Is the United States a terrorist organization?
- Thread starter GottaBigOne
- Start date
headbang8
Admired Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Posts
- 1,628
- Media
- 12
- Likes
- 821
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
- Sexuality
- 80% Gay, 20% Straight
- Gender
- Male
A moral dilemma, indeed. One that troubles me as a resident of Japan for some four years now, with a Japanese spouse.
I love and respect my Japanese friends and neighbours very much. But there can be no doubt that their ancestors (and in some cases, they themselves) were party to atrocity.
Look at Japanese colonialism in China, the treatment of POWs, the grim exploitation of Korean workers, and Pearl Harbour itself. Leaving aside the question of whether these fit the definition of "terrorism", Japan inflicted brutal and unjust treatment on anyone in its way for much of the first half of last century. The regime justified many cases--including Pearl Harbour--as "pre-emptive strikes". In truth, they were gross criminal acts, and if citizens of the nation which perpetrated them knew of, and condoned, these crimes, it could be argued that they deserved the same fate as their victims in Nanjing or Changi.
Yet, at the same time, I have a good deal of trouble characterising my friends and neighbours as criminals, or even criminal stock.
To visit the museums of Hiroshima sobers any gung-ho war buff; they tell a story of people innocent of the larger affairs of state, robbed of their simple ambition to live a modest, dignified life. A colleague in his early sixties limps from a wartime childhood spent fighting polio.
A slightly older colleague weeps when recalling his first contact with the occupation forces. Well-meaning GIs decided to hold a Christmas party for the children near their base who had lost their fathers in the war. Most of these kids arrived confused and upset; why did the soldiers, viewed (understandably) as destroyers of their family, want them to come into their compound? Would they be killed, too? When the children tasted Coca-Cola for the first time in their lives, they thought they were being poisoned.
The biggest and oldest of the kids, my colleague was asked to play Santa. The costume horrified him; red and white have deep cultural and religious significance for Japanese--they're the national colours, colours of patriotic celebration. To make these colours into what looked like a clown's outfit made a mockery, he felt. Rather like forcing a Christian woman to wear a hijab and expecting her to be happy about it because it's red, white and blue.
All a misunderstanding, to be sure. But that didn't make it any less miserable, frightening, or insulting for the kids.
Yet, this colleague harbours no resentment, however sad it makes him. Why?
Because the Japanese were, and still are, ashamed. Each individual took part in the war effort in some way. As citizens, they were directly responsible for supporting those who waged war; they took the blame and bore the suffering.
Until the end, they felt the war was justified. The emperor told them so, and he's descended from a god--the Pacific war was actually a religious crusade. When the emperor renounced his divine status (on MacArthur's instructions), they were no longer morally in the right. So they had to pay for their sins--for without divine blessing these acts instantly became sins rather than noble deeds. Everyone who put his faith in this false god was culpable. The death, hardship and privation they suffered--and the enormous hard work they endured to rebuild the country--was in the name of justice.
Visiting Hiroshima today, one feels great sadness and regret from the Japanese who tell their stories, but no anger with their fate at the hands of the Americans. Tellingly, the site is dedicated to peace .
If the nations of the west are someday revealed to be morally culpable in any of our acts in the War Against Terrorism, will we individual citizens be so willing to hold ourselves responsible?
Food for thought.
hb8
P.S. The 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb is coming up.
Not likely, hb8. The key word is "individual," which is an important part of western culture, while Japan's culture has been built largely upon the "group."
For example (don't take literally), had the emperor, when he still held the status of a god, sent forth an edict that his people were as lemmings and must prove their loyalty by throwing themselves from a high perch, we can imagine the tragedy.
However, if the president of the U.S. were to do the same, there'd be a sudden surge of committee meetings, ad hoc groups, demonstrations and calls for his impeachment from both sides of the aisle.
gwinea2000...
I think you would have a difficult time convincing me that the Native Americans enjoyed being raped, tortured, pillaged, and killed to secure lands for the westward expansion of the settlers. It is probable that they moved out of reach of the white settlers to avoid all of the above plus starvation.
Were these actions supported by the national and state governments? Oh yea.
Would these acts fit the modern definition of state terrorism ala Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia? Without a doubt.
Even Dubya recognizes that there are terrorist groups and terrorist states.
jay
I think you would have a difficult time convincing me that the Native Americans enjoyed being raped, tortured, pillaged, and killed to secure lands for the westward expansion of the settlers. It is probable that they moved out of reach of the white settlers to avoid all of the above plus starvation.
Were these actions supported by the national and state governments? Oh yea.
Would these acts fit the modern definition of state terrorism ala Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia? Without a doubt.
Even Dubya recognizes that there are terrorist groups and terrorist states.
jay
madame_zora
Sexy Member
- jonb,
This last election went horribly for Indians. Daschle's out, Bush is still in, Coburn's in, Campbell resigned . . . On the plus side, Means didn't make it on Pine Ridge.
I honestly miss the days of Dick Wilson. At least Nixon did something for Indians, something I can't say about any Republican POTUS since.
Oh, good news, Jana: The Dems might not be willing to investigate Ohio voter fraud, but the Greens and Libertarians are. And if it turns out there was some hanky panky going on, even Kerry's concession speech won't keep Bush in the White House.
I honestly miss the days of Dick Wilson. At least Nixon did something for Indians, something I can't say about any Republican POTUS since.
Oh, good news, Jana: The Dems might not be willing to investigate Ohio voter fraud, but the Greens and Libertarians are. And if it turns out there was some hanky panky going on, even Kerry's concession speech won't keep Bush in the White House.
gwinea2000: Hey Jay_too, why don't you point out where I tried to convince you that the "Native Americans enjoyed being raped, tortured, pillaged, and killed to secure lands for the westward expansion of the settlers"?
You and jonb either didn't read what I posted or are just too dense to grasp it. I wasn't condoning or justifying ANY of the atrocities being discussed. I was simply stating my understanding of what 'terrorism' is.
Calling me a 'bushie'? Woohoo. Ouch. Really hurt, especially coming from someone as nonpartisan as yourself. But you know what? Considering the fact that I didn't vote for him, I'll probably get over it relatively quickly...
You and jonb either didn't read what I posted or are just too dense to grasp it. I wasn't condoning or justifying ANY of the atrocities being discussed. I was simply stating my understanding of what 'terrorism' is.
Calling me a 'bushie'? Woohoo. Ouch. Really hurt, especially coming from someone as nonpartisan as yourself. But you know what? Considering the fact that I didn't vote for him, I'll probably get over it relatively quickly...
gwinea2000..
I did not mend to offend, but perhaps, to point out that terrorism is not limited to throwing bombs. Rape, pillaging, torture, and killing are other instruments of torture as were the social and political discrimination laws against the Jews, the Gypsies, Gays, Communists, etc. in Nazi Germany or the witholding of foodstuffs thereby using death by starvation [Stalin is reported to have killed in excess of 20,000,000 Russians using this method.]
Probably, a more general meaning of terrorism includes those acts and policies that make persons and societies insecure and fearful and/or to demonstrate that the government is unable to protect or take effective action against the terrorists or in the other case, government policies or actions seek to destabilize existing social and political norms in order to achieve objectives.
Check out Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarism or any of her other books.
jay
I did not mend to offend, but perhaps, to point out that terrorism is not limited to throwing bombs. Rape, pillaging, torture, and killing are other instruments of torture as were the social and political discrimination laws against the Jews, the Gypsies, Gays, Communists, etc. in Nazi Germany or the witholding of foodstuffs thereby using death by starvation [Stalin is reported to have killed in excess of 20,000,000 Russians using this method.]
Probably, a more general meaning of terrorism includes those acts and policies that make persons and societies insecure and fearful and/or to demonstrate that the government is unable to protect or take effective action against the terrorists or in the other case, government policies or actions seek to destabilize existing social and political norms in order to achieve objectives.
Check out Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarism or any of her other books.
jay
gwinea2000:
Hey Jay,
No harm, no foul. More than anything, I was frustrated by the name-calling which seems to permeate these types of threads (not by you.)
However, I still think you're missing my point. I don't consider Hitler, or Stalin, or Teddy Roosevelt, or (insert_infamous_despot_here) to be terrorists. I consider them to be various shades of tyrannical, evil, bigoted, oppressive, imperialistic, etc.
As I tried to explain before, these men did not use the incitement of terror as the primary means to their desired end. Terror WAS certainly induced as a biproduct of their actions. But their actions were meant to achieve something other than terror (land acquisition, destruction of enemy resources/troops, etc.) Since 'terror' is a biproduct, I'll consider them to be 'terrorists' with a small 't.'
In contrast, a 'Terrorist' would be one who uses the vivification of terror as his chief tool. Fear is weapon #1. The acts used to animate this fear are 'acts of terror.' For example: A guy straps himself with explosives and takes out a bus-full of civilians as well as a few passers-by. What has his faction gained by this action? The acknowledgement of their ruthlessness. With this comes a certain power, a certain voice. Case in point? bin Laden. He has a voice because he instills fear in the hearts of his targets. The inducement of 'terror' is his ONLY weapon. Thus, he is a terrorist.
Do I still make no sense. I don't care if you agree or not, but jwant to make sure I'm communicating my definition adequately.
Hey Jay,
No harm, no foul. More than anything, I was frustrated by the name-calling which seems to permeate these types of threads (not by you.)
However, I still think you're missing my point. I don't consider Hitler, or Stalin, or Teddy Roosevelt, or (insert_infamous_despot_here) to be terrorists. I consider them to be various shades of tyrannical, evil, bigoted, oppressive, imperialistic, etc.
As I tried to explain before, these men did not use the incitement of terror as the primary means to their desired end. Terror WAS certainly induced as a biproduct of their actions. But their actions were meant to achieve something other than terror (land acquisition, destruction of enemy resources/troops, etc.) Since 'terror' is a biproduct, I'll consider them to be 'terrorists' with a small 't.'
In contrast, a 'Terrorist' would be one who uses the vivification of terror as his chief tool. Fear is weapon #1. The acts used to animate this fear are 'acts of terror.' For example: A guy straps himself with explosives and takes out a bus-full of civilians as well as a few passers-by. What has his faction gained by this action? The acknowledgement of their ruthlessness. With this comes a certain power, a certain voice. Case in point? bin Laden. He has a voice because he instills fear in the hearts of his targets. The inducement of 'terror' is his ONLY weapon. Thus, he is a terrorist.
Do I still make no sense. I don't care if you agree or not, but jwant to make sure I'm communicating my definition adequately.
gwinea2000: Well, my point isn't to make light of their evils. It's to allow a differentiation between a tyrannical leader (Hitler, Stalin) and someone who lurks in the shadows and seeks to incite terror.
Whether or not the word was invented as a descriptor of corrupt government is secondary to the fact that, today, the word almost always has a different connotation. Words are nothing more than the interpretated meaning of the listener/reader. There are many other words which would make a much more apt precedent to name's like Hitler and Stalin than 'terrorist' would. However, there isn't a finer tag in the English lexicon for bin Laden et al than 'terrorist.'
bin Laden and Hitler are not the same. Both evil, but not the same. There's no reason they should be labeled as such.
Whether or not the word was invented as a descriptor of corrupt government is secondary to the fact that, today, the word almost always has a different connotation. Words are nothing more than the interpretated meaning of the listener/reader. There are many other words which would make a much more apt precedent to name's like Hitler and Stalin than 'terrorist' would. However, there isn't a finer tag in the English lexicon for bin Laden et al than 'terrorist.'
bin Laden and Hitler are not the same. Both evil, but not the same. There's no reason they should be labeled as such.
Dude..
For Hitler and Stalin, terror was both the basis of their seizure of power and the way they maintained it. Both spoke of the politics of terror. Fear and reprisal are the reasons that ordinary citizens did not step forward and stop the abuses of the state. Both preached the idea of guilt by association. In Russia in the 1920s and 1930s, 20,000,000 to 50,000,000 people died of starvation. Not because there were limited foodstuffs but because Stalin wished to demonstrate his ruthlessness. Watching your family die one by one has got to be one of the most ruthless forms of terror. One would be eaten by fear, hunger, guilt, and self-loathing for allowing such a thing to happen to loved ones.
Hannah Arendt was a survivor of the camps and later a professor at the U. of Chicago. In her decades of study and thought on totalitarian states, she concluded that terror was their basis. AND the first step totalitarianism was to create a second class citizenship, a group to hate, to blame, and to use as scapegoats.
I do care about what/how you think about this issue. Why? Well, this is an important issue for the 21st Century where intolerance, second class citizenship, and diversity are disrupting our society.
jay
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Very well put, Jay. If Hitler and Stalin were not terrorists, then the word has no meaning. Of course their main weapons were fear and hatred, that was their whole marketing campaign. Much like Bin Laden convincing his people that Americans are evil and must be stopped, Hitler said the same about the Jews to justify their dessamation. Why did the people go along with it? Fear and brainwashing, just like what's happening here right now. The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is an eerie read right now too.
Hi all
For once may I be controversial?
It seems to me that our country with the UK is the world's policeman in various parts of the world and is engaging in tasks it is for the ineffectice United Nations to complete. For this reason alone I initially thought it right to bring our servicemen and servicewomen home from Iraq.
But I went onto think that the world is full of terrorists who threaten our country and that it is right to take the fight to them as they have already brought the fight to us.
I love all people regardless of age, religion, color, sex, sexual preference etc. I believe that everyone has the right to live peacefully. While I deplore war I also believe we have the right to fight for peace when the peace of the world is threatened. And I don't mean peace solely at home I mean peace throughout the world including peace for the innocent Iraqi people.
