American are the real Terrorists

digme

Terrorist acts committed by the United States of America against a sovereign nation since WWII

1.China 1945-46
2.Korea 1950-53
3.China 1950-53
4.Guatemala 1954
5.Indonesia 1958
6.Cuba 1959-60
7.Guatemala 1960
8.Belgian Congo 1964
9.Guatemala 1964
10.Dominican Republic 1965-66
11.Peru 1965
12.Laos 1964-73
13.Vietnam 1961-73
14.Cambodia 1969-70
15.Guatemala 1967-69
16.Lebanon 1982-84
17.Grenada 1983-84
18.Libya 1986
19.El Salvador 1981-92
20.Nicaragua 1981-90
21.Libya 1986
22.Iran 1987-88
23.Libya 1989
24.Panama 1989-90
25.Iraq 1991-2002
26.Kuwait 1991
27.Somalia 1992-94
28.Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
29.Bosnia 1995
30.Iran 1998 (airliner)
31.Sudan 1998
32.Afghanistan 1998
33.Yugoslavia 1999
34.Afghanistan 2001-02
35.Iraq 2003 – present


My opinion:
I think Venezuela,Iran,Pakistan?,Yemen? and a few African nations are on the cards.
How can a country bomb, invade, arm, support,overthrow,kidnap,torture and kill be called anything other than a terrorist state?
Feel free to move this to the American politics forum if unsuitable.


Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way.

Dr. Baltar

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
It's all subjective and relative.

dsmythy

Hmm, so shall we start at number one and work our way through? At a more suitable hour perhaps though. Perhaps you can list the terrorist crimes of America in China immediately after WW2?

digme

dsmythy wrote: »

Hmm, so shall we start at number one and work our way through? At a more suitable hour perhaps though. Perhaps you can list the terrorist crimes of America in China immediately after WW2?

This is non fiction by the way.
1 The U.S. backs the army of Chaing Kai-shek with material assistance and 100,000 American troops.

Next please.

amacachi

dsmythy wrote: »

Hmm, so shall we start at number one and work our way through? At a more suitable hour perhaps though. Perhaps you can list the terrorist crimes of America in China immediately after WW2?

Was wondering about that one myself.

Victor

digme wrote: »

This is non fiction by the way.
1 The U.S. backs the army of Chaing Kai-shek with material assistance and 100,000 American troops.

Next please.

What actual terrorism did they carry out?

PS you might want to add your own opinion, so as to be in line with the charter.

digme

Victor wrote: »

What actual terrorism did they carry out?

PS you might want to add your own opinion, so as to be in line with the charter.

Supporting Chiang Kai-shek during the Chinese Civil War, it's pretty well documented.
Added opinion cheers.

Manic Moran

I fail to see how a civil war qualifies as terrorism.

#2 on your list doesn't seem any more defensible. I seem to recall that Korean war (1) Was a United Nations operation (which seems important to some people), and (2) was started by the North.

NTM

nesf

Do not cut and paste such lists without genuinely making an effort to assess the sources for them. Korea was about as far away as you can get from a terrorist action!

digme, I want you to justify each element on the list individually.

FlutterinBantam

To these guys Nesf, anything the US does is construed as a terrorist action.

I'm surprised he /she didn't include Haiti/2010.

It's like a weekly conveyor belt in here.:p

teddy_303

In 1986, the United States was found guilty by the World Court of “unlawful use of violence” (international terrorism) for its actions in Nicaragua.

The United States then promptly vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to adhere to international law.

Exactly how bad were the United State's actions in Nicaragua? According to political scientist Noam Chomsky, “Nicaragua in the 1980’s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed; it may never recover. The international terrorist attack was accompanied by a devastating economic war, which a small country isolated by a vengeful and cruel superpower could scarcely sustain.” In the case of Nicaragua, we have the United States using violence to reach its goal of overthrowing the popular Sandinista movement, a coalition of Marxists, left-wing priests, and nationalists.

Was the United States’ use of violence any different from Bin Laden’s?
Cheeky lying imperialistic filth!

*yawn*
At least the actions of the U.S get to be put to a public vote of their people every now and again..
Bin laden on the other hand..he does what he likes.

I think the simpsons or was it the smiths wrote a song about the Taliban.."Girlfriend in a burkha..."
I know like most where I'd rather live and what values I'd be closer to.

Alcatel

I'm not a raging pinko who thinks that everything USA is bad and bin Laden and co are a wonderful bunch of fellows out with a decent cause... But, I have to say that, speaking in real terms, the US has supported coups against democratically elected regimes where the outcome didn't suit their needs, particularly in South America do they have a poor track record in picking sides.

I guess it depends on whether or not you accept the, I think widely accepted, premise that the US has actively engaged in things like political assainations, aiding coups and political violence in certain countries in order to further their own ends.

If you then take the book meaning of terrorism, I suppose that yes, you could say that the US has itself engaged in acts of terrorism around the world in order to further its own aims.

But I'd rather the US than the Taliban, to be honest.

lugha

I would take a more overall view of the US actions over the years. I think we are fortunate that we live in an age when the big power house of the world, the US, embraces the freedom that we enjoy. If the dice had rolled differently we might well have a world with a single superpower that embraced some type of totalitarianism or rule based on religion. One would have to be terminally naïve to think that had this been the case, that the superpower in question would not be a bully and do almost anything up to and including violating international law in order to preserve and promote their ideals. The biggest boy will inevitably be a bully. We are just fortunate that our interests are served when the current bully throws his weight around.

Alcatel

lugha wrote: »

I would take a more overall view of the US actions over the years. I think we are fortunate that we live in an age when the big power house of the world, the US, embraces the freedom that we enjoy. If the dice had rolled differently we might well have a world with a single superpower that embraced some type of totalitarianism or rule based on religion. One would have to be terminally naïve to think that had this been the case, that the superpower in question would not be a bully and do almost anything up to and including violating international law in order to preserve and promote their ideals. The biggest boy will inevitably be a bully. We are just fortunate that our interests are served when the current bully throws his weight around.

I agree with your premise. Realpolitik.

silverharp

it is a little ironic that the US harbours terrorists when it suits. For instance Luis Posada Carriles who left a "toothpaste" bomb on a Cuban airliner and killed 73 people lives freely in Florida today.

FlutterinBantam

lugha wrote: »

I would take a more overall view of the US actions over the years. I think we are fortunate that we live in an age when the big power house of the world, the US, embraces the freedom that we enjoy. If the dice had rolled differently we might well have a world with a single superpower that embraced some type of totalitarianism or rule based on religion. One would have to be terminally naïve to think that had this been the case, that the superpower in question would not be a bully and do almost anything up to and including violating international law in order to preserve and promote their ideals. The biggest boy will inevitably be a bully. We are just fortunate that our interests are served when the current bully throws his weight around.

Indeed, however some of the more misguided amongst regretfully are unable to make that leap of logic.

They prefer to bask under the friendship and protection of the most powerful
nation and criticise and denigrate almost everything it does, whilst ignoring the,as you say, stabilising influence it has on world politics.

There's a word for it, hypocrisy I think it is.

Kev_ps3

Great post. But you should also add Britain to that list. They have been worse throughout history. They are the kings of terrorism. Also Israel would be a good addition aswell.

lugha

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

They prefer to bask under the friendship and protection of the most powerful nation and criticise and denigrate almost everything it does, whilst ignoring the,as you say, stabilising influence it has on world politics.

Yes, I have been amused on more than one occasion here to read a post (invariably heavily thanked) criticizing the US or UK for their foreign policies and then find the same poster will cheerfully make all manner of insulting and derogatory comments about our own political leaders, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are entirely free to do so.
On the hypocrisy scale, it is right up there with the anti-globalization protesters who use mobile phones to coordinate their actions and high tech cameras to record the misdeeds of the police.

countries look after their own interests. The US has dabbled heavily in International concerns simply because they have had such a mandate since WW2. If they felt a country might become more favorable to their "enemies" then they would take action. TBH its no different than most countries with decent armies or resources do. France has interfered plenty of times, as has Britain, Russia etc.

The main issue here is that the US flips back and forth all the while throwing up the freedom card. They present themselves as the knight in shining armor and we're more than happy to accept that image. (or at least we were until Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay) As a world leader they've placed themselves in a position to be criticised, but TBH I doubt it matters to them all that much what we think.

On a side note, Ireland has interfered with other countries in the past.. and the only reason its not to the level of involvement of the US, is that we don't have the same resources. Simply put, every country/government out there wants to mess around with other countries policies/politics etc.

And usage of the word terrorism is crap. Its a buzz word. frankly, the word has been changed so many times over the last two decades, that it really has no single meaning anymore. Its just another political tool.

nesf

silverharp wrote: »

it is a little ironic that the US harbours terrorists when it suits. For instance Luis Posada Carriles who left a "toothpaste" bomb on a Cuban airliner and killed 73 people lives freely in Florida today.

He's not living freely, he's awaiting on the Supreme Court to rule on his case. The Appeals Court overturned the decision that set him free. The US Government (Justice Department) asked the court to keep him locked up but he was released on bail.

The US Government could just overrule the court under certain acts but doing that would be setting a very dangerous precedent given the man was no threat to America.

This isn't as simple as the US saying "come on in, live freely" but a very complicated mess by the countries that want him deported to them not meeting the requirements for extradition legally etc.

lugha

Deleted User wrote: »

On a side note, Ireland has interfered with other countries in the past..

Do tell.

wes

I wouldn't say everything that the US does is terrorism, but a lot of the stuff they do, is pretty dodgy, for example all the various coup organized against democracies.

sceptre

There's a logical fallacy in the first post.

The definition of terrorism is acceptable and reasonable. The definition is coercion is acceptable and reasonable.

The problem is that the OP, rather than assuming that every act of terrorism is an attempt at coercion (which would be reasonable and consistent with the two definitions he laid out), has assumed that every act of coercion on the list is an act of terrorism. Which even fails the definition test within the first post, let alone the rest of the universe.

Hence, fun as it probably is for kicks and giggles on a Saturday morning to define every fart and wheeze (or realistically, every war or bombing action) by the US as an act of terrorism, it doesn't even follow the rules laid out in the first post to do so and short of a justification for every item on the list, the OP just copied and pasted a list from somewhere that as a moderator I would say is highly unlikely to support his case in any meaningful way and that as a poster I would say is right up there for usefulness with those recycled lines you hear from some unoriginal people making wedding speeches.


The above is point one. Now point two:

Here's a useful FYI. The original list comes from an opinion piece in the Guardian on October 23rd, 2001 by Arundhati Roy. As part of her op-ed she included a list of "countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war". This is your list. Actually it's her list. Your list just pretends it's a list of something else. Someone got both lazy and misleading at some point since and relabelled the above list as "a list of terrorist acts". Thirty seconds should have been long enough for you to find that out - it took me ten.

So given that you've done what a growing number of people do these days - just repost information without checking its origin and original purpose, can you justify including all of those items as "terrorism"? Of course not, that's not even what the list is of. Now you know, can you do so anyway? It's your contention so back it up. One by one should do. As suggested, start with Korea, eh?


Put the above point one and point two together and what use has this list? None. It's either a cock-up or a fix-up.

As a user I'm done with this thread - at best the OP didn't know the source of the list and just reposted it, at worst, he changed the supposed purpose of the list himself. It's either sheer laziness or a deliberate attempt to mislead. I have no time for either of these things. No idea why anyone else would either.

lugha

lugha wrote: »

Do tell.

