Is the Pentagon a Glorified Terrorist Organization?

[Debater Slayer]

No holds barred, you are extremely ignorant. If you do not like how the Untied States is run, then do your best to make a change, OR LEAVE. I am of a different breed. Without MY kind the United States would not exist. Without my kind the world would be speaking German. Without my kind there would be no Jews. My kind defends your God given right to be free. My kind is United States veteran.

As @lewisnotmiller has already pointed out, I'm not an American, nor do I live in the United States.

By the way, spare me your excessive glorification of army veterans. I have always found it contemptible that some people assume that all army veterans must be saints. Well, many of them aren't. Many of them are glorified war criminals and lowlifes. I don't know what kind of veteran you are, but I'm not going to tip my hat to you and avoid voicing my opinions in your presence just because you're a veteran.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the basic aim of any terrorist group is destabilization without a plan for conquest. I don't think that applies to the Yanks.

While I agree with you regarding the general case, at times our military has
employed terrorism to subdue a population (eg, Philippines a century ago).
Terrorism occurs where it occurs, be it by government or NGO. I bet we agree
that what predominates is what defines the organization as "terrorist" or not.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

A million dead Iraqis is just "collateral damage"? The U.S. Army must have some shoddy standards and accuracy at picking out targets. Either that or they just don't care about killing civilians along with their intended targets.

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

I think it's bigger than that. It seems to me that one of the main purposes behind having such a hugely funded military, besides protecting oneself, is establishing the U.S. as a global superpower and terrorizing its potential rivals and enemies. Apparently quite a few civilians were considered a threat by some American soldiers, given the disgraceful record of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and the drone strikes in Pakistan.

 

[MARCELLO]

No,it is not,they are really hardworking ,diverse and good.I met with them a week ago. They are lovely as musims.

 

[Revoltingest]

A million dead Iraqis is just "collateral damage"? The U.S. Army must have some shoddy standards and accuracy at picking out targets. Either that or they just don't care about killing civilians along with their intended targets.

This doesn't make it "terrorism" though.
- Many of the dead are enemy combatants.
- Collateral damage is unintentional. Cynics might say otherwise, but tis not so.
- Many evil acts are perpetrated by soldiers & superiors who violate our policy.

I think it's bigger than that. It seems to me that one of the main purposes behind having such a hugely funded military, besides protecting oneself, is establishing the U.S. as a global superpower and terrorizing its potential rivals and enemies. Apparently quite a few civilians were considered a threat by some American soldiers, given the disgraceful record of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and the drone strikes in Pakistan.

We don't "terrorize" our big enemies, eg, Russia, China.
This is more the exerting of cold war style influence.
To include this in the definition of "terrorism" is to dilute the word.

Note that not all evil is terrorism.
We may acknowledge evil waged by Americastan, without applying the wrong words to describe it.

 

[Valjean]

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/thi...ed_cruz_nor_the_new_york_times_will_tell_you/

The soi-disant Land of the Free and Home of the Brave has a long and iniquitous history of overthrowing democratically elected leftist governments and propping up right-wing dictators in their place.

Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US has caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.
William Blum -- Rogue State

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Back in the days of Smedley, war really did profit our nation.

It doesn't profit the nation, and it didn't back then. The state wasn't sending troops to south and central America then for the interests of the state then, and they aren't doing it now. The did because some wealthy corporations--and pretty much any major fruit corporation today has some ties back to the original companies--had enough money to make it happen so they could make more money. And the results are the same too, in that we are seeing our culture forcible replace another, ensnare and damn then to a peripheral role in global capitalism, offer them some loans, everything is ruined, corporations and banks rake in tons of cash, and we get the "luxury" of "abundance" that no king has ever known, all the while remaining blissfully ignorant of the very real environmental and human costs all of this has. Rather, we scream "support the troops," and we "thank them," but we should not be thankful they are being sent to war for reasons other than homeland security. Yes, we should have retaliated against 9/11, but it's clear from day one there was more than just a fight against terrorism going on, because you can't fight such a thing with a conventional invasion army. And the saddest part of it all is a handful of people have made several fortunes off the Iraq/Afghanistan war while many lives have been severely disrupted or ended (and of course a death disrupts the lives of others), and our nation went broke over it, which is exactly what Bin Laden was planing on. He didn't end America, but America did exactly what he wanted it to do, the war went exactly as he planned it, and ISIS suggests his strategy is still unfolding, as he did plan for a very long and drawn out war. And it wouldn't surprise me if he did count on the wealthy corporations, such as GE, BP, Halliburton, and others lobbying and pushing for war.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't profit the nation, and it didn't back then.

Conquering Hawaii was very profitable.
What I claim is that since then, military adventurism has not been to our benefit.
Have any evidence that those corporations lobbied for war?

 

[metis]

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are rather subjective terms. It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

"Shock and awe".

 

[Revoltingest]

"Shock and awe".

Fortunately for innocents, this tactic is typically directed at the opposing military.
I wouldn't call this "terrorism".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fortunately for innocents, this tactic is typically directed at the opposing military.
I wouldn't call this "terrorism".

Roadside IEDs are also typically directed at an opposing military. Would you call them "terrorism"?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are rather subjective terms. It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Indeed. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist for a while...or should that be "freedom fighter"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Roadside IEDs are also typically directed at an opposing military. Would you call them "terrorism"?

Typically, I would not.

 

[George-ananda]

"Shock and awe".

The pentagon has no desire to 'shock and awe' the innocent people. They are trying to 'shock and awe' the evil parties making life miserable for the innocent people.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

It also results in characterizing anyone responsible for collateral damage a 'terrorist' and thereby dilutes the term "terrorist" to the point where it becomes worthless save for propaganda and posturing. Terrorism is a strategy aimed at instilling terror.