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

Jeboa Safari

IvySlayer wrote: »

I'm not here to argue who's worse. I'm just pointing out to the Americans who watch Hollywood films and think they swooped in to save us from the Nazis, when Russia actually crushed the Germans.

And American power stopped the Russians from crushing us and the rest of Europe

arybvtcw0eolkf

Rothmans wrote: »

I've been told by far left nutjobs that even peacekeepers who go to countries in turmoil (not talking about Somalia in particular) are invading these countries and supporting imperialism. I'm talking about Irish soldiers on peace-keeping missions in Chad

Just a small correction.

Chad was a 'peace enforcement' mission, completely different mandate and rules of engagement.

UNIFIL (Lebanon) is now a 'peace enforcement' mission. Relation's with Hezbollah have been strained since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, who (Hezbollah) considered our continued involment in Lebanon as 'unwelcomed'.

sock puppet

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

A non-agression pact does not normally also entail the mutual invasion and agreed carving up of another country. The Soviets were more co-ordinated members of the Axis than Japan, who never helped the Germans open up two fronts ( by attacking Russia from the East, for instance), as Russia did with Poland.

Germany and it's Soviet Allies attacked Poland at the same time ( no British war declared on the Soviets, note). And the Soviet Union aided the Germans with equipment until the Germans invaded.

What absolute bollocks. You said they were allies. Collaberation and relatively good relations doesn't make two countries allies. Now you're claiming they were members of the Axis which is also totally incorrect. In fact the Axis didn't even exist in 1939. Russia and Germany held talks on Russia entering the Axis in 1940 but nothing came of them.

Owwmykneecap

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, even if the US is regarded as belligerent, if one looks at it as a nation, arguably it goes further in respect to civil liberties than other similar nations.

like the patriot act?

Rabble Rabble

sock puppet wrote: »

What absolute bollocks. You said they were allies. Collaberation and relatively good relations doesn't make two countries allies. Now you're claiming they were members of the Axis which is also totally incorrect. In fact the Axis didn't even exist in 1939. Russia and Germany held talks on Russia entering the Axis in 1940 but nothing came of them.

God Almighty. They invaded Poland with the Germans. The Germans invaded from the West, the Russians from the East. This is clear collusion in war, it is a clearly allied force, there were clearly then secret ( now very open) agreements in place to start that war, together, and at the same time.

From Wikipedia:

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded their respective sides of Poland, dividing the country between them. Part of eastern Finland was annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia.

The very fact that there were talks on Russia joining the Axis pretty much proves my point, that would have ben a mere formality at that stage. They were effectively allied to the Nazi's at the start of WWII.

And the Russians were invaded and fought back. Good for them. They the took over half of Europe, and would have had it all were it not for America's involvement. My major point.

ejmaztec

IvySlayer wrote: »

Er no, I thank Russia.

I thank the Russians for not coming further west in 1945.:eek:

sock puppet

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

God Almighty. They invaded Poland with the Germans. The Germans invaded from the West, the Russians from the West. This is clear collusion in war, it is a clearly allied force, there were clearly then secret ( now very open) agreements in place to start that war, together, and at the same time.

From Wikipedia:

How on earth does collusion make them allies though? At the time they had mutual aims, so some kind of arrangement made perfect sense. Neither country would have went out of their way to help one another.

The very fact that there were talks on Russia joining the Axis pretty much proves my point, that would have ben a mere formality at that stage. They were effectively allied to the Nazi's at the start of WWII.

So the fact that the Axis didn't exist in 1939 proves your point that in 1939 the Soviet Union was part of the Axis? It wouldn't have been a mere formality by any means either. By 1940 relations were pretty bad between the two countries. Both countries also had interests in the Balkans which would have been an obstacle to any agreement.

NTMK

sock puppet wrote: »

What a ridiculous argument. Al Qaeda are fighting against the Pakistani government while they were supported by the Afghan government. Can you really not see the distinction?

