WTF? Bombing bloodthirsty jap rapists who commited worse attrocities in the Phillipines and China than the nazis is terrorism but not flying planes into buildings?
WTF! Im gonna remember this video. This video proves that liberals are unamerican.
So, I normally agree with most of what Liberal Viewer presents; but on this video I have to point out: the Al-Qaeda attack on the Pentagon was an attack on two targets, one civilian (the airplane and its occupants) and one military (the Pentagon and its occupants). Since at least one target was civilian, it does count as terrorism under this definition.
I do agree that Dresden and Hiroshima were terroristic actions, though.
lol Amricans dont know what we are talking about when we say we are fighting a war on terrorism,if was was we would have to kill our selfs then,I mean we call our selves fighting for freedom and crap,and we go over there and rape there women and kids.............ill jsut stop there,I dont wanna risk it and be called communist for telling the truth, teh dumb asses.
I know right!... How do you fight against terrorism!? IS THAT EVEN PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE!? So let's get this straight... War itself is already terrorism, meaning US militaries based in almost Afghanistan killing innocents is FUCKIN TERRORISM! So howbout we either call it war or terrorism... because WAR=TERRORISM! it's the same shit!
If you want to look for terrorist attacks conducted by Americans one has to look no further than the lynchings, beatings, etc committed against blacks during Jim Crow.
U guys r fuckin idiots... Matthews and Queef Olgerman are the most bias reporters on tv. They stick 3 people up there to talk ab a topic and not 1 shows my opinion.. WTF when did it become cool 2 be a big Liberal Douche...
Perhaps, but to think that it isn't a military target seems absurd. Also, b/c it seems to me you qualify the Pentagon as an unlawful target, I'm interested---
Is an act of aggression such as that on the Pentagon on 9/11 on a moral par with Israel bombing the house of Hamas' rocket launch commander, even though his family also lives there? I'm asking this only in terms of there being both combatants and non-combatants who must go to those respective places every day...
you dont fight a WAR.. a war is fought against a sovereign nation in case where all diplomatic and civilized options of resolving a dispute have been exhausted... all the same both nations(ie their leaders) are accountable and have to respond to their people for their actions.
continued... Here we are dealing with coward criminals who dont have any accountability and who dont have anyone to respond to. They should be dealt with as you would with any criminal say a drug lord or a mafia in your country: systematically rip down their fabric of organization. The only difference is that these cowards are hiding in different countries... possibly in your own.
THANK YOU!!! For a second there I thought I was the only one who took issue with the phrase "war on terror". Why don't more people pick up on the fact that the phrase itself is meaningless?
Even worse, it's created the association between "terrorism" and "against US policy" that you highlight, so people are surprised to learn that, yes, the US has also committed terrorist atrocities.
Allow me to complement you on your intelligent and inciteful videos.
....First the USS Cole Bombing, I still don't understand why that is classified as a terrorist act when it was a clear military target with no civilian component.
Second the bombing of Guatemala City by the CIA, en 1954 during the Overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Constitutional President of Guatemala in witch the CIA Bomb Civilian targets with the purpose of creating terror in the Guatemalan Population.
Well keep up the good job and keep the videos coming.
I desagree with your conclusion that the attack on the Pentagon was not a Terrorist Attack because even when the Pentagon is a Military Target, the Airliner that was use to attack it, was not. In the case of Hiroshima and Dresden I also dissagree both were industrial cities in a REAL TIME OF WAR, and therr for in my view legitimite military targets. But you make a very good pint even if I dont agree with your examples. And becaese of that I would give you some examples......
Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.
Of course the US (and the rest of the Allied nations) used terrorism during WWII! What the hell do you think all the sabotage against Axis installations were? The bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Of course that was terrorism. It doesn't justify actions by terrorist groups such as Al-Qa'ida!
Why would you ask a question like that? Those Arabs are terrorists! We as Americans need to back President Bush and his war-mongering crew 100 percent! The government has told us nothing but the truth and all of the evidence is there that 911 was not an inside job on both the towers and the pentagon. I'm just kidding. We shoulda impeached Bush and gotten rid of his click 5 years ago!
when John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and countless other americans ar critical, they are silenced in the media and labeled anti semitic. and so we have a nightmare foreign policy that serves israel and not america.
go attack more countries only to create more resentment. we have a problem, a serious foreign relations nightmare policy. we are biased in our support for israel, which isnt a bad thing, supporting israel is good for america, but not with military and arms to only enrage and further fuel the problem, which is palestine. and coupled with the fact that we have alot of highly highly extreme israel supporters in washington doesnt help. when americans speak out we are silenced, thats not america
aipac and the adl, and our foreign policy or do we continue to take on israels plight because they cant make peace. and dont say its not possible because it is. dont try and sell us that forever now america must fight terrorism. theres one thing that will make things 10 trillion times better and thats the creation of a palestinian state and the withdraw of israel from the occupied territories. but because they cant make peace on both sides like animals, and both act despicable, doesnt mean we
and although 9/11 was not the first time the s.o.b's tried to take down the towers it all stems from our support for israel and propping up oppressive regimes in the region. and you can talk about incidents that happened 1801 which have no relevance to our current situation. our government is dominated by zionists and large corp. i mean im not saying anything new, you know what im talking about im sure you understand the dilemma we are facing as a nation, do we open up debate about groups like
9/11 was blow back, thats very clear. for the reasons stated in the 9/11 commission report. america's bias support for israel, and because of our foreign policy towards the middle east.which is highly influenced by people like aipac, and adl. many politicians have been silenced by groups like the adl when being critical of israel. so for a long time now brave americans have had the balls to come out against what has been slowly happening to our government over the past 30 years. cont. next post.
if men want to comit suicide then they can hang themselvs from their cieling fans. but stop blowing yourself up killin many others knowing they are of other faiths. causing panic and comosion in society. blowing up churches and embasies in the name of islam is an act of WAR islamic war JIHAD. islamic states such as iran, syria, and saudi arabia has officialy declared war against the west but in a nicer more hidden way. oh these are finatics please dont blame us. they are the minority ! bull shit
yes their is a holy war now,,,makes you wonder how we got there. and its not, i repeat its not because its their religion. please dont use that. it only hides the fact that they feel that support for israel and oppressive regimes is the reason why they attacked us. it was even in the 9/11 omission report, which clearly states the reason for the attacks, which the media keeps silent because it doesnt serve the interest of israel if americans all knew the real reason
people need to realize that terrorism is islamic militancy. any act of violence is simply WAR. when someone strike your buildings with hijacked planes what is that ? arent they declaring war on you ? if america is to launch a missle on iran and say we did it in the name of mother merry ? what bulshit is that ! WAKE UP. islam declared war on non muslims alike. JIHAD FI SABIL ALAH - JIHAD in the name of allah.
ya they did declare war, so whats your point? it doesnt dissmiss (in their minds) the meddling in their affairs has got to stop. we have to stop bombing these places because we want to appease israel. america is not israel, if we arent carefull we will all wake up in america which will have the same problems israel has now. i could care less about israel, they're not worth my 4 family members serving now in the us military!
Well, apparently American foreign policy sucked even at it's conception. When America was finally independent, it's sailors were being attacked and taken captive in the mediterranean without provocation. The culprits were Muslim barbary pirates operating out of North Africa, when Jefferson went to meet their representatives, they said the reason they attack American sailors was that the Quran ordered them to make war against the infidel and take them captive. This is Jefferson's own testimony.
One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or "tyranny," let alone "terrorism." He resists any comparison with today's tormenting confrontations. "The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology," he writes. "Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America's War of Independence." quit trying to lie to the youtube community!
Yes, he's telling you America didn't go to war in the name of Christianity. Their merchant seaman were under attack by Muslim pirates using their religion as justification. I think you misunderstood what the author meant here. He's arguing that the Americans who stormed the shores of Tripoli weren't crusaders but soldiers defending their trade routes in the mediterranean from Muslim pirates.
I'll pretend that wasn't a rushed google search to find an opposing opinion without examining it.
my dear friend, america is already facing what isreal is facing. when i saw 9 11 i knew that jihad has come to america. they finaly reached you like they reached many around the world. they hate israel b/c its the ONLY AND ONLY DEMOCRATIC state in the middle east. thats why they hate it so much. look at the middle east and show me another democratic state. you might want to say lebanon ! lebanon ya right . watch the new civil war about to start between islam and christianity.
Oxford describes terrorism as "violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." WTC7 housed SEC evidence against corporate criminals who stole billions from the people. Good aim for the politically connected terrorists, made vulnerable by Marvin Bush's Security company disengaging security routines just prior to 9/11. Intimidation of witnesses and the general public following the event fits Oxford's definition too. Was Islam the patsy we tortured into subservience for their oil?
I think the examples you mentioned could have had at least some military gain. Terrorism rarely has military gain. I gave the example that carpet bombing cripples industry, and can hinder troop movement. The attacks on 9\11 had no military gain, nor was that the intention of the attackers. The attackers wanted to murder innocents as a political protest. I do however consider the bombings of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki to be warcrimes, since i'm convinced they were a show of force to the Soviets.
hiroshima was a warcrime 100% true. but not in the name of ANY religion. it was simply WAR. and politics... in todays' society increasing terrorism around the world is linked to islaic militancy. this is what the west needs to realize. sudan had an outrage on a teacher who named a teddy bear mohamad and wanted to kill her. COMON ! do americans want to kill an inocent perosn for naming a teddy bear JOSEPH ? or Marry ?
the increase in islamic militancy is because we (america) have been on a rampage in that part of the world for a while, why? for 2 reasons, to appease israel, and for a strategic military base in iraq. and so now recruiting has gone through the roof, because we slaughtered the oraqi population, and yes they are killing eachother as well, the estimated 1.3 million iraqis dead is not a result of the civil war they are in.
Actually, it is. According to John Hopkins university, who gave the civilian death toll of 650 000, 69% of civilian deaths were caused by foreign militants, or other Iraqis (sectarian militias).
What you consider appeasing Israel is in fact defending its existance. It's a country invaded by its neighbours more than once with the objective of destroying it. It's the only stable democracy in the region, and gives more rights to its citizens (including its Arab citizens) than any Arab country.
I think you should put things into perspective. World War 2 was a different time, with different technology. NATO countries are continously developping weapons that are more precise to limit civilian casualties. During world war 2, you couldn't cripple the industry of a nation by targetting its factories precisely, you usually had to carpet bomb the area to achieve that goal. The West has realized ww2 bombing caused too many civilian deaths, and that's why they've modified their tactics since.
when american presidents drop bombs on other contires they are not doing it in the name of ALLAH. in the name of MOTHER MARRY or JESUS.... when the attacks on pentagon. word trade center. london bombings etc.. those are IN THE NAME OF ALLAH AND MUAHAMD HIS PROPHET. see the difference ? way off from each other. we defined the pentagon attack as terorism b/c we are too politicaly corect to say MUSLIMS did it. ! we call the word trace center's terrorism instead of ANTI CHRISTIAN atacks.!!!
You really think they attacked us because we are a christian nation?..i dont think so. you know the reason why, its because of our bias support of israel and oppressive regimes in the middle east, along with constantly putting a foot on their neck and taking their oil.
you are brainwashed, what oil are we taking ? when 9 11 happend we where not in iraq. when the london bombings happend london was not in saudi arabia, when hizbullah keeps attacking israel , israely soldiers are not in lebanon. when the people wanted to kill the teacher in sudan who named a teddy bear mohamad no one was in sudan ! wake up .... they hate you b/c your not one of them. why are people fleeying the middle east like myself ? its b/c of search for freedom and persuit of hapines.
talking about mid east oil, what rock have u been sleeping under. everyone knows it was about oil and to strike them for israel. as far as the other organizations, ya they are terrorist outfits, cause they cant stand what israel is doing to the palestinians. and your right the outrage about the teddy bear was ridiculous but 9/11 happened as a result of our biased support for israel and other attacks on israel are made out of hate for israel..weather its right or wrong was bias supportfor israel
you are linking 2 things together that do not belong. the attack ont he pentagon or the world trade center are defined as JIHAD. a global war against non muslims. you can reffer to the kuran for more information on jihad. terrorism is the POLITICAL CORECT term of ANTI ISLAM KILLINGS.... get your facts str8 .
I think that if you look at terrorism as a term you can get what it means pretty easily. A terrorist's main weapon is terror, plain and simple. If people are afraid to walk down the street for fear of a sniper, bomber, kidnapper, etc. then the terrorist has done his (or her) job well. That is the definition I would use. The dropping of a bomb on civilians isn't really the terrorist act, making the people afraid that you will drop the bomb is. Dropping the bomb is just a tool of the terror.
Skyeking0, I think you got it wrong. The terrorist main weapon isn't terror. That's the objective. We're become "used" to war, with military vs. military/armed forces, and do not regard this terror. However, attacks on civilians, which serves no direct military purpose, would be terror. Hence, Dresden and Hiroshima would both be acts of terrorism. Dropping a bomb makes people scared, as you've already shown you're willing to do it once.
Or we can add the CIA overthrowing multiple governments with terrorist attacks. No matter how you slice it this is the biggest terrorist state in the world. Take our freedom to protect us but leave our borders wide open and leave us dependent on foreign oil. These are national security problems folks not the fact that we can walk down a street without showing an ID or having one that can be tracked.
Ok lets go ahead and add the killing of civilians in Panama or destroying of 20,000 peoples homes placing them and the united state's political opponents in camps. Or the killing of over 1,000,000 civilians in Iraq.
Also the atomic bombings was the best way to end the war--if we had been forced to invade Japan the casualties for both sides would have been unimaginable, and would have CERTAINLY included many civilian lives as the Japanese were very fanatical. Stop trying to revise history to support your liberal views on the modern war on terrorists. Never surrender, never give the terrorists what they want. USA RULES!
fuck terrorists, kill em all. How dare you call American actions terrorists? The bombing of Dresden happened in a WAR buddy, its attacking the enemy through attrition--destroying industrial production, fuel processing, etc. to hurt his war effort. its a well accepted and widely used tactic in war.
Ultrad321, to follow your logic, 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack either. In this case Pentagon for military, Twin Towers for economy, and a possible hit on The White House. And even back then you were at war, the CIA and their covert ops on one side, and Islamists on the other.
So, I'm asking you this, do *you* consider 9/11 a terrorist attack, after your reasoning regarding Dresden and Japan? If so, what is the difference.
the calculated use of unlawful violence against persons or property;or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological objectives. The only way we can truly stop the war end poverty, and give the terrorists the land they want.
The premise of the question is blatantly false, and I suspect you have never served in the military, and have no background in military science. Hiroshima was a legitimate target during a declared war, it was the HQ for the Japanese Army responsible for the defense of south Japan, and a major supply depot. In addition, since it had not been bombed, it would give an ideal display for our new weapon.
I consider terrorism to embody attacks on civilian targets by at most state-sponsored groups, not governments, to incite fear. Also, the Pentagon is not completely military.
City-busting in WWII was a product of "total war". The phenomenon carried both precedent and justification enough to be viewed as operationally viable.
The Pentagon was not purely an attack on a military target, considering that the plane used as the weapon contained civilians whose death was also an aim of the terrorists.
The "War on Terror" is a throw away slogan that should not have become policy. Since it has, the damage done to the USA's credibility in the international community has been damaged, possibly, irrevocably.
Being an independent, videos like this worry me, ridiculous arguments like this just strengthen the current Republican cause, and make Liberals look like idiots.
I'm not sure what I said in this video that you are attacking as "flawed and moronic logic." If youre having problems parsing what I said, you can see everything I said in the text of the video description. Can u quote for me what I said that you are attacking as "flawed and moronic logic?"
This is garbage...the plane that hit the pentagon was hijacked, a civilian aircraft and carrying 100% civilians...flawed and moronic logic on this video dude.
look up the CAIN website. It covers the history terrorism in Northern Ireland. In the end the only way it was combated was by removing the parts that interfered with peoples civil rights.
Evey action of violence against terrorism did nothing but send more people into the arms of the terrorist recruiters.
The Irony is that a lot of what is happening in the USA was already tried in NI 30 years ago.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had three main objectives: Testing an A bomb in a real world scenario, the prompt surrender of Japan, and, from that outcome - to stop the soviets from gaining a foothold in asia through conventional military force (which they intended, until Japan surrendered of course). I've read the long since declassified documents myself in the bomb museum at Hiroshima.
prrolg you have to much time on yur hands lol...liberal viewer is the only political person on her that dosnt delete comments if it is against what he bileves in..
That's true and libs tout free speech but are the first to block or disable comments. I agree with them on that one point.Some I would shut down. I would revoke Keith Olbermanns passport and give him a Mexican one for example.
Also comments build up his count and promotes debate with draws more viewers and comments. He's being paid for this site I BELIEVE. I have no proof. I'm not a 9-11 truther or tin foil hat guy.That's for libs ha ha ha.
Wake up. We are not in Iraq (for example) to fix anything so it's not necessary for up to be "fixed" before going there. We are there to establish a strong middle east presence for National Strength. You're to full of venom to ever see that.
"Did I ever say...Or that 9/11 was justified?" You just said that minutes earlier perhaps in a comment "Any and all attacks against American civilians are not only justifiable but also warranted." Are you nuts?
Again, let's not take things out of context. I swear, most times on youtube, I'm talking to a brick wall with some of you dolts. Plus it took you this long to come back. If it's hard for you to keep up, then never reply to something I say again ok? You still continue to misquote me. You have nothing on me, fuck off.
I'm a dolt? What the fuck does any and all attacks against American civilians mean? You Goddam coward. Have the courage of your convictions and don't try to turn tables by calling people stupid. You're a pompous ass
Ha yeah I am pompous. I explained the logic to Bellita or whatever. Scroll up just a bit to have a learning. It was my mistake, you and Bellita sound very alike. And, yes you are a dolt. Have a shitty pissed off day prrolg.
