Bitcoin Forum

a lot of people in the UK are worried that extremist islam is taking over, how much of the world is seeing this ?
how much of the world is having the same problem..

The only terrorists I've ever seen are the ones in office.

Tell me this doesn't sound like something a Terrorist would say:

"We came, we saw, (laughs) he died. (more laughter)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Oops, no, since it was said by a WASP politician, that's not terrorism. Terrorism is only when a bearded brown man in funny clothes says things like that.

Who cares about terrorism. There are more people killed from lightning strikes than from terrorist attacks. This year killed from lightning 3 people from terrorist attacks 0. Not to mention car accidents (largely unavoidable) or cancer (could be cured in most cases if enough money are put into research).

The problem is that Islamic fundamentalists are only ones standing in way to new world order and global 1984 state. That's why the western governments are so pro-jewish and anti-islamic.

I think people should realistically consider causes for terrorism. And on other hand look into how domestic issues could be resolved.

There isn't a way to stop it all, but many things could be done to prevent it on local level. Deal with mentally unstable, provide economy that provides work or future for young people.

And don't think you are free to murder people on other side of world.

Out of disgust at the beheading of a British soldier in London i went on an EDL march.
The police and onlookers branded me a racist! i am NOT a racist.
And i wholeheartedly agree we should look at the reasons for these atrocities both at home and abroad but are our boys not fighting to protect the innocent people of the middle east against the oppression of normal people like you and me by sharia law and fundamental Islam that really is thousands of years old old has no place in a civilized modern society.

i think this is why i am growing to love bitcoin, straight to the person without having to be filtered through all the borders and redtape bullshit

LONG LIVE BITCOIN. A STEP TOWARDS A NEW WORLD.

If you hang around with racists what do you expect?

to me terrorism is excuse for politics to increase control over humans only

Any time you don't give people the ability to  have a fair hearing for grievances, you shouldn't be surprised when they eventually turn to violence.

We have supported their dictators for a long time, and that's when our soldiers don't go walking directly into their countries, killing their friends and relatives, destroying their property and ultimately destroying their livelihoods (the economy in which they work and earn their living).

Despite all that, most Islamic people are still peaceful.   

It says far more about us than it does about them.   And when I say us, I mean the Western governments, because I don't have anything to do with all that shit.   People want to support "their" govt, good, you support murdering, destructive thugs.   How does that make you feel?

I'm more worried about chavs in the UK personally but I guess that's because I actually live here and in the real world :P

the kind of chavs who go to edl rallies?  ;D
i also live in the uk and am yet to meet anyone (other than Daily Mail readers) who believe there is a wave of islamic militants hell bent on destroying the country. terrorists are terrorists, doesnt matter the colour of their skin or their religious persuasion . the edl/bnp/nf - whatever they want to call themselves this week - are very good at preying on peoples insecurities, and who better than to blame than someone different from yourself.
To the OP> How many anti catholic marches did you attend when the IRA were blowing up various cities throughout England?

I've experienced 2 terrorist attacks first hand
The Warrington IRA attack and the Manchester bombing.
As I remember it, people just carried on with their lives as normal.
Terrorism is a minor thing that affects a few people (not being disrespectful to those people directly affected) - to obsess over it just ruins life for everyone and is a victory for the terrorists.

dcupid, similar experiences:
ive had 2 too,was in london for the 7/7 attack, and was in the us for  9/11. keep calm and carry on versus public hysteria, thats my recolection of the 2 events. however extremism in whatever guise cannot be alowed to govern how we live our lives

Terrorfakt makes great music. so does tError and the whole terrorcore sceneoid.
I have no tolerance for religious violence, state sanctioned or otherwise.
England is reaping what it has sown, not to imply that violence is just.

Terrorism is a huge issue affecting the lives of millions and killing thousands every month, but there's hardly any terrorism in Europe or in the U.S. whereas terrorism attacks happen daily in Irak, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan...

