NationStates Jolt Archive

definition of terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Considering that much of what the US has done has been against its own laws or laws of the UN, do you think that "terrorist" would be a good definition for the US? Or maybe just her gov't and foreign policy makers? Or is really the classification one to be made in the eye of the beholder?

I'm bored, and don't have much a say on it. I just want to see some debate.

Is there anyone claiming it's not?

I was under the impression that the U. N. didn't have "laws" or the ability to transcend a nation's sovereignty.

My understanding of this question has always been that the U.S. isn't a "terrorist" nation. Cruel? Opportunistic? Two-faced? Undoubtedly. But "terrorist?" *shrug* Until we have an international political order not built on the primacy of the nation-state as it's fundamental building block "terrorism" is going to be a hard charge to make stick.

In that case, any political organization that has ever gone into armed conflict with another political organization could be considered a terrorist. The definition isn't accurate, IMHO. I would change the definition to read this way:

"A person, group, society or nation that deliberately uses tactics of fear, torture, or destruction of life or property of innocent civilians with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I think this would be the more internationally accepted definition. Nobody likes war, but I doubt that most people would define any nation that ever goes to war as a terrorist nation. Think of it this way: by the definition in the OP, both Nazi Germany and the entirety of the Allied Powers would be considered terrorists in World War II. They invaded each other with the intent to coerce the other nation to change its regime through force of violence.

But hey, history is written by the victor.

"A person, group, society or nation that deliberately uses tactics of fear, torture, or destruction of life or property of innocent civilians with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."


Are you saying there are guilty civilians?:D

Well still, with this definition the US government and media are using fear tactics against their own people. Need I say more?

Are you scared? Well, you should be:D

In that case, any political organization that has ever gone into armed conflict with another political organization could be considered a terrorist. The definition isn't accurate, IMHO. I would change the definition to read this way:

"A person, group, society or nation that deliberately uses tactics of fear, torture, or destruction of life or property of innocent civilians with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I think this would be the more internationally accepted definition. Nobody likes war, but I doubt that most people would define any nation that ever goes to war as a terrorist nation. Think of it this way: by the definition in the OP, both Nazi Germany and the entirety of the Allied Powers would be considered terrorists in World War II. They invaded each other with the intent to coerce the other nation to change its regime through force of violence.

But hey, history is written by the victor.

You're running smack dab into the Nuremburg problem. Exactly what qualifies as "innocent?" What about actively investing in or working for a company that enslaves people in or is spewing toxic waste over some other nation? What about being in the employ of a government that kills its own citizens? What about having voted for or supporting a political party that advocates all of this? The lines aren't so clear cut any more.

You're running smack dab into the Nuremburg problem. Exactly what qualifies as "innocent?" What about actively investing in or working for a company that enslaves people in or is spewing toxic waste over some other nation? What about being in the employ of a government that kills its own citizens? What about having voted for or supporting a political party that advocates all of this? The lines aren't so clear cut any more.

totally agree... and otherwise, what qualifies as a "guilty civilian"? so he can be killed, or tortured? only the interest of the country that's killing those people

totally agree... and otherwise, what qualifies as a "guilty civilian"? so he can be killed, or tortured? only the interest of the country that's killing those people

The sad thing? I don't see this going anywhere except relativist, Kissingerian realism. *shudder* And all this in the name of promoting all that is good in the world.

Basically, my definition of "innocent civilian" is a non-combatant person who is not actively involved in the conflict between the terrorist group and its stated target. If you're not actively fighting the terrorist or aiding the effort through your work or volunteer time, you're an innocent civilian. Merely being affiliated with the target group would not make you an active member who fights the terrorist group. Unless somebody in the World Trade Center on 9/11 was actually working to capture or kill O-B-L, they were all innocent civilians.

Almost any violence is terrorism under those definitions. A majority of UN member nations opposing the resolution which would've made one of our most recent wars "legal" isn't sufficient to warrant a categorical declaration that the U.S. is a "terrorist nation." We have a lawful right to self-defense under the laws of the UN and according to common sense. Just because we were wrong about most of the claims made about Saddam's Iraq doesn't mean we're terrorists, especially if we (officially) practice what is widely agreed to be 'jus ad bello' in the conduct of the war, albeit with notable exceptions.

Almost any violence is terrorism under those definitions. A majority of UN member nations opposing the resolution which would've made one of our most recent wars "legal" isn't sufficient to warrant a categorical declaration that the U.S. is a "terrorist nation." We have a lawful right to self-defense under the laws of the UN and according to common sense. Just because we were wrong about most of the claims made about Saddam's Iraq doesn't mean we're terrorists, especially if we (officially) practice what is widely agreed to be 'jus ad bello' in the conduct of the war, albeit with notable exceptions.

I wouldn't call the U.S. a terrorist state under my definition. Note the word "deliberately". I wouldn't say we're deliberately targeting innocent civilians. Some may argue that, of course...

common sense?... says who?... obiusly is the american common sense, or to be more general... OUR common sense as occidental culture.

Torrorism is absolutely relative... the only countries or organizations that can be "properly" called as terrorist, are the ones that proclaim to be a terrorist organization. The U.N are led by those who won the WWII (just look at the security council, it's permanent members and privileges), so it's mainly and occidental-based organization, it's not neutral.

UN law is subservient to US law.


Can the US ignore UN rulings? yes thanx to Veto power.
can the UN do something the US does not allow? No thanx to veto power.


The US determines international Law first.
UN is just a forum for 3rd world nations to bitch and waste US/europe/japan's money on pipe dreams.

UN law is subservient to US law.


Can the US ignore UN rulings? yes thanx to Veto power.
can the UN do something the US does not allow? No thanx to veto power.


The US determines international Law first.
UN is just a forum for 3rd world nations to bitch and waste US/europe/japan's money on pipe dreams.


Oh!, C'mon, there are some UN organizations that are not controlled by the US, like.... uhmm.... wait... mmm.... no-one....

No. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with social or political coercion. It was simply an opportunistic takeover for economic and militaristic purposes. Classifying it as a "terrorist" mission is wrong. So is classifying any of the actions that the US has taken to install dictators or the threats that it has made to other countries as "terrorist" actions. They've been for self-serving, morally wrong reasons, but not to advance any ideological purpose. They've just been to line the US's pockets and increase its influence in the world.

