Is Obama a terrorist?

[Chiki]

I think a really strong case can be made in favor of this argument. According to a US Army manual, terrorism is:

the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.

Dictionary.com defines terrorism as:

use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

That's exactly what the Obama administration does. Let's consider some actions:

1. Killing Osama bin Laden. The goal was to get revenge on bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda. Such an action was planned to not only get "retribution" on bin Laden but also intimidate the other members of Al Qaeda into giving up. A peaceful, non-violent alternative would have been to capture bin Laden and put him in jail or whatever.

2. Obama's drone strikes. The same goal as the first. Since 2009, an estimated 2400 people have been killed by Obama's drone strikes. According to the same source, it's estimated that between 416 and 951 civilians were killed (with around 200 children killed).

Edited May 26, 2014 by Chiki

[kingddd]

If we are going with that kind of definition that means every single country in the world that had a fighting military is a terrorist. They won't label themselves as one but they'll use any propaganda means to tell the citizens that we are the good guys.

[Comet]

.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Comet

[Shahrivar]

I think the term terrorist only applies to NGOs - so no.

[Naughx]

Osama was responsible the many, many, MANY dead people from 911 and other stuff, so why should we care if he's dead?

Well the guy still didn't even get a fair trial in the first place. I know what he did was atrocious, but revenge isn't a solution with a supposed "civillised" country.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Naughx

[Original Alear]

I think the term terrorist only applies to NGOs - so no.

Like Assurhaddon said, some people only use terrorism in reference to groups like violent insurgents. I think it's a bit of a specious distinction myself.

[Rehab]

I've heard that the drone strikes are purported to be doing some pyschological damage to civilians on the ground in the areas where we use them a lot. They constantly make a sound buzzing overhead, and they've supposedly gotten a nickname that translates to "buzzing/nagging wife." The extents of their accuracy and controlled collateral damage have also been called exaggerated- even attacks that hit their targets (and, given we have human operators, not all of them do) can cause damage to adjacent buildings or passers-by if the target is in some kind of housing area (and they often enough are).

The nature of how the U.S. government (and a lot of its citizens) see its role in the world [order], unfortunately, explicitly assumes that when a country acts out of its vision of what is "acceptable," they'll be somehow punished, and either brought into line, or made into a nasty object lesson for other would-be countries. It's a lot less often with military force than economic clout, but we do spend more on the former than the rest of the world combined, so. Some cases that could be considered "influencing through fear" are unavoidable with that setup, even if a lot of people might prefer the U.S. be doing that influencing than another country. See, unfortunately, a lot of non-U.S. governments at least think that they benefit from it (and I wouldn't doubt they might, though I don't think it justifies a position where one shrugs their shoulders at unwanted casualties).

[a lot of this was transplanted from past skimming of The Economist articles. put as little or as much faith in that as you'd like, accordingly]

I guess, in a tortured sort of way, one might argue that it's not "terrorism" if it's not threatening the most widely-established order, but that's sort of obviously bunk. Many, maybe even all, governments could easily be argued to, at some extent, rule through fear, though I haven't seen most of them call it that.

I think I'd phrase it a bit less as "Obama is a terrorist," in the sense that he's worthy of especially focused blame (though that's not to say he shouldn't face responsibility for his administration's actions. it's complicated), than "the U.S. is fucking scary," though.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Rehab

[Makaze]

Obama himself is the leader of terrorists and sanctions acts of terror. That is, acts that are meant to inspire terror in, or knowingly cause harm to, civilians.

[Phoenix Wright]

2400 really isn't that much...

this is an extremely dangerous view to have.

[Chiki]

Obama's in charge of what may be the greatest terrorist campaign in history--the fight against Al Qaeda. The drone strikes aren't even encouraging terrorists not to attack, they're just making the civilians even more angry at America.

[Naughx]

Obama's in charge of what may be the greatest terrorist campaign in history--the fight against Al Qaeda. The drone strikes aren't even encouraging terrorists not to attack, they're just making the civilians even more angry at America.

I don't think that's fair to put all the blame on Obama, Bush was worst with his war on terror.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Naughx

[Kiriluk]

Lol people bitched since 911 that they want revenge against the terrorists.

Now that they are getting their revenge, they're bitching because we didn't give them a fair trial? Then they call Obama a terrorist LOL

People need to get their shit straight and know what they want. Fucking Americans are retarded.