I deplore that so many servicemen and servicewomen have died in Iraq in the cause of peace. But peace has its price and it is the ultimate price some of our servicemen and servicewomen have paid. I for one will forever be in their debt. War is terrible but when it takes place in order that we can be safe at home I think it is justified. So no I don't think the US or UK are terrorist countries or that our servicemen and servicewomen are terrorists.
To drop nuclear bombs on Iraq could in my view be a terrorist act because many innocent Iraqi people would be killed. But if matters were to get worse in Iraq to the point that the war needs to be brought to a speedy and successful conclusion (like in Japan) it might be possible to justify the dropping of such bombs on the basis that the lives of many servicemen, servicewomen and innocent Iraqi people might be saved.
You might conclude that I have supported Bush since the start of the war in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bush should have got the full support of the United Nations before authorising our servicemen and servicewomen to take up arms in Iraq. But no one can turn the clock back. We are where we are. I just hope and pray that peace can be obtained quickly and that our servicemen and servicewomen can come home soon.
I'm a 25 year old guy with a great job, great girlfriend and a great life to look forward to. I love God, I love my country. I think the time may shortly come when my country asks me to give something back by joining US forces. Yes, I'm scared, who wouldn't be? But I wouldn't hesitate to join up and do my bit and pay whatever price has to be paid, even the ultimate price, because peace is worth fighting for.
:mellow:
For once may I be controversial?
It seems to me that our country with the UK is the world's policeman in various parts of the world and is engaging in tasks it is for the ineffectice United Nations to complete. For this reason alone I initially thought it right to bring our servicemen and servicewomen home from Iraq.
But I went onto think that the world is full of terrorists who threaten our country and that it is right to take the fight to them as they have already brought the fight to us.
I love all people regardless of age, religion, color, sex, sexual preference etc. I believe that everyone has the right to live peacefully. While I deplore war I also believe we have the right to fight for peace when the peace of the world is threatened. And I don't mean peace solely at home I mean peace throughout the world including peace for the innocent Iraqi people.
I deplore that so many servicemen and servicewomen have died in Iraq in the cause of peace. But peace has its price and it is the ultimate price some of our servicemen and servicewomen have paid. I for one will forever be in their debt. War is terrible but when it takes place in order that we can be safe at home I think it is justified. So no I don't think the US or UK are terrorist countries or that our servicemen and servicewomen are terrorists.
To drop nuclear bombs on Iraq could in my view be a terrorist act because many innocent Iraqi people would be killed. But if matters were to get worse in Iraq to the point that the war needs to be brought to a speedy and successful conclusion (like in Japan) it might be possible to justify the dropping of such bombs on the basis that the lives of many servicemen, servicewomen and innocent Iraqi people might be saved.
You might conclude that I have supported Bush since the start of the war in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bush should have got the full support of the United Nations before authorising our servicemen and servicewomen to take up arms in Iraq. But no one can turn the clock back. We are where we are. I just hope and pray that peace can be obtained quickly and that our servicemen and servicewomen can come home soon.
I'm a 25 year old guy with a great job, great girlfriend and a great life to look forward to. I love God, I love my country. I think the time may shortly come when my country asks me to give something back by joining US forces. Yes, I'm scared, who wouldn't be? But I wouldn't hesitate to join up and do my bit and pay whatever price has to be paid, even the ultimate price, because peace is worth fighting for.
:mellow:
gwinea2000: Dude...
You know, I was typing a whole bunch of shit to try to once again convey my point. But I'm over it, so I deleted it.
You're still missing my point. You seem quite hell-bent on believing that I'm somehow making light of the actions of both the Politburo under Stalin and the Third Reich under Hitler. Believe me, we're on the same page regarding the vileness of the leaders, their factions, and their actions. You can trace the etymology of 'terrorist' back as far as you'd like. If the definition of terrorist' is 'one who terrorizes', then you are correct in labeling Stalin and Hitler as terrorists. I simply believe today's application of the word requires a more specific definition.
We aren't arguing about whether "intolerance, second class citizenship, and diversity are disrupting our society." Our differences are based purely on semantics.
You know, I was typing a whole bunch of shit to try to once again convey my point. But I'm over it, so I deleted it.
You're still missing my point. You seem quite hell-bent on believing that I'm somehow making light of the actions of both the Politburo under Stalin and the Third Reich under Hitler. Believe me, we're on the same page regarding the vileness of the leaders, their factions, and their actions. You can trace the etymology of 'terrorist' back as far as you'd like. If the definition of terrorist' is 'one who terrorizes', then you are correct in labeling Stalin and Hitler as terrorists. I simply believe today's application of the word requires a more specific definition.
We aren't arguing about whether "intolerance, second class citizenship, and diversity are disrupting our society." Our differences are based purely on semantics.
Similar threads
