Terrorism: Weak vs Strong, Causes & Nuclear Weapons

[studentx]

My friend there are lots of lands where such things occur, and even worse. I would hardly consider Gulf war part II to be a humanitarian venture by any stretch of the imagination. Hey there are lots of bad things happening in Africa can someone help? You know, like real help, with troops and stuff?

Personally I am all for sending troops to Sudan.
Why should the US help Sudan according to you? As soon as they send troops there, won't you be saying there are lots of other places where bad things occur, and they should help there instead? The Sudanese government doesn't want US troops in the country, they are Islamic and they have oil. Can you imagine what the world will say when the US enters Sudan?

 

[studentx]

Amir it’s not about the “OIL” it’s about, freedom and liberty and whatever CNN and Fox News says it is.
That’s why the 1st gulf war happen, liberation was and is, in order. President chavez on the other hand is a closet Muslim and a terrorist LOL! You guys watch to much TV!

Actually, the TV is saying that its about the oil, that Bush is dumb and that he doesn't care about Iraqis. And you thought you had your own opinion huh?

 

[russ_watters]

Personally I am all for sending troops to Sudan.

As am I. So the real question is, Microburst - are you? If no, why bring it up except as a distraction? If yes, are you angry at the UN for actively working to undermine US efforts there?

 

[Prometheus]

Why do people become terrorist, in my humble opinion, this transformation happens due to lack of option and extreme injustice.

I do not want to disagree with your assessment. However, I would also like to opine that history and religion play a part. Islam has a long history of terrorism as an option, and has used it far more than other peoples of other religions over the centuries.

 

[Prometheus]

Where that logic falls apart is that the majority of the terrorists in Iraq aren't Iraqis fighting an invasion, they are foreign terrorists fighting the US and trying to undermine the development of a stable government in Iraq. But hey, if there actually was a legitimate "resistance" in Iraq, I'd agree with you.

You may well be right. However, how do you know that you are right. ALL of the news that I hear suggests that only a small fraction of the combatants are non Iraqi. I just read that 5% of US prisoners are non Iraqi. What is your wonderful source of information that I, reading as I do on this topic, have failed to find it?

Well actually, I think they should just stop standing in the way of civilization happening in Iraq.

Please tell me if I understand you correctly. If certain Iraqis do not want us there, they should not resist in whatever way they feel is justified, but instead acquiese to the form of government that russ_watters feels constitutes "civilization"?

No, killing Iraqi civilians is one of the main objectives.

I wonder how you know that killing civilians is one of their main objectives, and that there is no thought to the use of this killing as a means to a greater goal? How are you privy to this knowledge, when I have never heard it or read it before?

Its close, but unfortunately, it isn't factually accurate.

Are you going to make a provocative statement, just to leave me wondering what you might possibly mean?

Yes, and how is Japan doing today?

I see. then your answer is yes.

Did we have anything to do with that?

So you are suggesting that a success in another time means that we must be right now. Futhermore, because we were right then, mass killings of civilians is justified on our side, but not on theirs because they don't have a history where it is been shown to us to have been effective for the advancement of "civilization".

Oh, and btw, who started that war?

And who started the war in Iraq?

Only half true, but I'll let it go...

Again you say this. Which half is not true?

There are always other choices. They could choose not to stand in the way of civilization happening. They could choose to not stand in the way of peace.

They could listen to your rhetoric and become so swayed that they choose to stand up and let US soldiers shoot them or kill themselves. I consider that your range of choices is highly one-sided, yours, with no consideration that they might deserve the right to their own opinion. What is the purpose of installing "freedom" if you are going to kill those who want the freedom to reject what we are selling?

Because that is the whole story. Don't pretend there is some righteous goal here because there isn't.

You tell me not to pretend, because you, who understands what these people are really about and what they really want and what their goals really are and what they really should have, know far better even than our own government what their purpose is. Are you clairvoyant, or are you ignoring these people in your estimation of these people? We invaded their country. Some people who were in power are no longer in power. There is a major power shift, and there are many losers. Surprise, surprise, some of these losers don't want to give up their power in a US style "freedom". You simply write them off as terrorists with no merit who are stopping civilization as the righteous you envision that it must be. Sorry, but I think that there might be more to it, from the point of view of some of these people.

But here's a question for you: if you are fighting for a cause that has no prayer of succeeding regardless of what you do, how will you choose to fight for it?

You are asking the wrong question, and your question is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are asking it leads me to believe that you are way off base. What does it matter what I think? I am on your side. What matters is what very different people, with very real effects and very real lives and very real emotions, think.

Would the fact that most people don't want what you want affect your actions at all?

I wonder how it is that you know what most people want. Are you doing math on the number of Sunnis and the number of Shiites and suggesting that all Shiites side with you, therefore "most", as you say? But wait, some of the Shiites are fighting us too. So, I ask again. How do you, personally, know what most Iraqis want?

In the US, we've had one civil war based on people refusing to accept the opinions of others.

Huh? You are using "opinions" as quite a euphemism. What they didn't want is others to make decisions that would change their lives in a manner that they were willing to die to prevent.

Beyond that, every transfer of power has occurred peacefully. And in the US, people don't kill each other over political beliefs. Isn't that a better way?

Again, you are spinning your wheels. You are asking a person with a very similar political upbringing as your own whether I like our political upbringing so much that I agree that we should force people to adopt it for their own good whether or not they are smart enough to realize how benevolent we are being.

And by the way, since you want to do the Japan parallels, would you consider it a good thing if in 40 years, Iraq was the world's 3rd leading economic power and a peaceful, prosperous democracy? Or do you think a dictatorship where order is kept via dropping people into plastic shredders (which, on the plus side, saves them the pain of starving to death) is a reasonable form of government?

This is not a reasonable question to ask. Not at all. Why not ask if if 40 years I would prefer to see a world at peace or a world already destroyed by war. Your question is equally meaningless to me. Is it really your intent that by virtue of asking this question I should assume that this is a foregone conclusion? Are you really so sure that we will prevail with wonderful goodness, and that there is no possibility that the world will be less safe as a result of our invasion ... err.. liberation?

 

[Microburst]

As am I. So the real question is, Microburst - are you? If no, why bring it up except as a distraction? If yes, are you angry at the UN for actively working to undermine US efforts there?

yes, I think troops should be sent, and injustice must be stopped, yes I am all for it,... besides UN was not necessary for GULF-WAR part II why is it such an issue when it comes to Sudan?

Actually, the TV is saying that its about the oil, that Bush is dumb and that he doesn't care about Iraqis. And you thought you had your own opinion huh?

Just look at the facts and you’ll see it’s all about OIL! Mission uno was to takeover the oil ministry, occupy all the oil wells,…. as you all have witnessed there were no serious nuclear or chemical weapons. how can one disarm while having nothing of such sort, I think Iraq served 2 purposes,

1. Hitting things of valuable targets (Afghanistan had non) satisfactory revenge.
2. By Installing a favorable / (completely dependent) government stop the conversion to Euro.

May be I am completely wrong and may be I am influenced by the media, but there are things known as FACTS!

 

[Janitor]

You are free to label US actions as terrorism if you care to. But what is really neat, I think, is that you are perfectly free to hold a sign up on any major street in any US city, proclaiming Americans to be terrorists, or the US government to be a terrorist organization. Yes, you may be on the receiving end of some comments from passersby--that's free speech for you--but you will not be imprisoned by any government agency as long as you are not carrying weapons or blocking the entrance to a public building.

Can the same thing be said if you carry a sign proclaiming Yasser Arafat a terrorist, on some Palestinian-controlled street? Maybe the answer is that you can, I don't know.

 

[Prometheus]

You are free to label US actions as terrorism if you care to. But what is really neat, I think, is that you are perfectly free to hold a sign up on any major street in any US city, proclaiming Americans to be terrorists, or the US government to be a terrorist organization. Yes, you may be on the receiving end of some comments from passersby--that's free speech for you--but you will not be imprisoned by any government agency as long as you are not carrying weapons or blocking the entrance to a public building.

Can the same thing be said if you carry a sign proclaiming Yasser Arafat a terrorist, on some Palestinian-controlled street? Maybe the answer is that you can, I don't know.

I can't figure out what topic this post might be relevant to. If it is indeed relevant to anything going on in this thread, please specify what.