[Chiki]

Lol people bitched since 911 that they want revenge against the terrorists.

Now that they are getting their revenge, they're bitching because we didn't give them a fair trial? Then they call Obama a terrorist LOL

People need to get their shit straight and know what they want. Fucking Americans are retarded.

Not everyone who wanted fair trial "bitched since 911 that they want revenge." I think America was at fault for 9/11, since they were the ones who exacerbated the terrorists in the first place, and gave them weapons.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Chiki

[Makaze]

I don't think that's fair to put all the blame on Obama, Bush was worst with his war on terror.

Actually, I'd think Obama revamped it's PR and did things that were much worse than the things Bush signed off on.

[Moira]

Lol people bitched since 911 that they want revenge against the terrorists.

Now that they are getting their revenge, they're bitching because we didn't give them a fair trial? Then they call Obama a terrorist LOL

People need to get their shit straight and know what they want. Fucking Americans are retarded.

Yes obviously the the people who wanted revenge are all now saying they should've gotten a fair trial, and vice versa.

????????

[peener weener]

Osama was responsible the many, many, MANY dead people from 911 and other stuff, so why should we care if he's dead?

2400 really isn't that much... If there is a just cause, then there would be no reason not to do it, since that would save more lives rather than ending.

you are insane.

[WhiskeySickFive]

Either way you wanna slice it or dice it, we're still going to be forced to have a presence in the Middle East, the only question (in my opinion) is how. I don't know about the rest of you, but I personally prefer Drones to American soldiers. Whether than constitutes as terrorism is up to where you want to draw the line of terrorist and leader, but I think the most irresponsible thing to do would be to pull out of the Middle East with no presence.

I think Obama can be counted as a terrorist, but at this point he's a much better alternative to any Hardline Republican.

And speaking about the other side's view on the Middle East...I don't think a side that would slip poison pills that tighten Iran sanctions on a bill for Veterans will be viewed well in the Middle East.

At the very least, Obama can be seen as one that worked for sanctions relief in Iran, which may make him a bit more popular than Republicans...

[Comet]

.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Comet

[peener weener]

compared to what osama did, it really isn't that much... and when you see the world population, 2400 isn't that big of a number... would it be better if those lives could be saved? definitely. is a perfect world where stuff like this never happens plausible? sadly, no, or at least not for a long time.

i prefer idealistic. if you could end 2400 lives to save 500000, wouldn't you do it? it is a shame that people die either way, but 50000 is much bigger than 2400, also proving my point on 2400 not being that big.

though the fact that osama wasn't given a fair trail isn't exactly fair i will admit, regardless of the severity of his crimes...

save five hundred thousand people from what, exactly? do you realise the words that you're typing? this is exactly the awful us vs. them mentality that somehow justifies drone strikes to americans. you are absolutely dehumanizing "the enemy." civillians have been killed, and the numbers provided are a conservative estimation. what the hell, man.

edit: uncalled for comment removed.

Edited May 26, 2014 by fuccboi

[Comet]

.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Comet

[peener weener]

it was an example, sir fuccboi.

i'm also not going to look up the exact numbers to please you, if you're wondering.

i know those people have lives,

and it sucks that people have to die

(people die every day btw)

but if it would be to make sure another 911 doesn't happen

?????????????????????????????

what do any of these sentences even mean? i'm not sure which of these is the worst.

man, going into this thread was a terrible idea.

Edited May 26, 2014 by fuccboi

[Comet]

.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Comet

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

Osama was responsible the many, many, MANY dead people from 911 and other stuff, so why should we care if he's dead?

2400 really isn't that much... If there is a just cause, then there would be no reason not to do it, since that would save more lives rather than ending.

And this.

So no, I don't think Obama is a terrorist.

I like how you emphasize the many, many, MANY deaths caused by 9/11 (roughly 3000 btw) and then say 2400 really isn't that many. Where among that 600 goes the line of MANY and not that many exactly?

Then again, you know what they say. Difference between a cow and 9/11 is that only one of them is milked 12 years and counting.

[Comet]

.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Comet

[Naughx]

...only 3000... oops... well, everybody here has my apologies...

Eh... What the fuck... You don't care about people dying prematurely? Do you?

Edited May 26, 2014 by Naughx