• 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
Sherman123 said:
We allow our own hypocrisy because it is necessary to accomplish our objectives i.e. to defend the existing democratic order that we have put in place and to further advance it. Part of what differentiates us, aside from our cause, is that we routinely seek and strive for the more humane and limiting approach wherever possible. My hope is that by the end of this century large portions of the planet will have solidified their new democratic roots and be cemented into the international order bringing even more widespread peace which will fantastically lessen our need to deploy violence. When the last autocrat is toppled and the last liberal constitution is upheld our need to use violence will decrease immeasurably. Until that time we should do whatever is required to accomplish that objective.
Click to expand...

So, in order to do away with violence, we must be violent conquerors? I'm hardly going to disagree that liberal, secular, democratic governance is better than dictators, theocracies, or autocrats, but when we employ the same tactics they do, how are we any better? Our cause means nothing if we have to sacrifice what actually makes our way of life better in order to pursue it.
 
apdst said:
What tactics? Have American troops targeted and killed 3,000 civilians?

Have American troops blown up any pizza parlors?

Have American agents hijacked any ships, or aircraft, taken hostages and executed any of those hostages?

What about beheading women and children?
Click to expand...

To think I'd agree with one of your posts.....

Also, lol @ the guy whipping his Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing card out.
 
I would say a big difference is that, in general, we abide by the agreed upon rules of war. We have strayed with the whole torturing thing, and there might be some ambiguity in the whole "War on Terror" and if it's a real war... but in general, our actions are sanctioned as ethical by the agreements we have entered.
 
Paschendale said:
So, in order to do away with violence, we must be violent conquerors? I'm hardly going to disagree that liberal, secular, democratic governance is better than dictators, theocracies, or autocrats, but when we employ the same tactics they do, how are we any better? Our cause means nothing if we have to sacrifice what actually makes our way of life better in order to pursue it.
Click to expand...


yes.....
 
Paschendale said:
So, in order to do away with violence, we must be violent conquerors? I'm hardly going to disagree that liberal, secular, democratic governance is better than dictators, theocracies, or autocrats, but when we employ the same tactics they do, how are we any better? Our cause means nothing if we have to sacrifice what actually makes our way of life better in order to pursue it.
Click to expand...

Actually, on thinking about it, Sherman's rhetoric is exactly what you liberals should put forward. Put the brutish hypocritical belligerence which follows from your ideology out in the open for people to see it in all it's evil glory.
 
pbrauer said:
Consider Shock and Awe that started the invasion of Iraq and the various drones we have launched.
Click to expand...

I would not say we are a terrorist nation, just a nation with a hypocritical and confusing foreign policy that tends to upset plenty of people around the globe. On top of that we tend to act with a certain superiority in telling others what they should and should not be doing, and going so far as to introduce ideologies into cultures that have no room for those ideologies.

The method of our warfare I would argue is diminished in comparison to say Vietnam going back. A good example for that argument is to end WWII with Japan, and to avoid a costly land invasion, we opted to drop atomic bombs on civilians. Enemies yes, but civilian cities with unknown total impact. Something we would not entertain as an option today unless we were talking in nuclear war terms.

We may still kill innocents much to much, we may still engage in plenty of action that is questionable by UN resolutions or international agreements, and we may do plenty to our own citizens in questionable Constitutional terms... but I would still not go so far as to call the US a terrorist nation.
 
Absolutely. Some of our tactics are terrorism, and even we are a "state sponsor of terrorism" ..
 
I saw that John Oliver episode where local Pakistani citizens were saying they were afraid of blue skies because that's when drones would be out and about and start blowing **** up. So is the United States a terrorist nation? I don't know, but if that segment was anything to go by we're certainly terrorizing the bejeezus out of normal people over there.
 
AJiveMan said:
Actually, America has killed many, many more than that, at one time:



America probably didn't destroy many pizza parlors, but maybe wiped out a few sushi bars.
Click to expand...

The Japanese civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were collateral damage. Both targets were chosen because of their military value.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Absolutely. Some of our tactics are terrorism, and even we are a "state sponsor of terrorism" ..
Click to expand...

I know you like to agitate against US policy and achtion. Personally, I think you would profit from spending the energy on trying to understand, what is going on instead of relying on preconceptions. As it is, your advice is rather little useful as a basis for understanding the present or from which to build viable strategy into the future.
 
pbrauer said:
Consider Shock and Awe that started the invasion of Iraq and the various drones we have launched.
Click to expand...

Of course the US isn't a terrorist nation, what a strange question/statement.
 
apdst said:
The Japanese civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were collateral damage. Both targets were chosen because of their military value.
Click to expand...

That is not entirely accurate. The US had been conventional bombing Japan for more than a year before we upped the game to atomic warfare. The Target Committee at Los Alamos recommended Kokura, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Niigata and Kyoto as possible targets. These were among the larger cities in Japan and none on the list has been heavily bombed so far in conventional bombing runs. The committee, which included many scientists, wanted as clean of targets as possible so the effect could be better assessed. They were looking for three miles in diameter conditions where surrounding natural states could be used, the hope was the blast damage would be most effective based upon a variety of target attributes. That means the civilians wold not be "collateral damage," but an accurate part of the assessment on how well the devices worked in the right selected conditions.

Hiroshima was eventually selected because it was "This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area." Civilians were an important part of the equation just as the "adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage."

Nagasaki was also selected because it was "One of the largest sea ports in southern Japan with a large industrial center." Again, both military and civilian concentration with emphasis on surrounding conditions.

Saying the targets were purely military was a bit of a lie, psychological factors in target selection was part of the math. We wanted to induce a certain level of fear never seen before in human warfare. Dropping a device that would devastate a city in a matter of seconds, with the enemy having no idea how many cities we were willing to destroy or how many lives we were willing to end. Both military and civilian.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I would not say we are a terrorist nation, just a nation with a hypocritical and confusing foreign policy that tends to upset plenty of people around the globe. On top of that we tend to act with a certain superiority in telling others what they should and should not be doing, and going so far as to introduce ideologies into cultures that have no room for those ideologies.

The method of our warfare I would argue is diminished in comparison to say Vietnam going back. A good example for that argument is to end WWII with Japan, and to avoid a costly land invasion, we opted to drop atomic bombs on civilians. Enemies yes, but civilian cities with unknown total impact. Something we would not entertain as an option today unless we were talking in nuclear war terms.

We may still kill innocents much to much, we may still engage in plenty of action that is questionable by UN resolutions or international agreements, and we may do plenty to our own citizens in questionable Constitutional terms... but I would still not go so far as to call the US a terrorist nation.
Click to expand...

I will disagree in the strongest possible terms (to satirize our leadership). We will discuss Libya. Highest GDP in Africa. Free housing. Free education through University. Free food. Free water in a desert environment. Now the USA decided that it's leader Qaddaffi is a no-good terrorist because he is teaching the Rest of Africa and donating Libyan money to do so, how to not be ensnared by USA Military and Corporate hegemony and get the best value from their resources (Africa, resource rich and lightly developed). Ergo, the USA cured the problem. We bombed the **** out of Libya. Killed Qaddaffi, quoth Hilary, "we came, we saw, he's dead." Now, we have created widespread chaos, mayhem, destruction and death in the African Nation previously having the highest GDP on the Continent. We've done this with intelligence from satellites, CIA, NSA, embassies, corporations, spies, politicians and military contractors, ergo our actions are intelligently conceived and orchestrated for precise and maximum effectiveness or we are a chaotic group of morons. Chaos, mayhem, destruction and death are TERRORISM and we planned it, and executed it with Ph.ds and the absolute best of technology and intelligence, ergo the results are as desired, not some accident. That makes us a TERRORIST STATE. The war of terror is very profitable, because now some Islamist types have oil well money and can afford to buy nice weapons from the greatest arms dealer in the World, the USA MIC, don't ya' know. Do the same thing in Syria, Iraq, and keep trying to do it in Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. and accuse those same groups of doing what we are doing for a good cover story, and the MSM will dutifully perform their stenographic functions reporting the Gov't supplied propaganda as perception management for the lackeys. We are without doubt a TERRORIST NATION because "War is good business, and business is good," and it is the business of the USA.
 
pbrauer said:
Consider Shock and Awe that started the invasion of Iraq and the various drones we have launched.
Click to expand...

Its not terrorism if you drop bombs from planes.
 
DaveFagan said:
I will disagree in the strongest possible terms (to satirize our leadership). We will discuss Libya. Highest GDP in Africa. Free housing. Free education through University. Free food. Free water in a desert environment. Now the USA decided that it's leader Qaddaffi is a no-good terrorist because he is teaching the Rest of Africa and donating Libyan money to do so, how to not be ensnared by USA Military and Corporate hegemony and get the best value from their resources (Africa, resource rich and lightly developed). Ergo, the USA cured the problem. We bombed the **** out of Libya. Killed Qaddaffi, quoth Hilary, "we came, we saw, he's dead." Now, we have created widespread chaos, mayhem, destruction and death in the African Nation previously having the highest GDP on the Continent. We've done this with intelligence from satellites, CIA, NSA, embassies, corporations, spies, politicians and military contractors, ergo our actions are intelligently conceived and orchestrated for precise and maximum effectiveness or we are a chaotic group of morons. Chaos, mayhem, destruction and death are TERRORISM and we planned it, and executed it with Ph.ds and the absolute best of technology and intelligence, ergo the results are as desired, not some accident. That makes us a TERRORIST STATE. The war of terror is very profitable, because now some Islamist types have oil well money and can afford to buy nice weapons from the greatest arms dealer in the World, the USA MIC, don't ya' know. Do the same thing in Syria, Iraq, and keep trying to do it in Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. and accuse those same groups of doing what we are doing for a good cover story, and the MSM will dutifully perform their stenographic functions reporting the Gov't supplied propaganda as perception management for the lackeys. We are without doubt a TERRORIST NATION because "War is good business, and business is good," and it is the business of the USA.
Click to expand...

I guess in a certain context you may have a point. I suppose if you exclusively define terrorism as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political or social purposes" then you could argue well that US activities all over the middle east could equate to terrorism. We might be able to argue that Iraq may never have been all that stable, but post our involvement the nation is far less stable currently involved in a multiple way multiple nation civil war. We could then argue that Afghanistan was never all that stable, and post our involvement they are still not all that stable with the original "enemy" still around (a people we once supported when they fought the Russians.) Egypt and Libya of course qualify under that argument as well, perhaps just not as directly as Iraq and Afghanistan.

My initial reaction was based on the notion that how we characterize terrorism, with an inherent tie to some ideological extremism position on a matter. Religion or some other governmental position. Which is how some in the US get way with improperly characterizing right wing extremism as terrorism. But to your point we suggest our activities in the Middle East, Far East, and most of Africa come down to an ideological stance on how other nations should be ran (especially when we get a benefit out of the deal.) Our issue then becomes a collision of ideologies that are incompatible. If a nation leans majority to a flavor of Islam, it comes with a baked into the text mechanism for governmental control over the people all reporting up through "religious authority." In that sense alone, our actions could be looked at as trying to introduce western governmental thinking that cannot function in a society with such extreme positions on authority.

So, in your opinion, does the business of warfare make us terrorists at the same level as religious ideological fanaticism does for "terror groups" all over the Middle East? Or more simply, does capitalistic driven warfare equate to killing in the name of religion? (And consider when answering that ideology, in any regard, tends to not like competition.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
I would not say we are a terrorist nation, just a nation with a hypocritical and confusing foreign policy that tends to upset plenty of people around the globe. On top of that we tend to act with a certain superiority in telling others what they should and should not be doing, and going so far as to introduce ideologies into cultures that have no room for those ideologies.

The method of our warfare I would argue is diminished in comparison to say Vietnam going back. A good example for that argument is to end WWII with Japan, and to avoid a costly land invasion, we opted to drop atomic bombs on civilians. Enemies yes, but civilian cities with unknown total impact. Something we would not entertain as an option today unless we were talking in nuclear war terms.

We may still kill innocents much to much, we may still engage in plenty of action that is questionable by UN resolutions or international agreements, and we may do plenty to our own citizens in questionable Constitutional terms... but I would still not go so far as to call the US a terrorist nation.
Click to expand...

Hiroshima was home to two army headquarters. The command and control for the two armies responsible for the defense of the mainland was destroyed.

Granted, Nagasaki was less important, but it still had value as a major sea port and housed 9,000 troops, it wasn't chosen only to inflict civilian casualties. Kokura--the primary target--was chosen because it was the location of a major arsenal works.
 
apdst said:
Hiroshima was home to two army headquarters. The command and control for the two armies responsible for the defense of the mainland was destroyed.

Granted, Nagasaki was less important, but it still had value as a major sea port and housed 9,000 troops, it wasn't chosen only to inflict civilian casualties. Kokura--the primary target--was chosen because it was the location of a major arsenal works.
Click to expand...

I explained this later in this very thread.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I guess in a certain context you may have a point. I suppose if you exclusively define terrorism as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political or social purposes" then you could argue well that US activities all over the middle east could equate to terrorism. We might be able to argue that Iraq may never have been all that stable, but post our involvement the nation is far less stable currently involved in a multiple way multiple nation civil war. We could then argue that Afghanistan was never all that stable, and post our involvement they are still not all that stable with the original "enemy" still around (a people we once supported when they fought the Russians.) Egypt and Libya of course qualify under that argument as well, perhaps just not as directly as Iraq and Afghanistan.

My initial reaction was based on the notion that how we characterize terrorism, with an inherent tie to some ideological extremism position on a matter. Religion or some other governmental position. Which is how some in the US get way with improperly characterizing right wing extremism as terrorism. But to your point we suggest our activities in the Middle East, Far East, and most of Africa come down to an ideological stance on how other nations should be ran (especially when we get a benefit out of the deal.) Our issue then becomes a collision of ideologies that are incompatible. If a nation leans majority to a flavor of Islam, it comes with a baked into the text mechanism for governmental control over the people all reporting up through "religious authority." In that sense alone, our actions could be looked at as trying to introduce western governmental thinking that cannot function in a society with such extreme positions on authority.

So, in your opinion, does the business of warfare make us terrorists at the same level as religious ideological fanaticism does for "terror groups" all over the Middle East? Or more simply, does capitalistic driven warfare equate to killing in the name of religion? (And consider when answering that ideology, in any regard, tends to not like competition.)[/QUOTE]

I see CORPORATISM where you compare to Catholicism, Islamism, Buddhism, Mohammedism, and absolutely YES when Corporatism and the pursuit of PROFIT results in chaos, mayhem, destructism and/or death in the name of religion. It's the same thing. I see Ukraine as Monsanto, Cargill, Chevron, Haliburton, IMF, World Bank, etc. as creating insurrection and instability to create profit centers through privatisation. Fundamentalists have grabbed a few oil wells and the attendant cash flow that goes with that, so now they are targets of marketing departments to get their cash and voila, who would have suspected, voila, they want weapons. Gotta find an arms dealer to trade these oil well cash piles for something useful like an anti tank weapon or a ground to air missile and the salesmen are all over place like we're a marketing opportunity. Coinky-dink, my ass.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Hiroshima was home to two army headquarters. The command and control for the two armies responsible for the defense of the mainland was destroyed.

Granted, Nagasaki was less important, but it still had value as a major sea port and housed 9,000 troops, it wasn't chosen only to inflict civilian casualties. Kokura--the primary target--was chosen because it was the location of a major arsenal works.
Click to expand...

Hiroshima was indeed a warranted target as you've listed, as well as a transport hub. Some historians assert the the Americans had misleading information about the importance of Nagasaki due to deliberate dis-information by the Imperial High Command.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Hiroshima was indeed a warranted target as you've listed, as well as a transport hub. Some historians assert the the Americans had misleading information about the importance of Nagasaki due to deliberate dis-information by the Imperial High Command.
Click to expand...

The fact is: the notion that neither target had any military significance is false.
 
DaveFagan said:
I will disagree in the strongest possible terms (to satirize our leadership). We will discuss Libya. Highest GDP in Africa. Free housing. Free education through University. Free food. Free water in a desert environment. Now the USA decided that it's leader Qaddaffi is a no-good terrorist because he is teaching the Rest of Africa and donating Libyan money to do so, how to not be ensnared by USA Military and Corporate hegemony and get the best value from their resources (Africa, resource rich and lightly developed). Ergo, the USA cured the problem. We bombed the **** out of Libya. Killed Qaddaffi, quoth Hilary, "we came, we saw, he's dead." Now, we have created widespread chaos, mayhem, destruction and death in the African Nation previously having the highest GDP on the Continent. We've done this with intelligence from satellites, CIA, NSA, embassies, corporations, spies, politicians and military contractors, ergo our actions are intelligently conceived and orchestrated for precise and maximum effectiveness or we are a chaotic group of morons. Chaos, mayhem, destruction and death are TERRORISM and we planned it, and executed it with Ph.ds and the absolute best of technology and intelligence, ergo the results are as desired, not some accident. That makes us a TERRORIST STATE. The war of terror is very profitable, because now some Islamist types have oil well money and can afford to buy nice weapons from the greatest arms dealer in the World, the USA MIC, don't ya' know. Do the same thing in Syria, Iraq, and keep trying to do it in Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. and accuse those same groups of doing what we are doing for a good cover story, and the MSM will dutifully perform their stenographic functions reporting the Gov't supplied propaganda as perception management for the lackeys. We are without doubt a TERRORIST NATION because "War is good business, and business is good," and it is the business of the USA.
Click to expand...



