Is America the leading terror state in the world today?

[Gandalf]

The way that you stated the question is pretty off, first of all. If we were the leading 'terror' state then why are my friends (these innocent people that you speak of) dying while fighting a war on foot. Why wouldn't we just nuke them? Or carpet bomb all of the innocent people? We'll kill plenty of terrorists and Al-Qaeda in the process, right? Just bomb them..

no..

There is plenty to be said with how America decides to settle politics with other countries, but leading terror? Are you kidding?

How is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.

You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime.

Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....

You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?

Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.

Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!

[Kel]

100%

[RP33]

The way that you stated the question is pretty off, first of all. If we were the leading 'terror' state then why are my friends (these innocent people that you speak of) dying while fighting a war on foot. Why wouldn't we just nuke them? Or carpet bomb all of the innocent people? We'll kill plenty of terrorists and Al-Qaeda in the process, right? Just bomb them..

no..

There is plenty to be said with how America decides to settle politics with other countries, but leading terror? Are you kidding?

How is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.

You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime.

Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....

You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?

Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.

Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!

Why don't you read what i typed?

I said if we were such terrorists, why wouldn't we just nuke them? How am I justifying nuking them in that question? Right, i'm not.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this if you think that if they had the capability to nuke us that they wouldn't. It's not like they hi-jacked four planes and killed 4,000 of our innocent people. Stop being sensible, RP!!

[Gandalf]

The way that you stated the question is pretty off, first of all. If we were the leading 'terror' state then why are my friends (these innocent people that you speak of) dying while fighting a war on foot. Why wouldn't we just nuke them? Or carpet bomb all of the innocent people? We'll kill plenty of terrorists and Al-Qaeda in the process, right? Just bomb them..

no..

There is plenty to be said with how America decides to settle politics with other countries, but leading terror? Are you kidding?

How is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.

You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime.

Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....

You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?

Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.

Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!

Why don't you read what i typed?

I said if we were such terrorists, why wouldn't we just nuke them? How am I justifying nuking them in that question? Right, i'm not.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this if you think that if they had the capability to nuke us that they wouldn't. It's not like they hi-jacked four planes and killed 4,000 of our innocent people. Stop being sensible, RP!!

Nuke who exactly? Saudi Arabia? Those are the only links we have and nothing has happened to Saudi Arabia and it won't because you know......you are allies. You don't punish allies until they then cross you. You need to do some reading lad. You should know all this. Saudi Arabia is a horrible country but
working with wallstreet they provide horribly overpriced oil and you rely on them.

[Gandalf]

You could nuke them (the Taliban) I guess, but see where that gets you. It's a silly argument.

[Gandalf]

US bombing of Libya in the 1980's

[Gandalf]

US backed genocide in Eat Timor

[RP33]

The way that you stated the question is pretty off, first of all. If we were the leading 'terror' state then why are my friends (these innocent people that you speak of) dying while fighting a war on foot. Why wouldn't we just nuke them? Or carpet bomb all of the innocent people? We'll kill plenty of terrorists and Al-Qaeda in the process, right? Just bomb them..

no..

There is plenty to be said with how America decides to settle politics with other countries, but leading terror? Are you kidding?

How is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.

You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime.

Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....

You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?

Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.

Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!

Why don't you read what i typed?

I said if we were such terrorists, why wouldn't we just nuke them? How am I justifying nuking them in that question? Right, i'm not.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this if you think that if they had the capability to nuke us that they wouldn't. It's not like they hi-jacked four planes and killed 4,000 of our innocent people. Stop being sensible, RP!!

Nuke who exactly? Saudi Arabia? Those are the only links we have and nothing has happened to Saudi Arabia and it won't because you know......you are allies. You don't punish allies until they then cross you. You need to do some reading lad. You should know all this. Saudi Arabia is a horrible country but
working with wallstreet they provide horribly overpriced oil and you rely on them.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? I'm talking about Afgahanistan and anywhere else where any terrorists or any affiliates of the terrorists that have attacked us are. If we're such terrorists, why don't we nuke them? Why bother losing men in our army?

I read plenty, thanks.

Again, this all goes to your definition of terror. you're a brit, right?

What about 100 years of British rule in India?
What about British occupation in Northern Ireland?
What about the British bombing French ships in North Africa in 1940?
What about when the British invaded Malaysia in 1960 when commies were trying to take over? Pretty similar to the US's involvement in Vietnam.

I digress.

[Gandalf]

The way that you stated the question is pretty off, first of all. If we were the leading 'terror' state then why are my friends (these innocent people that you speak of) dying while fighting a war on foot. Why wouldn't we just nuke them? Or carpet bomb all of the innocent people? We'll kill plenty of terrorists and Al-Qaeda in the process, right? Just bomb them..

no..

There is plenty to be said with how America decides to settle politics with other countries, but leading terror? Are you kidding?

How is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.

You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime.

Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....

You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?

Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.

Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!

Why don't you read what i typed?

I said if we were such terrorists, why wouldn't we just nuke them? How am I justifying nuking them in that question? Right, i'm not.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this if you think that if they had the capability to nuke us that they wouldn't. It's not like they hi-jacked four planes and killed 4,000 of our innocent people. Stop being sensible, RP!!

Nuke who exactly? Saudi Arabia? Those are the only links we have and nothing has happened to Saudi Arabia and it won't because you know......you are allies. You don't punish allies until they then cross you. You need to do some reading lad. You should know all this. Saudi Arabia is a horrible country but
working with wallstreet they provide horribly overpriced oil and you rely on them.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? I'm talking about Afgahanistan and anywhere else where any terrorists or any affiliates of the terrorists that have attacked us are. If we're such terrorists, why don't we nuke them? Why bother losing men in our army?

I read plenty, thanks.

Again, this all goes to your definition of terror. you're a brit, right?

What about 100 years of British rule in India?
What about British occupation in Northern Ireland?
What about the British bombing French ships in North Africa in 1940?
What about when the British invaded Malaysia in 1960 when commies were trying to take over? Pretty similar to the US's involvement in Vietnam.

I digress.

What profoundly weak arguments....you have no evidence that the Afghans ever attacked you.

Do you think because I am English that I am going to defend British interests? Integrity doesn't work that way. I believe in integrity and nationalism seldom has that. I discard nationalism. I believe in truth and honesty and that's where I confuse the propagandists.

[RP33]

The way that you stated the question is pretty off, first of all. If we were the leading 'terror' state then why are my friends (these innocent people that you speak of) dying while fighting a war on foot. Why wouldn't we just nuke them? Or carpet bomb all of the innocent people? We'll kill plenty of terrorists and Al-Qaeda in the process, right? Just bomb them..

no..

There is plenty to be said with how America decides to settle politics with other countries, but leading terror? Are you kidding?

How is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.

You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime.

Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....

You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?

Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.

Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!

Why don't you read what i typed?

I said if we were such terrorists, why wouldn't we just nuke them? How am I justifying nuking them in that question? Right, i'm not.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this if you think that if they had the capability to nuke us that they wouldn't. It's not like they hi-jacked four planes and killed 4,000 of our innocent people. Stop being sensible, RP!!

Nuke who exactly? Saudi Arabia? Those are the only links we have and nothing has happened to Saudi Arabia and it won't because you know......you are allies. You don't punish allies until they then cross you. You need to do some reading lad. You should know all this. Saudi Arabia is a horrible country but
working with wallstreet they provide horribly overpriced oil and you rely on them.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? I'm talking about Afgahanistan and anywhere else where any terrorists or any affiliates of the terrorists that have attacked us are. If we're such terrorists, why don't we nuke them? Why bother losing men in our army?

I read plenty, thanks.

Again, this all goes to your definition of terror. you're a brit, right?

What about 100 years of British rule in India?
What about British occupation in Northern Ireland?
What about the British bombing French ships in North Africa in 1940?
What about when the British invaded Malaysia in 1960 when commies were trying to take over? Pretty similar to the US's involvement in Vietnam.

I digress.

What profoundly weak arguments....you have no evidence that the Afghans ever attacked you.

Do you think because I am English that I am going to defend British interests? Integrity doesn't work that way. I believe in integrity and nationalism seldom has that. I discard nationalism. I believe in truth and honesty and that's where I confuse the propagandists.

I'd like to continue discussing this, but lunch is nearly over..

All i will say, again, is that 'terror' is clearly open for interpretation. For example, if you think Libya was innocent, strange considering the reason we bombed them was because of THEIR terrorist attacks resulting in US deaths, then clearly you're speaking of something different than my definition of terror.

[Gandalf]

The way that you stated the question is pretty off, first of all. If we were the leading 'terror' state then why are my friends (these innocent people that you speak of) dying while fighting a war on foot. Why wouldn't we just nuke them? Or carpet bomb all of the innocent people? We'll kill plenty of terrorists and Al-Qaeda in the process, right? Just bomb them..

no..

There is plenty to be said with how America decides to settle politics with other countries, but leading terror? Are you kidding?

How is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.

You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime.

Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....

You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?

Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.

Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!

Why don't you read what i typed?

I said if we were such terrorists, why wouldn't we just nuke them? How am I justifying nuking them in that question? Right, i'm not.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this if you think that if they had the capability to nuke us that they wouldn't. It's not like they hi-jacked four planes and killed 4,000 of our innocent people. Stop being sensible, RP!!

Nuke who exactly? Saudi Arabia? Those are the only links we have and nothing has happened to Saudi Arabia and it won't because you know......you are allies. You don't punish allies until they then cross you. You need to do some reading lad. You should know all this. Saudi Arabia is a horrible country but
working with wallstreet they provide horribly overpriced oil and you rely on them.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? I'm talking about Afgahanistan and anywhere else where any terrorists or any affiliates of the terrorists that have attacked us are. If we're such terrorists, why don't we nuke them? Why bother losing men in our army?

I read plenty, thanks.

Again, this all goes to your definition of terror. you're a brit, right?

What about 100 years of British rule in India?
What about British occupation in Northern Ireland?
What about the British bombing French ships in North Africa in 1940?
What about when the British invaded Malaysia in 1960 when commies were trying to take over? Pretty similar to the US's involvement in Vietnam.

I digress.

What profoundly weak arguments....you have no evidence that the Afghans ever attacked you.

Do you think because I am English that I am going to defend British interests? Integrity doesn't work that way. I believe in integrity and nationalism seldom has that. I discard nationalism. I believe in truth and honesty and that's where I confuse the propagandists.

I'd like to continue discussing this, but lunch is nearly over..

All i will say, again, is that 'terror' is clearly open for interpretation. For example, if you think Libya was innocent, strange considering the reason we bombed them was because of THEIR terrorist attacks resulting in US deaths, then clearly you're speaking of something different than my definition of terror.

Look noone wants to hear that their 'Dad' is a dick and their government quite evil, but it's simply the truth about America. You have a media glossing over things, you have a weak academic core keeping it pretty, but seriously man, step outside the box and do some reading and it becomes quite interesting. Rather than be threatened by what I say, you should listen to it and do your own reading and then decide for yourself.

If you disagree after reading and thinking then fair enough, but don't get upset when you aren't even sure what you even know. That's just silly.

[Andre]

The way that you stated the question is pretty off, first of all. If we were the leading 'terror' state then why are my friends (these innocent people that you speak of) dying while fighting a war on foot. Why wouldn't we just nuke them? Or carpet bomb all of the innocent people? We'll kill plenty of terrorists and Al-Qaeda in the process, right? Just bomb them..

no..

There is plenty to be said with how America decides to settle politics with other countries, but leading terror? Are you kidding?

How is my question off? I am not talking about one particular war. I am talking about an accumulation of damage built up since WW2. Do your reading and then let's talk.

You aren't speaking rationally anyway. I'm not only talking of the obvious suspects which you are thinking of. Iraq and Afghanistan are the boring examples. But both are quite horrible. Iraq an illegal war built on lies. And Afghanistan which is a war built on finding the terror suspects, but then became a war about toppling the Taliban. Well, okay. Just get the story straight sometime.

Am I really kidding on leading terror though? In what way am I wrong? Name me another state that has America beat....

You're speaking of terror as killing innocent people. Believe me, I'm no super-patriot, and rarely ever defend my country in politics. If the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are partially responsible for the 9/11 disaster, then how are they innocent? What they did to us was an actor of terrorism. If we were car bombing their buildings in their towns or trying to hi-jack their hypothetical planes, then that would be consider an act of terrorism. If ANYTHING, we SUFFER from not killing innocent people because it is affecting us greatly. If we were such terrorists, as i said, why don't we just nuke all of afghanistan and kill all of the innocent people along with the wrong-doers. That's what they'd do to us if they could.

Don't get me wrong, terrorism from any side is evil and I don't condone it. But how did the Taliban cause 9-11? What evidence do you have of that?

Now how does this justify killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Now how does this justify the killing of even more Afghan people? That is terror and we don't even have the suspects. We went on the rampage without even an accurate target. We don't even know who we are aiming for.

Now you would justify the nuking of them instead? What, the same people that you don't have any evidence against? That makes you a nutter too. And they would do it to us if they could? Laughable really. We reap just what we sow. Where did 9-11 really come from? Possibly our own terrorists attacks which came back to haunt us. Stop being sensible miles!

Why don't you read what i typed?

I said if we were such terrorists, why wouldn't we just nuke them? How am I justifying nuking them in that question? Right, i'm not.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this if you think that if they had the capability to nuke us that they wouldn't. It's not like they hi-jacked four planes and killed 4,000 of our innocent people. Stop being sensible, RP!!

Nuking would be the start to the end of everything because they would all start going off in panic due to the impact over other countries boarders etc, we all know it; thats why we all dont go there. After the lasting horrific effects on Japans two cities which were only atom bombs, imagine the effects now and if we fire someone else fires back. We may as well pack up the planet in the old fire ball, no one wins anything then.

So the question is about government terror not government stupidity.

[Gandalf]

I don't even think it is a particularly contentious argument to make really. Being the leading power in the world doesn't really excuse the number of times the US has done things that no other nation (besides Israel) could get away with. When a country has the tremendous ability to do good, but instead wields that power to bully smaller nations and commit terrorist acts against civilians, well I think that is a shame. It's also sad when the major superpower dismisses the UN whenever it can't get it's own way. Of course, it can get its own way as it just ignores the UN. We have seen this again and again. Apparently the General Assembly once passed a resolution calling for the banning of all weapons in outer space. 154 nations supported the resolution, only America voted against this. Only a lunatic state would really want to build weapons in space. There are loads of resolutions such as this and it is curious to see who is usually against something. It's seldom the smaller, more eccentric countries.

[Andre]

I think most people think of terrorist activity as sneaking around in public bombing innocents with home made style devices.

The dictionaries have other ideas about the word terrorism and they seem to fit like a glove.

[Gandalf]

My definition of terrorism is the wanton slaughtering of civilians and it's quite clear that America does more of that than the rest of the worlds countries combined. If people want to excuse it by saying "the decision to go to war was just because the elite said it needed to be done". Well, that's a load of old horsepoo. Bigger fool the brainless shlups for being a bunch of indoctrinated servants to the power game.

Yeah, I totally agree. The best way to bring peace to Vietnam was to bomb entire villages of innocent people. That's an obvious instance of terror. 9-11 was another clear instance, but they are only terrorists when it's the other guys doing it to us. Yeah, right.