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

jackiebaron

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

To remove a prick, the oil is a bonus Good job lads! Jolly good Hopefully, North Korea is next

Ah...I wondered when the true Beavis & Butthead would surface from behind this clown's locker-room bravado.

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

Rest all would remain the same.

Doubtful. Soviet Russia denied key civil liberties to its citizens, and tortured and killed many for disagreeing with the State within its own boundaries. I'd be wholly doubtful that we would be better off now in numerous respects.

af_thefragile wrote: »

America became the superpower only after the WW2. Things weren't really any different before that. Infact many countries were better off as they weren't in serious debt slaving away for Nike, Tommy Hilfiger and all those brands.

It's not about things being different before that, its about whether America through its influence in the world has counteracted some of the more sinister elements of other regimes. I'd have to say that without a doubt they have, even if the US has a questionable foreign policy of its own.

karma_

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Take your pic from several mid-east and African nations


Some fought in the name of communism in Spain, I'll give you that. But what about ww2?
What about after the war? If America withdrew its protection of Europe, theres a good chance Stalin would have took control of the rest of the continent and imposed a Soviet style dictatorship on us

Yes, there were communists there too, however it was the Socialists who were the main driving force in that conflict and stood apart from the communists, especially when the communists turned on them.

During WW2 the Socialists again fought alongside the allied forces.

Also, yes the US did protect Europe, or rather parts of it from the Soviets after the war ended. It was your stance that the Left did nothing during that period and that is blatantly wrong.

karma_

Sykes wrote: »

Did Karma_ really suggest that the left wing fought against Franco? did he really try and make out that the 'guardians of human rights' fought Franco on the basis of left wing ideals to free Spain of oppression purely on humanitarian grounds?

Oh dear, another deluded lefty to add to the list.

The Communists financed by the Soviets were fighting the civil war to install a communist state and expand the Soviet's influence.

Now there's a surprise, you're as ignorant as you are bigoted.

jackiebaron

yank_in_eire wrote: »

HA! What a bunch of pussies. You're all speaking English instead of German or Japanese because the US manned up and "got 'er done". Go USA!

\

Actually Russia did the heavy lifting. You milkshake slurping dummies joined the scrap in the dying seconds of the 12th round. The war had been all but won before you berks landed at Normandy (where only 1 in 10 of whom fired their weapons....the other 9 out of 10 froze).

Oh and I speak English AND German AND French AND Mandarin anyway.

af_thefragile

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about things being different before that, its about whether America through its influence in the world has counteracted some of the more sinister elements of other regimes. I'd have to say that without a doubt they have, even if the US has a questionable foreign policy of its own.

I doubt america has done anything to the world other than giving fast food, Hollywood and MTV and of course wars...

It only goes around terrorising nations which don't follow onto its policies and interests. In many places it helped replaced good rulers with terrible dictators (Chile: Pinochet, Indonesia: Suharto, Iraq: Saddam Hussein, Afganistan: Osama bin Laden).

I think people keep missing out on the fundamental question of why are these people becoming terrorists? And if you start digging into the reason as to why all this is happening, you'll either trace it back to the British colonialism (Palestine + Kashmir) or American foreign policy (everywhere else!).

Leave Cuba, Venzuela and Iran alone, they won't do any harm to anyone else.
Solve Kashmir problem (by doing what the people want for their country) and that'll solve India-Pakistan problems.
Give back Palestinians their lands and that'll solve most of the Islamic terrorism problems.

Yet we like to go on saying: "They are bad and we're good" or "they hate the west because of our freedom" or easier "the problem lies within Islam (or for liberal atheists, problem is with religion)" and other such crap filled rhetoric without ever speaking about the root of the problem. What has caused them to become terrorists? Most of these people are rational sensible men yet how can they end up doing such things?? We need to try to listen and understand the other side sometimes.

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

\

Actually Russia did the heavy lifting. You milkshake slurping dummies joined the scrap in the dying seconds of the 12th round. The war had been all but won before you berks landed at Normandy (where only 1 in 10 of whom fired their weapons....the other 9 out of 10 froze).

Oh and I speak English AND German AND French AND Mandarin anyway.

Actually they joined in 1941, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance

Sykes

The Aussie wrote: »

You lost me with your Arsenal Team sledge (came across as quite lame actually), but i do agree 100% with the projecting past history onto current problems.

Sorry mate, in England we have this thing called 'football'. Arsenal are one of the teams in the league. They're quite soft and delicate.

Like the langer who tried the citizens arrest on Tony Blair for war crimes, would she do the same with Khaled Mash'al the Hamas leader.

Well obviously the double standards and hypocrisy with the anti-Israel mob is legendary. It's hard to fathom how the left wing shills in Europe who operate under the guise of 'human rights' and see themselves as the guardians of humanity - aim their vitriol at a country with a PR democracy, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom for women, and ironically, freedom for unions to operate - yet don't give a hoot about gays being executed, women being stoned, religious minorities being persecuted etc. It's what makes the left wing one of the most morally bankrupt ideologies humanity has ever spawned.

The Irish angle is different though. They don't operate out of left wing ideals. There's a few different groups of lunatics. There's the ardent Catholics who still harp on about their hippy carpenter being killed by Jews apparently. Then there's the republican mob who've we've already discussed. I'm sure there are some small groups of lefties in amongst them who have no connection to republicanism or Catholicism, but the majority are religious bigots and nationalists.

speedboatchase

af_thefragile wrote: »

I think people keep missing out on the fundamental question of why are these people becoming terrorists? And if you start digging into the reason as to why all this is happening, you'll either trace it back to the British colonialism (Palestine + Kashmir) or American foreign policy (everywhere else!).

So what about Saudi Arabia? After all, they had 15 of the 19 hijackers. If anything, they should be thankful to America since SOCAL found their oil?

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

I doubt america has done anything to the world other than giving fast food, Hollywood and MTV and of course wars...

Then one is being naiive at best, about what exactly the nature of Soviet Russia, or other communist regimes in the world were like prior to their collapse.

af_thefragile wrote: »

It only goes around terrorising nations which don't follow onto its policies and interests. In many places it helped replaced good rulers with terrible dictators (Chile: Pinochet, Indonesia: Suharto, Iraq: Saddam Hussein, Afganistan: Osama bin Laden)

Nobody is saying that the US is a perfect country. However the US is a whole lot better than a lot of other countries. That's the point. It's the reason why the thread title is disingenuous.

Personally I would argue that in comparison to a lot of other countries, the US has stood on the side of what is right more than on the side of what is wrong.

There are numerous countries more extreme, more brutal, and more damaging to the cause of human rights than the US has ever been in the world. People don't seem too interested in demanding that Iran and Saudi Arabia do away with their human rights abuses. Why is that?

af_thefragile wrote: »

I think people keep missing out on the fundamental question of why are these people becoming terrorists? And if you start digging into the reason as to why all this is happening, you'll either trace it back to the British colonialism (Palestine + Kashmir) or American foreign policy (everywhere else!).

If you're suggesting that British colonialism caused Palestinians to become terrorists, then one needs to review the history of the region from roughly 1860 to 1948. Under the early British mandate, Palestinians and Jews got on well in the region often working together on the Jaffa orange groves for example. It is only when mass immigration of Jews to the region occur that hostilities, including many pogroms against Jewish people in settlements began that the conflict began to arise. In response groups such as the Haganah, Irgun, and the Shern gang on the Jewish side started terrorising Palestinians, and other Arabs living in the region.

I know very little about Kashmir, but to say the least your assessment on the origins of the Israel - Palestine conflict is wrong.

af_thefragile

speedboatchase wrote: »

So what about Saudi Arabia? After all, they had 15 of the 19 hijackers. If anything, they should be thankful to America since SOCAL found their oil?

Saudi has been one of the closest ally to america ever since they found oil. There is billions dollars worth of Saudi oil money in american banks running their businesses. Even americans won't consider Saudi Arabia to be a threat.
And it is only because of the American backing that Saudi Arabia can continue to maintain its monarchy which has many aspects to it which aren't Islamic at all (beating women, no freedom of speech etc.).

Just because most of the hijackers were Saudi doesn't say anything about Saudi Arabia. They were Al-Qaeda members which is a completely separate entity.

karma_

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Actually they joined in 1941, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance

They certainly did, however it is true to say the USSR did the vast majority of the fighting against Germany, to say otherwise is incorrect.

jackiebaron

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Actually they joined in 1941, but don't let that get in the way of your ignorance

We're talking about the European Theatre here as this clown was stating that we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for Private Ryan. Sure there were a few grunts slogging it out in North Africa during Rommel and Montgomery's campaign but these forces were by no means a pivotal contingent.
As for the Pacific Theatre the Americans seem to forget that their campaign there would have had considerably greater difficulty were it not for the vast contributions of British, Commonwealth and local armies and militias such as in Burma, Indochina, China proper, Malaya, etc.

Jeboa Safari

karma_ wrote: »

They certainly did, however it is true to say the USSR did the vast majority of the fighting against Germany, to say otherwise is incorrect.

Don't believe I said otherwise. To downplay Americas impact in the war so much as to say compare it to joining in the dying seconds of the 12th round of a fight already won is also incorrect

jackiebaron

Sykes wrote: »

Umm, beating women is Islamic and appears in text. There's advice about how to hit the woman in the Hadiths I believe.

Apparently you can hit her without leaving marks.

Proof? Source? Evidence?

af_thefragile

Jakkass wrote: »

Then one is being naiive at best, about what exactly the nature of Soviet Russia, or other communist regimes in the world were like prior to their collapse.

Sure communism was bound to collapse at some point but america had its share of problems during that period as well. If you look at the amount of racism against black people there was. America was better off than Russia because of capitalism but my point is America has done nothing to make the world a better place. If Russia would have won the Cold War, probably over time after the collapse of communism, which was inevitable, they might have gained sense and become more capitalist like they are today. America only chases its own interests. It consumes the most amount of resources of the planet and pollutes the most. Oh and did I mention the wars?...

Nobody is saying that the US is a perfect country. However the US is a whole lot better than a lot of other countries. That's the point. It's the reason why the thread title is disingenuous.

Personally I would argue that in comparison to a lot of other countries, the US has stood on the side of what is right more than on the side of what is wrong.

There are numerous countries more extreme, more brutal, and more damaging to the cause of human rights than the US has ever been in the world. People don't seem too interested in demanding that Iran and Saudi Arabia do away with their human rights abuses. Why is that?

Yes USA is more "democratic" than many regimes in the Middle East but you can't ignore the fact USA supports many of these regimes and they only exist because of the American support they have.

And if you like America's developed infrastructure, that's because America uses up most resources of the planet and exploits third world countries the most.

US has only stood at the side of its interests. It supports dictators as long as they benefit them and once their work is done, it becomes the "nice guy" by removing the oppressor. There are a lot of tribal warfare going on in Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia and many other African countries. Why don't I see America doing anything to help the people there? Is it because there is no oil in Africa??

America seems to only have problem with countries that have lots of natural resources. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Pakistan... Hmm...

We in the west have a very different view of America than the rest of the world. And sometimes its necessary to listen to what the rest of the world is trying to say.

If you're suggesting that British colonialism caused Palestinians to become terrorists, then one needs to review the history of the region from roughly 1860 to 1948. Under the early British mandate, Palestinians and Jews got on well in the region often working together on the Jaffa orange groves for example. It is only when mass immigration of Jews to the region occur that hostilities, including many pogroms against Jewish people in settlements began that the conflict began to arise. In response groups such as the Haganah, Irgun, and the Shern gang on the Jewish side started terrorising Palestinians, and other Arabs living in the region.

I know very little about Kashmir, but to say the least your assessment on the origins of the Israel - Palestine conflict is wrong.

There was no need to allow such amounts of Jews to enter such a small bit of land. They didn't just enter the land but instead shoved out the Palestenians, destroying their homes and making their lives miserable. They could have given them any piece of land in America, most of it is empty and Jews have been in America for a long time so they'ld be much happier there themselves. Why that very land?!

Kashmir is a result of British Colonialism. It promised pakistan it'll let them have Kashmir and then never followed on its promise. The Ruler of Kashmir was Hindu but Kashmir was 80% muslim. The Ruler fled Kashmir after the muslims revolted to make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. The ruler being Hindu preferred India and so with India's help and the absence of any action by the British, Kashmir is still a part of India and the violence goes on...

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

We're talking about the European Theatre here as this clown was stating that we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for Private Ryan. Sure there were a few grunts slogging it out in North Africa during Rommel and Montgomery's campaign but these forces were by no means a pivotal contingent.
As for the Pacific Theatre the Americans seem to forget that their campaign there would have had considerably greater difficulty were it not for the vast contributions of British, Commonwealth and local armies and militias such as in Burma, Indochina, China proper, Malaya, etc.

Might have been a stupid comment, but your comparison to joining in the dying seconds of a fight is equally stupid.
Could also be living in a Soviet dominated Europe if not for US aswell

af_thefragile

Sykes wrote: »

Umm, beating women is Islamic and appears in text. There's advice about how to hit the woman in the Hadiths I believe.

Apparently you can hit her without leaving marks.

NO it doesn't.

Its only in one Hadith which is a blatant misinterpretation of its meaning.

Go ask any Islamic scholar.

Also how do you hit someone without leaving a mark?
Can you explain that??

20goto10

God bless the United States of Ameri-caw!!

thebaz

it is the extreme right wing Republicans that are the problem - Sarah Pallin and her feckin Tea Party - but Obama and the Democrats are just that - democrats - it amazes me how the Republicans poll so highly , I know the Bush administration tinkered with the polls - strangely eneogh very little public outcry

jackiebaron

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Don't believe I said otherwise. To downplay Americas impact in the war so much as to say compare it to joining in the dying seconds of the 12th round of a fight already won is also incorrect

Ah, I see. So to make a wildly presumptuous, flippant and childish remark about how if it wasn't for the Americans we'd all be speaking German, is alright,...but to reply with a counter-statement, that you find be an understatement of their efforts, is just not cricket, eh?

Sykes

af_thefragile wrote: »

NO it doesn't.

Its only in one Hadith which is a blatant misinterpretation of its meaning.

Go ask any Islamic scholar.

Also how do you hit someone without leaving a mark?
Can you explain that??

So I said it was in the Hadiths, you then bluntly stated it isn't, followed by an admission that it is?

My, my - seems I know more about your religion than you do.

Go swat up pal, then come back to me.

20goto10

Ireland sent troops to Lebanon, Cyprus, Chad to name but a few. What business was it of ours? None. Does that make us terrorists? Are you only considered a terrorist nation if your army is really good at killing? Do we escape the accusations just because we're small and so **** that we have to resort to "having the Craic" with the enemy because to engage the enemy would mean certain death.

Sykes

=af_thefragile;67935596


There was no need to allow such amounts of Jews to enter such a small bit of land. They didn't just enter the land but instead shoved out the Palestenians, destroying their homes and making their lives miserable. They could have given them any piece of land in America, most of it is empty and Jews have been in America for a long time so they'ld be much happier there themselves. Why that very land?!

Educated at the Hamas academy, eh?

Even coming from an Islamist, this is mind-bogglingly stupid and a bastardisation of fact, reality and history .

af_thefragile

^Were you educated at a right wing Evangelical school?
That is the very reason of all the troubles in the Middle East. I think sometimes you need to wonder if could had been prevented.

Sykes wrote: »

So I said it was in the Hadiths, you then bluntly stated it isn't, followed by an admission that it is?

My, my - seems I know more about your religion than you do.

Go swat up pal, then come back to me.

Its a Hadith that says you could tap her with a toothbrush stick in only a very extreme situation.
That does not equal beating.

I think you need to check your sources mate. I don't think FOX news and the Sun are that credible...

Sykes

20goto10 wrote: »

Ireland sent troops to Lebanon, Cyprus, Chad to name but a few. What business was it of ours? None. Does that make us terrorists? Are you only considered a terrorist nation if your army is really good at killing? Do we escape the accusations just because we're small and so **** that we have to resort to "having the Craic" with the enemy because to engage the enemy would mean certain death.

Why Israel allowed an enemy state to provide troops, I don't know.

There were many incidents of UNIFIL troops on the border "not seeing" i.e turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's activity.

Given the previous relationships that the IRA had with Hezbollah and the general Irish attitude to Jews and Israel - I was really scratching my head over that decision.

The Aussie

20goto10 wrote: »

Ireland sent troops to Lebanon, Cyprus, Chad to name but a few. What business was it of ours? None. Does that make us terrorists? Are you only considered a terrorist nation if your army is really good at killing? Do we escape the accusations just because we're small and so **** that we have to resort to "having the Craic" with the enemy because to engage the enemy would mean certain death.

I read somewhere, and a rough quote is "the only difference in between a peace keeping force and an occupying Force is if its your army they are Peace keepers if its your land they are the occupying force"

dr.bollocko

OK folks this thread has somewhat lost its way. I have now banned the troll Sykes and some posters who, unfortunately, fed him. In future I would remind you that the report post feature allows us to act to remove such posters and upsetting posts.
Now we're re-opening this one however the previous personal abuse and hot-headedness stops from here on out. Lets try and keep on topic.

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

Sure communism was bound to collapse at some point but america had its share of problems during that period as well. If you look at the amount of racism against black people there was. America was better off than Russia because of capitalism but my point is America has done nothing to make the world a better place. If Russia would have won the Cold War, probably over time after the collapse of communism, which was inevitable, they might have gained sense and become more capitalist like they are today. America only chases its own interests. It consumes the most amount of resources of the planet and pollutes the most. Oh and did I mention the wars?...

Nobody is denying that America like any other country had problems. That isn't the point of what I am posting. Nor am I making a defence against racism in the slightest. Rather what I am saying is that America by and large has had a much more positive influence on the world than negative, even if it has screwed up as a state in the past.

By the by, I'd have to say that without American influence brutal communist regimes would have never fallen at the same rate that they did.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Yes USA is more "democratic" than many regimes in the Middle East but you can't ignore the fact USA supports many of these regimes and they only exist because of the American support they have.

There we go. QED. America is not the most extreme terrorist State.

Personally, I wholly disagree with the American support of Saudi Arabia, but I guess right now if the US stopped supporting Saudi Arabia it would have more devastating impacts than good. Perhaps the US should be using it's influence with the Saudi government to influence its policies away from being a totalitarian Islamic regime.

Iran is an entirely different kettle of fish.

af_thefragile wrote: »

And if you like America's developed infrastructure, that's because America uses up most resources of the planet and exploits third world countries the most.

America's infrastructure has little or no impact except of course in respect to the Internet.

af_thefragile wrote: »

US has only stood at the side of its interests. It supports dictators as long as they benefit them and once their work is done, it becomes the "nice guy" by removing the oppressor. There are a lot of tribal warfare going on in Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia and many other African countries. Why don't I see America doing anything to help the people there? Is it because there is no oil in Africa??

Would you really support the US participating in war in Africa or are you just saying this a rhetorical piece. By the by, the US has as far as I know assisted in placing sanctions on Sudan even under the Bush Administration, and indeed the US as far as I know did go to war in Somalia. That is if you are complaining that the US hasn't been an equal opportunity war-monger.

af_thefragile wrote: »

America seems to only have problem with countries that have lots of natural resources. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Pakistan... Hmm...

North Korea? Oh wait...

On that note though, Pakistan at present like Afghanistan is a trouble area due to the huge influence of the Taliban. Iraq was a repressive regime.

As for whether or not the US should have gone into either country, that is a totally different debate. Coming up with faux ulterior motives doesn't really help though.

af_thefragile wrote: »

We in the west have a very different view of America than the rest of the world. And sometimes its necessary to listen to what the rest of the world is trying to say.

Admittedly. I'd rather be influenced by America than by Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea for example.

af_thefragile wrote: »

There was no need to allow such amounts of Jews to enter such a small bit of land. They didn't just enter the land but instead shoved out the Palestenians, destroying their homes and making their lives miserable. They could have given them any piece of land in America, most of it is empty and Jews have been in America for a long time so they'ld be much happier there themselves. Why that very land?!

Apart from the fact that the Jews were despised and hated all over Europe, and more likely than not pretty much anywhere else.

As for why that land. You know why that land had an attachment to the Jewish people.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Kashmir is a result of British Colonialism. It promised pakistan it'll let them have Kashmir and then never followed on its promise. The Ruler of Kashmir was Hindu but Kashmir was 80% muslim. The Ruler fled Kashmir after the muslims revolted to make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. The ruler being Hindu preferred India and so with India's help and the absence of any action by the British, Kashmir is still a part of India and the violence goes on...

There is both Pakistani Kashmir, and Indian Kashmir for as much as I know. As India, isn't defacto a Hindu state, it shouldn't be that difficult for a majority Islamic area to come under Indian rule. There are nearly 140mn Muslims in India, it's hardly that radical an idea.

2nd attempt to post! :rolleyes:
Ignoring the religious bollocks...
The USA will do anything to preserve "The American way of life", if any country attempts to withold resources (eg oil) that the USA needs, then they are at risk of being invaded to preserve those resources.