The biggest terrorist known to mankind?

[melo]

And this is recent history, who do you think has been the biggest terrorist entity or nation.I'm going with israel and america at 1 and 2. There intechangable.

 

[Hang Eleven]

Civilians dying are part of war, and that's undeniable. Does that mean I endorse this war? No, in this case I'm a decided pacifist. And history shows that the land of Israel was Israel before they were broken up and conquered.

 

[melo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hang Eleven @ Aug 10 2006, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Civilians dying are part of war, and that's undeniable. Does that mean I endorse this war? No, in this case I'm a decided pacifist. And history shows that the land of Israel was Israel before they were broken up and conquered.</div>Civilians dying are part of war. I agree. But the ration of innocence being slaughtered isn't even equal. I really don't care what your intention is, if you murder that many people in my eyes your a murderer and a terrorist.And so if history does show that the jewish people did live in israel. Yes they did. But the fact remains that there was a huge gap between them being kicked out and them all coming back. The arabs had lived there for hundreds of years and because the british gave the land back to the jewish people, they are now an opressed people. Just reading random stats about how the water is distrubuted show that the israelis are opressors. They bulldoze homes because they think it shouldn't be there even though that family had been there for decades. That's what you call terrorism.Now please, i'm not criticsing jewish people. What i'm criticising is the state of Israel. Their the terrorists.

 

[Theo41]

Mossad and Al-Qaeda

 

[Justice]

I think this board has the flakiest idea I've ever seen of what terrorism actually is.

 

[Hang Eleven]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The arabs had lived there for hundreds of years and because the british gave the land back to the jewish people, they are now an opressed people.</div>In which case, why blame Israel, why not Britain? They were the ones who originally colonized that part of the Middle East (along with about a third of the rest of the world).And you're saying that these terrorist groups are not the greatest terrorists? Tell me, where and has America dive-bombed into planes into an building full of innocent people? That Al-Qaeda's 9/11 act was less than anything America has done?

 

[melo]

the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."That perfectly explains america, america unlawfully has invaded iraq for it's ideological obvjectives. Secondly i dont' care what your intention is. All i know is that America has killed much more innocent people than any other entity and state. So yes, i know what terrorism is and America perfectly fits it.America murdered 67,000 with one bomb. Now tell me, who really are the terrorists?Seriously, i don't give a sh*t what your intentions are. All i care is about innocence being killed and what i see is that Israel/America have murdered way more people than Alqaeda and this is why i see them as being terrorists.]Now this is not to say Alqaeda are not terrorists. No but as i see it, they have not murdered as many people.Now obviously most of this board is american and will take offense to this but this is the truth. The US have murdered so many innocent people and they go under the cover "it's war" and sh*t like this. I don't care if it's war, when that many people die then you better come up with a different stragety.In estimating the death toll from the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, the many victims who died months or years after the bombing as a result of radiation exposure, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. That said, it is estimated that by December 1945, as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects.[1][2] In Nagasaki, roughly 74,000 people died of the bomb and its after-effects with the death toll from two bombings around 214,000 people.[3][4] In both cities, most of the casualties were civilians.Yeh, i guess it's war. Who cares about those people, after all their asian and are inferior

 

[Justice]

The definition of terrorism in your sig, Melo, is once again horribly flaky. You're saying the attack on Hiroshima was terrorism? Are you f*cking retarded? They came to America to encroach on our land in a war we were doing our best to avoid. How is it terrorist to try to end things quickly like we did? Heaven forbid we try to kill people in a war that they brought us into! And oh god, they're yellow people so that makes it even more wrong! Give me a break.Under your perception of terrorism basically any death that people think isn't right becomes terrorism. I'm sorry, but if I come and cap you in the face that's not terrorism. Nor is it terrorism if I just do the same to anyone else or any of their family members. Now, if I go to, say, someone who works at an embassy or in a government and I say, "Hey, make marijuana legal or I'll shoot you!" Then yeah, that could be considered terrorism, vaguely. The point of terrorism is that you utilize the fear of death to achieve a political goal.America is not going to other countries to instill fear in people. You can believe that if you want, but I don't think they'd be building hospitals and schools and so forth if they were terrorist. That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

America and Israel...the worlds biggest terrorist states...wow...come on Melo. The H-bombing off Japan was not a terrorist act, Japan deserved what it got after what they did in Pearl Harbor and that H-bomb saved hundreds of thousands of US troops from having to go in. America kills tons of innocent people? The people killing innocents in Iraq are extremist muslims, not the United States, they kill their own people to make us look bad. Our military with our great weapons has killed very few innocents compared to old wars, it's amazing what has been done.I don't like the war but everyone supported the Iraq war to begin with and in the first few months everyone was happy. We need to stick together and stop bitching and get this over with, it will take time....Killing innocents is going to happen, the middleeast and extreme islam won't stop and if we are too scared to kill innocents we are digging our own graves. To clean things up you have to get dirty. I'm sick of the anti-American/Israel views on this board by many people...often times who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[playaofthegame]

George Bush's plans.