Oh!, C'mon, there are some UN organizations that are not controlled by the US, like.... uhmm.... wait... mmm.... no-one....on other end, there are states with veto power and opposed ideas, so the UN can't actually do something.

on other end, there are states with veto power and opposed ideas, so the UN can't actually do something.

the other states in general can be bullied by the US military.

Like Russia they can scream until they are blue in the face that Kosovo is not an independent country until they are blue in the face.

Is Kosovo an independent country.

Likewise they can scream until they are horse that Georgia cant be in NATO.
the fact is if Georgia wants to be in NATO and NATO wants them in they get to be in NATO.

Going straight to the word etymology, the US is not a country that deliberately spreads terror, so, from that point of view, the US is not a terrorist country...

Depends on who you ask.

The Sudanese working the aspirin factory that we bombed would probably think so. Others, probably not.

the other states in general can be bullied by the US military. I don't think that in the current situation US army has enough forces to deal with russia and china.

Like Russia they can scream until they are blue in the face that Kosovo is not an independent country until they are blue in the face.

Is Kosovo an independent country. I don't think USA could prevent independance declarement either, nor prevent other nations from acknowladge the new country.

Likewise they can scream until they are horse that Georgia cant be in NATO.
the fact is if Georgia wants to be in NATO and NATO wants them in they get to be in NATO.
NATO is non-UN organization. since russia isn't NATO member their influence about NATO membership and policies is almost nothing. same as the EU or the Arab league.

Anyway, the US doesn't wait the UN aproval to make a "legal" and "Preventive" wars... so, it doesn't matter what the security council says, the US does what he wants anyway... when they saw that an eventual resolution of the security council (not counting the veto power) could be that the Iraq campaign was illegal, thay just didn't wait the resolution to be even discussed

Anyway, the US doesn't wait the UN aproval to make a "legal" and "Preventive" wars... so, it doesn't matter what the security council says, the US does what he wants anyway... when they saw that an eventual resolution of the security council (not counting the veto power) could be that the Iraq campaign was illegal, thay just didn't wait the resolution to be even discussed

So wait -- you don't think that a big, strong guy with lots of weapons walking around the neighborhood saying "he looked at me funny so I broke into his house 'cause I thought he was going to attack my house, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it" is not at least a little terroristic? If you lived in that neighborhood and had a house, wouldn't you be worried that he might think YOU were looking at him funny? Especially if you had oil on your property?

As I understand it, even the people that have posted in here that say that it's not terrorism, acknowledge that it was not self-defense but an aggressive war.

Do we all agree on that? Anyone here saying that it was a defensive war and Bush did not fool american public opinion into going into that war?

No, of course am not saying that!

It was purely an agressive, and unjustified war!... what am saying is that the US dind't make that war to justSpread Terror... the war was made for economical reasons... (it doesn't make that war legal, nor saint, nor justified)

(...)
Do we all agree on that? Anyone here saying that it was a defensive war and Bush did not fool american public opinion into going into that war?

If anyone thinks that, please bring me an Iraq-made Mass Destruction weapon first :P

if someone going to war (stupid or evil as it may seem), it doesn't make him terrorist. if he more intent in harming and terrorized the non-fighting popolution (no matter what they think about the war) than targeting the army, the industry and the leadership, it would be more considerable to say he is terrorist.

but even if the latter is the case it isn't more terroristic than the allies bombing in WW2.

Or Operation Linebacker as the US carpet-bombed and defoliated Vietnam.

So wait -- you don't think that a big, strong guy with lots of weapons walking around the neighborhood saying "he looked at me funny so I broke into his house 'cause I thought he was going to attack my house, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it" is not at least a little terroristic? If you lived in that neighborhood and had a house, wouldn't you be worried that he might think YOU were looking at him funny? Especially if you had oil on your property?

if someone going to war (stupid or evil as it may seem), it doesn't make him terrorist. if he more intent in harming and terrorized the non-fighting popolution (no matter what they think about the war) than targeting the army, the industry and the leadership, it would be more considerable to say he is terrorist.

but even if the latter is the case it isn't more terroristic than the allies bombing in WW2.

No, of course am not saying that!

It was purely an agressive, and unjustified war!... what am saying is that the US dind't make that war to just spread terror... the war was made for economical reasons... (it doesn't make that war legal, nor saint, nor justified)

The intent doesn't really matter to the person whose home and family are wiped out by "collateral damage", does it? Terror is an emotion and doesn't really care who or what caused it. The "why" is immaterial if terrorism is the result.

I think that a terroristic organization is the one that it's final intention is just to spread terror and cause caos, or the ones that use terror as the main mean to achieve an objetive... under those terms, the US is not a terrorist nation.

Again, am not saying that the US did not make terrorist actions on Iraq ground, am not saying that the families of the dead's think "oh!, it doesn't matter, it wasn't terrorism", but the final intention was not to cause terror, as it happens with ETA, or the Colombian guerrilla.

This discussion is really interesting... but it's 4:48 AM on my country, and am really sleepy... good night everyone!

I don't think that in the current situation US army has enough forces to deal with russia and china.

Has china taken over Taiwan yet ?
we still have the two free carriers needed to block a Chinese takeover of Taiwan.
Russia ?!?!?! you mean that country that can barely hold on to Chechnya???
Please neither China nor Russia has the Blue water navies to stand up to US interest. If your referring to a direct attack please see the MAD strategy, yes we can all blow each other up, so we fight indirectly.

Id fear the EU or even India(India just because they are ballsy Mofo's) more so then China and Russia.

I don't think USA could prevent independance declarement either, nor prevent other nations from acknowladge the new country.


the US has blocked Abkhazia independence and recognition. Not that Russia wants those either, they want to re absorb Abkhazia.
not to mention the US has blocked Taiwan from declaring Independence. though a few countries recognize them as the legitimate goverment of China these are mostly well paid governments that have held over since when used to recognize the gou min dong as such.

NATO is non-UN organization. since russia isn't NATO member their influence about NATO membership and policies is almost nothing. same as the EU or the Arab league.

Have you listened to Russia's bitching ???
they consider Georgia as a sphere of influence, and the addition of Georgia a violation of their rights.

Or Operation Linebacker as the US carpet-bombed and defoliated Vietnam.
true. this is war tactic. it isn't terroristic act.

Guys, why are we arguing whether it's terrorism or not. Most of people agreed it was an unjust, agressive war. What is the difference in human perspective, if not only linguistic?

Has china taken over Taiwan yet ?
we still have the two free carriers needed to block a Chinese takeover of Taiwan.
Russia ?!?!?! you mean that country that can barely hold on to Chechnya???
Please neither China nor Russia has the Blue water navies to stand up to US interest. If your referring to a direct attack please see the MAD strategy, yes we can all blow each other up, so we fight indirectly.

Id fear the EU or even India(India just because they are ballsy Mofo's) more so then China and Russia. I talked about convential war. MAD tactic bring nothing but destruction.

Have you listened to Russia's bitching ???
they consider Georgia as a sphere of influence, and the addition of Georgia a violation of their rights.the russians consider every place they ever been in "sphere of influence". that's why they over charging for gas in eastren european countries that lean to the west.
as long as russia had no legal rights about it, they can bitching till they die.

I think that a terroristic organization is the one that it's final intention is just to spread terror and cause caos, or the ones that use terror as the main mean to achieve an objetive... under those terms, the US is not a terrorist nation.

Again, am not saying that the US did not make terrorist actions on Iraq ground, am not saying that the families of the dead's think "oh!, it doesn't matter, it wasn't terrorism", but the final intention was not to cause terror, as it happens with ETA, or the Colombian guerrilla.

This discussion is really interesting... but it's 4:48 AM on my country, and am really sleepy... good night everyone!

You must have been sleepy -- that post was one giant contradiction.

You say the intent was not to spread terror and that excuses the US from actually spreading terror. I say that if I don't intend to dent your car when I hit it with mine, your car is still dented, as those who are dead by unintentional terrorism are still just as dead, and their families just as terrified.

true. this is war tactic. it isn't terroristic act.

I need more sentence there. Besides, ask any peasant farmer in Vietnam who lived through a carpet bombing if they were terrorized or not.

Guys, why are we arguing whether it's terrorism or not. Most of people agreed it was an unjust, agressive war. What is the difference in human perspective, if not only linguistic?as the difference between killing and murder, it all about the intention of the agressor.

I need more sentence there. Besides, ask any peasant farmer in Vietnam who lived through a carpet bombing if they were terrorized or not.

the question is: what they tried to achieve? terrorized popolution, or something else where the terrorized popolution is merely side effect?
if there was any other main goal it can't consider as terroristic act.
on the other end, trying to make the popolution press their leadership by terrorizing them may consider as terrorisic act.

anyhow, I don't think country can defined as terroristic, even if they do use terroristic acts.

the question is: what they tried to achieve? terrorized popolution, or something else where the terrorized popolution is merely side effect?
if there was any other main goal it can't consider as terroristic act.
Don't be foolish. You think Al Qaeda "just want to terrorise"? The people behind it are politically motivated to see themselves in positions of power - the people on the front lines are driven by their own desperation and hopes to put things right. Terror is a means, not the objective in and of itself.

Don't be foolish. You think Al Qaeda "just want to terrorise"? The people behind it are politically motivated to see themselves in positions of power - the people on the front lines are driven by their own desperation and hopes to put things right. Terror is a means, not the objective in and of itself.
al-qaeda want to terrorize people in order to get in power. they also target inentionally the civilians.
in addition their main goal as they tell is "death for the infidels" which include civilians as well. more than enough to be terrorists.

as the difference between killing and murder, it all about the intention of the agressor.

So the intention in terrorism is bad and the intention of an agressive war is good?

Israel's attitude to unarmed Palestinian civilians is considered what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

what about the world court ruling, that the US at least supported terrorism?

So the intention in terrorism is bad and the intention of an agressive war is good?

Israel's attitude to unarmed Palestinian civilians is considered what?
israel nor usa aren't intend to kill civilians.
if you targetting terrorists there may be colleteral damage. not to mention the terroristic usage of human shields.

israel policies are far from terroristic.

I'm not thinking of anything in particular, but more often than not, my guess is that you don't have to kill to terrorize.

I'm not thinking of anything in particular, but more often than not, my guess is that you don't have to kill to terrorize.

still, you can't call someone terrorist if the terror is side effect and not the main goal.

still, you can't call someone terrorist if the terror is side effect and not the main goal.isn't the terror a means to achieve the goal?

al-qaeda want to terrorize people in order to get in power. they also target inentionally the civilians.
in addition their main goal as they tell is "death for the infidels" which include civilians as well. more than enough to be terrorists.
But that's what we're doing! We target "terrorists" or "extremists" to eliminate their kind. In doing so, we threaten to do the same to anyone who becomes like them. How is that any less intentionally terror inducing?

Well it goes around terrorizing other nations, attacking other nations to get what its wants. Its like a big bully, that and it supports the organization "UN", which is like a big terrorist group...

we still have the two free carriers needed to block a Chinese takeover of Taiwan.


Two carrier groups which could be destroyed if they upped the ante. Granted, they would lose in the long run, but so would the US when ballistic missiles start being lobbed. Even if a chunk of the country survives, nobody walks away from a nuclear war a winner. Just less of a loser.

And besides, if war came about, America's economy would collapse in a year or less. So would China's really. Both players realize that, so neither is really going to tip the balance.

Welcome to the new MAD. Not as flashy and exciting as the old MAD, but just as bad.


Russia ?!?!?! you mean that country that can barely hold on to Chechnya???

One could argue the same thing about the US presence in Iraq. It's not like the place is any more peaceful, stable or safe than Chechnya, what with the random bombings, the kidnappings, the militant groups, random killings of unarmed people by US soldiers going unchecked.

US military, here for a good time, but not a long time. Much the same as the Russian military really. Neither has really any extensive training in peacekeeping operations.

Iaq is half way around the world and We toppled its goverment.

Chechnya is within Russia and has been part of Russia for good while now.

All sovereign states are to an extent terrorists. It depends how much they are terrorising their, or other, populations.

israel policies are far from terroristic.

Unfortunately large numbers of dead bodies disagree with you. Much of what they do is SOP for any colonial enterprise.

Is there anyone claiming it's not?

Bush is. But thats about it.

Two carrier groups which could be destroyed if they upped the ante. Granted, they would lose in the long run, but so would the US when ballistic missiles start being lobbed. Even if a chunk of the country survives, nobody walks away from a nuclear war a winner. Just less of a loser.

And besides, if war came about, America's economy would collapse in a year or less. So would China's really. Both players realize that, so neither is really going to tip the balance.
.

yes but with out bringing the level of conflict up to destroying both countries the US wins.
Even the economic battle favors the US. China would lose out on Us markets which would create massive short fall of jobs.
Where as in the Us after the initial shock of having the price of goods go up, the Us would benefit from having many jobs open up that used to be done by the Chinese.

the question is: what they tried to achieve? terrorized popolution, or something else where the terrorized popolution is merely side effect?
if there was any other main goal it can't consider as terroristic act.
on the other end, trying to make the popolution press their leadership by terrorizing them may consider as terrorisic act.

anyhow, I don't think country can defined as terroristic, even if they do use terroristic acts.

Absolutely not true.

If a murder is unintentional, is the victim still dead? Yes.

And how is waging war within a country in order to effect REGIME CHANGE not "trying to make the population press their leadership by terrorizing them"? Remember what we were told about Iraq? That they'd "greet us as liberators"? Shit, my government was COUNTING on making the population of Iraq press its leadership. The problem was, we were there to decapitate their leadership...which just makes the whole thing seem even less smart than it does at first look.

Try again.

Absolutely not true.

If a murder is unintentional, is the victim still dead? Yes.

And how is waging war within a country in order to effect REGIME CHANGE not "trying to make the population press their leadership by terrorizing them"? Remember what we were told about Iraq? That they'd "greet us as liberators"? Shit, my government was COUNTING on making the population of Iraq press its leadership. The problem was, we were there to decapitate their leadership...which just makes the whole thing seem even less smart than it does at first look.

Try again.

hmmm from wiki

Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

The US military doesn't target civilians and makes all effort to avoid harming civilians. Also the goal is to stabilize Iraq not terrorize the Iraqis into giving us Oil.

fighting a stupid war is not terrorism, it is just fighting a stupid war.

One could argue the same thing about the US presence in Iraq. It's not like the place is any more peaceful, stable or safe than Chechnya, what with the random bombings, the kidnappings, the militant groups, random killings of unarmed people by US soldiers going unchecked.

Random killings of unarmed people by US soldiers? As a veteran of the War in Iraq, I find this personally insulting. It's sort of like if I accused you of being a child molester because their happened to be one living somewhere in your community. You apparently derive your entire understanding of the Iraq conflict from CNN. Here's a tip: news organizations- and I use the term loosely- thrive on sensationalism. There's no money in showing the good, only the bad. I, unlike you, have personal experience with Iraq, and I can say with authority that random killings are exceedingly rare. I spent fifteen months in Iraq with an infantry company in one of the worst parts of Iraq, and in that time we captured well over a hundred known or suspected insurgents. Do you know how many people we killed? Three. Exactly three, and none of those were at all random. If you give enough people weapons, a few are likely to be psychos or idiots; that's why there are atrocities committed in every war. But the suggestion seems to be that we are somehow less moral or more undisciplined than soldiers in previous wars, when in fact the opposite is true. You want to oppose the war in Iraq? Fine. I oppose it myself; I think it's a stupid war based on lies, and I think Bush should be impeached. But spare me your insults.:upyours:

I wouldn't call the U.S. a terrorist state under my definition. Note the word "deliberately". I wouldn't say we're deliberately targeting innocent civilians. Some may argue that, of course...

Your definition also lacks an element that is increasingly viewed as important in most academic circles: The recognition that a terrorist organization is a non-governmental entity. That doesn't mean it isn't backed by a government, but rather, it is not an official arm of the state. Further, your definition lacks a recognition of the fact that the change is effected indirectly.

This distinction must be made for epistemological reasons, otherwise the definition becomes so broad that it becomes functionally useless.

I would argue that a concept of "state terror" does exist, but it is distinct and unique from common terrorism.

One could argue the same thing about the US presence in Iraq. It's not like the place is any more peaceful, stable or safe than Chechnya, what with the random bombings, the kidnappings, the militant groups, random killings of unarmed people by US soldiers going unchecked.

Random killings of unarmed people by US soldiers? As a veteran of the War in Iraq, I find this personally insulting. It's sort of like if I accused you of being a child molester because their happened to be one living somewhere in your community. You apparently derive your entire understanding of the Iraq conflict from CNN. Here's a tip: news organizations- and I use the term loosely- thrive on sensationalism. There's no money in showing the good, only the bad. I, unlike you, have personal experience with Iraq, and I can say with authority that random killings are exceedingly rare. I spent fifteen months in Iraq with an infantry company in one of the worst parts of Iraq, and in that time we captured well over a hundred known or suspected insurgents. Do you know how many people we killed? Three. Exactly three, and none of those were at all random. If you give enough people weapons, a few are likely to be psychos or idiots; that's why there are atrocities committed in every war. But the suggestion seems to be that we are somehow less moral or more undisciplined than soldiers in previous wars, when in fact the opposite is true. You want to oppose the war in Iraq? Fine. I oppose it myself; I think it's a stupid war based on lies, and I think Bush should be impeached. But spare me your insults.:upyours:


You Win the thread.

And how is waging war within a country in order to effect REGIME CHANGE not "trying to make the population press their leadership by terrorizing them"?

The obvious distinction here is that, while the US is seeking to cause these changes, the military is not utilizing terror tactics, rather, it is using classic blunt-force occupation tactics, which are significantly different.

Terrorism requires that the targets change their behavior internally and voluntarily, and these goals are accomplished indirectly. What the US is doing in Iraq is forcibly changing the society directly with military troops.

definition of terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Considering that much of what the US has done has been against its own laws or laws of the UN, do you think that "terrorist" would be a good definition for the US? Or maybe just her gov't and foreign policy makers? Or is really the classification one to be made in the eye of the beholder?

I'm bored, and don't have much a say on it. I just want to see some debate.
The United States government has most definitely supported numerous terrorist organizations in the past and has participated in terrorist actions, such as the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953.

But is the United States a terrorist state in and of itself? Not really. It definitely needs moderation, however.

UN law is subservient to US law.
There is no such thing as "UN law", so you're wrong. If you mean international law, you're still wrong, seeing as how the US constitution article 6 second paragraph states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Can the US ignore UN rulings? yes thanx to Veto power.
can the UN do something the US does not allow? No thanx to veto power.
Wrong, and you don't seem to know what you're talking about. What is a "UN ruling"? The US can't ignore a ruling from the International Court of Justice. It can't ignore a resolution made by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) - it can veto it, but if a veto isn't issued, the US can no longer ignore it.

And the UN can do a lot that the US doesn't allow. Like setting up the International Criminal Court. The US only has veto powers before the UNSC, but not the general assembly nor any other parts of the UN.

The US determines international Law first.
Wrong. That's just ignorant and displays a complete lack of understanding of how international law works.

UN is just a forum for 3rd world nations to bitch and waste US/europe/japan's money on pipe dreams.
Ignoring of course... well, everything the UN actually does. Well done.

israel nor usa aren't intend to kill civilians.
if you targetting terrorists there may be colleteral damage. not to mention the terroristic usage of human shields.

israel policies are far from terroristic.
That's debatable, to say it carefully.

israel policies are far from terroristic.yes, they are. the ngradual ethnic cleansing of the West Bank by constantly expanding jewish settlements there is terror.

Not much a nation of terrorists as a nation of terror. Just take a look at their news channels...

yes but with out bringing the level of conflict up to destroying both countries the US wins.


You don't get it do you? Nobody wins a nuclear war. You can only lose less. If the United States lost its coastal cities, the impact on the remainder of the nation would be nothing short of utter devastation. It might recover, eventually, but it will be nothing but a shell of itself.


Even the economic battle favors the US. China would lose out on Us markets which would create massive short fall of jobs.
Where as in the Us after the initial shock of having the price of goods go up, the Us would benefit from having many jobs open up that used to be done by the Chinese.

Not really. The US is heavily in debt, and much of its heavy manufacturing infrastructure is rusting away. If China were to foreclose on America, it would be owed billions, if not trillions, of dollars, and canceling the debt would effectively kill American commercial interests abroad as governments worldwide seize them in order to make up for the now potentially worthless US dollar. No nation would deal with one who voids debts of that magnitude.

America would have a monumental task of trying to get back on its feet, including feeding it's populace with skyrocketing prices now that essential fuels will no longer be supplied.

China would be crippled, no doubt of that, perhaps even suffer yet another violent upheaval. But America would be devastated.

Random killings of unarmed people by US soldiers? As a veteran of the War in Iraq, I find this personally insulting.

Do you deny that there have been incidents where unarmed people, including children, were executed by American soldiers and the incidents later covered up? Or that there have been those who were kidnapped, and then killed by American soldiers, and then made to look like they were insurgents?

Or that there were those who, just after a bomb attack, went on an unchecked rampage, killing people who's only crime was being in firing range?

Do you deny that US soldiers have been caught attempting to cover up the premeditated rape and murder of the very people they were supposed to "liberate"?

These were documented cases that came to light. Just for this war. Many similar crimes dot American actions when abroad. How many more actually remain buried deeply?


I can say with authority that random killings are exceedingly rare.

So you admit that they do happen.

Do you deny that there have been incidents where unarmed people, including children, were executed by American soldiers and the incidents later covered up? Or that there have been those who were kidnapped, and then killed by American soldiers, and then made to look like they were insurgents?

Or that there were those who, just after a bomb attack, went on an unchecked rampage, killing people who's only crime was being in firing range?

Do you deny that US soldiers have been caught attempting to cover up the premeditated rape and murder of the very people they were supposed to "liberate"?

These were documented cases that came to light. Just for this war. Many similar crimes dot American actions when abroad. How many more actually remain buried deeply?

If the truth insults you, if you must hide behind the facade of excuses known as "liberal sensationalist media", then you have no business calling yourself a veteran.

I think what he was trying to say was that the implication that it was the norm was both insulting and false.

Is the US a terrorist nation? Eh, all of the people too? Nah.

Has the US government supported terrorists in the past? Yes, loads of times.

I think what he was trying to say was that the implication that it was the norm was both insulting and false.

Exactly. Non Aligned States, your post was horrendously worded. If nothing else, we need to have respect for the average American soldier, fighting for our country and doing his or her job.

Really, this thread highlights my disgust with much of the anti-American sentiment on this board and in the world in general. People have a right to criticize our government -- as in Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. -- but people go much further. They treat the US as if we are no better than Iran or Saudi Arabia, when we are the oldest constitutional democracy in the world, we provide more humanitarian aid than any other country, and the free market strategies that we have popularized have increased the world's wealth and well-being exponentially. Disparage us for our corrupt politics (support terrorist states, invading Iraq) or our socioeconomic inequality, but how dare anyone disparage our country as a whole.

Not much a nation of terrorists as a nation of terror. Just take a look at their news channels...

Point.

*Gives point*

Not much a nation of terrorists as a nation of terror. Just take a look at their news channels...

...or any of our other cable channels, although those are "terrible" in a different sort of way.

Does the US use terror for political gain? Probably not, unless you define war as terror (a silly thing to do IMO). Does it use other peoples terror for political gain? Yuppo

Nobody here is saying that the US war against Ïraq was just, or "legal" or they were searching for mass-destruction weapons...

nobody says that the Iraq war was good, Terror is what Al-Qaeda does... they use Terror as their main mean to achieve an objetive... the US doesn't, the Colombian Guerrilla uses terror, the US doesn't...

That doesn't mean that the US don't kill innocent people, it doesn't mean that we are happy for all the Iraq people who died, that doesn't mean that people whose houes was burned by an US bomb didn't feel terror... but the US DON'T USE terror as a mean, that makes them a non-terrorist organization...

if we all agree that the US war was unjust, is this a linguistical discussion?... yes, mainly it is...

You don't get it do you? Nobody wins a nuclear war. You can only lose less. If the United States lost its coastal cities, the impact on the remainder of the nation would be nothing short of utter devastation. It might recover, eventually, but it will be nothing but a shell of itself.

which is why I said with out taking it to the next level.



Not really. The US is heavily in debt, and much of its heavy manufacturing infrastructure is rusting away. If China were to foreclose on America, it would be owed billions, if not trillions, of dollars, and canceling the debt would effectively kill American commercial interests abroad as governments worldwide seize them in order to make up for the now potentially worthless US dollar. No nation would deal with one who voids debts of that magnitude.

We owe China Yes. However a long term war is considered legitimate reason to cancel a debt. After all Germany Canceled the Dawes plan debt as the US got in the 2nd World War what is Germany the 4th largest economy today ?
Even a short term small scale war would justified suspending interest and debt payments.

Not to mention the terms of the debt prevent foreclosure so long as we pay interest rates during Peace time. China's attempted foreclosing on the US debt would make the rest of the world cease doing business with China since they do not hold up to their agreements. and pretty much be a collapse of the special economic zones.

America would have a monumental task of trying to get back on its feet, including feeding it's populace with skyrocketing prices now that essential fuels will no longer be supplied.

A peace time foreclosure would cut china off from the worlds fuel not the US.
food prices would drop as one of the biggest importers of American food ceased to import food. (us is a net food exporter).
in War time Debts are not only allowed to be they are expected to be canceled between aggressors.

China would be crippled, no doubt of that, perhaps even suffer yet another violent upheaval. But America would be devastated.

Long term non nuclear war with China = increased domestic jobs and cancellation of a large part of the US Debt.
Consequences are millions dead, and loss of South Korea ( cant beat the Chinese on land, has to be at sea or in the air.)

Nobody here is saying that the US war against Ïraq was just, or "legal" or they were searching for mass-destruction weapons...

nobody says that the Iraq war was good, Terror is what Al-Qaeda does... they use Terror as their main mean to achieve an objetive... the US doesn't, the Colombian Guerrilla uses terror, the US doesn't...

That doesn't mean that the US don't kill innocent people, it doesn't mean that we are happy for all the Iraq people who died, that doesn't mean that people whose houes was burned by an US bomb didn't feel terror... but the US DON'T USE terror as a mean, that makes them a non-terrorist organization...

if we all agree that the US war was unjust, is this a linguistical discussion?... yes, mainly it is...so bombing cities is no infliction of terror?

you mean bombing like it was in the WWII?... yes, that's terrorism
precission strikes against military facilities... no, that's not
precission strikes against strategic facilities like TV stations, Radios, Electric plants... yes, that's pure terror

Do you deny that there have been incidents where unarmed people, including children, were executed by American soldiers and the incidents later covered up? Or that there have been those who were kidnapped, and then killed by American soldiers, and then made to look like they were insurgents?

Or that there were those who, just after a bomb attack, went on an unchecked rampage, killing people who's only crime was being in firing range?

Do you deny that US soldiers have been caught attempting to cover up the premeditated rape and murder of the very people they were supposed to "liberate"?

These were documented cases that came to light. Just for this war. Many similar crimes dot American actions when abroad. How many more actually remain buried deeply?



So you admit that they do happen.

Obviously very few does not mean none. You refer to the Haditha Massacre and the Mahmoudiyah incident involving the rape and murder of a fourteen-year-old girl. I don't deny these occurred; this is a war. Many, however, including you, seem to believe these are common, everyday occurrences, and it is typical that you vaguely mention incidents without a factual basis in the same breath as the real ones. I'll say it again: atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq are exceedingly rare. That atrocities occur at all is due to the fact that soldiers are humans, not robots, and in a situation as difficult as war there have been and always will be crimes committed. If you think this is something new, look up the Canicatti slaughter or the Chenogne massacre from WW2; both of these incidents were probably more reprehensible than anything that's happened in Iraq. What I am saying is that American troops today act with a humanity that is unusual in the history of warfare. To imply, as you have, that our actions are terrorist in nature is factually inaccurate, as war crimes are not in themselves terrorist actions. More than that, I'll say it again, it's insulting.

Incidentally, I believe some of the atrocities you mention were in fact accusations made against Blackwater. Blackwater is a mercenary organization; they are not to be equated with US soldiers.

Obviously very few does not mean none. You refer to the Haditha Massacre and the Mahmoudiyah incident involving the rape and murder of a fourteen-year-old girl. I don't deny these occurred; this is a war. Many, however, including you, seem to believe these are common, everyday occurrences, and it is typical that you vaguely mention incidents without a factual basis in the same breath as the real ones. I'll say it again: atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq are exceedingly rare. That atrocities occur at all is due to the fact that soldiers are humans, not robots, and in a situation as difficult as war there have been and always will be crimes committed. If you think this is something new, look up the Canicatti slaughter or the Chenogne massacre from WW2; both of these incidents were probably more reprehensible than anything that's happened in Iraq. What I am saying is that American troops today act with a humanity that is unusual in the history of warfare. To imply, as you have, that our actions are terrorist in nature is factually inaccurate, as war crimes are not in themselves terrorist actions. More than that, I'll say it again, it's insulting.

Incidentally, I believe some of the atrocities you mention were in fact accusations made against Blackwater. Blackwater is a mercenary organization; they are not to be equated with US soldiers.


I wouldn't waste your time on him. He is one of those people that is going to spit on us and call us baby killers in a few years.

Not much a nation of terrorists as a nation of terror. Just take a look at their news channels...

I wish I could disagree with you, but there it is. Fear and misery sell.

...or any of our other cable channels, although those are "terrible" in a different sort of way.

Yes, I know. I wish it weren´t like that. Terrorism is a plausible thing, it can happen anywhere, in any country. And, even when it´s ok to be prepared, I don´t see where´s the need to keep people, keep the citizens in a perpetual state of fear. That´s why the US is not truly a terrorist nation, but a nation of utter terror, and it´s sad.

Terrorist? Probably

Greedy Imperialist Bastards? Most definately.

definition of terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Considering that much of what the US has done has been against its own laws or laws of the UN, do you think that "terrorist" would be a good definition for the US? Or maybe just her gov't and foreign policy makers? Or is really the classification one to be made in the eye of the beholder?

I'm bored, and don't have much a say on it. I just want to see some debate.

Define "The lawful use of violence" in a way other than self-defense.

Do you deny that there have been incidents where unarmed people, including children, were executed by American soldiers and the incidents later covered up? Or that there have been those who were kidnapped, and then killed by American soldiers, and then made to look like they were insurgents?

Or that there were those who, just after a bomb attack, went on an unchecked rampage, killing people who's only crime was being in firing range?

Do you deny that US soldiers have been caught attempting to cover up the premeditated rape and murder of the very people they were supposed to "liberate"?