The US didn't just invade Afghanistan either. They gave the Taliban the chance to give up the heads of Al Qaeda which the Taliban refused.

Granted it was ridiculous argument. it was typed in the heat of things

its just the 2 wars will be viewed as pointless as the americans wont liberate either country (I hope im Wrong) and wont find Bin laden as it been 7 years and the still havent found him. Their reasons for war in iraq are far from honest as the UN Never found a sniff of a WMD

EDIT: and as for afghanistan they will never crush al qaeda as they are too big of an organisation

sock puppet

NTMK wrote: »

Granted it was ridiculous argument. it was typed in the heat of things

its just the 2 wars will be viewed as pointless as the americans wont liberate either country (I hope im Wrong) and wont find Bin laden as it been 7 years and the still havent found him. Their reasons for war in iraq are far from honest as the UN Never found a sniff of a WMD

EDIT: and as for afghanistan they will never crush al qaeda as they are too big of an organisation

You're probably right. I just don't like the way people lump the Iraq and Afghanistan wars together. If Afghanistan had been handled better after being "liberated" the US might have seen greater success there though. The Iraq war definitely wasn't right imo.

nacho libre

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The US supported Dictators, sometimes naievly, because the Soviet Union and China supported other Dictators. Worse Dictators in most cases. And were, themselves, run by dictators.

)

in many instances America put these dictators in power and sustained them despite there appalling crimes. the idea that America naively supported dictators, and they were less vile, is a load of cobblers.

the fact is former US governments have been responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world.

Manic Moran

It makes it legal. If it is not made legal then it is illegal. If it is illegal then it is terrorist action

I hate to bring up 'Civics 101', but in the average free society, anything is legal unless there is a law prohibiting it. Not that everything is illegal until something is done saying it's legal.

The U.S.A killied one million ( 1,000,000 iragi civilian.)

I'm not sure the US has that many bombs.

They destroyed the the entire infrastruture of Iraq.

If anyone did that, the UN did after the decade of sanctions. The Iraqi infrastucture after 2003 has been improving.

Yep. So were the Afghan and Iraqi people when they were attacked. These people were labelled "Insurgents" by the Western media. I'd call them patriots

The two terms are not mutually exclusive, as your immediately subsequent sentence confirms.

They just want the oil to fuel their 4 litre engine cars.

Hey! My Chevy's only a 3.8. Granted, the Audi's a 4.2. There are probably more efficient ways of getting oil.

Surely seeing as the USA are involved in a War on Terrorism, the Geneva Convention should apply to their prisoners of war?

That's one of the problems currently extant. The US believes that the G.C. applies. However, the G.C. has a list of requirements that combatants need to follow in order to obtain the protection of the G.C. Many of the combatants are not following those requirements. They're in a state of legal limbo, not really conventional criminals, and not lawful combatants either. In the old days such as WWII, they'd just be shot. Though this situation has been blatantly obvious for several years, there has been a lack of movement by any country or countries in creating any form of treaty of conduct to cover the treatment of personnel captured in these circumstances.

Shock and awe. Designed to instil fear into the Iraqi people.

The general difference is with the choice of target. I believe the shock and awe campaign pretty much exclusively targetted government facilities, not the population at large. The psychological effect has been a tool of the battlefield since day 1. Any commander is an idiot not to use it.

NTM

The Highwayman

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

Ahem ..... State Terrorism?

The Highwayman

Dravokivich wrote: »

There were links that Al'Quida were being harboured in Iraq.

Iraq... were harbouring Al'quida...

Man your so wrong its not funny!

I suggest you know something about the subject before you spout out rubbish like that.

Killer Wench

If terrorism is defined as the threats and acts of violence to coerce or intimidate people, does that mean that those of you who believe that the USA is a terrorist state will no longer come here for your vacations, study abroad years, or employment?

