Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I take it by that you mean defining terms with references and showing how the US fits those terms. Guilty.You’d rather ass fuck logic and reason instead.
A discussion of terrorism is not a sidetrack, imo. Dictionary definitions of terrorism have been given in this thread, one in the OP. Please show how Lincoln's actions fit that definition, or link the 'literal' dictionary definition you're using. If you'd care to show how Davis' actions don't, which I assume is your position since you don't mention him, I would be pleased.Secession of States was not prohibited by the Constitution. Lincoln's waging war upon civilans and non combatants is, by the literal definition, Terrorism. But sorry for getting side tracked from your OP.
Ah, you agree with the proposition. Fair enough.In todays world I am OK with the US policy. You must fight terror with terror.
I believe flaming in the CDZ is a tactic used to get the debate removed from the CDZ by those without an argument. C'est la vie.Almost all the posts on this thread have been civil. Just because he's making you uncomfortable and squirm, doesn't give you the right to decide what a clean debate is and isn't.
Your definition of terrorism in the OP left out "especially against civilians". Look up Gen Sherman. His army waging war upon civilians won the war for the Union. Davis did no such thing.A discussion of terrorism is not a sidetrack, imo. Dictionary definitions of terrorism have been given in this thread, one in the OP. Please show how Lincoln's actions fit that definition, or link the 'literal' dictionary definition you're using. If you'd care to show how Davis' actions don't, which I assume is your position since you don't mention him, I would be pleased.Secession of States was not prohibited by the Constitution. Lincoln's waging war upon civilans and non combatants is, by the literal definition, Terrorism. But sorry for getting side tracked from your OP.
Yeah, I understood your comment. I also understand that you don't consider Iran a terrorist country. That pretty much tells us where you stand.Do you consider the U.S. a terrorist country? How about Iran?Defending our citizens and our interests around the world doesn't make us terrorists. And there's nothing wrong with taking out a REAL terrorist.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The wars of ideology have been going on since the Dawn of Man, plain and simple.
I do not consider either a terrorist country, but then again, it's not about me personally. Did you even understand my comment?
Ah, you agree with the proposition. Fair enough.In todays world I am OK with the US policy. You must fight terror with terror.
No, you make your arguments and provide your evidence. Show where Sherman waged war on civilians. I'm not here to do your research and make your arguments for you. Link to a dictionary definition of terrorism including 'especially against civilians'.Your definition of terrorism in the OP left out "especially against civilians". Look up Gen Sherman. His army waging war upon civilians won the war for the Union. Davis did no such thing.
Especially when one considers Quantrill's raid and subsequent massacre of civilians in Lawrence, Kansas.Most strikingly, given that the Civil War was overwhelmingly waged on the territory of the treasonous States, the assertion that the oh-so-gentle and honorable Southern insurrectionists would never ransack or terrorize civilian areas, rings a little hollow.
No. I mean making an argument to fit your desires instead of reality.I take it by that you mean defining terms with references and showing how the US fits those terms. Guilty.You’d rather ass fuck logic and reason instead.
After all, nothing's stopped you showing a dictionary definition that says 'except for the military'. Except, perhaps, the lack of such a definition of terrorism.
Yeah, I understood your comment. I also understand that you don't consider Iran a terrorist country. That pretty much tells us where you stand.Do you consider the U.S. a terrorist country? How about Iran?Defending our citizens and our interests around the world doesn't make us terrorists. And there's nothing wrong with taking out a REAL terrorist.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The wars of ideology have been going on since the Dawn of Man, plain and simple.
I do not consider either a terrorist country, but then again, it's not about me personally. Did you even understand my comment?
No, you make your arguments and provide your evidence. Show where Sherman waged war on civilians. I'm not here to do your research and make your arguments for you. Link to a dictionary definition of terrorism including 'especially against civilians'.Your definition of terrorism in the OP left out "especially against civilians". Look up Gen Sherman. His army waging war upon civilians won the war for the Union. Davis did no such thing.
No, you're way off.Yeah, I understood your comment. I also understand that you don't consider Iran a terrorist country. That pretty much tells us where you stand.Do you consider the U.S. a terrorist country? How about Iran?Defending our citizens and our interests around the world doesn't make us terrorists. And there's nothing wrong with taking out a REAL terrorist.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The wars of ideology have been going on since the Dawn of Man, plain and simple.
I do not consider either a terrorist country, but then again, it's not about me personally. Did you even understand my comment?
You continue make the argument about me, so your sentiments are empty. I assume you will try and pretend that religious ideology doesn't directly inform binary responses such as yours. Muslims: Bad guys. Christians: Good guys. Am I right?
Especially when one considers Quantrill's raid and subsequent massacre of civilians in Lawrence, Kansas.Most strikingly, given that the Civil War was overwhelmingly waged on the territory of the treasonous States, the assertion that the oh-so-gentle and honorable Southern insurrectionists would never ransack or terrorize civilian areas, rings a little hollow.
Especially when one considers Quantrill's raid and subsequent massacre of civilians in Lawrence, Kansas.Most strikingly, given that the Civil War was overwhelmingly waged on the territory of the treasonous States, the assertion that the oh-so-gentle and honorable Southern insurrectionists would never ransack or terrorize civilian areas, rings a little hollow.
Yep, but that was just a militia (akin to the Lebanese Hezbollah acting in concert with Iran's Quds force), not the treasonous army of the Confederacy.
No, you're way off.Yeah, I understood your comment. I also understand that you don't consider Iran a terrorist country. That pretty much tells us where you stand.Do you consider the U.S. a terrorist country? How about Iran?One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The wars of ideology have been going on since the Dawn of Man, plain and simple.
I do not consider either a terrorist country, but then again, it's not about me personally. Did you even understand my comment?
You continue make the argument about me, so your sentiments are empty. I assume you will try and pretend that religious ideology doesn't directly inform binary responses such as yours. Muslims: Bad guys. Christians: Good guys. Am I right?
terrorism
the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.
Shock and awe was used to violently force Iraq to embrace regime change. Suleimani was systematically assassinated in order to intimidate Iran into modes of behaviour. The entire US military has been designated a terrorist organisation by Iran.
The Meaning of Shock and Awe
David Bromwich, Contributor Professor of Literature, Yale University
The Meaning of Shock and Awe
The phrase “Shock and Awe” derives from the nineteenth-century German military theorist Clausewitz. It was brought to the United States by Dr. Harlan Ullman, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a man of deep influence in the Bush administration, whose acumen as a strategic thinker has been lauded by Colin Powell. The doctrine of “rapid dominance” expounded by Dr. Ullman is the key to the strategy that General Myers and others now find themselves preparing to execute.
Extreme clarity marks the doctrines and maxims of Dr. Ullman. For him, a major precedent to guide American military policy in the twenty-first century, and a clue to the effect on enemy morale intended by Shock and Awe, was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese were shocked into immediate surrender. The greatness of such an overwhelming attack, according to Ullman, lies in its capacity to inflict on the enemy an instant paralysis of the will to fight. It assures that an entire people will be “intimidated, made to feel so impotent, so helpless, that they have no choice but to do what we want them to do.” It might be objected that this amounts to an endorsement of the use of weapons of mass terror, since concussive paralysis and the injury of non-combatants are among the intended effects of such an attack. The implicit answer offered by Ullman and his admirers is that the end justifies the means, and in a case involving the United States, the end is always benign.
“Super tools and weapons — information age equivalents of the atomic bomb — have to be invented,” Dr. Ullman wrote in an opinion piece for the Economic Times. “As the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese Emperor and High Command that even suicidal resistance was futile, these tools must be directed towards a similar outcome” against the smaller and less threatening countries that now stand in the way of American power. But terrorism has many hiding places in a city. In order to eradicate it, you must destroy every common resource for survival. “You have this simultaneous effect,” says Ullman, “rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes.”
