There are those who say that the U.S. attacks are State Sponsored Terrorism, is this true?
3 Answers
The use of terror as a technique has always been a part of warfare and governance, but 'terrorism' itself has always been viewed as a particular small group form of conflict by itself.
Explanation:
The deliberate use of terror has always been a part of warfare, usually to undermine one party's will to fight. For example, up until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, a city that refused to surrender upon demand might be sacked and looted if soldiers had to go through the horrors of an assault. (For instance, look up the siege of Badajoz by the British in 1813). Over the last 200 years, behaviour like this as increasingly become viewed as a war crime.
Terror has also been a tool of governmance to atomize opposition to a dictatorial government. Prime examples include Stalin's Great Terror of the 1930s, or Nazi Germany's "Night and Fog" decree. A democratic government that engages in this puts its authority and institutions in serious jeopardy.
Terrorism as a small group form of warfare has been difficult to define but:
1) Governments and military forces are recognizable and -- often -- ultimately accountable for the use of terror. Terrorists themselves remain clandestine, hidden, and often answers to no identifiable political authority.
2) While militaries and (usually) governments have a recognizable material purpose to their use of violence to instill terror, the targets of terrorist groups are often symbolic and unpredictable. The old maxims of "kill one, frighten ten thousand" and the notion of "Guerilla Theatre" apply.
3) Terrorism is inerently ideological, often to a cause or purpose that most of the targetted population rejects. It can intersect with a militant protest campaign, with organized crime, be a part of a revolutionary process, and one occasion be an instrument of a government against exiled political dissidents.
Terrorism has been directed against many societies and nations. For instance the Salafist Islamic creed that gave rise to al Qaeda killed thousands of Westerners, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims throughout the Arab World. Many nations around the world have experienced deadly terrorism from domestic sources.
This is a tough question. Is the influence of the US more positive than negative? In the face of asymmetrical warfare can the US defend its interest in the way that it does.
Explanation:
The United states, more than any other nation has created the present world system. There are people who this system is not working out for and who violently oppose it. Who is right?
Beyond the daily body count which is endless bloody human suffering, what truth is available to us to continue with our lives in good conscience?
Warfare never really ends well. Someone always dies. 1991 was an important year for the world. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War the world had an opportunity to enter a more peaceful era. One of the option that was available was for the US to establish "Pax Americana" by force of arms as the British established "Pax Britannia" after 1815 (the defeat of Napoleon). Is "Pax Americana still available to the US and the world. Would it be a good thing? Is the US defending a good and peaceful world system in its actions?
The Iraq war was a bad idea and made things a lot worse but generally speaking the world is more peaceful than it was than say the first half of the 20th Century. Technology and Science have advanced greatly changing the world that we live in. The United States has in the past been more a positive than negative in the world. Drone strikes are less costly in human lives to the US than sending in the troops. The tools available to defend are still not very good. The system of modern nation states is not perfect. We have to start at the place we're at and it is less than ideal.
The balance sheet of positive to negative in human lives is a hard to deal with in good conscience but what are the alternatives? Warfare will be with us for sometime. The struggles of the people in the middle east will be with us for some time. The US needs to defend itself on a daily basis. What alternatives does it have?
For the US to descend into a funk of cynicism and isolationism would be a bad thing. The US should try to find its base values and pursue them as it probably makes a better world.
This depends on how terrorism is defined.
Explanation:
A. If terrorism is defined as attacks against the general or civilian populations in order to weaken or destroy an opposing political force. Then the accusations are false. The American government has typically functioned under rules of engagement that specifically attempts to limit collateral damage to the general population. There are specific examples such as the nuclear bombing of Japan and the fire bombings of German cities where the general population was targeted. These examples happened during a time of declared war against a determined enemy. The United States does not engage in State Sponsored Acts of Terror.
