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.
So, no difference.I've answered the question already. All you need to do is to read the entire posting in context.
Iran, no difference.Were any who wouldn't join the most recent Coalition of the Willing designated "terrorist states"?
Labels. 'Communist', 'Islamo-Fascist', 'Jihadis', 'Running dogs', 'Paper tigers'. The labels mean nothing without the hegemonic imperative behind them. If there isn't a suitably 'terrifying' label one will soon be supplied. Where there isn't a perceived hegemonic imperative any atrocity will escape sanction no matter the label. Rwanda, for example.Is there something ambiguous about this? "Also, as history informs us, the more damning the label affixed to other groups or entities, the weaker the inhibitions against using force."
Lincoln was not a terrorist. The Confederacy was another country that decided to wage war on the United States. Lincoln didn't give a damn about slavery, he fought this war to put the union back together.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.
Rwanda was a colonialism created problem that got worse due to western imperialism after the colonizers left..Labels. 'Communist', 'Islamo-Fascist', 'Jihadis'. The labels mean nothing without the hegemonic imperative behind them. If there isn't a suitably 'terrifying' label one will soon be supplied. Where there isn't a perceived hegemonic imperative any atrocity will escape sanction no matter the label. Rwanda, for example.Is there something ambiguous about this? "Also, as history informs us, the more damning the label affixed to other groups or entities, the weaker the inhibitions against using force."
No idea. Do you think he directs 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.
The labels mean nothing without the hegemonic imperative behind them.
You are building on ridiculous assumptions. Does my location not show?At least you are being honest about your support of a terroristic regime...
Now may I ask if you vote for Biden, Warren or even Sanders do you actually believe they will end the fake war on terror?
I do not, so I refuse to waste my vote on someone that will just keep on feeding the Military Complex ...
Yet another? It already exists and is already used.I find no reason in advocating for yet another label that would doubtlessly serve, and prepare the ground for, the empire's coming pursuits.
No idea? But you say military aren't terrorists. Suleimani was military.No idea. Do you think he directs 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.
hahahahhaha--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.war is lawful
Yes, terrorising the entire population in the illegal initiating of aggressive warfare, the ultimate war crime.Shock and Awe- hahahhahah--that's warfare--nothing else
hahahahhaha--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.war is lawful
1. saddam started the war [ not the US ] by invading Kuwait
2. then he violated the cease fire
Shock and Awe- hahahhahah--that's warfare--nothing else
...you have a very weak--at best--argument
There’s your moral argument.No idea? But you say military aren't terrorists. Suleimani was military.No idea. Do you think he directs 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.
Inflicting 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.
Pointing out your contradictions is a moral argument? Hoho, then you must be making an immoral argument.There’s your moral argument.No idea? But you say military aren't terrorists. Suleimani was military.No idea. Do you think he directs 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.
Iran is about done setting the table for a new Ottoman Empire with Tehran as the Capitol.. THEY are gonna rule the Arabs... Look at the map.. They have functional control of OUR INSTALLED "Iraqi Free Govt" and over a 1/3 of that country.. They have situational control of more than a third of Syria and military control of pieces of Lebanon.. Only hold outs short of Iran extending to the Suez canal is Jordan and Israel..
And they're working to isolate the Arabian Peninsula with proxies in Libya, Yemen and the Gaza strip..
SO -- THAT'S really why we targeted their Captain Salami... Because he was the evil genius working that plan.. And it's a shot to Russia and China who are conducting joint military exercises with Iran and finding ways to violate the International isolation of Iran... We don't need a constant presence in Iraq or Kuwait to send strategic messages like that..
YOU are gonna have to decide how you feel about the REAL Imperialism that Iran is gonna bring.. And what that threat of losing Allies like Jordan or even Israel would mean..
But you got to be MORE CONSISTENT about YOUR principles here.. Because NOTHING'S different under Trump when it comes to "shows of force".. In FACT, Trump is the best bet we've had to STOP THE FUCKING INSANE "blooming Democracy" fantasies of the neo-cons and "arab springs" of the last Admin -- and actual "get a clue" and disengage from "liberating" the Mid East..
. And until you GET consistency on this policy, you're just a whiner....
I don’t have a contradiction. I’m not making a moral argument. I am telling you the difference between a terrorist and the military is effectively transparency.Pointing out your contradictions is a moral argument? Hoho, then you must be making an immoral argument.There’s your moral argument.No idea? But you say military aren't terrorists. Suleimani was military.No idea. Do you think he directs 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.
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.”
WTF are you babbling about? the US is not a terrorist state---plain and simplehahahahhaha--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.war is lawful
1. saddam started the war [ not the US ] by invading Kuwait
2. then he violated the cease fire
Shock and Awe- hahahhahah--that's warfare--nothing else
...you have a very weak--at best--argument
Cherry picking does nothing to help your argument...
