Norwayviking wrote: » The Russians got their arses kicked by the Finns back in 1939,and you are saying they would have wiped the floor with the American and British troops.Dont think so
onlyrocknroll wrote: » I voted no, not supporting the USA, just disagreeing with the 'the most extreme' part of the question. A lot of moments in the history of American foreign policy are terrible, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Iraq, Vietnam etc, but not terrorism under any generally accepted definition of the term. If you're a critic of US foreign policy, making claims like this only undermines your position. However the US has acted like a terrorist nation under its own understanding of the term. Especially in supporting counter revolutionaries who've used terrorist tactics against governments they didn't support. The worst examples of this were under the Reagan administration. However unfortunately many other states engage in this sort of thing, so I've voted no.
sxt wrote: » But then, which nation would you consider more extremest than the U.S.A ...
Clawdeeus wrote: » Oh and if people think the red army would have stopped at Berlin were it not for the Americans, your deluding yourself.
sxt wrote: » Who do you belive to be the most extreme terrorrist nation?
johnmcdnl wrote: » America is the biggest rogue state in the world trying to force their values on every country that tries to stand up to oppose them in anyways... they try to westernise every country in the world and have no one bar america in their interests... look at all the wars over oil and whatever in the world...what's the last war that they haven't stuck their noses into... they think they have some kind of moral superiority over the rest of the world and that what's good for america is good for the world... just be happy america isn't a muslim country that would try to force sharia law on the world.... at least our morals are somewhat similar to theirs like the rest of europe america is the biggest rogue nation in the world if you ask me
sxt wrote: » I think this is a definition that most people would agree with Terrorism 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » I think they usually avoid genocides, the actual instances where civillians really do need some outside help
Clawdeeus wrote: » what do you mean by extreme? That they have the most extremem left/right views? That they differ the most from my own? And by terrorrism do you mean support terrorists in other countries? HAVE supported terrorrists in other countries? Whos definition of terrorrist? those in power?
Dravokivich wrote: » What is illegal about their wars? That their recent wars within Afghanistan and Iraq weren't officially endorsed by the UN? What does endorsement have to do with war?
sxt wrote: » Extremism 1 .is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards Terrorism 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
af_thefragile wrote: » It's like when stalin (was it him?) said when one person dies it's a death, when thousands die it's just a statistic.
af_thefragile wrote: » So it's all about how you define terrorism? If a bunch of unknown people plant a bomb to kill a few people somewhere, it's a terrorist act. But when a country drops bombs from the sky killing thousands in japan and many more thousands right now in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Palestine, it's an act of just war and not terrorism?! Pakistan is currently in the worst humanitarian crisis it has vitnessed in decades with the floods. This hasn't made America seize it's constant drone attacks on northern parkistan, many of which areas are severly affected by the floods. These people live in constant fear of being blown up by an American predator missile someday. For them America are much bigger terrorists than the Taliban. How can you say America is not a terrorist nation? Thousands have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan since america's war on terror began. And the three thousand or so who were killed on 9/11 don't justify the hundreds of thousands who have been killed in these countries as a result of this ongoing war. If you ask the people of these countries they'll tell you they were far better off under sassan hussain or the Taliban. Atleast they didn't live in constant fear of being blown up by American missiles or killed in the ongoing violence as a result of america's failed war. And yet America is not a terrorist nation. If this doesn't define terrorism then I don't know what does. It's like when stalin (was it him?) said when one person dies it's a death, when thousands die it's just a statistic.
Clawdeeus wrote: » Sure the US uses its power to get what it deems necessary internationally. Isnt that what every body does?
kumate_champ07 wrote: » WMD's were the main reason for Operation Iraqi Liberation, America lied about them, there was zero evidence. they falsified their reasons for starting that 'war', it is illegal. you cant go and bomb another country just because you dont agree with how they run their own country. natives start their own revolution. EG. Ireland, France, Cuba. If the people want change they will rise up and fight for it.
sxt wrote: » So the U.S.A could declare an illegal war on any country and get away with it ... It doesn't affect us because we are allies with them .. .but if you were a citizen of one of the the middle eastern nations , how would you feel?:(
kumate_champ07 wrote: » the most extreme 'terror act' ever commited on a nation in modern times? 9-11? ..8-6?(Hiroshima and Nagaski nuked)
sxt wrote: » This is a key post...
Clawdeeus wrote: » I should have bbeen more clear sorry. This is all ok if done within the bounds of international law. But this is incredibly ambigous with regards to "Terrorism"
Clawdeeus wrote: » Im starting to see where your coming from, Some people equate war with terrorism. Others do not.
af_thefragile wrote: » If you consider Taliban to be the ruling party in Afghanistan (before the war atleast) and considering the fact they declared a war on America and hence attacked on 9/11, wouldn't their act be justified by "international law" as an act of war rather than an act of terrorism??
af_thefragile wrote: » If you consider Taliban to be the ruling party in Afghanistan (before the war atleast) and considering the fact they declared a war on America and hence attacked on 9/11, wouldn't their act be justified by "international law" as an act of war rather than an act of terrorism?? Wars have rules. Like the Geneva protocol. Such as women and children not being harmed and only the people who attack you to be attack and proper treatment of POWs. America doesn't follow a single such rule. It just bombs the **** of out the country into submission and then treats POWs horribly and tortures them.
