• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The definition of terrorism, is the United States a terrorist state?

according to the FBI terrorism is defined as:

Definitions

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and 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” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. (FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005)

so the bombing of Pakistani citizens constitute a terrorist act?

While the European Union defines Terrorism as:


The framework decision harmonises the definition of terrorist offences in all EU countries by introducing a specific and common definition. Its concept of terrorism is a combination of two elements:

an objective element, as it refers to a list of instances of serious criminal conduct (murder, bodily injuries, hostage taking, extortion, fabrication of weapons, committing attacks, threatening to commit any of the above, etc.);
a subjective element, as these acts are deemed to be terrorist offences when committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation (Terrorist offences)



The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" after the September 11 attacks if the country did not cooperate with America's war on Afghanistan (Bush threatened to bomb Pakistan, says Musharraf | World news | The Guardian)
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A good topic.

One of the most useful definitions I have read of terror and terrorism was from a speech given by some USMC General 10 years ago or more. Sorry I cannot remember his name or provide a link, but his was quite simple and easy to use.

Terror is the natural human response to certain stimuli. Very closely related to fear, perhaps synonymous.

Terrorism is the deliberate manipulation of that response.
 

gslack

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By that rather broad analogy any country could be classified a terrorist state at one point or another. Maybe the terms "illegal and deemed immoral" should be added to those definitions to show a distinction.

I prefer the common-sense idea of terrorism. IMHO..

A terrorist or terrorist group/faction would be a person/persons or group(S) who by willful intent and showing commitment to action, plan or commit acts of violence designed to illicit a fear-driven response by a people or country, or their appointed representative or governmental body.

Further a terrorist country would be any country, nation or government who knowingly and willfully supports any terrorist, be it a single individual, group or faction, by any direct means that could contribute to acts of terror in any way.

I don't know of any actual terrorist acts the US is directly responsible for. As far as us threatening to bomb Pakistan if they didn't help, it's hearsay. Also the word of a former president exiled, and impeached and former head of a coup of that same government is a dubious source at best.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,639
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
gslack;bt2363 said:
By that rather broad analogy any country could be classified a terrorist state at one point or another. Maybe the terms "illegal and deemed immoral" should be added to those definitions to show a distinction.

I prefer the common-sense idea of terrorism. IMHO..

A terrorist or terrorist group/faction would be a person/persons or group(S) who by willful intent and showing commitment to action, plan or commit acts of violence designed to illicit a fear-driven response by a people or country, or their appointed representative or governmental body.

Further a terrorist country would be any country, nation or government who knowingly and willfully supports any terrorist, be it a single individual, group or faction, by any direct means that could contribute to acts of terror in any way.

I don't know of any actual terrorist acts the US is directly responsible for. As far as us threatening to bomb Pakistan if they didn't help, it's hearsay. Also the word of a former president exiled, and impeached and former head of a coup of that same government is a dubious source at best.

You don't know of any actual terrorist acts the US is directly responsible for?

I assume you are unaware of what US drones do 'round the world? In reality, the US through its drones practices terrorism 24/7 in many places. Yemen and Pakistand are but 2 examples.
 

gslack

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Henry David;bt2364 said:
You don't know of any actual terrorist acts the US is directly responsible for?

I assume you are unaware of what US drones do 'round the world? In reality, the US through its drones practices terrorism 24/7 in many places. Yemen and Pakistand are but 2 examples.

You're confusing a government action with a terrorist action. Whats more, those strikes are against terrorist forces and admitted enemies to this country. Attacks on a ship in yemen and one on the US embassy in pakistan as I recall. You are citing a reaction to terrorist activity and harboring, aiding and abetting terrorist forces who have attack our country and our lives and property, as terrorism.. Well what do you call what they did and how they have acted till now?

We have every right to defend ourselves, and seek out those who wish to do us harm. Countries who harbor those groups or individuals can either take steps to help, eliminate those factions from their borders, or do nothing and we will. They harbor them willingly, they face the penalty of that, just as anybody else is expected to face the consequences of their actions.

Also the claim of 24/7 isn't even close. More like an average of 2 per month. Some months more some months less..
 
Top Bottom