so yeah, we always hear about terrorist attacks done by these isis fucks in modern countries but we(or atleast most people living in those countries) don't know a thing about what these countries are doing.
for example: the us have dropped 22k bombs in iraq and syria in 2015 alone, in 2016 the number went over 24k bombs, yet we never hear anything about it.
the question is why? and doesn't that count as terrorism or even worse?

Both military and the media are controlled by the government(s), so naturally you will only hear about what they want you to hear. If people knew that US military kills more innocent people than ISIS, most would be outraged, but when you portray middle east as this evil beehive of terrorists all of a sudden nation supports you.

I think people like us can't do anything with it. Military. Police and parlament need to think about it

It's a war crime to kill innocents, therefore it's a war crime to do terrorist attacks.
Yes, the U.S military also injures innocent people, but it's not the same thing. The reason for this is that terrorists hide between children and innocent people in general on purpouse, that also happened in Vietnam, for example.
You have to take into consideration that they're not attacking the militarymen, they're attacking us, normal people, we only like hamburgers and sex anyway, we have absolutely nothing to do about what they're trying to do in their country.

You're attacking the war on the wrong point, you could critize it by saying that the U.S is doing it by the basic feudal reason to do so, to get richer.

Now may I ask you, would it be OK for the nazi to come to the U.S, or U.K, or the soviet union to do terrorist attacks? If not, then why are you justifying the same exact thing on a modern context?

i am not justifying anything. i'm only saying that if both sides are using fucked up methods then why do we only see one side?
also if it come to who is right and who is wrong that'll take us to who started it all and the reasons behind everything which is going to answer your question,

lets take iraq for example: the us saw it growing better and started seeying it as a threat and so they started a local war inside the country, then they pushed their army in there and killed 1 million iraqi in 3 years, then iraq people got angry and responded with 9/11 attack, and for some reason they started making such things their main method.

even tho the methods that are used are fucked up but that doesn't make the us right nor deny the fact that they started it nor the fact that they use even worse methods. they litterally destroyed every building and killed millions while the other side killed thousands, its not even a close comparison.

At least get educated on the subject before you spout nonsense

Plainly and simply, the methods the US uses aren't fucked up. They go out of their way to avoid their methods being fucked up. Rules of engagement are strict and the military is expected to abide by them. ISIS sets people on fire and chainsaws them in half and makes kids kill prisoners.


lets say its a conclution that i got after knowing that they dropped 12k bombs there. did you even see the aftermath? it didn't seem like avoided citizens.


lolwhat, are you high? who's ass did you pull that out of? Iraq was about as much of a geopolitical foe of the US as zimbabwe. Iraq was our ally against Iran, to keep them in check, and it seems we abandoned them and are now allied with the Saudis. Or Bush getting revenge on Saddam. Literally any way you want to frame it. Their geopolitical influence however? Lol


as far as i found it look like bush saw saddam as a threat whatsoever.
u right.


Uh, the Saudis were responsible for 9/11. The Iraqis haven't done anything of note since the Mongols strolled through and burned Baghdad to the ground several hundred years ago.

now i'm wondering why i remember reading some article saying it was iraq.
i feel retarted for not searching twice.


You clearly don't understand anything you're talking about in depth. Pick up a book or two.

i find politics and modern history quite boring and i only talk about them when i'm too curious so... i'd rather have people who know about the subject like you tell me.
also my country is neutral (yet seen as a threat by other arabs for some reason) so i have to do researches of my own which i'm lazy to do.


The Iraqis that have died mostly have their blood on the hands of other Iraqis. They range from willing shields of terrorist cells to collateral damage.


idk, its confusing because everyone is spouting different shit that idk who to believe,
and its quite wierd that iraqis spilled more of their blood than the us when they had the same goal.
i don't want to get into more details because that'll only confuse me even more.
maybe you can tell me what you know? because, apparently i don't know shit.

Sorry, both sides are wrong, but in my point of view U.S is doing a big crime, first of all, let's start in the 2nd world war, why the hell U.S threw 2 atomic bombs in Japan? Simple reason, they wanted to show power, the excuse they gave was: "Well, it was necessary to end up all this war", no it wasn't, and sadly most of americans agree that it was, but it wasn't, Japan was already falling a part, they killed 200k people just to show power, that's ridiculous, but now lets talk about more recent things.

Why blaming ISIS? Simple, U.S controls the media and there's nothing we can do about it. Do u remember Saddam Hussein? in our eyes he were a terrorist, indeed, he was, but do u remember the reason why U.S attacked him? U.S said: well, they have atomic bombs and some other weapons, but don't worry world, we'll erradicate him. And U.S did it, but that wasn't the reason, the reason was oil, we know that in this Arabic region we find lots of oil, and they control the price of this resource, those arabic countries and Venezuela, but Venezuela has no choice, they aren't rich so they have no power to disagree.

In this part of the text i am here to prove that Saddam had no atomic bombs. Recently we saw U.S vs North Korea and U.S vs Siria, and the question that i make is. Why U.S attacked Siria and haven't attacked North Korea? Simple answer, North Korea has atomic bombs, and Siria not. It's the biggest proof that Saddam had no Bombs, and what U.S wanted was oil in a low price.

Nowadays the oil is pretty cheaper than in 2008 or 2007, and that's one of the reason of Venezuela crysis, the other reason is the government. Venezuela is a country that export only one product (Oil) and when the price lowered, they made almost no money, that's the first reason. Second reason: The government is totally closed for stranger products, and Venezuela has no industry. So in the end people starve, they don't even have toilet paper, and that's all.

One thing that i find curious is that U.S and Europe are trying to make the Amazon rain forest international (in U.S school they teach that the Amazon rain forest is international property and not a brazilian, colombian, etc. Amazon rain forest is south american, that's all.) and in the past, some good years ago Brazil was challenged to defend why Amazon rain forest isn't international, and for our lucky they send a good dude to explain that. A american student asked why not making the Amazon rain forest international? The answer was simple: Yeah, it could be cool making Amazon rain forest international, but if we make that, why don't we make all the oil in this world international? why don't we make all the museums in the world international, why don't we make manhattan a international city? it's the head quarters of ONU, and we all know ONU is international, every city could be international. All north americans atomic bombs could be international too. Why not? Why not making NASA international why not sharing all the tehcnologies in the world? In the end everything could be international, but while people see me as a brazilian, while people see everyone as a different being i am totally against the internationalization of Amazon rain forest. Amazon rain forest is a brazilian property. that's all.

In conclusion, what do u guys think about it? Were the attacks against japan necessary? do you guys really think U.S and even Europe are right? I know much more things about world, i just don't really wanna talk about it now because my text would be long as fuck, more long than that. Let's talk about it, let's think about everything. Don't let the midia control u. U are better than that.

hey I don't like these political discussions but I love history and, @Victor: just adding to your comment about the two atomic bombs on Japan launched by the US (note that I'm still a layman in this topic so I might say something wrong too, I can't prove that my sources are right), actually there is a pretext behind this that people usually don't consider. Supposedly, US threw those bombs to "avoid a greater disaster", since the war had already ended, the losing countries and nations had already signed peace treaties and such but Japan, that was affiliated to the losing alliances of the war, didn't stop invading and advancing against other countries, even though they were losing and dying too. What I often saw people say is that they were so "determined" to go til the end that even while disarmed they would fight against an army, resulting in a big deal of deaths.
Facing this situation US was "forced" to throw an atomic bomb there to soften the disaster by disabling them and overthrowing their morale. The second bomb was a "warranty" and obviously a show off.

I don't 100% believe that but I thought would be worth sharing

edit: I know I kinda repeated what you said though, I had more arguments in mind when I started typing such as the Plan Colombo thing and stuff but I still feel like re-saying this point with my words so, no hard feelings, yes? :^(

sorry for the off topic or sort of, but I'll compensate it giving my opinion about the matter.



Any disaster /war or anything bad related to the US, whether they are the heroes of the story or not, I usually don't believe in anything from any media source. Since the second war it's pretty clear to me that the US, as the winner of the war, writes the history according to their will. I think isn't new for anyone that our world history was written by the winners of their respective time, but personally I think nowadays it affects us as it never could before, due to the advance of communication technology and globalization, since information like this can control any society as a whole.
Oh shit I'm getting lost with this
Resuming the US being the winner thing, they successfully put Germany as global villains and pure evil at the time, even though that wasn't and still isn't entirely true, they were a nation left in pure shit, living a hell on earth and being able to do nothing about it. Hard times of crisis like these always strengthens extreme measures and ideologies.
Now coming to the actual topic (sorry), I think the same way about terrorism nowadays. It has a solid and "fair" reason sometimes and US put them as enemies and everyone else just believes and repeat their words, then I just don't believe it. I'm not being ignorant and closing my eyes to the catastrophes I do know terrorism causes, but I'm also aware of US impact in countries like these where most of terrorist factions are based.
If I'm not mistaken there is a religion that believes in "dying for a greater cause" guarantees your place in "heaven" and they have US as personification of evil so, it's a fair deal to them.

i agree with pretty much everything victor said

and let me comment on 2 3 things you said(lionet).


ok,no the us really didn't have to throw that atomic bomb, they could have searched for the place where the japanese leaders are hiding and just throw much smaller bombs that will cause only few hunderds of deaths.
even if they continued the war agains't them there is no way that the number of deaths is going to reach 200k specially considering japan's position at the moment. they would run of resources very fast and just give up after realising that they lost the war long time ago. at worst case the number of deaths wont even reach 200k from both sides combined.




the problem is that the US caused this terrorism for themselfs but they are still precieved as the good guys when in reality there are no good guys here. and keep isis out of the equation because everyone know how fucked up they are(and most of their attacks are in muslim countries so...eh just saying).

well, yes and no.
i know you are talking about islam and i am a muslim myself(not really sure acually), anyway i know quite alot about this religion and yes as dying for a greater reason can get you a good place in heaven according to it tho there is 1 problem which is that in islamic war rules killing civilians(or anything that isn't trying to kill you acually) is completely prohibited. if i could find one certain reason why these people do such things is shia. why you may ask? simple because these guys use quoranic verses out of context to manipulate people (like the US use the media but a hundred times worse).


anyway the point of me making this is not to defend terrorists, its just to say why one side is called terrorist and the other not when they are both killing people instead of getting to an agreement.