jump to last post 1-41 of 41 discussions (316 posts)

Can the United States be considered a "terrorist" nation?

  1. cooldad profile image60
    cooldadposted 5 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5634263_f248.jpg
    I can't help but wonder if the United States could be considered a terrorist nation.  With its actions in the past and the present, can the U.S. be considered terrorists?

    The treatment of Native Americans, slavery, Cambodia bombing, Iraq, Afghanistan are just a few potential examples.

    What are your thoughts?

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Cool! How are things by you?

      How can you invite us to roast the country of your birth, without first deciding on which definition of “terrorism” we should use to skewer the beast? To assist you with the slaughter, I recommend http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatister … ism_7.htm.
      The site provides a selection of definitions from which to choose. I’m sure we can all agree on the best one to facilitate the massacre.

      “There is no official definition of terrorism agreed on throughout the world, and definitions tend to rely heavily on who is doing the defining and for what purpose. Some definitions focus on terrorist tactics to define the term, while others focus on the actor. Yet others look at the context and ask if it is military or not.

      1. “The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism was adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice in Cairo, Egypt in 1998. Terrorism was defined in the convention as:
      Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.

      2. ”The FBI defines terrorism as:
      The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

      3. “United States Law Code - the law that governs the entire country - contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
      (d) Definitions
      As used in this section-
      (1) the term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
      (2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
      (3) the term "terrorist group" means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
      (4) the terms "territory" and "territory of the country" mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
      (5) the terms "terrorist sanctuary" and "sanctuary" mean an area in the territory of the country-
      (A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization-
      (i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
      (ii) as a transit point; and
      (B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under-
      (i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
      (ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
      (iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

      4. “The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:
      The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

      5. “The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has collated the 12 universal conventions (international agreements) and protocols against terrorism signed since 1963. Although many states have not signed them, all seek to create consensus that certain acts count as terrorism (for example, hijacking a plane), in order to create the means to prosecute them in signatory countries.

      "Tokyo Convention," 1963, Aviation Safety: Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft;
      "Hague Convention," 1970, Aircraft Hijacking: Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft;
      "Montreal Convention," 1971, Aviation Sabotage: Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation;
      New York, 1973, Outlaws attacks on government officials and diplomats: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons; New York, 1979, Hostages convention: International Convention against the Taking of Hostages;
      "Nuclear Materials Convention, 1980: Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials;
      Supplement to 1971 Montreal Convention on Air Safety: Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation;
      Rome, 1988, Terrorism on Ships :Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation;
      Rome, 1988, Terrorism on Fixed Offshore Platforms: Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf;
      "Montreal Convention," 1991, Facilitating Detection of Plastic Explosives: Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Identification;
      UN General Assembly Resolution, 1997, terrorist bombing: International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings;
      UN General Assembly Resolution, 2000, Terrorist Financing: International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

      6. “Ethnic separatist violence in the 1930s provoked the League of Nations, formed after World War I to encourage world stability and peace, to define terrorism for the first time, as:
      All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.”

      So, Cooldad, tell us which definition we should use and you can crank the spit. If we don’t all use the same definition, then how will we arrive at a consensus, if that is indeed your purpose?
      Thanks again for suggesting we have this roast.  Maybe we can get Dean Martin to host. lol

      1. cooldad profile image60
        cooldadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        For the sake of debate, let's just use number 2 above, the FBI definition.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. The CIA has certainly committed what most people would agree were terroist acts--the Bay of Pigs fiasco and attempted assasination of Fidel Castro, the coup and subsequent dictatorship in Chile, the assassination of Mosadegh in Iran and installation of the Shah, support of the contras in Central America, etc, etc.

      3. Heidi Valerio profile image60
        Heidi Valerioposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        United States helped a lot of country. How can you consider that they are a terrorist? They reach out to other countries that needed help, whether if it is an calamity disaster or a large terrorist attack. They even make alliance with other country just to maintain peace and to avoid unnecessary war. If you consider them a terrorist shouldn't they be already taking they're moves? They have all the equipment to launch attacks to others. They could easily win they're battles because of they're nuclears. I'm just believing from what I am seeing. And for me U.S is an ally nation and definitely not a terrorist.

    2. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      The united States went to war to stop the terrorist.
      If the terrorist defeat and take over one country, they will keep growing and taking over more and more countries...So America and their allies step in to stop it before it comes to that.

      If the terrorists were defeating the people in your country and taking it over,  would you want the USA to help or ignore it? And if they did help, would you then call us terrorists, or would you be grateful?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image24
        Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Like if your a friend with the U.S. your country can have nuclear weapon. If they are a country like Iraq with oil and U.S needs to steal it, then SHOCK and Awe them.

        1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
          MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Just how is the US stealing oil?
          We PAY enormous prices for oil, and unless you're sure of what you're saying, it's best not to say it

      2. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        +++++++

      3. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        .....If the terrorist defeat and take over one country, they will keep growing and taking over more and more countries...So America and their allies step in to stop it before it comes to that......

        Just the kind of thinking that started Viet Nam War and the long trek to the realization that you can't control others to think as us. Or did we learn from it? Can you even remember the domino affect rhetoric of the sixties with regard to this failed theory? We have dropped oil embargos with Viet Nam and trade regularly with them. All this AFTER we left.

    3. mio cid profile image66
      mio cidposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I really don't know if the United States could be considered a terrorist nation,what I know is that in past decades it has installed and supported military regimes in Central and South America that practiced  Terrorism of the state .

      1. Writer Fox profile image80
        Writer Foxposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        The world is complicated. 
        Sometimes the only choice is to support the lesser of two evils.

        1. ahorseback profile image46
          ahorsebackposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          And there is where  America takes the heat, .... for supporting or creating  those who chose the path to dictators and tyrants , that isn't creating  them but supporting the lesser  of two evils ! +++++

  2. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    My preferred definition of terrorism is "we are freedom fighters, they are terrorists."

    1. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That IS exactly what America is trying to sell the rest of the world, BUT nobody is buying it anymore

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, bullpoo, Petra.  We don't have anything left to sell to the 'rest of the world'.  I'd be very happy if we went back to isolationism and then the 'rest of the world' could blow themselves to kingdom come if they want to.  We get it.  You dislike the U.S.A.

  3. Ron Montgomery profile image59
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism.  Civilians were deliberately targeted for political reasons.

  4. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    OF course we're a terrorist nation.

    We torture people, we kill people and don't apologize, and we have even sunk to the point where we murder our own citizens without giving them even a mock trial.

    Ron Paul's our last hope.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can't wait 'til hacking off the heads of the press becomes a reality show.  If terrorism has become the acceptable norm, we're still the least terroristic of the terrorists.  It's like saying there's a bully on the block who keeps taunting the big fat kid and when the fat kid puts his lights out, he's scolded for hitting because he's bigger than the little bully.

    2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      /\  DITTO

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Ah, clarity!

      We hate to look at ourselves through another's eyes.

  5. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Most definately.

  6. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well. wouldn't you know...just left here, and not 2 seconds later:

    "In 2008, before they put the "Black Guy" in to take most of the blame for everything Bush did, Bush authorized and Congress passed a $400 Million appropriation that was to be used to "Target Covert actions inside Iran for the purpose of regime change, using any and all nefarious groups and individuals desired for that purpose, to affect the internal political structure of another country (IRAN), to overthrow it's elected leaders."

    Sigh....My country tis of Whom?

    Don't have a link, but I'm sure if you google, it will be all there in black and white.

  7. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I remember reading, during the gd-awful Bush years, about how the people in Iraq and Afghanistan would be so fearful of being caught-up by the American forces, because of what went on in Guantanamo and Abu Gharib.

    I saw the pictures too....what they let out. The tapes they destroyed.

    And it's shameful what we have become--maybe always have been. It's not only us, but it is shameful nonetheless.

  8. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    We should be held up as the defenition of a terrorist nation.


    There are terrorist orginizations out there.  There are nations that support these orginizations.

    As a whole the UNITED STATES of AMERICA's federal government is a terrorist nation!!

  9. Gerber Ink profile image84
    Gerber Inkposted 5 years ago

    Hmmm.... I think the country with no blood on their hands should cast the first stone here.  Terrorism is a relative term - it depends on who is doing what to the other party. Acts of aggression occur on both sides, otherwise there wouldn't be any wars to begin with. 

    Some of us are lucky enough to be able to sit back and critique the ongoing war in the Middle East, but there are so many historical aspects that feed into it that you would have to be a history and military scholar to understand all of it.  It is important to note, however, that the gunshot heard round the world that started this most recent war began with the hijackers on 9/11 - we didn't drop a bomb on them first.  And let us not forget the initial failed bombing years before 2001 by the same individuals.

    As for the aspect of torture, it is wrong and terrible, no matter what party is doing it.  We can bemoan Abu Gharib, but have you heard what the other side is capable of doing, and what they do to their own people?  Waterboarding is tame compared to breaking peoples backs while their hands are tied to the ceiling.

    As for the war with Japan, remember Pearl Harbor.  Again, we didn't come knocking on their door first.

    To expect the U.S., or any other country for that matter, not to react to aggressors would be unrealistic and naive.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I can agree with most of what you say.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As for the aspect of torture, it is wrong and terrible, no matter what party is doing it.  We can bemoan Abu Gharib, but have you heard what the other side is capable of doing, and what they do to their own people?  Waterboarding is tame compared to breaking peoples backs while their hands are tied to the ceiling.

        This just sounds like an attempt to justify, you begin with saying how wrong it is, then later state that it's not as bad as the other side engage in. Terrorism is terrorism, no justifications or favorable comparisons. Not valid.

        1. Gerber Ink profile image84
          Gerber Inkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't have to justify it.  It is what it is.  People do terrible things to each other, century after century.  If you're looking for an apology, you'll never get one.  Each side feels "justified", whether you like it or not.  Don't expect the military of any nation to lay down the weapons and play nice after they've been attacked.  It simply isn't human nature - and that in and of itself is valid.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You don't have to justify it, but every nation, including my own, that engages in these practices should have to answer for it. They should be accountable. It actually is human nature to act in a despicable way, and at some later point apologize for it, however, when citizens attempt to justify what govts did, in their name, that apology gets further away. It's never valid.

    2. cooldad profile image60
      cooldadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think anyone needs to be a history scholar to realize there is no real war on terror.  It's driven by political agendas and perceptions.  The war machine has been financially rewarding for many of the involved politicians. 

      War is nothing more than a mechanism a method used to try and boost the economy, simple as that.  Do you really think our politicians care about the "freedom" of people in Iraq?  Please.  9-11 was a terrible, but convenient catalyst for politicians to push agendas.

      1. Petra Vlah profile image60
        Petra Vlahposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And that's the truth - war is a profitable business and everything else is "collateral damage"

      2. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        WWII thinking.  Then it was ironically a boost to the economy but today's war is not.  That's not to say some politicians are not using this war for personal agenda pushing.

      3. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
        MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Really, then how come every time there's a war it drives up the cost of gas, and oil?
        So how does that help the economy.? and not just the people dealing in those commodities?
        People spend less elsewhere because the costs are so high.

      4. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Eisenhower warned us of the threat the Military Industrial Complex could have on our ideals and values.

        ...."The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.".... D. Eisenhower.

        Our democratic processes have been seriously undermined by the corruption of corporate influences on our leadership. It has also poisoned the minds of many who believe such aggression towards other countries is warranted by boogeyman fears. The Gulf of Tonkin was a made up attack that propelled us into lost years and lives in Viet Nam that only now are being re visited with cries for boots on the ground again in Iraq. What did we not learn the first time that we have to relearn again?

  10. 0
    Cromperposted 5 years ago

    Hi Cooldad!
    Here's my personal view from the UK;
    When I was growing up in the 70's all of my aspirations leaned towards the USA. All the TV shows (Starsky & Hutch, Hawaii 5-0, et al) and Hollywood films I saw left me in awe of your country.
    Of course, I grew up to discover the real US. It really is worrying to see what is going on there right now.
    Guantanamo Bay is a HUGE issue! A supposedly 'civilised western nation' which casts itself away from the likes of Islamic barbarism, is subscribing to similar tactics of torture and abuse. The UK is party to this also!
    Saddam Hussein was hung while US and British forces were an occupying force in Iraq. There is no death penalty in the UK, so our forces should have left before the hanging, OR insisted that he was hung only after we had withdrawn from Iraq.
    The more I learn, the more I realise that the US is home to many unsavory characters, groups, and organisations. The IRA was funded largely by wealthy US citizens. Quite ironic when you realise that their explosives were supplied by Colonel Gadaffi. The US and Libya, conspiring against Britain.
    But I'm not stupid. I know the actions of individuals mean nothing in the grand scale of things. We all need to look at OURSELVES for a moment and ask if we really are doing the right thing.
    IMO the US is a contributer to terrorism.

  11. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    2. ”The FBI defines terrorism as:
    The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.


    This also exactly defines American foreign policy.

  12. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Yay the U.S. just assisted in assasinating a head of state that we had no declared war.

    What an accomplishment?  The video is all over the net.  Why can we see Qaddaffi's body dead and being violated yet Bin Laden had an Islamic funeral and no pics?

    WTF, how many people is my country going to murder off the battlefield?

    I have not seen nor will I watch the vids, never mind posting links. I do not want to see the atrocities.

    BTW  Who is in charge of all of Libya's weapons?

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Because Qaddaffi was hated and Bin Laden was loved.

  13. knolyourself profile image62
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    " It also delivered the lethal unintended consequence of those anti-aircraft missiles appropriated by Islamists - a supremely convincing reason for the "war on terror" in northern Africa to become eternal.

    Washington couldn't care less about R2P; as the Libyan Clinton hop shows, the only thing that matters is the excuse to "securitize" Libya's arsenal - the perfect cover story for US contractors and Anglo-French intel ops to take over Libyan military bases."

  14. 0
    Infinite712posted 5 years ago

    Yes, the United States is a terrorist nation.

  15. arksys profile image91
    arksysposted 5 years ago

    here's a link to a video about the fake libya situation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … sQtxF_eNjk

    following is a pic of the aftermath of one of the drone attacks in pakistan ... i did not upload the pic directly coz it's a disturbing picture. if you do open it then read the caption. we see these kind of pics every other day either in the papers or the news... since the war on terror.

    https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?f … mp;theater

    you can decide for yourself what is true and what is not.

    I thought obama would bring change but he just made it worse.

  16. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 5 years ago

    What is a Terrorist: A US army sergeant was convicted by court-martial yesterday of murdering unarmed civilians and cutting fingers from their corpses as ringleader of a rogue platoon in Afghanistan's Kandahar province.

