The debate "America takes 1 million lives Iraq for a oil but world is silence and called not terrorism" was started by
October 15, 2015, 2:35 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Anas posted 2 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Hitmenjr posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, ylmzemrah posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Anas, Triz, xander1965, historybuff, Gauravsharma, srishti_pinkleaves, ISI, Spy, Ghauri, Sunni, zoeclare7 and 9 visitors agree.
bigB, Hitmenjr, Sosocratese, dominanter, AstroSpace, Sumerian, wayneSPEC, ylmzemrah and 7 visitors disagree.
Sosocrates first of all tell me your Religion & Nationality?
You usually make way better arguments than this. Let me go through why it's not a good argument.
Using the threat of terrorism to implement policy is not terrorism. It's a result of terrorism. It's terrorism working. That's why it's a valid tactic. By your definition, the NRA are terrorists because they use fear to further the pro gun agenda. Terrorism is the use of violence to coerce a population, not the threat of outside violence. You can easily make the case that such policy is ill thought out, is not necessary, etc... But it's not terrorism.
Now, you can charge the US with a lot of wrong doing, and you can even charge them with using terrorism in the past. World War 2 was a complete terror campaign. We bombed civilian targets in order to break the populous and have them pressure their government into surrender (Dresden fire bombings, carpet bombings, etc..) . That is, however, not what happened in Iraq. Collateral damage is not the same as intentionally bombing the civilian population in order to coerce the government. I think it's very clear that the US tried to hit strategic targets and avoid civilian casualties, and at the very least didn't intentionally bomb civilian targets with little or no strategic value. You can make the case that the US is imperialistic, commits war crimes, etc... But terrorism, in this conflict, is just not a charge you can pin on the US.
the first definition. using violence to intimidate a civilian population. the population they're intimidating is both Arabs and Americans. by telling them there are terrorists everywhere so you need to vote for us. we need more government power. they are using violence to coerce their own population.
The big portion of the definition for terrorism that the US does not it is:
The use of violence or endanger human lives which are against the law used to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Now, the Iraq war is a legal gray area, but the intent of the war can hardly be said to be for the purpose of coercing the public to influence government. The US abolished the government. That's a violent overthrow not terrorism.
the definition is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political goals". I would say that fits American activities all over the world. using bombings, torture, and occupation to achieve their own goals. since they had no genuine reason to attack Iraq, I would say it was entirely political.
While the US invasion of Iraq was tragic and brought about grave consequences, it fails to meet the definition of terrorism. You can make the case that the US committed war crimes. That would be a relatively easy case to make however, how do you figure that the US committed terrorist acts?
You are talking of the Persian golf war correct?