessly killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians etc...destroyed their national infrastructure and sanctioned their future incomes by rigourous sanctions...

If they cared about security and Democracy, they would have invaded Zimbabwe and Burma...

Their only concern was to secure influence and access to middle eastern oil, They do not care about a country's security or democracy, hence why they pump billions into non democratic governments in the middle east to try and maintain influence

starbelgrade

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

Also, the US don't see themselves as some World Police. If they did, they would jump into conflicts in South America and Africa. They went into Iraq and Afghanistan having been attacked, and they were invited into the wars in Vietnam and Korea. They get involved with North Korea and Iran because Israel and South Korea have mutual protection agreements.

Yes, they went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan after being attacked by plane hijackers.

Plane hijackers, 15 of which were Saudi, 2 from the Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt & 1 from Lebanon.

And they went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I might be a little thick, so could you please explain to me how the f*ck that works?

Terry

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

America is not the most extreme Terrorist Nation. People love to jump on poor ol' America.

Firstly, we do rely on American protection to an extent. American companies contribute a massive amount of money and jobs on our little island, and whether you like it or not, a strong-ish America is good for us. We need America. I for one have no time for this 'neutrality' debate either. Letting planes use a runway is a small price to pay for good relations with America.

Our largest trading partner in Britain.
Granted, they are just as guilty in this crap, but I'd be more concerned about our relations with them that with the U.S.

Secondly, as a poster said here, they are not a terrorist nation, they are just extremely aggressive when it comes to their patriotism, and it shows when they were attacked. They went into Afghanistan having been attacked.

Yep. So were the Afghan and Iraqi people when they were attacked. These people were labelled "Insurgents" by the Western media. I'd call them patriots.

Ask yourself this; If Ireland was invaded in the morning, would you welcome the invaders, or would you be an insurgent?

I suppose some of the liberal army would prefer to see westerners and women mutilated in Afghanistan? America is imposing nothing on that country, except for some basic human rights. Women are getting to go to school now. But I suppose the Taliban should be let do what they want right??

Of course nobody wants to see women being treated like crap. Yes, it is good that women now have some more freedom in Afghanistan (albeit limited due to the fact that there is still a very strong militant Islamic regime in place), but that does not justify the slaughter of innocent civilians in America's quest for oil.

Never forget that it was the West (in particular America) who funded the Taliban and put them in power in the first place.
They supported Chavez and Castro too, but were pissed off when things didn't go their way.
They are quite insistent on imposing their own values on those who do not want them, and this will backfire on them in years to come, much like we fought against the British and the values they imposed on us in the past.

They are a child nation bent on getting their own way.
Yes, they do have quite a lot of good things in thier constitution such as freedom of speech (which we don't have, despite the common misconseption), but they completely ignore the cultural differences in the countries they invade.

Also, the US don't see themselves as some World Police. If they did, they would jump into conflicts in South America and Africa. They went into Iraq and Afghanistan having been attacked, and they were invited into the wars in Vietnam and Korea. They get involved with North Korea and Iran because Israel and South Korea have mutual protection agreements.

Indeed. They just want the oil to fuel their 4 litre engine cars.

Rothmans wrote: »

That's a shame alright. I've been told by far left nutjobs that even peacekeepers who go to countries in turmoil (not talking about Somalia in particular) are invading these countries and supporting imperialism. I'm talking about Irish soldiers on peace-keeping missions in Chad being called imperialists because they are intervening in another countries internal affairs! Complete bull****! There are alot of differing opinions when it comes to foreign affairs. But yeah, the UN should intervene again and do it properly this time (ie the soldiers should actually be given permission to actually PROTECT innocent people)

The Irish peace keeping troops are just as described in their name. They are not an invasion force bent on domination.
You'll find that most of the people in the countries they are based in have a great deal of respect for them.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Any security council member vetos stuff that is not in their own interest, the US is hardly special in doing this. Its kind of why they have a veto.

There were numerous attempted interventions in Somalia, see Black Hawk Down. Of course the main reason a country intervenes is first and formost their own interests, Do you people honestly think this is just a trait of the big bad US? Please.

I don't dispute that for one second.
However, when it comes to Israel, the Americans have consistently overlooked atrocities committed against the Palestinians in order to get a few quid for re-election.
If there was a bit of oil discovered in the West Bank of the Gaza strip, there would be a huge turn around on their policy towards Israel.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Iraq attacked America? No. Just the opposite.

Indeed. Nor did Afghanistan.
The twin towers attack may have been been ploted in Afghanistan, but the majority of those involved, including Bin Laden, were from Saudi Arabia.

sxt wrote: »

Do you think that when the occupying forces retreat from Iraq, that the Warlords that run the country will give up their guns for the ballot paper?

It will descend into the chaos that should have happened without intervention from the West.
Hussein was a complete and utter wanker, but the Iraqi people should have been the ones to depose the tyrant.

El Diablo 101 wrote: »

Perhaps not, I don't know. But whether they do or not, I will still respect America for trying to establish a secure Iraq.
(They are doing this by allowing their military train the Iraqi military. They cannot go on a mission unless specifically asked for, and accompanied by Iraqi forces.)

