If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
No 1 Terrorist Nation.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
In terms of sheer numbers who is the biggest terrorist nation on Earth?
Who has unleashed atom bombs on Japan?
Who has ruthlessly used chemical and biological weapons against Vietnam?
Who carpet bombed Laos,Cambodia and Iraq?
Who distorts Middle Eastern politics for their own ends?
Who helped overthrow loads of democratic or vaguely liberal govts in Afica,South America and the Middle East?
Who built Al Quaidas camps in Afghanistan?
I think we know.
Who has unleashed atom bombs on Japan?
Who has ruthlessly used chemical and biological weapons against Vietnam?
Who carpet bombed Laos,Cambodia and Iraq?
Who distorts Middle Eastern politics for their own ends?
Who helped overthrow loads of democratic or vaguely liberal govts in Afica,South America and the Middle East?
Who built Al Quaidas camps in Afghanistan?
I think we know.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism
ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Has America been brought up on any charges by internation courts of any kind for any of the things you just listed? They may well have very questionable foreign policy but they are not terrorists by the mainstream definition of the word.
1. Who involved itself in WW1 and helped free France
2. Who joined WW2(albeit late) and was instrumental to the success of the allies of Nazi Germany.
3. Who was it that almost single handedly won the cold war protecting us all from Soviet commuism?
4. Who fought alongside the south Vietnamese to try and keep communism out of their country
5.Who put massive efforts into stopping the advances of a mad dictator in Iraq?
6. Who tries to broker peace deals throughout the world, including the middle east and ireland.
7. Who was instrumental in getting the USSR out of Afghanistan.
8. Who fought in Korea to keep the Chinese and N. Koreans from taking over the entire island.
9. Who is currently the greatest bastion of freedom in the world?
The US has done some shitty things but it has also done some great things. Our own country is guilty of a great many evil doings...I for one am DAMN GLAD the United States of America exists and this world would be a damn sorry place if it didnt.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
Who has unleashed crap posts on the site?
Who has ruthlessly twisted and used biased posts against our brave armed forces?
Who carpet bombed this site with sheer crap?
Who distorts anything for their own ends?
Who helped this poster to reach the lies?
Who built up a knowledege of things no one is interested in?
I think we know.
peacehunk
Hmm, hand over Bin Laden, or we'll bomb you.
sounds like the threatened use of force with the intention of coercing a "government". Lawful? well, it hasn't been done through the UN.
They fought communism for their best interests.
They didn't fight Iraq because of their morality, we fought Iraq because Saddam threatened our oil supplies.
However there is a difference between terrorism and war.
The terrorists never declared war on the USA and UK, they attacked.
By declaring war, it means all of our subscquent actions are legal, leaving us to do as we please.
As for dropping Atom bombs/chemical warfare. Have you never heard of the saying "all's fair in love and war". Do you think the countries that were "ruthlessly" attacked would have thought twice about doing the same to us?
It's well known that the Nazis were well on their way to creating a nuclear device, and were it not for the fight in Russia they would have had enough time to build one.
Im afraid it was completely lawful..Ive not heard a peep on condemnation from any international org including the UN. The only people who seem to think we acted illegally are those people who attend protests against arms fairs in London, like our friend Steelgate and Soapbarbpy.
Whowhere,
Irrelevant...Can you name any nation/country/state that has acted in a way opposed to their own best interests? Every single action ever taken by governments of nations has ALWAYS been in their own self interest.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
Yes, I am aware of that, I made my point because I thought you meant we fought Iraq for the good of the saudis and the kuwaities, something we clearly didn't. I apologise if my post could be construed as meaning something else.
As for the UN debate, The UN is completely unopposed to the bombing. Maybe because it means to them that the Taliban will be overthrown, a different end but something that requires the same means as our goal.
Anyone making such a complaint will be accused of supporting terrorism, and be treated to a flight of cruise missiles on that basis (or that threat is an interpretation of what Washington and [to my horror] Whitehall have been saying.)
Um it is lawful because of that very point...There are ZERO international laws, national laws, treaties, commission rules that have been broken by the action of the US and UK.
If no laws are being broken then how can something be illegal?
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
State sponsored terrorist is an act of war. State sponsoring requires that the state either finainces or actively supports the terrorists - such as allowing the training of, or hiding of terrorists on their soil.
Any country has the right, under the UN charter, to defend itself against an act of war - by all necessary means.
"Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
(who does the UN consider to be in charge of that patch of rock know as Afghanistan?)
Have we now presented the UN with evidence?
[This message has been edited by Carriage Return (edited 10-10-2001).]
Can you explain the difference in this context?
Because the attack happened within the USA and is being handled by NATO. Last time I checked the UN wasnt a military alliance. Despite their wished, the UN doesnt yet rule the world so why would they be running the self defence of America?
Side note, Syria was just elected onto the UN security council. By electing them the UN has violated article 23 of the UN charter..I think that says a lot about the integrity of the UN.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
I suggest those who slag of america book a flight to afghanistan and stay there.
I suggest all those who want to fight so badly go and sign up NOW
go on prove it!
Now this is good. Childish.
One day you will greet the real world, it smells and it isn't full of people who only want the best for you. There are people out there who would quite happily see you dead, they have no compassion for you.
You seem to have the superior view the 'I wouldn't stoop to their level' attitude, the 'if only we could all get on' approach. Well we don't, this thread is an example of that.
You can dream about world peace right up until the moment that Osama Bin Laden (or A.N. Other) drops a plane on your head. he won;t care whether you supported the bombing against him or not, you are just an infidel who can be squashed like a fly.
And in your moment of compassion for the people of Afhganistan, at that moment that you feel the need to march in protest at the bombing, just stop and think for a moment.
Think about the four-year old on a plane, the four year old that's just been told he is going to die. Now not only does he have difficulty understanding what death is, he also struggles to understand why this man wants him to die, what has he done to him? And think of that child's parents, who have done all they can to protect him from the evils of this world, who have tried to bring him up to live a good life, to understand other religions, and to be mindful of other people. And as you picture this child and his parents, realise that they are Muslim by religion and not US citizens, they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then consider that you will happily sit back and let this happen again and again just because it is wrong for the US to kill people. Because violence never solved anything....
And as you march to protest about the war, ask youself one question. Why didn't you march to protest about the WTC attacks?
Brilliant. Simply brilliant. I shall have to remember that.
I'm defending MY right to NOT BE A KILLER.
Yes - I don't want to stoop to the level of the people who attacked the world trade centre - if YOU want to then go ahead.
I an using my right not to do so.
Simple as that really.
You have some screwed up opinions byny. You class anyone who kills in the same category as terrorists? How about the mother who is forced to kill to protect her child? Ah well she took a life so shes no better than common scum.
Things are not black and white in this world, Theres an AWFUl lot of grey areas. Sooner you realise that the better.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
Just as a point to note the US (and the UK i beileve) opposed an international court of law. Why? Where they affraid that Kissinger and others might be tryied?
"Im afraid it was completely lawful.."
Only time will tell.
"State sponsored terrorist is an act of war. State sponsoring requires that the state either finainces or actively supports the terrorists."
Like the US state sponsoring the coup in 1973 in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and consequently helping in the muder of 30,000 people?
Or like the sponsering of the 1965 coup in Indonisia which resulted in the muder of 800,000 people and the subsequent slauter in 1975 of over 250,000 people in East Timor by the Indonisian regime with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretery of state Henry Kisinger?
Or the US sponsered terrorist contra war against Nicaragua in the 1980's which resulted in the deaths of 30,000 inocent people (or 'soft' targets- before the term collaterol damage was invented)
I could go on...
(the above was taken from
Shocked and Horrified by
Larry Mosqueda, Ph.D
The Evergreen State College
USA [he is american btw])
Man of Kent,
What happened to the people in the planes and in the towers was horrific, but you could change your story around and substitute it with a four year old child in Afganistan.
(ps.Its funy how collateral damage isn't plural, isn't it?)
You and I will never agree on this - and if the world is nuked we'll all be dead together so what.
With a bit of luck I'll not have the death of a person on my mind.
Oh well, in THAT case fuck em, let the yank dies, afterall the obviously have forfeited the right to defend themselves. In fact so has 99% of the countries of the world (inc. Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, China, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Egypt, jordan (need I go on...), but as usual the only people you are interested in is the US.
The problem with your kind of political dogma is that you see the US as the ONLY evil in the world, that their action negate any good that they have done. You instantly look for the bad, or a conspiracy. The fact that they were the biggest providers of aid the Afghanistan before 11/9 (and still are!) is completely glossed over becuase it doesn't fit with the great satan image you have of them.
Yep, it could. But it wouldn't have the same impact would it? It would show that his death was an accident and not the intention. As someone said else where, the difference between OBL and the US is that OBL revels in the deaths of non-combatants (the US doesn't), and the US has a NOTION of what a non-combatant actually is.
The comparison is that a child has died and I am more than happy to concede that point. I have never disputed that it is a profoundy sad outcome, and that again shows the difference between my aproach and those of the terrorists.
I have two questions for you:
1. Did you march on Saturday? If so, can you answer my previous question about why you didn't march in protest at the WTC attacks.
2. Do you believe in peace at all costs? If not, how do you think you can stop the person who is willing to go that one step further than you, inorder to attain their goals?
1) no time. The actions were already beyond stopping before anyone knew about them.
2) no contacts. If we assume that it was only OBL and AQ behind it, they don't have embassies.
3) no suffrage. These terrorists care not for the wishes or opinions of those they claim to represent, much less for anyone else.
That I class her and terroists as killers does not mean to me that she is no better than common scum, that is your categorisation. It is your obsession with making things black and white (scum / not scum) that makes it hard for you to understand. there is a great difference in the albedo of a mother killing to defend and a mother killing to revenge. Both are understandable, and in both cases the victim can be considered to have, to an extent, brought it upon themselves. But one action I'd regret and the other I'd resent.
You will notice that my post was directed to byny not your good self. She specifically said that anybody that killed had 'stooped to the level' of the terrorists. She wasnt just categorising them both as killers but both as equal.
Obsession? I mentioned scum once. Sorry but I happen to think that terrorists are scum. I dont see how that makes me obsessed with seeing things as black and white.
I think thats the point I wanted to make. There are situations where people have to kill and there are situations where people naturally want to kill in revenge.Killing is never a good thing but it sometimes the only thing.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
I never said or even sudgested that, I was mearly picking up on your comment about 'state sponsered terrorism'
"but as usual the only people you are interested in is the US."
I'm sorry have we met before? Do you know who or what I'm 'interested in'? At this moment in time I am interested in the US because it happens to be the subject of the thread.
"The problem with your kind of political dogma is that you see the US as the ONLY evil in the world..."
I don't beilive there is pure 'evil' as such, but that's another point. I reconise that there is alot of stinking shit in the world but we are talking about the US.
"...that their action negate any good that they have done."
That is always the case, I had it said a thousand times at school.
"The fact that they were the biggest providers of aid [in] Afghanistan before 11/9 (and still are!)"
Ever herd the bible story about the rich man and the poor woman?
"the difference between OBL and the US is that OBL revels in the deaths of non-combatants (the US doesn't), and the US has a NOTION of what a non-combatant actually is."
Ha! Don't make me laugh!
"Did you march on Saturday? If so, can you answer my previous question about why you didn't march in protest at the WTC attacks[?]"
No I didn't but I would have liked to. CR summed up my feelings on this issue so I won't repeate it.
"Do you believe in peace at all costs? If not, how do you think you can stop the person who is willing to go that one step further than you, inorder to attain their goals?"
I'm not a pacifict btw, I purely don't think that bombing the Taliban is going to help the situation at all. Yes, use force on UBL and AQ but this isn't the way to do it. (this is a far biger vote winner)
An ex US general said on BBC1 last night that War very very rarely solves any thing. From the horses mouth as they say.
edited to add: when I say the US I DO NOT meant the US people, I mean the US adminitration (past and present)
[This message has been edited by [T] (edited 17-10-2001).]
then you have stooped to the level of any other murderer.
Perhaps one day I will be forced to kill someone in self defence (Hope not) and I am sure I will feel guilty about it if I do.
I would just prefer it if conflicts like this one were solved through negotiation not arms. We should be more 'civilised' than this. Using the argument that 'They' are not and we should fight fire with fire, is not one I believe in.
By the way - Try to remain calm, try not to be rude.
I attempt to do this myself and it really is a much better situation to be in.
Unfortunately it is human nature to fight. A quote I heard once has stuck with me for a long time, it does take some thinking about:
"The human being is essentially exactly the same as the first human that stepped out of the caves and forests all those millenia ago. They still have the same competetiveness, the same thoughts, the same hopes and the same ways of doing things. Only now, those same humans don't have sticks or fire, they have tanks, planes and bombs."
It isn't exaclty the same, just a jist, but the point is, we are essentially exactly the same as we were millenia ago, we haven't evolved at all. If you gave a rifle to a caveman, and taught him how to use it he would learn in minutes. we are still a competetive, and evil race. It is survival of the fittest, it always has been and always will be.
The government has eyes and ears everywhere, big brother is watching you.
Thanks, nice to know that I'm a murderer in your eyes, I though I was a "defender" of the "realm" and as this is getting personal,(byny I KNOW you didn't aim it at me), for me at least, I'm butting out of this topic.
peacechild
[This message has been edited by peacechild (edited 18-10-2001).]
You honestly see it like that? No consideration given to motive or reasons?
If a woman shoots and kills a man who was in the process of killing that womans child you would honestly put her in the same category of 'murderer' as the man killing the child?
If, as you said, you were possibly forced to kill someone in self defence would you accept the idea that you should be arrested and jailed for murder? You dont see any moral distinction between self defence and cold blooded murder?
As people have said many times..Negotiation was attempted and ignored by the taliban. Fundamentalists do not negotiate.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero