Would you stop criticizing our use of hydrogen bombs on Japan. That war would have been a disaster and millions would have died, those bombs were the best thing to happen sadly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melo061 @ Aug 11 2006, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No, hold up. There's a difference between war and terrorism. The taliban war was not terrorism because the taliban were harbouring the smae people who attacked you. The iraqi war was because America invaded to furthe their political by rehshaping the region. It has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, america invaded for their own objectives. Thefore that is terrorism. They used violence for their own political objective, attacking the taliban was a direct response from 9/11.</div>So you are telling me that fighting terrorism is not a political objective? If fighting terrorism is not a political objective, then I do not know why we are giving politicians the power to make laws to attempt to stop it. I know there is a difference between war and terrorism, but your definition seems to align the two as synonyms. I can safely say that all the wars in the history of the world have had someone die (I imagine nearly all of them had someone "innocent" die in them) and been fought for political objectives.
for those of you who are saying American, and Israel are the biggest terrorist entities in recent history, take a look at the rest of the world. neither country has commited the attrocities in the scale that has happened in the Old Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Rawanda, iraq, Somalia, and a helf dozen other places on the globe.the US may occasionally use force or the threat there of, to persude a nation to cooperate. but the countries the US has done this two aren't exactly innocent. Saddam Hossain was a blood thirsty tyrant who would conquer the entire middle east if given half the chance and everyone in the world knows it. He killed millions of his own people just to stay in power. some media outlets may lead you to believe that Iraq was this innocent happy little country before the big bad evil American empire came in and started blowing the place up. but lets not forget who got the whole ball rolling over there. it was Saddam Hossain when he invaded Iran, than he invades Kuwait. see a pattern.The US has also used forced against other countries to try and aleviate the violence. Serbia is a good example of this. Serbidan Millocivic was another tyrant who was killing people, the US stepped in and blew some stuff up to force him out. The US is no where near the most vial country on the planet. look at whats going on in Africa, there is your biggest terrorist entity in the world right there. the violence in Africa in the past 50 years makes the Nazis seem almost nice.
You know what's funny? America gave Saddam the weapons to attack iran. They supported saddam untill it became convenient for them to not support him. So if Saddam is a terrorists then what do you say about the people who supporter him then dropped the support because it became conveniet?And by definition, America is a terrorist. You may call it justified terrorism but the state department gave the definition about terrorism and america fits it.You wanna disagree? email the state department and tell them to change their definition.edit: We all know africa has terrorists. I'm from somalia and all the warlords in my country are all guilty of terrorism and genocide. But America is on a larger scale. The UN and america invaded somalia supposedy to help the somali people even though that wasn't he case. They tried to arrest Col Aideed but in the process murdered hundreds of somalia people. That's terrorism because by definition, Ameirca used violence to further their political objectives.Their also indirect terrorists because they have Saddam the weapons to attack Iran. So yes, america are terrorists. Whether it's justified or not, it's up to you to figure it out. Just realise that America are terrorists by definition.
it was the United Nations decission togo into Somalia, not the United States. the warloads of Somalia were stealing the food that was sent to hault the starvation of the Somali people, than trading that food for weapons. Somalia was a mission to try to stop the violence by using as little violence as nessicary which turned horrible wrong. The Governments definition is conviently vague. its vague enough to support the patriot act, otherwise that stupid violations of our freedoms wouldn't have passed.the US gave weapons to both Iran, and Iraq as well as countless other countries. the Soviets did the same thing, the Chinese are doing the same thing now with North Korea. giving weapons to other nations is nothing new, the powers of the world have always lent weapons and manpower to smaller nations if it suits the interest of the power.trust me, the US is far from a terrorist state. most internation incidents the US has been involved with in the past 50 years in the behalf of other groups of people. unfortinatly our leaders have picked and chose the wrong things to get involved with, which has given the US a lot of enemies. if the US were to become an isolationist, than we'd really see who the terrorist states were.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Aug 12 2006, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>it was the United Nations decission togo into Somalia, not the United States. the warloads of Somalia were stealing the food that was sent to hault the starvation of the Somali people, than trading that food for weapons. Somalia was a mission to try to stop the violence by using as little violence as nessicary which turned horrible wrong. The Governments definition is conviently vague. its vague enough to support the patriot act, otherwise that stupid violations of our freedoms wouldn't have passed.the US gave weapons to both Iran, and Iraq as well as countless other countries. the Soviets did the same thing, the Chinese are doing the same thing now with North Korea. giving weapons to other nations is nothing new, the powers of the world have always lent weapons and manpower to smaller nations if it suits the interest of the power.trust me, the US is far from a terrorist state. most internation incidents the US has been involved with in the past 50 years in the behalf of other groups of people. unfortinatly our leaders have picked and chose the wrong things to get involved with, which has given the US a lot of enemies. if the US were to become an isolationist, than we'd really see who the terrorist states were.</div>They apparently went into there to help the people. Then it turned into a capture mission of Aideed. American forces in an attempt to capture Aideed or murdered him killed hundreds of people. And this is fact, not some propoganda. By the definition, America is a terrorists because they used violence to further their objectives.I personally know people who's family members were killed when America invaded. It's not an issue that should be taken lightlly simply because they were supposedly doing the right thing.And Just because you use other peole to do your dirty dealings doesn't mean your clean of it. I actually consider the big people behind the thing more guilty then the small people. So, when Iraq attacked Iran it was well known America provided weapons for iraq. I still consider this terrorism even though they used someone else. Proxy wars.America is a terrorist nation by it's own definition. They do have a loophole out of it though when they said it has to be unlawful violence.edit: And yes, those warloards are evil people.
