Is American Terrorism Justified by Their History of Unethical Actions?

  • Context: History 
  • Thread starter Thread starter The Smoking Man
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the justification of American terrorism through historical unethical actions, particularly in relation to military and foreign policy decisions. Key examples include the U.S. government's collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, the provision of chemical weapons technology, and the long-term consequences of nuclear testing in the Pacific. Participants argue that the U.S. has engaged in acts of terrorism while criticizing others for similar behaviors, highlighting a perceived hypocrisy in moral judgments regarding warfare and terrorism.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War
  • Knowledge of the Geneva Protocols and bioweapons regulations
  • Familiarity with the Iran-Iraq War and U.S. involvement
  • Awareness of the historical context of nuclear testing in the Pacific
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Geneva Protocols on modern warfare
  • Examine the role of the CIA in foreign conflicts and its impact on global terrorism
  • Investigate the historical context of U.S. support for Saddam Hussein
  • Analyze the effects of nuclear testing on Pacific island nations and their populations
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for historians, political scientists, and individuals interested in military ethics, U.S. foreign policy, and the complexities of international relations. It provides insights into the moral dilemmas faced by nations in conflict and the consequences of their actions on global stability.

  • #61
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,
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #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
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
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
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 realize 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

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
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
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
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?