Lets not all stay apathetic to the Taliban regime, or the horrors that were done to the Kurdish people under Saddam's reign. What happened has happened and we must move on, but SOME good has been done.

I do accept some bad has happened yes, and I am not a blind America-follower. All friends on boards.ie yes?

I don't think anyone forgets the Kurdish massacres, but, like I said above, it was not up to anyone else to remove Hussein.

last name ever. first name greatest

Overheal wrote: »

That's not really even a loose definition of Terrorism. Sorry.

How does indoctrinating your people into hatred towards another country/people and asking your people to attack that country, while supply the weapons and logistical know how do do so, fit in with your thoughts?

That could be seen as terrorism. But it really depends on what glasses one is wearing. One mans terrorist etc etc

Really it is legitimate terrorism versus the media defined, bad illegal terrorism.

Sh1t happens. You have to just roll with it IMO.

[Deleted User]

Terry wrote: »

The twin towers attack may have been been ploted in Afghanistan, but the majority of those involved, including Bin Laden, were from Saudi Arabia.

Yes, most of the plane hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but the US will not attack Saudi Arabia so long as they provide America with millions of barrels of cheap oil to fuel their petrol-guzzling SUVs, sports, and muscle cars.

bobblepuzzle

The USA, love them or loathe them have done some good, for example WW2 and like Ireland have a commitment to peace-keeping with the UN. America has also been instrumental to the relative peace in Northern Ireland over the last decade and a half....

The war in Afghanistan was wholly justified in my view... Iraq less so... Vietnam, a massive mistake!

But heck, I'd rather have the USA as the sole superpower in the world than Russia any day of the week!

dvpower

Dravokivich wrote: »

If they are officially involved in "wars," how is it considered "terrorism?"

Didn't they officially designate waterboarding as a non torture technique at one point?

bobblepuzzle

dvpower wrote: »

Didn't they officially designate waterboarding as a non torture technique at one point?

Well what would you do with dangerous people that are a part of a dangerous group intent on attacking the country... tickle their feet, get real! The people that this was inflicted on were not innocent by any means and had **** to answer for...

Owwmykneecap

Dravokivich wrote: »

If they are officially involved in "wars," how is it considered "terrorism?"

Nothing "official" about those wars.
And i'm pretty sure air raids are terrifying to those subjected to them.

Owwmykneecap

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

Well what would you do with dangerous people that are a part of a dangerous group intent on attacking the country... tickle their feet, get real! The people that this was inflicted on were not innocent by any means and had **** to answer for...

Oh they had trials did they.

"Give me 15 minutes alone with Rumsfeld with a wet rag and i'll get him to confess to the sharon tate murder" - Jesse "I ain't got time to bleed" Ventura

Overheal

Terry wrote: »

They instill more fear into me than any other nation on the planet, so I would have to say yes.

What kind of fear? The kind of fear like "Oh they'll start WWIII one of these days" kinda fear, or, "I'm afraid to get on a plane to see my mother now" kind of fear?

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.

No... if it's Illegal it makes it an Illegal Action. You could even call it War Crime. But Terrorism is separate from that.

last name ever. first name greatest wrote: »

How does indoctrinating your people into hatred towards another country/people and asking your people to attack that country, while supply the weapons and logistical know how do do so, fit in with your thoughts?

That could be seen as terrorism. But it really depends on what glasses one is wearing. One mans terrorist etc etc

Really it is legitimate terrorism versus the media defined, bad illegal terrorism.

Sh1t happens. You have to just roll with it IMO.

I don't view Illegal (Unsanctioned by the UN) Wars as Terrorist by the definition. They are Illegal Wars.

The Poll asked my if I thought the United States was the most extreme I voted No. The Poll didn't ask me if I thought the United States was/is involved in Terrorism: I would have told you Yes. Fox News, Glenn Beck? They use a form of Terror-in-Propaganda to coerce listeners and viewers. I deplore it. On the other hand have I never once made an argument through hyperbole?

If it's indoctrination I think it's a far cry from Joseph Stalin's Russia. Or China, or North Korea.

If the United States employs terror, the majority of it is aimed at the American People; not the Arab World.

The only reason it's Legitimate in any sense is because the Bill of Rights protects Free Speech.

bobblepuzzle

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Oh they had trials did they.

"Give me 15 minutes alone with Rumsfeld with a wet rag and i'll get him to confess to the sharon tate murder" - Jesse "I ain't got time to bleed" Ventura

Tickle their feet?

dvpower

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

Well what would you do with dangerous people that are a part of a dangerous group intent on attacking the country... tickle their feet, get real! The people that this was inflicted on were not innocent by any means and had **** to answer for...

What do you mean by this?

bobblepuzzle

dvpower wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

The CIA didn't just pick up a load of random people on the street, cop the f*** on imo if you think that.... there was intelligence on these guys being members of cells... now get back in your Anti-Everything hippy tent....

galwayrush

Thinking about it seriously, i much prefer to live under American type freedom and values compared to the likes of the regimes they are fighting against.