    The guilty verdict on all counts, returned after five hours of deliberations, carried an automatic life prison sentence, but the five-member jury panel then decided that Staff Sgt Calvin Gibbs (26) would be eligible for parole in eight-and-a-half years.

    Pentagon officials have said the misconduct exposed by the case, which evolved from an inquiry of drug abuse within Gibbs' Stryker Brigade infantry unit, damaged the image of the United States around the globe.

    Photographs entered as evidence in the case showed Gibbs and other soldiers casually posing with bloodied Afghan corpses, drawing comparisons with the inflammatory Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq in 2004.

    The decisions by the jury panel - two enlisted personnel and three officers followed a week-and-a-half of testimony at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, near Tacoma.

    Gibbs, who has denied committing murder, declined to speak before sentencing.

    His civilian lawyer, Phillip Stackhouse, asked the panel for leniency in its parole decision, saying Gibbs had ample time for reflection during his pretrial confinement and "is not the same person he was when he went to Afghanistan." He added his client wished for the chance to be reunited with his young son at some point in the future.

    Military prosecutor Major Dre Leblanc argued against parole, reminding the panel that Gibbs had often said of the Afghan people he terrorised, "These people are all savages, look at how they live."

    Gibbs was convicted on three counts of premeditated murder in the slayings of Afghan villagers last year that were disguised as legitimate combat engagements. Prosecutors said he acted as the chief instigator behind those killings and

    other assaults by members of his self-described "kill team."

    Besides charges of murder, conspiracy and other offenses, he was found guilty of beating a soldier who reported

    hashish use to superiors and of military code violations for cutting fingers off bodies as war

    trophies.

    A single count of threatening another soldier was dismissed earlier this week.

    Gibbs insisted two of the killings for which he was charged were in self-defense and that he played no role in the other. He denied allegations of planting weapons near the bodies.

    Testifying in his own defense last Friday, Gibbs said he had "disassociated" himself from his actions while in combat and likened the removal of fingers from dead bodies to the taking of antlers from a deer.

    Prosecution witnesses portrayed Gibbs as a blood-thirsty renegade who intimidated fellow soldiers and harbored a deep, ethnic hatred of the very people US troops were sent to protect from Taliban forces.

    His chief accuser was the ex-corporal described as Gibbs' right-hand man, Jeremy Morlock, who pleaded guilty to murder for his role in the same three killings and was sentenced in March to 24 years in prison under a deal with prosecutors to obtain his co-operation in the case.

    Five soldiers in all from the infantry unit formerly called the 5th Stryker Brigade were accused of murder, although Gibbs and Morlock were the only charged with more than one killing.

  17. HattieMattieMae profile image69
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    you a terrorist in my book if you have any weapon in your hand! lol

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's all insanity, IMO

  18. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    safeguarding ones interest of their citizens, peace and whatever ideals they are holding on to. it comes with big responsibility being a great nation like the US

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      At least someone still has faith in this nation.

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
        prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        it is still a great nation faced with changing economic and social dynamics - local, international. It must protect itself like what other nations are doing to protect themselves, i.e, economic measures

        1. Castlepaloma profile image24
          Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          With the same war budget as the whole world combined.

          Is'nt that offence not defence?9

  19. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

    Wow !  How  far out  into the galaxies  of the unknown  this thread has flown ,   All Of the Above should  take a few lessons in reality !   Look up todays definition  of terrorism ,  by that I mean how  it is used today !       I for one , as an American , would really rather  my government  pull back it's  far reaching tentacles  of it's  military , it's intelligence agencies , it's foreign policies , and   place them well inside our own borders ., And to Hell with 'defending " the free world . 

    However , any historical  realist already knows the  outcome of U.S. isolationism .......

    -Israel  and other moderate  nations would fall to the  destructive influences of  militant countries like Iran and Iraq .
    - terrorism  would increase in  western Europe and north America
    - Russia  would reaffirm it's role as a  world power over-thrower of eastern Europe
    - every oil ,  drug , or economic  cartel with a cause would invade the country next door to them
    - Nations like England  , France , Canada , and other peaceful nations would begin to see real  levels of terrorism  at much  higher levels .
    - The economic manifestations of colonialism between southeast Asian superpowers would  increase
    Japan , China etc.
    - Mass geo- political changes would begin  and who can even know where they would end !

    To those of you who consider   America  a terrorist nation :   get real , get educated !

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      On the contrary, places like England would see lower levels of terrorism if we were not seen as the lap dogs of the USA. and don't forget, we've had around 150 years of terrorist activity supported by the USA.

    2. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I agree with everything you've said
      I'd rather so many of our young men, didn't have to die to fight for the world's freedom, but America will always help the other countries. Those putting America down would run to us for help if their people were being tortured, raped and killed by militants, if they say they wouldn't they are fabricating

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        They are not dying for the world's freedom. They are dying for American corporations and to preserve and extend their markets.

        1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
          MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          That's untrue, and if you feel that way, I hope you don't live in the US
          I've heard a lot of lies about the US
          A person who came to live here from South America told me that they were taught the people in the US don't really like America, and that we are made to say we do by our government. She said now that she lives here she's knows it was a lie.
          Our military men love America and are enlisted, they are fighting for America, and the world's freedom.
          Our men don't care about corporations, but about freedom.
          I just love how those from other countries, think they know all about the US
          I personally would not live anywhere else, and I am very proud to be an American.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Your men may not care about corporations but then they are not the ones deciding which countries need "saving" and which countries can be left to go to the dogs.

            I don't live in your country but I do live in one which you have colonised.

            1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
              MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              That doesn't even make sense, how does going to war help our corporations? You do know that the American government doesn't own businesses, and firms, or corporations, Individuals, and partnerships do

              Do you know how many billions of dollars are given to countries by America to help them rebuild after a disaster hits?
              I don't know where you are getting your erroneous information about America, but all of it's wrong

              1. Castlepaloma profile image24
                Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Sorry to break this to you. Corporations use police,
                prisons
                and
                military
                as their mercenar
                ies or
                they hired
                corperati
                ons or
                they are
                corperati
                ons
                themselv
                es.
                Welcome to the new world order of multicorperationism

                1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                  MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Sorry to break it to you but if you don't live here you have no idea about us

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                This is hardly the place to start educating anybody from scratch, sorry.

                I suggest that you search on TTIP but here's a good starting point.

                Oh, and by the way, the USA doesn't even come in to the top ten of countries giving international aid as a percentage of GDP!

                1. Castlepaloma profile image24
                  Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  I live it, I wored in areasof lawenforcement and been to 6 war zone countries.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image24
                    Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Dam
                    Jamed

                    Space on cell phone.

                  2. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    But what has that to do with TTIP?

                  3. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                    MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    You're in Canada not America

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Don't forget to add in the cost of being the policeman of the world! sad

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    They may police the world for the benefit of the USA, why would you expect the world to bear that cost?

                3. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Hello, John. How nice to meet up with you again. I would like to add my own take on your remarks regarding US international aid.

                  In 2013, the US was the single largest provider of foreign aid in the world. In absolute dollars, the USA spent $31.6B, nearly double the amounts spent by either the 2nd or 3rd ranked countries. {1}

                  As a further “BTW”, John, when you examine those 10 top countries that are listed by percent of gross national income (GNI), the group you said does not include the US, you discover that the USA alone spends more than the sum total of nine of them.

                  I also noticed that the UK is the second largest contributor worldwide in absolute terms but ranks fifth in the world by GNI. Clearly, ranking by GNI serves to obscure rather than highlight the magnitude contributed by individual nations.

                  Thank you, John, for allowing my to insert my two pence. I just want to be sure my tax contributions get their just recognition. big_smile
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {1} www.oecd.org/newsroom/aid-to-developing … e-high.htm

                  1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                    MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Thank you

                    I want people to know that I don't mean to offend them, but I love America and will always stand by our homeland

                  2. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Good morning Quill, I suppose it depends on whose figures you use but I can't find any that place the US anywhere near the top of the pile on a percentage of GNI.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Once again clarity. An inconvenient part of the dilemma. +++++++++++++

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      .....Israel  and other moderate  nations would fall to the  destructive influences of  militant countries like Iran and Iraq ......

      Isn't about time Israel stood on its' own without the US holding the power over other countries fate. The creation of Israel was the start of the US downfall and influence in the region. We are the enemy trying to negotiate the peace.

      ..... terrorism  would increase in  western Europe and north America.....

      It already has because the solution has never been reached nor faithfully executed

      ..... Russia  would reaffirm it's role as a  world power over-thrower of eastern Europe
      - every oil ,  drug , or economic  cartel with a cause would invade the country next door to them .....

      Russia already is a failed state of criminals and corrupt government. What have we done to change any of that?

      .....Nations like England  , France , Canada , and other peaceful nations would begin to see real  levels of terrorism  at much  higher levels.....

      So now we are providing any protection to these sovereign countries? We created a big mess (establishing Israel) and now we have to prevent any further hostilities by ignoring the conditions.

      .....The economic manifestations of colonialism between southeast Asian superpowers would  increase
      Japan , China etc....

      Look at NAFTA and the new TPP which eliminates illegal trade reviews to corporations in favor of larger profits. There is no national oversight to prosecute a thing. This is the worst legislation ever while you argue about superpower manifestation's of colonialism?

      .....Mass geo- political changes would begin  and who can even know where they would end !.....

      They already have with Ukraine and the warring in Africa. It has nothing to do with us.

  20. Larry Fields profile image91
    Larry Fieldsposted 22 months ago

    O'Bummer's record on the T-word is a very mixed bag. On the one hand, he's providing limited assistance to the Iraqi government, in their fight against ISIS terrorists. On the other hand, he's providing weapons to ISIS rebels in nearby Syria. Our Marxist Messiah is a bloody genius!

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Marxist messiah! He's as capitalistic as the next man!

      1. Castlepaloma profile image24
        Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Perfer using the word (faceless) coporationist.

        Capitalist can be more of a good thing.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          How?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image24
            Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Capitalism is a social system based upon the recognition of individu right. Including private property and all goods. Capitalism is an ethical legal principles idenitify man's freedom of action within the social content. All agression are illegal and allows free market. Under true Capitalism there is no taxes, no wars, no price  ceiling,no centro banks, no Government and does not sanction it use by other.

            Does that sound like coperationism?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              No, capitalism is the accumulation of capital, that's all.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image24
                Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                What is your idea of coperationism?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Extreme capitalism.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image24
                    Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Lo

                    I
                    giv
                    e

                    My
                    Idea
                    Later.

  21. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

    Because of assorted  new age  anti- war mentalities of hyper- liberal  political correctness ,  many Americans have reached a level   of  blatant immaturity where it's no longer possible to know enough to  love their own country  or to hate the enemies they're supposed to !   It will be the usual skip generational return to patriotism paid for by their  grandchildren  that will steady the course and return to love for country .

    Too bad you all don't get that now and save  the lives of your own grandchildren though !

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I‘m confused, my x christian girlfriend dragged me to church to teach me to love my enemies. Don't have any enemies, so I dump them both. Both my daughter and I like our peaceful country
      Canada, yet if it became too harmful or too unhealthy we would dump Canada. Your love ones and your health matter most.

  22. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

    The greatest Irony of policing the world , the lack of appreciation !-- I truly wish we'd go  back to isolationism once again and screw  the unappreciative  rest of the free world .    Drone the enemy from the air I say,    let them pick up their own pieces !

    America has a thousand places to spend it's treasures other than in defense of places that can't even feed their own children , that still keep women in closets  ,  that  sell their kids to the  porn market , and that  drive their  donkey carts to market to screw their own neighbors.

    The sad part is I know better than to think we can do it  without the middle east crumbling  , Africa  returning to the dark ages ,  south America  eating it's own  offspring ,  I wonder at times what the rest of the free market would do without the consumerism of the American markets ? You're welcome John Holdens of the world !

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      We seem to disagree on much. I'm glad that we agree on the evils of TTIP even if we probably don't like it for totally different reasons.

    2. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, you said it

  23. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

    It's interesting to watch the process of denial that the world has against fact !  After all there is only one honesty , one truth .  The US. is the last super -power in the world ,    I agree with the left about one thing . We need to stop underwriting   the financial woes of the world  ,  every time there's a hot spot of terror , a blockage in the shipping lanes ,   a  micro tyrant  in a crisp new uniform of medals rattling his cage ,   or a  human ,  natural disaster never before seen ?   Everyone looks to the big  red white and blue , our navy hospital ships , our troops , our checkbook .

    Maybe its time to let the others do it , right ? Nope .        It's just what we do, but why does everyone  secretly hate  the big boy on the block , envy ?

    1. arksys profile image91
      arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      we do not, and have never envied your military capabilities because quite frankly countries such as Iraq have been left in a worse position than they started. there are reports available online by american universities that say this. you spent 10 years to kill one man hiding in Afghanistan. that is a waste of power and resources.

      No one cares if you are a super power. that is just old school thinking. the world currently thinks of you as a bully. the one who knocks you down, then you throw them a band-aid and claim that you are helping them. you need to see it from this angle.

      I agree that you should just walk away and focus on strengthening your economy. there are many people in this world who want to live the "American Dream" and have equal opportunities like you currently have ... use that to your advantage. you have an amazing system in place, which is good for your people and i'm sure you can do a lot better if you stop sending your troops out so often.

      i have lived in Chicago for a while and i have personally found the people to be very friendly and welcoming, its just a shame the politicians are not the same.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Hello  Arksys, It is always informative to hear a view from the outside. Too often folks are too close to an issue to be able to consider there might be a different perspective.

        You make some thought provoking observations, but your first one may have cast a bit of a taint on those that followed;

        "...there are reports available online by american universities that say this. you spent 10 years to kill one man hiding in Afghanistan."

        Of course there may be voices that make that proclamation, (and a university setting might be a likely place to find such voices), it sounds much more like an ideological declaration than the conclusions of a report.  I tried various Google search strings, but couldn't find such a described report. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?

        Concerning the "no one cares if you are a superpower..." statement... perhaps the perspective, (extrapolated from their participation), of the many small and vulnerable nations in, (primarily), NATO, but also lesser know defense treaties like;  RIO, ANZUS, and others, might cast doubt on the nobody cares part.

        I can see scenarios that give the "bully" impression too. As hard as we try, we are still a nation with human leaders - which means some gloriously noble and beneficent highs, and some pretty arrogant and scummy lows. But I think our scorecard tallies a lot more instances of ally and benefactor than bully and vulture.
        Note; I do agree we botched the Iraq war follow-up.

        As for the "band-aid" part - the Iraq and Afghanistan examples might be at the forefront of most with this perspective, but a little research will turn up quite a few countries/nations that have received much more than a band-aid, and are grateful for it.

        Considering your "just walk away..." thought... we/the world moved beyond the viability of an isolationist mentality shortly after WWI.

        Thanks for the opportunity to add a response. I hope we have many future exchanges.Both factual and ideological.

        GA

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          hi GA,

          thanks for your response... i guess we can both learn from each other and in the end give a reasonable conclusion to the initial question ... "Can the united states be considered a "terrorist" nation".

          a few points from the website findings  which i was referring to are as follows (link will follow),

          "During the US troop withdrawal from Iraq, President Obama said that the United States military was leaving behind a “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.” This was not only an inaccurate account of Iraq’s situation at that time, but the country has since become less secure and politically stable"

          "While it was promised that the US invasions would bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, both continue to rank extremely low in global rankings of political freedom, with warlords continuing to hold power in Afghanistan with US support, and Iraqi communities more segregated today than before by gender and ethnicity as a result of the war."

          when i spoke of strengthening your economy i had something like the following in mind...

          "The ripple effects on the US economy have also been significant, including job loss and interest rate increases, and those effects have been underappreciated."

          If you do have the time then please visit the site to view the actual statistics. I trust the site because they are a bunch of well educated people and have written documents like a thesis or a Phd submission, which is normally accepted throughout the world.
          ~ http://www.costsofwar.org/

          you may find some interesting findings on the front page and if you would like a summary then you will find a link to the "Executive Summary" document on the home page (on the right side).

          you are correct to say the peace treaties and NATO etc do care that america is a superpower... however i meant that in terms of the people who are being constantly killed by america, the rest of us who watch what you are doing. We protest to stop drone attacks yet its been over 5 years and the attacks still have not stopped. there seems to be no respect for life on this side of the fence. when a drone hits one house in the tribal areas you may not know what that really means... the organization i've worked for has done surveys in that region and the families live by the joint family system, meaning everyone lives together no matter what... it has been seen that up to 53 members of a family live in one house. now think of a drone hitting only one house... it kills between 20-50 people every single time. now if we ask you, and have protests to say do not send drones on our people in our country but you still do it for the next 5 years then what's the use? you want us to turn to violence against you? how do we go about it? maybe you can give us a better suggestion.

          The after math of Afghanistan involves your ally Pakistan. after you did not stop bombing with drones our people started seeing us as the enemy because we did not stop it. they formed a pakistani taliban over time and now have killed the kids in peshawar... they threw granades at schools 2-3 days ago in karachi (where i used to study) ... the schools in islamabad (at least where my nieces go to school) have received white cloths to be used as coffin cloths for the girls who will be murdered. Since america is pretty much out of the scene now these people are now against their own people. I'm not saying that America should step in here at all... it is our fight now and we do have a decent military force to handle it, and many more innocent people will die but when we asked and protested like civil people did america listen? if you don't believe my words then search for "stop drone attacks in pakistan" and see the number of images available. maybe then you will be able to see why everyone here thinks of america as the bully.

          the reason why i said band-aid was because (keeping the above scenario in mind)... what amount of money can you give a mother or father to recover the loss of their child? what amount of money can you give to the child who has lost his/her parents? anything you give will be an attempted band-aid.

          At least now after about 14 years people in the west are beginning to realize the truth ... but how much hate against the muslims has the media filled in the people over the last decade. millions still think of muslim and terrorist as the same thing. how fair is that on the peaceful muslims? how much money will it take to remove that stain from the name of Islam? whenever we visit america we are shown special lines where it takes 2-3 hours to check our names in the terrorist databases, and that includes the citizens of usa who are muslims ... how many innocent muslims have been in jails in the usa for months without reason? how much money do you think will recover their lost time? for the attack on charlie hebdo there were approximately 50 attacks on innocent muslims, one of whom if i remember correctly was stabbed 17 times. this is what the media has done and is something that needs to be realized.

          there is no good that has come from this war... it has made things worse in most cases. for an ordinary person in Pakistan, america is the bully. envy of being a superpower is the last thing on their mind. They may want to go to america so they can get out of the hell that has been created here... but i can assure you there is not much envy going on here.

          there are countries like Japan / China / Netherlands / Switzerland who have helped and continue helping Pakistan in many positive ways, and we are deeply grateful for their support. The negativity of america has reached so high in Pakistan that US-Aid is the only organization in Pakistan which advertises their projects on TV to show that america is also helping build a better Pakistan, because now they have to try and prove to the locals that america is good. It's a little late, but worth a shot i guess.

          I hope that covers most of your questions / points, and maybe you can see what i see standing on this side of the fence. I cannot speak much on behalf of other Muslim countries because i have not lived there and i do not follow the news much. these are things which i have come across while living in Pakistan who was your greatest ally against Afghanistan, and this is why the people in this country and many other countries think of you as "the terrorist".

          I look forward to your response.

          Irfan.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Well damn, you certainly took the wind out of the sails of any glib response. You also appear to speak from a local level that I am also unable to properly reply to. So let me try to address your response in a "big picture" way.

            (ps. I have skipped viewing your mentioned website in order to address you instead.)

            As for what the USA left behind in Iraq... we left a mess. But, in my opinion. not on purpose. I think the Iraq situation is due more to the fact that we just failed to understand that all cultures are not like our American culture. We thought the Iraqis would rejoice at a system promoting the freedoms that we value, when in fact, they do value those freedoms - but from a tribal/clan/sect perspective - not a nationalistic perspective.  Yes, we botched Iraq.

            The same goes for Afghanistan - we assumed democracy and personal liberties and freedoms were the goal of all folks, when, (after the fact),  it appears that cultural mores are really more  influential than we ever considered.

            America has a great history of personal freedoms and liberties. We just assumed that folks the world over would like to live with the same freedoms and liberties - whereas the same explanation again applies - within the norms and mores of the local culture.

            We did not fail Iraq and Afghanistan due to  political reasons or malfeasance - we failed them because we did not understand the culture. Which I see as one stuck in the past - not the realities of what is or could be.

            To your point about the people, (the innocents), being killed by the USA, I would ask "What do you expect?" And I do not mean that as callously as it sounds.  The USA is fighting a real enemy - terrorism, and it is a fight we cannot abandon. But we are also fighting an enemy that places absolutely no value on innocent human life. They fight from schoolls and hospitals. They mix with and hide behind innocent civilians. So what are we to do? We try very very hard to limit non-combatant deaths. But you are right, that point is lost on the family that lost someone in a drone strike, (that also achieved its  objective of killing a bomb maker or cell leader.

            I have empathy for that perspective. But the reality is that as long as those combatants have free rein among citizens to continue using them as shields, innocents will continue to die.

            In the spirit of this honest discussion, let's look at one perspective of the drone attacks. They work!

            Would you rather have an occupying-like force on the ground trying to root out these terrorists? I can tell you that we Americans do not want to spill any more of our treasure trying to weed out the terrorists leaders, (because the civilian population won't help), for Middle Eastern citizens that appear to want the good results without the necessary sacrifices,  when we can use live video and real-time intelligence to accomplish the same result with drones.

            You speak of the angst of those killed by the efforts of the USA to combat the terrorist threats, but you fail to mention the sorrow and loss of those that suffer from the hands of their fellow nationals. A ISIS pr Taliban kills tens or hundreds - with no strong denunciation, yet a drone strike that kills two innocents is a national outcry.

            A final point concerning the drone attacks... Do a little research. Find out what the "attack" criteria is and how much effort is applied before a lethal attack is authorized. This won't lessen the grief of a family with a loss - but it will address the realities of the situation.

            Following to your comments about Pakistan - now there is a political/national security issue. The USA needs to keep Pakistan in our column of supporters, but the reality is that Pakistan generally supports the terrorists and the Taliban to our detriment. They want our dollars but not our goals. I think it is time to be politically bold with Pakistan.

            To finish I will bundle the rest into this - Japan, Switzerland etc. are viewed as benevolent because their only involvement is aid. Did they rescue any of the girls/women/citizens from the atrocities of the Taliban or the sectarian violence in Iraq?

            I will not apologize for America's actions in Iraq or Afghanistan - our goals were true and our motives were altruistic, (ha, go for it you oil conspiracy folks), -  even if our assumptions were naive.

            I really do appreciate the perspective of your response. And I think  you make very valid points.But..., I also think there is a large gap between the reality  of the situation and the "local perspective' influenced  by te loss of life of a community member.

            Thanks for such an honest response.

            GA

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              firstly thank you for accepting the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan were left in a mess. Many still believe otherwise.

              In my previous post i had explained to you why others see the USA as a terrorist nation. The masses live on the local level and that is all they see, which is why i replied in the local sense. It is what a local man sees and that is the origin of seeing the USA as a terrorist nation.

              I do see your perspective about the drones and why you say they work. It makes perfect sense to me, therefore i cannot argue against it. As writerfox pointed out, our own general asked for the drones so how can i point the finger at america. 

              The people here also see America using our leaders as puppets. When you say "I think it is time to be politically bold with Pakistan", I honestly think it will create a greater negative impact. I would advise that you stop or significantly reduce sending your dollars to Pakistan and with time get out of the political picture. the more politically involved you are with Pakistan the more you are hated. The people don't care to look at your clear intentions, they ask the question "why are foreigners telling us what to do in our land?". You must be in the position to be politically bold because of the amount of money which flows into Pakistan but people do not realize this. I think It's best to follow the routes of countries like Japan / Switzerland etc. and wait till the Pakistani scream for help. If you step in when we scream for help you will find everyone willing to fight the enemy with you on the ground.

              One thing apart from all this...  I do understand why everything is happening as it is currently and when you say "The USA is fighting a real enemy - terrorism, and it is a fight we cannot abandon." I am with you 100% until here.

              Now data, from the FBI website shows "Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database" ... "Princeton University’s Loon Watch compiled the following chart from the FBI’s data:"

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12210005.jpg

              The one thing i don't understand is why america chose to fight the Muslim extremists half way around the globe when they only account for 6% of terrorist attacks on america? why did you not fight the Latino's first who account for 42%? (Oil conspiracy lovers may rejoice...).   

              and before you think that those statistics are flawed because of the minor things which could be classified as terrorist attacks, here is another pie chart which shows the classifications of those attacks.

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12210079.jpg

              In my opinion,
              Pure intentions by the people of USA : Yes
              Pure intentions by the soldiers of USA : Yes
              Pure intentions by the politicians : No

              what do you say?

              1. Writer Fox profile image80
                Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                The FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center includes the following in 'domestic terrorism': violence committed by abortion rights groups, animal rights activists, environmental activists, groups opposing taxation, etc.  It covers a broad range of activities and not just religious/political terrorism. Nor does it indicate the number of deaths as a result of terrorism (3,000 died in the 9/11 attacks alone).  Also, the statistics are 10 to 25 years old and do not reflect the realities of the 21st century.

                For example, all of the acts of 'Jewish terrorism' (18 in all) were committed prior to 1985 and all were by The Jewish Defense League. The JDL was founded in America in 1968. Its founder eventually moved to Israel where he was arrested 62 times for planning terrorist attacks.  He was assassinated in New York City in 1990 by an Egyptian-born American citizen who was later involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

                If you review terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, only look at attacks which involved death, and include the years 1980 – 2014, you will find a different story:

                Armenian: attacks caused 2 deaths
                Jewish: attacks caused 3 deaths
                Latino: attacks caused 7 deaths
                Right Wing Radicals: attacks caused 192 deaths
                Muslim: attacks caused 3,013 deaths

                These statistics, along with some powerful commentary by the Pakistani-Canadian writer Ali A. Rizvi, can be found here :

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  The ali rizwi guy blames Islam for it... he sounds like another burnt atheist to me. but the fact of number of deaths i cannot argue with.

                  i'll assume that 9/11 was not an inside job for the sake of argument. please tell me how you will justify the killing of over 50,000 people for the lives of 3013. I did not put the actual figure of muslim deaths here and you know what will happen if i add the list of casualties. another source of "are muslims lives cheaper?" for GA.

                  you cannot justify these murders. and no "collateral damage" is not acceptable when the figures are so high. you created more than half the terrorists by killing their family members.

                  One more thing i wanted to share with you. A few days ago you mentioned that drone attacks have stopped in Pakistan for almost a year now. I talked to my friend in Tirah today and he says the drones are still in their region ... he says we have 5 confirmed drone attacks a month plus 2 - 3 more in some months.

                  1. Writer Fox profile image80
                    Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Drone attacks are continuing in Afghanistan and on the Afghanistan side of the Tirah Valley. According to Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), the Pakistani air force carried out strikes on February 5, 2015, in Tirah and killed 25 militants. Maybe these are the attacks your friend heard.
                       
                    On February 11, drones fired two missiles on a compound in the Nazyan area of Nangarhar on the Afghanistan side of the Pak-Afghan border, leaving nine suspected militants dead.  These militants were believed to be the planners of the attacks on the Army Public School in Peshawar, Pakistan, which left over 150 people dead, including more than 130 schoolchildren. Two days earlier, drones killed at least six in Helmand, Afghanistan.  One of those killed was Mullah Abdul Rauf, a former Taliban leader who recently joined ISIS.  There were at least four Pakistani ISIS militants who were killed with him.

                    I don't know where the 50,000 figure comes from, but wars and military actions are brutal, and kill people on both sides of the conflict.  There's no question about that. The only way to diminish the death count is to quickly destroy al-Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS, because those guys are never going to lay down their arms and sign peace treaties.

                    ISIS announced last month that it is expanding into Khorasan, a term Islamists use to describe a region encompassing Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It even appointed a former commander from the Pakistani wing of the Taliban as 'governor' of the region.

                    You have a population of 182 million people in Pakistan and a powerful military.  However, Pakistan has been unable to stop this.  Your nation has at least 200 nuclear bombs stockpiled and ISIS would love to get its hands on them. 

                    The U.S. is in the process of withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan. It will leave and take its drones out of the region.  What will happen then?  (The world has seen what has happened in Iraq and Syria when a vacuum is created.)  Afghanistan cannot even provide its citizens with clean drinking water and sanitation, as a result of which 48,545 children die every year in the country of diarrhoeal diseases alone.  Can Pakistan prevent the complete takeover of Afghanistan and Pakistan by ISIS? I hope it can, but I have my doubts.

        2. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Hello once again GA.

          Came across an article which backs up what I had said about the drone attacks.
          13 year old killed by drone.

          https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 … u-s-drone/

          You may not have heard about the 3 muslims shot in the head today. A husband/wife and the sister of the wife. 23,21,19 years old respectively. the news was not covered by the media because it was an atheist who killed muslims. Thank god for the social media. If you are a democracy and the leaders do listen to you then please raise your voices to stop this. They sure don't listen to us. #Chapelhillshooting

          1. Writer Fox profile image80
            Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            That attack was in Yemen, from a base in Saudi Arabia, and it killed three suspected al Qaeda fighters. The country of Yemen has just been taken over by al Qaeda and represents a threat to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman. There have been no drone attacks in Northern Pakistan since December, 2013, more than one year ago.

            The government of Pakistan allowed the drones to operate from Shamsi Airfield in Pakistan until 21 April 2011.  According to secret diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks,  Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani not only tacitly agreed to the drone flights, but in 2008 requested that Americans increase them.

            Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told The New Yorker in 2014 that he allowed the CIA to fly drones within Pakistan and that, in exchange, the US supplied helicopters and night-vision equipment to the Pakistanis.

            If you don't like what happens in Pakistan, you should appeal to your own government.  Unfortunately, some civilians always die in wars.  But, the drone attacks killed at least 2,300 terrorists and Pakistan is a safer country because of this.



            This news story has been published by millions of news sources, including every major news site in the UK and the US. This wasn't an act of terrorism; it was a crazy man, acting alone, and he was immediately arrested.  No one in America supports those killings.

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Thanks for clarifying that the issue lies in Pakistan about the drones. We're trying to change the leadership but corruption always helps the votes go haywire.

              Pakistan is not better off. If you are focussing only in the afghan border regions then you may be right. you however missed the point that they have now spread across the country and entered cities. To an average civilian like myself it is not as safe anymore. The reason; I have posted before therefore will not repeat.

              I know it was Yemen ... The point being innocent people are dying for no fault of their own. At the end of the day it's another American drone which killed another innocent muslim family. This is one viewpoint that will remain in the hearts of many and this is what Americans will be remembered for.

              The news seemed to have covered the news quite late. Many muslims in America complained on social media that why is the media not covering this like it covered Charlie hebdo or if a Muslim had killed a dog etc... Because muslim lives are cheaper is the answer the muslims have come to believe. This is another example of what I had talked to GA about in my earlier post. The media is bias and there is no equality in it. It is also interesting to note that you along with many others call it an 'individual' attack instead of a 'hate crime' which is a result of the rubbish shown by the media. You also forgot to specify that he was an athiest. The reason I'm saying this is when a muslim does something wrong they are labelled by their belief. When someone else does it like this athiest man no one talks about religious beliefs. If there is no equality from the people who preach equality then very few will blindly follow. Cartoons came out before the news covered this story. Attaching one of them here.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12204361.jpg

              1. Writer Fox profile image80
                Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                When a crime like this happens, it takes time to investigate the motives of the perpetrator.  As the news story developed, many facts about the murderer came to light, including the fact that he hated all religions and all religious people.  This is being reported.  He also had problems with all of his neighbors, not just Muslims.  Here is an article from the New York Times posted yesterday which states "His anger appeared to be aimed primarily at Christians."
                http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/us/ch … .html?_r=0

                The FBI and local law enforcement are investigating to determine if it was a 'hate crime' (against Muslims) under US law.  It is important to remember that the man was arrested and will be put on trial.  All of the facts will be presented in court and some of the facts cannot be presented in newspapers until then.  In the US, if too much information is published before a trial, a jury can be influenced and the case against the killer can be thrown out of court.  So, there are very good reasons why all of the evidence is not given to reporters at this time. We will all have to wait for the trial to know all of the details and you can be assured that the details will be made public at that time and fully reported.

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  I do understand that some reasons must be kept away until the trial and that is fair. The man actually walked into the police station and gave himself up but it doesn't matter because i know your police force usually does find the culprit, especially if the news is plastered over the media. there is a lot of pressure on them... unlike what we have here.

                  the thing i want to stress is ... this is what you see in the news.

                  headline 1 : Muslim kills a 12 people.
                  headline 2 : Muslim kills a dog. (placed this just to keep things light)
                  headline 3 : Muslim killed by an individual.

                  after reading the first two headlines ... the third sounds like this Muslim beast has finally met with justice, kill em all.
                  I thank the media for trying so hard to shed all the light specifically on muslims, but its not what we want. we want the headline 3 to say : Atheist kills 3 muslims or Christian kills muslims or don't label the people at all by their religious identity: that's all i'm asking. the media needs to change the way it presents news and show it as a neutral entity, but this is too difficult therefore the people reading the news must try to change their interpretation.

                  now as i say this to you, i feel our media has filled our minds with "American Drones" and I have made it my duty to make sure people know the truth about our government (thanks to your info) before they blindly point the finger at america.

                  1. Writer Fox profile image80
                    Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I think US journalists do strive to be impartial when reporting and, when they are not, they are quickly called out.

                    I also think that you might prefer to do the reporting yourself.  Consider the fact that not many people are reading the HubPages forum for information about the subjects which most interest you.

                    I suggest that you consider being a citizen journalist on groundreport.com.  There is no payment involved, but it does give you an opportunity to voice your opinions to a wider audience.  You can go there and search for 'Pakistan' , 'Islam' and 'Muslims' to see what is being reported now and who is doing the reporting. Also read this: http://groundreport.com/about

                    Signup is here: http://groundreport.com/my-account

                  2. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I agree that the assimilation of terrorism with Muslim is having an affect on people. As open as I try to be towards all religions and cultures I find myself in a quandary with the situation. As an example I know a few Muslims and have had very good relationships with them. I was at a hospital waiting for a baby to be born into the family. I was sitting in a waiting room in front of an elevator and the bell rang that the elevator had arrived. The door opened and two women with scarves on their heads and covered from head to toe in robes and a man in what appeared to be traditional Arab garb emerged from the elevator. For a split second I felt a degree of panic. Was it because of the constant barrage of negative references to Arab terrorists that made me fell this way? I don't know because it immediately went away when I saw the smiles and laughing as they were here for the same reason I was. To see their new family member.

                    My point being whether conscious or un consciously we all are inundated with information and propaganda that instills a memory in us we associate with whatever it shows us. I am not sure but would the Christians like it if we called Aryan Christians or Ku Klux Klan Christians when referencing to these very violent groups? They are Bible based as THEY claim and commit horrendous acts of treachery and violence in the name of God and country. Words have meaning and affect the way people view each other.

                  3. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Ha! You want the news media to reflect reality instead of the sensational - good luck with that. If it is going to be network, (or cable) news, then it is competing for viewers and advertising dollars - so it is not ever going to be unbiased.

                    GA

                2. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Amen, a call for patience instead of instant condemnation.

                  GA

              2. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Wow! A very "spot on comment. Except... yes, the media is very biased toward the sensationalism of a particular perspective, but no, Muslim lives are not cheaper! Where did you get that perspective?

                And what the hell is this "hate crime" outcry all about. Murder is murder. What difference does it make if the guy hated Muslims, or Christians, (new reports say he hated Christians the most), or whatever - the main point was his atheism. He appears to be a nut. Yet you appear to want to paint him as a symbol of a much larger issue - rubbish!

                You know better. Stop drinking the Koolaid, there are idiots and knuckleheads everywhere - one yahoo is not a "SNAPSHOT" of the rest of us.

                .GA

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  yes, i do know better... i'm more of a tea person though, koolaid isn't my thing.



                  lol ... and this is exactly what the peaceful muslims say/think when our religion has been made the symbol of terrorism. we also believe they are nutters. but your words tell me that for maybe 1 second you felt what we feel.



                  This is what i am also conveying to everyone in the hubpages forums about Muslims. they are a very small group compared to the whole Muslim population, they are not a snapshot of the rest of us, and no they are NOT following Islam.



                  I'm glad you feel that way. Its a general feeling within the muslim community; whether the attack is on muslims by muslims or otherwise, the amount of loss we have heard of has made us feel this way.



                  Recently we have heard a lot of anti-muslim acts committed specifically in France (147 in the month of January) and then comes this dude at chapelhill which also looks like an anti muslim act. All this news has amplified the hate-crime matter in our heads (specifically mine - maybe i should try koolaid).

                  Looking at the facts :  of all hate crimes, the number of anti-muslim attacks in america is 2% (100-150 per year) and has remained constant since 9/11, while before 9/11 it was 20-40 per year.  that's an acceptable number of nutters, and i'm not being sarcastic here.

                  I apologize for overlooking the real statistics in this matter.

                  1. Writer Fox profile image80
                    Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    "Drink the Kool-Aid" is a reference to a religious cult leader who put poison in Kool-Aid and told his followers to drink it.  They did.  They all committed suicide, 913 people, because they followed their religious leader Jim Jones. "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" means that you shouldn't automatically believe what you are told or follow-the-leader.

                    Often I find that people are quick to point out the lack of injustice or discrimination in other countries but are hesitant to admit the same in their own countries.  I think of a pregnant Christian woman, her unborn child and her husband who were brutally attacked in Pakistan by thousands of Muslims who striped them naked, beat them and then threw them into a brick kiln and burned them alive.  Why?  The mostly illiterate Muslims accused them of blasphemy against the Qur'an.  This happened in November, 2014.  Out of thousands of attackers and witnesses, no one has ever been brought to trial. 

                    I think of an attack on All Saint’s Church in Peshawar which killed at least 85 worshipers. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, in 2012 many churches (including one in Faisalabad, one in Mardan and six in Karachi), three Hindu temples and an Ahmadi place of worship were amongst the places of worship that were damaged, destroyed or vandalized by Muslims in Pakistan.

                    I think of hundreds of young girls of minority religious who are kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam and quickly married to Muslim men against their wishes. Zohra Yusuf, the president of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says, "During court hearings to determine whether the conversion was voluntary, students from nearby Islamic schools called madrassas often flood the room, trying to intimidate the judges by chanting demands that the conversion be confirmed. If a girl decides to renounce Islam and return to Hinduism, she could be signing a death warrant for herself and her family even if her conversion was forced." Thus, hundreds of young girls every year are sentenced to forced sexual servitude for the rest of their lives.

                    I also think of over 4,000 cases of so-called 'honor killings' in Pakistan between 1998 and 2004. Most of these are against women for perceived 'immoral behavior' such as wearing western dress or dating someone her father or brother doesn't like.

                    I then I look at this page with one horrific picture after another of the brutal acts and murders of people of minority religions (Christians, Ahmadis, Shias, Sikhs, Hindus, and Sufis) in Pakistan in 2014.  It leaves me without words.

                    How can you possibly compare the way America treats minorities with what happens in your own country of Pakistan?

                    This is a picture of the burning alive of an Ahmadi woman and her two young granddaughters.  They were murdered because their Muslim neighbors didn't like their posting on Facebook and said they had committed blasphemy.  Another Ahmadi woman lost her unborn child in the riots which followed.

                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12210135.jpg

          2. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            You are wrong. This story has been covered extensively by the media. Too extensively! Before the police can even get their investigators involved - the "great debate" is whether this should be called a "hate" crime.

            Come on!!!!!! Three innocents killed and your priority is whether it is a political issue!


            Get a life! This does not reflect well on you.

            GA

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      ....After all there is only one honesty , one truth .....

      It is interesting that you have this view. A lot of Americans think this way until it becomes less clear with facts. Facts that are quite clear to others around the world. Truth is a fleeting condition clouded by the bias we all apply to our understanding. What seems as truth can be dispelled as time passes by to reveal all the things we clouded with our bias.

      America is viewed as a bully by other countries and peddles its influence through bribes, torture and whatever other means are available. Seeing it as you describe only obscures the truth.

    3. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Or is it because the USA generates so much terrorism by trying to influence the governments of other countries and when it is not actually causing terrorism by its actions, it's backing terrorism by others?

    4. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I think I would just ignore him, that's what I'm going to do from now on. People hate us because they actually envy us

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Your beliefs are so insecure that you daren't let anybody challenge them!

    5. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago

      Here’s what I found on it
      The United States spends billion of dollars each year on foreign aid . In fact, the U.S. sent approximately $37,680,000,000 overseas in 2012 for foreign aid, according to Finance Degree Center, a website dedicated to finance education.
      For the chart
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12 … xplain-it/



      While the effectiveness of foreign aid remains up for debate, the United States recently has continued to pump around $50 billion in aid to other countries each year.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/3 … 37824.html

      America doesn't just give one time, it's over, and over, even with all the homeless people here who need aid

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        America gives 0.19% of gross domestic income as foreign aid.
        Norway, in first place, gives 1.07% of gross domestic income as foreign aid.

        1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
          MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          I don't care who pays the most, or if your dad can beat up my dad, America to true Americans counts more than money. I'm amazed at how much you know about  our country, even more than even the President I bet

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            If you count more than money, why do you keep counting it? If you are proud of what your country contributes, be proud, stop trying to quantify it.

            I probably don't know more about your country than your president but I bet I know more about your country than you do about mine.

            Have you had a look at TTIP yet?

    6. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

      Quite frankly , Americans  feel just as isolated by other countries that were once our closest allies , England , France ,  even Germany and  a few  others , countries apparently no longer willing to stand up and be counted as being  against  Islamic  extremist  terrorists  , or who donate token amounts of troops and treasure for the security of the free world .

      That's not a problem though  America will always stand for its own  beliefs and STILL come when  Europe calls !  In spite of the peace mongering  political correctness of weaker allies  who feel "under the gun" of terrorism .

      May all the John Holdens of the free world  sleep peacefully   tonight  beneath peaceful  skies in  the comfort of a  free Europe .   NATO  watches over you , the United Nations  watches over you , all from the  financial  and militaristic sacrifices of Americans.   Dis- us all you like , we will still be there ! .

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Your ignorance is offensive.
        We do not contribute token amounts of troops and treasure. We send in highly skilled troops to do what your troops either will not or cannot do.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Oh no! Say it ain't so. You didn't really say that did you? You aren't really going to make me sound supportive of ... are you?

        While I generally agree with your American perspectives, (I too think we are a great nation that does a lot more good than harm in the world), you have just maligned our staunchest and most reliable and most trustworthy ally  - the UK; an ally whose help propelled us to victory in our revolutionary war - France; and a modern ally who plays a more important, (as in complimentary stabilizing)  part in global affairs, (read U.S. interests), than you seem to think - Germany.

        I might let you slide on picking on France, seems like fair sport, (just kidding). And I might understand that Germany's "got our back" assistance is in areas other than military assistance. But ya gotta give Britain its due. Because it has paid its dues and has never failed to stand with us when it counted.

        Come on, take it back, give the Brits the respect they have earned. Just because you think they should be fighting the Islamic extremists differently isn't a reason to deny them the recognition of how important an ally they have been - and are.

        Whew! Sorry for the heat, just gotta soft spot for those pasty-faced funny-talkin Brits.

        GA

        1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
          MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Read this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … warns.html
          If I understand right, there were rumors the UK was not with us as strongly as they were.
          I guess this is why

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Greetings Monkeyshine 75,

            That article is just politics. It has no bearing, (in my opinion), on the perspective that Britain has been and is our staunchest ally.

            It is not their military power that makes them our blood-brother, it is the history of our relationship and their past and continued support. And the perception of the world that we stand together.

            Britain has looked into the abyss. The U.S. helped bring them back from the edge. They have repaid that debt with a stoic determination that only some one who has faced what they faced can appreciate. Brits would probably be speaking German now if we hadn't helped, and without the help of a "saved" Britain, (and others), the U.S. might also be speaking a Slavic language.

            For me, if Britain could only send one soldier - the knowledge that they would send that one soldier is proof of my sentiment.

            GA

            1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
              MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me GA

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Sorry to be so long replying. Read your response as sincere, thank you too for the opportunity to express my view of the Brits.

                GA

    7. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

      This the perfect example of the distortion of factual info  !      Liberals love to talk about numbers  and yet  to reality two  plus two still equals four .

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        All right, lets talk about numbers, the average American spends $1 on foreign aid, the average Dane spends $5 on foreign aid.

        Happy now?

    8. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago

      You really should read this North Americans

      10 Great Things About America
      written by an immigrant who chooses to live here

      By Dinesh D'Souza

      “Anti-Americanism from abroad would not be such a problem if Americans were united in standing up for their own country. But in this country itself, there are those who blame America for most of the evils in the world. On the political left, many fault the United States for a history of slavery, and for continuing inequality and racism. Even on the right, traditionally the home of patriotism, we hear influential figures say that America has become so decadent that we are “slouching towards Gomorrah.”

      But the critics are wrong about America, because they are missing the big picture. In their indignation over the sins of America, they ignore what is unique and good about American civilization.

      As an immigrant who has chosen to become an American citizen, I feel especially qualified to say what is special about America. Having grown up in a different society — in my case, Bombay, India — I am not only able to identify aspects of America that are invisible to the natives, but I am acutely conscious of the daily blessings that I enjoy in America. Here, then, is my list of the ten great things about America.

      http://www.nationalreview.

      com/articles/207396/10-great-things-dinesh-dsouza

      Connect the two parts of the link to read the 10 Great Things

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        You want to hear the garbage Americans say about the UK!

    9. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago

      In the answers section, I wrote the question
      “What would the world be like if America never existed”
      I would love to hear your answers

      Go to: Explore-Answers-Politics and Social Issues-North America Political and Social Issues-What would the world be like if America never existed

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Nope, won't go to questions. These are forum discussions. (imagine a smiley emoticon here)

        GA

        1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
          MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Well, my question there caused at least one person to create a hub about it, and that's what the answers section is for, to give others a subject to write about.
          I have since deleted my question

          Thanks anyway

    10. Sohail Almani profile image59
      Sohail Almaniposted 22 months ago

      United states should be considered as a terrorist country in the aspect that they are supporting those all who are really doing terrorism specially Saudi Arabia and Israel. if even he is not supporting them why he not want to stop them even he can do so. until US behaves other poor countries like that it always be included in the terrorist countries

    11. Sohail Almani profile image59
      Sohail Almaniposted 22 months ago

      United states should be considered as a terrorist country in the aspect that they are supporting those all who are really doing terrorism specially Saudi Arabia and Israel. if even he is not supporting them why he not want to stop them even he can do so. until US behaves other poor countries like that it always be included in the terrorist countries

      1. Writer Fox profile image80
        Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        The United States government does not support every action of Saudi Arabia.  In fact, the two countries have had difficulties in their relationship since it was discovered that 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks on American soil were from Saudi Arabia and that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi.  The U.S. has had many discussions with the Saudi's over funding from individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia going to al-Qaeda.

        The U.S. doesn't agree with every decision made by the Israeli government, either; but, it has never considered Israel to be a sponsor of terrorism because Israel is not a sponsor of terrorism.

        I realize things look a little different to you because you view the world from Pakistan. To most of the world, Pakistan is considered a sponsor of terrorism. The government of Pakistan is involved in terrorism in Kashmir and Afghanistan, and this was admitted by then President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari in 2009.  According to the Brookings Institution Saban Center for Middle East Policy, "Pakistan is the world's 'most active' state sponsor of terrorism including aiding groups which were considered a direct threat to U.S.A."  Georgetown University Professor Dr. Daniel L. Byman (a staff member of the U.S. Joint 9/11 Inquiry Staff of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) said, "Pakistan is probably today's most active sponsor of terrorism."

        Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid accuses the Pakistan government's intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI) of assisting the Taliban. It has also been accused of playing a role in major terrorist attacks across the world including the September 11, 2001 attacks on American soil, attacks in the United States, Indian Parliament Attack, Mumbai Train Bombings, Hyderabad bombings, Varnasi bombings, the Indian embassy in Kabul, among many others. A spokesperson for Jundallah, a splinter group of Pakistan's Taliban, confirmed in November the group's support of ISIS. Not only that, but it is now reported that the leader of Pakistan is supporting ISIS.

        Two weeks ago, U.S. President Obama warned Pakistan it must shut down terrorist safe havens and bring those behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks to justice on the eve of his visit to India. Pakistan condemned his remarks.

        The government is also accused of supporting Taliban forces and training Mujahideen. And it is not without notice that Osama Bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, was living comfortably in Pakistan less than a mile away from the Pakistan Military Academy when he was found. Retired Pakistani Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani said in a recent interview that the government knew Bin Laden was in Pakistan.

        In July 2010, British Prime Minister David Cameron accused the Pakistani government of double standards: "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world."  As a consequence of his remarks, his request to visit the country was denied by the Pakistan government.  Under these circumstances, it amazes me that the UK allows Pakistani citizens to visit its country. What kind of country refuses to allow the British Prime Minister to visit?

        1. Sohail Almani profile image59
          Sohail Almaniposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          what if now they are apposing the Taliban but every body know that Taliban were created by America,  Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to destroy and break the Russia .and breaking that country only the reason was they were becoming super power country of the world I am not sure about citizens of America how thought about others countries but American government always  wants to push all the countries under their feats . America supports Israel because the majority of businessman in America or Jews or directly relevant to Israel and he supports Arabia because they are best source of Oil and Saudi have the best resource The holy places for Muslim of all over the world. so its clear where America wants to be in they send first Taliban throughout help of Saudi and they arrive with forces to occupy the natural resources of that country never mind I am talking as individual I do not have any objection on the Citizens of America but I am talking about US government

          1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
            MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            We support Israel because they are our allies, and we've signed treaties with them. Just because your country doesn't keep promises and contracts, doesn't mean we don't

            You've either been taught a lie, or you're spreading lies. America did not create the Taliban, and I don't appreciate you saying such things.
            We didn't create someone to take hostages of our own people, nor the people of our allies, and kill them. It's not what we do. You should stop with the crazy talk. The Taliban are Muslims, and it's what they do, and you are aware of it

            Israel doesn't promote terrorism, they are defending themselves.
            Why would we stop them from defending themselves?
            America does want peace, that's why they fight terrorism

            1. Sohail Almani profile image59
              Sohail Almaniposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              if killing others is defending our self then every body can be terrorist I don't know you are american or Israeli it does not meaningful to me but point is that how Israel is defending themselves Palestinians gave them place to live not to occupy .they honored them because they were Ahle-Kitab (Followers of Holy books) they warmly welcomed them when they were infected by actions of Hitler in Germany and today they are behaving like Arabian camels . eating those trees under which they sheltered

              1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                I disagree
                Also I am American, not Israeli

              2. Writer Fox profile image80
                Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Sohail, I don't know where you got this information.  Palestinians did not give Israel a "place to live" any more than they gave Pakistanis a place to live.  Pakistan, Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs received a place to live by the British who controlled the regions. 

                The British received the mandate for this area after the end of World War I and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  The territory was called 'Palestine' because that was what it was called since the time of the Romans.  Jews were known as 'Palestinians.'  Since the days of the return during the Exodus from Egypt under the leadership of the God of Abraham and Moses His spokesperson, there has never been a time when Jews did not live in this region.

                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12215353.png

                Here is the map of what the British mandate gave to establish the Jewish homeland in 1922, and approved by the League of Nations (later renamed United Nations):

                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12215388.jpg

                The area east of the little Jordan River went to the Arabs, and was called 'Transjordan.'  The area west of the little Jordan River was for the Jewish homeland.  Arabs who are known as 'Palestinians' today make up the majority of the population in Jordan and the Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian.  Israel and Jordan have a peace treaty, and people from both countries cross the border, back and forth, every day.

                Israelis have a great respect for King Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein of Jordan and consider him to be an intelligent military commander and a compassionate caregiver for his people.  Pakistan would do well to have such a leader.  He has only one wife, Queen Rania of Jordan, and she is an educated and accomplished woman with a beautiful heart, a light to Arab women the world over.  She is the epitome of what a modern queen should be and she does not wear a burkah:

                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12215355.jpg

                What has happened after 1922 is in the history books – which includes, I might add, Pakistan's attacks on Israel during the 1948 Israel War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War.  Although Israel never retaliated against Pakistan for those attacks, I would strongly advise Pakistan not to attack Israel again if it wants its pilots to return safely to base and to have a base to which to return. You want America to stay out of your airspace?  Why were you in Israel's airspace? America is not attacking Pakistan.  Israel has never attacked Pakistan.  But Pakistan has, in fact, attacked Israel.

                1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                  MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm so glad we have someone like you who is able to present all the facts
                  Thank you

                  1. Writer Fox profile image80
                    Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    "And I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you I will curse; and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed ... To your descendants I will give this land." – Genesis 12:3, 6

                    1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      And I do support Israel, and pray for them

          2. Writer Fox profile image80
            Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            1. "The Taliban movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

            Pakistan President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq then requested the financial support of Saudi Arabia and the United States to fund the Taliban resistance against Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan.

            Pakistan created this Frankenstein and can no longer control it.  The Taliban still operates on Pakistani soil and Pakistan now has ISIS operatives in its country.

            2.  People of Jewish ethnicity or religion represent only 2.2% of the American population and do not control a majority of U.S. businesses.  Most American Jews are professionals (doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc.) not business owners. More than 58% have college degrees (compared to the national average of 29%) and, of those, more than 30% have graduate degrees (compared to the national average of 10%).

            In the U.S., 36% of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish.  They won in the fields of chemistry, economics, literature, physics, medicine, physiology (a branch of biology), and peace.  Worldwide, Jewish individual recipients of the Nobel Prize represent 23%, though they are only 0.2% of the world population.

            1. Sohail Almani profile image59
              Sohail Almaniposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Taliban are not created in Pakistan they were mostly from Tajikistan Iraq and Afghanistan still funded by America and Saudi Arabia governments. I know the peoples of America are helping poor in several countries such as Pakistan ,Iraq and some other countries but we are not here talking about whole nation we are talking about US government what they are doing every body know that

            2. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              wow... that article sure is an eye opener...

              one thing i didn't understand is why zia-ul-haq was worried about invasion of the soviet through balochistan (south) rather than the north... had the soviets taken over Afghanistan at that time?

              1. Writer Fox profile image80
                Writer Foxposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Through Balochistan, the Soviet regime saw a strategic asset on the Monopoly board of world geography: control of the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz and access to the Indian Ocean, a one-upmanship against Iran.

                The article below contains 76 references to Pakistan:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

                1. arksys profile image91
                  arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  you mentioned before that zia-ul-haq asked usa and saudi to fight against russia. the soviet article you posted says the opposite. zia-ul-haq was not worried about them getting to the indian ocean as much as the usa. for pakistan it was more about the loss of east pakistan.

                  "Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski (National Security Advisor, USA) detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:

                  We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.[119]

                  The supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants was one of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations.[120] The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the Pakistani secret services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in a program called Operation Cyclone.

                  As for Pakistan, the Soviet war with Islamist mujaheddin was viewed as retaliation for the Soviet Union's long unconditional support of regional rival, India, notably during the 1965 and the 1971 wars, which led the loss of East Pakistan."

                  1. Writer Fox profile image80
                    Writer Foxposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    This is also from 1979:

                    "Zia, however, was ideologically opposed to the idea of communism taking over a neighboring country, supported by the fear of Soviet advancement into Pakistan, particularly Balochistan, in search of warm waters, and made no secret about his intentions of monetarily and militarily aiding the Afghan resistance (the Mujahideen) with major assistance from the United States."
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq

                    If you look at Balochistan today, the U.S. (with permission of the Pakistani government, of course) had a drone base at Shamsi Airbase from 2006 through 2011.  Pakistan evicted the drones and the U.S. pulled them out. However, Pakistan has done little to prevent the Taliban and al-Qaeda from using bases in Pakistan to conduct armed attacks on neighboring India and Afghanistan.  If Pakistan proves impotent in routing terrorists from its soil, it's only a matter of time before other countries take it upon themselves to do the job for it, whether invited to or not.  There is a global war against terrorism now and terrorists will be attacked wherever they have established themselves.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      I think you're right about other countries carrying the fight inside Pakistan's borders.  Whereupon a nuclear holocaust is nearly inevitable.

                    2. arksys profile image91
                      arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      The main cause of the problem after reading that soviet article seemed to be the president of Afghanistan himself. Many pages of wiki are blocked in Pakistan and his page is one of them. Even when Russia refused he kept going back to ask for help.

                      Another thing that crossed my mind was he may have tried to follow the footsteps of attaturk in Turkey. He obviously wasn't as powerful on the battle field but he seemed to be treading on the same waters.
                      I did also note that Bhutto was involved too but he played the cards right. The issue was then taken over by Zia.
                      That is something I agree with, the extremism needs to end, either by talks or by force. Some of the tribal people have told me that Taliban has failed in Pakistan because they felt it's more a battle of power and politics rather than religion. If the tribal belt feels like this as a whole then it's just a matter of time before they eliminate the extremists themselves. Things will settle within the next coming years.

    12. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago

      I'm not saying it's true because I don't know if it is or not, but the Christians speak of a time when there will be great tribulation as never before. If it's true, it will probably be a time when the US pulls back and stops defending the world, and the world's peace.

      We may grow tired of being hated regardless of the good we do for others, and stop helping them.

      Without America, I believe that the rest of the world would experience great tribulation (in my opinion) especially if they allow terrorist to push us around, and conquer all of the weaker countries.
      Some people would like for us to stop being allies to certain countries so they can rush in and take them over. It makes them angry that we won't stop

      1. Sohail Almani profile image59
        Sohail Almaniposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        I don't  know MonkeyShine75  on which behalf you said so that all the world is nothing without America . but I would like to say you that America is nothing without the supporter countries of America . He is only doing business. If they are really dedicated to peace of  the world then why they not Fingering upon Israel to stop killing Palestinians and why he is silent on cruel activities of India on Kashmir and why American forces are killing innocents instead of terrorists in Iraq and other countries where American forces are working . here I am not talking about belief Its a personal matter of every body that what they believe in . But what is government doing  that describes that country is neutral or religious

    13. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

      Now how  can people deny  that  Israel  deserves a home , think about that , it HAS been their home forever  .........and they should give it back ?       - Got  history lessons   ? Should be the bumper sticker of those who  argue  against Israel !

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Nothing about what the writer said has given the Israelis a right to the land over anyone else. The Bible quote certainly shows the bias of the author in terms of where it comes from. If you are so inclined to think Israel is pristine in it's actions maybe you should read this:

        http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org/reso … ter08.html

        1. Writer Fox profile image80
          Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          You gave a link to an article written by a student group which calls itself 'Activists for the Liberation of Palestine.'  If you want to discuss the events of the 1948 Israel War of Independence, which is what that article is about, why don't you post a link to an article which at least tries to be unbiased, like this Wikipedia article with 223 footnotes:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab% … sraeli_War

          Israel does have a right to its own land.  And, even if it didn't, the attacking forces of Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Syria, Tunisia, and the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah – in combined and coordinated attacks – have not been able to change the facts on the ground.

          The last major Arab/Israel war was the Yom Kippur War of 1973.  Israel was attacked simultaneously on all its borders, in its airspace and by sea by every country and group listed above.  The war was the largest religious war in human history and witnessed the second largest tank battle in military history.  Every single Israeli tank deployed in battle was hit at least once. 

          The war lasted 17 days and ended with a complete and humiliating Arab defeat on all fronts. 

          Not one Israeli civilian was killed.

          There is no military explanation for this. If Israel's victory in that war was not a miracle of the God of Abraham, then I don't know what is.

          1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
            MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            I found this too
            "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” (Zechariah 12:9)

            Everyone is always saying the Romans, and the Catholic church are of the Antichrist, but they are Christians. I believe it is/must be really Islam

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              ..."And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” (Zechariah 12:9)...

              Who's Jerusalem as it is a divided city without peace?

              ...I believe it is/must be really Islam....

              Your belief has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

              1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Ahh I'm so sorry you get upset over scripture.  I just thought this was an interesting scripture, I mean who else is harassing/against  Israel but Islam? My beliefs are as important as yours, and very relevant. By the way I was speaking to Fox

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  No one is upset over here. I just thought it interesting that you brought scripture into a political issue and passed it off as some sort of evidence.

                  Sorry to respond to your post. Maybe it is better that you discuss the issue with someone like minded as agreement is much easier then.

                  Have a nice day smile

                  1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                    MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    But I was speaking to someone like minded. I was replying to Fox, and not you.
                    And by the way, you mentioned the bible before I did
                    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85003?p … ost2709232
                    so please don't boss me around just because I have an opinion that differs from yours
                    Thanks

                    1. rhamson profile image77
                      rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      Have a nice day smile.

                  2. Writer Fox profile image80
                    Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    In the Middle East, political issues and religious issues are the same thing.  cool

                    1. rhamson profile image77
                      rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      I love it when such a blanket statement is made. Nothing is one way in any argument and the reference to your Christian scripture only exacerbates the conversation. smile

                2. Writer Fox profile image80
                  Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  The Fox hears you.

                  1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                    MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Thank you Fox, it's good we have you on the forums. Everything you say is fact.

              2. Writer Fox profile image80
                Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Jerusalem is more peaceful than most U.S. cities and has far less violent crime than Washington D.C.  Jerusalem is not a divided city. If you go to a grocery store, a bank, a post office, or the mall, you will stand in line with Arabs and with Jews.  The cashiers and tellers will be Arabs and Jews. If you go to a hospital, the doctors and nurses attending you will be Arabs and Jews, you will share a room with Arabs and with Jews, and if you receive a blood transfusion it may be from an Arab or a Jew (you will never know which). 

                Jerusalem has 804,400 residents: 499,400 (62%) are Jewish, 281,100 are Muslim, 14,700 are Christian, 200 are Druze and a further 9,000 residents of 'other' or no religious identity.

                All non-Jews in Jerusalem (whether they are citizens or permanent residents) have equal rights to vote in municipal elections and have equal access to municipal services, water (and sewage) and electricity, telephone and non-censored Internet lines, public transportation, free education for boys and girls, free nursery school from the age of three years, five months paid maternity leave for new mothers (giving birth or adopting), unemployment insurance, national welfare system, child allowances and national health care. Israeli Arabs have the highest literacy rate among all Arabs in the Middle East. (This was not true in 1948!)  And, unlike Jews, they are not required to do military or national service.

                Almost every Arab neighborhood in Jerusalem has health clinics that include advanced medical equipment, specialized ER units, X-ray diagnostic centers and dental clinics. Free optician services and eyeglasses are provided in a multi-million-dollar facility for all Jerusalem children, funded by a Jewish French doctor.

                A 2014 study conducted by the Statnet Research Institute, which is headed by Israeli Arab statistician Yousef Makladeh (statnet.co.il – use Google translate to read), found that "Overall, 77% of Israeli Arabs said they prefer living under Israel's rule while only 23% said they would prefer to be living under a Palestinian rule."

                Here is a picture of an Arab (Palestinian) neighborhood in Jerusalem (Sheikh Jarrah).
                 
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12218423_f1024.jpg

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  What a wonderful analysis of life in Jerusalem. I would love to visit it some day. It is such a shame that the pretensions of modern civilization are founded on lies and aggression.

                  1. Writer Fox profile image80
                    Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    roll

                    1. rhamson profile image77
                      rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      I knew you would not get it.
                      hmm

          2. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            ...If Israel's victory in that war was not a miracle of the God of Abraham, then I don't know what is....

            Before you start lobbing claims of bias you should take a look at what you have written. I know it is hard looking at the other sides view but boasting that one side has a Godly precedence over the other the other sets you up for an awakening of who's truth you wish to believe.

    14. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 21 months ago

      Maybe if this is truly a Islamic terrorist movement maybe we should learn from history and try it again.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12225919.jpg

      1. Writer Fox profile image80
        Writer Foxposted 21 months ago in reply to this
        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          I mentioned as a thought. I was sent this by some one on facebook. Good catch and my bad.

    15. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 21 months ago

      Although  the Teli-Tubby leader , Putin [ according to Dennis Miller ]  is  really working his magic , the real WW III will one day begin in the middle east .   Israel will  probably be attacked ,  which leads me to wonder of the stupidity of people who think that Israel is the enemy of peace in the middle east !    I believe that those who blame Israel  are simply naïve  or are  empathetically  challenged in one way or the other towards the Jewish . perhaps personal reasons ?

    16. Writer Fox profile image80
      Writer Foxposted 21 months ago

      @Rhamson: The State of Israel was founded by Head of the Jewish Agency David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, and not by "other countries."

      The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948. The State was immediately recognized by the United States, Iran, Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania, Uruguay, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ireland, and South Africa. It was admitted as a member of the United Nations in 1949.

      Immediately after declaring statehood, Israel was attacked on all fronts by well-equipped armies from Lebanon, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and troops and/or pilots from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Morocco and Pakistan. Israel had only three underground militias and 18,900 mobilized and armed men and women.

      Israel had no tanks, military aircraft, heavy machine guns, artillery, armored vehicles, anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons. It had no assistance from the U.S. and the entire region was under a U.S. arms embargo and had been for some time.

      Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League predicted: "It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades."  He was proved wrong.  Israel won that war. And the Six Day War in 1967. And the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

      The U.S. has never fought in any of Israel's Wars nor has Israel ever been assisted by troops or pilots from any other country.

      And, yes, Israel is now welcomed in the region and has enduring peace treaties and full diplomatic relations and military cooperation with Egypt and with Jordan, its nearest neighbors.  Syrian-controlled Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are being swallowed by ISIS, millions of their citizens are homeless refugees, 160,000 Syrians have been killed in Civil War and over 500,000 have been killed in Iraq.   

      The King of Saudi Arabia warned America last summer of impending attacks on American soil from ISIS.  The truth is that Iran and ISIS don't want you to be in America.  Why don't you just surrender and go back to the eastern hemisphere from whence you came? Can't you see that your way of life is not "welcomed" by Islamic extremists?

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        You keep referring to monumental blunders as some sort of validation of the wrong that was committed in the region. Whatever official you wish to quote or hold up as an example of the founding of the country on someone else's land is not addressing the facts. You cite the UN as the just source of authority as if it is some edict from God. Who cares? Immediately Israel was attacked on all fronts by well armed Arab nations is supposed to make it right for Israel to be there. The UN plucked a territory out of the middle of the jewel of the Holy Lands and said the Jews had a sole right to it as a country? Jerusalem has never been settled because the Palestinians just want to deny Israel?

        Really your claims are preposterous right down to Israel receiving no help. Did you forget about your Russian friends? I have listened to years and years of Israeli propaganda and their claim to exist and I am about ready to puke. Hey I think that Israel has a right to exist as does anybody else. But not at the cost of some one else. The threats against the US by ISIS is supposed to make me feel good about Israel being our allies in the region. Then why does Israel conduct spy operations on its biggest supporter?

    17. Writer Fox profile image80
      Writer Foxposted 21 months ago

      @Rhamson:  Non-Jews live in Israel, too.  They are citizens and they vote in elections. Everyone has freedom of religion and of expression.  Discrimination against minorities is against the law.  Israel is a democracy.

      A 2014 study conducted by the Statnet Research Institute, which is headed by Israeli Arab statistician Yousef Makladeh (statnet.co.il – use Google translate to read), found that "Overall, 77% of Israeli Arabs said they prefer living under Israel's rule while only 23% said they would prefer to be living under a Palestinian rule."

      The Soviet Union never supplied weapons or military support to Israel; it only gave diplomatic support and that was only in the very early years.  Why do you make this stuff up? During the Cold War and the Suez Crisis in 1955, the Soviet Union began to supply Israel's enemies with advanced weaponry and training: Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Algeria and Iraq. It assisted the aggressors and supplied Russian pilots and naval vessels against Israel in the wars of 1967 and in 1973.

      Yes, it is preposterous that the tiny land of Israel with a very small population won three all-out wars against the combined armies of many Arab nations.  Amazing, but true! (The Arabs still can't figure it out, either.)

      A new Gallop Poll released today shows that fully 70% of Americans support Israel: http://www.gallup.com/poll/181652/seven … gn=sharing
      I think it is obvious that most Americans know more of the facts than you apparently do.

      Yeah, I can see why you are ready to puke.  You've made yourself sick with your anger about things that aren't even true and about a country you know nothing about and have never visited.  Maybe you should just think about something else for a while.

      1. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        i've been going over your posts but couldn't totally figure out 1-2 things. i do not follow the news because it mostly is just too depressing and inaccurate. you are from the place so i would be grateful if you could answer. please forgive me if the questions sound stupid, but do answer them. my intention is not to provoke, it is to understand the situation.

        1. why is there a huge wall between Israel and Palestine?
        2. how come women and children are always separated at the gates by the the Israeli forces?
        3. i heard women who are separated sometimes even get raped in front of their kids, does it happen?
        4. why does Israel keep bombing Palestine? was a treaty broken or something?
        5. Every time i see pictures of Palestine the people are crying, while the people in Israel are jumping in pools and having a great life ... Is this true or false?
        6. I saw in one video the Palestinian people crying out and Pakistan army to come and help them. they see Pakistan as a country which can do something. I never heard if Pakistan did go to help them and i doubt they would have... i hope our Palestinian brothers and sisters don't feel the same way as our tribal people in Pakistan. what is your view about this.
        7. you cut off the water supply of Palestine?
        8. you cut off food supplies too?

        I gathered from your posts that electricity will be gone too quite soon.
        you have addressed the issue of the land being given to Israel by UK/France, so will not worry about that for now.

        From all I've heard ... Israel looks like a terrorist in the region. Would be good if you could clarify.

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          I found my answers here ... its an hour long video but this Israeli speaks the bitter truth about Palestine with some answers about american politics which I've quoted below. 

          "politicians in america do what they have to do in order to get elected. Being pro-zionist is part of what you have to do in America if you want a political career. Either you are a president or a council member of ... you know ...  my city .. Coronado ... i mean they're not even .. its kind of a part time job. That's the name of the game, that's the price of doing business, so i think the president cares more about healthcare than about Israel, so he's going to give money to Israel so they can shut up and he can pass his healthcare for them. this is how it is and this is politics in america. and this is why a second Obama term will not make a difference .. any change ... because he doesn't care enough and ... you know, why bother when there is nothing to gain...

          ... like Vietnam ... when the people decided enough is enough ... congress said enough is enough ... then the president said enough is enough, and that was it, american's were out of Vietnam. But it takes that kind of a movement, and right now its true, Israel calls the shots. Right now Israel says jump, the american politicians say how high? and then they move on to the next thing. But that's the price here in america if you want to be a politician.  "

          Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ

          1. Writer Fox profile image80
            Writer Foxposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Miko Peled hasn't lived in Israel for 25 years. His father (his only claim to 'fame') was a general 50 years ago.  There is no current information in that video and most of what he says is inaccurate.

            Miko was thrown out of the Israeli army, has no post-high school education, is a failed businessman and is currently unemployed.  His only income is from anti-Israel groups which hire him for speaking engagements.  He has no credentials and is an authority on nothing, which is why he never lists any sources for his information.  There are no sources of information for what he says!

            His book was published by a small publishing house run by a Quaker woman which publishes 24 pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel books and only 3 about other subjects.  His book didn't even sell 5,000 copies. 

            His non-profit pro-Palestinian organization was closed by the IRS for fraud. His sister who set up that organization with him, said this: "  "The ones that are hurt are never the ones that deserve it. Was George Bush killed in the Twin Towers disaster? No. He ought to have been killed."

            Crazy, deluded family!

            Here's a video someone posted as a rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrC4lHD7Y6g

        2. Writer Fox profile image80
          Writer Foxposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          In order to really answer your questions, it takes more than a short forum post.  So, I answered every one of them in a Hub: "Israel/Palestine Conflict Questions from Pakistan." It's the first one on my Profile page.

          There are questions from other Pakistanis in there too, which I answered.

          So, now I have 8 questions for you about Pakistan.  Because it will take you some time to read all of the information on my Hub (and all the information on the links to sources), I'll wait a day or two to post my questions.  Also, I'll start a new thread for them.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            welcome back. smile

            will go through it all in a day or two. I look forward to your questions too. I know they'll be hard, but I'll try my best to answer them as honestly as possible.

            1. Writer Fox profile image80
              Writer Foxposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Cool!

              Let me know if you are unable to access any of the links in my Hub and I will post the articles on justpaste.it.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Read it and while artfully crafted it is full of distortions and bias propaganda. I must say you are persistent with your "reasoning's". I wish I had the time you have to literally go through the litany of bias statements and debunk them but you will probably challenge me to and declare somewhat a victory of sorts. Very good history intertwining the truth around the myths. Too much biblical references to be factual.

              2. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                got a nice extension for chrome now ... it has opened up the world for me once again. i'm a happy bunny learning the laws of physics on youtube. and can now access any site i want smile

                1. Writer Fox profile image80
                  Writer Foxposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Does that extension override all government censorship?  What's the link for/name of the extension?

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    yep clears up all governmental blocks.

                    Browsec

                    https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta … jboh?hl=en

          2. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            I went through your whole hub... took a while to absorb the information.

            my overall thoughts ...

            I was actually taking the side of Isreal in your story coz I always want the underdog to win, but then you seemed to be a little harsh on Pakistan in adding the points at the end about malnutrition and mental wellness. It honestly showed that you may have something against Pakistan, which changed the initial impact of the whole Isreal story which forced my opinions to think the whole story was quite biased. I know you are from Israel and it is close to your heart. I understood the story and the claims the Palestinians have, of it being their land would be the same as the Indians saying Pakistan was their own land. I never knew so many jews lived in Pakistan before.

            All in all, I learned a great deal from it and thanks a lot for putting it up... I cannot trust all the figures you presented even though you may have evidence because of the way you portrayed Pakistan. Even if you post links to prove the figures, the whole thing left a bit of a sour aftertaste and I would not want more. But thanks anyways, I've learned great deal from it and I know I need to understand the situation more before I lift a finger on Isreal.

            1. Writer Fox profile image80
              Writer Foxposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              I'm sorry you didn't like the facts at the end about Pakistan, but malnutrition is a serious problem there.  Pakistan and Bangladesh have the highest rates of stunting in the world and that affects IQ:
              http://www.jpma.org.pk/full_article_tex … le_id=1899
              http://www.who.int/mental_health/neurol … lenges.pdf

              But, that was just one of five reasons I gave in my new Hub to explain why thousands would turn up in Pakistan for a street march in support of Hamas, when 80% of Pakistanis don't even know whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization.

              And the threat from that is to Pakistan because it shares a border with Iran, has a 20% Shiite population and that population is disproportionately represented in the Pakistani military leadership.

              In two weeks of fighting in Yemen, the insurgents are now advancing on Saudi Arabia.

              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12323482.jpg

              Your IP address shows that you are not even in Pakistan right now.  Perhaps you do not realize that Pakistan has refused to support Saudi Arabia, which means that it is supporting Iran.  What country will help Pakistan when Iran makes its land-grab in Pakistan?  Not one. Pakistan is about to be turned into a place exactly like the Gaza Strip and will be used as a launching pad for military strikes against other countries. 

              Here's two articles to read:
              http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32044059
              http://tribune.com.pk/story/864909/paki … -on-yemen/

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                "Pakistan and Bangladesh have the highest rates of stunting in the world and that affects IQ"

                This is why when you take what seems to be very intelligent and word weary statements personally and then attack others because they don't agree with you. Your pro Israeli stance is well understood but your analysis of the factors quite fuzzy. Arksys was quite candid and lucid with his explanation and then you make a blanket statement about his area of the world having an IQ problem! Come on man. Base your arguments on some real feedback.


                "Pakistan has refused to support Saudi Arabia, which means that it is supporting Iran." Where do you come up with this stuff. You fail to understand that this is a religious war between Sunni and Shiite. Your provocation is for your bias support of Israel. When Arksys called you on it you make personal attacks and generalizations that border on racism.

                1. Writer Fox profile image80
                  Writer Foxposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  It's clear that you didn't read the PEW research report and are unfamiliar with the fact that 280,000 children die each year from malnutrition in Pakistan.  Malnutrition is a known cause of low IQ and limited brain function.  This is a serious problem and Pakistan and Bangladesh have the highest cases of malnutrition in the world.  Third place goes to India.

                  But, that is just one of the factors that explain the results of the PEW research study, which I itemized in my Hub.



                  These are ridiculous accusations.  I never made a personal attack and Pakistani is not a race.  Where do you come up with that?  'Muslim' isn't a race, either.  Neither is Iran nor Saudi Arabia. 

                  The Parliament of Pakistan has been debating continuously for the last eight hours about entering into the war in Yemen on behalf of Saudi Arabia, and those talks are not about religion.  If you really wanted to understand what is going on there, all you have to do is read the news.  Your opinions are not based on facts, which is probably why you didn't include any in your comments here.
                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/farheen-r … 80542.html
                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … flict.html
                  http://www.voanews.com/content/pakistan … 04116.html

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        A Gallup poll also had Romney in a dead heat with Obama and where did that end up? Israel winning all these conflicts and especially of late is due to foreign support. The tiny island of Israel carries a lot of political clout and garners the political support of the US congress to the tune of 3 billion in direct aid and another 12-17 billion in military surplus aid. With over 10,000 millionaires in Israel it must be nice living off of our support. I am sick of supporting your dream of a religious state in the heart of hostile territory. It is like pouring coals on a blazing fire. So your premise that Israel stands alone against all odds is quite a ruse.

        1. arksys profile image91
          arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          just in case you missed the link ... you're talking about something similar.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Good link and I watched the whole video. I recently sat down with a client after I had finished doing some work for her. She is an older Jewish woman from New York and has been a supporter of Israel for several years. She said that after reading several articles and a few books how her admiration for the Jewish State has changed. She had not realized the violence and human rights issues trodden over in 1947 when Israel got the UN blessing to Statehood. She also did not know of the continued ethnic cleansing that happens and questioned the validity of a Jewish State that would do this especially knowing of the holocausts affect on her own family. Maybe a change will come and I understand that in order for change to happen there are always a few radical events that turn the tide more so than peaceful persuasion.

            1. arksys profile image91
              arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              i'm glad you saw the whole thing... yes it is interesting to know that most of the Israeli people don't even know the truth. The positive part is people like your client are reading up and realizing how wrong this all is. Once the hearts start changing, its just a matter of time for the change to come. I liked the confidence of the man in the video when he says, if it was not possible in his lifetime he would not have taken the first step. I hope he succeeds in his mission, and the result is beneficial for both the Palestinians and the Israeli.

    18. 59
      jqp3posted 21 months ago

      Terrorism is the use of fear-inducing amplification of military force, usually used by forces of relatively limited military means.  the U.S doesn't need to use this particular tactic, because it has multi-billion dollar weapons systems to blow your village to bits, so you won't be afraid, because you'll be dead.  War is war, awful by all practitioners, whether you call them terrorists, or 'professionals'.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        How well has the all out War is War tactic worked so far. Terrorism is used more by people who have no hope in receiving justice or consideration. An outreach of exasperation if you will. That is why it plays so easily into hope based arenas such as religion and the validation that promotes. Terrorism is not a civilized way to conduct change but it does make one not forget the issues of those with less means to remind us. Open warfare is the "civilized" method most choose (with their own validation whether patriotic, security or greed based) who have the means and support to carry it out. But oppression and hopelessness is the fuel that breeds terrorism. That passion historically is never quelled through violent retaliation.

    19. 86
      win-winresourcesposted 21 months ago

      Since it is impossible to wade through the anger, prejudice and bias playing out in dozens of threads here, perhaps we can agree on one thing.  The US feeds hundreds of millions of people around the world for free.  And has done so for decades.  People of every religion, color, political persuasion and otherwise sit at America's dinner table.  Once their bellies  are full, then many go back to bad mouthing (or worse) the US, until, that is, they get hungry again.

      Simple, really, if you believe the US is the "Great Satan" or some other equally ugly epithet - don't eat our food.  Try sand, camel dung, radioactive dirt, or what ever else is on the menu.

      International politics is bizarre, indecipherable in most cases, and driven by forces that typically remain unseen.  Is the US perfect?  Of course not.  But a damn sight better than the alternatives.

      1. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        You have spent 4 times the amount of money required to feed the whole world on war, yet people still starve to death today. This shows the motives of your officials ... and this is what the world sees. you don't actually feed them for free, you feed them after killing their family members and bombing their houses. Please don't act like you care for the world... it does not match your actions.

        You are the ones eating GMO crap giving you all kinds of diseases ... we still eat organic here. we don't really need your food. keep your money ... boost your economy, call back your soldiers, let them unite with their families, and let the nations in this region start the healing process.

        Another war in this world does not show progress in humanity... If you think you are the "civil" nation then i'm afraid the war proves you wrong and if you keep bombing half the world then of course it will be damn sight better than the alternatives.

        1. 86
          win-winresourcesposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Wow, color me surprised.  What, exactly, do you have that the US wants?  Dirt, poverty, illiteracy, extremism, oppression, and war from all of your neighbors?  Hey, knock yourself out, enjoy your organic camel dung.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            A live testing ground for all your weapons.

            1. 86
              win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Again, for what purpose?  The US does not seek to attack or occupy any other countries.  We have plenty of land and weapons to feed and protect our people.

              1. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                It does not occupy yet controls the affairs of others to the point that it becomes an interference. Our leaders are called puppets of the US for a reason. The British PM is called the puppet of the white house for a reason. You spend money where you can control the leaders and get them to do things the way you want them. Its the "I paid you so do as i say" money... call it a favour if you like.

                below are some of the findings of the war ...  the 6.7 million people displaced or the 220,000 civilians killed or the 970,000 disability claims of US soldiers. take your pick and tell me something positive from all this. You see the american's feeding the dirt poor... we see you doing the following.


                Our tally of all of the war’s recorded dead — including armed forces on all sides, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and civilians — shows that over 350,000 people have died due to direct war violence, and many more indirectly.
                Indirect deaths from the wars, including those related to malnutrition, damaged health infrastructure, and environmental degradation, must also be tallied. In previous wars, these deaths have far outnumbered deaths from combat and that is likely the case here as well.
                220,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting at the hands of all parties to the conflict, and more will die in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan as the violence continues. But most observers acknowledge that the number of civilians killed has been undercounted. The true number of civilian dead may be much larger when an adequate assessment is made.
                While we know how many US soldiers have died in the wars (over 6,800), what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with 970,000 disability claims registered as of March 31, 2014 [1]. Many deaths and injuries among US contractors have not been identified.
                Millions of people have been displaced indefinitely and are living in grossly inadequate conditions. The number of war refugees and displaced persons -- 6.7 million -- is equivalent to all of the people of Massachusetts fleeing their homes.
                Iraq’s health, infrastructure, and education systems remain war-devastated.
                The armed conflict in Pakistan, which the US helps the Pakistani military fight by funding, equipping and training them, is in many ways more intense than in Afghanistan although it receives less coverage in the US news.
                The United States is at war in Yemen, having made an estimated 76 drone strikes in that country. 
                The wars have been accompanied by erosions in civil liberties at home and human rights violations abroad.
                The human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades, some costs not peaking until mid-century.
                The US federal price tag for the Iraq war — including an estimate for veterans' medical and disability costs into the future  —  is about $2.2 trillion dollars.  The cost for both Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan is going to be close to $4.4 trillion, not including future interest costs on borrowing for the wars. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet.
                As with former US wars, the costs of paying for veterans’ care into the future will be a sizable portion of the full costs of the war.
                The ripple effects on the US economy have also been significant, including job loss and interest rate increases, and those effects have been underappreciated.
                While it was promised that the US invasions would bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, both continue to rank extremely low in global rankings of political freedom, with warlords continuing to hold power in Afghanistan with US support, and Iraqi communities more segregated today than before by gender and ethnicity as a result of the war.
                Women in both countries are essentially closed out of political power and high rates of female unemployment and widowhood have further eroded their condition.
                During the US troop withdrawal from Iraq, President Obama said that the United States military was leaving behind a “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.” This was not only an inaccurate account of Iraq’s situation at that time, but the country has since become less secure and politically stable
                Serious and compelling alternatives to war were scarcely considered in the aftermath of 9/11 or in the discussion about war against Iraq. Some of those alternatives are still available to the US.

                (Information updated as of June 2014)
                Source : http://www.costsofwar.org/

                1. 86
                  win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Thanks so much for your magnum opus of unsupported "facts", conjecture,  and internally contradictory claims.   The conspiracy  minded always "see" or "infer" the invisible malicious hand moving pieces on the chess board.   Back to the original point,  I say, again, to what purpose?  The continuing wars among the resident peoples of the middle east (for example) are for typical war purposes:  land, money, power, retaliation, etc.  The US needs none of that from there.
                  By the way, "Bringing democracy" to those lands is a waste of time.  As is worrying about their human rights.  Take one step forward, by any means, and the war lords of the region will take 10 steps the other way.  Want to see the "Great Satan", look in a mirror.

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    the reason why i gave the source was so that you could verify everything for yourself. If you are interested in the truth then i would suggest you spend some time on verification. If you want to keep talking about camel dung then i understand.

                    You keep repeating the same question and I've given you answers which YOU do not want to hear. So i can't help you there.

                    "warlords continuing to hold power in Afghanistan with US support" ... you're playing ball from both sides of the court. what do you expect?

                    Tell me something ... you bombed a teenagers house in the early years of the war. all or some of his family died ... he is now in his mid 20's and knows american bombs did this. He joins a terrorist group which gives the illusion of fighting back and ultimately gets brainwashed. Who made him a terroist?
                    There are many people like this boy in this region... a boy or a father will fight back. you can't hold yourself back in trying to insult us when i am trying to talk reasonably with facts, that your nation can be called a terrorist ... how would you react if you found your house bombed with your family members dead, knowing the bomb was from this region? you call us intolerant people but aren't you doing the same thing? Bush started a "war on terror" because of 9/11 too and has bombed away for over 10 years now. And when did the war on terror become "bringing democracy"?

                    Your democracy is more like "create a scene through the media then get them to vote for what we want. This way the people are happy that the government does what we vote for." Try not to limit your sources of information. and don't get me wrong... i don't have anything against the people of america, like you have an issue with us and camel dung. the issue i have is with the people you have chosen to run the country. they are not good for you and they are not good for the world.

