Can the United States be considered a "terrorist" nation?
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?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.
- Cromperposted 12 years ago
0 - Infinite712posted 12 years ago0
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Don't forget to add in the cost of being the policeman of the world!
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.
{1} www.oecd.org/newsroom/aid-to-developing … e-high.htm
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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:"
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.
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?
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.
"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.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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.
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):
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:
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.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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
In the Middle East, political issues and religious issues are the same thing.
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).
Maybe if this is truly a Islamic terrorist movement maybe we should learn from history and try it again.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
welcome back.
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.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
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.
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/
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.
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.
Related Discussions
- 159
The United States of Terror
Terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.
- 22
Tea Party Terrorism
A moderate hubber whom I respect challenged the term 'terrorist' when applied to Congresscritters of the Tea Party persuasion.There's an article on terrorism from which I quote. http://www.terrorism-research.com/"Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict....
- 73
Now the government uses terrorist laws against its own citizens.
Sovereign citizens are a loosely organized group of people who claim they are not subject to government laws...........from the linkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 … lnk2|64172I have been a Freeman On The Land for many years, I do not condone violence in any way. Yet the govt...
- 129
Iranians terrorists funded by the US!
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
- 77
India on the verge of War with Pakistan
India is on the verge of starting a war with Pakistan. The Indian Air forces are now moving towards the borders and waiting to get commands from Officials to attack Pakistan occupied kashmir and smash Terrorist camps. CNN, Times Now and Headlines have reported such moves by Indian Army.
- 35
What is your definition of terrorism?
For me, it would entail the coalition of an elite and a government to terrorize a third group, the people. For instance, the collusion of Mandchurian candidates and the CIA to attack totally randomly the Boston Marathon venue or to go on a killing spree in a theater (the last Batman would be a...