Ha ha ha ha you've got to be kidding. You are a hopeless liberal. Olbermann is the biggest liar on TV and his show is watched by nobody but far left loons.
"Any and all attacks against American civilians are not only justifiable,but also warranted". That is the most disgusting comment I've ever seen in any context imaginable. You must be incapable of shame.
Yeah I have the shame of knowing that people are so party-crazy that they will allow America to die for their silly often stupid politics, (YOU). I have shame that my country is currently murdering God knows how many people in my name. I have shame that my fellow Americans are actually too concerned with Britney Spears to change anything. I have no shame for the things you say however, or how you try to spin what I say. That's on you. And you'll get over it, or choke on it, I don't care.
Nah, just those like you. Bah you've already choked on it you creepy son of a bitch. You know what makes me sick about you, is you think our "enemies" should abide by some code of law while engaging in war, but we should have no such restrictions. Man, fuck you. You're about as intelligent as a brick, and you have the morals of an Al Qaida terrorist, you stupid hypocrite.
"You know what makes me sick about you is you think our"enemies" should abide by some code of law while while engaging in war" You know that is wrong. I already commented that the pentagon attack was not terrorism.The Pearl Harbor attack was fair too. You make things up
Ha... yeah... The attack on the Pentagon wasn't terrorism.. sure... Tell that to the families of those who died on flight 77. Then you think you have cause to attack the things I say. How does your shit taste to you? I'm done with you now. In the end it was you that defeated yourself.
Not so fast nerd. Flight 77 WAS terrorism because it was an attack on civilians when there was no war. The pentagon is a military target and fair game to attack.That is like declaring war. You are just not bright enough to debate me.
pearl harbor attack was known by the gov. before it even happen and did nothing to have an excuse to go into war. same story here . apparently your not too bright .
Wrong again. Al Qaida declared war years before 9/11. You are delusional. You know I shouldn't have to give you these history lessons. You should already know these things. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You can't seem to make up your mind. It was fun burying you prrolg. But now you're just a bore. I think I'll move on to someone who has a clue about history and the present, not someone who's willing to disgrace himself just to throw a few badly timed insults.
Al Qaeda is not a nation. When they declare war it is terrorism when they kill civilians. The killing of the passengers on flt 77 was a terrorist act but hitting the pentagon was an attack on a military target,not terrorism. MORE>
What happened to you accusing prrolg of being a person who believes the bad guys have to play by the rules but we don't. He told you the pentagon hit was not terrorism on the pentagon. You didn't answer him lib backpedaling name calling idiot
BTW he called you a pansy ass and a nerd both of which you are. You are the one winning the 'insult' war on here. And you called him delusional. You're not even aware of your own many insults. LOL
I'm very aware of my insults, I never said or implied that I wasn't. I always end up scraping the bottom of the barrel with you fucking people. Just once I'd like to debate someone who knows a little something.
Ok very simply put. The attack on the pentagon was terrorism, because civilians were used as a weapon. Why is this so hard to understand? Please define the word "liberal" I'm not sure you know what a liberal is. So basically what I gather from both of you, is the attack on the pentagon was and wasn't terrorism. You said it. I wasn't accusing him by the way, it's actually what he believes. And finally, sometimes the truth hurts, but it still must be told.
I'm never sure what to make of a comment this absurd. It was a terrorist act, but it wasn't at the same time. You realize of course that flight 77 was used (with civlians on it) to attack the pentagon. Since when does it have to be a nation to declare war? Stay in school attend your history classes then talk to me. LV please try to attract a more intelligent group of viewers. This is ridiculous. Is this person fucking drunk or something?
Did you ever write a paper on Japanese or German immorality or actions not militarily necessary? No. Because you would need to be Japanese or German and hate your country to do it. You were born in the wrong part of the world.
Writing a paper criticizing a decision of the US government does not mean I "hate [my] country." In fact, just the opposite, it means I care enough about my country to want it to live up to its own ideals (not the ideals of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan).
I didn't say that writing a paper means that you hate your country. At least I don't think I said or meant that. I judged by what you said because I was not born yesterday and I live in a world of working men. Not in a fake world of books and academe.
I didn't claim you said "writing a paper means you hate your country." I merely pointed out that writing this paper criticizing a decision of the US government does not mean I "hate [my] country." In fact, just the opposite, it means I care enough about my country to want it to live up to its own ideals (not the ideals of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan).
And, FYI, books exist in the real world. I referred to several in my paper that might enlighten you.
You did say that you made the claim in your paper that bombing Hiroshima was unnecessary and immoral,no? And I think that if Japan had won the war and you were Japanese that you'd be writing papers about the immorality of Japan instead of taking a more learned position on all out war. One could and would assume that you hate? maybe dislike your country intensely.
BTW,the books reference in your paper are prolly not worth much trying to dig Japanese soldiers out of holes in tiny islands killing 12,000 and losing 3000 men in the process. You've never been shot at I'm sure.
And loving your country gives you an air of high mindedness that is not at all noble or appealing. Actually SOME ideals of Nazi Germany WERE worth living up to. Let me see how you deal with that snob
I'm sorry if u misunderstood me, but I wasn't suggesting these books written after WWII should be sent back in time and used as weapons against the Japanese. I was suggesting u read these books and learn the information within them so we could have a reasoned discussion based on facts
Oh I thought you meant that I was an uneducated guy who needed to be enlightened. Do you really think it I would find it reasonable to read books (how many?) so that I could have a comment debate on YT? Do you think I wanted you to believe books can be used as weapons? Do you think your sarcasm is elitist or comedic?
I'm sorry if u don't think it is "reasonable to read books" to learn about whether the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, but it was from reading those books (and looking through the collected papers of Henry Stimson) that I gathered the facts on which I based the argument in my paper. Shouldn't a reasoned discussion be based on facts?
Well I'll certainly take a look at the papers but I have limited time to make a living etc to read entire books in order to have a debate or discussion on a YT comment board.I'M not getting paid for it you know?
I took a very brief look.The Japanese saw the Emperor as a God.This I respect. The decision to surrender was still resisted by him and others even after the 2nd atomic bomb.I repect that also. Dishonor being more important than death they held on. The bombs had the effect intended. They eventually surrendered.
The bombings of Hiroshima,Nagasaki and Dresden were not terrorism because war was still on.The population of a Nation at war is the rear guard of the military and a target.The attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 was also not terrorism,it was a military target in an act of war.You were right there.
The only reason Dresden was not a war crime is because England was a winner of WWII. It was absolutely horrific attack on a civilian population designed at destroying German morale. Even the Allied population at that time believed the attack to be inhuman and Churchill flip-flopped his position on it when the voters came out against it.
hobbesie, I did some reading online regarding the bombing of Dresden. I hadn't looked at details before but I've seen that your comment was correct. The bombing of Dresden was truly a war crime. The facts and details are all there. Many bomber pilots have even said so.Dresden was not necessary. I stand corrected
It is reasonable to read books but not in order to have a debate on a web site that allows a 500 word limit.Just to have a yt debate it is not reasonable.
n. One, such as a person or a combat vehicle, that takes part in armed strife.
vehicle
-n. an agent of transmission
combat
-Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.
The Pentagon is the military headquaters of the USA, that actively transmits armed strife around the world on behalf of its nation's defense.
By this definition, how is the Pentagon NOT the largest combat vehicle in the world, and thereby entirely comprised of combatants, military OR civilian?
It's called beinf a thief, being a murderer, a liar... etc
If you're fine with that status, just to get a few $ dribbling down from the real profiteers, then I think our moral values would make conversation very difficult.
Also, I completely fail to understand nationalism, especially in a countrly like the US where there isn't even a "gene survival" argument because of diversity of origins.
Yes, at a few times throughout its history. We had other low points too. Odd choice mentioning McCarthy as a low point. This is the first time I've ever heard the U.S. criticized for entering WWII late. Good thing we did though, huh?
Wait. Lets see. Late? Pacific in '41, Africa with the Brits in 42 or 43, lend lease?
McCarthy and the "witch hunt" was definitely a low point. (You can't pretend you're fighting for world freedom when in your own country there isn't even freedom of political opinion.)
I'm not criticising the US for the other two... just saying the actions weren't so grand as to justify the US being called the light of the world.
Can't remember the URSS being called the light of the world for WWII. (I think their contribution exceeds the US's.)
I know the McCarthy commie thing was a low point but we've had worse. It is odd that you mentioned it. our current situation is worse. USSR wasn't because of Stalin killing millions of his own, that's why. Not grand eh? Take us out of that war and what would be the likely outcome? The USSR saving everyone from tyranny?
We'll only know how bad the current situation really is when presidential documents get released and studied.
"The USSR saving everyone from tyranny?". Actually, yeah. They wouldn't have managed to occupy liberated western europe, and hence would have probably just waited for a communist or socialist party to be democratically elected there.
Things would have been worse, of course.
I still don't think "light of the world" is justified.
I don't know how you are so sure about the USSR making things better. That's quite a theory you have there about how it would have gone down. But I do think most would agree that things worked out pretty good with the U.S. and other western counties rebuilding that part of Europe. The idea that the USSR would have done a better job would get little agreement from people, I think.
