American Terrorism

  • #51
221
0
Art said:
I'm not assuming anything at all about your personal beliefs. I am merely pointing out that often people on the outside looking in may have a better overall perspective than someone who lives closely day to day with all the individual plots sub-plots and personalities that go into making up american foreign policy.

...got it...missed your point, sorry.
 
  • #52
Townsend said:
I don't know, you tell me....seems to me you are calling AMERICA and its people terrorist. Perhaps you need to change your tread title and your position.
If an American creates a thread called Iraq Terrorists, do you assume he means every living breathing human being in Iraq including those liberated by the USA?

Townsend said:
Are you trying to sound condescending? Pretending that America is that stupid? Come on...
LOL ... No Comment.

Townsend said:
Why not? If our military and tax dollars the ones doing the work then we have earned the right. That is how I feel.
Great, so if I have the cash to buy a Glock, I have the right to knock off a liquor store because I have a gun? Puleeeeze.

Townsend said:
If the world started taking more of the responsibility on without the aid of the US then we would not have to be the police that we are.
Ummm ... Don't you get it? That is what the world HAS been saying.

Townsend said:
Why is that funny to you? And what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?
Because you stated that the Government of the USA was the victims when in reality, they were condemned by the relatives of the REAL victims and that the government position/popularity was actually HELPED by 9/11.

Townsend said:
You're giving me your biased subjective opinion as a fact now?
Well, apart from it actually BEING a fact, why is it that just a few lines up you have the right to state "If our military and tax dollars the ones doing the work then we have earned the right. That is how I feel." And on other threads you make statements 'Do I have to get my own URL and quote myself'?

Townsend said:
What about the constitution? We cannot just hand over the President of the United States of America. But it is funny that you think we should and that would somehow fix something. What about the fact that he would only become a martyr for his cause? It is not a solution there TSM, but nice try.
Then you should be happy at the thought that you would be vindicated, right?

Townsend said:
I don't care about the world court....never have never will...why should I?

I don't anything about that...
Wikipedia said:
in Nicaragua v. United States the United States of America had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the United States to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. In a split decision, the majority of the Court ruled the United States was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and ordered the US pay reparations (see note 2), although it never did.
Townsend said:
That has not be established as a fact.
Since when is guilt the reason for having a trial? The reason for having a trial is to establish guilt. Was Clinton's Guilt established before or after the proceedings?

Townsend said:
Because perhaps star is only concerned about selling magazines and not a political agenda?
Oh, that's rich.
 
  • #53
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
If an American creates a thread called Iraq Terrorists, do you assume he means every living breathing human being in Iraq including those liberated by the USA?
That is an if that has not happened but if it did then I would assume that he means enough of the Iraqi people to be talking about the nation of Iraq.

Great, so if I have the cash to buy a Glock, I have the right to knock off a liquor store because I have a gun? Puleeeeze.
No, what are you talking about? If I was living in your house because I couldn't afford to take care of my self then I would have to agree to play by your rules. As it is, the world has not been able to prevent terrorism and is not taking the actions needed. As such to secure our nation against terrorism we are taking the action.

Ummm ... Don't you get it? That is what the world HAS been saying.
Well, then lets see it. I want France and Germany and Russia etc...to start going after Terrorist. I don't want another attack on American soil! Got it?

Because you stated that the Government of the USA was the victims when in reality, they were condemned by the relatives of the REAL victims and that the government position/popularity was actually HELPED by 9/11.
The people are the concern of the government...

Well, apart from it actually BEING a fact, why is it that just a few lines up you have the right to state "If our military and tax dollars the ones doing the work then we have earned the right. That is how I feel." And on other threads you make statements 'Do I have to get my own URL and quote myself'?
I was stating my opinion not a fact. For instance, I think China is a terrorist nation. That is an opinion that I am stating as an opinion, now compare that to. China is a terrorist nation. That is an opinion but it is being stated as a fact.


Since when is guilt the reason for having a trial? The reason for having a trial is to establish guilt. Was Clinton's Guilt established before or after the proceedings?
The world court does not govern the people of the United States or their elected representative. I will never believe that it should, understand?
 
  • #54
alexandra
Townsend said:
The world court does not govern the people of the United States or their elected representative. I will never believe that it should, understand?
You make yourself perfectly clear: the US is not answerable to any other state in the global community but may, on the other hand, do precisely as it pleases wherever it pleases.
 
  • #55
Art
Townsend said:
The world court does not govern the people of the United States or their elected representative. I will never believe that it should, understand?
The world court unlike America does not seek to govern anybody. It's role is to administer justice. Do you have an issue with justice?
 
  • #56
Townsend said:
That is an if that has not happened but if it did then I would assume that he means enough of the Iraqi people to be talking about the nation of Iraq.
And if I substitute the word 'teddybears' for 'terrorists' then obviously I mean all the people of the USA. :biggrin:

Townsend said:
No, what are you talking about? If I was living in your house because I couldn't afford to take care of my self then I would have to agree to play by your rules. As it is, the world has not been able to prevent terrorism and is not taking the actions needed. As such to secure our nation against terrorism we are taking the action.
The earth IS our house and until 1984, when the USA took exception to a ruling by the world court against them over Niceragua, you also believed in the 'House Rules'.

It appears you have now locked yourself in the Bathroom.

Townsend said:
Well, then lets see it. I want France and Germany and Russia etc...to start going after Terrorist. I don't want another attack on American soil! Got it?
Oh, you missed it ... The world supported your invasion if Afghanistan. It was when you yanked your men from there leaving 15,000 to search for the person who actually now admits to blowing up the WTC and stuck the remainder of your forces ... 10X the amount into a country Colin Powell stated in 2001 had been neutered.

Townsend said:
The people are the concern of the government...
Yeah ... and it's okay to outsource.

Townsend said:
I was stating my opinion not a fact. For instance, I think China is a terrorist nation. That is an opinion that I am stating as an opinion, now compare that to. China is a terrorist nation. That is an opinion but it is being stated as a fact.
Yeah ... and what am I doing?

Townsend said:
The world court does not govern the people of the United States or their elected representative. I will never believe that it should, understand?
Sure. I believe you have decided on a course of action that will effectively make you like the USSR of the 1960's ... a pariah.

You were locked out of the EU negotiations with Iran.

Iraq is now negotiating with Iran and has admitted fault in the war which by implication also admits they think you are right there with Saddam.
 
  • #57
Art said:
The world court unlike America does not seek to govern anybody. It's role is to administer justice. Do you have an issue with justice?
The Canadian approach:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...Source=email&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Interesting their body count is 7 in Iraq ... 4 were killed by American 'friendly fire'. o:)

"For Canada, the mission marks a critical test of Ottawa's vaunted "3-D" approach to international affairs — defence, diplomacy and development."

For now, that's a safe bet, said Andrew Sullivan, vice-president of the polling firm EKOS Research Associates.

Canadians have an "enormously positive" view of their armed forces, although their understanding of their role in the world today is outdated, he said.

"We still subscribe to that anachronistic view of the peacekeepers ... it's an image that people cling to pretty tenaciously," Sullivan said.

One reason for that is that Canadians like to think their military is somehow different from the U.S. armed forces. Which is why the coming mission in Afghanistan could prove "jarring" to Canadians, he said.
Peacekeeping is 'anachronistic'?
 
  • #58
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Townsend said:
Well, then lets see it. I want France and Germany and Russia etc...to start going after Terrorist. I don't want another attack on American soil! Got it?
Since everyone else missed this one... Aside from the fact that France has caught quite a few Al Qeada terrorists on behalf of the U.S. and 9-11, are you saying you don't care about terrorism in Madrid, or London, or anywhere except on American soil? Yet you feel these other countries are somehow beholding to us then?
 
  • #59
221
0
SOS2008 said:
Since everyone else missed this one... Aside from the fact that France has caught quite a few Al Qeada terrorists on behalf of the U.S. and 9-11, are you saying you don't care about terrorism in Madrid, or London, or anywhere except on American soil? Yet you feel these other countries are somehow beholding to us then?
Thats not what I am saying and you know it. :rolleyes:
 
  • #60
356
3
Townsend said:
Thats not what I am saying and you know it. :rolleyes:
humour usThe message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
 
  • #61
221
0
Smurf said:
humour usThe message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
What is there to humour you about? She is saying that because I said one thing I am inferring something completely different. I never said that and I never meant that. Its just someone trying to put the right spin on words to make them seem like whatever suits them.

Regards,
 
  • #62
Townsend said:
What is there to humour you about? She is saying that because I said one thing I am inferring something completely different. I never said that and I never meant that. Its just someone trying to put the right spin on words to make them seem like whatever suits them.
I know the feeling. :biggrin:
 
  • #63
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
I know the feeling. :biggrin:
This is one of those situations where I am dammed if do and dammed if I don't. I bet you play a lot of chess.
 
  • #64
Townsend said:
This is one of those situations where I am dammed if do and dammed if I don't. I bet you play a lot of chess.
Go. o:) :wink:
 
  • #65
356
3
Townsend said:
What is there to humour you about? She is saying that because I said one thing I am inferring something completely different. I never said that and I never meant that. Its just someone trying to put the right spin on words to make them seem like whatever suits them.
You've said nothing. You're blaming the rest of the world for the US's problems even though they all disagreed with you doing what caused them in the first place.
 
  • #66
Art
Truth, Justice and the American Way

I can understand why the US gov't is perplexed by the international criticism of their behaviour in Iraq afterall they are only behaving in much the same way they behave at home;
Torture In America's Brutal Prisons
Posted: 07/18
From: ICH

Torture Inc. America's Brutal Prisons

Savaged by dogs, Electrocuted With Cattle Prods, Burned By Toxic Chemicals, Does such barbaric abuse inside U.S. jails explain the horrors that were committed in Iraq?

By Deborah Davies

They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for BBC Channel 4 . It’s terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you’re not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying.
http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=277037 [Broken]

Perhaps this is a new justice model Bush and co. are trialing in Iraq for use back home
Courts resort to rushed justice

With Saddam Hussein's trial looming, Rory Carroll spent a day in court in Baghdad and found it to be secretive, overloaded and quick

In one case this week four men, a father, his two adult sons and a nephew, were accused of possessing a grenade and bomb-making equipment allegedly found by US troops in a raid on their home in Mosul in January.

The trial started at 10.17am. The men said the equipment was for welding and fixing televisions. They knew nothing about the grenade. A female prosecutor in a two-minute presentation demanded the nephew be acquitted but 20 years for the others. The defence lawyer, given the case an hour earlier and seeing his clients for the first time, repeated their explanations. The judges retired to deliberate at 10.50. Five minutes later they acquitted the nephew and sons but sentenced the father, Hassan Muslih, to 20 years because the house title deeds were in his name. US soldiers returned him to Abu Ghraib.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1531401,00.html

What a wonderful place America is under the current regime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Art
I see the UN are trying to achieve an international agreement on a definition of a terrorist and terrorism.
UN seeks definition of terrorism

More than 60 people were killed in bomb blasts in Egypt on Saturday
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has urged world leaders to agree on a universal definition of terrorism......

A UN treaty has been stalled for years over the definition of a terrorist.

A new UN proposal calls terrorism any act intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act.
It seems likely the US will once again use their veto, as if approved, from the wording above, it would appear to formally recognise that Bush's invasion of Iraq constituted terrorism. :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
"A new UN proposal calls terrorism any act intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act."

I wonder what compel means? Would pressure from, say, human rights activists count? Conscientious news reporting? What about bribes from large companies? Is being elected an act of terrorism, since being sworn to certain duties surely compels your government to act under certain situations. Is invading a nation an act of terrorism against its population?

What if the government wants to perform a nativity play? Will the director be prosecuted for terrorism?
 
  • #69
96
0
I don't know if my question is off-topical and I am sorry if that is since the thread title is a bit vague to me and I actually don't have much time for a thorough skim over the whole thread. I am wondering how anyone of you here would define what the difference might be between Extreme Violence and Terrorism. I heard some American said ExtremeViolence is not terrorism though,
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Art said:
A new UN proposal calls terrorism any act intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act.
What, you mean like issuing resolutions?

How about if they ignore the UN and invade?
 
  • #71
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Art said:
I see the UN are trying to achieve an international agreement on a definition of a terrorist and terrorism. It seems likely the US will once again use their veto, as if approved, from the wording above, it would appear to formally recognise that Bush's invasion of Iraq constituted terrorism. :biggrin:
I posted this elsewhere meaning to post it in this thread... The Bush administration has now changed the definition of "war on terror" to "war on radicalism" (Islamic radicalism to be precise). Bush, et al, figure if they don't like the rules, they'll just come up with rules of their own--see how the game is played?
 

Related Threads on American Terrorism

Replies
41
Views
4K
Replies
71
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
84
Views
8K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
119
Views
12K
Top