Add Cuba to that list.

From Wiki:
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.
Click to expand...

It can be said that the US actions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan are ideological and semi-religious. There is no doubt there is an attempt to strike terror in the hearts of a third world people "shock and awe", but it cannot be argued that the US has "deliberately targeted" civilians. The question becomes whether the US has "disregarded the safety of non-combatants", as the proof is "classified" for "national security reasons".

As in all war, history belongs to the victor, or the super power that can claim success amid the failures of Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc.
 
apdst said:
The fact is: the notion that neither target had any military significance is false.
Click to expand...

It's also ****ing pointless. It was almost 70 years ago and has absolutely NO bearing on US foreign policy today other than a likely deeper respect word wide for what the bomb can do.

I had a very good friend who was a child in Japan during the war. Neither he nor I ever argued that neither city was a legitimate target, but we both have argued that the second bombing was not needed, the FDR typically acted out of incompetence.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I guess in a certain context you may have a point. I suppose if you exclusively define terrorism as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political or social purposes" then you could argue well that US activities all over the middle east could equate to terrorism. We might be able to argue that Iraq may never have been all that stable, but post our involvement the nation is far less stable currently involved in a multiple way multiple nation civil war. We could then argue that Afghanistan was never all that stable, and post our involvement they are still not all that stable with the original "enemy" still around (a people we once supported when they fought the Russians.) Egypt and Libya of course qualify under that argument as well, perhaps just not as directly as Iraq and Afghanistan.

My initial reaction was based on the notion that how we characterize terrorism, with an inherent tie to some ideological extremism position on a matter. Religion or some other governmental position. Which is how some in the US get way with improperly characterizing right wing extremism as terrorism. But to your point we suggest our activities in the Middle East, Far East, and most of Africa come down to an ideological stance on how other nations should be ran (especially when we get a benefit out of the deal.) Our issue then becomes a collision of ideologies that are incompatible. If a nation leans majority to a flavor of Islam, it comes with a baked into the text mechanism for governmental control over the people all reporting up through "religious authority." In that sense alone, our actions could be looked at as trying to introduce western governmental thinking that cannot function in a society with such extreme positions on authority.

So, in your opinion, does the business of warfare make us terrorists at the same level as religious ideological fanaticism does for "terror groups" all over the Middle East? Or more simply, does capitalistic driven warfare equate to killing in the name of religion? (And consider when answering that ideology, in any regard, tends to not like competition.)
Click to expand...



As in the fact Homeland security has never issued less than a yellow alert since 911, never green.

By maintaining a fear, you aggravate the fear, and create monsters in the minds of the people. FFS you have armed militia on Canadian border crossings brandishing assault rifles because of the "war on terror", in the likely event [to them] they may be overwhelmed by maple syrup at any instant.

Your emails and texts are being monitored, your phone calls tracked in the deepest penetration of civil rights in the history of democracy, putting to shame the spying China does on its people. All in the name of "terrorists" who never die off, never reduce in numbers, always loose battles, but never get conquered.

That's a perfect creation for the Military Industrial Complex, guaranteeing profits for decades already with projections it will take four or five more. In other words some people's entire lifetimes.

What better gift to the people who financed the politicians than to ensure public oriented profits for nearly a century?
 
Goshin said:
A lovely ideal, but the world isn't very cooperative for it. Ask ISIS how they feel about implementing non-violent solutions. Get back to us with their answer... assuming they don't lop off your head just for being there...
Click to expand...

Right, so because the terrorists aren't being non-violent, we shouldn't either! Last I heard the US was supposed to be an international leader, not a follower. It's precisely because ISIS are violent that we should strive to be different.

Cardinal said:
I saw that John Oliver episode where local Pakistani citizens were saying they were afraid of blue skies because that's when drones would be out and about and start blowing **** up. So is the United States a terrorist nation? I don't know, but if that segment was anything to go by we're certainly terrorizing the bejeezus out of normal people over there.
Click to expand...

But, they live in Pakistan so that means they have to be terrorists. They deserve it, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom