Why was America bombing Iraq not considered as terrorism?

I want to learn more about this sort of stuff so please go on and debate

Since America is apparently the only Superpower in the world, whatever it does is basically "justified" or at the most "bullying". Terrorism? No never! Like America would do such a thing :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2

james22

16

Big difference between deliberately killing civillians and targeting millitary targets and having civillians become colateral.

Not that I condone it, but it is different.

Double standards?

Because it's America, half the stuff they do which is wrong and contradiction has a very strange reason that's made valid.

Reply 5

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by aari

Since America is apparently the only Superpower in the world, whatever it does is basically "justified" or at the most "bullying". Terrorism? No never! Like America would do such a thing :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Generally, 'terrorism' is a term meaning acts of terror carried out by small groups or 'non-state actors', eg, paramilitary groups, civilian factions, etc - so pretty much by definition, states are not 'terrorists' as such. I assume OP wants to examine if the US was committing human rights abuses or acting outside of UN resolutions or the norms of war, but since the US is a state, it isn't generally appropriate to define things it does as 'terrorism'. I suppose it is possible to have 'state terrorism', which usually refers to the clandestine or semi-clandestine actions of 'non state actors' on behalf of states. An example might be the way Hezbollah carries out acts on behalf of Iran. Therefore the US might be accused of organising state terrorism when it does the same kind of thing, as it did for decades in Latin America, for example.

Reply 6

username1044970

18

Because they targeted a dictator rather than innocent civilians?

I'm not a fan of the Iraq War myself, and I hate how we have to waste billions of pounds fighting pointless wars, but technically the invasion of Iraq does not count as terrorism...I think.

Reply 7

bottled

12

Original post by Dima-Blackburn

Because they targeted a dictator rather than innocent civilians?

I'm not a fan of the Iraq War myself, and I hate how we have to waste billions of pounds fighting pointless wars, but technically the invasion of Iraq does not count as terrorism...I think.

Although, not only has obama been 'bombing Iraq more than bush has, he also allegedly counts any men from a certain age who even may have been 'collateral damage' as insurgents.

Reply 8

Josh93

11

The US declared war against Iraq, it then (very effectively) attacked legitimate military targets - that isn't terrorism, it's war. That isn't to say that it's right, or just or anything else but there is a clear distinction.

In terms of my view on the Second Gulf War specifically, intervention in Iraq was neccesary but we should have toppled Saddam during the First Gulf War therefore removing the requirement for a second one.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 9

Sammy Lanka

14

Original post by Josh93

The US declared war against Iraq, it then (very effectively) attacked legitimate military targets - that isn't terrorism, it's war. That isn't to say that it's right, or just or anything else but there is a clear distinction

I give you an example. On the same day as the Boston bombings the us bombed a wedding in Iraq purely to blackmail a Taliban leader they had imprisoned. I take it weddings are now considered military targets.

They are terrorists. The Taliban and al quaeda simply retaliate.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

SR255

Original post by james22

Big difference between deliberately killing civillians and targeting millitary targets and having civillians become colateral.

Not that I condone it, but it is different.

I see what you're saying but if the Taliban bombed a UK army barracks and accidentally took out a schoolbus in the process it would unequivocally be classed as terrorism. The actual difference between your examples is that one is doing it for a clear strategic purpose and the other is doing it solely to spread fear. But then again the Blitz isn't seen as a terrorist attack. I think it's one is a military thing (death is expected) and the other is a civilian thing (all the deaths are murders)

Reply 11

Rovey

9

Iraq may not be considered terrorism in the classical sense but believe you me Syria is terrorism at its finest

sending in head chopping, throat cutting and suicide bombing mercenaries to cause widespread and destruction of the population as well as to remove assad. Pretty awful stuff, what the warmongers in westminster and washington are capable of

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 12

Jizzle88

10

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Generally, 'terrorism' is a term meaning acts of terror carried out by small groups or 'non-state actors', eg, paramilitary groups, civilian factions, etc - so pretty much by definition, states are not 'terrorists' as such. I assume OP wants to examine if the US was committing human rights abuses or acting outside of UN resolutions or the norms of war, but since the US is a state, it isn't generally appropriate to define things it does as 'terrorism'. I suppose it is possible to have 'state terrorism', which usually refers to the clandestine or semi-clandestine actions of 'non state actors' on behalf of states. An example might be the way Hezbollah carries out acts on behalf of Iran. Therefore the US might be accused of organising state terrorism when it does the same kind of thing, as it did for decades in Latin America, for example.

What is an act of terror? this has always baffled me, its so loosely defined. We know that it may be a bombing or another attack, but is the 'terror' not a product of the ensuing media frenzy?

Reply 13

blackrose1234567

19

Original post by Efemena15

I want to learn more about this sort of stuff so please go on and debate

America seem to be very good with propaganda and seem to have many people brainwashed.

Reply 14

the bear

20

America, despite all her faults, is a far better model of society than the violent theocracies of the Middle East.

People of all religions and none and hundreds of ethnicities all share in the benefits of liberal democracy. E pluribus unum.

To preserve this benevolent society it is sometimes necessary to deal efficiently with its enemies, whilst observing the legal niceties.

Reply 15

sugar-n-spice

1

Original post by aari

Since America is apparently the only Superpower in the world, whatever it does is basically "justified" or at the most "bullying". Terrorism? No never! Like America would do such a thing :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Because the objective in bombing Iraq was to destroy military targets for the sake of destroying military targets rather than to create terror so it wasn't terrorism anymore than a dinner table is a dog. :dunce:

I'm not saying it should or should not have happened, rape is bad, murder is bad but that doesn't mean that rape=murder.

Reply 16

CelticSymphony67

12

I'd be careful what I was writing on here if I was you, if it is anti-American, it is probably getting logged down in Langley with your personal details as we speak....

Reply 17

aari

10

Original post by sugar-n-spice

Because the objective in bombing Iraq was to destroy military targets for the sake of destroying military targets rather than to create terror so it wasn't terrorism anymore than a dinner table is a dog. :dunce:

I'm not saying it should or should not have happened, rape is bad, murder is bad but that doesn't mean that rape=murder.

Never said it was. Terrorism is the act of causing terror- it could be terrorising women by the act of rape or killing families, etc. Hijacking is a form of terrorism too, irrespective of people being killed or raped or even let go after the objectives are fulfilled.

Reply 18

Rovey

9

Original post by the bear

America, despite all her faults, is a far better model of society than the violent theocracies of the Middle East.

People of all religions and none and hundreds of ethnicities all share in the benefits of liberal democracy. E pluribus unum.

To preserve this benevolent society it is sometimes necessary to deal efficiently with its enemies, whilst observing the legal niceties.

Yet look who's created and supported the despotic tyrannical regimes in the middle east for decades - the united states. States which are allies or were previously include:

- Iraq (under saddam)

- iran (shah)

- saudi arabia

- Bahrain

- Afghanistan

- Jordan

- qatar

- Kuwait

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 19