Britons don't know nor imagine what terrorism really is. Maybe, they're just lucky.

when you say england , do you mean the uk? thats a can of worms for another thread!
without doubt the british govt has much blood on its hands over the years, and a certain amount of backlash has, and will for a long time be experienced.
my point was, as a country england has experienced terrorism (semidomestic and otherwise) for the best part of a hundred years. Im not try to justify either sides positions or actions, simply the populace reaction was completely different based on a differing history. Until very recently terrorism was a big part of daily life  esp in london.
I hope everyone would agree that history shows us that any violence doesnt solve problems in the long run

firstly i have to thank everyone who shared their opinion with me, i knew this was the place to get a "real view" from some proper people.
i think the overall feeling is that whether its on our street or on a street in Palestine violence and fascism should not be tolerated whatever mask it wears or whatever excuse it hinds behind.

I work on a military base in Afghanistan. We get bombs lobbed at us about every other day.

We know that there is not much to worry about because statistically, you are not likely to get hit.

The US has been hit by terrorist attacks what...once every 10 years or so (maybe once every 5 years in the UK)? In a population of hundreds of millions?

Statistically terrorism should not even be a glimmer of a miniscule thought on your mind.

Unfortunately, statistically I am more likely to get raped out here than hit by a bomb. That is something I do worry about.

Not really the terrorists in office have killed hundreds of millions just in the last Century all to keep their profits going.  Fake wars, fake "terrorists", fake food causing disease, spraying chemicals all over us, etc.  Anything in the name of making more $$ and try to control the population even more.  

Yes I consider keeping people sick so you can sell them more pills, tests, etc terrorism.  Along with all the financial control that is placed on the world.

elwar, completely get where you coming from. the media, esp the tabs love to have stories of why we're constantly under threat, and should batten down the hatches, when the reality of sudden death is usually caused by cars/tobacco/alcohol. that of course doesnt make good press.
i do however think you are underestimating the threat the uk has had historically. certainly at the height of the ira, it was weekly across many parts of , primarily, england. maybe not on the scale of 7/7 or anywhere near 9/11, but it was a constant threat.

pac1> given youre need to express support for fallen soldiers, did you make the helpforheroes rally last weekend??   i hope this discussion has at least nudged you towards supporting the causes you believe in, rather than political movements who will milk your fears.

Maybe you're on to something.

thanks to everyone who has commented, i think your all pretty much right we don't live with the terror in the uk that it plaguing a lot of the world
>Elwar
 i am proud to say yes i did support and continue to support our troops, regardless of whether or not its a just a right cause, it is not for the troop to decide he is simply doing as he is told in the name of queen and country. These people put their lives on the line everyday not just abroad but at home as well in the sad case of Lee Rigby
Also its worth mentioning that its not just british forces that deserve respect and admiration, the forces from all over the world work tirelessly for their countries.
Patriots or Terrorists ? someone said earlier in this post it depends on which side of the argument you are looking from.

Maybe they do work tirelessly.  Too bad they are misguided.   And that doesn't deserve respect nor admiration.  Regardless of how much the TV pundits tell us to "support the troops".  Pity, maybe...

If they were defending from invaders that would be one thing.  But that's not what's happening.

"Just following orders," eh?

isnt that what they are programmed to do once enlisted.

I thought the silly following orders defense was finally put to rest at the nuremberg trials.

in fact, i blame the police and military members more then the slavemasters. you get one of these presidents/dictators in a back alley somewhere, you'll see them squealing like the cowards they are, they are nothing but rats. the system can only perpetrate their crimes because they've got an army of idiots ready to die for their psychotic leader.

We've been living with terrorism ever since the first human picked up a rock and threatened to murder anyone who refused to obey and pay tribute.

What's being called a "war on terrorism" is a turf war between rival terrorist gangs. Right now the North American and European gangs have the upper hand due to having larger domestic economies to plunder in order to fuel their aggression, but the Muslim terrorists make more efficient use of the resources they have so they've managed to avoid being wiped out so far.

 If your the one that pulled the trigger killing countless innocents and you knew this your still able to be held liable.  "Following orders" didn't work very well for a lot of Nazi soldiers. 