Participation in UN peacekeeping in the past can hardly been seen as non-interference in other countries internal affairs. The inhabitants of those countries have in some cases been directly against the involvement of the UN in their environment.

Even the comments made by politicians towards other countries actions is a form of interference.

Byron85

There's money to be made in war folks. It's as simple as that.

stainluss

digme wrote: »

Terrorist acts committed by the United States of America against a sovereign nation since WWII

1.China 1945-46
2.Korea 1950-53
3.China 1950-53
4.Guatemala 1954
5.Indonesia 1958
6.Cuba 1959-60
7.Guatemala 1960
8.Belgian Congo 1964
9.Guatemala 1964
10.Dominican Republic 1965-66
11.Peru 1965
12.Laos 1964-73
13.Vietnam 1961-73
14.Cambodia 1969-70
15.Guatemala 1967-69
16.Lebanon 1982-84
17.Grenada 1983-84
18.Libya 1986
19.El Salvador 1981-92
20.Nicaragua 1981-90
21.Libya 1986
22.Iran 1987-88
23.Libya 1989
24.Panama 1989-90
25.Iraq 1991-2002
26.Kuwait 1991
27.Somalia 1992-94
28.Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
29.Bosnia 1995
30.Iran 1998 (airliner)
31.Sudan 1998
32.Afghanistan 1998
33.Yugoslavia 1999
34.Afghanistan 2001-02
35.Iraq 2003 – present


My opinion:
I think Venezuela,Iran,Pakistan?,Yemen? and a few African nations are on the cards.
How can a country bomb, invade, arm, support,overthrow,kidnap,torture and kill be called anything other than a terrorist state?
Feel free to move this to the American politics forum if unsuitable.


Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way.

You forgot to include the damage done to England and Northern Ireland as American citizens funded the IRA.

wilson10

Haiti 2010

DominoDub

wilson10 wrote: »

Haiti 2010

Looks like they are now running that country again for a while ,,,next stop cuba ?:rolleyes:

U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Haiti, 1915-34
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/88275.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti

whynotwhycanti

I think one problem with this thread is the immediate dismissal of the OPs original list, without any research on their own part. The list may have been copied from somewhere else but there is endless evidence and undisputable facts of the USAs involvement in these events. Another problem is that although the list in itself is quite accurate, each situation would need a thread of its own. I say the list is accurate in that in every event listed, the USA played a pivotal role in it to suit its own 'interests'. Now whether their role was a form of terrorism, that in itself would need a further thread of its own as the meaning of this word has been thrown around so much. I believe over a hundred different definitions of terrorism exist in the international community and nobody can agree on what is an exact definition.

However, i will try and substantiate some of the list as they are closely connected. It is documented and there is undeniable evidence that after world war II, during the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, the USA played a central role in the Americas. They installed puppet governments that were primarily dictators that killed thousands of civilians. Now the US were not committing these acts against the civilians themselves but trained and supported these governments who they had put in place to benefit their own interests in the region. These governments could be argued took part in terrorism but did the US? That’s for you to decide. If they did not take part in terrorism directly I believe they did so indirectly.

His list is accurate in that respect and it is well known that the US took part in these events. I'm surprised that there are so many posters who do not know of the USAs involvement in these events. I'm not saying it was terrorism but the regimes they supported took part in terrorism. There are plenty of books by credible sources or just the simple internet. For example, the US helped install and supported the Batista government in Cuba who was a dictator and responsible for state terrorism against his own people. It’s a simple fact that is well known. I don't understand the confusion and denial over this thread. I think it is open to debate whether the USAs involvement in these events constitutes terrorism. I’m not saying they did but I believe it to be a debatable topic. Is this not what this website is for??

wilson10

DominoDub wrote: »

Looks like they are now running that country again for a while ,,,next stop cuba ?:rolleyes:

U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Haiti, 1915-34
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/88275.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti

If I was a Haitian I'd be kinda glad to see them.