News American Terrorism

Russ,

Rather than Hijack your thread re:the 'Poll', I am creating a related link here:

Just another little observation about 'suicidal behaviour' and 'military mentality'.

Russ, you equate what these people do in the name of their cause as 'immoral'.

How do you explain the USA and their attitude to the Tuskeegee Airmen and the venerial disease scandle, the deliberate collaberation of McArthur in not prosecuting Iishi over his activities in China so that he could gain information for the bio-weapons later used in Korea, and activities such as this gained by other 'civil' western states?

You mentioned 'morality' of military technique in many of your posts.

You are aware that bioweapons were banned in 1925 under the Geneva Protocols and that the USA and their new ally Japan (currently seeking a SC veto) have been the world's largest producers of these weapons since that time?

(Well, where do you think the 'terrorists' got their cannister of sarin gas that was used in the Tokyo subway!? :biggrin:)

You DO keep on mentioning 'morality' in reference to war/terrorism.

We are after all discussing the people who supplied the technology and the know how to Saddam to produce the gasses he used on the Kurds and the Iranians notto mention the satellite intel on the best times, weather conditions and troop movements... Yes ... the fruits of illegal research don't seem to fall far from the tree and what is this illegal substance but an act of terrorism?

Was Saddam field testing your bio-tech for you?
 
A

alexandra

The Smoking Man said:
Russ,

We are after all discussing the people who supplied the technology and the know how to Saddam to produce the gasses he used on the Kurds and the Iranians notto mention the satellite intel on the best times, weather conditions and troop movements... Yes ... the fruits of illegal research don't seem to fall far from the tree and what is this illegal substance but an act of terrorism?

Was Saddam field testing your bio-tech for you?
TSM, to pre-empt the inevitable demands you're going to get to provide evidence for something that is so well-known, I found this information (from a US news source: Washington Post, Monday, December 30, 2002 - perhaps acceptably credible? Sorry, I did search for a Fox News source, but Fox just doesn't seem to report on these things, for some odd reason :rolleyes: ):
....Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."....

...The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

....According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

....When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true
 
ohhh i am tied of posting this information in the forum, i even post fragments of the desclasified documents, but it looks like if they don't want to see this... they close theyr eyes... or get answers like: "You understand nothing, in that time iran was more evil", haha, anyway i think we can start posting all terrrorist suported now and before by america.
We can start with luis posadas carriles, agent of the cia who blown an airplaine full of civilians... or Islam Karimov (New rumsfeld buddy) who boils people alive...
 
A

Art

Here's another example of the 'civilised' western countries total disregard for foreign lives;
AUCKLAND (AFP) Legacy of Pacific nuclear testing leaves scar on Pacific - A decade after the last nuclear test was held in the Pacific, islanders are still living with the legacy of hundreds of atmospheric and underground tests while fighting for compensation and recognition of radiation-related health problems.

Hundreds of nuclear tests were conducted in the Pacific Islands by the US, France and Britain between 1946 and 1996.

In the central Pacific the US conducted more than 100 tests, 67 of them at Bikini and Enewetak atolls in the Marshall Islands, a group of atolls about halfway between Australian and Hawaii and home to 55,000 people. Bikini, Enewetak and the nearby Rongelap atolls had to be evacuated due to the massive fallout from the tests and the Bikini and Rongolap islanders are yet to permanently return home.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050708/sc_afp/environmentrainbow_050708171848 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

alexandra

Burnsys said:
ohhh i am tied of posting this information in the forum, i even post fragments of the desclasified documents, but it looks like if they don't want to see this... they close theyr eyes... or get answers like: "You understand nothing, in that time iran was more evil"...
I know the feeling, Burnsys. These discussions seem to have nothing to do with a search for 'truth' based on 'evidence' - people continue to believe what they want to believe despite whatever evidence they are presented with. This is tiresome - it is obvious that the 'discussions' boil down to ideological beliefs for some people: whatever X does is 'good', whatever Y does is 'bad' - how very simplistic to 'analyse' along these lines; how childish!
 