Maybe more people would have died in the long run without the bomb.
But don't dramatise... It wasn't about "saving humanity". Humanity was pretty safe by the tame germany surrendered, the war wasn't going to last forever killing everyone or send us into a dark age.
The definition of the word terrorist is very relative. weren't the American Colonists terrorists to Britain when they boarded the Gaspee, took prisoners, and burnt it? it's all view point; perspective.
notice how war on terror comes out sounding like war on terra a lot of the times. it's a large agenda. there are three openly fought wars: drugs, terror, and iraq; all of which have a massive political agenda in mind. it's 1984, like it's always been.
His definition of terrorism doesn't hold water in his examle of bombing Hiroshima. Winning WWII was winning the war not an act of terrorism. You're question is stupid.
So if we were to wage war with Iran in the future...and they got a nuke..and used it on us to force surrender...that would just be hunkey dorey with you that they used atomics?
I do think MOST people "GET IT" when some political entity metaphorically declares war on a problem, e.g. "War on Drugs ... Poverty ... Crime ... Terrorism." Although, it could be argued that this practice violates the 10th Amendment.
I would certainly make a distinction between actions (upon civilians) made within the framework of a time of war, and actions made without a declaration of war...thus terrorism. If Pearl Harbor (military base)would have instead been say, Long Beach, CA (civilian area)..I would regard it a terrorist act. Hiroshima was an act of 'war'(though as in 'Fog of War' movie) I may also philosophically (wasn't alive then with friends/family dying) agree with it also being a 'war-crime', not terrorism.
Sorry but that is not true. The U.S. has lots of dirty laundry but it is no fair to call it the greatest terrorist. Uganda, Rwanda, Irael, Northern Ireland, Britian are just a few that are easily comparible and that is without even looking at the Islamic middle east.
"You cant expect a slogan to suddenly turn into a real policy or else is doomed for failure(like the war on drugs)" Nice job, you've got dumb people believing that the US has no policy on Terrorism and that all there is a slogan. Is that what you intended to do in this video?
LV, "fighting a war on a tactic" is hyperbole and a distortion of US policy against Terrorism. I guess there is reasons persons like you fail to understand terrorism has become DOCTRINE for organized and networked bands of radical militant ideologues. Perhaps you think it's cute to diminish the military's prosecution of the war down to a "tactic." Seems you've insulted those who've served in the war and have desecrated those wounded or killed protecting your right to say your hurtful words.
Again, whether u want to call terrorism a tactic or a doctrine, it's still an intangible that is a method not an enemy. The term "illegal warfare" is not defined in the Geneva Conventions as u claimed and, in the Green Peace example, u seem to have just obfuscated the meaning of "legitimate representative authority."
Accusing me of insulting the troops doesn't make the rest of your argument any more logical.
Again, a TACTIC is a concept, therefore, as you say is an "intangible". And again, DOCTRINE (as way of life) IS a tangible that can be targeted for elimination in many ways (diplomacy, politics, education, warfare). And also again, The International Court of Justice in the Hague uses THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AS CUSTOMARY LAW. The articles and protocols of the Geneva Conventions determine what illegal warfare is. Finally, my argument doesn't rest on your insulting generations of service people.
Again, you have not explained how a doctrine is any more tangible than a tactic nor how terrorism is an enemy rather than a method. And, again, your baseless personal attack on me is uncalled for, particularly now that you admit that it is irrelevant to your argument.
Terrorism as a Tactic is ideas about employing forces in combat using asymmetrical warfare to achieve a goal. As such, the Tactic of Terrorism is a concept, therefore is intangible because there are no rules to achieve a specific response (abstract). Terrorism as Doctrine is governed by a set of principles or guidance that specifically states how to apply asymmetrical warfare to achieve a particular goal or response (concrete). More:
The above makes the Doctrine of Terrorism "the enemy" because it specifically draws habitual devotion to the laws that comprise its policy. So, by destroying the devotion to the Doctrine of Terrorism you destroy the doctrine and the terrorism ergo "the enemy". This victory like most can be achieved through education, diplomacy, politics, or warfare.
I have explained how doctrine is a tangible, but there's no sense going into this any further especially if you're taking my comments personally, they're not intended to be.
Of course FairMIndedCitien's comment about liberalviewer attacking the troops is a personal attack. It is a shame that he has to resort to the same mean-spirited form of attack that his cronies in the White House use against anyone who attempts to create a meaningful debate about the war on terror. Shame on you FairMindedCitizen!
"he has to resort to the same mean-spirited form of attack that his cronies in the White House use against anyone who attempts to create a meaningful debate about the war" Now that IS a "personal attack" versus my articulated observation and criticism regarding this posted vid. Hypocrisy anyone? Shame on you gspurr!
The vid says, "Some American acts like the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima qualify as terrorism." Isn't that the same as calling the American Armed Forces terrorists? If you were an American service member past or present wouldn't YOU feel insulted?
WTF? Bombing bloodthirsty jap rapists who commited worse attrocities in the Phillipines and China than the nazis is terrorism but not flying planes into buildings?
WTF! Im gonna remember this video. This video proves that liberals are unamerican.
minnesotastategop 2 months ago
So, I normally agree with most of what Liberal Viewer presents; but on this video I have to point out: the Al-Qaeda attack on the Pentagon was an attack on two targets, one civilian (the airplane and its occupants) and one military (the Pentagon and its occupants). Since at least one target was civilian, it does count as terrorism under this definition.
I do agree that Dresden and Hiroshima were terroristic actions, though.
JacobPhilipRenae 7 months ago
Agreed
TouchofSyu 1 year ago
lol Amricans dont know what we are talking about when we say we are fighting a war on terrorism,if was was we would have to kill our selfs then,I mean we call our selves fighting for freedom and crap,and we go over there and rape there women and kids.............ill jsut stop there,I dont wanna risk it and be called communist for telling the truth, teh dumb asses.
ulquiorra438 1 year ago
I know right!... How do you fight against terrorism!? IS THAT EVEN PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE!? So let's get this straight... War itself is already terrorism, meaning US militaries based in almost Afghanistan killing innocents is FUCKIN TERRORISM! So howbout we either call it war or terrorism... because WAR=TERRORISM! it's the same shit!
arzama1 2 years ago
If you want to look for terrorist attacks conducted by Americans one has to look no further than the lynchings, beatings, etc committed against blacks during Jim Crow.
bsnowman 2 years ago
U guys r fuckin idiots... Matthews and Queef Olgerman are the most bias reporters on tv. They stick 3 people up there to talk ab a topic and not 1 shows my opinion.. WTF when did it become cool 2 be a big Liberal Douche...
p.s. fuck Maddows 2... Shes a fuckn dyke...
Hahahahaaahaahaa
CapsFan33 3 years ago
You raise some good questions. Kudos. Although the pentagon is filled with civilians and other non-combatants.
therevolutionscript 3 years ago
Perhaps, but to think that it isn't a military target seems absurd. Also, b/c it seems to me you qualify the Pentagon as an unlawful target, I'm interested---
Is an act of aggression such as that on the Pentagon on 9/11 on a moral par with Israel bombing the house of Hamas' rocket launch commander, even though his family also lives there? I'm asking this only in terms of there being both combatants and non-combatants who must go to those respective places every day...
govolsuh1n 3 years ago
Congrats for the second question: How do you fight a war against a tactic?
Brilliant :)
13otany13ay 3 years ago
you dont fight a WAR.. a war is fought against a sovereign nation in case where all diplomatic and civilized options of resolving a dispute have been exhausted... all the same both nations(ie their leaders) are accountable and have to respond to their people for their actions.
bj10isin 3 years ago
continued... Here we are dealing with coward criminals who dont have any accountability and who dont have anyone to respond to. They should be dealt with as you would with any criminal say a drug lord or a mafia in your country: systematically rip down their fabric of organization. The only difference is that these cowards are hiding in different countries... possibly in your own.
bj10isin 3 years ago
I agree with you, absolutely.
Trouble is, that 70 percent of the american population favoured Bushs war. How do we take a whole nation accountable?
13otany13ay 3 years ago
THANK YOU!!! For a second there I thought I was the only one who took issue with the phrase "war on terror". Why don't more people pick up on the fact that the phrase itself is meaningless?
Even worse, it's created the association between "terrorism" and "against US policy" that you highlight, so people are surprised to learn that, yes, the US has also committed terrorist atrocities.
Allow me to complement you on your intelligent and inciteful videos.
JohnJFentiman 3 years ago
....First the USS Cole Bombing, I still don't understand why that is classified as a terrorist act when it was a clear military target with no civilian component.
Second the bombing of Guatemala City by the CIA, en 1954 during the Overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Constitutional President of Guatemala in witch the CIA Bomb Civilian targets with the purpose of creating terror in the Guatemalan Population.
Well keep up the good job and keep the videos coming.
