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.
Fort Sumter became the sovereign property of SC when they legally seceeded. They asked the US very nicely to bag ass several times before they took the place.
[
right there--- your OP is crap--that's NOT the definition of terrorism
your definition is a definition of war--which PG1 and PG2 were LAWFUL
..jesus F christ--WW2 fits that definition..many wars do --DUH
..terrorism
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
- the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
PG2 was lawful because saddam violated the cease fire of PG1--plain and simpleInflicting shock and awe on Iraqis and droning wedding parties does. The entire US military is officially designated 'REAL terrorists'.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.
Are you saying it was OK for the Union to have slavery in 6 states during the Civil War, but it was not Ok for the South to have slavery?Fort Sumter became the sovereign property of SC when they legally seceeded. They asked the US very nicely to bag ass several times before they took the place.
Maybe they should have just freed the slaves, then none of it would have happened.
And please, none of this revisionist crap about the Civil War NOT being about slavery. Only certain people in the south believe that. None of this 'it was all about economics' shit.
Getting back to the point though. Was Lincoln a terrorist? Did he and his proxies cause terror among some Southerners? Resolve that question and you'll have your answer.
....it doesn't matter what Iran thinks[
right there--- your OP is crap--that's NOT the definition of terrorism
your definition is a definition of war--which PG1 and PG2 were LAWFUL
..jesus F christ--WW2 fits that definition..many wars do --DUH
..terrorism
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
- the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Do you believe Iran thinks the killing of Soli-boy was lawful?
Do you think the Vietnamese think the bombing of (insert village here) and dousing the jungle in Agent Orange was lawful?
In perpetuity...Fort Sumter became the sovereign property of SC when they legally seceeded. They asked the US very nicely to bag ass several times before they took the place.
PG2 was not lawful. The US is signatory to the UN Charter which is supreme law of the land.which PG1 and PG2 were LAWFUL
How about addressing my points?Yes absolutely Lincoln was a terrorist.
The cease fire was with the UN.PG2 was lawful because saddam violated the cease fire of PG1--plain and simple
..do you understand how a cease fire works????!! obviously you do not
...if a country violates a cease fire, the other country has every right to kick some a$$
Terror must be caused by violence and intimidation to fit the bill.Getting back to the point though. Was Lincoln a terrorist? Did he and his proxies cause terror among some Southerners? Resolve that question and you'll have your answer.
Lincoln provoked war by attempting to resupply the fort. That was an act of treachery and an act of war.In perpetuity...Fort Sumter became the sovereign property of SC when they legally seceeded. They asked the US very nicely to bag ass several times before they took the place.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides clear instructions about how and under what circumstances the United States government may acquire title to property located within a state:
"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."
This was interpreted by the first congresses to require that when any Federal installation was to be built within the boundaries of the state, the government had to purchase the property (unless it lay within the Public Domain) and the state legislature had to pass a law agreeing to the acquisition of the property. From the earliest days of the Republic, states have proved very agreeable to government installations, both from the money spent locally to build the fort or court-house, as well as the government payroll which would follow.
The process was very simple: a state would, through its members of Congress and senators, argue that the National Interest required that a fort be built, such as one in the middle of Charleston Harbor. The necessary legislation would pass Congress and be signed by the President. Then the state legislature would pass a law granting title (if the state owned the property) or affirming title (if the land was privately owned) to the United States. The one general exception was a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers. Depending upon the property in question there might also be affirmations of the right of eminent domain, i.e., if the private owner was unwilling to sell, the property would be appraised and, under the Fifth Amendment, the government would judicially take title, paying the owner the appraised price. In other cases, the state's approval was contingent upon the Federal government using the land. South Carolina's legislature was so anxious to have Fort Sumter, that it provided for the first two and left out the third exception.
It is important to note that then - and now - the government refused to accept property where there was any other restriction. The state gave up all rights it might have in the property. Otherwise Congress would refuse to appropriate the necessary funds to build the installation. The States bent over backwards to make certain they got their share - and then some - of the Federal budget, including quickly removing impediments to the government acquiring title.
And it is important to note that the title given to the United States was fee simple, with specific notice that the property was exempt from any state or local taxes. Except for the qualification that the property could be entered to seize fugitives, the property passed in perpetuity to the Federal government.
https://civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html
Which was Federal property in perpetuity.Lincoln provoked war by attempting to resupply the fort. That was an act of treachery and an act of war.
The cease fire was with the UN.
Are you saying it was OK for the Union to have slavery in 6 states during the Civil War, but it was not Ok for the South to have slavery?Fort Sumter became the sovereign property of SC when they legally seceeded. They asked the US very nicely to bag ass several times before they took the place.
Maybe they should have just freed the slaves, then none of it would have happened.
And please, none of this revisionist crap about the Civil War NOT being about slavery. Only certain people in the south believe that. None of this 'it was all about economics' shit.
Getting back to the point though. Was Lincoln a terrorist? Did he and his proxies cause terror among some Southerners? Resolve that question and you'll have your answer.
Why didn't the Union free their slaves before they invaded the South?
Yes absolutely Lincoln was a terrorist.
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.”
What am I ignoring?So Suleimani wasn't a terrorist, true? You keep ignoring that point.Military personnel aren’t terrorists.
You say military aren't terrorists.He’s an enemy of the United States, just as Trump is an enemy of Iran. If they could pull off a targeted killing of Trump, they would.
Is Suleimani a terrorist?Military personnel aren’t terrorists.
I don't know, the mountains of skulls of Ghengis still make an impression in Asia I believe.There is in history, as far as I can see, just one "terrorist state" - that would be Nazi Germany, where the untrammeled terror outweighed everything else and, as a consequence, even bystanders turned into criminals. All else is just states at various stages of criminality. I'd still drop the very notion, but...
