Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

The Two Most Terroristic Countries?

Kiroen
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 3:05:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw, according to European Union's definition's, to force a civil plane to change its defined route when it's already flying is considered international terrorism.

http://lmgtfy.com...
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 5:29:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pakistan and Egypt, Syria would be a close 3rd.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 6:36:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 5:29:15 PM, lannan13 wrote:
Pakistan and Egypt, Syria would be a close 3rd.

Silly idiot.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 6:55:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Libertarian circlejerk. Give me a call when you have something to discuss.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 6:58:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your list is dumb. Iran didn't launch invasions, but it consistently supported and financed terrorism. Not to mention that their oppressive regime is terrorism on its own -- but whatever floats your boat.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 7:35:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah guys, theres a difference between sponsoring terrorism (Iran) and meddling with other countries's affairs and governments (US)

And my vote goes to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, even though they dont entirely support terrorism they still both have serious terrorist problems
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
makhdoom5
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:57:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
whoever goes to war it terrorize the peoples of both country.
and even the other countries.
so i think whoever participate in wars are terrorist.
and who does more is bigger terrorist.

but keep in mind who are merely defensive.
who are they. i think who surrender are more bigger terrorist, because they support and let flourish the terrorist who invaded their country.
so my solute to Vietnam and Afghanistan.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 8:13:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Those Arabs want to take our freedom.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 9:15:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depends how you define terrorism. If you take the narrow American view, that is who terrorizes us, then it's one of any of a dozen muslim countries in the middle east. If you go by who's actions have terrorized the most innocent people, you'd be hard pressed to beat the US and other puppet master countries.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:43:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:57:50 AM, makhdoom5 wrote:
whoever goes to war it terrorize the peoples of both country.
and even the other countries.
so i think whoever participate in wars are terrorist.
and who does more is bigger terrorist.

but keep in mind who are merely defensive.
who are they. i think who surrender are more bigger terrorist, because they support and let flourish the terrorist who invaded their country.
so my solute to Vietnam and Afghanistan.

TICK TICK BOOM BOOM!
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:14:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If we may include the USSR, and the German government during the 1930's-1945 (I forget who was the leader of Germany during this time), then we are allowed to include past-empires.

In which case, I want to nerdily throw out the name of Vlad (Vladislav) Dracula. Yes, that Dracula. He once turned back an invasion of Europe by the conquering Sultan of Istanbul with almost exclusively a terrorist attack. Specifically, a scorched-earth strategy that culminated in some large-scale massacre of his own civilian population. The exact details of this massacre are in doubt, but Sultan Mehmet claimed that some 40,000 were impaled on spikes. This is unlikely, but the Sultan's retreat actually happened.

I cannot defend this leader as "the worst" terrorist of all, but I want to include his name in the discussion.

If we are not allowed past-states, then I will suggest the American post-Confederate South. This region has been home to more terrorist attacks than any other that come to mind. The success of these attacks in driving public policy are phenomenal. In terms of body count alone, it is hard to argue against Iraq.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 6:50:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Terroristic" is an obviously loaded term and is irrelevant to the actual discussion. Terrorism is a method, not an ideology. I would support acts of terrorism under certain political or moral circumstances, and the same goes for ethnic cleansing, massacres of civilian populations, using civilians as human shields, illegal surveillance, etc. Of course we're going to see much more harm done to America's enemies rather than to America itself- we should expect to see that. America's actual spheres of interest extend far beyond its border, and I find it incredibly frustrating to explain this to libertarians over and over. Look at what Iran is doing in the Middle East. A string of satellite states and Iranian sponsored violence from Iran's western border to the Mediterranean. If America is unwanted, the why are the Saudis, the Jordanians, and Gulf Sheikdoms begging us for help against Iran? Could it be because of their rich oil fields or the Shiite populations that happen to live around said oil fields? Recognizing that America is uniquely aggressive because it is uniquely responsible is not imperialist thinking.

Just read and tell me if you think Iran isn't dangerous to the Middle East: http://avimelamed.wordpress.com...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Etudiant
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:31:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 3:15:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
By any statistical measure, it's the US.
It is true that the US has sponsored terrorists and guerrilla movements in the past, but I hardly see them as the most active sponsors of terrorism. There are countries that devote much more resources and time to terrorism sponsorship.
Etudiant
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:34:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 8:13:42 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Those Arabs want to take our freedom.
Haha. You seriously think that's the reason? I don't think they give a damn about that. There are many countries besides the US that are "free" and they don't get attacked by terrorists. (at least, not very often). That is a major hole in your theory, buddy.
Etudiant
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:36:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:14:43 PM, DeFool wrote:
If we may include the USSR, and the German government during the 1930's-1945 (I forget who was the leader of Germany during this time), then we are allowed to include past-empires.

In which case, I want to nerdily throw out the name of Vlad (Vladislav) Dracula. Yes, that Dracula. He once turned back an invasion of Europe by the conquering Sultan of Istanbul with almost exclusively a terrorist attack. Specifically, a scorched-earth strategy that culminated in some large-scale massacre of his own civilian population. The exact details of this massacre are in doubt, but Sultan Mehmet claimed that some 40,000 were impaled on spikes. This is unlikely, but the Sultan's retreat actually happened.

I cannot defend this leader as "the worst" terrorist of all, but I want to include his name in the discussion.

If we are not allowed past-states, then I will suggest the American post-Confederate South. This region has been home to more terrorist attacks than any other that come to mind. The success of these attacks in driving public policy are phenomenal. In terms of body count alone, it is hard to argue against Iraq.

Interesting. But I think you are blurring the lines between insurgents, guerrilla fighters and terrorists. You should first define what terrorism is in your perception.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 1:03:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 8:13:42 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Those Arabs want to take our freedom.

They're freedom haters! We're freedom lovers.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Etudiant
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 1:26:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 1:03:39 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/25/2013 8:13:42 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Those Arabs want to take our freedom.

They're freedom haters! We're freedom lovers.
That's a little too simplistic and broad. If this was true, then anyone can be a terrorist. I was hoping to see a more constructive definition.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 10:53:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 12:36:43 AM, Etudiant wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:14:43 PM, DeFool wrote:
If we may include the USSR, and the German government during the 1930's-1945 (I forget who was the leader of Germany during this time), then we are allowed to include past-empires.

In which case, I want to nerdily throw out the name of Vlad (Vladislav) Dracula. Yes, that Dracula. He once turned back an invasion of Europe by the conquering Sultan of Istanbul with almost exclusively a terrorist attack. Specifically, a scorched-earth strategy that culminated in some large-scale massacre of his own civilian population. The exact details of this massacre are in doubt, but Sultan Mehmet claimed that some 40,000 were impaled on spikes. This is unlikely, but the Sultan's retreat actually happened.

I cannot defend this leader as "the worst" terrorist of all, but I want to include his name in the discussion.

If we are not allowed past-states, then I will suggest the American post-Confederate South. This region has been home to more terrorist attacks than any other that come to mind. The success of these attacks in driving public policy are phenomenal. In terms of body count alone, it is hard to argue against Iraq.

Interesting. But I think you are blurring the lines between insurgents, guerrilla fighters and terrorists. You should first define what terrorism is in your perception.

I define "terrorism" as a political/military tactic that uses fear as the primary means of subjugation. In other words, a terrorist uses weaponized fear to force his will, as opposed to weaponry. An anti-tank weapon, however terrifying, can subdue it's target regardless of whether or not that target is afraid - and therefore, cannot be a "terrorist" weapon. Can it be used by terrorists? No. The use of heavy firepower supersedes the fear element. There are very good reasons to fear an anti-tank gun.

In order to be a "terrorist" tactic, the strategy must use fear to cause an opponent to behave in a manner that can be capitalized on.

Since Dracula could not have militarily defeated the Sultan, he used fear - to great effect. The Sultan had no military reason to retreat from Wallachia; he had already marched almost past the region, and could have imposed his own political structure there. (He did so later, in fact.)

In the Post-Confederate South, the march of human rights was unstoppable. This caused terrorist groups (infamously, the KKK) to use fear as a means of preventing these advances. Thousands of murders and political killings were successful very often in preventing voting, legal recourse and other rights, but required fear and intimidation for that success.

In Iraq, the use of fear is very often accompanied by flamboyant acts of mass homicide. Although less politically successful than the American terror-groups, the body count here is staggering, and strains the definition of "terrorism." These may be better defined as paramilitary intimidation attacks.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 10:56:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 1:26:37 AM, Etudiant wrote:
At 8/26/2013 1:03:39 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/25/2013 8:13:42 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Those Arabs want to take our freedom.

They're freedom haters! We're freedom lovers.
That's a little too simplistic and broad. If this was true, then anyone can be a terrorist. I was hoping to see a more constructive definition.

-10 points to the man who can't tell what is and is not a "troll post"
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Etudiant
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 4:01:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 10:53:09 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/26/2013 12:36:43 AM, Etudiant wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:14:43 PM, DeFool wrote:
If we may include the USSR, and the German government during the 1930's-1945 (I forget who was the leader of Germany during this time), then we are allowed to include past-empires.

In which case, I want to nerdily throw out the name of Vlad (Vladislav) Dracula. Yes, that Dracula. He once turned back an invasion of Europe by the conquering Sultan of Istanbul with almost exclusively a terrorist attack. Specifically, a scorched-earth strategy that culminated in some large-scale massacre of his own civilian population. The exact details of this massacre are in doubt, but Sultan Mehmet claimed that some 40,000 were impaled on spikes. This is unlikely, but the Sultan's retreat actually happened.

I cannot defend this leader as "the worst" terrorist of all, but I want to include his name in the discussion.

If we are not allowed past-states, then I will suggest the American post-Confederate South. This region has been home to more terrorist attacks than any other that come to mind. The success of these attacks in driving public policy are phenomenal. In terms of body count alone, it is hard to argue against Iraq.

Interesting. But I think you are blurring the lines between insurgents, guerrilla fighters and terrorists. You should first define what terrorism is in your perception.

I define "terrorism" as a political/military tactic that uses fear as the primary means of subjugation. In other words, a terrorist uses weaponized fear to force his will, as opposed to weaponry. An anti-tank weapon, however terrifying, can subdue it's target regardless of whether or not that target is afraid - and therefore, cannot be a "terrorist" weapon. Can it be used by terrorists? No. The use of heavy firepower supersedes the fear element. There are very good reasons to fear an anti-tank gun.

In order to be a "terrorist" tactic, the strategy must use fear to cause an opponent to behave in a manner that can be capitalized on.

Since Dracula could not have militarily defeated the Sultan, he used fear - to great effect. The Sultan had no military reason to retreat from Wallachia; he had already marched almost past the region, and could have imposed his own political structure there. (He did so later, in fact.)

In the Post-Confederate South, the march of human rights was unstoppable. This caused terrorist groups (infamously, the KKK) to use fear as a means of preventing these advances. Thousands of murders and political killings were successful very often in preventing voting, legal recourse and other rights, but required fear and intimidation for that success.

In Iraq, the use of fear is very often accompanied by flamboyant acts of mass homicide. Although less politically successful than the American terror-groups, the body count here is staggering, and strains the definition of "terrorism." These may be better defined as paramilitary intimidation attacks.

I see. In other words, you define terrorism as a strategy, therefore, those who use such tactics are deemed to be terrorist. The problem with this definition is that terrorist tactics are used by guerrillas, insurgents and even states, and yet, these insurgents and states are not defined as terrorists. When the state perpetrates attacks that resemble terrorism (intimidation to manipulate and pursue political goals), such attacks are refereed to as 'special' or 'covert 'operations. In fact, when the government engages in terrorism, it is often described as an 'act of war' rather than terrorism, which is why many argue that terrorist groups are NGOs by definition. (For example, Daniel Byman and David J Whittaker) In addition, the tactics that were used by Vlad Dracula against the Ottomans were more similar to guerrilla strategy rather than terrorism. Dracula's squads repeatedly ambushed Ottoman forces. The most important distinction between terrorists and guerrillas is probably their motivation. Guerrillas often are interested in occupying, defending or exercising authority over a geographic area. Terrorists, on the other hand, are not necessarily interested in seizing or controlling the land, but rather, in representing the grievances of marginalized segments of the population (at least that is what they believe). Based on these accounts,I believe that the tactics of Hungarians against Ottomans can't exactly be classified as terrorist attacks.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 4:48:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 8:13:42 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Those Arabs want to take our freedom.

They don't want our freedom. They want us to stop messing with them.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 9:25:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 4:01:13 PM, Etudiant wrote:
At 8/26/2013 10:53:09 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/26/2013 12:36:43 AM, Etudiant wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:14:43 PM, DeFool wrote:
If we may include the USSR, and the German government during the 1930's-1945 (I forget who was the leader of Germany during this time), then we are allowed to include past-empires.

In which case, I want to nerdily throw out the name of Vlad (Vladislav) Dracula. Yes, that Dracula. He once turned back an invasion of Europe by the conquering Sultan of Istanbul with almost exclusively a terrorist attack. Specifically, a scorched-earth strategy that culminated in some large-scale massacre of his own civilian population. The exact details of this massacre are in doubt, but Sultan Mehmet claimed that some 40,000 were impaled on spikes. This is unlikely, but the Sultan's retreat actually happened.

I cannot defend this leader as "the worst" terrorist of all, but I want to include his name in the discussion.

If we are not allowed past-states, then I will suggest the American post-Confederate South. This region has been home to more terrorist attacks than any other that come to mind. The success of these attacks in driving public policy are phenomenal. In terms of body count alone, it is hard to argue against Iraq.

Interesting. But I think you are blurring the lines between insurgents, guerrilla fighters and terrorists. You should first define what terrorism is in your perception.

I define "terrorism" as a political/military tactic that uses fear as the primary means of subjugation. In other words, a terrorist uses weaponized fear to force his will, as opposed to weaponry. An anti-tank weapon, however terrifying, can subdue it's target regardless of whether or not that target is afraid - and therefore, cannot be a "terrorist" weapon. Can it be used by terrorists? No. The use of heavy firepower supersedes the fear element. There are very good reasons to fear an anti-tank gun.

In order to be a "terrorist" tactic, the strategy must use fear to cause an opponent to behave in a manner that can be capitalized on.

Since Dracula could not have militarily defeated the Sultan, he used fear - to great effect. The Sultan had no military reason to retreat from Wallachia; he had already marched almost past the region, and could have imposed his own political structure there. (He did so later, in fact.)

In the Post-Confederate South, the march of human rights was unstoppable. This caused terrorist groups (infamously, the KKK) to use fear as a means of preventing these advances. Thousands of murders and political killings were successful very often in preventing voting, legal recourse and other rights, but required fear and intimidation for that success.

In Iraq, the use of fear is very often accompanied by flamboyant acts of mass homicide. Although less politically successful than the American terror-groups, the body count here is staggering, and strains the definition of "terrorism." These may be better defined as paramilitary intimidation attacks.

I see. In other words, you define terrorism as a strategy, therefore, those who use such tactics are deemed to be terrorist. The problem with this definition is that terrorist tactics are used by guerrillas, insurgents and even states, and yet, these insurgents and states are not defined as terrorists. When the state perpetrates attacks that resemble terrorism (intimidation to manipulate and pursue political goals), such attacks are refereed to as 'special' or 'covert 'operations. In fact, when the government engages in terrorism, it is often described as an 'act of war' rather than terrorism, which is why many argue that terrorist groups are NGOs by definition. (For example, Daniel Byman and David J Whittaker) In addition, the tactics that were used by Vlad Dracula against the Ottomans were more similar to guerrilla strategy rather than terrorism. Dracula's squads repeatedly ambushed Ottoman forces. The most important distinction between terrorists and guerrillas is probably their motivation. Guerrillas often are interested in occupying, defending or exercising authority over a geographic area. Terrorists, on the other hand, are not necessarily interested in seizing or controlling the land, but rather, in representing the grievances of marginalized segments of the population (at least that is what they believe). Based on these accounts,I believe that the tactics of Hungarians against Ottomans can't exactly be classified as terrorist attacks.

But, terrorists are not anthropological types, that can be seated at the backs of buses and be made to use separate water fountains. They are simply the ones using weaponized fear as a weapon. Were they to use weaponized weapons as weapons, then they become a swordsman, or a tailgunner, or a rifleman.

I cannot argue that states and guerrillas cannot employ terror-tactics, but fear crime is such a weak tool in combat that it is seldom advised. It requires the presence of cowardice within the ranks of its target in order to work at all. There are good, rational reasons to be afraid of an onrushing platoon of enraged trench-fighters that preclude fear as the primary source of subjugation. The trench warfare will do its job, fear or no fear.

To answer the "Dracula" tactics... were these paramilitary troops employing hit and run, and medieval psi-ops operations? Or were they closer to terrorist attacks? I continue to think they were terrorist due to the low body count they produced; they did not disable the Sultans army by themselves. However, the subject should be considered an open debate; these may have been weak military attacks.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 10:19:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 6:50:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
"Terroristic" is an obviously loaded term and is irrelevant to the actual discussion. Terrorism is a method, not an ideology. I would support acts of terrorism under certain political or moral circumstances, and the same goes for ethnic cleansing, massacres of civilian populations, using civilians as human shields, illegal surveillance, etc. Of course we're going to see much more harm done to America's enemies rather than to America itself- we should expect to see that. America's actual spheres of interest extend far beyond its border, and I find it incredibly frustrating to explain this to libertarians over and over. Look at what Iran is doing in the Middle East. A string of satellite states and Iranian sponsored violence from Iran's western border to the Mediterranean. If America is unwanted, the why are the Saudis, the Jordanians, and Gulf Sheikdoms begging us for help against Iran? Could it be because of their rich oil fields or the Shiite populations that happen to live around said oil fields? Recognizing that America is uniquely aggressive because it is uniquely responsible is not imperialist thinking.

Just read and tell me if you think Iran isn't dangerous to the Middle East: http://avimelamed.wordpress.com...

*circlejerk continues regardless*
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
SitaraPorDios
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 7:53:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:10:55 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What are they in your opinion?

America, and Saudi Arabia.
Jesus is the only way to be saved.
http://www.biblegateway.com...
Liberalism is the superior philosophy.
If you are going to talk dirty to me, say it in Spanish.
I will respect you if you respect me. Otherwise, no.