Greetings
DelValle1980 3 years ago
I desagree with your conclusion that the attack on the Pentagon was not a Terrorist Attack because even when the Pentagon is a Military Target, the Airliner that was use to attack it, was not. In the case of Hiroshima and Dresden I also dissagree both were industrial cities in a REAL TIME OF WAR, and therr for in my view legitimite military targets. But you make a very good pint even if I dont agree with your examples. And becaese of that I would give you some examples......
DelValle1980 3 years ago
you revolt if it gets bad enough
dankkarma222 3 years ago
(0:27) FUCKING YES!
This "war on terror" is an eternal war!
There will ALWAYS be someone who threats to use violence.
Remember how Hitler used the communists by accusing them for burning the "Reichstag" to get into an eternal emergency situation?
By accusing the communists of "terrorisem", Hitler got the ability to state any rule he desired!
American citizens are not aware that their home can be searched without a court warrant because of the suspicion they might be "terrorists"...
Lonyguy 3 years ago 8
Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.
Of course the US (and the rest of the Allied nations) used terrorism during WWII! What the hell do you think all the sabotage against Axis installations were? The bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Of course that was terrorism. It doesn't justify actions by terrorist groups such as Al-Qa'ida!
oneiros666 3 years ago
Why would you ask a question like that? Those Arabs are terrorists! We as Americans need to back President Bush and his war-mongering crew 100 percent! The government has told us nothing but the truth and all of the evidence is there that 911 was not an inside job on both the towers and the pentagon. I'm just kidding. We shoulda impeached Bush and gotten rid of his click 5 years ago!
ironwork92000 3 years ago 3
when John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and countless other americans ar critical, they are silenced in the media and labeled anti semitic. and so we have a nightmare foreign policy that serves israel and not america.
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
go attack more countries only to create more resentment. we have a problem, a serious foreign relations nightmare policy. we are biased in our support for israel, which isnt a bad thing, supporting israel is good for america, but not with military and arms to only enrage and further fuel the problem, which is palestine. and coupled with the fact that we have alot of highly highly extreme israel supporters in washington doesnt help. when americans speak out we are silenced, thats not america
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
aipac and the adl, and our foreign policy or do we continue to take on israels plight because they cant make peace. and dont say its not possible because it is. dont try and sell us that forever now america must fight terrorism. theres one thing that will make things 10 trillion times better and thats the creation of a palestinian state and the withdraw of israel from the occupied territories. but because they cant make peace on both sides like animals, and both act despicable, doesnt mean we
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
and although 9/11 was not the first time the s.o.b's tried to take down the towers it all stems from our support for israel and propping up oppressive regimes in the region. and you can talk about incidents that happened 1801 which have no relevance to our current situation. our government is dominated by zionists and large corp. i mean im not saying anything new, you know what im talking about im sure you understand the dilemma we are facing as a nation, do we open up debate about groups like
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
9/11 was blow back, thats very clear. for the reasons stated in the 9/11 commission report. america's bias support for israel, and because of our foreign policy towards the middle east.which is highly influenced by people like aipac, and adl. many politicians have been silenced by groups like the adl when being critical of israel. so for a long time now brave americans have had the balls to come out against what has been slowly happening to our government over the past 30 years. cont. next post.
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
omg i own,,,its so awesome when a douchbag tries to lie all u do is google it and you can counterpunch em right in the face!
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
Lol, all I did was repeat what Jefferson said. If I give my source you can hardly call me a liar. You'd have to take it up with the founding father.
theforeigner85 3 years ago
and this one time at band camp israel sank the uss liberty.
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
if men want to comit suicide then they can hang themselvs from their cieling fans. but stop blowing yourself up killin many others knowing they are of other faiths. causing panic and comosion in society. blowing up churches and embasies in the name of islam is an act of WAR islamic war JIHAD. islamic states such as iran, syria, and saudi arabia has officialy declared war against the west but in a nicer more hidden way. oh these are finatics please dont blame us. they are the minority ! bull shit
2bmh 3 years ago
yes their is a holy war now,,,makes you wonder how we got there. and its not, i repeat its not because its their religion. please dont use that. it only hides the fact that they feel that support for israel and oppressive regimes is the reason why they attacked us. it was even in the 9/11 omission report, which clearly states the reason for the attacks, which the media keeps silent because it doesnt serve the interest of israel if americans all knew the real reason
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
people need to realize that terrorism is islamic militancy. any act of violence is simply WAR. when someone strike your buildings with hijacked planes what is that ? arent they declaring war on you ? if america is to launch a missle on iran and say we did it in the name of mother merry ? what bulshit is that ! WAKE UP. islam declared war on non muslims alike. JIHAD FI SABIL ALAH - JIHAD in the name of allah.
2bmh 3 years ago
ya they did declare war, so whats your point? it doesnt dissmiss (in their minds) the meddling in their affairs has got to stop. we have to stop bombing these places because we want to appease israel. america is not israel, if we arent carefull we will all wake up in america which will have the same problems israel has now. i could care less about israel, they're not worth my 4 family members serving now in the us military!
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
Well, apparently American foreign policy sucked even at it's conception. When America was finally independent, it's sailors were being attacked and taken captive in the mediterranean without provocation. The culprits were Muslim barbary pirates operating out of North Africa, when Jefferson went to meet their representatives, they said the reason they attack American sailors was that the Quran ordered them to make war against the infidel and take them captive. This is Jefferson's own testimony.
theforeigner85 3 years ago
One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or "tyranny," let alone "terrorism." He resists any comparison with today's tormenting confrontations. "The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology," he writes. "Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America's War of Independence." quit trying to lie to the youtube community!
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
Yes, he's telling you America didn't go to war in the name of Christianity. Their merchant seaman were under attack by Muslim pirates using their religion as justification. I think you misunderstood what the author meant here. He's arguing that the Americans who stormed the shores of Tripoli weren't crusaders but soldiers defending their trade routes in the mediterranean from Muslim pirates.
I'll pretend that wasn't a rushed google search to find an opposing opinion without examining it.
theforeigner85 3 years ago
my dear friend, america is already facing what isreal is facing. when i saw 9 11 i knew that jihad has come to america. they finaly reached you like they reached many around the world. they hate israel b/c its the ONLY AND ONLY DEMOCRATIC state in the middle east. thats why they hate it so much. look at the middle east and show me another democratic state. you might want to say lebanon ! lebanon ya right . watch the new civil war about to start between islam and christianity.
2bmh 3 years ago
Oxford describes terrorism as "violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." WTC7 housed SEC evidence against corporate criminals who stole billions from the people. Good aim for the politically connected terrorists, made vulnerable by Marvin Bush's Security company disengaging security routines just prior to 9/11. Intimidation of witnesses and the general public following the event fits Oxford's definition too. Was Islam the patsy we tortured into subservience for their oil?
forxtv 3 years ago
that is a brilliant question
serenity6996 3 years ago
I think the examples you mentioned could have had at least some military gain. Terrorism rarely has military gain. I gave the example that carpet bombing cripples industry, and can hinder troop movement. The attacks on 9\11 had no military gain, nor was that the intention of the attackers. The attackers wanted to murder innocents as a political protest. I do however consider the bombings of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki to be warcrimes, since i'm convinced they were a show of force to the Soviets.
theforeigner85 3 years ago
hiroshima was a warcrime 100% true. but not in the name of ANY religion. it was simply WAR. and politics... in todays' society increasing terrorism around the world is linked to islaic militancy. this is what the west needs to realize. sudan had an outrage on a teacher who named a teddy bear mohamad and wanted to kill her. COMON ! do americans want to kill an inocent perosn for naming a teddy bear JOSEPH ? or Marry ?
2bmh 3 years ago
the increase in islamic militancy is because we (america) have been on a rampage in that part of the world for a while, why? for 2 reasons, to appease israel, and for a strategic military base in iraq. and so now recruiting has gone through the roof, because we slaughtered the oraqi population, and yes they are killing eachother as well, the estimated 1.3 million iraqis dead is not a result of the civil war they are in.
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
Actually, it is. According to John Hopkins university, who gave the civilian death toll of 650 000, 69% of civilian deaths were caused by foreign militants, or other Iraqis (sectarian militias).
What you consider appeasing Israel is in fact defending its existance. It's a country invaded by its neighbours more than once with the objective of destroying it. It's the only stable democracy in the region, and gives more rights to its citizens (including its Arab citizens) than any Arab country.
theforeigner85 3 years ago
I think you should put things into perspective. World War 2 was a different time, with different technology. NATO countries are continously developping weapons that are more precise to limit civilian casualties. During world war 2, you couldn't cripple the industry of a nation by targetting its factories precisely, you usually had to carpet bomb the area to achieve that goal. The West has realized ww2 bombing caused too many civilian deaths, and that's why they've modified their tactics since.
theforeigner85 3 years ago
Yes! Thank you very much. Too bad they didn't choose this question, most of them would've probably popped a nerve over it.
BloggerMusicMan 3 years ago
when american presidents drop bombs on other contires they are not doing it in the name of ALLAH. in the name of MOTHER MARRY or JESUS.... when the attacks on pentagon. word trade center. london bombings etc.. those are IN THE NAME OF ALLAH AND MUAHAMD HIS PROPHET. see the difference ? way off from each other. we defined the pentagon attack as terorism b/c we are too politicaly corect to say MUSLIMS did it. ! we call the word trace center's terrorism instead of ANTI CHRISTIAN atacks.!!!
