Is slavery in America considered terrorism?  Is taking away one's pride, dignity, moral values, & rape, TERROR
482405
Is not considered but it is. You own people which you treat bad and beat them or even if you want you could kill them. That is terrorism because you are attacking people that do nothing against you.
701310
Terrorism is killing or threatening to cause physical harm to a civilised society in the name of some cause. Terrorism breeds out of perceived injustice whose advantage is taken by unscrupulous elements. There are different types of terrorism- religion-based, territory-based or state-sponsored.\nIrrespective of the type of terrorism the propagators try to justify it in the name of certain cause or ideology.\n\nReligious Terrorism: Example Al-Qaida who led Muslims to believe that they have been historically mistreated and must fight to avenge that.. Truth is that such people follow no religion because no religion propagates violence.\nTerritory-based Terrorism: Example LTTE in Sri Lanka, ULFA in Assam. They believe that their territory has been 'occupied' to external forces and they must fight to overthrow their oppressors. Truth is, in most cases, these people are greedy to control and exert their power with vested interests and little interest in public welfare.\nState Sponsored: BY FAR THE MOST DANGEROUS. Example Hitler in Germany, George Bush in USA, Narendra Modi in Gujarat, Musharaf in Pakistan, who use government machinery and armed forces to spread terror. The reason it is so dangerous is because people like Hitler and George Bush have access to tremendous resources, arms and ammunition to attack soft targets to further their propoganda.\n\nRemedies:-\nEvery country must actively co-operate and ensure to root out terrorism from their soil. \nResolving issues through negotiations and via multi-lateral forums like UN.\nAllaying fears in the minds of people, by avoiding 'us against them' and 'clash of civilization'  kind of rhetorics.\nEducating people and providing employment opportunities to disillusioned youth to ensure that they utilize their energy positively.
1158253
I feel no guilt because I never owned a slave.  Nor did any of my family.  Funny isn't it how when we speak of Islamic terrorists, people start screaming that not all Muslims are terrorists and that we need to embrace them, support them and understand them.  But when the subject of slave owners comes up, all white people are supposed to accept some responsibility just because of our skin color.
535077
No, I mean "hell no."  We do so much to try and avoid civilian injury and casulty, we do more to try and defend their rights, and are working to leave the country.  Terrorist are working to inflict fear, create hatred, and in the name of an extreme version of a peaceful religion.
498482
I believe the USA is committing acts that constitute as terrorism due to the protection of economical investment.\nWe also have to keep in mind that invasion of countries by the USA have been recurrent trough out USA history that represent no real threat and have been accomplished to defend different ideals. First the ideals started as a form of economical gratitude in which USA would become wealthier,next to defend their economical posts in Latin America, then came war on drugs, and now the war on terrorism has given USA the right to invade countries with cultures and beliefs they know nothing and surely do not respect, therefore labeling the USA as terrorists.
71834
Dear, \nI am very grateful for your kind contact. My question’s hading was War against Terrorism.\nI strongly condemn terrorists, they are causing great lose of innocent lives. So very person who has a soft corner in its heart for terrorist may be also called terrorist. \n\nI respect your opinion, everybody should fight against terrorism. I believe Americans are most cultured and well mannered people, you talked me in a different way? If you do not agree my point of view, we can discuss that. But you threat me to hit my country? Everybody surely loves its country, and Pakistan is playing a vital role in removing terrorism and is a front line fighter against terrorism. \n\nBut on the other hand can you justify the deaths of innocent child and innocent peoples, we are also humans.\n\nIf you think somebody is performing any task which is not right, and then you should prove that he is criminal, if proving without that, you take any action, any decision by your self, and the whole world protest against this, so you should review your act.\n\nIf we want to live a peaceful life we should remove the cause of terrorism. Otherwise you threat, so be informed nobody can remove terrorism by force. We know how to defend our country; you can buy only few people but not whole nation.\n\nAnyhow thank you for your opinion. \nLooking for your reply.\nSincerely \n\nImran
567474
Morality is relative.  Keep in mind that it was acceptable for Roman men to have sex with young, teen boys.  Slavery used to be morally acceptable.  My point is, only you can decide if smoking weed is morally wrong.  Personally, I think if more people smoked pot, this planet would be a much better place.
