CreateDebate


Debate Info

335
365
A resounding YES! What? Are you on drugs?
Debate Score:700
Arguments:544
Total Votes:808
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 A resounding YES! (254)
 
 What? Are you on drugs? (296)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37423) pic



Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?

Non-violence cannot tackle terrorism: Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nonviolence-cannot-tackle-terrorism-dalai-l.../411980/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

A resounding YES!

Side Score: 335
VS.

What? Are you on drugs?

Side Score: 365
8 points

The Dahli Lama is right.

The current terrorists are completely brainwashed, and there is absolutely no way to reason with them.

They have a death wish, and they want everyone to die with them.

But it's not as simple as just blowing up large portions of the earth where they may or may not reside.

Because while non-violence cannot deter the current terrorists.

Non-violence is the only thing that discourages new terrorists.

And for every innocent civilian killed in Palestine, Iraq, or Afghanistan by any western force, two or three new terrorists are made, with a zealous will to kill as many as they can, even if it costs their own life.

Luckily the days or "cowboy" diplomacy are over.

Side: in the long run
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
2 points

nah, it's more like al-Jazeera propaganda that create new terrorists.

when an innocent dies, they blame it on the Americans NO MATTER WHAT. So, if we start to take it easy even more (which has been hurting our troops a shit load already), we are just being counter-productive.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
HGrey87(750) Disputed
2 points

Pyg, can you show some examples? I don't really pay much attention to Al-Jazeera, but it seems you do.

All i know is that the US kills enough people that AJ would never need to pin any deaths on us to make us look bad.

Side: A resounding YES!
HGrey87(750) Disputed
1 point

K, I thought you were talking out your ass. Just had to make sure.

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

very much agree. non violence is not the answer. but violence only creates a bigger problem. we can not sit and wait nor can we attack. terrorism is very real. it will never go away, it will always be a problem and the way we deal with it will always have negative impacts. its a lesser of two evils

Side: A resounding YES!
0 points

Maybe we could try the technique used with annoying children, and I'm completely serious about this:

They do something bad, we don't take notice. I know this sounds extreme, but maybe we could work somewhere in the middle. Don't give them all of the media coverage. Don't let them get the satisfaction of chaos in the Western world. When/If Osama releases another video, give it to the CIA and the President and don't play it. They might notice that they are blowing all of their children, neighbors, and friends to bits, and they are getting nowhere with it.

If they still insist on killing their fellow countrymen, let them. Let it happen, because by then we have tried counter-violence and non-violence. There really would be little more to do to stop these terrorists. Maybe then we could re-evaluate the situation and come up with an idea.

Side: A resounding YES!
6 points

The Dalai Lama's government in exile has proven CIA connections, and thus is tainted such that its political opinion cannot be considered objective. Even if there were no connection, he shouldn't be treated as the foremost authority on peace. The title of Dalai Lama was more of a Pope/ Feudal Monarch before the illegitimate Chinese Invasion.

As far as violence and peace go: Let's say I live in a large family. You kill my sister (For Oil? :P). Any reason at all. If I then express murderous rage against you, what would have been the best way to avoid it? Not kill my sister, or kill me, enraging the rest of our siblings? Yes, I am the king of terrible analogies.

They are often brainwashed, yes. Instead of contemplating that, ask yourself how you may be brainwashed. Instead of by a manipulative Imam, by the incredibly efficient Capitalist machine. Advertising, entertainment media, most news sources, the educational system-- all have an interest in keeping you ignorant of the whole story. It's easier to call them brainwashed maniacs than to explain that they too are people, with human motives for their actions. They are just as convinced of their righteousness as you are of yours.

In essence, what I'm saying is that violence probably is an okay short-term answer to terrorism. Long-term, it will only incite more people to the cause until it can't be contained. A much better strategy would be to refrain from egregious exploitation and mass murder such that people don't want to crash planes into us.

Side: A resounding YES!

I very much like how you put together this argument. I would also agree with you on the point that capitalism has much, MUCH, to do with the violence that we see today.

Side: A resounding YES!
6 points

You cannot believe that you can just muscle your way through problems. Look at Gandhi, He was a firm believer in nonviolence and he helped set in motion the Indian Independence Movement. If Gandhi had taken the violent approach it would have never gotten close to accomplishing what was accomplished in India. It is not always appropriate just to pull out the big guns, sometimes it is better to use non-violence

Side: A resounding YES!
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
5 points

first off all your argument is irrelevant. the government he protested peacefully against was not a terrorist group, it was great Briton with people in London who supported Gandhi. we are talking about terrorist, negotiating with a terrorist just shows they can get their way. if your child screams and yells for a cookie, do you give it to him? no he would think he could do it again to get a cookie later. if a terrorist group abducts or blows up a building then asks for money, land, or some other thing, do we give it to them? no they will do it again every time if they don't get their way. you must use force and knowledge to kill terrorist. not agree or negotiate terms with them after they slaughter innocents.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?

If terrorists learn this lesson, the world would be a better place. They are only adding to the problem. If only they would realize that they are part of the problem.

Side: A resounding YES!
thscrzywrld(18) Disputed
1 point

well mr. peace and sunshine terrorist wont learn "this lesson" so get real!!!

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
xaeon(1093) Disputed
-1 points

If American can learn this lesson, the world would be a better place. They are only adding to the problem. If only they would realize that they are part of the problem.

Side: A resounding YES!
Rose123(21) Disputed
2 points

To remind you, there was a great leader, Subhas Chandra Bose who was killed in a plane crash. Just a accident or sabotage.. no one can say but if that great person existed then I think India would have gained it's independence long long back.... He beleived in violence against a violent govt. Gandhi ji surely gave us our must awaited independence and I respect him for that, but it was a deep dark and long process.....

Why on earth do we make things complicated?????? Non-violence is a very good approach but not applicable in the 21st century where there is no place for humanity!

A hard slap back on the person's face who slaps us just at that moment, why to put forward your face again to be slept hard AGAIN???????????????

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
4 points

Suuurrrrre we can. Let's take the terrorists out to dinner and see how terrifying they are afterwards.

Side: A resounding YES!
3 points

I have a deep philosophical commitment to the principle of non-violence. Not naive notions of non-violence so commonly associated with cowardly submission to tyrants but the kind of non-violence practiced by the truly powerful.

It is an expression of desperate weakness to resort to violence. Here is an example: Suppose as you approached, there was a ten year old boy assaulting your kindergarten age daughter. You must act as immediately as possible to stop the attack. You shout stop! with no results when you see nice heavy rock you could bash his head with. Fortunately you ignore the panic induced violent impulse and act in a more admirable way by quickly and somewhat forcefully pulling the boy away and restraining him as opposed to delivering a blow. The point is that when we are staggeringly more powerful we need not resort to violence.

If you equate non-violence with refusing to use force, then non-violence cannot help fight terrorism. If you think of non-violence as a deep commitment to prevent injuries whenever possible you are on a more enlightened path than the Dalai Lama.

“Non-violence is the philosophy people adopt once they become sufficiently acquainted with the realities of serious personal conflict.” ~ Atypican

Side: A resounding YES!
2 points

'Hatred Never By hatred

Is appeased in this world;

By Love alone is it appeased

This is an ancient law.'

Also never speak harshly to anyone regardless of the situation you're in.

'Speak bit harshly to anyone.

For those accosted will retort

Painful in vindictive talk

You may recieve blows in exchange.'

That is why only Non-violence can destory terrorism.

Side: A resounding YES!

So the Dalai Lama is wrong? I mean, one would imagine that the Dalai Lama would be all for non-violence.

Side: A resounding YES!
2 points

Non-violence can defeat terrorism if the terrorists-to-be are persuaded by peace. Terrorists mostly come from backgrounds that promote hatred and denigrate peace (relatively in comparison with western society). So they generally don't respect the peaceful protesters because they wont fight. Less-lethal weapons aren't exactly non-violence but they can be more useful.

Side: A resounding YES!
2 points

if they are persuaded by peace, then they are not terrorists. terrorists main goal is to strike terror in the hearts of the public. if we just roll over and let them wreak havoc, then, they will wreak havoc. they will not stop if we just stop fighting back.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
2 points

The terrorists are only terrorizing us because we are killing their people. We just randomly bomb towns with tons of innocent people. Believe it or not, the terrorists don't like this. They see America as a threat.

Side: A resounding YES!

Well...., you better watch out. Your town may get randomly bombed. BTW, what drugs are you on ; )

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
2 points

Really, we need only look at what's happening today compared with history. America has been at war with 'terrorists' (not that I don't believe there are terrorists) in the Middle East for ... well, ever since America was a country. And in those 200+ years, we haven't really solved anything.

The reason is because the villages in the Middle East aren't very well-educated, so when the Taliban go through there, the villagers won't think against what the terrorists say. Killing the Taliban won't work, because they can always recruit more from the uneducated masses.

But enter in people like Greg Mortenson (who deserves a Nobel Prize) who builds schools in the Middle East, educating the villagers. With education, villagers are much more likely to think critically about what the Taliban say and realize that what the Taliban do is not right, and, thus, not join them.

It is obvious the Taliban hate the schools, because there have been a few attacks from them on brand-new buildings. Obviously they feel threatened. Thus, we should do it more.

More schools, less killing.

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

no we dont need 2 use violence coz it isnt the answer and plus it dont solve anything just talk to them or persuade them etc etc

Side: A resounding NO
1 point

Destroying terrorism using violence will never work. It is a band-aid solution that does not address the underlying problem, whether its poverty, discrimination, religion, corruption etc. Fighting with ideas is the way to defeat terrorism. We need to counter religious propoganda/indoctrination with rationality, counter corruption with transparency.

Side: A resounding YES!
Republican2(350) Disputed
2 points

Destroying terrorism using violence will never work. It is a band-aid solution that does not address the underlying problem, whether its poverty, discrimination, religion, corruption etc.

Violence is a systemic problem with humanity that will probably never be entirely erased, so everything in a sense is a band-aid solution.

We need to counter religious propaganda/indoctrination with rationality, counter corruption with transparency.

In ideal circumstances, that would be fine, but unfortunately, there are always going to be groups of people who simply won't listen to reason. There will always be people who blame innocent people, and inspire violence. Until there comes a time when everyone will be reasonable, there can't be a peaceful solution.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
1 point

wewwewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

wewssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssddddddddddddddddddddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

the reason they commit "terrorist" acts against us is because of our horrible foreign policy that plagues their countries. if we stopped fueling wars in the middle east and propping up dictators, and shipping over heavy artillery, and torturing, and establishing foreign military bases, and flying killer drones over their cities, and enacting kill causing deaths of millions of civilians, etc, then they wouldnt be trying to terrorize us, and besides, terrorist plots are rarely successful and even when they are its usually 5 or 6 people killed. compare that to the amount of innocent deaths caused by these wars

Side: A resounding YES!

Actually..., doing all those things you said we shouldn't be doing has put a damper on their terrorist activities. You may not know this but the radicals over there are like, "Look! Up in the sky..., it's a bird..., it's a plane..., it's a flying, killer, dro...." ;)

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

When we stop arming, funding, and making more terrorists due to blowback of bombing innocent kids, families, ect then there wouldn't be nearly as many "Terrorists" as there are today. People ALWAYS looking for a CURE but not for the CAUSE. How to terrorists a threat to us? We have a the 2nd amendment. Truth is they are NOT a threat and nothing but a boogeyman so we can destabilize the middle east and try to justify more military spending for the war profiteers!

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

Non-violent protest is a proven concept.

The issue was terrorism is that it is not just caused by violence. You would have to solve a lot of problems before people stop trying to be terrorists. Even then, there will always be outliers.

Side: A resounding YES!
4 points

I think we cant because all they think about is the mission and if they go suicide on us it means they are dead serious that they want us dead.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?

We need to show them that we are dead serious and we want them dead too (;

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
garry77777(1794) Disputed
2 points

You sound so impartial, here. You try to find solutions to problems, you dont point fingers, your not on the left or the right. The only person your fooling is yourself. Your an apologist for grave war crimes commited by your governement.I find that to be disgusting.

Side: A resounding YES!
3 points

I say no because terrorism happens in peaceful countries and it happens in violent countries. Plus non-violence can be a sign of weakness to a terrorist.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
3 points

Non-violence will never work! We have to bomb the hell out of them!

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
garry77777(1794) Disputed
1 point

Look at that statement, do see anything wrong with it, anything at all. Ya bomb the hell out of them, let just drop all the nuclear weapons we have on the middle east. I said you should commit suicide cause i honestly beleive the world would be a much better place without you nutjobs.

Side: A resounding YES!
garry77777(1794) Disputed
0 points

You make statement lioke that and then have the guile to say i need to educate myself, your a fuckin extremist, your as nad as Al Queda member im afraid and thinking not is only a self delusion, dot he world a favour and kill your self seriously do it do it. Whatever problems you have there only gona get worse with time , think about it its much easier just top yourself. You wont be missed i can assure you.

Side: A resounding YES!

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist!

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
garry77777(1794) Disputed
1 point

I dont care if this isnt serious, your an idiot and this is conclusive proof of that

Side: A resounding YES!

You're one angry little man ; )

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
1 point

hear is the voice of reason drowned out in a room of incompetents. observe closely, his kind will cease to exist in the near future due to out breeding.

Side: Friends maybe
0 points

Totally! But those people over there are hiding them, so I say that we scare them into handing over the terrorists...like terrorize them or something! Yeah, let's do that.

Side: A resounding YES!

Lets just hope Hamas sticks to the cease fire this time.

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

The only way to beat a stick is with a bigger stick. We have the bigger stick, but for some reason we aren't using it. Let's show those terrorists the same thing we showed Germany when we ended WWII! All that patriotism and force that put America on top should not be going to waste now. We need to end the war on terror once and for all. The only thing stopping us from doing that are those damned liberals who think that non-violence is the answer.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

What do you mean "we aren't using it"? Ever heard of this little thing called the War in Afghanistan?

There aren't many liberals who think that non-violence will work on terrorists.

Obama represents the mainstream liberal view: Obama's Iraq Speech

Side: smart vs dumb wars

So is Obama gonna open up a can of whoop ass on the terrorists?

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

I absolutely agree.

Of course we can and will destroy terrorism, but not with Non-Violence

I can't believe those pansies want to do nothing to fight terrorism. And I really can't believe they think that would work.

You are very brave to go after liberals like that, I do it all the time. We will get down voted and attacked for sure.

Side: A resounding NO

It's not brave to stand up to liberals. They're pacifists.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
vandoren(15) Disputed
3 points

those dang humanitarians always saying you can't commit mass genocide to take out a handful of extremist.

Side: A resounding YES!
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

Who are these "pansies" you're refering to Jake?

Last time I checked going after Osama was unanimous across the whole country,

And it was a Republican administration who decided it wasn't that important, and started another random war for no real reason somewhere else while Osama is still on the loose.

Have you been taking your hate pills again? The Bush years are over, we can all get along now.

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

What is a pansy, in your book Jake?`````````````````````````````````````````````

Side: A resounding NO
1 point

You were the one who made the debate about hate leading to more hate. Surely you must understand that the same is true with violence...why are we attacking terrorists? Because they attacked us. Why did they attack us? Because we did something to them. Why did we do something to them? ect... and all the while innocent civilians get killed in the crossfire.

Should we go after terrorists and those who attack us? Yes. Should we show indifference toward human life (thus provoking more terrorism) in the process? Well that's what we've been doing, and hey it's been working well, right?

Supporting Evidence: Casualties of the Iraq War (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: A resounding YES!
altarion(1955) Disputed
2 points

Surely you must understand that the same is true with violence...why are we attacking terrorists? Because they attacked us. Why did they attack us? Because we did something to them. Why did we do something to them? ect...

So what did we do to them? Is it that we created a free market economy based on multi-national trade which let our country flourish while their land shut out the rest of the world and went into a spiral of poverty?

Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Why can't we just become friends with them? Who says we have to kill them all? If you go looking for friends you'll find them, if you go looking for enemies you'll find them alot faster. Trust devlops over time, we've pretty much screwed them over so far. Why can't all hate be put aside, we live on the same planet and we will always.

Side: Friends maybe

Well, in this last "mini war" Israel lost 13 people and the Palestinians lost like 1,300. I would imagine that with those numbers they should be the ones to capitulate first or become extinct in the process.

Seriously, terrorism does not work. They have been trying it for 40 years. Gorilla warfare is far more effective. They need to change their strategy.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
2 points

I doubt anyone uses terrorism as a "tactic." It's just what happens when people get really, really pissed off and feel the need to lash out in any way they can.

Side: in the long run
garry77777(1794) Disputed
2 points

Why do you call it a war. Nothing that happened there resembled a war. 4 of the IDF soldier killed were by friendly fire, so 8 vs. 1400 people (1200 proved to be civilians, 400 hundered children, what was their crime). IT WAS A FUCKIN MASSACRE. Bombs and white phosphurous were being dropped on civilians as they huddled in fear.There is no real fighting going on between Isreal and Palestine, what you have is an race of people being wiped off the face of the earth slowly but surely. Palestinian resistance is purely symbolic, they no they cant win but they continue anyway cause they dont want to go down on their knees, i happen to find that admirable.Call me what you want you biased american apologist.

Side: A resounding YES!
HGrey87(750) Disputed
1 point

Israel won hands down in the battle itself. But look at the world's reaction to their choices. PR victory for Palestine.

Here's an analogy. Terrorism is to guerilla warfare as guerilla warfare is to musket volley fire. Greater psychological and tactical effect in proportion to (smaller) resources. If a state decides to fund terrorist attacks against us, the state has a much greater chance of dealing us a big hit without being found accountable.

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

1. War will never end. I believe it was Plato who said "Only the dead have seen the end of war".

2. Terrorism is a form of war and violence.

3. The question reads whether non-violence can completely end terrorism.

4. Non-violence cannot destroy terrorism because the human condition does not allow for it.

Side: A resounding NO
2 points

You're probably right, but there's no reason we shouldn't work towards peace. Isolated acts of violence may continue, but with global cooperation peace between nations can exist (at least I hope).

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

Thats like changing the saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight to don't bring a Kumbaya into a gun fight.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
vandoren(15) Disputed
2 points

Take a knife to a gunfight and stab them while they're laughing. Muslim terrorists hold the belief that if they die in a war for God they will go to paradise regardless of past actions. Convince them that Americans hold nothing against Islam and they will have a much harder time recruiting albeit it's a bit too late for that now that we've entered a full on war.

Side: Friends maybe
1 point

I think we all like peace and want peace. I wish we could destroy terrorism with non violence I really do, but it can't happen that way. However anything we can do with non violence we should.

Does anyone really think we can get Osama Bin Laden and or take down the tali-ban with non-violence?

Side: Peace is good
1 point

Yes....Just like we found Saddam Hussein...in a hole somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Side: A resounding YES!
clearEn(207) Disputed
1 point

Yes. With an educated populace, the Taliban would have nowhere to recruit from. The current Taliban would either kill themselves in terrorist acts (or get caught beforehand), or just die of natural causes in a few decades. With no recruiting pool, they can't survive.

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

The reason we haven't had a major terroristic attack since 2001 is that the terrorists are trying to run from our military. If we suddenly try to make peace with them, they will go all out and attack attack attack. These radical Muslims do not care if we want to be friendly with them. They only want to kill the "infidels" and the "non-believers", regardless of friendship status!

Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Allahu Akbar!!!

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
garry77777(1794) Disputed
1 point

GO BACK TO BED AMERICA YOUR GOVERNEMENT IS IN CONTROL. GO BACK TO BED, HERES SOME AMERICAN GLADIATORS.

YOU ARE FREE TO AS WE TELL YOU, YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL

Bill Hicks R.I.P.

Side: A resounding YES!
1 point

You must be on some serious meth to think that non-violence can end terrorism. What do you suggest Gahndi, should we go to the Tygris River and make our own salt?

Side: A resounding NO

After 491 days and countless arguments (which I haven't read) to the contrary, I still chose this side ;)

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
1 point

Look, we've tried the whole 'peace' and 'non-violence' thingy time and time again. There's nothing that non-violence can do to stop the terrorism. They just want to fight, and they see non-violence as a weak and easily exploited trait. The only way we can stop the terrorism is with violence.

Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Dont forget to include state sponsored terrorism like that of the U.S. which is responsible for about the deaths of people on a gigantic scale. Ordinary run of the mill terrorism like alkida can never hope to compare to that. Think about over a million Iraqis have died since the invasion. Now they werent in a good position before that but still. 1/4 million died from the first gulf war and the sanctions imposed on Samdam (by the U.S.) as a result of it collectively punished the entire Iraqi people and caused the deaths of untold millions (look it up, its well documented, type killing the children of Iraq into youtube or else you have to trawl through amnesty international and WHO documents). I know ive only focued on Iraq but you could apply similar arguments to most countries outside the Western world and some inside.The amount of blodd on Americas hands no conventional terrorist can ever compare to and you'd be hipocrites to exclude it from your argument.Peace out.

Side: I wish we could but it would not work
1 point

Millions, huh? So American soldiers went into Iraq and killed over a million Iraqis? Are you sure you are not counting the Shiites killed by the Sunnies? Maybe you're also throwing in the Iraqis that got killed by Al Qaeda? And Iraqis that died of old age and natural causes? I'm just saying ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Maybe it is you who should look it up, it's well documented. Peace out ;)

Side: What? Are you on drugs?
garry77777(1794) Disputed
1 point

Your just saying are you. Well at no point in my argument did i say anything about American soldiers going into Iraq and killing a million people. Maybe you should re-read it or you could try not being so ignorant in future(im just saying). I stand by everything i said. The best studies coming out of Iraq estimate that about a million people have died since the invasion. Now you'd have to be an idiot (and you may well be) to think that those deaths aren't a direct consequence of the invasion. Now i know that American soldiers are not responsible for every single death in Iraq thats ridiculous, the figure on that wikipedia page quoting the various sources shows that about 100,000 civilians died as result of direct combat and roughly a million have AS A RESULT OF THE CONFLICT.Again you'd have to be an idiot not to recognise that what America has done has created a lawless destabilised state lacking any of the basic necessities that we expect i.e. food,shelter,healthcare of any kind,education and the right not to be killed walking down the street. Now it is really that much of a leap in causation to acknowledge that this may have at least contributed to these deaths (i mean really) or are you so stupid that you think if America hadnt invaded a million people would still have died within a period of less than 10yrs. And whats all this for oil and more control over the bewildered people of the middle east, i really hope more countries follow Egypts example and shake off the puppet governemnts the U.S. has put in place to repress the people, its disgusting to even think about it.My original point had very little to do with Iraq and your attempt to discredit me is really quite pathetic the facts you presented are the ones i presented (i will admit i was little selective in my quoting). The point wasnt to get bogged down in the minuatiae of the Iraq war, Iraq was just the most convenient example to quote. There is a multitude of atrocities i could cite why dont you pick one it doesnt have be well known like Vietnam where America was responsible for the deaths of between 3-5 million Vietnamese (again a best estimate please dont post some wikipedia page quoting that actually the south vietnamese army was responsible this or that fraction of the dead or some other stupid ignorant reason that means America wasnt to completely responsible as they were and you know it, dont insult my intelligence for god's sake im a scientist its my job to get the facts right, i know the facts im quoting are correct i base them on the best sources of info. available). I really do hope you respond id like to continue this argument, actually one thing you never said was whether you disagree with the fundamental point of my argument which was that petty guerilla terrorism cannot compete with American state sponsored terrorism, why dont start by answering that im sure your answer will give me few laughs.Peace out.

Side: A resounding YES!