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

philologos · 06-09-2010 05:43PM

I honestly don't know why people would have serious issues with the USA. Yes, it's a superpower. Nobody disputes this. Nobody disputes that on occasion the US military has made mistakes, nobody disputes that the USA as a state has made mistakes in the past.

However, when push comes to shove, the USA overall advocates democratic values, freedom and liberty as a model for other nations to follow. If the bully advocates these type of values, then I'm quite happy to back the bully for the most part. Of course the right to criticism remains open.

I'd rather the USA be the bully than Russia, China, or Iran for example.

The Highwayman · 06-09-2010 05:52PM

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

Yeah they did but are you saying the red army was the same animal that rolled inti Berlin in 1945?

All the WWII stuff is getting very off topic if someone wants to continue that thread over in history or military great I love the topic

sxt · 06-09-2010 06:13PM

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.

But then, which nation would you consider more extremest than the U.S.A

...

The Highwayman · 06-09-2010 06:15PM

sxt wrote: »

But then, which nation would you consider more extremest than the U.S.A ...

Israil

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 06:24PM

sxt wrote: »

But then, which nation would you consider more extremest than the U.S.A ...

Plenty, just most do not have the power to realyl matter on a world stage o their extremism is turned inside.

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 06:25PM

Oh and if people think the red army would have stopped at Berlin were it not for the Americans, your deluding yourself.

sxt · 06-09-2010 06:27PM

Somtimes it is very hard to seperate the two...they are very economically and politically similar in their outlook...

Son Of A Vidic · 06-09-2010 06:33PM

We all know the Yanks need a war every now and again - it feeds their Industrial/Military complex. War is a very profitable industry after all. In 1964 Johnson used the infamous 'Gulf of Tonkin incident' to justify a massive escalation in U.S. involvment in Vietnam. We all know what 9/11 was used to justify. Coming from a country that has removed as many democratic regimes, as it has tried to install we shouldn't be surprised really.

sxt · 06-09-2010 06:33PM

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Oh and if people think the red army would have stopped at Berlin were it not for the Americans, your deluding yourself.

Who do you believe to be the most extreme terrorist nation?

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 06:35PM

sxt wrote: »

Who do you belive to be the most extreme terrorrist nation?

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?

kumate_champ07 · 06-09-2010 06:36PM

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

I think they usually avoid genocides, the actual instances where civillians really do need some outside help

kumate_champ07 · 06-09-2010 06:37PM

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.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

war is terror

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 06:40PM

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I think they usually avoid genocides, the actual instances where civillians really do need some outside help

Kosovo?

By definition being the big dog in the yard, one side in a conflict will be affiliated with it and seek its help.

It has been and will be the same with great powers.

sxt · 06-09-2010 06:42PM

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?

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.

kumate_champ07 · 06-09-2010 06:44PM

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?

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.

af_thefragile · 06-09-2010 06:44PM

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.

Dubs · 06-09-2010 06:47PM

To call any nation a terrorist nation is a bit extreme itself. Just because a nation has a notable terrorist organisation in it, doesn't make it a terrorist nation.

It's a very misleading, and I'm sure offensive, statement to make.

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 06:51PM

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.

well seeing as my views align with alot of the Wests then no, they dont seem "extreme" . I wouldnt consider Ireland in a state of fear or submission despite very much being in the US sphere.

Just read today Iran considers itself to have built "the only fair and just society" They hardly consdier themselves extreme. I probablly would.

Would economic fear constiture terrorrism in this context? Then sure.

On an international stage, the US is the only one that can do this everywhere, so not exactlly apples and apples. Countries reach as far as they feel they can, it is not driven by ideology but need, want and most of all ability.

Sure the US uses its power to get what it deems necessary internationally. Isnt that what every body does?

The Highwayman · 06-09-2010 06:53PM

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.

'The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic.'

Although Wiki says

This quotation probably was originated from «Französischer Witz» by Kurt Tucholsky (1932): «Darauf sagt ein Diplomat vom Quai d’Orsay: «Der Krieg? Ich kann das nicht so schrecklich finden! Der Tod eines Menschen: das ist eine Katastrophe. Hunderttausend Tote: das ist eine Statistik!»

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 07:11PM

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.

Now you get it.

Yes, there is under international law a way to kill people in a "legitamite" ie not terrorist, manner. You and I might consider it jsut as bad, and in many ways its the same outcome. still not terrorrism.

100's or people are killed on the road every year, its not terrorism.

The rest is a bit of a rant Depends on who you ask in many of those countires. In Iraq for example, 90% of Kurds are delighted Saddam is gone. Not saying the war was worth it, merely pointing out you can find people anywhere delighted with a regime others find unimaginable.

If you think the invasions took place to make people happier, you should really put down the crack pipe.

With regard to Pakistan and Drones, there is still a war going on, the offered ceasefire was not taken, and to my knowledge the US is (once again) the biggest donner (despite enormous anti-american sentiment in the country, which you pointed out).

sxt · 06-09-2010 07:19PM

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Sure the US uses its power to get what it deems necessary internationally. Isnt that what every body does?

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?:(

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 07:20PM

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.

Well actually whatever about Iraq (which was illegal) you can attack a country if it is harbouring and making no effort to stop an organistation which is organising and carrying out attacks in another.

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 07:21PM

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?:(

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"

kumate_champ07 · 06-09-2010 07:23PM

the most extreme 'terror act' ever commited on a nation in modern times?

9-11?
..8-6?(Hiroshima and Nagaski nuked)

sxt · 06-09-2010 07:26PM

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.

This is a key post...

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 07:27PM

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

the most extreme 'terror act' ever commited on a nation in modern times?

9-11?
..8-6?(Hiroshima and Nagaski nuked)

even going by death toll, no.

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 07:30PM

sxt wrote: »

This is a key post...

Im starting to see where your coming from, Some people equate war with terrorism. Others do not.

af_thefragile · 06-09-2010 07:32PM

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"

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??

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Im starting to see where your coming from, Some people equate war with terrorism. Others do not.

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.

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 07:36PM

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??

Firstly it was Al Qaeda who organised and carried it out, not the Taliban (albiet with tacit approval, and from within Afghanistan).

Also, although Im not sure if this is in the alw governing whether or not something is a terrorist attack, but anecdotally most would consider that deliberatly targeting civilians to be a prequisite to terrorism (although not the only one).

And I believe it was considered both, Act of war and Terrorism.

Clawdeeus · 06-09-2010 07:43PM

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.

The Geneva convention calls upon you to take reasonable steps to protect civilian lives, and not taget civilians intentionally. There has been no evidence that cilians have been targeted INTENTIONALLY by international forces (although, as always its the civilian population that suffers the most)

For people to be considered POWs some criteria have be met, none of which is by the insurgents (note i did not say terrorist). You cant not not play by the rules, get caught, then call upon the same rules for protection. Off the top of my head, wearing uniforms is a must.

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

Comments