• 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!

Western democracy supports any kind of terrorist action against itself ?

Western democracy supports any kind of terrorist action against itself ?


  • Total voters
    6

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,852
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
thanks.

and if you think terrorists should be eliminated does it mean you speak the language of murderers :confused:.terrorists are just fighters but you are murderer

hahah
 
Last edited:
hurr_train.jpg
 
thanks.

and if you think terrorists should be eliminated does it mean you speak the language of murderers :confused:.terrorists are just fighters but you are murderer

hahah


The nature of Corporatism and the business end of war translates that the USA and its marketing agenda to produce, sell, and use weapons requires constant feeding and promotion. If it produces tidy profits, "War is good business, and business is good." It is sort of a USA domestic captive industry. Whereas the strong dollar kills the markets for exports, the secrecy, confidentiality, and gov't contracting keep the domestic arms industry (Military Offense budget about $700 billion) booming. A lot of fear here, terror, a lot of fear there, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and bogeyman supreme (Putin), and you can leverage these for big profits. Do we get security? C'mon, look at the MidEast. Have we made it secure? War on terror. Is that working? Looks more like cops terrorizing citizens. You've got better odds getting struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. The odds of getting killed by a cop are a little daunting in the USA. Not so in other Nations. Just ask Corporate America, we need war, it's the only profitable business going on in the USA. This planetary overpopulation thing needs big killin', don't ya' know? It's a great Nation, with great people and lousy politicians and intelligence agencies.
 
The nature of Corporatism and the business end of war translates that the USA and its marketing agenda to produce, sell, and use weapons requires constant feeding and promotion. If it produces tidy profits, "War is good business, and business is good." It is sort of a USA domestic captive industry. Whereas the strong dollar kills the markets for exports, the secrecy, confidentiality, and gov't contracting keep the domestic arms industry (Military Offense budget about $700 billion) booming. A lot of fear here, terror, a lot of fear there, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and bogeyman supreme (Putin), and you can leverage these for big profits. Do we get security? C'mon, look at the MidEast. Have we made it secure? War on terror. Is that working? Looks more like cops terrorizing citizens. You've got better odds getting struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. The odds of getting killed by a cop are a little daunting in the USA. Not so in other Nations. Just ask Corporate America, we need war, it's the only profitable business going on in the USA. This planetary overpopulation thing needs big killin', don't ya' know? It's a great Nation, with great people and lousy politicians and intelligence agencies.

a logical post unlike trolling ,thank you
 
I'm not sure I understand the question the way it is phrased, but if it is whether or not western democracies such as the United States sponsor terrorism in order to promote war in response, then obviously not. I don't have any respect for outrageous conspiracy theories. "9/11 was an inside job" and similar ramblings are utter nonsense.
 
I'm not sure I understand the question the way it is phrased, but if it is whether or not western democracies such as the United States sponsor terrorism in order to promote war in response, then obviously not. I don't have any respect for outrageous conspiracy theories. "9/11 was an inside job" and similar ramblings are utter nonsense.

it is not about US's supporting islamists
 
Well then would you rephrase the question, because I don't understand it in its current form.

I agree it may cause ambiguity .imeagine native americans have been terrorizing your country because they claim they are the real owners of America.and you think they are terrorists naturally .And some others believe they are just freedom fighters.what is more their political wing is gaining power in American congress but they are still being cntrolled by terrorist organization.they cant know how to keep away from terrorism .imagine
 
I'm not sure I understand the question the way it is phrased, but if it is whether or not western democracies such as the United States sponsor terrorism in order to promote war in response, then obviously not. I don't have any respect for outrageous conspiracy theories. "9/11 was an inside job" and similar ramblings are utter nonsense.

It's not CT to look at the facts.
It's not CT to look at historical constants in relation to unchanging human nature.
It's not CT to heed the founders (who actually lived under tyranny, as did 2400 generations before them) warning to remain always vigilant and skeptical of your gov't.
It's not CT to acknowledge that the U.S. has overthrown more democratically elected governments, installed and supported more brutal dictators than any other (maybe all other) country.
It's not CT to acknowledge that before the rise of the military industrial complex, we were reluctant to go to war but won them decisively when we did.. We haven't won a war since the rise of the MIC.
It's not CT to say that if we have private banks too big to fail in the name of investor profits, then we certainly have an MIC too big for peace.
It's not CT to say there is no profit in peace, and it's the unrestrained capital model that a company must grow unrestrained.

This is the factual context. No CT needed.
 
It's not CT to look at the facts.
It's not CT to look at historical constants in relation to unchanging human nature.
It's not CT to heed the founders (who actually lived under tyranny, as did 2400 generations before them) warning to remain always vigilant and skeptical of your gov't.
It's not CT to acknowledge that the U.S. has overthrown more democratically elected governments, installed and supported more brutal dictators than any other (maybe all other) country.
It's not CT to acknowledge that before the rise of the military industrial complex, we were reluctant to go to war but won them decisively when we did.. We haven't won a war since the rise of the MIC.
It's not CT to say that if we have private banks too big to fail in the name of investor profits, then we certainly have an MIC too big for peace.
It's not CT to say there is no profit in peace, and it's the unrestrained capital model that a company must grow unrestrained.

This is the factual context. No CT needed.

I literally agree with the entirety of your post. There's an important distinction between opponents of the military industrial complex and conspiracy theorists.
 
I literally agree with the entirety of your post. There's an important distinction between opponents of the military industrial complex and conspiracy theorists.

you were definitly disagreeing with this kind of thought in your post .:shock:
 
It's not CT to look at the facts.
It's not CT to look at historical constants in relation to unchanging human nature.
It's not CT to heed the founders (who actually lived under tyranny, as did 2400 generations before them) warning to remain always vigilant and skeptical of your gov't.
It's not CT to acknowledge that the U.S. has overthrown more democratically elected governments, installed and supported more brutal dictators than any other (maybe all other) country.
It's not CT to acknowledge that before the rise of the military industrial complex, we were reluctant to go to war but won them decisively when we did.. We haven't won a war since the rise of the MIC.
It's not CT to say that if we have private banks too big to fail in the name of investor profits, then we certainly have an MIC too big for peace.
It's not CT to say there is no profit in peace, and it's the unrestrained capital model that a company must grow unrestrained.

This is the factual context. No CT needed.
I'm not sure I understand the question the way it is phrased, but if it is whether or not western democracies such as the United States sponsor terrorism in order to promote war in response, then obviously not. I don't have any respect for outrageous conspiracy theories. "9/11 was an inside job" and similar ramblings are utter nonsense.

he is defending something you disagree
 
Back
Top Bottom