Is the US a terrorist state?

Great Debates
1

In the thread War with US & Israel the discussion drifted to the distinctions of what constitutes a state that sponsors terrorism. Rather than fully hijack that thread I figured a new discussion was warranted.

In the thread linked above (and I am paraphrasing big time) the claim was made that Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism. The rebuttal was that is a US designation. From Iran’s point of view it is the US who sponsors terrorism.

There is no question the US has done some despicable things in its history. For debate though are the likes of the Sandinistas equivalent to Iran’s support of Hamas (just to name one example)?

I am having a hard time parsing a difference but I guess my (personal) distinction is the US supports para-military groups. They may well commit atrocities (and I am not excusing that) but they behave in a more militaristic fashion whose direct goal is the overthrow of their government.

Contrast that with Iran who supports people who strap a bomb to their self and blow up a transit bus. Basically random, kill anyone in the pursuit of seeding terror in the populace.

I will admit I am wondering myself if I am making false distinctions hence the post to see the debate and help sort my notions on this.

2

I can’t answer this, I’m not sure anyone can, but at least in recent history (last 100 years), the US has a better record for treating prisoners of war better than most, as well as not intentionally targeting civilians during military operations.

Other nations that “sponsor terrorism” often do not make that distinction, although it hardly matters to them.

And I do realize that “the distinction” I’m speaking of can vary depending on circumstances.

Tough call, really, if you want to call a spade a spade, including historical context within the scope of modern Western ideals about warfare.

3

Just to clarify, the Sandinistas were the Marxist party led by Daniel Ortega, which the US opposed. American support was for the Contras.

The Contras were terrorists, beyond any doubt or question. I am no friend of communism, but facts are facts; they committed innumerable attacks on civilians and civilian targets. That the Sandinistas weren’t any better is no excuse.

4

All states are terrorist. It is simply a matter of degree.

I am parsing ‘terrorist’ the simplest way possible–a terrorist is one who uses fear to inflict his/her will (or the will of his/her masters) on a group identified as ‘not us’.

Now, the more traditional usage IMO refers to one who specifically targets citizens not involved in conflict to achieve some goal, and to do so specifically to achieve the result based on the fear of said action. The US still has the power to not resort to these means.

5

Kind of suspecting you are right. Really a matter of which side of the fence you are on I guess.

But I still have a gut reaction that a suicide bomber exploding in a marketplace is somehow different and more despicable than fighters who, while causing violence, are presumably more targeted in their efforts.

(As I re-read the above I suspect I will be busted for it and rightly so)

6

Doh! :smack:

7

You are making fine distinctions, but not necessarily invalid ones. As I pointed out in that thread, we have often supported terroristic regimes, but we seem to think that terrorists are only those in rebellion, Sandanistas were terrorists, the Contas were freedom fighters.

When we fire bombed Tokyo, at a cost of more than a hundred thousand civilian lives, was that not terrorism? Our stated goal was terror, to terrify the civilian population into submission. We didn’t even pretend it was about legitimate military targets with unfortunate collateral damage: innocent men, women and children were the targets, period.

And this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/national/main4234885.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4234885
**
Declassified Files Show Thousands Of Political Prisoners Were Executed By S. Korea, With U.S. Approval**

We have little enough claim to virtue, much less innocence.

8

I’m not sure this bears out valid comparison to the “modern idea” of what a terrorist constitutes.

We were at war with Japan (which they started with us) and were pulling out the stops to defeat them, as they were a particularly non-surrendering type of culture.
Heck, why use that example when you could arguably make a better case for us dropping the A-bomb on them?

9

Interesting OP:

No. The US is a superpower. Granted, this doesn’t exactly make us the font of all light and happiness in the world. However, if one says the US is a terrorist state then a realistic assessment would show that nearly every powerful state in history would also be on the list…and at that point the list would lose any meaning. If EVERY powerful state is a terrorist state then…well, what does it mean at that point?

The US HAS (and probably will continue to) done despicable things in our history. Our treatment of blacks in our own nation was certainly despicable. Our dealings with the Indians was certainly despicable. What we did during our imperialist phase in places like the Philippines was certainly despicable.

So, what’s the difference between the US and Iran? What makes them an outlaw state and the US not? I think the difference is one of intent more than anything.

Well, the US certainly plays the real politic game…we have held our collective noses in the past to support regimes that were ‘friendly’ to our interests, regardless of how they achieved their goals. Again, I think the difference is one of intent. While the US has supported groups who did despicable things, it wasn’t our intent to support terrorism directly…merely to protect our interests as we saw them. Groups like Hamas though…they are terror organizations, pure and simple. Their INTENT is to cause terror, and Iran directly supports them…and arguably pulls their strings directly or indirectly.

The US is not a nation of saints…our actions haven’t been saintly on the world stage. While it’s true that if you compare us (fairly) to other superpowers we come out better than average, this is merely an excuse for our past (and present and probably future) behavior. That said, the US does TRY an improve, to grow, to…do better. Bush wouldn’t be so unpopular if we didn’t…and I believe that our actions in Iraq were painful lessons that we have learned, and hopefully won’t repeat in the future.

Another distinction between Iran and the US of course is that while Iran nominally has a ‘democracy’, their people really aren’t connected to the process in any meaningful way. That sort of precludes the ability for deep or fundamental changes in Iran, at least until that situation changes.

Well…while I agree with the point (it gets back to intent), I have to say that while the US doesn’t directly support random killing, we do have a certain mindset that allows for collateral causalities. And as Der Trihs would point out (and probably already has), whether you die from a suicide bomber or from collateral damage in an air strike, the distinction is probably going to be lost on your friends and family.

It will be interesting to see some of the responses to these questions, both by Americans and by non-US 'dopers. I don’t think the distinction is false…but it’s definitely subtle. And really it comes down to the intent of the country, and whether the good outweighs the bad. I think in the case of the US, the good overall DOES outweigh the bad. I concede that non-US 'dopers (or even US 'dopers) may disagree with that, but I think an honest assessment and an honest comparison of apples to apples will prove it out in the US’s case. On Iran’s side I think it’s more one sided, but mainly because Iran is, at best, a regional power who wants to become a regional hegemonic power.

-XT

10

I tend to agree.

WWII I think was the last gasp of “old style” warfare where it was considered Total War. Not only was enemy’s military fair game but their entire populace was.

We were not waging a war of terror on them. We were trying to kill them. Period.

11

The rest of your post was helpful and clarified some things in my mind.

The quoted bit here though smacks of “ends justifies the means” to me and I do not buy that. First who is to say what the “good” is? Doubtless Iranians would define it differently than the “Great Satan” (US) does.

Second and perhaps more importantly is that not the starting point for the notorious slippery slope?

12

Sadly, I don’t think this is going to be the case, in spite of insurgent “success” in fighting our military.

Open battles between countries with the military sizes of Iran and the USA are still going to occur.

Whether or not that translates into surrender anymore is a very good question.

BTW, what the fuck is Russia doing, being all silent and all? Aside from their recent bomber runs over someone else’s territory, what are they doing? They sell weapons to countries we either have fought, are fighting or will fight.

They have a lot of nukes, too. Whom are their alliances with? They sell a ton of oil and natural gas to many customers, weapons sales notwithstanding. Whom are their key allies now?

13

To be sure. Whether the ends justify the means or not is purely a subjective assessment. Additionally one has to filter things through the fog of war, through cultural and social mores of the times, and through the situation at hand.

What’s ‘good’? Well, I can of course list things that the US has done that are ‘good’ and ones that we have done that are ‘bad’…even things the US has done that are ‘evil’. I’m sure others could make similar lists as well. In the end it’s all subjective however.

And doubtless the Iranians DO think we are the ‘Great Satan’, and for a variety of reasons…some I would actually agree with and some I would not. I think the US represents change and temptation to a nation like Iran…and to the fundamentalist types that change is not a good thing, and those temptations are the cracks in the walls, the dissolution of their cultural matrix that holds their society together.

Certainly. Look at Iraq for a great example of how the US falls down a slippery slope. While some of our intent in Iraq was strategic (i.e. we wanted to secure the oil in Iraq out of the hands of what we considered an unstable regime, and we wanted to project our power into the region to cow and perhaps stabilize it), we also actually DID want to help the Iraqis out (I know Der will disagree with me here), and we DID want to promote a democratic system in the region as (we had hoped) an example to the rest of the nations in the region.

The road to hell being paved with good intentions (and bad ones to), we certainly put our feet on a very slippery slope in Iraq (to give just one example) and we are only starting to see the bottom of the hole we are in over it.

-XT

14

Heh…I have no clue. I think Russia is torn between wanting to join the West and wanting to reclaim their former superpower status. Makes them kind of schizo unfortunately.

Probably worthy of its own thread (I know I’d be interested as they puzzle me).

15

Well…I honestly believe American “good” is provably better than Iranian “good”.

I do not think it is all subjective. Call me crazy but I think, philosophically, there are natural rights (all men are created equal and so on).

Do Americans have it perfect? Hell no!

Is the American way the best or only way? Of course not!

Do Americans fuck-up and do bad things? You betcha!

But as a philosophy I just cannot see the way many (most?) countries in the Middle East hold a candle to what the US tries to do (at least in theory as our guiding light). I do not see this as opinion but basic truths.

You know…writing this I have written myself into a corner. Doubtless an Iranian could say what I said above adjusting for his point of view. In the end I guess to “win” the argument I would have to prove my philosophy superior to his.

Not sure how to do that.

16

You don’t have to look to the Americas for US support for terrorists - a direct parallel to Hamas would be US support for various terrorist groups in the Middle East/Pakistan, including Jundullah and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran. Yes, the US is a state sponsor of terrorism, and always has been.

17

Please cite that for me, so my ignorance as an American can be properly fought.

18

Jundallah
PMRI

19

that should be PMoI, not PMRI

20

The problem with that argument is that outside our own borders we have never showed any interest in promoting values superior to the Iranians ( or the Communists before them ). We’ve cheerfully supported terrorism, dictators, torturers ( when not torturing ourselves ), economic exploitation, and so on.

It doesn’t matter if our ‘good’ is better than Iranian ‘good’, because we have no desire to push our version of ‘good’ or anyone else’s.