Oh you mean like the US, once again, who has more WMDs than any other country in the world, and almost undoubtably holds the record for most civilians killed at once in a WMD attack?
List of United States Atrocities
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Oh you mean like the US, once again, who has more WMDs than any other country in the world, and almost undoubtably holds the record for most civilians killed at once in a WMD attack?
But you do not deny it?
Dont let anyone fool you, your freedom's and way of life have been defended many times by people you have never met, millions have died for it and many still do.
You can call it whatever you want.
ha ha ha , i didn't see that.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Russia has more WMDs than America, but yeah. Every country that has nuclear weapons deployed is targetting huge numbers of civilians all the time.
IRRELEVANT
How about you list the atrocities and we debate them.
We do not have an offical religion. However, the difference is getting smaller.
One thing that sticks out in my mind is multiculturalism. It's a complete failure. When "we" first came to the US back in the 1500s and so, we developed our own culture. In the late 1700s we became "Americans." Today, everyone thinks anyone can just come in the US to become Americans... but what happens is these people try to take the American culture away and impose their culture on us.
How about you list the atrocities, and describe them, or post a link that does.
This thread is not a debate.
Cannibalism causes prion diseases.
That's probably why it's rare amongst things with brains.
May as well close it, seeing as there's nothing to debate.
Yeah, but they haven't killed as many as the "land of the free", have they?
Killed with weapons of mass destruction? Probably not. But Russia would have to rank pretty highly on a list of total civilians killed. Between driving tanks all over eastern and central Europe, to the millions who disappeared into the gulags under Stalin... and that's without even counting Imperial Russia.
Then you have guys like Mao who would kill 10 million civilians in a long weekend... so, no, I'd have to say that America is not the #1 killer of civilians.
But anyway, talking about who's the "biggest terrorist" in terms of numbers of bombs or civilians killed is silly. It doesn't demonstrate that any group is more inclined or ruthless in their pursuit of terrorism, it just points out which groups have lots of material resources at their disposal.
In my first post which you replied to I was talking about most civilians killed by WMDs, in response to your post:
Quadraphonics said:
Yeah, I know. I *did* just agree that America probably holds that dubious distinction. But this was in the context of "terrorism as targeting civilians," and I wanted to remind people that WMDs haven't killed nearly as many civilians as conventional means, nor are they likely to catch up any time soon. The point is to not get hung up on the issue of WMDs: the worst terrorists in history have racked up horrifying civilian death tolls without using any WMDs. Even if you want to play the numbers game, WMDs don't even account for 5% of the civilians America has killed.
So terrorist don't use violence and fear to gain political power? Did i just wake up in the twilight zone where terrorist use love and peace?
Edit:Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
So you want to be the genius and tell me how terrorism is actually defined?
Last edited:
No I intended it as, slavery, prejudice and terrorist orginizations are everywhere. While there is no point in blaming it on america but the groups themselves.
I mean you wouldn't call a bus full of arabs the terrorism bus would you?
Unless of course, you're ignorant like that, in which case it makes sense.
Of course they do. But so do all police forces, armies, governments, etc. Ultimately, *ALL* political power is based on violence and fear, so it doesn't inform the concept of terrorism very well.
To put it another way: all terrorists eat, breath and sleep, but it doesn't follow that everyone who eats, breaths and sleeps is a terrorist.
No, because terrorist ONLY use violence and fear tactics. Police and the army on the other hand don't just bomb and scare the shit out of people.
Okay, but then groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, etc. wouldn't count as terrorist organization, since they also use social services/charity/elections/etc. to achieve political aims.
They don't?