- Leadership knew that the taliban was not responsible for 9/11 but entered the country anyway. Unlike Iraq, there is no oil in Afghanistan. There was no strategic value in conquering this country other than intimidating other countries not to fuck with the states.
- USA spends 39% of global spending on military but has only 4% of the population.
- Vietnam is the most bombed country in the world.
- The US has caused so much suffering, instated dictators like Pinochet, fueled proxy wars in Latin America and in the middle-east, they even funded the taliban in the 80s.
- American foreign policy is insane and USA is a terrorist state.
change my mind internet.
edit: spelling
This just reduces the usefulness of the word ‘terrorist’, which, principally implies statelessness.
Statebased terrorist actions is an oxymoronic term. If a “terrorist” organization has state backing, by definition, its no longer a terrorist org. Authoritarian, fascist, militaristic, genocidal, racist, and on and on, sure. But keep definitions meaningful.
OP specifically says “terrorist state”
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. I think that USA fits the bill. Let’s not discuss semantics. As OP, I want to focus this post on how if you can change my mind on US Foreign policy which to me is pretty fucked up.
Every state is a terrorist state, then. There isn’t a single one that doesn’t use state-funded officials to keep either the locals or foreigners under some kind of control due to threat of or actual conflict of some kind.
By that definition, every state that has ever waged a war is a terrorist state.
Your post is based on classifying X into group Y, that sort of claim has to presuppose some semantics of Y by definition.
If I walk by a restaurant and I see a waiter delivering a plate of sushi to a customer, and I like what I see, but I don’t believe in the “idea” of private property, so I just go ahead and eat the sushi, am I the victim of terrorism when the police show up and handcuff me and take me to jail?
The act of handcuffing and abduction is not non-violent - I would not willingly walk to the jail and the police have to use physical force to restrain my arms and legs and carry me off. The arrest serves no practical purpose as it cannot restore the sushi I have already eaten - it is purely ideological. Practically, even if I don’t believe in private property, the fear of jail alone keeps me from doing what I want - eating the sushi. This is terrorism!
If you didn’t want to argue about semantics you shouldn’t have used inflammatory semantics! There is still time to recant and use less questionable words instead, while getting your main point across.