2bmh 4 years ago
not really they just used the defense of Islam through jihad as an excuse and to draw people to there cause
xfvkemosx 3 years ago
You really think they attacked us because we are a christian nation?..i dont think so. you know the reason why, its because of our bias support of israel and oppressive regimes in the middle east, along with constantly putting a foot on their neck and taking their oil.
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
you are brainwashed, what oil are we taking ? when 9 11 happend we where not in iraq. when the london bombings happend london was not in saudi arabia, when hizbullah keeps attacking israel , israely soldiers are not in lebanon. when the people wanted to kill the teacher in sudan who named a teddy bear mohamad no one was in sudan ! wake up .... they hate you b/c your not one of them. why are people fleeying the middle east like myself ? its b/c of search for freedom and persuit of hapines.
2bmh 3 years ago
talking about mid east oil, what rock have u been sleeping under. everyone knows it was about oil and to strike them for israel. as far as the other organizations, ya they are terrorist outfits, cause they cant stand what israel is doing to the palestinians. and your right the outrage about the teddy bear was ridiculous but 9/11 happened as a result of our biased support for israel and other attacks on israel are made out of hate for israel..weather its right or wrong was bias supportfor israel
GUITARESPKH02 3 years ago
you are linking 2 things together that do not belong. the attack ont he pentagon or the world trade center are defined as JIHAD. a global war against non muslims. you can reffer to the kuran for more information on jihad. terrorism is the POLITICAL CORECT term of ANTI ISLAM KILLINGS.... get your facts str8 .
2bmh 4 years ago
not gonna lie, Im digginyour slogan
I, Youube
You dcide!
LazyMaster410 4 years ago
I think that if you look at terrorism as a term you can get what it means pretty easily. A terrorist's main weapon is terror, plain and simple. If people are afraid to walk down the street for fear of a sniper, bomber, kidnapper, etc. then the terrorist has done his (or her) job well. That is the definition I would use. The dropping of a bomb on civilians isn't really the terrorist act, making the people afraid that you will drop the bomb is. Dropping the bomb is just a tool of the terror.
Skyeking0 4 years ago
Skyeking0, I think you got it wrong. The terrorist main weapon isn't terror. That's the objective. We're become "used" to war, with military vs. military/armed forces, and do not regard this terror. However, attacks on civilians, which serves no direct military purpose, would be terror. Hence, Dresden and Hiroshima would both be acts of terrorism. Dropping a bomb makes people scared, as you've already shown you're willing to do it once.
Aaberg123 4 years ago
Or we can add the CIA overthrowing multiple governments with terrorist attacks. No matter how you slice it this is the biggest terrorist state in the world. Take our freedom to protect us but leave our borders wide open and leave us dependent on foreign oil. These are national security problems folks not the fact that we can walk down a street without showing an ID or having one that can be tracked.
hotrod189824 4 years ago 2
Ok lets go ahead and add the killing of civilians in Panama or destroying of 20,000 peoples homes placing them and the united state's political opponents in camps. Or the killing of over 1,000,000 civilians in Iraq.
hotrod189824 4 years ago 2
Also the atomic bombings was the best way to end the war--if we had been forced to invade Japan the casualties for both sides would have been unimaginable, and would have CERTAINLY included many civilian lives as the Japanese were very fanatical. Stop trying to revise history to support your liberal views on the modern war on terrorists. Never surrender, never give the terrorists what they want. USA RULES!
Ultrad321 4 years ago
fuck terrorists, kill em all. How dare you call American actions terrorists? The bombing of Dresden happened in a WAR buddy, its attacking the enemy through attrition--destroying industrial production, fuel processing, etc. to hurt his war effort. its a well accepted and widely used tactic in war.
Ultrad321 4 years ago
Ultrad321, to follow your logic, 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack either. In this case Pentagon for military, Twin Towers for economy, and a possible hit on The White House. And even back then you were at war, the CIA and their covert ops on one side, and Islamists on the other.
So, I'm asking you this, do *you* consider 9/11 a terrorist attack, after your reasoning regarding Dresden and Japan? If so, what is the difference.
Aaberg123 4 years ago
the calculated use of unlawful violence against persons or property;or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological objectives. The only way we can truly stop the war end poverty, and give the terrorists the land they want.
idreamofgts 4 years ago
The premise of the question is blatantly false, and I suspect you have never served in the military, and have no background in military science. Hiroshima was a legitimate target during a declared war, it was the HQ for the Japanese Army responsible for the defense of south Japan, and a major supply depot. In addition, since it had not been bombed, it would give an ideal display for our new weapon.
Phana24JeffG 4 years ago
No, fighting a war against terror is absurd. Just like fighting a war against evil or fear. They aren't things that war can be waged against.
They simply don't want to say who they really are at war with.
Darsises 4 years ago
I consider terrorism to embody attacks on civilian targets by at most state-sponsored groups, not governments, to incite fear. Also, the Pentagon is not completely military.
MustardOverlord 4 years ago
City-busting in WWII was a product of "total war". The phenomenon carried both precedent and justification enough to be viewed as operationally viable.
The Pentagon was not purely an attack on a military target, considering that the plane used as the weapon contained civilians whose death was also an aim of the terrorists.
hotspur2514 4 years ago
The "War on Terror" is a throw away slogan that should not have become policy. Since it has, the damage done to the USA's credibility in the international community has been damaged, possibly, irrevocably.
hotspur2514 4 years ago
Being an independent, videos like this worry me, ridiculous arguments like this just strengthen the current Republican cause, and make Liberals look like idiots.
beam19 4 years ago
beam19,
I'm not sure what I said in this video that you are attacking as "flawed and moronic logic." If youre having problems parsing what I said, you can see everything I said in the text of the video description. Can u quote for me what I said that you are attacking as "flawed and moronic logic?"
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
This is garbage...the plane that hit the pentagon was hijacked, a civilian aircraft and carrying 100% civilians...flawed and moronic logic on this video dude.
beam19 4 years ago
you dont, its just a ruse to gain power over people and countries...
RationalLiberty 4 years ago
wish they would have showed that question
joshfif 4 years ago
yeah, i wish every candiate had to answer that one
airsoftsniper4307 4 years ago
You "forget" to mention he is in favor of free education. Nice try. Nice spin. Back to the bunker with ye, Hitler!
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
totally agree...but i have no idea what to do
mcalien24 4 years ago
yay [=.. brilliant question.
RainaBeeford 4 years ago
Now that is a god damn good question.
flufbus 4 years ago
look up the CAIN website. It covers the history terrorism in Northern Ireland. In the end the only way it was combated was by removing the parts that interfered with peoples civil rights.
Evey action of violence against terrorism did nothing but send more people into the arms of the terrorist recruiters.
The Irony is that a lot of what is happening in the USA was already tried in NI 30 years ago.
hobbesie 4 years ago
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had three main objectives: Testing an A bomb in a real world scenario, the prompt surrender of Japan, and, from that outcome - to stop the soviets from gaining a foothold in asia through conventional military force (which they intended, until Japan surrendered of course). I've read the long since declassified documents myself in the bomb museum at Hiroshima.
LarkinBo 4 years ago
prrolg you have to much time on yur hands lol...liberal viewer is the only political person on her that dosnt delete comments if it is against what he bileves in..
howellap1 4 years ago
That's true and libs tout free speech but are the first to block or disable comments. I agree with them on that one point.Some I would shut down. I would revoke Keith Olbermanns passport and give him a Mexican one for example.
prrolg 4 years ago
Also comments build up his count and promotes debate with draws more viewers and comments. He's being paid for this site I BELIEVE. I have no proof. I'm not a 9-11 truther or tin foil hat guy.That's for libs ha ha ha.
prrolg 4 years ago
Wake up. We are not in Iraq (for example) to fix anything so it's not necessary for up to be "fixed" before going there. We are there to establish a strong middle east presence for National Strength. You're to full of venom to ever see that.
prrolg 4 years ago
meant 'us',sorry.
prrolg 4 years ago
"Did I ever say...Or that 9/11 was justified?" You just said that minutes earlier perhaps in a comment "Any and all attacks against American civilians are not only justifiable but also warranted." Are you nuts?
prrolg 4 years ago
Again, let's not take things out of context. I swear, most times on youtube, I'm talking to a brick wall with some of you dolts. Plus it took you this long to come back. If it's hard for you to keep up, then never reply to something I say again ok? You still continue to misquote me. You have nothing on me, fuck off.
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
I'm a dolt? What the fuck does any and all attacks against American civilians mean? You Goddam coward. Have the courage of your convictions and don't try to turn tables by calling people stupid. You're a pompous ass
prrolg 4 years ago
And you're canadian? You goddam bastard!
prrolg 4 years ago
Ha yeah I am pompous. I explained the logic to Bellita or whatever. Scroll up just a bit to have a learning. It was my mistake, you and Bellita sound very alike. And, yes you are a dolt. Have a shitty pissed off day prrolg.
