Is America the leading terror state in the world today?

[Gandalf]

I said I wouldn't start any controversial threads for a while and I have held to that. But you know, this one doesn't feel particularly controversial to me and I am curious to see the reactions, votes and opinions of others.

The U.S has attacked numerous countries either directly or indirectly over the years since WW2. Often these attacks have been blamed on so called alliances with communism or human rights violations, but what most of these incursions boil down to is a resistance to existing US economic concerns. Namely, are you open to our business models and interests or not? If not, then we want you out. And that has been the way over the years. The US has used force to invade countries ie. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan or else used indirect methods to force regime change (or try to force regime change) in countries such as in Italy, Haiti and Cuba. I could obviously list at least another dozen or so countries in my examples.

So my basic question, is America the leading terror state in the world today?

[Gandalf]

And you could say "What is terror?". Well, terror is obviously the random killing of innocent people for no good reason. This can be caused either directly through bombing or indirectly through nonsensical sanctions brought about because you happen to have a lot of influence and want a certain type of revenge.

[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?

[RP33]

This is slightly off topic, but still an interesting map to look at.


Rankings & Results

[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....

[Gandalf]

Quite a few civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq BTW.

Now you want to talk about your map. Okay, let's pick a country and see where America was involved at some point in the history. Now accumulate the countries together and check the US involvement and check where that gets you and then you get a true picture of terror in the world today.

Is America not lurking near the top?

[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.

[RP33]

Quite a few civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq BTW.

Now you want to talk about your map. Okay, let's pick a country and see where America was involved at some point in the history. Now accumulate the countries together and check the US involvement and check where that gets you and then you get a true picture of terror in the world today.

Is America not lurking near the top?

This is what i mean by the interpretation of 'terror' being off. As i said in my first post, there is plenty to be said about how America deals with international affairs that i don't agree with, but a leader in terror they are not.

Of COURSE there will be civilians killed in afghanistan and Iraq due to the war, but that is not the intent. The fight is not with the civilians. That's nearly grasping at straws. Especially when they will sacrifice innocent civilians to attack our troops by trying to lure them into a trap or ambush. If you were in their shoes, i'm sure you would be very trustworthy to the civilians after you've seen other people that you're fighting with, killed by a 'civilian'.

[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!

[Gandalf]

Quite a few civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq BTW.

Now you want to talk about your map. Okay, let's pick a country and see where America was involved at some point in the history. Now accumulate the countries together and check the US involvement and check where that gets you and then you get a true picture of terror in the world today.

Is America not lurking near the top?

This is what i mean by the interpretation of 'terror' being off. As i said in my first post, there is plenty to be said about how America deals with international affairs that i don't agree with, but a leader in terror they are not.

Of COURSE there will be civilians killed in afghanistan and Iraq due to the war, but that is not the intent. The fight is not with the civilians. That's nearly grasping at straws. Especially when they will sacrifice innocent civilians to attack our troops by trying to lure them into a trap or ambush. If you were in their shoes, i'm sure you would be very trustworthy to the civilians after you've seen other people that you're fighting with, killed by a 'civilian'.

Okay so how do you explain Vietnam. Village after village smoked. Terrorism.

[Kel]

100%

[Gandalf]

The bombing of Cambodia from 1969-1975

[Gandalf]

The starving of Cuba 1959-present day

[Gandalf]

Support of Saudi Arabia through thick and thin. S.A = a lovely nation obviously.

[Gandalf]

Support of Israel who worked on illegal arms deals with 3rd world nations to divert the eye off America. Israel never breaks international law. Obviously.