View Full Version : Are we the real terrorists?
04-11-2012, 11:10 AM
This is for residents of the United States and/or those who have, at least, minimal knowledge of the US politics.
(this video in no way reflects my viewpoint in the matter. I will make my viewpoint clear during the debate)
Watching this video, I feel that the speaker argues an emotional point. I watched this video the first time I listened to this speech I was moved by the emotion which this speaker uses. However, taking a second look at the speech, I realized that this speech is an appeal to emotion rather than fact. After listening to the speech a few more times I realized that there is very little evidence to support the deduction which this man has come to.
So I ask you, the people of YWO, who do you think the real terrorist is? AND what evidence can you provide to help prove your point. I would like to remind you also, that you need not agree or disagree with this man-- you can take a standpoint which agrees with some of his points and disagrees with other points. Also, the video is provided only as a reference for the debate. I would like all of you to focus on the question at hand rather than the video.
So have at it:
(I have modified the question slightly.)
Are we the real terrorists?
04-11-2012, 01:24 PM
If anything, the country is extremely paranoid. We have the biggest weapons and the largest economy, but we believe that the world is against us. The country does stuff that we might not agree with in order to protect our freedom.
With that, I'm not really sure :P There are many, many definitions on terrorism that nobody can agree on.
04-12-2012, 03:31 AM
It's hard not to think that, considering how invasive we've been in world affairs in the past several decades - often without citizen knowledge or approval of the situation. And it is noted of such 'terrorist' (I believe I am looking for another word, one that evades me at this time) country that those in charge seek to justify themselves to those they represent. The way the US does this is slightly different than most examples, though. Most involve demonizing the 'enemy', glorifying the 'home team' (or victimizing it), etc. While the US definitely does these things, it most prominently takes a Samaritan approach, appealing to the population that we are the heroes.
I wonder if the other side would agree with that idea?
Anyways, in answer to your question, yes.
04-12-2012, 05:16 AM
Invading, even without public knowledge, isn't really counted as terrorism.
04-12-2012, 06:10 AM
I think that in every country there are certain forces who are interested in the production of weapons. Sale of the latter - an incredibly profitable business.Even more successful development of this business depends on innovation. Nobody wants to buy junk.
Now the question is: what is needed to justify the allocation of huge budgets for the development and creation of new types of weapons?
Of course the enemies of all stripes, from individual countries and ending with the terrorists.
Who is the main investor and beneficiary of the military-industrial system?
The government, of course,
and he has the resources and opportunities to skillfully create and cultivate an enemy image.
I mean any government, and particularly those possessing nuclear weapons.
They are very beneficial to people considered each other enemies. For them to thrive they need a hell of an enemy.
However, the fools in the world gradually diminished.
Hysterically-patriotic rhetoric of our future president (I mean in our country, not Obama and Romney), the public greeted very coldly and cautiously.
Terrorism is essentially a purulent abscess of imperial thinking and large-sovereign principle in solving political problems.
When an elephant goes to restore order in a china shop , a lot of broken dishes will be dissatisfied and will try to pierce the offender in the leg.
The rank and file terrorists are usually little educated religious fanatics, often drug dependent or those who have lost their loved ones in a war..
These people are suggestible and easily manipulated.
Their leaders usually do not drink, do not smoke, do not use drugs, and of course never wear a suicide bomber's belt. They want to have their problems and ambitions solved by other people's lives.
Thus, the lies and manipulation of other people's consciousness - the main instrument of not only the governments of great countries, but also small organizations and parties.
Of course, this is not my idea. Machiavelli and Dostoevsky wrote about this.
04-12-2012, 02:30 PM
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Drugs and low education have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING in this thread.
Definition #1, on the other hand, does. Use of violence? Check - we're still there, far too many years later, after all, still 'fighting' for God knows what. Threats to intimidate? Check - our mere reputation and status counts as this, though direct intimidation more than likely exists.
And, since the US is more a plutocracy than it ever was a democracy, it truly all is for political purposes.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.