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

sxt

In your opinion?

starbelgrade

Maybe not the most extreme, but certainly the most powerful & dangerous.

sxt

I am just goin to remove the" dangerous" bit to make the question a little bit more straight forward and easier to say "yes" or "no" to :cool:

Predator_

They invade more country's then anyone else so yes.

johnmcdnl

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

Herb Powell

what is this I don't even

Overheal

Predator_ wrote: »

They invade more country's then anyone else so yes.

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

sxt

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.

Dravokivich

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

Terry

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

sxt

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

If you are engaged in an illegal war and destroy a countries entire infrastructure and kill a million of their population

Devil08

Id probably say they are the most ill advised nation whose attacks are more often than not unnecessary and for the wrong reasons

Royal Irish

What a stupid poll and I cant believe so many people have voted yes.

bleg

I'm happy we're on their side. Go USA!!

Dravokivich

sxt wrote: »

If you are engaged in an illegal war and destroy a countries entire infrastructure and kill a million of their population

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

Royal Irish wrote: »

What a stupid poll and I cant believe so many people have voted yes.

Why can't you believe that?

Dravokivich

sxt wrote: »

Why can't you believe that?

I'm only assuming here, but it feels like you are leaning towards it, why do you believe them to be a terrorist nation?

Black Swan

America is warlike in the pursuit of their interests. They replaced the Brits. In a decade or two they will be replaced by PRC (China). After that, who knows? Unfortunately, as Will and Ariel Durant observed in The Lessons of History (p 81):

"War is one of the constants of history, and has not diminished with civilization and democracy. In the last 3,421 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war."

Rothmans

Typical Irish replies tbh.In AH We're always giving out about how oppresive muslim countries are, how much of a disgrace they are, something should be done blah blah blah etc. And when a country steps in to try sort things out(America), all we do is complain about that country. I hate to break it to ye all, but we , in Ireland , live under an umbrella of American protection. Many of us still don't get that.

Dravokivich

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

America is warlike in the pursuit of their interests. They replaced the Brits. In a decade or two they will be replaced by PRC (China). After that, who knows? Unfortunately, as Will and Ariel Durant observed in The Lessons of History (p 81):

"War is one of the constants of history, and has not diminished with civilization and democracy. In the last 3,421 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war."

I'd be more inclined to say they are agressive about their sense of patriotism and national security.

They don't tend to get stuck in unless 1 of the following occurs;

1) Threat of the spread of comuinism.
2) A direct attack has been made on them.

Other then point 1, they have never instigated wars with other countries. I wouldnt refer to them as warlike, but do agree that they are agressive.

davrho

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

Do you not have to "declare war" for it to be a "officially be a war"?

johnnyjb

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

They are dangerous and sneaky. Just because its "offical" doesnt mean its ok.
just because they call other people "terrorists" doesnt automatically make that person wrong ,they could be wrong but not cause the american government says so.

And to really pick at your statement they are "terrorists", how many covert and illegal assaults and attacks have thay commited. American news and tv is propaganda, thay invented terrorists ,"Weapons Of Mass Destruction"(ask G.Bush Jr and his buddies they seem to say it every 30 secs) , Anthrax, and all the other scare tactics that are working.

Were lucky we were only scared into giving corrupt bankers billions, voting for Lisbon Treaty ,Voting for the Lisbon Treaty Take Two (ha ha we knew ye'd fall for it) :rolleyes:

Dravokivich

davrho wrote: »

Do you not have to "declare war" for it to be a "officially be a war"?

They do... as I said earlier, what does endorsement have to do with war?

Afghanistan recently was / is a war.
Iraq recently was / is a war.

Royal Irish

sxt wrote: »

Why can't you believe that?

I am a optimist and believed Irish people would be smarter, than to think the US are the biggest terrorist nation in the world.

I have been shown otherwise yet again

sxt

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm only assuming here, but it feels like you are leaning towards it, why do you believe them to be a terrorist nation?

WeIl, you punish an entire country in the pursuit of toppling a dictator by killing up to 1,000,000 of its innocent civilians, destroying the nations entire infrastructure, roads ,water ,electricity , Imposing strict economic sanctions on the same country so they will remain in a desperate state. That is a big amount of terrorism

Terry

Rothmans wrote: »

Typical Irish replies tbh.In AH We're always giving out about how oppresive muslim countries are, how much of a disgrace they are, something should be done blah blah blah etc. And when a country steps in to try sort things out(America), all we do is complain about that country. I hate to break it to ye all, but we , in Ireland , live under an umbrella of American protection. Many of us still don't get that.

Under American protection against who?
Seriously, who exactly is posing a serious threat to Ireland?

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to say they are agressive about their sense of patriotism and national security.

They don't tend to get stuck in unless 1 of the following occurs;

1) Threat of the spread of comuinism.
2) A direct attack has been made on them.

Other then point 1, they have never instigated wars with other countries. I wouldnt refer to them as warlike, but do agree that they are agressive.

Saddam Hussein was a commie?
Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to America?

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

Venom

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

Its only official because they say its is and no one else in the world can stand up to them at the present moment.

Dravokivich

johnnyjb wrote: »

They are dangerous and sneaky. Just because its "offical" doesnt mean its ok.

johnnyjb wrote: »

just because they call other people "terrorists" doesnt automatically make that person wrong ,they could be wrong but not cause the american government says so.

right... hijacking civilians... and killing civilians wasn't wrong? They weren't terrorist?

johnnyjb wrote: »

And to really pick at your statement they are "terrorists", how many covert and illegal assaults and attacks have thay commited. American news and tv is propaganda, thay invented terrorists

For the most part, all they are willing to disclose or make reference to, that's related to point 1 in an earlier post I made... But the main idea of terrorism is to attack civilians and undermine a states ability to keep their cilivian safe.

Er... i recall hearing about certain terrorist organisations not to far from our doorstep long before the yanks could grasp the concept of terrorism...

johnnyjb wrote: »

"Weapons Of Mass Destruction"(ask G.Bush Jr and his buddies they seem to say it every 30 secs) , Anthrax, and all the other scare tactics that are working.

I never said I agreed with their recent wars, as I don't. But the fact that they were wars and the main objective was to attack Army / Representives of the states they invaded makes it a war. Not Terrorism...

johnnyjb wrote: »

Were lucky we were only scared into giving corrupt bankers billions, voting for Lisbon Treaty ,Voting for the Lisbon Treaty Take Two (ha ha we knew ye'd fall for it) :rolleyes:

Seperate issue... get out of here with that...

davrho

Dravokivich wrote: »

They do... as I said earlier, what does endorsement have to do with war?

Afghanistan recently was / is a war.
Iraq recently was / is a war.

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.

Rothmans

Terry wrote: »

Under American protection against who?
Seriously, who exactly is posing a serious threat to Ireland?

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.

Dravokivich

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.

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

Are they Terrorist too?

Falklands? Who endorsed that?

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?

Black Swan

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?

Black Swan

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.