Or so most believe. 

Only some, not most.

We all follow orders our whole lives. The first time you are told not to do something that a free man would do, and you change your actions to do so...you have just followed orders to stifle freedom. Even if it is only your own.

I'm not a soldier so I cannot speak for them, I do this solely for the money. I wish the US citizens would vote me out of a job but they just keep wanting to give me more money so who am I to disagree. But the response a soldier always gives is not that they are fighting for their country but for their buddy next to them. They get plopped into bad situations by idiots and have to fight to protect themselves and their buddies.

The US has not been attacked since Pearl Harbor and that was after we forced Japan's hand. Just think of the decades of prosperity we would have if we only attacked those countries that attacked or threatened to attack us? If you're paranoid, pour that military spending into research...we could've had sharks with lasers by now...nobody would mess with us.

Afghanis do not even know how to use a toilet, only 20% can read at a basic level...there was no scenario where Afghanistan was going to take over the US.

Only some, not most.
[/quote]

Should have cut out the part I was talking about.  I'm talking about living with terrorism since man existed.

There's no way to create objective and universal definition of "terrorism" that will include the people and groups commonly associated with the term without also snagging governments into the same category.

Living with the threat of terrorism is a complete walk in the park compared to living with the threat of nuclear annihilation which was a major concern in the 1970s and 1980s, and has not completely gone away.

Heard of the Nuremberg Trials?

Another interesting thought experiment is to calculate the average risk a human living on this planet faces of being murdered by Al-Qaeda vs their risk of being murdered by the US government.

It is not about how many people are killed.  States survive and propagate based on their ability to have stability so that they can effectively trade with other nations so a critical percentage¹ of their population prospers.  If on 9-11 people decided to fly planes into Happy Chef Restaurant in Kadoka, SD then no one would give a damn.  Flying a plane into the World Trade Center in New York City stopped market trading for days and shut down civilian United States air traffic.  Imagine if people were blowing themselves up on buses, bridges, or police stations in every major US city at least once a month.  It would shut down any ability for people to go out and make transactions and other nations would be able to take that opportunity to take over that wealth generating ability.

This is why the United States is pivoting its naval units to Asia to counter China's naval rise and oversee that international trade routes are not disturbed.

Obama knows he cannot keep his base and perpetuate the War on Terrorism (WOT) that Bush started.  Bush thought this included massive military invasions and nation building.  It might have worked but Bush underestimated the resources needed for this to happen.  During that time a lot of people mentioned the success World War 2 (WW2) and the nation building after that.  The difference between WW2 and the WOT is that the United States was involved in total war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war), the complete mobilization of its resources to defeat the Axis Powers.  This was not the case during the WOT.  People went along with their daily lives and let the volunteer army try to achieve nation building.  Obviously they failed.

Obama's strategy, and it is a very smart one politically, is to think of terrorist cells as cancer and to surgically remove that cancer through annihilation and/or fear.  Annihilation comes from drone or special operation strikes.  Fear comes from people that see that the United States military can't be everywhere at the same time but can be anywhere it wants to go.  For this to work the national security industry must collect as much data as possible and strike any overseas target that may have any evidence of wanting to attack American interests.

The American people will only allow this level of surveillance if they don't feel safe, and if the goal of the government is to create stability so that enough people are happy that they don't overthrow the government then the government is stuck in a difficult situation.  If the people don't feel safe then they will be unhappy and overthrow the government and if they do feel safe then they won't allow this level of surveillance and then the government cannot execute their surgical military operations.

¹ I believe this critical percentage is related to the percent of unhappiness and the ease of access to efficient weapons and or voter turnout (democracies can overthrow their governments in elections, that is why they are more stable long term).

More people have been killed by toasters than terrorism. I say we declare war on toasters worldwide.

Yes, Stochastic, we bomb them they bomb us.  Good plan.  This has been happening for a long time, and this 'Axis of Evil' you talk about has been attacked by what they see as "Evil Western Forces" for thousands of years.  This seems like an intractable situation.  If people stopped listening to power and followed their own interest this would never happen. 

War should be that I can not stop myself from arming myself and seeking out my enemy, because I personally have a reason that compels me.  Go to war for anything less and you are a mercenary.

Please reread what I wrote.  I never mentioned an Axis of Evil.  I mentioned the Axis Powers which were Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War 2.  I was not justifying war, I am explaining why governments are concerned with terrorism over other things that may cause more deaths than terrorism.

You should be more afraid of a muslim (violent or not) demonstrations trying to force their religion or their sharia laws down your throats, than a terrorist bomb.

    How about anyone who tries to force their religion or laws down your throat? Including governments!

  I get it- people are afraid of what they don't understand. And sure, fearmongering is good for the economy, but look at it this way- with free flow of capital, goods, and services over national borders thanks to bitcoin, so much economic growth will be generated that we won't even need to make up and propagate a war on terror anymore! Is anyone here aware that Al-Qaeda was literally made up by the CIA?

Religion the way it is was created to divide people

The way life was intended - Celebrate differences and bond over similarities

What we are taught - Bond over similarities kill over differences

Its subtle but that's what is driven into peoples brains.  War, illness, etc is profitable.

Do you do that whenever a white man murders someone?

Maybe. But the ones who blow up buildings are worse I think.

  The ones in office are scared that their monopoly in blowing up buildings is being encroached upon.

Are we talking about the ones in office or terrorists?

   Wait, both are terrorists because they try to achieve political goals by killing civilians.

whoa, im no expert on american history but the japanese aluetian campaign would be the most recent invasion of american territory? proper landgrab rather than just some bombing?

This was not a murder it was a statement.

Two in the same if you dig deep enough.

The extremists are searchers that has become victims of negative emotions in their path for wisdom.
We can hope for their emotional healing by showing love and respect instead of fear and hate.
Love your enemy as Jesus teaches, love is stronger and more sustainable than any weapon.

Only possible outcome from loving your enemies would be some sort of reward in heaven, which in turn does not exist.

It's not about love, it's about respect. Respect everyone and you will have no enemies, just people of different views. How immature do you have to be to look at an entire nation's population of various dynamic beliefs and interests and label the group "enemy"? The US is no more an enemy to me than China, Russia, or even North Korea. If you want to argue that their leadership needs to be removed, then why aren't we fighting wars against leaders instead of civilians? Terrorists are disgusting because they kill civilians. Terrorism towards leaders is not terrorism, it's revolution.

Have you ever loved your enemies?  It can be its own reward to not fill yourself with anger and hatred, despite your beliefs about an afterlife.

Right.  I've always found this nationalist concept so silly.  Like I'm supposed to like any particular Australian better than any of my friends overseas because the person is Australian and my other friends aren't.  It's just dumb tribal bullshit.

Who should be regarded as the enemies in this world?  Those who act peacefully and live their lives or those who act violently towards others and disrespect property rights?  Who are the people we should really be concerned about?

Why are there terrorists?   Why do we provide financial support and give credence to so many ruthless dictators over the last few decades?   If we lived in one of these countries, and we looked at other richer countries that were financing those who kept us down, how would we feel?   How desperate might some people feel?  Root causes are important.

Out of one side of their mouth, some bitcoiners scream foul at the entity of "government" (instead of specific corrupt individuals inside it), yet are happy to mimic them with the other side of their mouth in equal corruption, by preaching of libertarian ideals and free markets, while raping consumers with pre-orders on never delivered items.

I lost faith in this community the moment some people were begging the community not to let Bitcoinstore fail and saying that it's good for bitcoin, etc. Suckers, every single one of them. Cultist suckers who don't realize they are falling for a new government, a government run by the rich and corrupt. Cultism is bad when it's anti-Bitcoin statist cultism, but it's equally bad when it's blind pro-Bitcoin propaganda cultism too. We need rationality here to survive and take with us the remnants of any failures. Without rationality, no one learns from any of the mistakes and some continue on like idiots, blaming everyone else for their poor financial decisions.

Unfortunately, you just collectivized the individuals that use Bitcoin and this forum.

Updated. (Thanks for correcting my laziness, that happens often when I go into rant mode)

They are named> Legal terrorists

   If you are fraid of PRISM then the terrorits have won.

That tends to happen when you march with a group of open white supremacists.



No, no they are not. Iraq for example is now far closer to being controlled by religious fundamentalists than it was under their old secular dictator.

This exactly. We need to focus on the things we can do to decrease acts of violence; political terrorism, spree shootings, all types of crimes. Turning in to a police state is not the way to go.

The Iraqi people lived with a decade of British and American terrorism. Over a million Iraqi's died, and their country has been completely torn apart. Why can't we call that what it is? Terror.

That's called war.
When governments kill they wage war, when civilians kill it is terrorism or freedom-fighting (depending on which side of Alice in Wonderland's mirror you are standing). Of course people are right when they say that government-sponsored warfare is morally no better than terrorism, it just gets painted with the colors of patriotism and shiny brass buttons and medals to sanitize it for the public,

I'll tell you what the Iraq war was about.

Over the last few decades, since the end of WW2, the military has grown and grown in America.  It has become a huge part of the economy with many people deriving their income from military contractors and those contractors getting their money through military contracts which of course are paid by tax.  And yet, no-one invading or threatening to invade the homeland.  How could they with oceans either side?  Surely, then a huge part of that money could be saved?  

So, the reality is, is that the military has to be justified.  They have to fight in wars.  Any excuse can be made no matter how flimsy.  

The Iraq war is all about keeping thousands of Americans in jobs.  That's the reality of it.  That's why so many are ready and willing to swallow the propaganda.  And why the truth doesn't get out.  There is quite simply no demand for the truth so the media have little reason to supply it.

Having to reconfigure such a large part of the economy away from the military would result in a lot of short-term pain for a lot of people.  And we know in politics that never happens.  Much easier to just go shoot up a bunch of brown people and their possessions that nobody cares about anyway.  If they end up getting upset that their friends and family have been killed and their local economy destroyed and thus their opportunities in life destroyed and some end up with a grudge and some proportion of them decide to take it out on those who inflicted it by committing terrorist acts...  well... so much the better for the military and security industry.

EDIT: I can think of another institution that is thousands of years old and has no place in a civilized society.  ;)

Funfact: Electric household appliances were invented so power companies could maintain the feed of power during the day.
http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/how-to-build-a-toaster-from-scratch-the-ted-talk.html

Terror is a commodity.

Terror is only a commodity when you can force people to pay for it.  If it had to be paid for voluntarily, less people would pay, and those who did pay would have to pay a greater share of the burden to make up for it and would ultimately ask themselves why they are paying when their neighbour isn't.

    Yes, I tend to agree. Terror is certainly an economic incentive, but I don't think it can properly be called a commodity. Can you imagine terror futures trading on the s and p 500?
   
    Terror is just one more means by which economic growth can continue after most markets have been saturated.
If we were just a little more creative we could use our surpluses to build university ships that sailed around the galaxy peacefullyseeking knowledge, breeding new kinds of plants that do things like sing and change colors, and build beautiful temples out of crystal. The majority prefers expensive cars, lawns in Phoenix, and securing borders from people they don't know or understand so as to have an illusion of security... who am I to blow against the wind?

Fear of an invisible enemy is a perfect method of controlling the population.

This method is nothing new, it has been used in several ways earlier in history.
During the 50s-80s we had the "cold war" that in reality was an invisible threat used for political reasons. Both USSR and USSA knew that they would never attack eachother but they kept playing by the cold war fear since it benefited their militaries, their careers and their pockets.

Pretty much.  I'm sure the Iraqi's do think of British and Americans as terrorists, and they probably also don't consider themselves terrorists.  It all depends on the viewpoint you look at it from.

The UK government has killed over 10 million people since WW2:  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unpeople-Britains-Secret-Rights-Abuses/dp/0099469723 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unpeople-Britains-Secret-Rights-Abuses/dp/0099469723)

People should be more worried about state sponsored terrorism than the occasional religious nut-case who goes on a killing spree.