 

[Janitor]

Fair enough question, Prometheus. I was responding primarily to this fulmination from tumor:

"Whole damn war on terror thing is simply an excuse for elite and industralist to get rich and controll the world! I never believed in Arab terror and whole 9/11 propaganda,except maybe for really tiny group of them now after USA attacked Iraq and israel occupies Palestine blow them selfs up but those are just incredibly desperate people. REICHSTAG fire back in pre war Germany is in my view PARAMOUNT example on how to invent enemy/terrorist, 9/11 is just that.
There is only one definition for terrorist in my dictionary -USA/W.WORLD"

 

[Prometheus]

Fair enough question, Prometheus. I was responding primarily to this fulmination from tumor:

OK, I understand your point now.

 

[Microburst]

You are free to label US actions as terrorism if you care to. But what is really neat, I think, is that you are perfectly free to hold a sign up on any major street in any US city, proclaiming Americans to be terrorists, or the US government to be a terrorist organization. Yes, you may be on the receiving end of some comments from passersby--that's free speech for you--but you will not be imprisoned by any government agency as long as you are not carrying weapons or blocking the entrance to a public building.

See the thing is British-empire use to operate in a similar fashion. They always use to say that we are here to bring freedom, liberty and ….. But in the end common man was the real victim, … if the British rule was so good and wholesome why did they leave India? Because by core the system was xenophobic and ruthless.

Why did US dropped N bomb on Japan why not on Germany? Are you getting the picture??

Have you noticed that blacks of America don’t speak English like whites, yet in any other country even in UK the blacks have no major pronunciation differences.

No media here just personal observations ...

Can the same thing be said if you carry a sign proclaiming Yasser Arafat a terrorist, on some Palestinian-controlled street? Maybe the answer is that you can, I don't know.

Can you do this in Israel?, and what happen to the mid-east peace process?? (well you’ll say you see them arafatiezz keep blowing them selves up so we can not have any peace, on the other hand when they do stop the assassination/s start.)

 

[russ_watters]

Why did US dropped N bomb on Japan why not on Germany?

Because the war in Europe was already over: TIMELINE

 

[fourier jr]

Why did US dropped N bomb on Japan why not on Germany?

Not sure if the answer to that question is in here, but it's the truth about the A-bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki:
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/abomb.htm

"Although Japan was targeted, the weapons were aimed straight to the red heart of the USSR. For three-quarters of a century, the determining element of U.S. foreign policy, virtually its sine qua non, has been "the communist factor" World War II and a battlefield alliance with the Soviet Union did not bring about an ideological change in the anti-communists who owned and ran America. It merely provided a partial breather in a struggle that had begun with the U.S. invasion of the Soviet Union in 1918. It is hardly surprising then, that 25 years later, as the Soviets were sustaining the highest casualties of any nation in WW2, the U.S. systematically kept them in the dark about the A-bomb project -- while sharing information with the British."

 

[Burnsys]

Definition of Terrorism:

"the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"

This is terrorism:

SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops: 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA
1890
Troops: Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE
1891
Troops: Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI
1891
Troops: Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.

IDAHO
1892
Troops: Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops: Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO
1894
Troops: Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed

NICARAGUA
1894
Troops: Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops: Marines land in Sino-Jap War.

KOREA
1894-96
Troops: Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval: Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA
1896
Troops: Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA
1898-1900
Troops, boxer. Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops: Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops: Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops: Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.

GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops: Seized from Spain, still used as base.

MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops: Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA
1898
Troops: Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops: Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA
1899
Troops: Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops: Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops: Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops: Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.

HONDURAS
1903
Troops: Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops: U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA
1904-05
Troops: Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA
1906-09
Troops: Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA
1907
Troops: "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS
1907
Troops: Marines land during war with Nicaragua.

PANAMA
1908
Troops: Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA
1910
Troops: Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS
1911
Troops: U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops: Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA
1912
Troops: U.S. interests protected in Havana.

PANAMA
19l2
Troops: Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS
19l2
Troops: Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing: 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.

MEXICO
19l3
Naval: Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval: Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO
1914
Troops: Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops: Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing: 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops: 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA
1917-33
Troops: Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops: Ships sunk, fought Germany

RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops: Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.