The definition for terrorism by the state department that I found said, "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."America was not targeting noncombatant targets in Iraq. Secondly, they aren't a subnational group or clandestine agents. How exactly does America fit that definition?
Terrorism defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."That's the one i found. The state department probably edited it recently.Secondly just because america is a state they cannot be a terrorist state? Sounds like a loophole to me.
The one I listed last was supposedly from 2001. I think it's a little flaky too, but I don't see how America fits the definition, anyway. I found this one on wikipedia (also D of Defense, by the way)... "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." It is similar to what you just said, but with a few changes that I think are pretty relevant.The problem I have with the term "unlawful" is, well, who is to say what is unlawful? The strongest nation? The UN? I'll tell you who defines what unlawful means, it's the person who happens to be using the term to describe whatever people they feel like calling a terrorist. Anyway, I don't feel like America has been trying to instill fear in Iraqis. If they were doing that, they would not be building things there, they would be trying to rebuild the government at all, and they would be attacking people in the South as well. If what we did to Japan was terrorism, then it didn't work too well, because they love us now. <('.'<)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Aug 12 2006, 09:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your not going to change an anti-Americans views... </div>Yeah, pretty much. You can still make them look stupid, though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I personally know people who's family members were killed when America invaded. It's not an issue that should be taken lightlly simply because they were supposedly doing the right thing</div>I personally know people who were also killed by America, it doesn't mean those people didn't need to die. Its always been the responsibility of the world powers to keep peace. currently the US is the only mega power on the planet, though China is begining to catch up, so its the US's responsibility to try and keep some de facto state of peace in the world. The United Nations may be in charge of doing these peacekeeping missions, but the UN is run by incompitant pussies who continually get pushed around by little wiener tyrants. numerous times the UN has gone into try and "peacekeep" and ended up getting themselves into so much trouble that either the US, UK, or France has to come and bail them out. I do not concider a nation state to be a terrorist entity. most the nations on the Earth follow the Geneva convention. These Nations may use the threat of military action to accomplish their means, but they rarly attack a country without warning or provacation. and when these nations do attack, they attack Military targets. a terrorist, or rogue nation on the other hand, does not play by the Geneva convention, and they target civilians. that there is the differnce. in Somalia the US targeted Military leaders, troops, and weapon caches. some civilians took the the streets with weapons, at which point they were no longer civilians. if a foreign power were to invade the US, and American citizens attacked them, and were killed the action still would not be concidered murder.
Ehh... I think the biggest terrorist of all time had to be Adolf Hitler. He killed millions of Jews over skin tone and religion. I really can't believe that such a travesty had occurred in the history of history. It's awkward and disgusting.
Women. The greatest terrorists on the planet are women, HANDS DOWN. Al Queda has nothing on the ladies.
Israel and the United States are probably responsible for the most deaths of innocents.That being said, what Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are doing isn't any better.
Not even close. Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people, so did the Taliban. so has other groups, espcially in Africa, I think the Dufar conflict has killed around 4 million people, the Sierra Leone Civil war killed around 3 million. Also, in reguards to Israel, they're just defending themselves from their neighbors.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Oct 1 2006, 01:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not even close. Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people, so did the Taliban. so has other groups, espcially in Africa, I think the Dufar conflict has killed around 4 million people, the Sierra Leone Civil war killed around 3 million. Also, in reguards to Israel, they're just defending themselves from their neighbors.</div>What Israel is doing is not "defending". They're attacking. Darfur has around 400,000 deaths, last I heard.And US is responsible for MILLIONS of deaths.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheHoo @ Oct 2 2006, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What Israel is doing is not "defending". They're attacking. Darfur has around 400,000 deaths, last I heard.And US is responsible for MILLIONS of deaths.</div>Oh yeah bash America. Hey the Next time war breaks out somewhere around the world, the USA shouldn't help at all. Nope, sorry, you guys are just too mean, fight it your self. Good luck with that.Anyway, how about Stalin, since we are talking about ruthless dictators. I don't think I need to explain his credentials.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Oct 2 2006, 03:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Oh yeah bash America. Hey the Next time war breaks out somewhere around the world, the USA shouldn't help at all. Nope, sorry, you guys are just too mean, fight it your self. Good luck with that.Anyway, how about Stalin, since we are talking about ruthless dictators. I don't think I need to explain his credentials.</div>Yeah, Stalin is horrible. The atomic bomb wasn't necessary, and it killed millions of innocents. America's the only nation to ever use one, keep that in mind.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheHoo @ Oct 2 2006, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, Stalin is horrible. The atomic bomb wasn't necessary, and it killed millions of innocents. America's the only nation to ever use one, keep that in mind.</div> The atomic bombing of Japan saved millions of American and Japanese soldiers and probably the destruction of most of Japan, keep that in mind.