652762
It is a question of methods.  You and some others suggest there is a moral equivalence between terrorists and freedom fighters; that it is a question of perspective.\n\nSuch views are mistaken.  Terrorists attack civilians.  They attack non-combatants.  They deliberately kill people who are simply going about their ordinary, everyday lives.  As the name implies, they do that to cause terror among such people.  Terrorists attack women and children in markets; they blow up people on busses, they bomb churches and mosques.  Terrorists are cowards, thugs and murderers.\n\nTrue freedom fighters, such as the French Resistance in WWII, attack the enemy army.  This is much more dangerous and requires much more courage than blowing up women and children in a market or on a bus.\n\nThe Boston Tea Party was more akin to civil disobedience than to either terrorism or freedom fighting.  They simply dumped some tea into the harbor to make the point that they didn't want to pay taxes on it.  It was a way of saying we would rather not have the tea than pay unfair taxes on it.\n\nGandhi's entire Resistance movement was based on civil disobedience; he did not fight at all.  When the British outlawed making salt, he went down to the sea and made salt.  He did not bomb a church.  He did not blow up a market.\n\nWhen the US colonies decided to rebel against England, they formed a government and an army with officers and uniforms and flags.  They fought in the open against the British troops who were trying to suppress the rebellion.  That makes George Washington a soldier, neither a terrorist, not a freedom fighter.\n\nThere are a great many people in history and today who resist tyranny with dignity, courage and honor.  There are many who seek to impose their will by murder, terror and intimidation.  To attempt to equate the two with some relativistic mumbo-jumbo dishonors the lives of those who fight with dignity, courage and honor and reveals your own incapacity to make true distinctions.
224819
YES! YES! and again yes.As you are already aware, in this world today,ecspecially in the Good Ole USA,you are either politically correct,bury your head in the sand,or speak out and be a radical trouble causing ungrateful citizen which is one step short of being a terrorist yourself.\nI'll just stop here.Thanks for letting me answer.
1038814
Slavery still exists, all over the world.  Those who say otherwise are niave, and ill-informed.  Just because it has been outlawed doesn't mean that it itsn't there.  Speeding is outlawed, piracy is outlawed, it exists.  There are countries in Africa where slavery runs rampant. Consider that.
228852
LOSS LEADER - I think you are grotesquely spinning the wording of the question to further your own twisted agenda. We all know from your answers that you come down on the side of the terrorists quite often.\n\nTHE QUESTION IS: "What's more important, the civil rights of muslim terrorist, or the safety of our families?"\n\n1) Nowhere is the question did ihavemyfaultsbutiamnotwrong even imply that all Muslims are terrorists as you outright state. Nowhere in the question did ihavemyfaultsbutiamnotwrong even imply that families cannot be Muslim, either.\n\n2) His use of the phrase "Muslim terrorists" happens to mean just that ... terrorists who happen to be Muslim. Are there other types of terrorists? Sure, but I don't think we are worried about PETA killing potentially tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans in the near future. The fact remains that the biggest threat to American society today remains fundamentalist Muslim terrorists.\n\n3) The spirit of the question was whether we should be concentrating on protecting the rights of these said fundamentalist Muslim terrorists or concentrating on our safety. It is a very valid question with very valid arguments on both sides. It is a question worth debating.\n\nI understand that you enjoy taking every opportunity to bash President Bush, the United States and its policies whenever you can. All one has to do is sift through your answers to see that. You claim that makes ihavemyfaultsbutiamnotwrong "a totalitarian, a racist, a poor debater, and a jacka$$". I would argue that your one-sidedness, your close-mindedness, your obvious loathing of the President makes your answers inconsequential. Because you are not willing to seek both sides of the argument and even consider the other side's arguments, you obviously are not searching for enlightenment. You are not seeking the truth. You merely seek those statements which support your own. \n\nYou can go ahead and bash me. I already know what you are going to say before you say it ... I have heard your arguments and those like you many times before. You are an embarassment to true discourse in this country. You state opinions as fact and make no attempt to back them up.\n\nObviously, you support free speech - as long as the speaker agrees with you. Otherwise, he is a totalitarian, a racist and a jacka$$. And people are supposed to respect that??\n\nNOW IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ...\n\nI believe that we must err on the side of safety for the time being. Terrorists are using the Constitution against us, and in times of war, some Constitutional rights have traditionally been suspended.\n\n* Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Guess what? That right was restored after the war was over.\n* The right to free speech was suspended during World War I with the Sedition Act. Guess what? The act was repealed after the war.\n* The right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment was suspended during World War II. Guess what? The rights were restored after the war.\n\nCurrently, there is still debate as to whether any rights are being violated or not. There are good arguments to each side of the debate regarding the Patriot Act, the so-called Domestic Spying Program, etc.\n\nBut let me leave you with a question. So many people claim that the Patriot Act and the Domestic Spying Program violates their rights.\n\nHOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN AFFECTED BY THEM??\n\nHow many people reading this response have been arrested because of what they read at the library? How many have had their phones tapped because of what they were saying?\n\nMy point is this: Almost no one - if anybody - can say that they have even been affected by Bush's policies. The only ones the government is interested in are the bad guys. If you aren't a bad guy, your phones will not be tapped, your email will not be read, your library records will not be confiscated.\n\nBased on this, I must say I favor in erring o
304686
The context of your question is very broad.\n\nSlavery has existed since the beginning of human history and exists to this very day in certain parts of the world.\n\nIn America, slavery (which President Bush observed recently was America's birth defect) was present at the founding of the nation, and unfortunately incorporated into the Constitution.\n\nOfficially, President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed most of the slaves in the Confederate states.  It officially ended at the cessation of hostilities in the Civil War, but technically in 1867 once new legislatures in the newly emancipated South recognized the Federal mandate.\n\nBelow is a reference link to slavery in the 21st century.
1011914
Terrorism exists because of misinterpretation of religious documents. It's that simple for both "I'm gonna bomb a bus" terrorism or "I'm going to beat up some gays" terrorism.
65058
What exactly is your definition of terrorist.\n\nDOD defines it as follows: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. \n\n"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear" <-- The US broke international law. Yeah Yeah I know, The US does not need anyone's permission to go to war, but let us be literal with the definition.\n\n"intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."   <--Intimidate governments(pre-emptive strikes)  Ideological goals <--bring democracy.\n\nOr are you referring to those other people that the government and media can't make up their mind on what to call them? Terrorist or Insurgent.\n\nDOD defines insurgent as follows: Member of a political party who rebels against established leadership. \n\nEvery dissenter here would then be an insurgent. Or shall we get explicit on what exactly rebel means. \n\nMaybe we should ask how many American terrorists (only following orders from command) have killed Arabs.\n\n\n\n***alexbharris*** It is not a matter of being an apologist. Your reasoning is illogical. You justify dropping bombs on a nations to rid the nation of murderers, rapists and torturers? Saddam was not the worst dictator. That war is based on lies and close minded sheep keep coming up with different excuses as to why we are there. Why not drop a bomb or two on Uzbekistan, or in the Sudan. Or how about the United States. Did you happen to read the article or two about CIA and Army Intel officers torturing prisoners. Or how about imprisoning people for years with not only due process, but no charges. This war is all about the 'ism!!\n\nImperialism! Capitalism! Materialism!!! Racism!!!   What statistics did the common person keep on Arabs before all this happened. It is at minimum, a subtle form of racism!\n\n\nhttp://www.darkwingbird.com/bombs-away4.wmv
916001
It's sort of true. If you are a declared terrorist you no longer have Habeus Corpus. The military is allowed to hold you without trial as long as they wish (which isn't a good thing, even if you are truly a terrorist, besides if they are truly a terrorist, the courts would find you guilty anyway). Many people balk at the possibility that anyone could be declared as a terrorist and having their due process rights taken away.\n\nEDIT: Also because of the policies at Guantanamo Bay etc., the  US currently has one of the WORST human rights (in regard to 1st world countries) records according to Amnesty International. I put the link below.
370171
Of course.\n I think it is a terrible idea to trade off civil rights for an ILLUSION of security... no one in this country is even a tiny bit safer than we were before the so called Patriot Act, just more fearful.\n\nBesides that, if we surrender our freedom in an effort to thwart terrorists, they win without even trying.
1165556
I'm not weighing in on all the pros and cons of the Gitmo camp, nor am I evaluating whether or not the constitution applies to the Gitmo detainees or the permissions granted to Homeland Security to bypass certain parts of the constitution.\n\nI just want to make a couple of remarks.\n\nThe detainees in Gitmo who are true combatants and/or are members of al Qaida, and/or are Talibani, and who are not American citizens have no protection under the US constitution.  If they hold US citizenship, but were captured as combatants, they forsook that citizenship and are legally considered traitors as well as enemy combatants.   If there are US citizens detained at Gitmo and they are not al Qaida or Talibani, and were not enemy combatants, and were not captured in war zones of Afghanistan and/or Iraq, then they may have recourse to due process under constitutional law .\n\nHowever -- under Homeland Security and all the powers we granted to the department, constitutional due process is allowed to be suspended so long as it can be shown that a detainee does or did present a threat through action or conspiracy.\n\nIn short, we the people have said that in order to pursue the "war on terror," we will allow certain suspensions of and allowances or leeway in interpretations and applications of constitutional law including due process, habeas corpus, and much, much more.\n\nNow, as I said, I am not saying anything about what is right or wrong about anything involved in these issues, in terms of the constitutionality of many things done in the name of Homeland Security and the war on terror.\n\n\n\nI see it as unfortunate if Gauntanamo detainees chose suicide as an alternative to despair over their situation; however, only in so much as I feel regret over any needless death.  Furthermore, if their despair was due to their being frustrated terrorists or captured combatants in any ongoing war, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for their despair in that case.\n\nIf any or all sought to garner attention for their cause as detainees, I regret their choice of method.\n\nHowever, if any or all sought to muster support for their agendas as terrorists or combatants, then I hold them in the same contempt as I do their brethren, the suicide bombers who used their deaths to try to further their campaign of terrorism.\n\nLast, and I know this sounds cold,  but I feel much better knowing that a suicide died alone rather than taking others with him, like bombers are doing every day.\n\nP.S.  In times of war, it is customary to hold prisoners so long as hostilities continue, therefore it is entirely arguable that as so long as hostilities continue in Afghanistan and Iraq, then repatriation may be denied.  By extension, in the case of al Qaida members, as a group who declared war on the US and as a group without a nation, they present a special case wherein "repatriation" and "end of hostilities" are indeterminable by previous or traditional means and practices.  \n\nDo you want to return avowed enemies of the US to a status of active combat against us?