Perhaps. It would be a toss-up between the U.S., Israel or the U.K.
2006-07-26 09:58:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doc Holiday 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
I agree with john_stolworthy. History is always written by the victor. Had Hitler won WWII, he surely would have compiled crimes committed by the Allies. Similarly, the American definition of the Iraqi Resistance as an Insurgency comes from an American point of view, just as The French were the Resistance in WWII for the Allies and Terrorists for the Germans. Because the US favors unjustified WAR, it favors TERROR, therefore making it a terrorist organization.
2006-07-26 17:29:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Shivers 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Terrorists deliberatly try to kill innocent people. The USA is trying to kill those people who, again, DELIBERATLY target innocent civilians. Just because there is collateral damage doesn't mean a government is evil. In World War II, the Allies deliberately targeted German and Japanese cities, but were judged to be the "good guys". War is complicated like that, but you seem to agree with a far-left view that bush is hitler, by asking whether a country like the USA is a terrorist organization...
2006-07-26 17:20:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by trancevanbuuren 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you think the answer to your question is yes, then you have my sympathy.
America has a way of life that millions of others desire. We provide more aid to other countries than any other country in the world. Countries that we have saved from disaster today even hate us because after we provide aid, they then say we have too much influence in their lives.
The Muslims hate us in the Middle East, but they sure as hell liked our dollars when we buy their oil.
If I'm a bully and I hit you, then, you hit me back, are you a bully too?
I honor your right to ask the question you asked, but if you don't know the answer, then like I said, you have my sympathy.
TX Guy
2006-07-26 18:59:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by txguy8800 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'll use the U.S. FBI's definition of terrorism: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Following the FBI definition, our government has repeatedly, in country after country, used "force or violence" "unlawfully," "to intimidate or coerce a government, [a] civilian population, or [a] segment thereof," in order to achieve "political or social objectives."
Some examples:
In 1981, the CIA began to organize the "Contras"  many of whom had already received training from the U.S. military as members of the Somozas' National Guardsmen  to overthrow the progressive Sandanista government. In other words: the CIA "harbored," recruited, armed and trained the Contras, in order to "coerce" and overthrow a government, and terrorize a people, through violent means ("in furtherance of political [and] social objectives").
An even better example, the 1986 U.S. bombing of Libya, is listed by the UN's Committee on the Legal Definition of Terrorism as a "classic case" of terrorism  on a short list that includes the bombing of PAN AM 103, the first attempt made on the World Trade Center, and the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.
I guess your definition of terrorism is depends upon which side of the gun barrel you are on.
.
2006-07-26 16:55:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by john_stolworthy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, China and Russia are bigger and supply weapons to both sides.
2006-07-26 17:04:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by RockHunter 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you the biggest idiot in the world?
Survey says!
"Yes!"
2006-07-26 17:10:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Old Money 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No...the EU is
2006-07-26 16:57:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by rsist34 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't be silly!
2006-07-26 16:53:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yep.............
2006-07-26 16:57:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Peace 4
·
0⤊
0⤋