• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the United States a terrorist nation?

Is the United States a terrorist nation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 15.9%

  • No

    Votes: 36 81.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Total voters
    44
clownboy said:
If the plane has US military markings and is ordered on the mission by the US military, and especially if the personnel are wearing legitimate US military uniforms, it's not terrorism. You may still object to the mission and call it whatever, but it's not terrorism.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's not terrorism if you drop the bomb from a plane.
 
MadLib said:
Sorry, are we talking about drone strikes (what we were originally discussing) or Iraq/Afghanistan?

I'm sure we'd be resentful of the ensuing, but if the situation paralleled either Iraq or Afghanistan, we would largely be in favor of the initial invasion - as polls in both countries have suggested.
Click to expand...

I was dubious about throwing my hat into this particular ring as there was always the likely risk I'd come across as some anti-American nutcase. What I'm uncomfortable about is the chasm-like divide we have in discussing terror and terrorism, as though because the motive is not to terrorize the populace this means civilian casualties aren't terrifying to civilians all the same. Personally, I would find it a lot scarier to know that a superior military can accidentally kill me with its advanced, highly devastating weaponry. I don't pretend to know how widespread the sentiments in the Oliver segment are and how representative they are of Pakistani civilians in general* but regardless of our motives, civilians are frightened of blue skies. That's pretty messed up.

*I don't actually understand the point in distinguishing between Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan in this type of discussion.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Try reading the posts you quote. Yours is a ridiculous reduction.
Click to expand...

I mean, I'm just agreeing with you, not terrorism if the bomb is dropped from a plane.
 
Leftist nonsense.
 
Ikari said:
I mean, I'm just agreeing with you, not terrorism if the bomb is dropped from a plane.
Click to expand...

The Precision Guided Munitions used by US forces are the opposite of terrorism. They have enabled an unprecedented reduction in civilian casualties. Only the blame-America crowd would fail to acknowledge that.
 
Ikari said:
I mean, I'm just agreeing with you, not terrorism if the bomb is dropped from a plane.
Click to expand...

The plane must have the markings and the mission must be authorized by the nation state it belongs to. That is what makes it not terrorism. The nation is taking the action, not a bunch of folks dissatisfied with their own or another nation.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Precision Guided Munitions used by US forces are the opposite of terrorism. They have enabled an unprecedented reduction in civilian casualties. Only the blame-America crowd would fail to acknowledge that.
Click to expand...

I agree that the guided munitions used by the US forces are accurate, however that doesn't mean the civillian populous isn't terrorized by them. With that "blame America crowd" rethoric, you sound like Sean Hannity. Isn't that special.
 
pbrauer said:
I agree that the guided munitions used by the US forces are accurate, however that doesn't mean the civillian populous isn't terrorized by them. With that "blame America crowd" rethoric, you sound like Sean Hannity. Isn't that special.
Click to expand...

If the shoe fits . . .

I just get tired of people who have never borne the burden of combat making scurrilous remarks about the the forces of the two countries (US and Israel) that have the best records in history of concern for noncombatants and the avoidance of civilian casualties.
 
Cardinal said:
What I'm uncomfortable about is the chasm-like divide we have in discussing terror and terrorism, as though because the motive is not to terrorize the populace this means civilian casualties aren't terrifying to civilians all the same. Personally, I would find it a lot scarier to know that a superior military can accidentally kill me with its advanced, highly devastating weaponry.
Click to expand...

What a weird statement.
This is the equivalent of saying that you would find it a lot scarier to know that a person on the road can accidentally kill you with his car than you would have to know that a person on the road is trying to run over you with the purpose of murdering you.

And basically if there is no intention to kill someone it's not a murder it's an accident, and if it's not an attempt to murder or physically harm someone it can never be terrorism. Those are the basic facts anyway.
 
clownboy said:
The plane must have the markings and the mission must be authorized by the nation state it belongs to. That is what makes it not terrorism. The nation is taking the action, not a bunch of folks dissatisfied with their own or another nation.
Click to expand...

You are correct however at one point the term "state-terrorism" was created precisely to describe acts taken by nations to target civilians for murder with the purpose of creating terror amongst them. An example would be al-Assad's regime in Syria that targets civilian populations, at some point even with chemicals, so to deter them from rebelling against the government.

The reason why American drone strikes that cause civilian deaths can not be considered terrorism is due to the simple fact that the civilians are not being targeted. That's all there is to it.
 
Apocalypse said:
What a weird statement.
This is the equivalent of saying that you would find it a lot scarier to know that a person on the road can accidentally kill you with his car than you would have to know that a person on the road is trying to run over you with the purpose of murdering you.

And basically if there is no intention to kill someone it's not a murder it's an accident, and if it's not an attempt to murder or physically harm someone it can never be terrorism. Those are the basic facts anyway.
Click to expand...