                    I never claimed that we are angels either ... i know we have our own issues... but your interventions definitely have made things worse.

                    just for some insight, attached is the "dirt" we live in.

                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12293029_f1024.jpg

                    1. 86
                      win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Let me try to make this easy:  Name ONE thing in your part of the world, that the US needs or wants. Go ahead, I'm listening.   Your current claim notwithstanding, not a single statement in your heated and lengthy tirades answers that question. You (generically) are much like North Korea's Kim Jong Un and have this delusion of grandure that then directly supports your delusion of persecution.
                      As to our Democracy, it is exactly that.  We voted (interesting concept?) for our leaders.  Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, women, men, Jews, Muslims, Christians, seniors, college kids all got to vote their conscience. The leaders didn't assume or retain power with a gun.  Millions of Americans voted for what turned out to be the losing candidate.  But our democracy guarantees that the majority wins (another interesting concept).  We don't have armed hoards roaming the countryside killing, maiming, and stealing indiscriminately.
                      Oh, and by the way, I hadn't mentioned camel dung for quite a while. By now that you mention it,  I understand it goes well with ketchup.

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        "The US feeds hundreds of millions of people around the world for free.  And has done so for decades.  People of every religion, color, political persuasion and otherwise sit at America's dinner table."

        A true gift is one given without conditions if we truly mean it as a gift. When expectations such as consideration or gratitude with conditions are the reason for its offering, then it is an unrewarded bribe.

        1. 86
          win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Rhamson-
          Indeed, a true gift, one the Jews would call a "Mitzvah", is given without expectations of any kind.

          My point was simply a factual reiteration for this discussion.  Not seeking any sort of recognition on behalf of the US.  And, by the way, what expectations do the US have for feeding and providing medical aid to so many dirt poor (and others) people around the world?

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            With all the politics the US engages in with friends as well as enemies it is hard to know what the intent is. The US is just better at directing military operations than they are at humanitarian endeavors. It is easier to get congress behind the spending associated with it. That is why such a large part of the private sector send food and medical comfort to these third world countries. The one area that is good is US response to weather and earthquake disasters. There we see a joint military and private humanitarian effort that is very good.

    20. 86
      win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago

      Does a nuclear Iran seem like a good idea?  Generally, I guess, what the US wants is for terror to stop.  It seems that as long as the countries and factions there don't want peace (not even for themselves) then everybody, including innocents and spillover to surrounding areas, will be victims of continuing atrocities.  As to drones, by definition these are pinpoint tools targeted to specific place or person.  The local leaders usually pick these targets.  In fact very few drones are used.  I'm sure you will say even 1 is too many.  Tell that to your leaders.

      These countries, either by default or design, support ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and countless other terror organizations.  Bullies, chopping off the heads of numerous innocent people, are allowed to roam the streets without so much as a whimper of disapproval.

      If a people won't even stand up for themselves, there is no hope of defeating blood thirsty terrorists.

      Not so much like Tabasco, more like red chili and garlic.

      1. arksys profile image91
        arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        I think this video is a good summary of our discussion. let me know what you think. After this video ... i'm putting all my money on Putin. he's the man.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bExhU1IGR1k

        Garlic sauce on its own (Lebanese style) takes the cake. Nothing has come even close to being as good.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          I would not back Putin just yet. He has aligned himself in opposition to many US interests but has still found himself monetarily challenged through the sanctions. I agree that the US has a deep problem coming soon as the deal Nixon made also backed his decision to suspend the gold standard. This paved the way for the petro dollar to succeed. The IMF and World Bank have been working tirelessly with the Federal Reserve to continue flooding the markets with paper in an effort to keep it the preferred trading method. One of the IMF and World Banks initiatives is to promote socialism as a soothing retreat for the masses while the rich become ever richer. We are in a hot mess with this situation and the US public through our "news" media are all wrapped up in when the next X Files series is going to air.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            I doubt it will remain the preferred trading method, with the Euro being so strong i think its just a matter of time that things will collapse. well i guess we'll see how it all plays out soon enough.

            the news in Zambia and Pakistan had pictures of what was happening in the world while the papers in the UK had pictures of some celebrity who's skirt was a little too short and then extra pictures zooming on her knickers. it was sad to see they didn't have real papers.

            Putin won me over solely because of the loyalty he showed to his friends and the loyalty his collegues have with him as explained in the video. for me, that alone is a recipe for success. the man has my respect. smile

        2. 86
          win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Right now, and for a reasonable future, the Arab oil producers (particularly Saudi Arabia) are selling oil on the open market for less than Russia can produce it.  As such, Russia's cash flow and economy in general is trashed.  Tough to take on the world when in that condition.  Can Russia recover?  Only if their oil can be sold at a solid profit.  Now that they have taken Ukraine, money owed to Russia by Ukraine for oil becomes even more problematic to recover.  Not to mention the continuing need in the Ukraine for oil.  I believe that Putin will be forced to take ever increasing aggressive positions towards everyone to maintain a façade of strength.

          As to the US.  We have tremendous natural resources, including oil, and can feed and protect our citizens and interests.  If someone does not believe that the American dollar is safe and stable then they shouldn't accept it for their goods and services.  But if they want to access all of the purchasing demand of the US then they need to do it in our currency.

          There are so many conspiracy theorists that drum up more and more bizarre scenarios, that sticking tightly to basics becomes critical in trying to understand what is really going on.   While I don't profess to know everything that is going on, I can cite the old axiom, "Follow the money."

          Simply put, the US is a huge buyer of things, lots of things.  And, if you want to sell us something it will be in dollars.

          1. arksys profile image91
            arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            That is true for now, but things will change. If not Russia then some other currency will take its place.

            Coming back to your original question ... what does the US want. I guess the video explained it quite clearly. To keep the dollar on top so they can remain a super power and to crush anyone who tries to come in their way. Sure you have enough natural resources but i guess greed has brought you all the way here.

            Also there wasn't ever a problem with nukes in iraq or iran ... the worlds focus was changed from Palestine to Iran... that's in another rather long but interesting video, i posted in this forum earlier (some Israeli generals son speaking out... may god bless him). if you have time to watch it (1 hour) then i can share it with you too... its about the Israel Palestine conflict with some hints of involvement of america.

            1. 86
              win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Arksys-
              I just don't see the logical progression in your comment.  "To keep the dollar on top...to remain a super power...to crush anyone..."  And greed again.  Our size, population, resources, and democracy will do all of that.  The US does want terror stopped - everywhere if possible.  But we are learning, the hard way, that many countries either don't care or actively support such activity.  It seems that religion (or religious interpretations) and intolerance are the driving forces.

              Do you not believe that Iran is seeking to produce nuclear weapons?  Palestinians?  As an identifiable group of people, they have existed for less than 100 years.  The Jews existed in that region for almost 6,000 years.  Also, why won't any one of their Arab brothers give them a piece of land?  Why does it have to come from Israel?  (Because the other Arab nations blithely use them as the spearhead to keep agitating  Israel.)

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                What is interesting is your take on the Palestinians as an "identifiable" group. People occupying their own land is not good enough to identify ownership. When Israel was established they immediately began moving people off of the land they were living for generations of families. The common excuse being thrown at us is that these people were welcomed as citizens of the new Israel yet threw these people out of their homes. It is funny how this argument continues. Maybe if the people living there prior to the UN declaration had been considered in the first place we may have seen a different outcome.

                1. 86
                  win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  100 years (or less) versus 6,000 years.  Occupying their own land?  Jewish Residents and residency  of the land far, far predate some British legislation.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    So the Jewish residents occupied all the land in question? Nice but not what happened. The movement of the Jewish people to other areas predated the establishment of the Zionist state. Their desire to "RETURN" is what sparked the furor over the entire region. There has always been a Hebrew presence but the Arab population far exceeded the Jewish population. Your logic flies in the historical accuracy. What really happened is that the Jews over time and not in the numbers that wanted to return, left in mass, the land a very long time ago and after the holocaust wanted to establish their own Zionist State. So they went to the UN and had it deeded to them. It was a very opportune moment in lieu of the great wrong accorded them by Hitler. Nice with the 6000 year thing.

                    1. 86
                      win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Please tell me how a 100 years or less provides an "ancestral claim" of any sort.  It is the Arabs who have stated publically and repeatedly (ad nauseaum)  their goal is to drive the tiny country of Israel into the sea.  "Nice but not what happened"  You were there? The Arabs occupy millions of square miles (reflecting their population) but it is the few square miles of Israel that they feel they must have.  Heck, the ancient indigenous Arab population was nomadic for nearly all of their history.  Under what different rules do they lay claim to even 1 grain of sand?   By the way, the Hebrew year is 5775.

                    2. Writer Fox profile image80
                      Writer Foxposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      I don't know why you continuously post incorrect information about Israel.  These are the facts:
                      Population of Israel in 1949:

                      Jews: 806,000

                      Arabs:156,000

              2. arksys profile image91
                arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                ok seriously need to spare some time to watch this. The facts you have cooked up about Palestine and Israel have no backing what-so-ever. I'm just giving you the truth... take it or leave it, the choice is yours.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ

                An Israeli person who knows the politics is saying something completely opposite to what you claim. who do i believe here when we are talking about Israel, an american or an Israeli? Maybe you'll understand the Iran issue too.

                When did the terror rise from the dead? when your buildings in ny came down right... before that everything was fine ... there was no isis ... there was the taliban you always supported. You created the "terror". You killed saddam and and created havoc in their countries. you displaced 6.7 million people from their homes. there are over 2.5 million people directly affected by your attempt to help. you have also given islam a bad name which it does not deserve ... if you want to count those people too then add 1.6 billion people to the list. You are not the person who gets stared at when he enters a subway because everyone thinks you are a terrorist. If this is how you keep peace then please don't ever try again because you understand nothing about peace.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  And the Arabian nations DO know all about peace - how to live peacefully with their neighbors and with their citizens.

                  Right!

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    wrong... they know how to keep peace within their countries and fight their wars elsewhere too. Saudi and Iran have been battling it in Quetta, Pakistan with their sunni/shia fights. They are not two faced in the sense that they come to "keep the peace" yet are backing the terrorists too... American politics however is two faced, and that is the most dangerous kind in my eyes.

                2. 86
                  win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Well Arksys-
                  Help me understand how the people of your general area have continued to fight wars among themselves  since the beginning of time.  Before Israel.  Before America.  One war after another.  Now the local grown terrorists are beheading and killing each other (hmmm not a bad idea) at an astounding rate - without any US or Israel intervention.

                  Personally, I would very much like to abandon our aid efforts to your country and several of the surrounding countries completely.  When Iran's  nuclear weapons come on line the mushroom clouds should drift over many of the surrounding countries.  Maybe only the terrorists will die?
                  As to Palestinians - find a single reference in any reliable text to that group from over 100 years ago.  There aren't any.  The Palestinians  are nothing more than a tool for their Arab "brothers" to callously throw at Israel.  By the way, ISIS, Taliban, Houthis, Hamas, and the other terror groups are killing and looting your part of the world with impunity.

                  Americans do not tolerate lawlessness and viciousness much less the rapaciousness of bands of killers.  Apparently this is ok there.  But since all of that must be America's fault and not stem from your own cowardice and ineptitude, just keep crying about the Great Satan while your own "brothers"  kill and rob you.  Remember, "It's always someone else's fault."

                  1. arksys profile image91
                    arksysposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    i can tell you didn't bother with the video therefore i will not talk about the palestine / isreal / iran issue any further.

                    Before all the wars... the British had taken over india... pakistan was formed and there was a war. Next i think it was 1971 when we had the next war and pakistan lost east pakistan which is now called bangladesh. Apart from the civil disputes we have not had many wars with our neighbors. India and pakistan have had many battles over disputed regions and indian intelligence RAW carry out undesired acts in pakistan the same way the pakistani intelligence ISI carries out undesired acts in india.
                    We never had any problems on our afghan border and we never had any troubles with our Chinese border. We never had any major wars with anyone. Sure we've had civil disputes but so does every developing country. you were founded in 1776 ... we were founded in 1947, so don't expect everything to be ok from day 1.

                    Talking about wars :
                    Total number of wars America has been involved in : i counted 89  [1]
                    Total number of wars Pakistan has been involved in : i counted 09  [2]

                    I guess we have a lot of catching up to do if we want to be peace lovers like you.

                    Source 1 :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
                    Source 2 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa … g_Pakistan

                    The local grown terrorists in the afghan border are here because of America. The people are angry at the Pakistan army for not stopping the american drone attacks ... this is why they have set their targets in all army areas. they have a right to be angry too because they helped us in the first indo-Pakistan war. Their family members are dying every other day. how long do you expect them to tolerate this nonsense? it doesn't matter if a person's head is chopped off or if he is blown to bits... a dead man is a dead man.

                    if your city was bombed continuously for 14 years straight would you honestly stay quiet? and please don't give me the "drones are very accurate" crap either. tell that to the widowed women and orphaned children and see what they say.

                    1. 86
                      win-winresourcesposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                      Deleted

    21. Jacquelyn fuller profile image61
      Jacquelyn fullerposted 20 months ago

      No I do not consider America to be a terrorist country but we are considered a country that is always under attack for out freedom

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        What a ridiculous statement! Who attacks anybody for their freedom? It is a cop out and fails to look at the problem as that of influence we consider freedom but is unwelcome in other countries. Other countries that find our exploitation of nude women offensive would rather us keep it to ourselves. But we commercialize it nonetheless and continue trucking like nothing is wrong. We sell weapons to their enemies yet we consider it freedom to help another country vanquish them. Most of the time this is done under a veil of secrecy. The problem with America is its wish for people to forget about her forays into toppeling governments, placing terrible tyrants and having endless wars of death and influence. We claim to be a beacon in the world for democracy while in reality we practice a bastardised version of that of a plutocracy. In the shadows is our capitalistic approach to everything while squashing free enterprise with corruption and cronyism. The idea that anybody attacks us for our freedom is a figment of a deluded imagination. I am sorry if you think I am picking on you but I cringe everytime I hear this I am reminded of  Gearge Bush saying this and wanting to vomit over his omissions of our non responsible behavior and mixing the two up.

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Yeah, I remember the Bushism 'they hate us for our freedom' . The right wingers hominies, slogans and bromides, like the Jedi mind trick,  have a profound affect on the weak minded

    22. word55 profile image82
      word55posted 20 months ago

      There are terrorists within the U.S. especially when there has been lynchings, hold up/robberies, kidnappings or assassinations. Also, there have been a few organized groups like the SLA (Symbionese Liberated Army) , Black Panthers and Ku Kux Klan.

     
    working