More Bombs testing in foreing soil:

Since 1938, the US Navy has been acquiring land in Vieques by expropriation. The Navy controls 26,000 of the Island's 33,000 acres. Located at the eastern and western sections of the island, the US Navy uses 75% percent of the Island's soil for war maneuvers, and bomb storage

The bombing had changed the natural topography of the place. Everywhere there were small lakes, filled with water. In reality they were bomb craters. Fortunately in the few months protesters have impeded the bombing nature has returned. The green field in which I stood had an interesting peculiarity: there were no big trees, only small brush. The trees had not had time to grow. Those who had been there before recalled the total desolation that they had found only a few months ago. It was all a muddy desert, with no signs of life.

The next day after waking up, a few people took me to see "Monte David" one of the most polluted places in the whole island. Monte David is about 30 minutes away from "La escuelita", the camp where I was staying. The road that goes there is full of debris. However, the debris here was more impressive than the one I had seen the day before. Before long parachutes with cluster bombs, and five or 6 foot long bullets, the size of a medium person, were commonplace. Frequently one encounters small ponds that have been either altered or created by the bombing. The frequent explosions create huge holes that are then filled with water. If one looks closely, the holes are evidently too symmetric to be natural

In April 19, 1999 two F-18 airplanes threw two bombs, 500 pounds each, outside their target area and killed David Sanes, a Vieques civilian, and injured other four, including one soldier. This event has once more rendered evident the danger that the presence of the US navy represents for the people of Vieques. Once more, the people from Vieques, from Puerto Rico in general, and all concerned citizens of the globe demand the immediate halt to any war practices and the eventual demilitarization of all the territory of Vieques
 
alexandra said:
I know the feeling, Burnsys. These discussions seem to have nothing to do with a search for 'truth' based on 'evidence' - people continue to believe what they want to believe despite whatever evidence they are presented with. This is tiresome - it is obvious that the 'discussions' boil down to ideological beliefs for some people: whatever X does is 'good', whatever Y does is 'bad' - how very simplistic to 'analyse' along these lines; how childish!
isn't this the pot calling the kettle black vis a vi your discussions on communism vs. capitalism?
 
A

alexandra

An extract from Wikipedia:

In 1996, the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a congressional report estimating that the clandestine service part of the intelligence community "easily" breaks "extremely serious laws" in countries around the world, 100,000 times every year. [2]

In a briefing held September 15, 2001 George Tenet presented the Worldwide Attack Matrix, a "top-secret" document describing covert CIA anti-terror operations in 80 countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The actions, underway or being recommended, would range from "routine propaganda to lethal covert action in preparation for military attacks". The plans, if carried out, "would give the CIA the broadest and most lethal authority in its history". [3]
...
The activities of the CIA have caused considerable political controversy both in the United States and in other countries, often nominally friendly to the United States, where the agency has operated (or been alleged to.) Particularly during the Cold War, the CIA supported various dictators, including the infamous Augusto Pinochet, who have been friendly to perceived U.S. geopolitical interests (namely anti-Communism), sometimes over democratically-elected governments.

Often cited as one of the American intelligence community's biggest blunders is the CIA involvement in equipping and training Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan in response to the Soviet invasion of the country. Many of the Mujahedeen trained by the CIA later joined Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist organization.
...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#Controversies
 
29
0
The history of South America for the last 100 years (and even longer) has largely been the history of U.S. intereference (many would call it terrorism).

In fact, the U.S. run academy for installing illigitimate Latin American dictators is still around (The School of the Americas).
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
You know, Smoking Man, you really give the impression that you think one terrorist is justified because of another. Every civilization that has ever existed on this planet has a long history of propogating warfare, and of course this includes western civilization and even the United States. It's hard to see how that excuses the actions of modern-day middle-eastern terrorist organizations, especially given that there have only been three attacks that I can ever think of that were directly against the United States (Britain in the War of 1812, Japan at Pearl Harbor, and Al Qaeda on 9/11) and only one of them was carried out by one of these terrorist organizations.
 
29
0
loseyourname said:
You know, Smoking Man, you really give the impression that you think one terrorist is justified because of another.
I don't think he was trying to condone terrorism at all, rather he was trying to point out that Russ's claims were rather one sided thats all.

Also there are more than just three attacks, much more, but if you're talking about attacks specifically on U.S. soil (excluding embassy bombings, plane bombings and the like) I would bring your attention to the first WTC attack, as well as the Oklahoma City bombing (the work of an American, but still a terrorist), then theres the Unabomber, not to mention the bombings of black churches by American terrorist organizations such as the KKK (and the many other evil things they and organizations of their ilk did). More recently, what about the envelopes with anthrax sent to senators and news organizations? That was also domestic work. What about the DC snipers?

There are many many other examples but these are just the ones that sprang immediately to mind.
 
Last edited:
loseyourname said:
You know, Smoking Man, you really give the impression that you think one terrorist is justified because of another. Every civilization that has ever existed on this planet has a long history of propogating warfare, and of course this includes western civilization and even the United States. It's hard to see how that excuses the actions of modern-day middle-eastern terrorist organizations, especially given that there have only been three attacks that I can ever think of that were directly against the United States (Britain in the War of 1812, Japan at Pearl Harbor, and Al Qaeda on 9/11) and only one of them was carried out by one of these terrorist organizations.
It doesn't excuses the actions of modern-day middle-eastern terrorist organizations, we are saying it's the motive why they exist today...

What would happened if America didn't trained osama bin laden and the mujadin?? or if american didn't helped saddam husein???
And now i ask you.. what do you think will happen in 10 years in saudi arabia or uzbekistan??
 
I

Informal Logic

quetzalcoatl9 said:
isn't this the pot calling the kettle black vis a vi your discussions on communism vs. capitalism?
Capitalism is the basis of US foreign policy, and it is about profit, not morals.

The Smoking Man said:
...We are after all discussing the people who supplied the technology and the know how to Saddam to produce the gasses he used on the Kurds and the Iranians notto mention the satellite intel on the best times, weather conditions and troop movements... Yes ... the fruits of illegal research don't seem to fall far from the tree and what is this illegal substance but an act of terrorism?

Was Saddam field testing your bio-tech for you?
The topic of terrorism, and of course the definition of terrorism--one of which is state terrorism, has been discussed in depth but immediately dismissed from thought by those who are in denial.

The problem with those who espouse 'morals' is the inevitable hypocrisy, including domestic trends that we are experiencing at this time. These people who make election decisions based on so-called 'values' do not live any more a virtuous life than their secular counterparts. In fact, I have found them to be very confused in their thinking that because they go to church it makes them good people, while secular/liberal people are far more charitable and concerned about social issues including education, the environment, etc.

The mentality seems to hold true at the global level too. It has been said many times that we need better education in the US, specifically of a global nature, beginning in grade school with current event assignments. Americans are oblivious to their own history outside their borders, which is apparent as they seem to struggle with simple things like the causes of terrorism.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
MaxS said:
I don't think he was trying to condone terrorism at all, rather he was trying to point out that Russ's claims were rather one sided thats all.

Also there are more than just three attacks, much more, but if you're talking about attacks specifically on U.S. soil (excluding embassy bombings, plane bombings and the like) I would bring your attention to the first WTC attack, as well as the Oklahoma City bombing (the work of an American, but still a terrorist), then theres the Unabomber, not to mention the bombings of black churches by American terrorist organizations such as the KKK (and the many other evil things they and organizations of their ilk did). More recently, what about the envelopes with anthrax sent to senators and news organizations? That was also domestic work. What about the DC snipers?

There are many many other examples but these are just the ones that sprang immediately to mind.
I was thinking of attacks by outsiders, as the impression I got was that Smoking Man was justifying (not necessarily condoning) actions by these outside groups as responses to US aggression. Americans killing Americans wasn't on my mind. I almost forgot about that first WTC attack, though, it was so small comparatively.

My point is simply that you walk a fine line here. When Russ cries out about, say, Chechens killing Russian schoolchildren, do you really think the appropriate response is "but the Russians kill Chechens every day?" How is killing innocent civilians that are in no way linked to any military target ever justified? Regardless of who does it, it's wrong. When you respond by screaming that the other side does the same thing, I respond by asking "So what?" Does that make it right?

Honestly, can't we just condemn evil actions? Would not the first step to clearing our world of these things be an unqualified non-acceptance of them?
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
Burnsys said:
It doesn't excuses the actions of modern-day middle-eastern terrorist organizations, we are saying it's the motive why they exist today...
The reason they exist is the human desire for vengeance. 'You got us, now we'll get you.' That is exactly the attitude I'm trying to abet. It seems to be the attitude that threads like this condone.
 
I

Informal Logic

loseyourname said:
I was thinking of attacks by outsiders, as the impression I got was that Smoking Man was justifying (not necessarily condoning) actions by these outside groups as responses to US aggression. Americans killing Americans wasn't on my mind. I almost forgot about that first WTC attack, though, it was so small comparatively.

My point is simply that you walk a fine line here. When Russ cries out about, say, Chechens killing Russian schoolchildren, do you really think the appropriate response is "but the Russians kill Chechens every day?" How is killing innocent civilians that are in no way linked to any military target ever justified? Regardless of who does it, it's wrong. When you respond by screaming that the other side does the same thing, I respond by asking "So what?" Does that make it right?

Honestly, can't we just condemn evil actions? Would not the first step to clearing our world of these things be an unqualified non-acceptance of them?
Yes everyone including Muslims should condemn evil actions, in particular targeting innocent civilians, which is most heinous. However, nothing is one sided and everyone needs to accept responsibility for contribution to the problems in the world today. Until all parties are willing to do so, how can the problem be resolved?
 
29
0
loseyourname said:
The reason they exist is the human desire for vengeance. 'You got us, now we'll get you.' That is exactly the attitude I'm trying to abet. It seems to be the attitude that threads like this condone.
This thread doesn't condone that attitude at all and either you are delibirately missing that point and trolling or, well, you are missing the point.

This thread is not about saying, "Well, the other side does it too, that makes it ok!"

It is about saying we have no right to say muslims are terrorists etc etc when we do the same thing. That doesn't mean it is OK one way or the other, obviously it is not.
 
A

Art

loseyourname said:
You know, Smoking Man, you really give the impression that you think one terrorist is justified because of another. Every civilization that has ever existed on this planet has a long history of propogating warfare, and of course this includes western civilization and even the United States. It's hard to see how that excuses the actions of modern-day middle-eastern terrorist organizations, especially given that there have only been three attacks that I can ever think of that were directly against the United States (Britain in the War of 1812, Japan at Pearl Harbor, and Al Qaeda on 9/11) and only one of them was carried out by one of these terrorist organizations.
First off I would like to reiterate what I have said on previous threads. I abhore all terrorist acts no matter who the perpetrators are. However I believe your criticism in this case is in error. The title of the thread is American terrorism so by bringing in M.E, terrorism you are going off topic and in fact (unintentionally I am sure) doing the very thing you are accusing TSM of doing which is using the argument of 'we may be bad but what about them'.
 
loseyourname said:
You know, Smoking Man, you really give the impression that you think one terrorist is justified because of another. Every civilization that has ever existed on this planet has a long history of propogating warfare, and of course this includes western civilization and even the United States. It's hard to see how that excuses the actions of modern-day middle-eastern terrorist organizations, especially given that there have only been three attacks that I can ever think of that were directly against the United States (Britain in the War of 1812, Japan at Pearl Harbor, and Al Qaeda on 9/11) and only one of them was carried out by one of these terrorist organizations.
Sorry for that impression then.

I believe that the tiime for ALL to be held accountable is upon us and that terrorism should be stopped at all levels.

Now that can't take place when you are prepared to 'forgive' acts of terrorism by states you are sympathetic to.

Besides pointing out what is wrong with 'Moslem' states, we must therefore also acknowledge what goes on in western countries and admit it is equally heinous.

Call it the 'arms race' of terrorism if you will and you are not going to get rid of it until something is done by all parties involved.
 
Last edited:

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
MaxS said:
It is about saying we have no right to say muslims are terrorists etc etc when we do the same thing. That doesn't mean it is OK one way or the other, obviously it is not.
Who are 'we?' I've never committed a terrorist act, and presumably neither has anyone else that has posted a thread in this forum. So why do we not have the right to call Islamic terrorists 'terrorists?" Russ simply called an immoral act 'immoral.' If what he says is correct, and everyone seems to agree that it is, why the objection?

Art said:
The title of the thread is American terrorism so by bringing in M.E, terrorism you are going off topic and in fact (unintentionally I am sure) doing the very thing you are accusing TSM of doing which is using the argument of 'we may be bad but what about them'.
How so? I've made no evaluation of either group. If you want me to, however, personally I think neither is particularly well justified. I never have and I'm not going to sit here from my pedestal and lecture you guys about calling US actions 'immoral.' I'm especially not going to do so by pointing out that other nations and civilizations have performed similar actions. If what the US does is immoral, then you have every right to call the actions by the name they deserve. Same goes with any other group performing immoral actions.

The Smoking Man said:
Sorry for that impression then.

I believe that the tiime for ALL to be held accountable is upon us and that terrorism should be stopped at all levels.

Now that can't take place when you are prepared to 'forgive' acts of terrorism by states you are sympathetic to.

Besides pointing out what is wrong with 'Moslem' states, we must therefore also acknowledge what goes on in western countries and admit it is equally heinous.

Call it the 'arms race' of terrorism if you will and you are not going to get rid of it until something is done by all parties involved.
Good. Thank you for not jumping on me. You seem to have gotten the message of what I was posting. I agree with you, although I don't think that simply acknowledging that the US has done and continues to do bad things is going to solve anything by itself. It is a little more complicated than that; then again, I'm sure you agree.
 
loseyourname said:
Good. Thank you for not jumping on me. You seem to have gotten the message of what I was posting. I agree with you, although I don't think that simply acknowledging that the US has done and continues to do bad things is going to solve anything by itself. It is a little more complicated than that; then again, I'm sure you agree.
Damn straight. Now we have to prosecute. Justice must be seen to be done.

Without this, the USA will never be able to take the moral high ground again.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,583
4,819
Honestly, TSM, I don't see the point of this thread. If you're trying to catch me holding a double-standard, you won't find one. I say I am a fair and reasonable person and its the truth. For example, the Tuskegee syphillis study (which had nothing to do with the Tuskegee Airmen) was a national travesty. A disgrace. I absolutely, unequivocably condemn it. In fact, it astonishes me that you would expect me not to condemn it or to try to wiggle around it and not give a straight answer - perhaps that comes from looking in the mirror? Can you repeat the words I just said but fill in one of the acts we've been discussing in other threads (such as the bomber who killed kids around a Humvee)? Can you give an unequivocal condemnation of an act comitted by someone in the name of something you hold dear?

With that in mind, I think that if you weigh the good against the bad, the US comes out looking pretty good overall - most especially because of it's relatively unique ability to evolve: A Tuskeegee type incident is unlikely to happen in the US because the US is better than it was 50 years ago.

And one more thing: the title of the thread is a vague, backhand insult that is not substantiated. In this thread and others, you (and others) have broadened the definition of "terrorism" to allow you to apply it to the US while simultaneously narrowed it to allow you to avoid applying it to certain organizations/incidents in the Middle East. If you're looking for consistency from me, you'll never find it unless you first get some for yourself. Its like shooting video from a rocking ship - to you it looks like the shore is moving up and down, when the reality is that it's you who is moving up and down.
 
Last edited:
A

Art

The British at least, seem to hold their hands up when caught behaving badly;

'Vital' investigation welcomed

Eleven soldiers have been charged over the deaths
Three British soldiers have been charged with war crimes and four face criminal charges over the death of an Iraqi, while a further four face charges over the death of another person.
The charges have prompted reaction from various sectors, including former soldiers and Muslim leaders.


MUSLIM COUNCIL OF BRITAIN, INAYAT BUNGLAWALA
Indirectly, this may help blunt the ability of extremists to exploit the Iraq war.

These are very serious allegations and it is vital that they are investigated and, if our soldiers have committed these offences, they ought to be disciplined and punished.

It sends a signal to other British soldiers that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated but also to the Iraqi people and the wider Muslim world that we are not in Iraq to excuse our own crimes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4699773.stm
 
29
0
London's Mayor: "Under foreign occupation and denied a right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs ... I suspect that if it had happened here in England we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves."
 
russ_watters said:
Honestly, TSM, I don't see the point of this thread. If you're trying to catch me holding a double-standard, you won't find one. I say I am a fair and reasonable person and its the truth. For example, the Tuskegee syphillis study (which had nothing to do with the Tuskegee Airmen) was a national travesty. A disgrace. I absolutely, unequivocably condemn it. In fact, it astonishes me that you would expect me not to condemn it or to try to wiggle around it and not give a straight answer - perhaps that comes from looking in the mirror? Can you repeat the words I just said but fill in one of the acts we've been discussing in other threads (such as the bomber who killed kids around a Humvee)? Can you give an unequivocal condemnation of an act comitted by someone in the name of something you hold dear?
Russ, I have come out a couple of times and stated that I abhore what happened around the Humvee and in London.

I have also sat here and watched as quite a few have dismissed and even RIDICULED American agression against civillian targets.

It seems to me a couple of people here came out and actually mentioned how 'their sweaters were in sympathy with the rocket attack launched against a convoy of trucks carrying sheep'.

Tell me who has the double standard Russ?

I've had others dismiss a bunker buster killing a whole family and ripping the arms off a young boy 30 miles outside of Bahgdad because 'there might have been a "convoy" in the area'.... Well, heck ... do you think the chldren might have died becasue there was a Humvee in the area?

Here's an obvious question ... If the target was children, why didn't they just walk into a school and take out a few hundred kids in an American built school?

Here's what I see as excuses ...

Saddam built targets in Urban areas to use the population as human shields ... America has to use smart bombs against the installations and forgives the civillian deaths as 'collateral damage'.

US soldiers are actually issued with candy to attract children to their positions while on patrol in Military vehicles ... When a child dies then automatically, the 'terrorist' was targetting the children and not the Humvee regardless of the fact that if they wanted to kill Children, a school would have been a more efficient target.

russ_watters said:
With that in mind, I think that if you weigh the good against the bad, the US comes out looking pretty good overall - most especially because of it's relatively unique ability to evolve: A Tuskeegee type incident is unlikely to happen in the US because the US is better than it was 50 years ago.
Yes, we can all see the 'mental notebook' ... "Don't do this to Americans any more".

We also see the invention of new and marvellous techniques to get around the problems of a more 'modern world' like "extraordinary rendition" for instance. Or how about the creation of prison camps outside the continental USA to avoid those pesky American laws of habeas corpus and all other things related to and guaranteed under the laws of the US Constitution?

russ_watters said:
And one more thing: the title of the thread is a vague, backhand insult that is not substantiated. In this thread and others, you (and others) have broadened the definition of "terrorism" to allow you to apply it to the US while simultaneously narrowed it to allow you to avoid applying it to certain organizations/incidents in the Middle East. If you're looking for consistency from me, you'll never find it unless you first get some for yourself. Its like shooting video from a rocking ship - to you it looks like the shore is moving up and down, when the reality is that it's you who is moving up and down.
I can see you have taken your gravol.

What I admit is that we are both staring at each other from the decks of boats.

It is you who are claiming that because your boat is an incredibly large aircraft carrier with gyros to keep the deck straight that it's 'just like dry land'.

I deliberately created this thread to keep one of your threads 'clean'.

I wrote the original post on one of your threads and then deleted it posting it here to avoid the accusation of 'hijacking your thread'.

I deliberately took what most Republican/Neocons refer to as the 'subversive liberal sneak attack' buried in 'their threads' and made a place where it is right out in the open and states in unequivocal terms what it is and why it is there.

Now again, why am I getting attacked for the creation of a thread and not the content?

Why can we have:

The Greatest American is ...
Just how many Moslems support terrorism ...
Awful news in Iraq ...
The surprising origins of the current "Jihad" ...

With no questions of this nature?

I have never seen a question of a thread's right to exist before. Even in High School Debating clubs no issues or premise are considered taboo. You are, after all, here to keep us on the straight and narrow with your observations and arguments.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top