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

Jeboa Safari

McDougal wrote: »

Are you for real?

Yes.

Manic Moran

jackiebaron wrote: »

Such crap you write. "Women are getting to go to school now". There isn't a single bloody school open for business in Afghanistan. They've all been bombed to powder.

Very strange.

I have photographs of myself at a couple of schools in Afghanistan last year, they seemed rather un-bombed. (Actually the only destroyed school I saw was one that was burned by the Taliban). The vast majority of polling stations for the last election were schools.

It is true, however, that women have fewer education prospects in Afghanistan. The locals generally refuse to educate boys and girls in the same facility. This means that one needs to build two schools for each town. The larger towns have done so, and a small number of the villages. Construction continues.

NTM

Nodin

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Dunno about Cnn or Sky, but yes I think RTE definitly would, they have an anti-American and anti-Israeli bias.

I'd suggest checking the tin foil in your hat for lead content.

Jeboa Safari

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest checking the tin foil in your hat for lead content.

Probably one of the worst suggestions I've ever got, but thanks anyway, I know you're trying your best

gizmo

sxt wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that RTE news or CNN or SKY news channel would report that 3000 innocent iraqi civilians were killed by American troops

No, but Al-Jazeera would.

D.U.M.B wrote: »

America: The worlds leading killer

What an appropriate username, the US is far from the world's leading killer. China, thanks to Mao, and Russia, thanks to Stalin, are waaaaaaaay ahead.

Also, I'm pretty sure there's around 49m South Koreans who are pretty glad of US foreign policy.

jackiebaron

gizmo wrote: »

No, but Al-Jazeera would.


What an appropriate username, the US is far from the world's leading killer. China, thanks to Mao, and Russia, thanks to Stalin, are waaaaaaaay ahead.

Also, I'm pretty sure there's around 49m South Koreans who are pretty glad of US foreign policy.

We seem to have forgotten the 650,000 Filipinos that the US murdered in the 1900s and the 30 million native Americans that they slaughtered in their quest to move westwards.

Dropping atomic weapons on civilians is a clear act of sheer mass-murder and terrorism but the US did it, not once but twice. Of course there are those idiots out there who'll parrot the line that it hastened the end of the war when in actuality the japs had been trying to surrender for months. Still don't let facts get in the way of a good History Channel docu-drama especially if you're a kool-aid drinker who can't handle the truth.

As for the 49 million South Koreans being glad of US foreign policy....I doubt the friends, relatives, familes and loved ones of all those Koreans who have been raped, assaulted or murdered by drunken GI's are too thrilled about it.

Wompa1

jackiebaron wrote: »

We seem to have forgotten the 650,000 Filipinos that the US murdered in the 1900s and the 30 million native Americans that they slaughtered in their quest to move westwards.

Dropping atomic weapons on civilians is a clear act of sheer mass-murder and terrorism but the US did it, not once but twice. Of course there are those idiots out there who'll parrot the line that it hastened the end of the war when in actuality the japs had been trying to surrender for months. Still don't let facts get in the way of a good History Channel docu-drama especially if you're a kool-aid drinker who can't handle the truth.

As for the 49 million South Koreans being glad of US foreign policy....I doubt the friends, relatives, familes and loved ones of all those Koreans who have been raped, assaulted or murdered by drunken GI's are too thrilled about it.

In actual fact they had been trying to surrender my ass. Their general was adamant that they not surrender so they kept fighting. They had trained everybody they could to attack soldiers, even kids and women were trained. It would have been a complete massacre either way.

How many of the thousands of GIs raped or assaulted innocent civilians, so you can back your claim up? I live in Galway City which has a population of 73,000 people. There's numerous cases of assault every week and even some rape claims through out the year. I wouldn't generalise about Galweigans raping or assaulting people.

philologos

Still nothing of real substance from the side claiming that the US is the most extreme terrorist state on the face of the earth yet. Indeed, nothing suggesting what would be better than the US being where it is either.

gizmo

jackiebaron wrote: »

We seem to have forgotten the 650,000 Filipinos that the US murdered in the 1900s and the 30 million native Americans that they slaughtered in their quest to move westwards.

