• 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
pbrauer said:
Consider Shock and Awe that started the invasion of Iraq and the various drones we have launched.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous poll and not worth responding to with a vote.
 
Nilly said:
But, they live in Pakistan so that means they have to be terrorists. They deserve it, right?
Click to expand...

No, but you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, y'know what I mean?
 
Ikari said:
Its not terrorism if you drop bombs from planes.
Click to expand...

If we randomly dropped area-of-effect bombs on civilian populations, that would be terrorism. Since we use extremely precise bombs against specific targets, it doesn't qualify.
 
MadLib said:
If we randomly dropped area-of-effect bombs on civilian populations, that would be terrorism. Since we use extremely precise bombs against specific targets, it doesn't qualify.
Click to expand...

nobody has yet breached the question of ... does state terrorism even exist?
so far, it does not... not even the do-gooders at the UN recognize "state terrorism".. they can't define it without making nearly all countries on earth "state terrorists"

everyone recognizes state support of terrorism, but not state terrorism in itself.


so basically put, there are no terrorist states on this earth, ergo, the USA is not a terrorist state.
 
MadLib said:
If we randomly dropped area-of-effect bombs on civilian populations, that would be terrorism. Since we use extremely precise bombs against specific targets, it doesn't qualify.
Click to expand...
Was that true when we launched Shock and Awe against Baghdad in March 2003?
 
Nilly said:
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.



...
Click to expand...



Ok. So YOU tell me how we stop ISIS from beheading women and children and generally creating misery for millions, WITHOUT using violence. I'm all ears.
 
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...

It's difficult to fight a war in a way that doesn't scare people. Fighting against an enemy that merges itself with the civilian population is doubtlessly going to frighten civilians, even if we used more accurate methods like Special Forces raids.
 
MadLib said:
It's difficult to fight a war in a way that doesn't scare people. Fighting against an enemy that merges itself with the civilian population is doubtlessly going to frighten civilians, even if we used more accurate methods like Special Forces raids.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but that being said it's a little difficult for me not to visualize the reverse: a foreign government determines that elements within our country have harmed its own nation, so it in turns comes into our land and starts bombing targets, legitimate as well as civilian casualties, otherwise known as "collateral damage." How are we going to feel about that foreign military? Are we going to be grateful toward it or afraid of it? Are we going to give them a pass in the understanding that wars are wars and collateral damage is just part of the package?
 
DaveFagan said:
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...

I just saw this, did not see a quote notification... sorry.

You make a good point, why I phrased the questions the way I did. Not sure I completely buy into your side of the debate but it is enough to make me re-consider my position on the matter of Corporatism being on the level with systems of belief as motivations to murder someone.
 
Fearandloathing said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am not trying to discount any of this, just trying to be sure about equating all the different motivations for loss of life as all being signs of terrorism.
 
Cardinal said:
No doubt, but that being said it's a little difficult for me not to visualize the reverse: a foreign government determines that elements within our country have harmed its own nation, so it in turns comes into our land and starts bombing targets, legitimate as well as civilian casualties, otherwise known as "collateral damage." How are we going to feel about that foreign military? Are we going to be grateful toward it or afraid of it? Are we going to give them a pass in the understanding that wars are wars and collateral damage is just part of the package?
Click to expand...

I see such a role reversal as improbable, since the US could and would squash such elements (assuming, of course, that the foreign government isn't openly hostile with us). Nevertheless, I agree that war is an ugly thing, and it's too common that the impact upon civilians is a mere talking point in discussions about military action overseas rather something that people empathize with.
 
Fearandloathing said:
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.
Click to expand...

FDR was dead for months when the bombs were dropped.
 
pbrauer said:
Consider Shock and Awe that started the invasion of Iraq and the various drones we have launched.
Click to expand...

Precision Guided Munitions, including drones, are the opposite of terrorist weapons. They enable an unprecedented reduction in civilian casualties and collateral damage.
 
Goshin said:
Ok. So YOU tell me how we stop ISIS from beheading women and children and generally creating misery for millions, WITHOUT using violence. I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

with love and understanding... and cupcakes.... everybody loves cupcakes.

....even blood thirsty mass murdering bigoted goat ****ers love cupcakes.
 
Jack Hays said:
Precision Guided Munitions, including drones, are the opposite of terrorist weapons. They enable an unprecedented reduction in civilian casualties and collateral damage.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying these guided drones didn't terrorize the populous? I think that's a bit far fetched.:roll:
 
pbrauer said:
So, you're saying these guided drones didn't terrorize the populous? I think that's a bit far fetched.:roll:
Click to expand...

"Terrorism" is not the same thing as understandable fear in a civilian population in a war zone.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Terrorism" is not the same thing as understandable fear in a civilian population in a war zone.
Click to expand...
Baghdad wasn't in a war zone before Shock and Awe.
 
The U.S. is the number 1 terrorist planning, funding, facilitating, and all things terrorist in the world.

Britain is #2, lol...

Good grief, is there nothing that the U.S. doesn't have it's fingers in trying to stir crap up?? Even without getting into false flags (9/11, Boston Bombing, Sandy Hook, Fast and Furious, Britains 7-7, et al), the U.S. and Britain are constantly messing around with terrorist groups - funding this one, arming that one, protecting the next one, running guns, running drugs, it's unbelievable the amount of crap the U.S. and Britain are into.

I was watching an Arab News show that had 2 U.S. terror analysts as guests - they were talking about the fact that pictures had surfaced of John McCain meeting with 2 terrorist leaders in Jordan - one of the terrorists was presently listed on our terror want list!!!

Seriously, it's just unbelievable how out of control the U.S. and Britain are.
 
The US is no angel in its history of foreign relations but using the most sensible definition of the term (not the one the media or ignorant people throw around), no. Terrorism is when a person/group utilizes terror against a population in order to bring about political change in that country. Through such terror, the population demands that the government change its policies to fit those of the terrorists' demands. Simple violence or unlawful acts does not qualify as terrorism despite what many here seems to believe.
 
Van Basten said:
FDR was dead for months when the bombs were dropped.
Click to expand...

The Japanese did not surrender after the first bombing..........They did after the second one....That bombing saved millions of American lives.
 
Navy Pride said:
The Japanese did not surrender after the first bombing..........They did after the second one....That bombing saved millions of American lives.
Click to expand...

No it didnt

"Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age." Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.

Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals."

Was Hiroshima Necessary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom