America - like to hit but not get hit

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

Thriftworks

Original post by jay12345man

a lot of people on this thread are quite bigoted and misinformed and really don't know a single thing about Islam.

Thread isn't about Islam, US has intervened in non Islamic countries aswell

Reply 61

MatureStudent36

Original post by Mr Advice

Haha and that makes the million murders they committed alright? Wake up.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Where are these murders you're talking about?

Reply 62

Steevee

Original post by paddyman4

Every analyst believes the US will gain energy independence by 2035. They will escape reliance on the Middle East pretty soon.

To be honest, they don't even rely that heavily on the ME. Rather, they rely on the imports from the ME going other places, the thing the US really value is security and stability.

Reply 63

DavidSB

America's agenda involves protecting itself through global presence and influence; in addition it tries to maintain order (albeit alongside a foreign policy which has a history of being awful). It also acts on a scale which is matched by its size and its resources.

What most people would term as "terrorism" is not self-preservation... it is an attempt (predominantly by radical Islam - but also other groups...IRA for example) to destroy that which doesn't conform to its own views and that wasn't necessarily threatening it directly in the first place. It often is accompanied by a flurry of groups trying to claim responsibility - which shows its not completely about freedom fighting, it is also PARTIALLY about recognition.

Reply 64

danny111

Original post by Aj12

Given that their actions are generally not targeted at civilian populations with the main aim being to spread terror I feel confident that most of their actions do not constitute terrorism.

I'm sorry but what are drone strikes*?

Oh wait, it's collateral damage, not terrorism.

* the most cowardly way of waging "war".

Reply 65

danny111

Original post by Steevee

Here's a question for those of you angry about the drone strikes.

Would you take out 49 innocents if you could have bombed a hotel that had Hitler in 1940?
What about if you could get a house with Saddam in the 90's, before all that genocide he committed?
How about a cave with Osama in before 9/11?

There are tough decisions to be made and the public don't know the half of it. Does it sound awful? Of course it does, and in an ideal world no civilians will die in a war, but sometimes in a war like the won that is being fought you have to make value decisions, and if that terrorist is the architect of a string of bombings that have already killed 300 civilians, and are targetting civilians and military personel? Then you take the damn shot sometimes.

What I think is worth noting, and the thing all of you so easily forget is the job the ground forces are doing. The restraint they show with rules of engagment that they respect to minimse civilian casualties everyday, all across Iraq and Afhganistan coalition forces put themselves in far more danger then they 'have' to by international law to minimise civilian casualties, to the point where in urban areas sometimes they wont even return fire for fear of causing innocent casualties.

But no, you all conveniently forget that. You forget the enemy they're fighting are the ones that plant bombs in schools, on roads and in market places that kill civilians intentionally daily. The people they are fighting use human shields and weapons banned to all civiliased nations.

But of course, that doesn't fit your narrative about the damned evil West that just don't care about brown people or Muslims does it? :rolleyes:

And you don't sound self-righteous at all. :rolleyes:

Reply 66

Steevee

Original post by danny111

And you don't sound self-righteous at all. :rolleyes:

As some-one that knows a lot of servicemen and women, the kind of **** peddled by some people here gets under my skin.

Reply 67

Steevee

Original post by danny111

I'm sorry but what are drone strikes*?

Oh wait, it's collateral damage, not terrorism.

* the most cowardly way of waging "war".

Nah, I'd say leaving bombs around that maim anyone that happens across them and blowing up crowded market places is worse.

Reply 68

HouseLannister

You would find some hypocrisy if America was intentionally and actively targeting civilians but they do not (despite conspiracy theories). So the whole premise of your thread is based on flawed logic and false notions of hypocrisy.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 69

Pete_91

Original post by paddyman4

If a high civilian/military death ratio is sufficient, on its own, to define an act as terrorism, do you consider the bombings of Nazi Germany in WW2 by the British to be terrorist acts? Was Churchill a criminal?

Interestingly, I think it was Churchill himself who said, if Germany won WWII, then he would have been tried for war crimes. The bombing of Dresden in WWII was civilian targeted, so it's possible to make that argument.

I define terrorism as the use of violence against citizens/non-combatants as an attempt to de-legitimise the state. The US rarely tried to de-legitimise the states they act in, so under that definition they're not exhibiting terrorist acts.

What's far more worrying is the fact that from 1945-now, the actions of the CIA in South America in particular are identical to the actions of terrorist groups. In fact, under that definition the CIA is probably the most effective terrorist organisation in history.

Reply 70

Aj12

Original post by College_Dropout

US Drone attacks kill 49 civilians to 1 terrorist, I would consider that targeting the civilian population

The aim of the strikes is not to murder civilians. The intent is key. To.say otherwise turns terrorism into a meaningless buzzword. Im not justifying the deaths here but it's not terrorism

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 71

Aj12

Original post by danny111

I'm sorry but what are drone strikes*?

Oh wait, it's collateral damage, not terrorism.

* the most cowardly way of waging "war".

So you'd rather we invaded the tribal areas of Pakistan anf Yemen to take out terrorist leaders? Costing billions of dollars and lives on bother sides? Sure we'd be doing even more damage and killing even more civilians but at least we would be seen as doing war "the right way" drone strikes are the best option of a bad bunch

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 72

Mr Advice

Original post by Aj12

That's what they say - but what's the real intention? Like I said earlier, it's a discreet form of terrorism. Their actions terrorise a people and therefore it can only be terrorism regardless of all the jargon they come up with.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 73

Aj12

Original post by Mr Advice

If the most powerful military machine on earth wanted to murder civilians most of the middle east would have been depopulated a long time ago. They know killing civilians makes their job harder and radicalizes the population further, it's within the US's interest to keep civilian casualties low.

Reply 74

College_Dropout

Original post by Aj12

Thats what they say, If it is known that so much civilian life would be lost, why do they continue using drone strikes? The intent behind 9/11 was not just to merely take civilian life, just as you say the intent behind the drone attacks are not to take civilian life, so are both of these acts not terrorism?

Reply 75

Mr Advice

Original post by College_Dropout

Excellent point.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 76

study beats

USA is a bully, especially their government, military, defence etc.

Reply 77

abc:)

Original post by Mr Advice

Surely this is the truth. Can anyone justifiably say that what America is doung across the world is not terrorism?

Posted from TSR Mobile

The recent victims in America didn't deserve what they got in any way whatsoever. For them and their families, it was a complete tragedy at the hands of some very cruel person.

But YES, America is guilty of terrorism too, no doubt. And on a much larger scale than can even be fathomed.

Edit - I'm really sad to see people commenting on this who I think of as being pretty intelligent, wondering about whether OP is a troll or not. Clearly there is a lack of understanding of America's involvement in south america and the middle east.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 78

Mr Advice

Original post by abc:)

Of course the victims of the attacks on America don't deserve it - what wrong did they do? Nothing. Likewise the hundreds of thousands of innocent people the Americans have killed in their 'quest' don't deserve it.

Ultimately America must stop their barbaric acts across the world for there to ever be peace. They are responsible for the calamity the world is in today.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 79

Aj12

Original post by College_Dropout

Because the job of the American government is to protect American citizens and they would rather 10 civilians died in a drone strike that kills a leader of a cell plotting to murder 100 Americans than allow a terrorist attack against the US.

The aim of 9/11 was purely to murder as many civilians in one go as possible to make a statement against US support of Israel and US troops in Saudi Arabia. It's pretty clear from the motives and methods. Civilian jet lines into a civilian building filled with civilians.