:facepalm:

jackiebaron wrote: »

Dropping atomic weapons on civilians is a clear act of sheer mass-murder and terrorism but the US did it, not once but twice. Of course there are those idiots out there who'll parrot the line that it hastened the end of the war when in actuality the japs had been trying to surrender for months. Still don't let facts get in the way of a good History Channel docu-drama especially if you're a kool-aid drinker who can't handle the truth.

Your arrogance and rudeness is matched only with your ignorance of history it seems.

jackiebaron wrote: »

As for the 49 million South Koreans being glad of US foreign policy....I doubt the friends, relatives, familes and loved ones of all those Koreans who have been raped, assaulted or murdered by drunken GI's are too thrilled about it.

I'd suggest you ask the North Koreans about how life is up there instead but I don't think anyone will be answering the phone.

sxt

Jakkass wrote: »

Still nothing of real substance from the side claiming that the US is the most extreme terrorist state on the face of the earth yet. Indeed, nothing suggesting what would be better than the US being where it is either.

ter·ror·ism (ter′ər iz′əm)

noun

1.the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2.the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

Lets take Iraq for example,if you bomb the hell out of that country and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, a country that is of no threat to the U.S.A ,only a threat to the price they may pay for oil in the future , that is extreme terrorism

If you bomb the bejaysus out of their entire infrastructure,roads, bridges ,water supplies ,electricity that is extreme terrorism. If you don't have clean water, that leads to alot of disease and death.

If you put severe economic sanctions on that same country, it has a devastating and demoralising effect on the whole people, unemployment ,crime etc .That is extreme terrorism

and this is all under the pretense that they want to liberate The Iraqi people and make it a democratic society ,yet they will bankroll and support corrupt and non democratic regimes in the same region, at the same time.

jackiebaron

gizmo wrote: »

:facepalm:


Your arrogance and rudeness is matched only with your ignorance of history it seems.


I'd suggest you ask the North Koreans about how life is up there instead but I don't think anyone will be answering the phone.

Well if you're attempting to justify and excuse barbarism by comparing yourself, or your ideals, to those which you deem to be "a helluva lot worse", then that really doesn't say much for your glib little "shining beacon of hope" rant now does it. Kind of like excusing a scumbag father who beats his kids and wife, but still provides for them, and is also not as vicious as the scumbag father across the road.

I find it amusing that apologists for American foreign policy, when called up regarding an American massacre or a catalogue of American war crimes, will immediately stump for the predictable handful of excuses:

a) America has done a lot of good (!) ... like that should give you the green light to massacre people.

b) We're at least better than those regimes that we're trying to liquidate (!)

c) We're not as bad as Stalin or Hitler.

d) If it wasn't for the US you'd be speaking German or Russian or Japanese or living in caves or some such sh!t.

e) Liberal, lefty, commie, pinko ****! STFU!


Well, to those of you who won't hear a bad word said about America and its policy towards invading countries, torturing people, exacting collective punishment, and a variety of other disgusting practices, I have only this to say in response to your labelling...my politics, my opinions and my sense of how people should be treated are not about right and left. They're about right and wrong. So if I think that someone...anyone..everyone, is entitled to a trial before being kept in a cage for 9 years then you call me a tree-hugger if you want, and if you think I'm threatening your safety by questioning the bombing of peasants then, mentally, you're an impossible person to reach.

jackiebaron

Jakkass wrote: »

Still nothing of real substance from the side claiming that the US is the most extreme terrorist state on the face of the earth yet. Indeed, nothing suggesting what would be better than the US being where it is either.

Well, the US is responsible for the majority of civilian deaths and maimings over the course of the last 9 years in the world. The US is also responsible for the most military-induced refugees and orphans since World War 2. With respect to your statement regarding an alternative....that's not the issue here. Claiming that things would be worse if the US (despite all her brutality) wasn't calling the shots is a p!ss-poor level of thought.

gizmo

jackiebaron wrote: »

The US is also responsible for the most military-induced refugees and orphans since World War 2.

Actually I'd say the numerous civil wars in African states have resulted in more displaced people than the wars the US Army have been involved in.

As for the rest of your post above, I have no desire to call you anything of the sort you have suggested. While I clearly don't agree with your opinion or indeed your vitriolic wording, I do have one question. Of the conflicts the US have been involve in since World War II, which do you think they should have been involved in, if any at all?

philologos

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well, the US is responsible for the majority of civilian deaths and maimings over the course of the last 9 years in the world. The US is also responsible for the most military-induced refugees and orphans since World War 2. With respect to your statement regarding an alternative....that's not the issue here. Claiming that things would be worse if the US (despite all her brutality) wasn't calling the shots is a p!ss-poor level of thought.

Great logic there. I just pick all death from the date that the US waged its last war. Absolutely ridiculous. The claim does not say "The USA is the most extreme terrorist nation over the last 9 years", it says "The USA is the most extreme terrorist nation".

No good answer has been given to suggest that the US is more extreme than states such as North Korea, China, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.

As for the most military induced refugees and orphans since WW2, I will need a citation I'm afraid.

Asking what alternative you suggest, is hardly "piss-poor" thought. It is a realistic way to converting this discussion from idle complaining about the USA's status in the world to what would actually be better. I can guarantee you, the world as it is now, is a better place with the US' presence rather what it would be without it.

Funglegunk

Orange69 wrote: »

I don't believe you are, or have ever been, to the US. I believe all of your points and opinions are based on assumption, biased media reporting and anti-American liberal ideology.

What work permit are your traveling under?

OisinT wrote: »

A US passport actually.

Orange69 wrote: »

Right.. and Im actually Barack Obama posting incognito. :rolleyes:

OisinT wrote: »

:wave: HI BARACK!



:rolleyes:

From earlier...

Orange69 wrote: »

I love to see the final desperate death throes of a defeated internet opponent.. makes me feel warm inside..

Youch.

FreudianSlippers

Jakkass wrote: »

Great logic there. I just pick all death from the date that the US waged its last war. Absolutely ridiculous. The claim does not say "The USA is the most extreme terrorist nation over the last 9 years", it says "The USA is the most extreme terrorist nation".

No good answer has been given to suggest that the US is more extreme than states such as North Korea, China, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.

As for the most military induced refugees and orphans since WW2, I will need a citation I'm afraid.

Asking what alternative you suggest, is hardly "piss-poor" thought. It is a realistic way to converting this discussion from idle complaining about the USA's status in the world to what would actually be better. I can guarantee you, the world as it is now, is a better place with the US' presence rather what it would be without it.

Have North Korea, China, Iran or Saudi Arabia ever nuked 2 cities and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

All I keep hearing from the US is how they want to prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons when the US is the only country that has proven that they cannot be trusted with them.

Now go back up to sxt's post:

ter·ror·ism (ter′ər iz′əm)

noun

1.the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2.the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

The US does this on a daily basis and has done so for years.
This seems to be the facts that you are ignoring.

Jeboa Safari

OisinT wrote: »

Have North Korea, China, Iran or Saudi Arabia ever nuked 2 cities and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

All I keep hearing from the US is how they want to prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons when the US is the only country that has proven that they cannot be trusted with them.

Now go back up to sxt's post:



The US does this on a daily basis and has done so for years.
This seems to be the facts that you are ignoring.

So, what should they have done instead of dropping the nukes?

Nodin

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So, what should they have done instead of dropping the nukes?

Godzilla. All the destruction, none of the radiation.

indough

the nuclear attacks on japan killed less people than equivalent conventional bombings of japanese cities during world war 2

bombing those cities with normal bombs caused massive firestorms because of the materials they used to build and the density of buildings there

also a ground invasion of japan would have meant many many more deaths

McDougal

indough wrote: »

the nuclear attacks on japan killed less people than equivalent conventional bombings of japanese cities during world war 2

bombing those cities with normal bombs caused massive firestorms because of the materials they used to build and the density of buildings there

also a ground invasion of japan would have meant many many more deaths

Cambodia is the most bombed country in history. Bombed into the stone age by the USAF.

indough

McDougal wrote: »

Cambodia is the most bombed country in history. Bombed into the stone age by the USAF.

which has nothing to do with what i said

im pretty sure youre thinking of laos by the way, completely different country altogether

they werent bombed into the stone age either it wasnt exactly a develop nation at the time

sligopark

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So, what should they have done instead of dropping the nukes?

accepted the peace treaty drawn up by Japan a week earleir that they agreed to after testing their nukes in Japan

FreudianSlippers

indough wrote: »

the nuclear attacks on japan killed less people than equivalent conventional bombings of japanese cities during world war 2

bombing those cities with normal bombs caused massive firestorms because of the materials they used to build and the density of buildings there

also a ground invasion of japan would have meant many many more deaths

Let's not forget the fallout though.

There was no reason for a ground invasion of Japan.


Genuinely the fact that anyone can justify using nuclear weapons amazes me, but it still doesn't answer the question about why the US gets to police who does and doesn't get nukes when the only ones that have a history of using them is the US themselves.

indough

the fallout from those bombs wouldnt have been as bad as some of the anti-american hyperbole in this thread would lead one to believe

i dont know where you get the impression that a ground invasion of japan wouldnt have been necessary as everything i have ever read on the subject cites this is a main reason for use of the bomb

a better example of us war crimes with lasting effect would be the deforestation chemicals dropped on vietnam such as agent orange which are still extremely toxic today and causing deformities in children etc

gizmo

sligopark wrote: »

accepted the peace treaty drawn up by Japan a week earleir that they agreed to after testing their nukes in Japan

A week before the bomb was dropped the Allied forces issued the Potsdam Declaration which Japan subsequently ignored. Can you please post a link to information regarding the supposed peace treaty drawn up by Japan in the interim please?

Jeboa Safari

sligopark wrote: »

accepted the peace treaty drawn up by Japan a week earleir that they agreed to after testing their nukes in Japan

Japan was given the opportunity to accept unconditional surrender before any nukes were dropped, they didn't take it. They didn't even surrender after the first nuke was dropped. The army also attempted a coup after the emperor wanted to surrender after the two nukes were dropped.
No guarantee they were actually interested in peace, could have just used it to stall.

Savage Tyrant

Both the USA and Britain have committed acts that instilled terror in those they targeted. So yes, I would class them as terrorists at times.
I would say in the present day that, Yes, the US Government and their Armed forces are the most extreme terrorists at this time.

FreudianSlippers

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Both the USA and Britain have committed acts that instilled terror in those they targeted. So yes, I would class them as terrorists at times.
I would say in the present day that, Yes, the US Government and their Armed forces are the most extreme terrorists at this time.

A well thought out and measured response.


Best put on that flame suit :P

sxt

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Japan was given the opportunity to accept unconditional surrender before any nukes were dropped, they didn't take it. They didn't even surrender after the first nuke was dropped. The army also attempted a coup after the emperor wanted to surrender after the two nukes were dropped.
No guarantee they were actually interested in peace, could have just used it to stall.

It is not as simple as that as usual, U.S.A knew that a part of the Japanese govenrment were in negotiations with the Russians to seeks a peaceful resolution

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

While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese


The U.S.A were privy to this inforrmation, they could have tried to negotiate , it would have been difficult, as japanese wanted to surender under Japanese terms. U.S.A were not interested in talking

I doubt the Japanese for privy to the knowledge that U.S.A had a bomb ready and waiting to kill hundreds of thousands of their people in one foul sweep

Japan was a very proud nation and wanted peace but on their terms ,U.S.A were not interested in negotiations so they they decided to go ahead and drop nuclear bombs on Japan ,thus sending out a message to russia and the whole World


Don't **** with the U.S.A


Don't **** with us!

MarkGrisham

There's worse alternatives to having the states there. They do need to sort out the widening gap between rich and poor, and the gap between the left and right. It could all blow up and then we'll long for the "good old USA".

gizmo

sxt wrote: »

It is not as simple as that as usual, U.S.A knew that a part of the Japanese govenrment were in negotiations with the Russians to seeks a peaceful resolution

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

While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese


The U.S.A were privy to this inforrmation, they could have tried to negotiate , it would have been difficult, as japanese wanted to surender under Japanese terms. U.S.A were not interested in talking

I doubt the Japanese for privy to the knowledge that U.S.A had a bomb ready and waiting to kill hundreds of thousands of their people in one foul sweep

Japan was a very proud nation and wanted peace but on their terms ,U.S.A were not interested in negotiations so they they decided to go ahead and drop nuclear bombs on Japan ,thus sending out a message to russia and the whole World


Don't **** with the U.S.A


Don't **** with us!

I'd suggest reading all of the information on that page. Not all of the Big Six wanted to surrender, even under the possibly more favorable conditions they attempted to negotiate with the Soviet Union. Speaking of which, the Soviets still invaded Japan despite the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact so I'd hardly point to them as a source of hope for peace. Then there was the Kyūjō Incident...the list goes on really.

On a side note, do you not think it's a little much for Japan to be ignoring the Allied requests for surrender despite the fact they entered the war of their own will via the attack on Pearl Harbour and the invasion of British Malaya?

sxt

gizmo wrote: »

I'd suggest reading all of the information on that page. Not all of the Big Six wanted to surrender, even under the possibly more favorable conditions they attempted to negotiate with the Soviet Union. Speaking of which, the Soviets still invaded Japan despite the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact so I'd hardly point to them as a source of hope for peace. Then there was the Kyūjō Incident...the list goes on really.

On a side note, do you not think it's a little much for Japan to be ignoring the Allied requests for surrender despite the fact they entered the war of their own will via the attack on Pearl Harbour and the invasion of British Malaya?

I don't think you fully undertand this they way i understand this...if anyone wants to correct me on this ,feel free....The emperor was a "God " like figure to Japan.


U.S.A called for an unconditional surrender knowing full well that Japan would never ever ever ever surrender under those conditions...The U.S.A were fully aware of this.

gizmo

sxt wrote: »

I don't think you fully undertand this they way i understand this...if anyone wants to correct me on this ,feel free....The emperor was a "God " like figure to Japan.

If this was true then the Kyūjō Incident would never have taken place.

sxt wrote: »

U.S.A called for an unconditional surrender knowing full well that Japan would never ever ever ever surrender under those conditions...The U.S.A were fully aware of this.

Tough ****ing **** on them then, they shouldn't have entered into the war which they themselves precipitated in the Pacific and which claimed the lives of millions of people, both military and civilian.

McDougal

indough wrote: »

which has nothing to do with what i said

im pretty sure youre thinking of laos by the way, completely different country altogether

they werent bombed into the stone age either it wasnt exactly a develop nation at the time

No! cambodia

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

Jeboa Safari

sxt wrote: »

It is not as simple as that as usual, U.S.A knew that a part of the Japanese govenrment were in negotiations with the Russians to seeks a peaceful resolution

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

While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese


The U.S.A were privy to this inforrmation, they could have tried to negotiate , it would have been difficult, as japanese wanted to surender under Japanese terms. U.S.A were not interested in talking

I doubt the Japanese for privy to the knowledge that U.S.A had a bomb ready and waiting to kill hundreds of thousands of their people in one foul sweep

Japan was a very proud nation and wanted peace but on their terms ,U.S.A were not interested in negotiations so they they decided to go ahead and drop nuclear bombs on Japan ,thus sending out a message to russia and the whole World


Don't **** with the U.S.A


Don't **** with us!

What a load of nonsense. Japan attacked the US for a start, why should they get peace on their terms? Should Hitler have got peace on his terms?. Of course they would have had some knowledge that the US had or was going to have nuclear bombs, they had intelligence, and were working on their own atomic program, which they would no doubt have used had they got there first. You're painting Japan as some poor peaceful proud nation that got mixed up in the war, when in reality it was a Japanese war of aggression and they were every bit as brutal as the Nazis, see the rape on Nanking for example.

If Japan wanted peace, they had the opportunity to surrender. An Allied invasion would have lead to far more deaths on both sides.

sxt

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. Japan attacked the US for a start, why should they get peace on their terms? Should Hitler have got peace on his terms?. Of course they would have had some knowledge that the US had or was going to have nuclear bombs, they had intelligence, and were working on their own atomic program, which they would no doubt have used had they got there first. You're painting Japan as some poor peaceful proud nation that got mixed up in the war, when in reality it was a Japanese war of aggression and they were every bit as brutal as the Nazis, see the rape on Nanking for example.

If Japan wanted peace, they had the opportunity to surrender. An Allied invasion would have lead to far more deaths on both sides.

The Emperor was the human personification of the Japanese nation.If the Emperor ceased to exist ,so would Japan. It was not necessary for America to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, they were already on their knees militarily.


President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, in a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson

"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."



Admiral William Halsey, commander of the U.S. Third Fleet,

"the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the
bomb was used.



Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.




General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific,

"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender"

gizmo

sxt wrote: »

The Emperor was the human personification of the Japanese nation.If the Emperor ceased to exist ,so would Japan. It was not necessary for America to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, they were already on their knees militarily.

You keep saying this yet why was there a coup against him by some of his most senior officials in the military?

Claiming the Japanese were were about to surrender is all well and good but it would still have taken an invasion force in which there would have been huge casualties and destruction of the country. Also remember that even after the dropping of the bombs there was still elements within the military that didn't want to surrender.

Of the quotes, however, I certainly agree with Eisenhower. It was a pity it had to be used, but I don't think that after 6 years of bloodshed across the globe, the Allies had much choice.

tim_holsters

Overheal wrote: »

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

You think having your country invaded by a foreign power isn't terrifying?

gizmo

tim_holsters wrote: »

You think having your country invaded by a foreign power isn't terrifying?

As opposed to life under Saddam Hussein?

tim_holsters

gizmo wrote: »

As opposed to life under Saddam Hussein?

Yes. You'll find that having your family members alive might go some way to make up for the hardship of living under his grisly regime.

philologos

tim_holsters wrote: »

You think having your country invaded by a foreign power isn't terrifying?

I wouldn't consider the Iraq & Afghanistan wars as being operations with the explicit intention of terrorising a population. Irrespective of whether or not you agree there is other motives behind those wars. I.E - To weaken the Taliban, to weaken insurgent movements within those countries, overthrow governments, and to lessen the influence of dictators.

Whereas if I am to look at an act like 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali and so on. The key and primary purpose of these acts is to instil fear into people.

In the case of the former, civilian deaths are regrettable. In the case of the latter, civilian deaths are desirable. That's the difference as I see it.

This is from someone who isn't entirely convinced that the War on Terror has been a good thing overall.

tim_holsters

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't consider the Iraq & Afghanistan wars as being operations with the explicit intention of terrorising a population. Irrespective of whether or not you agree there is other motives behind those wars. I.E - To weaken the Taliban, to weaken insurgent movements within those countries, overthrow governments, and to lessen the influence of dictators.

Whereas if I am to look at an act like 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali and so on. The key and primary purpose of these acts is to instil fear into people.

In the case of the former, civilian deaths are regrettable. In the case of the latter, civilian deaths are desirable. That's the difference as I see it.

This is from someone who isn't entirely convinced that the War on Terror has been a good thing overall.

Whether it's the explicit intention or not terror is terror. You're point is a good one mind.

I do wish you wouldn't use the phrase "War on Terror" though it's just silly.

philologos

tim_holsters wrote: »

Whether it's the explicit intention or not terror is terror. You're point is a good one mind.

I do wish you wouldn't use the phrase "War on Terror" though it's just silly.

I'll use whatever terms I like!

I think it's a valid distinction given the previous definitions of terror given. I don't think one could seriously say that terrorism is the result of terrifying. Numerous things terrify which we wouldn't call terrorism. Just because people feel terrified, doesn't necessarily mean that it is terrorism.

Terrorism would be the intentional act of invoking terror by violence as I would see it.

Indeed, this nugget of information is quite important when we are discussing "definitions" of terrorism:

At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism

It is a contested notion.

jackiebaron

gizmo wrote: »

If this was true then the Kyūjō Incident would never have taken place.


Tough ****ing **** on them then, they shouldn't have entered into the war which they themselves precipitated in the Pacific and which claimed the lives of millions of people, both military and civilian.

You'd never make a good diplomat or union leader. Football hooligan maybe.

jackiebaron

gizmo wrote: »

As opposed to life under Saddam Hussein?