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
You're just an angy lib. Keith Olbermann is prolly your God.
prrolg 4 years ago
someone that doesnt hide, sugar coat, or distort the facts is enough to be god like in my book any day .
marfawkah02 4 years ago
Ha ha ha ha you've got to be kidding. You are a hopeless liberal. Olbermann is the biggest liar on TV and his show is watched by nobody but far left loons.
ThatsmyYokoOno 4 years ago
example please
marfawkah02 4 years ago
"Any and all attacks against American civilians are not only justifiable,but also warranted". That is the most disgusting comment I've ever seen in any context imaginable. You must be incapable of shame.
prrolg 4 years ago
Yeah I have the shame of knowing that people are so party-crazy that they will allow America to die for their silly often stupid politics, (YOU). I have shame that my country is currently murdering God knows how many people in my name. I have shame that my fellow Americans are actually too concerned with Britney Spears to change anything. I have no shame for the things you say however, or how you try to spin what I say. That's on you. And you'll get over it, or choke on it, I don't care.
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
Oh you care pansy ass. You care. You want to tell everybody in the world to go piss up a rope is what really ails you.
prrolg 4 years ago
Nah, just those like you. Bah you've already choked on it you creepy son of a bitch. You know what makes me sick about you, is you think our "enemies" should abide by some code of law while engaging in war, but we should have no such restrictions. Man, fuck you. You're about as intelligent as a brick, and you have the morals of an Al Qaida terrorist, you stupid hypocrite.
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
"You know what makes me sick about you is you think our"enemies" should abide by some code of law while while engaging in war" You know that is wrong. I already commented that the pentagon attack was not terrorism.The Pearl Harbor attack was fair too. You make things up
prrolg 4 years ago
Ha... yeah... The attack on the Pentagon wasn't terrorism.. sure... Tell that to the families of those who died on flight 77. Then you think you have cause to attack the things I say. How does your shit taste to you? I'm done with you now. In the end it was you that defeated yourself.
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
Not so fast nerd. Flight 77 WAS terrorism because it was an attack on civilians when there was no war. The pentagon is a military target and fair game to attack.That is like declaring war. You are just not bright enough to debate me.
prrolg 4 years ago
pearl harbor attack was known by the gov. before it even happen and did nothing to have an excuse to go into war. same story here . apparently your not too bright .
marfawkah02 4 years ago
Wrong again. Al Qaida declared war years before 9/11. You are delusional. You know I shouldn't have to give you these history lessons. You should already know these things. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You can't seem to make up your mind. It was fun burying you prrolg. But now you're just a bore. I think I'll move on to someone who has a clue about history and the present, not someone who's willing to disgrace himself just to throw a few badly timed insults.
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
Al Qaeda is not a nation. When they declare war it is terrorism when they kill civilians. The killing of the passengers on flt 77 was a terrorist act but hitting the pentagon was an attack on a military target,not terrorism. MORE>
ThatsmyYokoOno 4 years ago
What happened to you accusing prrolg of being a person who believes the bad guys have to play by the rules but we don't. He told you the pentagon hit was not terrorism on the pentagon. You didn't answer him lib backpedaling name calling idiot
ThatsmyYokoOno 4 years ago
BTW he called you a pansy ass and a nerd both of which you are. You are the one winning the 'insult' war on here. And you called him delusional. You're not even aware of your own many insults. LOL
ThatsmyYokoOno 4 years ago
I'm very aware of my insults, I never said or implied that I wasn't. I always end up scraping the bottom of the barrel with you fucking people. Just once I'd like to debate someone who knows a little something.
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
Ok very simply put. The attack on the pentagon was terrorism, because civilians were used as a weapon. Why is this so hard to understand? Please define the word "liberal" I'm not sure you know what a liberal is. So basically what I gather from both of you, is the attack on the pentagon was and wasn't terrorism. You said it. I wasn't accusing him by the way, it's actually what he believes. And finally, sometimes the truth hurts, but it still must be told.
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
I'm never sure what to make of a comment this absurd. It was a terrorist act, but it wasn't at the same time. You realize of course that flight 77 was used (with civlians on it) to attack the pentagon. Since when does it have to be a nation to declare war? Stay in school attend your history classes then talk to me. LV please try to attract a more intelligent group of viewers. This is ridiculous. Is this person fucking drunk or something?
HabsRule92Remy92 4 years ago
Did you ever write a paper on Japanese or German immorality or actions not militarily necessary? No. Because you would need to be Japanese or German and hate your country to do it. You were born in the wrong part of the world.
prrolg 4 years ago
prrlog,
Writing a paper criticizing a decision of the US government does not mean I "hate [my] country." In fact, just the opposite, it means I care enough about my country to want it to live up to its own ideals (not the ideals of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan).
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
I didn't say that writing a paper means that you hate your country. At least I don't think I said or meant that. I judged by what you said because I was not born yesterday and I live in a world of working men. Not in a fake world of books and academe.
prrolg 4 years ago
You said you paper was on why Hiroshima was not militarily necessary and why is was wrong (politically) and MORALLY.
prrolg 4 years ago
prrolg,
I didn't claim you said "writing a paper means you hate your country." I merely pointed out that writing this paper criticizing a decision of the US government does not mean I "hate [my] country." In fact, just the opposite, it means I care enough about my country to want it to live up to its own ideals (not the ideals of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan).
And, FYI, books exist in the real world. I referred to several in my paper that might enlighten you.
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
You did say that you made the claim in your paper that bombing Hiroshima was unnecessary and immoral,no? And I think that if Japan had won the war and you were Japanese that you'd be writing papers about the immorality of Japan instead of taking a more learned position on all out war. One could and would assume that you hate? maybe dislike your country intensely.
prrolg 4 years ago
BTW,the books reference in your paper are prolly not worth much trying to dig Japanese soldiers out of holes in tiny islands killing 12,000 and losing 3000 men in the process. You've never been shot at I'm sure.
prrolg 4 years ago
And loving your country gives you an air of high mindedness that is not at all noble or appealing. Actually SOME ideals of Nazi Germany WERE worth living up to. Let me see how you deal with that snob
prrolg 4 years ago
prrolg,
I'm sorry if u misunderstood me, but I wasn't suggesting these books written after WWII should be sent back in time and used as weapons against the Japanese. I was suggesting u read these books and learn the information within them so we could have a reasoned discussion based on facts
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Oh I thought you meant that I was an uneducated guy who needed to be enlightened. Do you really think it I would find it reasonable to read books (how many?) so that I could have a comment debate on YT? Do you think I wanted you to believe books can be used as weapons? Do you think your sarcasm is elitist or comedic?
prrolg 4 years ago
prrolg,
I'm sorry if u don't think it is "reasonable to read books" to learn about whether the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, but it was from reading those books (and looking through the collected papers of Henry Stimson) that I gathered the facts on which I based the argument in my paper. Shouldn't a reasoned discussion be based on facts?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
PS If youre interested, the collected papers of Henry Stimson are at the Yale University library in New Haven, Connecticut
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Well I'll certainly take a look at the papers but I have limited time to make a living etc to read entire books in order to have a debate or discussion on a YT comment board.I'M not getting paid for it you know?
prrolg 4 years ago
I took a very brief look.The Japanese saw the Emperor as a God.This I respect. The decision to surrender was still resisted by him and others even after the 2nd atomic bomb.I repect that also. Dishonor being more important than death they held on. The bombs had the effect intended. They eventually surrendered.
prrolg 4 years ago
The bombings of Hiroshima,Nagasaki and Dresden were not terrorism because war was still on.The population of a Nation at war is the rear guard of the military and a target.The attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 was also not terrorism,it was a military target in an act of war.You were right there.
prrolg 4 years ago
This whole goddam video is about taking down the Bush Administration and anyone with an IQ over 120 knows it.There ,I said it.
prrolg 4 years ago
The only reason Dresden was not a war crime is because England was a winner of WWII. It was absolutely horrific attack on a civilian population designed at destroying German morale. Even the Allied population at that time believed the attack to be inhuman and Churchill flip-flopped his position on it when the voters came out against it.
hobbesie 4 years ago
The allied population believed? Source reference for that is what? You are right though,the bombing of Dresden was not a war crime.
prrolg 4 years ago
hobbesie, I did some reading online regarding the bombing of Dresden. I hadn't looked at details before but I've seen that your comment was correct. The bombing of Dresden was truly a war crime. The facts and details are all there. Many bomber pilots have even said so.Dresden was not necessary. I stand corrected
prrolg 4 years ago
It is reasonable to read books but not in order to have a debate on a web site that allows a 500 word limit.Just to have a yt debate it is not reasonable.
prrolg 4 years ago
Ha ha ha haha. Good
prrolg 4 years ago
combatant
n. One, such as a person or a combat vehicle, that takes part in armed strife.
vehicle
-n. an agent of transmission
combat
-Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.
The Pentagon is the military headquaters of the USA, that actively transmits armed strife around the world on behalf of its nation's defense.
By this definition, how is the Pentagon NOT the largest combat vehicle in the world, and thereby entirely comprised of combatants, military OR civilian?
y0buddy 4 years ago
It's called beinf a thief, being a murderer, a liar... etc
If you're fine with that status, just to get a few $ dribbling down from the real profiteers, then I think our moral values would make conversation very difficult.
Also, I completely fail to understand nationalism, especially in a countrly like the US where there isn't even a "gene survival" argument because of diversity of origins.
Paulginz 4 years ago
When was the US the light of the world?
When the colony rebelled against the UK? (long time ago).
Defenitely not with Maccarthism during the cold war.
They also came a little late in WWII...
Paulginz 4 years ago
Yes, at a few times throughout its history. We had other low points too. Odd choice mentioning McCarthy as a low point. This is the first time I've ever heard the U.S. criticized for entering WWII late. Good thing we did though, huh?
Wait. Lets see. Late? Pacific in '41, Africa with the Brits in 42 or 43, lend lease?
So yes. Light of the world :)
foley15136 4 years ago
McCarthy and the "witch hunt" was definitely a low point. (You can't pretend you're fighting for world freedom when in your own country there isn't even freedom of political opinion.)
I'm not criticising the US for the other two... just saying the actions weren't so grand as to justify the US being called the light of the world.
Can't remember the URSS being called the light of the world for WWII. (I think their contribution exceeds the US's.)
December '41 ;-). Yes... a few years late.
Paulginz 4 years ago
I know the McCarthy commie thing was a low point but we've had worse. It is odd that you mentioned it. our current situation is worse. USSR wasn't because of Stalin killing millions of his own, that's why. Not grand eh? Take us out of that war and what would be the likely outcome? The USSR saving everyone from tyranny?
foley15136 4 years ago
We'll only know how bad the current situation really is when presidential documents get released and studied.
"The USSR saving everyone from tyranny?". Actually, yeah. They wouldn't have managed to occupy liberated western europe, and hence would have probably just waited for a communist or socialist party to be democratically elected there.
Things would have been worse, of course.
I still don't think "light of the world" is justified.
Paulginz 4 years ago
Fine. Its a matter of opinion and you disagree. there are a lot of people who agree with me, including non-Americans too.
foley15136 4 years ago
I don't know how you are so sure about the USSR making things better. That's quite a theory you have there about how it would have gone down. But I do think most would agree that things worked out pretty good with the U.S. and other western counties rebuilding that part of Europe. The idea that the USSR would have done a better job would get little agreement from people, I think.
foley15136 4 years ago
I said "Things would have been worse, of course."
Hence I agree that with USSR intervention alone, (i.e. without the american help) things would have been a lot worse.
Americans did a good job.
Paulginz 4 years ago
By now, you can't really say car-bombs and suicide bombers in the markets are unexpectes, surprising or indirect.
Paulginz 4 years ago
Maybe more people would have died in the long run without the bomb.
But don't dramatise... It wasn't about "saving humanity". Humanity was pretty safe by the tame germany surrendered, the war wasn't going to last forever killing everyone or send us into a dark age.
Paulginz 4 years ago
Doesn't seem to be any major link between Al-Quaeda and Iraq though.
(Ben Laden and Saddam hated each other.)
But the war in Iraq still seems to be part of the war on terrorism.
Paulginz 4 years ago
The definition of the word terrorist is very relative. weren't the American Colonists terrorists to Britain when they boarded the Gaspee, took prisoners, and burnt it? it's all view point; perspective.
insideXweXareXdying 4 years ago
Thx liberal viewer. U don't have to answer, but r u an atheist? Most atheists (like me) are liberal.
Superdogfan1 4 years ago
I'm an atheist and at the same time for dictatorship in the United States.
piecartbox 4 years ago
I'm a liberal agnostic :)
jacobdjanze 4 years ago
notice how war on terror comes out sounding like war on terra a lot of the times. it's a large agenda. there are three openly fought wars: drugs, terror, and iraq; all of which have a massive political agenda in mind. it's 1984, like it's always been.
arteast77 4 years ago
The bombing of Hiroshima was an attack to achieve political ends? Why are you such a liar Liberalviewer?
lrgpp 4 years ago
The bombing of Hiroshima was done to force a surrender on Japan.
(i.e. end the war)
Isn't winning a war a political objective?
Paulginz 4 years ago
His definition of terrorism doesn't hold water in his examle of bombing Hiroshima. Winning WWII was winning the war not an act of terrorism. You're question is stupid.
ThatsmyYokoOno 4 years ago
So if we were to wage war with Iran in the future...and they got a nuke..and used it on us to force surrender...that would just be hunkey dorey with you that they used atomics?
RockIsNot4TheDevil 4 years ago
That's right moron.
prrolg 4 years ago
revert to name-calling...real mature
RockIsNot4TheDevil 4 years ago
Ok,I'll just answer your question by saying 'that's right'.
prrolg 4 years ago
I do think MOST people "GET IT" when some political entity metaphorically declares war on a problem, e.g. "War on Drugs ... Poverty ... Crime ... Terrorism." Although, it could be argued that this practice violates the 10th Amendment.
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
I would certainly make a distinction between actions (upon civilians) made within the framework of a time of war, and actions made without a declaration of war...thus terrorism. If Pearl Harbor (military base)would have instead been say, Long Beach, CA (civilian area)..I would regard it a terrorist act. Hiroshima was an act of 'war'(though as in 'Fog of War' movie) I may also philosophically (wasn't alive then with friends/family dying) agree with it also being a 'war-crime', not terrorism.
b4skin 4 years ago
Great Question!!! but sadly, its too challanging for most candidates and it may not air. but I would certainly look forward it to get answered
boygenis 4 years ago
Sorry but that is not true. The U.S. has lots of dirty laundry but it is no fair to call it the greatest terrorist. Uganda, Rwanda, Irael, Northern Ireland, Britian are just a few that are easily comparible and that is without even looking at the Islamic middle east.
speakerdavid 4 years ago
"You cant expect a slogan to suddenly turn into a real policy or else is doomed for failure(like the war on drugs)" Nice job, you've got dumb people believing that the US has no policy on Terrorism and that all there is a slogan. Is that what you intended to do in this video?
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
LV, "fighting a war on a tactic" is hyperbole and a distortion of US policy against Terrorism. I guess there is reasons persons like you fail to understand terrorism has become DOCTRINE for organized and networked bands of radical militant ideologues. Perhaps you think it's cute to diminish the military's prosecution of the war down to a "tactic." Seems you've insulted those who've served in the war and have desecrated those wounded or killed protecting your right to say your hurtful words.
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
FairMindedCitizen,
Again, whether u want to call terrorism a tactic or a doctrine, it's still an intangible that is a method not an enemy. The term "illegal warfare" is not defined in the Geneva Conventions as u claimed and, in the Green Peace example, u seem to have just obfuscated the meaning of "legitimate representative authority."
Accusing me of insulting the troops doesn't make the rest of your argument any more logical.
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Again, a TACTIC is a concept, therefore, as you say is an "intangible". And again, DOCTRINE (as way of life) IS a tangible that can be targeted for elimination in many ways (diplomacy, politics, education, warfare). And also again, The International Court of Justice in the Hague uses THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AS CUSTOMARY LAW. The articles and protocols of the Geneva Conventions determine what illegal warfare is. Finally, my argument doesn't rest on your insulting generations of service people.
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
FairMindedCitizen,
Again, you have not explained how a doctrine is any more tangible than a tactic nor how terrorism is an enemy rather than a method. And, again, your baseless personal attack on me is uncalled for, particularly now that you admit that it is irrelevant to your argument.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Terrorism as a Tactic is ideas about employing forces in combat using asymmetrical warfare to achieve a goal. As such, the Tactic of Terrorism is a concept, therefore is intangible because there are no rules to achieve a specific response (abstract). Terrorism as Doctrine is governed by a set of principles or guidance that specifically states how to apply asymmetrical warfare to achieve a particular goal or response (concrete). More:
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
The above makes the Doctrine of Terrorism "the enemy" because it specifically draws habitual devotion to the laws that comprise its policy. So, by destroying the devotion to the Doctrine of Terrorism you destroy the doctrine and the terrorism ergo "the enemy". This victory like most can be achieved through education, diplomacy, politics, or warfare.
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
I have explained how doctrine is a tangible, but there's no sense going into this any further especially if you're taking my comments personally, they're not intended to be.
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
Of course FairMIndedCitien's comment about liberalviewer attacking the troops is a personal attack. It is a shame that he has to resort to the same mean-spirited form of attack that his cronies in the White House use against anyone who attempts to create a meaningful debate about the war on terror. Shame on you FairMindedCitizen!
gspurr 4 years ago
"he has to resort to the same mean-spirited form of attack that his cronies in the White House use against anyone who attempts to create a meaningful debate about the war" Now that IS a "personal attack" versus my articulated observation and criticism regarding this posted vid. Hypocrisy anyone? Shame on you gspurr!
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
The vid says, "Some American acts like the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima qualify as terrorism." Isn't that the same as calling the American Armed Forces terrorists? If you were an American service member past or present wouldn't YOU feel insulted?
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago