To U.S. Empire Apologists: America Is A Terrorist State

[zinfamous]

Giggle.

Better education. Better healthcare. Greater overall happiness. Greater quality of life. Not currently run by Nazi sexual predators....OK, tell me how Denmark is so clearly not better than the US?

 

[twjr]

Yes OP, the US is crap, but Mother Russia’s the shit...amirite

Hmm where to start? How about New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Singapore, most of Europe, fuck I'd take parts of Mexico over the US.

Also I don't really see why there is so much angst about what the OP has posted. Much of the world has felt pretty poorly towards the US for decades. Most people in here (Australia) are getting pretty tired of our politicians sucking on the teat of Uncle Sam.

 

[greatnoob]

Hmm where to start? How about New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Singapore, most of Europe, fuck I'd take parts of Mexico over the US.

Also I don't really see why there is so much angst about what the OP has posted. Much of the world has felt pretty poorly towards the US for decades. Most people in here (Australia) are getting pretty tired of our politicians sucking on the teat of Uncle Sam.

Apart from Australia's healthcare everything else is shit. You can thank the LNP and their dumbfuck voters for the rampant corruption the coalition has transparently exposed us to.

 

[JSt0rm]

Hmm where to start? How about New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Singapore, most of Europe, fuck I'd take parts of Mexico over the US.

Also I don't really see why there is so much angst about what the OP has posted. Much of the world has felt pretty poorly towards the US for decades. Most people in here (Australia) are getting pretty tired of our politicians sucking on the teat of Uncle Sam.

the op is a trumptard russian propagandist. Thats reason enough to kill more people around the world as murica fuck yeah.

 

[Jaskalas]

Honestly, most other countries are either too small (poor) or too busy killing each other to have the time and resources to kill others. Our wealth gave us the gravitas to pull out weight around. We have enough peace and stability at home (post-Civil War) to focus on the world, especially after WW2 lit a fire under our arses. We were hopefully slowing down / showing signs of stopping... until September 11th hit.

The capacity to be hit scared the !@#$ out of many millions who believed it impossible. So their answer is to support the war machine. For a while I was right there on board that bandwagon. Then the WMD lie became overwhelming, and our stagnation overseas became too costly. I recognized there was sacrifice without cause. I oppose it.

In 2008 Americans elected someone who claimed to oppose it. Then he handed the reigns of foreign policy over to those who'd continue with further regime change. Go figure. Despite protest, both parties are party to the war machine. To causing new atrocities in our name.

Having stated that, what are we to do about it?

 

[feralkid]

Definitely there are issues to be confronted in regard to OP's pasted article.

The trouble is, it's all rage and offers no hope at all.

Not helpful in any practical way.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The USA is the shaft, the British Empire's the testicles.

bollocks

 

[FIVR]

America was a terrorist state.



Now we are a Russian client state and a stooge for world peace. We haven't started a single war since Putin took control of things and we are in the process of pulling out of Syria right now.

 

[twjr]

Apart from Australia's healthcare everything else is shit. You can thank the LNP and their dumbfuck voters for the rampant corruption the coalition has transparently exposed us to.

I know right. If the libs had their way they'd fuck the healthcare here too. At least with the citizenship crisis we might get to vote them out sooner than 2019.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Okay, now that we've accomplished that, what's the next troll topic?

stop doing them?

 

[Paratus]

Dare I ask why, after almost exactly 1 year of random posts throughout various portions of this message board, you've started to astroturf and shitpost your way across P&N like, just today?

Looks like it’s time to break out this gif again

 

[bradly1101]

I don't want to get involved except to say that in a thread about "American terrorism," we shouldn't forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, all places where we targeted civilians to try and force political change - the very definition of terrorism. The real question to me is, have we learned anything?

 

[Greenman]

I don't want to get involved except to say that in a thread about "American terrorism," we shouldn't forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, all places where we targeted civilians to try and force political change - the very definition of terrorism. The real question to me is, have we learned anything?

The issue with your first example is that it was war against an aggressor nation that vowed to fight to the last man. A war that the US didn't start. Bombing Japan wasn't terrorism, it was winning.

 

[MajinCry]

The issue with your first example is that it was war against an aggressor nation that vowed to fight to the last man. A war that the US didn't start. Bombing Japan wasn't terrorism, it was winning.

So it's not terrorism when it's successful? Gee, how morally white. What next, the Bay Of Pigs taught the Cubans some discipline?

 

[bradly1101]

The issue with your first example is that it was war against an aggressor nation that vowed to fight to the last man. A war that the US didn't start. Bombing Japan wasn't terrorism, it was winning.

So our faith in their words led to civilian decimation? I guess that seems likely given ISIS's (et. al.) vows and the civilians lost in the Middle East and Africa. An eye for an eye. But Japan focused on our military and never successfully attacked American civilians, except one family.

"Nearly 350 of the bombs actually made it across the Pacific, and several were intercepted or shot down by the U.S. military. From 1944 to 1945, balloon bombs were spotted in more than 15 states—some as far east as Michigan and Iowa. The only fatalities came from a single incident in Oregon, where a pregnant woman and five children were killed in an explosion after coming across one of the downed balloons. Their deaths are considered the only combat casualties to occur on U.S. soil during World War II."

 

[WelshBloke]

The issue with your first example is that it was war against an aggressor nation that vowed to fight to the last man. A war that the US didn't start. Bombing Japan wasn't terrorism, it was winning.

Ignoring the moral side of it, those bombs were dropped specifically with the intent of terrifying the Japanese people and government into surrendering. Targeting civilians with the intent to terrify them into gaining your political aims seems pretty much the definition of terrorism.

 

[pmv]

Ignoring the moral side of it, those bombs were dropped specifically with the intent of terrifying the Japanese people and government into surrendering. Targeting civilians with the intent to terrify them into gaining your political aims seems pretty much the definition of terrorism.

I've always thought that to be the case. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were surely the greatest acts of terrorism the world has ever seen.

But in saying that I'm not, actually, saying I'm certain it was wrong to drop the bomb. There is absolutely an argument that doing so saved more lives than it cost. Which maybe illustrates the most disturbing thing about terrorism - that it sometimes works.

 

[WelshBloke]

I've always thought that to be the case. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were surely the greatest acts of terrorism the world has ever seen.

But in saying that I'm not, actually, saying I'm certain it was wrong to drop the bomb. There is absolutely an argument that doing so saved more lives than it cost. Which maybe illustrates the most disturbing thing about terrorism - that it sometimes works.

I agree. The "T" word is so loaded as to have become useless.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't want to get involved except to say that in a thread about "American terrorism," we shouldn't forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, all places where we targeted civilians to try and force political change - the very definition of terrorism. The real question to me is, have we learned anything?

Precision bombs did not exist. You dropped dumb bombs from high altitude and preyed that they hit their target. Your argument appears to be predicated on some fantasy that there were options, that war could be fought cleanly. Even today such things are only afforded by our wealth and advantage. And they have their limitations.

Look at Aleppo. Look at Raqqa. The cities are bombed out husks. That is the ultimate fate of everything in combat.

 

[bradly1101]

Precision bombs did not exist. You dropped dumb bombs from high altitude and preyed that they hit their target. Your argument appears to be predicated on some fantasy that there were options, that war could be fought cleanly. Even today such things are only afforded by our wealth and advantage. And they have their limitations.

Look at Aleppo. Look at Raqqa. The cities are bombed out husks. That is the ultimate fate of everything in combat.

And Mosul and...

From another thread: "We also have this bizarre strategy to drop leaflets from planes warning civilians to get out of the city (many obviously find this very difficult, and it gives a heads up to the enemy to leave and regroup), then we decimate the city, call it unlivable, and therefore declare victory. That's a win? I know it's great for the bomb/plane makers, but we're leaving whole regions in ruins."

The main difference I see is that we didn't [edit: sufficiently] warn the residents in those three cities in WW2, edit: and we failed in our approach to get civilians to evacuate in Japan [I'm sorry I'm not up on all the details, but it's obvious to me what doesn't work as "intended" (IMO)]. We say now that we don't target civilians, claiming limited casualties. But that's incorrect on both counts; Snowden's leak of our helicopter gunship taking out civilians was our first modern confirmation - we shot men with guns in a country where we destroyed security so much they felt they needed guns. Initially there was hesitation, but the command came down, "C'mon fire!" I highly doubt that that was the only time. The images of children killed in the Shock and Awe campaign that Iraq was trying to get out there were not comforting like all the spectacular, national ego-pumping explosions. Do we believe that the military believes that all civilians are out of a city we lay waste to? Why is the military misinforming us on civilian casualties by a factor of 31? Are they afraid of declining support like the civilian atrocities in Viet Nam caused?

I know many feel that civilian casualties are just the cost of war. Do they feel the same way when towers fall and people get run over or shot in this country by foreign terrorists who may emulate our behavior, use it as a rallying cry, a case for jihad?

Edit: corrected Snowden

 

[bradly1101]

To remind; I love this country, just not all the actions of her military/industrial complex and her government. I understand the modern needs of a bordered society.

 

[bradly1101]

History has its spin and its axioms. One is, big guys always win - unless they fight each other, then there's losing all around. I grew up in the 1960's. War was talked about. Reporters were in war zones, and it was always on the nightly news - casualty numbers from all sides, the destruction. We look away now, trusting that our might will keep us safe.

The U.S. has spent close to $8T on the military and homeland security since 9-11. Break just a quarter of that down into tuition, healthcare, advancement. I don't presume to propose a solution, except to say that I wish I had a time-machine to go back to 1917 and somehow stop the British and French from starting to draw lines in the sand where there weren't any.

 

[bradly1101]

I've always thought that to be the case. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were surely the greatest acts of terrorism the world has ever seen.

But in saying that I'm not, actually, saying I'm certain it was wrong to drop the bomb. There is absolutely an argument that doing so saved more lives than it cost. Which maybe illustrates the most disturbing thing about terrorism - that it sometimes works.

Way to put it in perspective. I lean to thinking that had we not dropped those bombs we would have learned that the speed of war's end would not have outweighed civilian casualties on both sides. Civilian casualties shouldn't be weighed against military casualties in a war (IMO).

 

[sdifox]

I don't want to get involved except to say that in a thread about "American terrorism," we shouldn't forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, all places where we targeted civilians to try and force political change - the very definition of terrorism. The real question to me is, have we learned anything?

Well it was war and the usaf did drop millions of leaflets warning of possible massive mombing incoming. Not really terrorism.

It was used to induce a surrender from the Japanese military. An incation campaign of Japanese home islands would have led to even more deaths.

 

[bradly1101]

Well it was war and the usaf did drop millions of leaflets warning of possible massive mombing incoming. Not really terrorism.

It was used to induce a surrender from the Japanese military. An incation campaign of Japanese home islands would have led to even more deaths.

Enough leaflets?

"Through much of World War II, Allied bombers would sometimes drop leaflets warning of impending bombing of a city. The leaflets often told civilians to evacuate, and sometimes encouraged them to push their leaders to surrender. In August 1945, leaflets were dropped on several Japanese cities (including, supposedly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The first round, known as the "LeMay leaflets," were distributed before the bombing of Hiroshima. These leaflets did not directly reference the atomic bomb, and it is unclear whether they were used to warn citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically. The second round features a picture of a mushroom cloud and a message about the Soviet invasion (which commenced on August 9). The historical record is unclear, but it seems as though these leaflets did not make it to Nagasaki until after it, too, had been hit by an atomic bomb. Later leaflets informed the Japanese populace about their government's surrender before the emperor's official announcement."