The Highwayman

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

The CIA didn't just pick up a load of random people on the street, cop the f*** on imo if you think that.... there was intelligence on these guys being members of cells... now get back in your Anti-Everything hippy tent....

Would this be the same intelligence that told us about WMD's and al'qaeda in Iraq?

But hey the CIA dont need any proof to pull you off the street illegally transport(rendition) you anywhere in the world and throw your ass in the darkest hole in some third world puppet governments hell of a prison. With no charge or even telling your family where you are, is this the new ' peace, justice and the american way'?

The Highwayman

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

Go back three decades, when Russia was in Afghanistan...

Is this when america trained and funded Osama bin Laden?

The Highwayman

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

Its better than the previous regime under Sadam tbh, he threathened the stability of the region 100 fold, the guy was a lunatic like Stalin and killed thousands of his own people and gased countless more Iranians etc...

This must have been after Donald Rumsfeld went to meet Sadam and wish him all the best with the war with Iran?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaP7ZrmkcuU

davrho

Killer Wench wrote: »

If terrorism is defined as the threats and acts of violence to coerce or intimidate people, does that mean that those of you who believe that the USA is a terrorist state will no longer come here for your vacations, study abroad years, or employment?

Would you go on holiday, study or find work in a state that is deemed terrorist?

Please give your opinion before you ask ours?

Killer Wench

davrho wrote: »

Would you go on holiday, study or find work in a state that is deemed terrorist?

Please give your opinion before you ask ours?

I believe your opinions were solicited in the first post; I sought to determine just how strongly these opinions shaped a poster's willingness to disengage from the cultural and economical aspects of the US.

Since you are curious about how I would stand, I should state that my goal is to either serve in the State department or to seek a commission in the US military so the probability of me working in what is considered a terrorist state - by American standards - is pretty high. Would I vacation in such a place? No. Why? Because I am an American woman. Would I study there? Only through governmental assignment or through a university study but certainly not as a cultural exchange student.

davrho

The Highwayman wrote: »

Would this be the same intelligence that told us about WMD's and al'qaeda in Iraq?

But hey the CIA dont need any proof to pull you off the street illegally transport(rendition) you anywhere in the world and throw your ass in the darkest hole in some third world puppet governments hell of a prison. With no charge or even telling your family where you are, is this the new ' peace, justice and the american way'?

Exactly!

Could be worse, we all could have been speaking German.............

Clawdeeus

davrho wrote: »

Exactly!

Could be worse, we all could have been speaking German.............

Actually, its much more likely that rather than the 60 years of unprecedented economic and techological growth in Western Europe, we would have been under the disastrous Soviet system

davrho

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Actually, its much more likely that rather than the 60 years of unprecedented economic and techological growth in Western Europe, we would have been under the disastrous Soviet system

I agree with this but i would say 90% of the posts on this board are complaints about how the system has let them down, i want to emigrate, what has Ireland done for us etc.......

Many here think the western way has been disastrous too?

I know loads spout pish but you have to agree from where i come from here?

Speaking German was a tongue in cheek response to another post here

bobblepuzzle

The Highwayman wrote: »

Is this when america trained and funded Osama bin Laden?

We see this argument all the time, but you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the States and Russia were involved in the COLD WAR at the time, and both were sponsoring various groups around the world to push each others aims and ideologies.

Osama was an even bigger **** for turning his back on those that supported, funded and trained him in the past, especially after the Russians left Afghanistan.

bobblepuzzle

Terry wrote: »

Well what would you do with dangerous people that are a part of a dangerous group intent on attacking the country... tickle their feet, get real! The people that this was inflicted on were not innocent by any means and had **** to answer for...
So you're saying that all the conscripted soldiers were innocent?
That the civilians killed during the shock and awe campaigh were guilty of being terrorists?

I think you need to do a bit of reading as to what war actually entails.

Terry, you have deliberately distorted what I meant and you know it.

I wasn't talking about the war in general or the shock and awe campaign. I was talking about the "rendition" of suspects.

philologos

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

like the patriot act?

Jakkass wrote: »

Patriot Act - I'm not saying that the US is a perfect State. I'm saying that the US goes above and beyond Ireland and other countries in many respects. It would be unfair and unreasonable to say otherwise. As for monitoring internet traffic & phone systems, in respect to suspected terrorists I'm not all that opposed I must say particularly if it saves lives. I'm not in agreement with tapping phones, or internet without a decent reason though.

Please read my posts :pac:

super_furry

Well they're the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons.

bobblepuzzle

super_furry wrote: »

Well they're the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons.

That was to stop a suicidal invasion of the Japenese mainland during WW2....

Whats your point exactly?

kuntboy

All you America bashers would do well to remember that without them, the armies of one of the worst regimes in history, the USSR, would have marched across Europe imposing their version of "freedom". They and other brutal dictatorships such as China would have military bases and military and economic hegemony over the whole world. Perhaps you would like these dictatorships to have control of the worlds resources? And FYI only 60% of oil is used as fuel. 40% is used to make plastics and various other things and crucially, fertilizers and medicines.

johnnyjb

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

Never said they were not just trying to give a balanced view and not listen to one side of the story

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

If your reffering to the IRA how were they terrorists, thats like saying Mohommad should let the yanks take over his village, would you let a foreign or even your neighbour take over your household. It wasnt meant to be taken litterally.

brandon_flowers

Terry wrote: »

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

I don't know about that. I would be far more wary of the Russians purely because they are so volatile and get involved in "wars" every bit as much as the Americans. The Americans activites get publicised a lot more because the western world doesn't care about Georgia, Chechnya, South Ossetia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and god knows where else they have stuck their oar in.

Also remember that Vladimir Putin is a nut-job. Obama is not.

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

The prohibition of drugs is a reasonable restriction on the basis of harm in a society. Drugs don't only harm individuals, but harm entire societies. That said, you will be pleased to hear that California have a proposition for the November ballot on the legalisation of cannabis.

There are those who contend that prohibition does more damage to society than the effects of drugs on users.

Here's a link from the ACLU outlining the issues with prohibition with reard to civil liberties.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-war-new-jim-crow

As for welfare system, the US clearly isn't a welfare State. It's a free market capitalist system with very little regulation. Some people mightn't like this, but it certainly doesn't mean that the US doesn't endorse civil liberties above and beyond many other states, and in some respects any other states. I don't know a single country that respects free speech as much as the USA. Our laws fade in comparison, just take a read of the Public Order Act of 1994.

Patriot Act - I'm not saying that the US is a perfect State. I'm saying that the US goes above and beyond Ireland and other countries in many respects. It would be unfair and unreasonable to say otherwise. As for monitoring internet traffic & phone systems, in respect to suspected terrorists I'm not all that opposed I must say particularly if it saves lives. I'm not in agreement with tapping phones, or internet without a decent reason though.

Uses of the Patriot Act for reasons nothing to do with international terrorism...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act

Civil liberties in the U.S. are being eroded more and more as evidenced above. If you want civil liberties look at Canada which is what the American Dream or myth is suposed to be.

xxtuggbaxx

When you look at this topic ,you have to look beyond your race, religion and political allegiance, is the difference in between a retaliatory strike and destroying the infrastructure of an entire nation. We can not restrict terrosizm only with AMerica but I conceive her as the most devil.. And most importantly why do you ask question as NATION??If There is a terorist in america,It is not nation(Of course There are a lot of people supporting goverment’s invades ) it is goverment.I have a lot of friend from America but they never support goverment's invades.. If you America invadeS Afganistan,Irak and helps Israil for Palestin It is not only The malevolent of America..I am not stupid..If you look Middle East and afganistan policy of America,she has a sea of allies and they are all Arab Leaders..Lubnan king,Arabistan king,Taliban (claming themselves bringer of Islam and Prophet Mohammad(PBUH)...They cooperate with America for their invesment in American Banks..and they sold their honour,soul and humanity to America.I don’t need to trace a course of action like looking beyond I can find out America’s actions in my own country.And of course nothing happens America..The victims of these action are the childrenof Afganistan,Iraq,Palestine an of course innocent children of Israel.God bless them..

philologos

King Felix wrote: »

There are those who contend that prohibition does more damage to society than the effects of drugs on users.

