If the term terrorism is to subdue by causing fear &terror . Then is the USA and British Government Terrorists

Question

As we went to Iraq along side USA without any evidence for the reasons given, along side the movement into Afganistan and the USA interagation camps and distruction of villagge with woman and children(un-armed may i add) Are we in fact terrorist with more power??

The above question does not state my own personnel beliefs i am am writing an article and i wanted to see the thoughts on everyday people. So if i could request less of the insults and nastiness that would be great. Thank You

Answer 1

Currently, the term "terrorist" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Alternatively, or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism, and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces -- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the like.

In determining whether an act is "terrorist" or not, it would be more useful to eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead, utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving the application of force:

Expected result of the violence: Let's define a "terrorist" action as the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.

Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.

Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorist actions. Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorist actions.

Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.

Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.

While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.

Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. As with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied.

And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions, the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorist" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.

Moreover, by not allowing the use of the term "terrorist" to be used as an "argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's tactics.

At the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians will be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and would not be able to deny being terrorists because of the alleged validity of their goals.

All in all, then, these suggested definitions would tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope most people would welcome.

The USA & UK do not target innocent civilians. They target military targets. Also, they do not hide behind their women & children or in their places of worship or schools. Hopefully, this will point out some differences in the rules we play by & the rules the real terrorists play by. So, no, USA & UK are NOT terrorists. They are working to rid the world of terrorism so the world can be safe again.

Answer 2

Terrorism is most often considered as the use of armed force to effect political change. As the president of USA used the term "Shock and Awe" when sending in the United States Air Force to attack Iraq for the political reason of regime change (illegal in international law) then the term should be applied to USA.

Britain tried to duck the issue by going down the route of claiming weapons of mass destruction. As terrorism/terrorist were terms that the UN was unable to define, those terms can only be used by very loosely. Hans Blix has stated that he thought that Saddam Hussein had destroyed all his chemical biological weapons and stopped nuclear research some 10 years previously, the dodgy dossier question is no more than a fig leaf to circumvent your question. It would need to be tested in law, Tony Blair needs to be charged and tried to ascertain his guilt or innocence.
As the prime minister of Britain is not head of state he does not have immunity from prosecution.

We is a collective pronoun, we didn't authorise the use of armed force, some of us have always been against the actions of those in power on this issue.
Saddam was a despot who needed to to got rid of, the method used to depose him was illegal, Britain and the USA could be said to be a rouge states on those grounds. The term rouge State has been defined and should be applied.

Answer 3

1. Justifying torture is the act of a terrorist.

Repealing long held civil liberties - The Patriot Acts and the repleal of Magna Carta in the UK mean that we are ripe for despots to do what they will.

Holding prisoners without recourse to a court of justice is the act of a terrorist.

Do Bush and Blair do these things?

2. Lebanon was invaded by Israel with the collusion of Britain and the US - the Lebanese were expected to hit back - instead they locked their soldiers up in their barracks. So losing Israel the excuse it so desperately sought to justify taking over political and geographical control in Lebanon.

The so called WAR ON TERRORISM is a fiction. We are being manipulated and spun to. Divide and rule is still as true today as it was for Machiavelli.

Turning the other cheek - which is what Lebanon did, was the most intelligent thing of all.

Answer 4

Q : Why a gangster isn't stated as a terrorist ? A : because there is alot of huge difference interior the way they perform. A gangster kills in worry-free words that guy whom he evaluate as possible yet a terrorists can kill every person, everywhere. although a gangster also terrorizes human beings even if the folk do not ignore that he received't damage them in the journey that they don't damage him yet a terrorist can strike every person. Q : Why isn't a political candidate stated as a terrorist ? A : The time period baby-kisser itself potential a guy who's even risky than a terrorist, a guy who doesn't hearth even a unmarried bullet yet kills thousands of human beings. A terrorist can kill 20-30 human beings on the most yet many politicians have killed an complete community/village and maximum of them are nonetheless doing so. each and every MLA & MP receives crores for constituency progression yet the position it is going no man or woman knows that and this impacts thousands of human beings. Our us of a is a food surplus us of a yet politicians eat all that food themselves and thousands of human beings are starved to demise, farmers are compelled to commit suicide. So what i opt to assert is that a political candidate is a lot more beneficial risky than a terrorist and calling a political candidate as terrorist potential demotion of a political candidate. Infact i imagine that the most threatening terrorist (like Osama) should be provided the tag "baby-kisser"

Answer 5

a terrorist targets civillians, the military doesn't, the uk and us and NATO are targeting terrorists not civilians hence not terrorists, we are only over there because the terrorists and extremists wont refuse to stop bombing civilians, if they stopped terrorist activity we would have no excuse to be there - you don't need a peacekeeping force in a peaceful place (this is why the uk armed forces has pulled out of eire....as a direct result of muslim terrorism and thier absolute disgust at the level of destruction caused in 9/11 it says an awful lot that people as dedicated as the IRA say that's going too far we will put down our weapons), in response to ashley k a rouge state is red are you calling us communist, the russians are sending troops to lebannon to help rebuild bridges but are doing so outside of the UN force

Answer 6

No. The UK and The USA are not terrorists. You answered your own question. We do not want to cause fear and terror.

In addition to that, a common theme on terrorist definitions is they use civilian disguise and protection. They commonly use religion as a cover for their activities. They do not differentiate between combatants and civilians when determining targets.

Answer 7

Ignorance can be fatal. What part of this don't you understand?

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and Iran’s supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff’s remarks on Islam.



The Pope Must Die, Says Muslim

A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be “subject to capital punishment”.

His remarks came during a protest outside Westminster Cathedral on a day that worldwide anger among Muslim hardliners towards Pope Benedict XVI appeared to deepen.

Answer 8

so do we just let ourselves be blown up and do nothing are all the deaths caused by us, did we crash into the twin towers, do we insist that our god is the only god , i know i dont would you still feel the same way if your sister or brother or son or daughter was on a bus going to work had never harmed a soul but was killed any way for being in the wrong place at the wrong time if we have to fight fire with fire then sadly thats what we have to do i would never want to see harm done to women children or for that matter men who do you think would have been on the long haul flights to america during this summer soldiers or women and children think

Answer 9

Most definitely so, we are also bullies, preaching to the world ,'this is how it should be'. When Guantanamo Bay exists ! I wouldn't like to be Asian at this time God help them, being classed as a terrorist just because they come from a different background. Look at the recent 'war' between Arabs and Israelis, who did the superpowers back ? It's time they were taken to the Court of Human Rights for the atrocities they have caused. There isn't much difference between Saddam, Blair and Bush all are megalomaniacs.

Answer 10

We're intentionally terrorising the terrorists, so strictly, yes. But there's a hell of a difference between Al-Qaeda and what the US and Britain are doing. We are not intentionally targeting civilian and largely innocent populations and we have entirely different, and generally altruistic, goals.