CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[cnm]

I'd still drop the very notion, but...

But if the notion is going to be around it might as well be appropriately shared.

 

[S.J.]

Is Suleimani a terrorist?

Not any more.

 

[cnm]

According to Ding Suleimani never was a terrorist.

Military personnel aren’t terrorists.

 

[Yarddog]

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.”

​

D-Day June 6th, the day terrorist forces stormed Normandy !!

You know whats wrong with you? you dont understand that to win decisively you have to win with overwhelming force. I guess you would prefer that the US lost the war in the pacific and the peaceful Japanese kept the rest of asia and the islands under their control. So i guess you can say our terrorism freed Oceana of the Japanese terrorism..... so you would have preferred what exactly??

Manila massacre - Wikipedia

 

[cnm]

so you would have preferred what exactly??

That the US hadn't provoked Japan to war with economic blockade.

 

[cnm]

You know whats wrong with you?

Absolutely. I wasn't fed US propaganda from birth. A deficiency for which I have not yet compensated.

 

[Yarddog]

so you would have preferred what exactly??

That the US hadn't provoked Japan to war with economic blockade.

Well we all know Franklin Roosevelt was a loose cannon of the worse order, in many respects.
But that still doesn't excuse the Japanese for brutalizing the Philipinos and Chinese, and it took
U.S. forces at that point to do what they had to do.

 

[cnm]

Well we all know Franklin Roosevelt was a loose cannon of the worse order, in many respects.
But that still doesn't excuse the Japanese for brutalizing the Philipinos and Chinese, and it took
U.S. forces at that point to do what they had to do.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about to be honest. Is it that the US, until Pearl Harbor, generally left the Japanese alone to brutalise the Filipinos and Chinese?

 

[harmonica]

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$$

The cease fire was with the UN.

which the US is part of

 

[harmonica]

which PG1 and PG2 were LAWFUL

PG2 was not lawful. The US is signatory to the UN Charter which is supreme law of the land.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.​

Annan does not write dictionaries.......that doesn't mean PG2 was unlawful
....saddam violated the cease fire just like hitler did--violation of cease fire = cease fire is null and void
Chamberlain said Peace ''in our time '''

besides, your OP is wrong--that's not the definition of terrorism --you are not even close

 

[Olde Europe]

I'd still drop the very notion, but...

But if the notion is going to be around it might as well be appropriately shared.

Maybe, but in case the notion escapes the FaceShit and Forum world, and finds real-world application, I think you will quickly find the most salient aspect of its use is not which state, if any, actually deserves the denomination, but which state has the power to act on it. Also, as history informs us, the more damning the label affixed to other groups or entities, the weaker the inhibitions against using force. The more the notion gains currency, the more you will find those who won't be willing to join a "Coalition of the Willing" against a terrorist state designated "terrorist states" themselves. All told, nothing good will come of it.

 

[cnm]

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$$

The cease fire was with the UN.

which the US is part of

But does not speak for.

 

[harmonica]

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$$

The cease fire was with the UN.

which the US is part of

But does not speak for.

your hypothesis is ridiculous--the US a terrorist state--hahahahahh
very ridiculous .......

 

[cnm]

Annan does not write dictionaries.......that doesn't mean PG2 was unlawful
....saddam violated the cease fire just like hitler did--violation of cease fire = cease fire is null and void

It is for the UNSC to decide what to do about its ceasefires. Invading without direction from the UNSC is a violation of the UN Charter, the supreme law of the land.

 

[cnm]

your hypothesis is ridiculous--the US a terrorist state--hahahahahh
very ridiculous

Yet I have defined terms, referenced them and shown how the US fits them. You make bald denials and assertions.

 

[cnm]

The more the notion gains currency, the more you will find those who won't be willing to join a "Coalition of the Willing" against a terrorist state designated "terrorist states" themselves.

We already know if we're not for them we're against them. What difference?

 

[harmonica]

your hypothesis is ridiculous--the US a terrorist state--hahahahahh
very ridiculous

Yet I have defined terms, referenced them and shown how the US fits them. You make bald denials and assertions.

war
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations:The two nations were at war with each other.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns:

war is lawful ---war--not terrorism
Definition of war | Dictionary.com

 

[Olde Europe]

The more the notion gains currency, the more you will find those who won't be willing to join a "Coalition of the Willing" against a terrorist state designated "terrorist states" themselves.

We already know if we're not for them we're against them. What difference?

I've answered the question already. All you need to do is to read the entire posting in context.

 

[cnm]

war is lawful

The ultimate war crime is initiating aggressive warfare, from which all other crimes arise. The US initiated aggressive warfare with Iraq in violation of the UN Charter. In doing so it used Shock and Awe to terrify the entire nation in order to render it helpless. The US assassinated Suleimani as a deterrent, to terrify Iran into behaving as the US wished.

 

[cnm]

I've answered the question already. All you need to do is to read the entire posting in context.

So, no difference.