PANAMA
1918-20
Troops: "Police duty" during unrest after elections.

YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops: Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

HONDURAS
1919
Troops: Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1920
Troops: 2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing: Army intervenes against mineworkers.

TURKEY
1922
Troops: Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops: Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops: Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA
1925
Troops: Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA
1927-34
Troops: Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval: Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops: Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.



WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear: Fought Axis for 3 years; 1st nuclear war.

DETROIT
1943
Troops: Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat: Soviet Troops: told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval: Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat: Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE
1947-49
Command operation: U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

CHINA
1948-49
Troops: Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat: Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation: CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation: Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats: U.S.& South Korea fight China &
North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still
have bases.

IRAN
1953
Command operation: CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat: Bombs offered to French to use against siege.

GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat: CIA directs exile invasion after
new government nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops: Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines
evacuate foreigners

LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval: Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat: Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat: China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA
1958
Troops: Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats: Fought South Vietnam revolt & North
Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968
and 1969.

CUBA
1961
Command operation: CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat: Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat: Naval blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.

LAOS
1962
Command operation: Military buildup during guerrilla war.

PANAMA
1964
Troops: Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA
1965
Command operation: Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing: Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation: Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT
1967
Troops: Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES
1968
Troops: After civil rights activist King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in
cities.

CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval: Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing,
starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN
1970
Command operation: U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing: U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion;
"carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation: Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat: World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE
1973
Command operation: CIA-backed coup ousts elected Marxist president.

CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing: Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation: CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing: Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8
Troops: die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in
revolution.

LIBYA
1981
Naval jets: Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops: Advisors, over-flights aid anti-rebel war,
soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval: CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants
harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops: Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs
and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.

HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops: Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing: Invasion four years after revolution.

IRAN
1984
Jets: Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval: Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA
1986
Troops: Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing: US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA
1989
Naval jets: Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops: St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing: Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders
arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA
1990
Troops: Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets: Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 Troops: also
stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval, blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes:
200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish
north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops: Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops: Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing: U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war;
raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval: NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing: No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed
Serbs.

HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval blockade against military government. Troops restore President
Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA
1995
Bombing Krajina: Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.

ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops: Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution
begins.

LIBERIA
1997
Troops: Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA
1997
Troops: Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN
1998
Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas
plant.

AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist
groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, missiles: Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons
inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, missiles: Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw
from Kosovo.

YEMEN
2000
Naval: Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.

MACEDONIA
2001
Troops: NATO Troops: shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval: Response to hijacking attacks.

AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expands to
Iraq and possibly Sudan, Syria, Iran, N.Korea beyond. (The first bombing
began on October 7, 2001. Several Afghan cities come under aerial attack.
The story continues).

IRAQ (again)
2003 - ?
(Viet Nam style quagmire)

 

[russ_watters]

Where did you get that list? Its pretty bad - it doesn't differentiate between military actions and terrorism (among other things). If you want to claim that every military action is terrorism, present an argument.

 

[MiGUi]

What is terrorism?
This is:

http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2004/03/atentados/imagenes/atentados01.jpg

http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2004/03/espana/atentados11m/imagenes/atentados03.jpg

http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2004/03/espana/atentados11m/imagenes/heridostratada.jpg

 

[fourier jr]

Where did you get that list? Its pretty bad - it doesn't differentiate between military actions and terrorism (among other things). If you want to claim that every military action is terrorism, present an argument.

I've seen that list before; it's from the Library of Congress. They've got another list that has all the military interventions since 1798. Here it is, from the US Government Printing Office:
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.pdf

 

[Burnsys]

russ_watters:

Acording to the definition of terrorism by the Usa Gov. :

Terrorism is:
"the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"

When usa invade another country they decide if it's "Lawful" or not. of course from their point of view they will always be lawful, but they make the rulse.. so it's relative.. they are not lawful to me, and are not lawful to the countrys they are invading to.

So remove the word unlawful and name one usa military action that don't match the definition above...

(Sorry my english, i am from argentina)

 

[studentx]

You heard about Al queda Burnsys? Or did you leave them out of the list deliberately, just like all the other terrorist organisations to make it easier for us to see you have no point?

 

[Burnsys]

of course i remember al queda.. you mean that terrorist organization that the CIA and pakistan trained and created back in the cold war to figth the russians? the same the us suported in bosnia to fight the serbs?

If we are talking about terrorism i think we have to talk of those who comited more acts of terrorism than any ohter.. if you find any terrorist organizations, who hasn't been trained by the cia. and commited more operations that the list i recently post, then tell me... i don't think al-queda has killed more than 1 millon people, just the number us killed ONLY in vietnam..

PD: i was listing only military actions by the us gov, to show they have no competition in terrorism.. they are number 1...

PD2: in case you forget:
Terrorism is: "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"

 

[omin]

omin, can you clarify/rephrase that?

Terrorism is when an assault is made upon a group of people who directly or indirectly support a government that is exerting an unnecessary entropic force upon the human race. This entropic force causes hunger, disease, world distaster, war, defensive acts of terror, etc. This entropic force usually benefits a small group of individuals in the government, usually the ones responsible for the abject theory of entropy. Entropy is ignorance of balance and progress theories, in terms of diplomacy, development and trade between human groups. Remember the headlines: Intelligence Failure? That's Bush.

Bush Doctrine is Terrorism. It is pure Retard/Criminal Theory.

Sorry, I get a bit hurried and don't check my spelling and grammar. There you go.

 

[Aquamarine]

of course i remember al queda.. you mean that terrorist organization that the CIA and pakistan trained and created back in the cold war to figth the russians? the same the us suported in bosnia to fight the serbs?

If we are talking about terrorism i think we have to talk of those who comited more acts of terrorism than any ohter.. if you find any terrorist organizations, who hasn't been trained by the cia. and commited more operations that the list i recently post, then tell me... i don't think al-queda has killed more than 1 millon people, just the number us killed ONLY in vietnam..

PD: i was listing only military actions by the us gov, to show they have no competition in terrorism.. they are number 1...

PD2: in case you forget:
Terrorism is: "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"

Don't be ridiculous. Communism is the largest killer in the history of the world.
http://humphrys.humanists.net/communism.html

 

[Prometheus]

Don't be ridiculous. Communism is the largest killer in the history of the world.

I don't understand this. Communism is an idea and a political system. It is an abstract concept. People kill people. Guns kill people. How can you claim that an abstract idea has killed people?

 

[Aquamarine]

I don't understand this. Communism is an idea and a political system. It is an abstract concept. People kill people. Guns kill people. How can you claim that an abstract idea has killed people?

Because Communism doesn't work. But it approves of dictorships and eliminating everything believed to stand in the way of the common good. When the system fails, more obstacles must be eliminated.

If you demand individual people, look no further than to Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

 

[Burnsys]

I think it goes beyond bush... he is a puppet of higer powers. is more. i think that american presidents are pre selected and trained much before elections..

It's not crazy to believe that the most powerfull people of the world, merge together and organize themselves to increase and maintain their power...

This people are those who control the banking system, the media, the most powerfull multinational corporations,Oil , weapons industry. and of course, goverments.

There are some organizations, the ones i think are behind every president usa have..

The Trilateral Commission
http://www.trilateral.org

The Council On Foreing Relations
http://www.cfr.org/

 

[Microburst]

What is terrorism?
This is:

http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2004/03/atentados/imagenes/atentados01.jpg

http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2004/03/espana/atentados11m/imagenes/atentados03.jpg

http://ttd.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2004/03/espana/atentados11m/imagenes/heridostratada.jpg

you forgot this...


http://babykiller.com/ <---!

 

[fourier jr]

There are some organizations, the ones i think are behind every president usa have..

The Council On Foreing Relations
http://www.cfr.org/

The Council was created specifically to plan out US world domination. Find the book Imperial Brain Trust, edited by Shoup/Minter.
"The main problem in the postwar world was whether the U.S. could be self-sufficient and do without the markets and raw materials of the British Empire, Western hemisphere, and Asia. The Council thought that the answer was no and that, therefore, the United States had to enter the war and organize a new world order satisfactory to the United States."
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/357Lsum_s2_ShoupMinter.html
& yes, "communism" is more of a philosophy or concept; it was individuals who did all the killing. When the US kills 12000000 people over the years, impoverishes many millions more, & overthrows governments nonstop, is it "democracy" that does it, or even that abstract concept "America"??

re: "communism" (meaning what has become of Bolshevism) I don't think anyone would disagree that the Soviet Union, etc was a brutal authoritarian regime, which is why nobody is saying that it was. It's because that obvious. There were many instances though, where the US was doing exactly the same thing the old USSR was doing. Just ask a South Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian, East Timorese, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Grenadan, Cuban, Iranian, Iraqi, Palestinian, Venezuelan, Uruguayan, etc, etc.

re: communism (real communism) is more like libertarian socialism than whatever was running China, USSR, etc way back when.

 

[russ_watters]

russ_watters:

Acording to the definition of terrorism by the Usa Gov. :

Terrorism is:
"the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"

When usa invade another country they decide if it's "Lawful" or not. of course from their point of view they will always be lawful, but they make the rulse.. so it's relative.. they are not lawful to me, and are not lawful to the countrys they are invading to.

So remove the word unlawful and name one usa military action that don't match the definition above...

Only one? Too easy. How about Iraq, 1991? That was a UN mandate.

Also, United States; 2001 - uh, how is that terrorism? You didn't even read your own list, did you?

Also, you seem to be a little confused about the definition: being unlawful is not the only critereon for it to be terrorism.

Reading your last post though - those are two of the most absurd conspiracy theories out there. Truly rediculous. If you honestly believe those, there really is nothing to discuss - you need help.

 

[tumor]

I think it goes beyond bush... he is a puppet of higer powers. is more. i think that american presidents are pre selected and trained much before elections..

It's not crazy to believe that the most powerfull people of the world, merge together and organize themselves to increase and maintain their power...

This people are those who control the banking system, the media, the most powerfull multinational corporations,Oil , weapons industry. and of course, goverments.

There are some organizations, the ones i think are behind every president usa have..

The Trilateral Commission
http://www.trilateral.org

The Council On Foreing Relations
http://www.cfr.org/

I agree,Bush, Kerry,Clinton,Sharon and the rest of them around the world are puppets,but if we want to change our world for better first we have to start changing ourselfs.What we do on daily basis(eat,shop,believe,learn) can have profound impact for the better.

 

[fourier jr]

Only one? Too easy. How about Iraq, 1991? That was a UN mandate.

Iraq 1991? "It's the first half of 1990. The dismantling of the Berlin wall is being carried out on a daily basis. Euphoria about the end of the cold war and optimism about the beginning of a new era of peace and prosperity are hard to contain. The Bush administration is under pressure to cut the monster military budget and institute a "peace dividend". But George Bush, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, former Texas oil man, and former Director of the CIA, is not about to turn his back on his many cronies in the military-industrial-intelligence complex. He rails against those who would "naively cut the muscle out of our defense posture", and insists that we must take a cautious attitude towards reform in the USSR. In February, it's reported that "the administration and Congress are expecting the most acrimonious hard-fought defense budget battle in recent history"; and in June that "tensions have escalated" between Congress and the Pentagon "as Congress prepares to draft one of the most pivotal defense budgets in the past two decades". A month later, a Senate Armed Services subcommittee votes to cut military manpower by nearly three times more than recommended by the Bush administration ... "The size and direction of the cuts indicate that President Bush is losing his battle on how to manage reductions in military spending."
...
"One day after using Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to help save the high-tech B-2 bomber, senators invoked the crisis again Friday to stave off the mothballing of two World War II-vintage battleships."
...
"The possible beneficiaries" of the crisis, added the Washington Post, "cover the spectrum of companies in the defense industry."
...
Washington pushed a dozen resolutions through the Security Council condemning Iraq, imposing severe economic sanctions, and getting "authorization" to wage war. Only Cuba and Yemen voted against any of them. When Yemen's delegate received some applause for his negative vote on the key use-of-force resolution of 29 November, US Secretary of State Baker, who was presiding, said to his delegation: " I hope he enjoyed that applause, because this will turn out to be the most expensive vote he ever cast." The message was relayed to the Yemenis, and within days, the tiny Middle-East nation suffered a sharp reduction in US
aid.
...
Here's how the LA Times viewed it:
Shortly after Iraq's invasion ... Bush carefully compared Iraq's aggression with the German aggression against Poland that launched World War II. But he stopped short of a personal comparison of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with Adolf Hitler. That caution went out the window last month, when Bush not only compared Hussein to Hitler but also threatened Nuremberg-style war crime trials. Then, last week, Bush went further, briefly maintaining that the Iraqi leader is worse than Hitler because the Germans never held U.S. citizens as "human shields" at military sites.

After this trivializing of the Holocaust, Bush went on to
warn that any acceptance of uncontrolled aggression "could be
world war tomorrow". Said one of his own officials: "Got to get
his rhetoric under control."
...
"
etc etc
you can read the rest here:
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/iraq2.htm

 

[studentx]

of course i remember al queda.. you mean that terrorist organization that the CIA and pakistan trained and created back in the cold war to figth the russians? the same the us suported in bosnia to fight the serbs?

The CIA has agents that were trained by many different countries. Scratch the US from the list!

 

[Burnsys]

Only one? Too easy. How about Iraq, 1991? That was a UN mandate.

Also, United States; 2001 - uh, how is that terrorism? You didn't even read your own list, did you?

Also, you seem to be a little confused about the definition: being unlawful is not the only critereon for it to be terrorism.

Reading your last post though - those are two of the most absurd conspiracy theories out there. Truly rediculous. If you honestly believe those, there really is nothing to discuss - you need help.

What are the two of the most absurd conspiracy teories?
The trilateral comison and the council on foreing relations?
I am not saying anything they say it all in their oficial websites..

Are you deniing those organizations even exist?

The Trilateral Commission
http://www.trilateral.org

The Council On Foreing Relations
http://www.cfr.org/

--------------------------------------------------
From their Website:

Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. The Council, which is headquartered in New York with an office in Washington, DC, does this by:

Convening meetings in New York, Washington and in other select American cities where senior government officials, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with Council members to debate and discuss the major foreign policy issues of our time;

Conducting a wide-ranging studies program where Council fellows produce articles and books that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations;

Publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal covering international affairs and U.S. foreign policy;

Maintaining a diverse membership, including special programs to foster interest and expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders;

Sponsoring independent task forces whose reports help set the public foreign policy agenda; and

Providing up-to-date information about the world and U.S. foreign policy on the Council’s website, www.cfr.org.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
How is the Council managed? Who is in charge?
The Council is governed by a standard corporate structure: the Chairman of the 31-member board provides overall direction, the President leads the daily operations.

Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of the Blackstone Group, a private investment bank, is Chairman of the Council. Carla A. Hills, Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Hills & Company, and Robert E. Rubin, a Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee of Citigroup, Inc., are Vice Chairmen. Richard N. Haass, a former senior government official, is President.


Who are the members of the Council? How and why are they selected?The Council's 4,000 members are divided almost equally among New York, Washington D. C. and the rest of the nation. They are leaders in government, business, finance, media, academia and a wide range of nonprofit organizations.

Every candidate for membership must be formally proposed in writing by one member and seconded by a minimum of three other individuals. Letters from members are strongly encouraged. Quality, diversity and balance are the key objectives sought by the Council in the composition of its membership.

The roster of members is listed in the annual report.
------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sayng anything they say it all in their web site... Amazing you have never heard of them in the news right? well. they own the news..

Actualy, al this leaders in government, business, finance, media, academia etc, gather together only to drink some tea, and tell some jokes... there is no conspiracy.

 

[Burnsys]

The CIA has agents that were trained by many different countries. Scratch the US from the list!

Yes.. of course.. another example of US interventionism... covert operetions by the cia on sovereign countrys,, coups and overtrow of democraticaly elected goverments...

the entire list i post before ar ALL US interventions in foreing countrys... ONLY US interventions

 

[studentx]

the entire list i post before ar ALL US interventions in foreing countrys... ONLY US interventions

Doh. I just don't get why you post it. You defeat your own point by making it blindingly clear your information is biased.

 

[Burnsys]

Doh. I just don't get why you post it. You defeat your own point by making it blindingly clear your information is biased.

It's not biased.. it is oficial information, and what point? that the usa has commited more acts of terrorism that any actual "Terrorist Organization". That is my point-

Burnsys... FAIR AND BALANCED! hahaha