 

[Hang Eleven]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Now obviously most of this board is american and will take offense to this but this is the truth. The US have murdered so many innocent people and they go under the cover "it's war" and sh*t like this. I don't care if it's war, when that many people die then you better come up with a different stragety.</div>You said yourself, innocent people dying is part of war. Looks, if it's war, it's war. Look, you know how Hitler got so powerful? It was because everyone in Europe tried to sort it out "peacefully", and all that happened was that he kept on annexing countries, and by the time he declared war, he was too big for them to stop, until the so-called "terrorist" America stepped in.Look, war is necessary. War is horrible, yes. But it is necessary. Are you saying that WW2 shouldn't have happened, that the Europeans and America should have come to a deal? Then all that would have happened would be that the Axis powers would take over the world.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In estimating the death toll from the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, the many victims who died months or years after the bombing as a result of radiation exposure, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. That said, it is estimated that by December 1945, as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects.[1][2] In Nagasaki, roughly 74,000 people died of the bomb and its after-effects with the death toll from two bombings around 214,000 people.[3][4] In both cities, most of the casualties were civilians.</div>And if they hadn't bombed the cites, many, many more people, thousands, millions even, would have died? Do you happen to realize that? That's more or less an undeniable fact?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yeh, i guess it's war. Who cares about those people, after all their asian and are inferior</div>Look, dude, I live in Hong Kong, OK? If I thought Asian people were inferior, then I wouldn't be where I am.

 

[STAT]

Melo...no offense to you, but you have the worst idea ever of what terrorism actually is.

 

[Rok]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Now obviously most of this board is american and will take offense to this but this is the truth. The US have murdered so many innocent people and they go under the cover "it's war" and sh*t like this. I don't care if it's war, when that many people die then you better come up with a different stragety.</div> And what different strategy is that? Have a tea party and talk it over while eating crumpets and sort it out with no violence? Honestly, enter the real world, where war is war and a times it's the best strategy needed. World Peace will never happen, it only takes one person to F*ck it all up.

 

[melo]

No, i did not say that. Where on earth did i say that? I have no explanation onto what should happen, all i know is that what america has done and is doing isn't even close to being the best approach.No, you have no idea what terrorism is. Terrorism is using violence to further your political objectives. America has done that.They attacked under the premise of weapons of which Saddam had none of or barely nothing. This is pure terrorism, they attacked Iraq to achieve their politial objectives. That's the same definition the state department brought. Not me. By their definition their terrorism. The loophole around that there stopping terrorism which they haven't. And if they hadn't bombed the cites, many, many more people, thousands, millions even, would have died? Do you happen to realize that? That's more or less an undeniable fact?So because you suspect more peopel will die, you have the right to wipe out 67,000 people? What world are you freaking living in?edit: BCB, how do you know how many iraqis are being killed by American soildiers? By what, the american news? I have been watching fox news and cnn and i have never seen a one sided biased show like that. Sorry, i have a mind of my own.And america does kill tons of innocent people. they wiped out a whole town of 67,000 people in a few seconds. They kiled hundred of aghanis when they bombed the taliban. They've also killed hundred of iraqis. Please don't deny the fact that innocent people have been killed bt your government. The minute you say that is the minute you've gone insane.http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israel_index.htmlNah, the state of israel is innocent and all these terrorists are the evil one.

 

[Hang Eleven]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So because you suspect more peopel will die, you have the right to wipe out 67,000 people? What world are you freaking living in?</div>Look, the future is unforeseen, but I said it was an undeniable fact (more or less), and I meant it. Look at how many people died when America was just conquering the islands in the Pacific. Think about how many people would die on both sides when they tried to invade Japan, with dug-in people defending their homeland. Your definition seems to be not "the end justifies the means", it's "the means never justifies the end". As I said, innocent people is part of war, pacifism isn't the answer sometimes.And how can you say Al-Qaeda is better than America? It's more moral, more pure, is that what you're saying?

 

[BrewCityBuck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So because you suspect more peopel will die, you have the right to wipe out 67,000 people? What world are you freaking living in?</div> That bombed saved lives, probably a few in my family that would have had to fight in Japan. It saved Japanese lives, probably over a million...and saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. Japan F*cked with us knowing we had nuclear weapons, they got what they deserved for attacking us.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>edit: BCB, how do you know how many iraqis are being killed by American soildiers? By what, the american news? I have been watching fox news and cnn and i have never seen a one sided biased show like that. Sorry, i have a mind of my own.And america does kill tons of innocent people. they wiped out a whole town of 67,000 people in a few seconds. They kiled hundred of aghanis when they bombed the taliban. They've also killed hundred of iraqis. Please don't deny the fact that innocent people have been killed bt your government. The minute you say that is the minute you've gone insane.</div> We do kill innocents but we have worked hard with weapons..etc to minimize them and we have. Afghanistan needed to be attacked, I have no problems with that...sh*t happens. Nobody has said we don't kill civilians.

 

[STAT]

Melo, what you are saying is, basically, that killing anyone at any time is terrorism.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melo061 @ Aug 11 2006, 04:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No, you have no idea what terrorism is. Terrorism is using violence to further your political objectives. America has done that.</div>So basically every country in history that has been in a war is terrorist. :HAHAHA:

 

[Fabolous]

it can be more than political cant it? and yes its true justice.

 

[melo]

No, hold up. There's a difference between war and terrorism. The taliban war was not terrorism because the taliban were harbouring the smae people who attacked you. The iraqi war was because America invaded to furthe their political by rehshaping the region. It has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, america invaded for their own objectives. Thefore that is terrorism. They used violence for their own political objective, attacking the taliban was a direct response from 9/11.Therefore yeh, bombing hiroshama* was not terrorism, more like murderes. But in this day and age the word is interchangable. They call militants who attack the army as being terrorists. edit: And add me to your club.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

Would you stop criticizing our use of hydrogen bombs on Japan. That war would have been a disaster and millions would have died, those bombs were the best thing to happen sadly.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melo061 @ Aug 11 2006, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No, hold up. There's a difference between war and terrorism. The taliban war was not terrorism because the taliban were harbouring the smae people who attacked you. The iraqi war was because America invaded to furthe their political by rehshaping the region. It has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, america invaded for their own objectives. Thefore that is terrorism. They used violence for their own political objective, attacking the taliban was a direct response from 9/11.</div>So you are telling me that fighting terrorism is not a political objective? If fighting terrorism is not a political objective, then I do not know why we are giving politicians the power to make laws to attempt to stop it. I know there is a difference between war and terrorism, but your definition seems to align the two as synonyms. I can safely say that all the wars in the history of the world have had someone die (I imagine nearly all of them had someone "innocent" die in them) and been fought for political objectives.

 

[redneck]

for those of you who are saying American, and Israel are the biggest terrorist entities in recent history, take a look at the rest of the world. neither country has commited the attrocities in the scale that has happened in the Old Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Rawanda, iraq, Somalia, and a helf dozen other places on the globe.the US may occasionally use force or the threat there of, to persude a nation to cooperate. but the countries the US has done this two aren't exactly innocent. Saddam Hossain was a blood thirsty tyrant who would conquer the entire middle east if given half the chance and everyone in the world knows it. He killed millions of his own people just to stay in power. some media outlets may lead you to believe that Iraq was this innocent happy little country before the big bad evil American empire came in and started blowing the place up. but lets not forget who got the whole ball rolling over there. it was Saddam Hossain when he invaded Iran, than he invades Kuwait. see a pattern.The US has also used forced against other countries to try and aleviate the violence. Serbia is a good example of this. Serbidan Millocivic was another tyrant who was killing people, the US stepped in and blew some stuff up to force him out. The US is no where near the most vial country on the planet. look at whats going on in Africa, there is your biggest terrorist entity in the world right there. the violence in Africa in the past 50 years makes the Nazis seem almost nice.

 

[melo]

You know what's funny? America gave Saddam the weapons to attack iran. They supported saddam untill it became convenient for them to not support him. So if Saddam is a terrorists then what do you say about the people who supporter him then dropped the support because it became conveniet?And by definition, America is a terrorist. You may call it justified terrorism but the state department gave the definition about terrorism and america fits it.You wanna disagree? email the state department and tell them to change their definition.edit: We all know africa has terrorists. I'm from somalia and all the warlords in my country are all guilty of terrorism and genocide. But America is on a larger scale. The UN and america invaded somalia supposedy to help the somali people even though that wasn't he case. They tried to arrest Col Aideed but in the process murdered hundreds of somalia people. That's terrorism because by definition, Ameirca used violence to further their political objectives.Their also indirect terrorists because they have Saddam the weapons to attack Iran. So yes, america are terrorists. Whether it's justified or not, it's up to you to figure it out. Just realise that America are terrorists by definition.

 

[redneck]

it was the United Nations decission togo into Somalia, not the United States. the warloads of Somalia were stealing the food that was sent to hault the starvation of the Somali people, than trading that food for weapons. Somalia was a mission to try to stop the violence by using as little violence as nessicary which turned horrible wrong. The Governments definition is conviently vague. its vague enough to support the patriot act, otherwise that stupid violations of our freedoms wouldn't have passed.the US gave weapons to both Iran, and Iraq as well as countless other countries. the Soviets did the same thing, the Chinese are doing the same thing now with North Korea. giving weapons to other nations is nothing new, the powers of the world have always lent weapons and manpower to smaller nations if it suits the interest of the power.trust me, the US is far from a terrorist state. most internation incidents the US has been involved with in the past 50 years in the behalf of other groups of people. unfortinatly our leaders have picked and chose the wrong things to get involved with, which has given the US a lot of enemies. if the US were to become an isolationist, than we'd really see who the terrorist states were.

 

[melo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Aug 12 2006, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>it was the United Nations decission togo into Somalia, not the United States. the warloads of Somalia were stealing the food that was sent to hault the starvation of the Somali people, than trading that food for weapons. Somalia was a mission to try to stop the violence by using as little violence as nessicary which turned horrible wrong. The Governments definition is conviently vague. its vague enough to support the patriot act, otherwise that stupid violations of our freedoms wouldn't have passed.the US gave weapons to both Iran, and Iraq as well as countless other countries. the Soviets did the same thing, the Chinese are doing the same thing now with North Korea. giving weapons to other nations is nothing new, the powers of the world have always lent weapons and manpower to smaller nations if it suits the interest of the power.trust me, the US is far from a terrorist state. most internation incidents the US has been involved with in the past 50 years in the behalf of other groups of people. unfortinatly our leaders have picked and chose the wrong things to get involved with, which has given the US a lot of enemies. if the US were to become an isolationist, than we'd really see who the terrorist states were.</div>They apparently went into there to help the people. Then it turned into a capture mission of Aideed. American forces in an attempt to capture Aideed or murdered him killed hundreds of people. And this is fact, not some propoganda. By the definition, America is a terrorists because they used violence to further their objectives.I personally know people who's family members were killed when America invaded. It's not an issue that should be taken lightlly simply because they were supposedly doing the right thing.And Just because you use other peole to do your dirty dealings doesn't mean your clean of it. I actually consider the big people behind the thing more guilty then the small people. So, when Iraq attacked Iran it was well known America provided weapons for iraq. I still consider this terrorism even though they used someone else. Proxy wars.America is a terrorist nation by it's own definition. They do have a loophole out of it though when they said it has to be unlawful violence.edit: And yes, those warloards are evil people.

 

[Justice]

The definition for terrorism by the state department that I found said, "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."America was not targeting noncombatant targets in Iraq. Secondly, they aren't a subnational group or clandestine agents. How exactly does America fit that definition?

 

[melo]

Terrorism defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."That's the one i found. The state department probably edited it recently.Secondly just because america is a state they cannot be a terrorist state? Sounds like a loophole to me.

 

[Justice]

The one I listed last was supposedly from 2001. I think it's a little flaky too, but I don't see how America fits the definition, anyway. I found this one on wikipedia (also D of Defense, by the way)... "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." It is similar to what you just said, but with a few changes that I think are pretty relevant.The problem I have with the term "unlawful" is, well, who is to say what is unlawful? The strongest nation? The UN? I'll tell you who defines what unlawful means, it's the person who happens to be using the term to describe whatever people they feel like calling a terrorist. Anyway, I don't feel like America has been trying to instill fear in Iraqis. If they were doing that, they would not be building things there, they would be trying to rebuild the government at all, and they would be attacking people in the South as well. If what we did to Japan was terrorism, then it didn't work too well, because they love us now.

<('.'<)

 

[BrewCityBuck]

Your not going to change an anti-Americans views...