Skeptic Project

Was having a debate with some leftie folks the other day, and they kept bringing up the claim that they believe the USA is no different than terrorist organizations. One of the many claims and quotes they bring up is this one from John Pilger:

"These days, the Americans routinely fire missiles into Fallujah and other dense urban areas; they murder whole families. If the word terrorism has any modern application, it is this industrial state terrorism."

My stance on the subject was that terrorist groups (in the traditional sense) target civilians routinely, and even though civilians may die as a result of US action in (third world country of your choice) it's not part of the official policy or their rules of engagement (as far as I know, which is why I made this thread). Pilger uses the word 'murder' which I think is not right at all since that implies the intent to kill civilians.

To use 9/11 as an example, what was gained other than the death of civilians? This was not really a military strike. It was a terrorist act. It's like when people (usually the same people that I'm having this mentioned debate with) put the bombings of places like Dresden by the Allies on the same level as Adolf & Company rounding up people and throwing them in death camps. One is a military move to cripple infrastructure or military installations/supplies and the other is the rounding up of your own citizens and civilians of other countries because you believe them to be an inferior race.

They then went on to say that a group like Hezbollah was not a terrorist organization because (for the bombing in Beirut) it had some military significance being an embassy... probably where some plans or personnel were being housed. That one stumped me somewhat. Admittedly, I don't know too much about this which is probably why I was able to be backed up into a corner.

They sent me to this link: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html</p>

Which I skimmed over, but I was already aware that the United States is/was involved in some pretty shady dealings (especially in Latin America). But is say, supporting a cruel dictator on the same level as directly supporting the death of civilians in the streets via suicide bombings, etc?

So I guess my question is, how would you define 'terrorist' or 'terrorist organization'? And do you consider the USA to be a terrorist organization, why or why not?

"So in my opinion, I would have to say no. At this moment, I would lead more towards "Imperial" then terrorist. We straight up invade your shit, and make a new home(A base, not literally.) Which obviously most if not all of us don't condone. "

That's what I was thinking. Basically I don't feel that the United States is this all benevolent force in the world (I don't think it's even close to the worst thing though), but that there is much to differentiate themselves from what we have labeled as terrorist groups, so that it's not fair (imo) to make that comparison.

I'd say no. Besides the point that Cpt. Ed Ferseus made, better than I ever could, I consider terrorism to be primarily a communication strategy, not a military one. The USA don't need communication strategies to reach political powers or individuals, you pretty much have access to all the communication you want.

If somebody attacks strategic positions, to me it becomes (guerilla) warfare, not terrorism.

And even if the USA used terrorism in the past, I don't think that would justify the label "no different". I've lied in the past, but I wouldn't say I'm no different from Fox News.

Chomsky is a pacifist, and that's really my only problem with him.

Yes, but the idea that Sudan could wage any type of "war" is just silly, but it's the same none the less.