These were documented cases that came to light. Just for this war. Many similar crimes dot American actions when abroad. How many more actually remain buried deeply?



So you admit that they do happen.

Fallacy. You're giving him a question he can't answer without making himself or his fellow soldiers look bad.

To answer for him: Of course there have been atrocities. I have not yet heard of a war were atrocities were not committed. In fact, isn't war in itself an atrocity?

The vast majority of soldiers in Iraq are good men and women. They understand what right and wrong is.

Imagine yourself in their situation. Your stress level is through the roof. The threat of death follows you everywhere. Of course one of you is going to go crazy, human nature says that not everyone will handle it.

I'm not excusing those who committed any atrocities, I'm just saying that there are much more good people than bad over there.

Obviously very few does not mean none. You refer to the Haditha Massacre and the Mahmoudiyah incident involving the rape and murder of a fourteen-year-old girl. I don't deny these occurred; this is a war. Many, however, including you, seem to believe these are common, everyday occurrences, and it is typical that you vaguely mention incidents without a factual basis in the same breath as the real ones. I'll say it again: atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq are exceedingly rare. That atrocities occur at all is due to the fact that soldiers are humans, not robots, and in a situation as difficult as war there have been and always will be crimes committed. If you think this is something new, look up the Canicatti slaughter or the Chenogne massacre from WW2; both of these incidents were probably more reprehensible than anything that's happened in Iraq. What I am saying is that American troops today act with a humanity that is unusual in the history of warfare. To imply, as you have, that our actions are terrorist in nature is factually inaccurate, as war crimes are not in themselves terrorist actions. More than that, I'll say it again, it's insulting.

Incidentally, I believe some of the atrocities you mention were in fact accusations made against Blackwater. Blackwater is a mercenary organization; they are not to be equated with US soldiers.

If the question is whether the US is a terrorist country, then Blackwater can be equated with US soldiers, since the only difference is the method of employment. The buck and responsibility still comes back to the same place.

If the question is whether the US is a terrorist country, then Blackwater can be equated with US soldiers, since the only difference is the method of employment. The buck and responsibility still comes back to the same place.

True, true.

But, that still does not define the U.S. as a terrorist nation.

Unless the government directly ordered Blackwater or the U.S. Armed Forces to commit atrocities, it's not a terrorist nation. It just means there are a few nuts in the nation.

Name a nation that doesn't have any nuts in it.

Yes, I know. I wish it weren´t like that. Terrorism is a plausible thing, it can happen anywhere, in any country. And, even when it´s ok to be prepared, I don´t see where´s the need to keep people, keep the citizens in a perpetual state of fear. That´s why the US is not truly a terrorist nation, but a nation of utter terror, and it´s sad.

Regrettably, it's true. I just got a call from my mom, she's not swimming in the lake near our house anymore because she watched a CNN special about a waterbourne virus that kills a sum total of 8 people per year....

Regrettably, it's true. I just got a call from my mom, she's not swimming in the lake near our house anymore because she watched a CNN special about a waterbourne virus that kills a sum total of 8 people per year....

Good God. That is sad.

If the question is whether the US is a terrorist country, then Blackwater can be equated with US soldiers, since the only difference is the method of employment. The buck and responsibility still comes back to the same place.

Even if this is true, it is still more likely a matter of war crimes and not terrorism. The difference is that a war crime is not a tactic or a policy, but a crime.

And about the Mark Twain quote- here's an answer to his question:
"What is a merciful heart? It is a heart that burns with love for all creation, for men, for birds, for beasts, for demons, for all creatures."-Isaac of Nineveh

Good God. That is sad.

I know. My dad and I have spent all day trying to talk her out of it. But in all fairness the media definitely overplayed it. By a lot.

True, true.

But, that still does not define the U.S. as a terrorist nation.

Unless the government directly ordered Blackwater or the U.S. Armed Forces to commit atrocities, it's not a terrorist nation. It just means there are a few nuts in the nation.


Mostly true, but then you get into murky waters about how far up the chain of command abu grhaib (sp?) went, and Gitmo etc.

Plus you can make the argument that by continuing to employ Blackwater, and by effectively preventing its employees from legal prosecution it is validating the actions of the company and those employees.



Even if this is true, it is still more likely a matter of war crimes and not terrorism. The difference is that a war crime is not a tactic or a policy, but a crime.

See above, consistently allowing/validating war crime would be considered a tactic/policy.


And about the Mark Twain quote- here's an answer to his question:
"What is a merciful heart? It is a heart that burns with love for all creation, for men, for birds, for beasts, for demons, for all creatures."-Isaac of Nineveh
Nice

Obviously very few does not mean none. You refer to the Haditha Massacre and the Mahmoudiyah incident involving the rape and murder of a fourteen-year-old girl. I don't deny these occurred; this is a war.

And war excuses war crimes?


Many, however, including you, seem to believe these are common, everyday occurrences, and it is typical that you vaguely mention incidents without a factual basis in the same breath as the real ones.


I speak of actual events that did happen with factual evidence to support them. If you must translate them to mean that they cover everything, that is a problem on your interpretation, not mine.


That atrocities occur at all is due to the fact that soldiers are humans, not robots, and in a situation as difficult as war there have been and always will be crimes committed.

And so because it is a case of war, these crimes should go unpunished as the US military is currently doing? There has been more than one case of such crimes simply being dismissed from judicial review, despite mounting evidence on the claims of, to add context to their statements "nothing wrong with shooting unarmed civilians in war."


What I am saying is that American troops today act with a humanity that is unusual in the history of warfare.

And when they act with inhumanity, it is allowed, if not endorsed with dismissal of inquiries or at the least, punishments more appropriate for jaywalking and DUI than rape and murder. How do you explain that?


To imply, as you have, that our actions are terrorist in nature is factually inaccurate, as war crimes are not in themselves terrorist actions.

I have made no such statement that could, even under the bounds of stretched logic, could imply such a thing.


One could argue the same thing about the US presence in Iraq. It's not like the place is any more peaceful, stable or safe than Chechnya, what with the random bombings, the kidnappings, the militant groups, random killings of unarmed people by US soldiers going unchecked.

This was in regards to US capabilities in occupation in contested areas, comparing it to Russia. How you stretch it to imply US terrorist actions, I have no idea.


Incidentally, I believe some of the atrocities you mention were in fact accusations made against Blackwater. Blackwater is a mercenary organization; they are not to be equated with US soldiers.

I am aware of what Blackwater has done. I am also aware that Blackwater has free pass to go back and commit some more atrocities by the US government. To the Iraqi people, it makes no difference whether it is US sponsored mercenaries or US government troops who commit these crimes.

We owe China Yes. However a long term war is considered legitimate reason to cancel a debt. After all Germany Canceled the Dawes plan debt as the US got in the 2nd World War what is Germany the 4th largest economy today ?


Germany was also conquered and had its government overthrown. If that is the prerequisite for the US to trade once again after it goes to war just to cancel debts, by all means.


Even a short term small scale war would justified suspending interest and debt payments.

That would depend on who started it.


Not to mention the terms of the debt prevent foreclosure so long as we pay interest rates during Peace time. China's attempted foreclosing on the US debt would make the rest of the world cease doing business with China since they do not hold up to their agreements. and pretty much be a collapse of the special economic zones.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. If confidence in American ability to pay it's debts falls, there will be no shortage of debt collection attempts.


Long term non nuclear war with China = increased domestic jobs and cancellation of a large part of the US Debt.
Consequences are millions dead, and loss of South Korea ( cant beat the Chinese on land, has to be at sea or in the air.)

That increase in domestic jobs is just not going to happen until the US rebuilds all the infrastructure it let rust in the rush to outsource. And when it does bring it back, local prices are going to skyrocket. Corporations dependent on cheap foreign labor will collapse, putting thousands, maybe more, out of jobs. The restructuring will be nothing, if not agonizing.

And war excuses war crimes?


No the people involved are going to stand trail and be sent away to Leavenworth


I speak of actual events that did happen with factual evidence to support them. If you must translate them to mean that they cover everything, that is a problem on your interpretation, not mine.

It takes intent at the highest levels of goverment to translate that to terrorism ?
Did Bush order that girl to be raped ?? Did Bush order those unarmed civilians to be lined up and shot.


And so because it is a case of war, these crimes should go unpunished as the US military is currently doing? There has been more than one case of such crimes simply being dismissed from judicial review, despite mounting evidence on the claims of, to add context to their statements "nothing wrong with shooting unarmed civilians in war."

make another thread link to the evidence lets debate that.
Until then those citizens are innocent until proven guilty.

And when they act with inhumanity, it is allowed, if not endorsed with dismissal of inquiries or at the least, punishments more appropriate for jaywalking and DUI than rape and murder. How do you explain that?


Jaywalking the Gateway crime ???


I am aware of what Blackwater has done. I am also aware that Blackwater has free pass to go back and commit some more atrocities by the US government. To the Iraqi people, it makes no difference whether it is US sponsored mercenaries or US government troops who commit these crimes.
Black water was licensed by the Iraqi goverment. (paid for by the US)
that license was revoked in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA#Iraq_War_involvement

No the people involved are going to stand trail and be sent away to Leavenworth

Or they get their charges dropped (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1845602020070918), or immunity granted (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18237072/).


It takes intent at the highest levels of goverment to translate that to terrorism ?
Did Bush order that girl to be raped ?? Did Bush order those unarmed civilians to be lined up and shot.

The quoted sentence and your reply do not have any logical connection.


make another thread link to the evidence lets debate that.
Until then those citizens are innocent until proven guilty.


Links in the first statement. That's just one example.


Black water was licensed by the Iraqi goverment. (paid for by the US)
that license was revoked in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA#Iraq_War_involvement

So what do you call this?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWpqVrml5efn87sWzmErVV93CsYg

Or they get their charges dropped (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1845602020070918), or immunity granted (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18237072/).



The quoted sentence and your reply do not have any logical connection.



Links in the first statement. That's just one example.



Months in prison, for premeditated murder.



So what do you call this?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWpqVrml5efn87sWzmErVV93CsYg



I call that a nearly year old piece of news.

And war excuses war crimes?



I speak of actual events that did happen with factual evidence to support them. If you must translate them to mean that they cover everything, that is a problem on your interpretation, not mine.



And so because it is a case of war, these crimes should go unpunished as the US military is currently doing? There has been more than one case of such crimes simply being dismissed from judicial review, despite mounting evidence on the claims of, to add context to their statements "nothing wrong with shooting unarmed civilians in war."



And when they act with inhumanity, it is allowed, if not endorsed with dismissal of inquiries or at the least, punishments more appropriate for jaywalking and DUI than rape and murder. How do you explain that?



I have made no such statement that could, even under the bounds of stretched logic, could imply such a thing.



This was in regards to US capabilities in occupation in contested areas, comparing it to Russia. How you stretch it to imply US terrorist actions, I have no idea.



I am aware of what Blackwater has done. I am also aware that Blackwater has free pass to go back and commit some more atrocities by the US government. To the Iraqi people, it makes no difference whether it is US sponsored mercenaries or US government troops who commit these crimes.

At what point did I make any excuse for war crimes? For that matter, when did I suggest that I supported US policy in the Middle East? The points I have tried to make are that that policy, which by the way I am against, does not constitute terrorism, and that the very few war crimes which have occurred are being unfairly used as a smear on all troops. Your comments on the subject are too broad, and strongly suggest that soldiers in general behave like Norse berserkers. This is all too typical. Now if you suggest that those who commit war crimes should receive appropriate punishment, I would not object; however, most of the incidents you mentioned were accusations made against Blackwater and you applied them to soldiers. I certainly wouldn't object to their punishment, nor do I absolve the government of its responsibility. In fact, I don't particularly like the government.

No, they just have a nasty habit of funding and aiding terrorists when they see fit. It's different, sort of.

No, they just have a nasty habit of funding and aiding terrorists when they see fit. It's different, sort of.

Aaaah, but does the act of aiding and abetting "terrorists" mean that, insofar as we support them, WE are terrorists? Aaaah semantics. How I love thee.

I call that a nearly year old piece of news.

So was your claim of their license revocation. Which was before that piece of news.

At what point did I make any excuse for war crimes? For that matter, when did I suggest that I supported US policy in the Middle East?

About the same time you took my comparison's of US ineptness in occupational capability to Russia to mean that I was smearing all the troops.