How the hell can you say that the fear of being blown to pieces every minute of everyday, the misery of having lost several family members, multiple friends, having had your children burnt or their limbs amputated or their bodies raped, having no job anymore and 4 hours electricity a day and no clean drinking water and no sewage system be better than living in peace under Saddam Hussein? Sure you had to keep your mouth shut under Hussein but you could come home from work in peace to a happy healthy educated family. You could go out then in the evening and stroll the river banks and meat friends in the square and drink tea with being runover by some thick redneck in a humvee or being shot to mincemeat by some moron in an Apache gunship because he was bored and wanted to light up a few rag-heads.

Yeah life was a real apocalypse under Hussein!!
Even with the horrors of the Iraq/Iran War of the 1980s and the murderous sanctions imposed on the country in the 90's where women couldn't even get Nivea or Immac and kids couldn't even get pencils they were still happier and healthier and a thousand times better off than they are today.

Get a grip, man!

jackiebaron

Why do we use the cliched "9/11" to refer to the attacks on New York and Washington anyway?

Why don't we use 9/11 to refer to the CIA's assassination of Salvadore Allende?
Why don't we use 12/7 to refer to the attack on Pearl Harbour?
...or 9/1 to refer to the Nazi invasion of Poland and the start of WW2?

...or 8/6 to refer to the attacks on Hiroshima in 1945 that killed probably fifty times more than the attacks on NY?

tim_holsters

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll use whatever terms I like!

I think it's a valid distinction given the previous definitions of terror given. I don't think one could seriously say that terrorism is the result of terrifying. Numerous things terrify which we wouldn't call terrorism. Just because people feel terrified, doesn't necessarily mean that it is terrorism.

Terrorism would be the intentional act of invoking terror by violence as I would see it.

Indeed, this nugget of information is quite important when we are discussing "definitions" of terrorism:


It is a contested notion.

What get's my goat about the phrase "WOT" is that whilst the USA is pursuing and engaging in it's WOT it's also causing "terror" even if in some cases this may be unintentional it's still happening nonetheless.

So it makes the whole "WOT" phrase stupid and contradictory. It just sounds dumb.

philologos

tim_holsters wrote: »

What get's my goat about the phrase "WOT" is that whilst the USA is pursuing and engaging in it's WOT it's also causing "terror" even if in some cases this may be unintentional it's still happening nonetheless.

So it makes the whole "WOT" phrase stupid and contradictory. It just sounds dumb.

Let it get your goat then (I'm sure you can find plenty more!) :pac:

I don't think everything that causes fear would suffice the definition of terrorism. The intention is really the key between what we call terrorism or not.

As I said already, in wars, generally nations would regret the loss of civilians. In terrorist situations, generally they would laud the loss of civilians and consider it one step towards furthering ones cause. That is unless they plan to use them as bargaining chips. The intention of the latter is to induce fear by violence, the intention of the former actually isn't.

jackiebaron

tim_holsters wrote: »

What get's my goat about the phrase "WOT" is that whilst the USA is pursuing and engaging in it's WOT it's also causing "terror" even if in some cases this may be unintentional it's still happening nonetheless.

So it makes the whole "WOT" phrase stupid and contradictory. It just sounds dumb.

They should call it The War Against Terror (TWAT).

gizmo

jackiebaron wrote: »

You'd never make a good diplomat or union leader. Football hooligan maybe.

Charming, throw in an insult when I disagree with you. :rolleyes:

If you can get over your blind hatred for the US, then perhaps you'll take the time to read about the Japanese War crimes which they committed, then tell me they deserved to be able to surrender under terms which they felt appropriate from a war which they started.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Yeah life was a real apocalypse under Hussein!!
Even with the horrors of the Iraq/Iran War of the 1980s and the murderous sanctions imposed on the country in the 90's where women couldn't even get Nivea or Immac and kids couldn't even get pencils they were still happier and healthier and a thousand times better off than they are today.

Having listened to the testimonies and stories of actual Iraqi people who escaped from under Hussein's rules as well as the reactions of those citizens who not only welcome the Coalition's troops arrival but also celebrated Hussein's downfall, I'd tend to disagree. The occupation after the liberation is a different story of course, however the initial move to depose him is one which I completely support.