This is a discussion in which it is extraordinarily easy for my message to come off as different than what I intended, and I'm perfectly aware that simply saying what I have, I'm half a hair's width away from sounding like an anti-American reactionary (for those who haven't already concluded that's precisely what I am). So with that in mind please quote my post in its entirety.
 
Cardinal said:
This is a discussion in which it is extraordinarily easy for my message to come off as different than what I intended, and I'm perfectly aware that simply saying what I have, I'm half a hair's width away from sounding like an anti-American reactionary (for those who haven't already concluded that's precisely what I am). So with that in mind please quote my post in its entirety.
Click to expand...

Well I'll give it a try.

Cardinal said:
I was dubious about throwing my hat into this particular ring as there was always the likely risk I'd come across as some anti-American nutcase. What I'm uncomfortable about is the chasm-like divide we have in discussing terror and terrorism, as though because the motive is not to terrorize the populace this means civilian casualties aren't terrifying to civilians all the same. Personally, I would find it a lot scarier to know that a superior military can accidentally kill me with its advanced, highly devastating weaponry. I don't pretend to know how widespread the sentiments in the Oliver segment are and how representative they are of Pakistani civilians in general* but regardless of our motives, civilians are frightened of blue skies. That's pretty messed up.

*I don't actually understand the point in distinguishing between Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan in this type of discussion.
Click to expand...

What a weird statement.
This is the equivalent of saying that you would find it a lot scarier to know that a person on the road can accidentally kill you with his car than you would have to know that a person on the road is trying to run over you with the purpose of murdering you.

And basically if there is no intention to kill someone it's not a murder it's an accident, and if it's not an attempt to murder or physically harm someone it can never be terrorism. Those are the basic facts anyway.
 
Apocalypse said:
Well I'll give it a try.



What a weird statement.
This is the equivalent of saying that you would find it a lot scarier to know that a person on the road can accidentally kill you with his car than you would have to know that a person on the road is trying to run over you with the purpose of murdering you.

And basically if there is no intention to kill someone it's not a murder it's an accident, and if it's not an attempt to murder or physically harm someone it can never be terrorism. Those are the basic facts anyway.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I would only say regarding the highway analogy that if I were under the impression that a significant numbers of other drivers were on the road with the specific intent of killing certain people, and if it were understood that a)other non-targeted drivers were killed in the process (collateral damage) and b)they occasionally targeted the wrong drivers by mistake, I would pull onto the entrance ramp with significantly more trepidation than I currently do.
 
Is the United States a terrorist nation?
Click to expand...
Loaded question. If you really get down to it, practically every modern country has practiced a form of state terrorism so to only say that the US does it really isnt fair.
 
Jack Hays said:
An excellent short review:

Bellum » Review: Hell to Pay by D.M. Giangreco

bellum.stanfordreview.org › Book Reviews
Feb 23, 2010 - This is two books woven together. The main theme as seen from the subtitle is a dissection of the command decisions leading up to the ...

Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947
by D.M. Giangreco
Naval Institute Press, 2009
ISBN-13: 978-1591143161
HC: 416 pages
$36.95 ($24.39 on Amazon here
ir
) This is two books woven together. The main theme as seen from the subtitle is a dissection of the command decisions leading up to the invasion plans for Japan and the detailed military reasons why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not merely necessary but unavoidable. If this were still an issue subject to rational historical analysis and debate it would mark the effective end of the Revisionist critique that the bombs were aimed as a diplomatic statement to the Soviets.
Click to expand...

This still does not give me much info. It makes several claims without providing very much additional information...
 
Apocalypse said:
Absolutely no.
The United States has no policy to target civilians for murder, nor does it have a policy to sponsor such targeting.
Click to expand...

President Obama took to himself the authority to order anyone - American or not - to be secretly assassinated anywhere in the world. Few world leaders have or have sought such power to have anyone he doesn't like murdered.

However, Obama isn't the USA. The poll SHOULD have asked "Is President Obama a terrorist?" He is the first president to obtain a law making it legal for him to be one. He can have anyone killed anywhere, anytime.
 
I don't believe we TARGET innocent civilians as a matter of policy so no, we are not a terrorist nation. I do think we are guilty of war crimes, though.
 
joko104 said:
President Obama took to himself the authority to order anyone - American or not - to be secretly assassinated anywhere in the world. Few world leaders have or have sought such power to have anyone he doesn't like murdered.

However, Obama isn't the USA. The poll SHOULD have asked "Is President Obama a terrorist?" He is the first president to obtain a law making it legal for him to be one. He can have anyone killed anywhere, anytime.
Click to expand...

Drones, before that cruise missiles, before that targeted air strikes.

The American Citizen portion is particularly disturbing but it's not as if assassinating foreign targets is new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom