Why isnt it terrorism when carried out by the US?

Terrorism-the use of force to incite fear in support of a political goal or aim.

examples you are welcome to give but i feel that i will have more against me then for so when i get home i will provide many Why isnt it terrorism when carried out by the US?

Originally posted by amonkieslunch
Why isnt it terrorism when carried out by the US?

Terrorism-the use of force to incite fear in support of a political goal or aim.

examples you are welcome to give but i feel that i will have more against me then for so when i get home i will provide many Why isnt it terrorism when carried out by the US? Well, if that's the definition for terrorism then all forms of diplomacy are terrorism. The purpose of diplomacy is to make the other side give you concessions, and the way to achieve that is to actively limit their options. This is often achieved through war. We've had many wars in just the last 20 years with asia and europe; they're called "trade wars." War, regardless of its form, is just another means of diplomacy.

Now, if you are referring to private incidents not related to declarations or concents of war for the US, then (by all means) share them for discussion.

Because they said it first.:rolleyes:

Without resorting to Websters, let me give you the definition of terrorism that I believe is in common use today. Terrorism: The direct and purposeful targetting of violance toward CIVILIANS in order to achieve a goal.

In your examples. pls be sure to demonstrate that CIVILIANS are the ONLY targets of US actions.

Originally posted by amonkieslunch
Why isnt it terrorism when carried out by the US? Terrorism has several meanings and interpretations.

The meaning from the terrorist side and he meaning from the victim side.

Originally posted by John Mace
Without resorting to Websters, let me give you the definition of terrorism that I believe is in common use today. Terrorism: The direct and purposeful targetting of violance toward CIVILIANS in order to achieve a goal.

In your examples. pls be sure to demonstrate that CIVILIANS are the ONLY targets of US actions.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki

The /only/ targets? What does it matter if one or two soldiers are killed?

firebombing in Dresden, Tokyo, etc., etc.

I really dislike to sound so crass but what rock did you just crawl from under? "Why doesn't the U.S. carry out terriosim?

But then again, you are playing the fisherman, aren't you?

Read...

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sld/sld-contents.html


and if that's not enough...

http://readroom.ipl.org/cgi/i/ipl/ipl.books-idx.pl

Out of curiosity, Mark, why do you think people constantly enjoy calling the U.S. 'terrorists' with things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I never seem to see a thread "British Terrorists!" yelling at Churchill for bombing German towns with just civilians?

we have all heard the unilater statements that where made by the presedent in that we will root out terrorism in all places in the whole world there for one of the most agressive presedents that we have had since then end of the cold war is renouncing war as a whole
I do not mean to end this discussion on the issue of the morality of US military action in the context of terrorism for i too have other things to say on the issue

Originally posted by Tyler
Out of curiosity, Mark, why do you think people constantly enjoy calling the U.S. 'terrorists' with things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I never seem to see a thread "British Terrorists!" yelling at Churchill for bombing German towns with just civilians?

Because Great Britain is not currently the most controversial as well as the most powerful country in the world.

GB-GIL Trans-global: Scale shouldnt be a factor. Only the action itself, the intent, and circumstance.