When one looks at the number of civilians murdered by the US military around the world it is far greater than Al Qaeda. Civilians are regularly being shot and bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US continues to possess WMD (illegal and immoral). The US props up human rights abusing regimes and uses torture. It is happy to kill civilians to achieve a goal. Isn't this terror? Or are Iraqi victims of US bombs just collateral damage?
2007-12-01 15:07:11 · 7 answers · asked by Hidup 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I aggree entirely.. If it were not for American foreign policy there would be no terror
2007-12-01 15:16:59 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is a difference between deliberately targeting defenseless civilians rather than military targets (terrorism) and civilians dying in the crossfire (collateral damage.) In the latter case, the intention is to reduce the threat to civilians by reducing the number of those who target them.
When US soldiers are caught committing crimes, they are punished. Not so with terrorist regimes.
I don't know what illegal weapons the US is using; they are not using WMD, though of course nuclear weapons are in this category and the US possesses them.
The US is allied with some unsavory regimes, but that can't be helped. We decide on our alliances based on what is the best option. We can't always have the perfect option.
2007-12-01 16:00:47 · answer #2 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pakistan is 50/50. There are some that'll extremely area with US and rip financial reward. whilst on the different hand, some might extremely domicile and terrorists. My considerable subject with Pakistan is that's poking of India, we've seen this for some years and the entire time India is asked to restrain itself. that's greater effective nonetheless this way no nuclear substitute surfaces. As for Saudi, they're 2 confronted and the hollow between the oil prosperous rulers and the elementary citizen is 'oh my', not basically that yet so is their thought human beings. each year thousands and thousands of dollars from witin Saudi fund terrorists in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc yet they hug Bush and pump greater oil while the international starts off whining approximately severe expenditures. This s*** is so complicated, and that i'm no genius.
2016-11-13 05:25:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hypocritical supporters of Terrorism yes. Good way to stop terror separate Greed from Church and State. Bush and co. say they are religious Greed is their religion. Set up Church for people who believe in Greed not God . Separate Greed from God ,Church,and State.Greed is a powerfull religion of Humanity it should be made separate from it by law. It cannot be wished away only placed in full view under control outside politics.This approach could be made anwhere and none have to die. Will help reduce hatred ,ill will.
2007-12-01 16:07:03 · answer #4 · answered by darren m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference I always looked at is, who are the INTENDED targets? Al Quaeda hit who they were aiming at, making them competent terrorists. US generally goes after armed enemy combatants but misses much of the time. Not sure I like that either, but the difference is there -- just like between marriage and prostitution...
2007-12-01 15:17:33 · answer #5 · answered by baystreet690 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the US is not a terrorist country unless terrorists decide
to attack the US...then the US will strike TERROR to
their tail....ask Bin Laden and Omar...if you can get close enough to ask them!
2007-12-01 17:17:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A terrorist state? The US is only a state now? How long did you stay in school?
2007-12-01 15:22:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