So basically, government.

Yeah they are part of the problem. Now that war's been privatised, we've got an entire global military industry dedicated to perpetual war/profits.

The rest of the world lived with decades of terror at the hands of Uncle Sam.  It's time the US public woke up to the real face of terrorism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeHzc1h8k7o

Government is the name the most successful mafia in a particular region calls itself.

Regardless of whether or not that mafia is engaging in conflict with other mafias, they are always at war with the people unfortunate enough to live in their area of influence.

OP, you're absolutely right, extremist Islam is trending.  From the sectarian violence in Iraq, to AQAP (Yemen), to AQIM (Algeria), Islamist extremist in on the rise. 

Even when the United States faced the combined threat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan it did not find it necessary to introduce a Big Brother surveillance state spying on the intimate details of the lives of every one of its own citizens. Radical Islam is nothing compared to these earlier threats, so why tear up the Bill of Rights this time?

If the capabilities were available in the 1940's, rest assured the US would have absolutely utilized these tools.  

As far as current affairs are concerned, I'm not arguing the fact that the NSA's spying capabilities come in conflict with the constitution, rather I am merely stating that the NSA is above reproach, with security clearances above that of the President's.  This is definitely cause for concern, but there's really nothing congress or anyone can do about it.  As long as Ibrahim al-Asiri (Saudi elite bombmaker residing in Yemen) and Ayman al-Zawahri (al-Qaida #1) are at large, don't expect the status quo to change.

Quite an experience to live in fear isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

So 2 ragheads in a camel-dung colored tent can continue forcing a government to utterly abuse the relationship between itself and 300+ million citizens. A relationship steeped in 200-year old principles of individual freedom, privacy and the rule of the law - but now turned into a caricature of itself.

Next time these jihadists write on their websites that they have acheived victory, they can be reasonably considered to be no longer lying.

Now that is the sickest, twisted bunch of bull I have seen in a while.  You've managed to mangle every sentence, dude.

1.  If the capabilities were available in the 1940's, rest assured the US would have absolutely utilized these tools. 

Your opinion, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable.

2. As far as current affairs are concerned, I'm not arguing the fact that the NSA's spying capabilities come in conflict with the constitution

CAPABILITIES are not in conflict with the constitution.  ACTIONS are.

3.  I am merely stating that the NSA is above reproach, with security clearances above that of the President's.  This is definitely cause for concern, but there's really nothing congress or anyone can do about it. 

Wrong, the NSA is not above reproach.  Reproach is not determined by security clearance.

4.  As long as Ibrahim al-Asiri (Saudi elite bombmaker residing in Yemen) and Ayman al-Zawahri (al-Qaida #1) are at large, don't expect the status quo to change.

What they said "As along as OBL is at large" but you can move the sliding timescale forward to make anything true you want? 

About 3 weeks ago those same people that are scaring Americans into voting for more government dropped a bomb about 100 yards from where I am sitting right now.

About the only reaction it got from me was to go outside 5 minutes later after I was finished with what I was doing to see if I could see any indication of where it hit.

That is on a military base in the Middle East on a 5 mile by 5 mile area.

How big is the US? Why are people so worried about this?

I do not worry one bit knowing the statistics of getting hit by a bomb are tiny.

Do you worry every time you get on the road that you will die? Because it is very likely that you will, compared to getting killed by terrorists.

Wake up people. You are being played.

Terrorist from the Middle East didn't like the freedoms people in the West had, but neither did the governments of the West; and it turns out the governments were way more efficient at fighting against those freedoms...

Generally the slightly inane members of our society. There is no threat from extremist Islam "taking over" the world.

  It would be enough if the people of the middle east got to elect their own governments- they would vote against Israel and would unify to choke oil supply to the US which would be political disaster for whoever is in power in the US. Plus, providing military aid to dictators helps create jobs in the arms industry. Islam has to be fought because it places strong emphasis on peace, justice, and equality, all of which are bad for weapon manufacturing.

 Terrorism is a convenient story to make sure that people don't ask questions about why their sons and daughters aren't coming home or why they have to pay a third of their income in taxes and schools are still getting downsized.

  It's true that far more people have died from toasters than from terrorist attacks.

I'm not sure what the true stats are but I'd wager that more people die on the roads in western countries in one year than died in all the "terror" related incidents of the last five decades against those same western countries.    It's also certainly true that of the 160 million or so people that died in conflicts in the last 100 years or so, a very small proportion were military personnel and the aggressors directly or indirectly behind that slaughter were for the most part the western nations, with a particular emphasis on Britain and the USA, although Japan, China, Russia and Australia also have the blood of millions on their hands.

And let's not forget occasions where the US attacks itself. Anyone remember the attack on the USS Liberty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc7sOb7IsPY

Absolutely. The whole "War on Terror" and anti-terrorism policy agendas in the West are a massive over-reaction. It is a symptom of the cradle-to-grave nanny-state ethos where government knows best and must "protect" the lives of citizens at all costs. The fundamental flaw here is that the cost of doing the impossible means a turn-key Stalinist state is built which rolls back many years of hard won civil rights and principles of the rule of law. Freedom is being destroyed in the West in a misguided bid to save it.

The most dangerous terrorism I know is financial terrorism. It destroys the existence of millions of people and families all over the world.

 You are right

Mostly the western nations? Actually, Japan and the PR China take the award for most people butchered. Japan killed between 30-40 million people (mostly Chinese) in the Sino-Japanese War and WWII. The Chinese government killed millions due to starvation since the civil war after/during WWII. The Soviet Union lost a good 20 million people against their former ally in a war they helped start.

The west is not innocent, but we can't even compare to some of the countries in Asia.

Let's compare then...

Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century - Milton Leitenberg

http://www.clingendael.nl/publication/deaths-wars-and-conflicts-20th-century

Well, this is getting rather depressing isn't it.

Well yeah, living with terrorism is. Even if it is mostly Uncle Sam and friends.

Definitions don't contain arbitrary exceptions. The correct word for such a construct is "hypocrisy".

Correct.  What we often downplay, or downright ignore in this whole farce of 'THE WAR ON TERROR' is who are the evil ones behind the terror orchestrating it. 

The media love to focus on the latest suicide bomber individual who has wrecked havoc and murdered innocent lives, (they are indeed evoking terror and are the scum of the earth) but we very very rarely get a glimpse at the most dangerous and evil terrorism of all - STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM. 

State sponsored terrorism is far far worse than individual acts of terror.  Sadly they dont quite get the same coverage and critical analysis.

We can define any word in any way we wish, so long as we understood the meaning.  I'm going with the consensus on terrorism:


We can also go with dictionaries...


Here's another one:


Organized group = government;
Unlawful use of force = ignoring constitution;
Coercing societies = politics;

It seems the more "official" definitions of terrorism include government, or at least don't imply terrorism cannot be committed by states.  So if we're referring to the "majority", we must be referring to the individual interpretations of terrorism, which, if implying terrorism couldn't be performed by non-state actors, would be adopted by our favorite officials on word definitions.  Whoever these people are that believe governments are incapable of terrorism don't appear to make up the majority of definitions.



Now this one above flat out points the finger at government.


This is the only one which might exclude government; since all that government does is legal (and if it isn't, it will be), they can potentially authorize any form of violence.  If a government official was legally allowed to spy on and torture citizens at random, just to teach the rest "a lesson", it could not be a form of terrorism by this definition, for it would be authorized, and therefore be legit.  But again, we might say, ignoring the constitution is always unlawful, so...I'll give this one 1/2.

It would seem we all agree, then, based on the majority of popular definition; terrorism can be committed by government, including American government.

So, then, knowing this, do we know whether America has committed acts of terrorism?  Based on these definitions, does threatening and subsequently going to war with another nation over what currency their oil can be sold in count as furthering a political agenda through violence?