Here's a link from the ACLU outlining the issues with prohibition with regard to civil liberties.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-war-new-jim-crow

I'm sure there are. I'm not particularly surprised that the ACLU would take such a stance either.

I'm open to new ideas that ensure that as few people take drugs as is humanly possible asides from prohibition. The possibilities seem limited on consideration though.

King Felix wrote: »

Civil liberties in the U.S. are being eroded more and more as evidenced above. If you want civil liberties look at Canada which is what the American Dream or myth is suposed to be.

The US is an example of a constitution strong country (funnily enough quite similar to ours in implication, but different in its wording) which argues strongly for peoples liberties and as a result of being a constitution strong country has serious limits on where the State can go in terms of peoples liberties.

Funnily enough it is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution that makes it awfully difficult to apply gun control for that very reason.

I don't know all that much about the Canadian system, but if I am correct, it isn't a Constitution strong country as the USA and Ireland are (albeit in differing ways). The US not only provides a framework of civil liberties for the present, but ensures that people cannot legislatively undermine these with ease in the future. The same is not true of constitutionally weak countries.

Nodin

kuntboy wrote: »

All you America bashers would do well to remember that without them, the armies of the one of the worst regimes in history, the USSR, would have marched across Europe imposing their version of "freedom". They and other brutal dictatorships such ......

Didn't the US sponsor and back the dictatorships in Chile, Guatamala, Argentina, Nicaragua, Indonesia and the death squads of El Salvador etc?

Didn't the US use its veto to protect Apartheid South Africa for years?

Theres two of them in it.

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm sure there are. I'm not particularly surprised that the ACLU would take such a stance either.

Why wouldn't they? It's the Civil Liberties Union.

[/quote]I'm open to new ideas that ensure that as few people take drugs as is humanly possible asides from prohibition. The possibilities seem limited on consideration though.
[/quote]Or just allow people the liberty to engage in personal rsonsibility.

The US is an example of a constitution strong country (funnily enough quite similar to ours in implication, but different in its wording) which argues strongly for peoples liberties and as a result of being a constitution strong country has serious limits on where the State can go in terms of peoples liberties.

It used to be until the Patriot Act came along.

Have alook at the Constitution V The Patriot Act...http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

Of couse some of these were already eroded by the War On Drugs.

Here's the Constitution of Canada...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

Laois_Man

I've read the first 4 pages of this thread and I've seen people attempt to justify the war on Iraq by saying Iraq harboured Al Quieda and therefore deserved to be attacked. But has anyone pointed out that it was the American's themselves who CREATED the Taliban\Al Quieda under the Regean administration? Hillary Clinton is the first senior US politician to have the balls (ironically) to admit this since it became uncool to do so. Maybe the US should attack itself too?

Secondly. The US invaded Afghanistan 3 years almost to day day before Sept 11 - on the exact day Bill Clinton was impeached on the Lewinsky scandal. So to say 9\11 was an unprovoked attack is more of the usual propaganda.

kuntboy

Nodin wrote: »

Didn't the US sponsor and back the dictatorships in Chile, Guatamala, Argentina, Nicaragua, Indonesia and the death squads of El Salvador etc?

Didn't the US use its veto to protect Apartheid South Africa for years?

Theres two of them in it.

Perhaps you would have preferred the alternative, i.e. dictatorships backed by the USSR, like Cuba. Then you could have had events like the Cuban missile crisis again and again.

sock puppet

Laois_Man wrote: »

Secondly. The US invaded Afghanistan 3 years almost to day day before Sept 11 - on the exact day Bill Clinton was impeached on the Lewinsky scandal. So to say 9\11 was an unprovoked attack is more of the usual propaganda.

Christ. That is one of the most disingenous things that's been said on this thread. Or have you completely blanked the US embassy bombings from your mind?

Nodin

kuntboy wrote: »

Perhaps you would have preferred the alternative, i.e. dictatorships backed by the USSR,.

No, I'd prefer people to live out their lives without fear of being dragged off by a death squad. Why do you think there was only two alternatives?

kuntboy wrote: »

......like Cuba. Then you could have had events like the Cuban missile crisis again and again.

Castro arose because of the US backed Batista regime. Why didn't the US stay out of it? Why always go in on the side of the oppressor?

Laois_Man

sock puppet wrote: »

Christ. That is one of the most disingenous things that's been said on this thread. Or have you completely blanked the US embassy bombings from your mind?

What. Ya mean the bombings carried out by the EGYPTIAN Islamic Jihad organization as revenge for the torture of it's members 2 months earlier?

We can go back as far as you like. It all comes back to America!

Nodin

brandon_flowers wrote: »

Also remember that Vladimir Putin is a nut-job. Obama is not.

Vlad? Bastard maybe, but certainly not a nut.

gizmo

That's it, AH has finally done it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY

But so as not to appear rude, I'll answer the question. No of course I don't think they're the most extreme Terrorist nation in the world.

dvpower

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!

The good old USA. They paid a heavy price for our right to be arseholes:rolleyes:

dsmythy

When it comes to superpowers, it's better the devil you know. The grass is not always greener folks.

sock puppet

Laois_Man wrote: »

What. Ya mean the bombings carried out by the EGYPTIAN Islamic Jihad organization as revenge for the torture of it's members 2 months earlier?

We can go back as far as you like. It all comes back to America!

Yes the bombings that were planned by Bin Laden who was based in Afghanistan at the time. Also a few cruise missiles launched into terrorist camps hardly qualifies as an invasion either.

Norwayviking

sock puppet wrote: »

Given that it was a surprise attack it hardly qualifies as kicking the ****e out of anyone. It's akin to running up to someone bigger than you, hitting them and then running away. They also failed to destroy any American aircraft carriers which were at sea at the time. Not really what you'd call a resounding victory.

Its called tactics in military terms

The Mad Hatter

The US doesn't terrorise the peoples it attacks, it shocks and awes them.

This is an important distinction, like the difference between enhanced interrogation and torture.

Norwayviking

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The US doesn't terrorise the peoples it attacks, it shocks and awes them.

This is an important distinction, like the difference between enhanced interrogation and torture.

Meaning that i am bigger and stronger than you,and have more friends than you(NATO) so dont f..k with me?

nacho libre

Nodin wrote: »

Didn't the US sponsor and back the dictatorships in Chile, Guatamala, Argentina, Nicaragua, Indonesia and the death squads of El Salvador etc?

Didn't the US use its veto to protect Apartheid South Africa for years?

Theres two of them in it.

ah but you see theres a context for these things and if there isn't the default position is the otherside were far worse.

just imagine if a criminal, who raped someone, pleaded that his crime should be overlooked, because someone else murdered someone or carried out multiple rapes.

Rabble Rabble

Nodin wrote: »

No, I'd prefer people to live out their lives without fear of being dragged off by a death squad. Why do you think there was only two alternatives?



Castro arose because of the US backed Batista regime. Why didn't the US stay out of it? Why always go in on the side of the oppressor?

In the cold war there were two alternatives. I have always wondered whether the US should have threatened to pull out of Europe.

There used to be very strong anti-American protests in Soeul. Now that the US is over stretched the protests have died down. A more Machievelian superpower would have, during the cold war, withdrawn it's protection from some minor European country and announced that the Soviet Union could invade at will.

Pour encourager les autres.