Is the Pentagon a Glorified Terrorist Organization?

[Debater Slayer]

If a terrorist organization is one that terrorizes and kills innocent people, then the Pentagon's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan make it fit that definition very comfortably. The Pentagon has spent three trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so if the Pentagon is indeed a glorified terrorist organization, it is also the world's richest.

What are your thoughts? Is the Pentagon a terrorist organization in a protector's clothing?

 

[Sunstone]

I'm sure you could define "terrorism" in ways that make the actions of the US Military at certain times and places terrorist actions. I usually think of World War II bombings of civilian targets when I think along those lines, but there might very well be more contemporary examples. However, broadening out the definition of terrorism in such a fashion might prove quite problematic in the long run in so far as you might render the definition of terrorism so broad and encompassing as to be virtually useless.

 

[Flankerl]

No its a Building.

 

[dust1n]

Um, well it has it's differences, I'd think. It certainly does engage in terrorizing people from time to time... See Reagan, Unita group in Angola, or many examples of Cuban, etc...

 

[Riverwolf]

If a terrorist organization is one that terrorizes and kills innocent people, then the Pentagon's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan make it fit that definition very comfortably. The Pentagon has spent three trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so if the Pentagon is indeed a glorified terrorist organization, it is also the world's richest.

What are your thoughts? Is the Pentagon a terrorist organization in a protector's clothing?

Yup. Pretty much. There´s a lot of unacknwoledged terrorism operating right out of the US, and the only reason they´re ignored is because they´re either white, or white and rich.

 

[dust1n]

No its a Building.

It's a metonymy.

 

[George-ananda]

If a terrorist organization is one that terrorizes and kills innocent people, then the Pentagon's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan make it fit that definition very comfortably. The Pentagon has spent three trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so if the Pentagon is indeed a glorified terrorist organization, it is also the world's richest.

What are your thoughts? Is the Pentagon a terrorist organization in a protector's clothing?

Absolutely Not and ridiculous. The pentagon 'terrorizes and kills' innocent people?? Come on now! If you are just talking about collateral damage then the moral guilt lies with the evil governments and organizations that caused the conflict.

What possible motive would the pentagon have for terrorizing and killing innocent people??

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup. Pretty much. There´s a lot of unacknwoledged terrorism operating right out of the US, and the only reason they´re ignored is because they´re either white, or white and rich.

This has become an obsolete view.
We have a great many non-white non-rich voters who support a violent foreign policy.
The common reason it's ignored is that a (rainbow) majority approves.

Anyway, if the word "terrorism" is broadened to the point of including the Pentagon, then it should
also include cops & anyone else who at one time or another achieves some end by posing a threat.
It's better to restrict it to groups whose primary purpose/function is to terrorize for revenge or coercion.
Waging war typically doesn't fall under this definition. It's useful to see it as something different.

 

[BSM1]

This has become an obsolete view.
We have a great many non-white non-rich voters who support a violent foreign policy.
The common reason it's ignored is that a (rainbow) majority approves.

Anyway, if the word "terrorism" is broadened to the point of including the Pentagon, then it should
also include cops & anyone else who at one time or another achieves some end by posing a threat.
It's better to restrict it to groups whose primary purpose/function is to terrorize for revenge or coercion.
Waging war typically doesn't fall under this definition. It's useful to see it as something different.

This would include, by default, surly nurses and fast food workers in a bad mood.

 

[Revoltingest]

This would include, by default, surly nurses and fast food workers in a bad mood.

And IRS agents in a good mood.

 

[BSM1]

And IRS agents in a good mood.

Now I'm terrified.

 

[Riverwolf]

This has become an obsolete view.
We have a great many non-white non-rich voters who support a violent foreign policy.
The common reason it's ignored is that a (rainbow) majority approves.

The majority of the government is still very much white males. We´re not talking about voters, who have very little real power at this point due to heavy media influence and mass misinformation.

Anyway, if the word "terrorism" is broadened to the point of including the Pentagon, then it should
also include cops & anyone else who at one time or another achieves some end by posing a threat.
It's better to restrict it to groups whose primary purpose/function is to terrorize for revenge or coercion.
Waging war typically doesn't fall under this definition. It's useful to see it as something different.

Far as I can tell, the way the US military has treated much of the rest of the world has been terrorizing for revenge and/or coercion. If that´s the perspective of the non-US countries involved, then I´m agreeing with them.

And, just so we´re on the same page, I don´t consider all Total War to be terrorism, even when civilians are involved. For example, I´m 100% against the bombings of Japan at the end of WWII (not just the nukes, either), but I don´t consider that terrorism.

 

[Revoltingest]

The majority of the government is still very much white males. We´re not talking about voters, who have very little real power at this point due to heavy media influence and mass misinformation.

But minorities vote them into government to do what they know will be done.
It doesn't matter the color of the servant (eg, Obama, Clinton)....what matters is that minorities effect the results we see.

Far as I can tell, the way the US military has treated much of the rest of the world has been terrorizing for revenge and/or coercion. If that´s the perspective of the non-US countries involved, then I´m agreeing with them.

That happens at times.....more of an aberration than a primary focus.

And, just so we´re on the same page, I don´t consider all Total War to be terrorism, even when civilians are involved. For example, I´m 100% against the bombings of Japan at the end of WWII (not just the nukes, either), but I don´t consider that terrorism.

Ah hah! Detente!

 

[Riverwolf]

But minorities vote them into government to do what they know will be done.
It doesn't matter the color of the servant (eg, Obama, Clinton)....what matters is that minorities effect the results we see.

I'm not talking about the President. The President also has relatively minimal power. I'm talking about other powers of the US government, including the military itsef.

You're also assuming far too much power on the part of voters. We can't actually predict what officials will do once in office. I'm personally glad that minorities even have any right to vote at all, but what good is that when elections are influenced more by money?

...also, for the record, I wasn't just talking about terrorism in our government. I'm also talking about independent groups.

That happens at times.....more of an aberration than a primary focus.

I've heard things. Seems the US fights wars all the time, wars we don't hear about from mainstream media.

 

[Sunstone]

If a terrorist organization is one that terrorizes and kills innocent people, then the Pentagon's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan make it fit that definition very comfortably. The Pentagon has spent three trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so if the Pentagon is indeed a glorified terrorist organization, it is also the world's richest.

What are your thoughts? Is the Pentagon a terrorist organization in a protector's clothing?

Suppose, DS, you were to define terrorism as something along these lines: "The intentional use of violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants by a person or group in order to pressure a government into initiating, changing, or maintaining a desired policy or course of action." (I'm only offering an off the cuff definition here.) Given that definition, the US Military, and many other militarizes as well, have at times committed terrorist acts. So too have recognized terrorist organizations. The definition is a broad one, but how useful is it? I haven't thought it through enough yet to have an opinion about that. I just offer it here as an example of a definition that would encompass both some actions by States, and some actions by sub-national groups.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not talking about the President. The President also has relatively minimal power. I'm talking about other powers of the US government, including the military itsef.

The presidents were just examples of politicians in power.
To wage vicious useless wars also requires Congress.
So I don't blame whitey....I blame voters who elect the Dems & Pubs who do the deeds.

You're also assuming far too much power on the part of voters. We can't actually predict what officials will do once in office. I'm personally glad that minorities even have any right to vote at all, but what good is that when elections are influenced more by money?
...also, for the record, I wasn't just talking about terrorism in our government. I'm also talking about independent groups.

Voting has great power in aggregate.
It's what politicians need in order to gain & wield power.
Consider Obama....
Do you think he went back on numerous campaign promises, eg, close Gitmo, end the wars, out of principal?
No. He did it in order to get re-elected. It worked.
Bush also got re-elected on a pro-war platform.
If the voters really disliked how things are, they'd vote for someone else.

I've heard things. Seems the US fights wars all the time, wars we don't hear about from mainstream media.

There are secret wars?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Absolutely Not and ridiculous. The pentagon 'terrorizes and kills' innocent people?? Come on now! If you are just talking about collateral damage then the moral guilt lies with the evil governments and organizations that caused the conflict.

What possible motive would the pentagon have for terrorizing and killing innocent people??

Err...there isn't really any doubt that branches of the US government have been involved in what even I would call terror activities at certain times, whether directly or by proxy. Whether the Pentagon managed to maintain plausible deniability during these actions is debateable, but...do you really think the Pentagon hasn't been invested in activities by irregulars against sovereign governments?

Anyway...in terms of the OP, no, the pentagon isn't a glorified terror organization. I tend to agree with Sunstone that moving the line to include terror-inducing actions by lawful governments just ends up with a 'all war is terrorism' narrative. Whilst all war is terrible, I don't think defining it all as terrorism furthers anything, and leaves the word 'terrorism' as borderline useless.

Fire-bombing of Dresden was disgusting, and terror-inducing, for example, but I wouldn't class it as 'terrorism'.

 

[Sunstone]

I tend to agree with Sunstone that moving the line to include terror-inducing actions by lawful governments just ends up with a 'all war is terrorism' narrative. Whilst all war is terrible, I don't think defining it all as terrorism furthers anything, and leaves the word 'terrorism' as borderline useless.

I think you just put my point better than I did, Dave. Much better. Damn! How much do I owe you for that one. I do, however, disagree with you a little bit in that I think some definitions of terrorism, if constructed carefully enough, could probably allow us to ascribe some state sponsored actions to terrorism without getting into the "all war is terrorism" morass. But I'm not sure what such a definition would look like, yet.

 

[Riverwolf]

The presidents were just examples of politicians in power.
To wage vicious useless wars also requires Congress.

Exactly.

Voting has great power in aggregate.
It's what politicians need in order to gain & wield power.
Consider Obama....
Do you think he went back on numerous campaign promises, eg, close Gitmo, end the wars, out of principal?
No. He did it in order to get re-elected. It worked.
Bush also got re-elected on a pro-war platform.
If the voters really disliked how things are, they'd vote for someone else.

Like, say, Gore? Oh, wait.

Besides, election is a marketing campaign. Voters vote for the one with the most attractive campaign, and are thus manipulated. Plus, with our two-party system, we only have two options, causing a lot of votes to be far more "against" the other side than "for" their own.

Whatever power the voters have isn't as much in their control as we'd like to believe, because of how things work in practice.

There are secret wars?

Not so much "secret" as "not widely reported". They're absolutely documented and available to the public.

Ever hear of the Banana Wars, for example?

 

[Revoltingest]

....election is a marketing campaign. Voters vote for the one with the most attractive campaign, and are thus manipulated. Plus, with our two-party system, we only have two options, causing a lot of votes to be far more "against" the other side than "for" their own.
Whatever power the voters have isn't as much in their control as we'd like to believe, because of how things work in practice.

Votes determine who is in power.
What they do with that power is visible.
Re-electing those in power is approval.
It doesn't exculpate the voters to point at manipulative campaigns.
If anything, it makes them look even worse, ie, instead of wanting the consequences, they don't pay attention.
This is still power, albeit power wasted.

Not so much "secret" as "not widely reported". They're absolutely documented and available to the public.
Ever hear of the Banana Wars, for example?

I'm not surprised that there's little reporting on little wars a century or so ago.
How about something current?