CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[harmonica]

Shock and Awe- hahahhahah--that's warfare--nothing else

Yes, terrorising the entire population in the illegal initiating of aggressive warfare, the ultimate war crime.

wasn't illegal
..again, your definition describes just about every war there ever was = just about EVERY nation is a terrorist state--hahahahahhahahaha

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

hahahahhaha--
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...

WTF are you babbling about? the US is not a terrorist state---plain and simple
..terrorists usually target innocent cvilians
..terrorists are usually groups --not nations that work with the UN/NATO/us diplomacy/etc like the US does
etc etc
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism | Definition of Terrorism by Lexico

I'm talking about cherry picking which wars you enter into. Iraq invaded Kuwait, therefore the US had a right to go to war. Russia invaded the Ukraine and took over the Crimea peninsula. China invaded Tibet. When is the US going to attack those countries?

I think you are right. The US is not a terrorist state, but do aspects of its armed forces carry out terrorist acts? Mai Lai anyone?

 

[harmonica]

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.

hahahahhaha--
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...

WTF are you babbling about? the US is not a terrorist state---plain and simple
..terrorists usually target innocent cvilians
..terrorists are usually groups --not nations that work with the UN/NATO/us diplomacy/etc like the US does
etc etc
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism | Definition of Terrorism by Lexico

I'm talking about cherry picking which wars you enter into. Iraq invaded Kuwait, therefore the US had a right to go to war. Russia invaded the Ukraine and took over the Crimea peninsula. China invaded Tibet. When is the US going to attack those countries?

I think you are right. The US is not a terrorist state, but do aspects of its armed forces carry out terrorist acts? Mai Lai anyone?

...that's the way of the world/politics /etc--if it affects the US, yes we better get involved...countries do it all the time
hahhahah--I knew someone would bring up My Lai [ it's My Lai ]--you fked up there by bringing it up
...and they were PROSECUTED for that!!..terrorists don't prosecute themselves
.it is not US policy to directly target innocent civilians.......it IS terrorists policy to target civilians...
etc etc ...I go on and on if you want

 

[harmonica]

You say military aren't terrorists. Is Suleimani a terrorist?

No idea. Do you think he directs terrorists?

No idea? But you say military aren't terrorists. Suleimani was military.

There’s your moral argument.

Pointing out your contradictions is a moral argument? Hoho, then you must be making an immoral argument.

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.

The US acknowledged they targeted Suleimani. They stood behind their actions. They didn’t hide from it. Terrorist states do.

....also terrorists directly target innocent civilians as POLICY--the US does NOT

 

[cnm]

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

As in the implementation of shock and awe in the unlawful invasion of Iraq in Gulf War 2.

 

[cnm]

.it is not US policy to directly target innocent civilians.

If one deliberately targets infrastructure where civilians are one deliberately targets civilians. As an aside, the firebombing of Tokyo was an historical policy of deliberately targeting civilians, as were the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

 

[cnm]

wasn't illegal
..again, your definition describes just about every war there ever was = just about EVERY nation is a terrorist state--hahahahahhahahaha

The invasion of Iraq in Gulf War 2 breached the UN Charter, which is the supreme law of the land, so the invasion was therefore illegal.

 

[harmonica]

wasn't illegal
..again, your definition describes just about every war there ever was = just about EVERY nation is a terrorist state--hahahahahhahahaha

The invasion of Iraq in Gulf War 2 breached the UN Charter, which is the supreme law of the land, so the invasion was therefore illegal.

are you trolling, again?? '''SUPREME law of the land''' = hahahahhahahahahahaha
.....so if the US went into Germany after hitler violated the Versailles Treaty, [ like the US went in after saddam violated the cease fire ] and took out hitler, that would've been unlawful???!!!! NO, it would not have been.....

.....this is a case of self defense/etc for the US.....Mr Jackass saddam:
.used WMDs on his own people-like hitler
.violated the cease fire-like hitler
.hitler only started one war, saddam started TWO
.we had MORE than enough lawful reasons to go in there

..the UN didn't authorize the US to get into WW2 --- I guess that war was unlawful?
hahahhahahahahaha
--now, that's all for this subject--we've been over it twice

 

[harmonica]

.it is not US policy to directly target innocent civilians.

If one deliberately targets infrastructure where civilians are one deliberately targets civilians. As an aside, the firebombing of Tokyo was an historical policy of deliberately targeting civilians, as were the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

bullshit--stop the stupid shit....no--
--it's not directly targeting civilians--no where close to what terrorists do--you're being very ridiculous and everyone can see it

 

[Dr Grump]

.....so if the US went into Germany after hitler violated the Versailles Treaty
..the UN didn't authorize the US to get into WW2 --- I guess that war was unlawful?

But you didn't. You were two years too late. You only joined WWII because of Pearl Harbor.

 

[harmonica]

.....so if the US went into Germany after hitler violated the Versailles Treaty
..the UN didn't authorize the US to get into WW2 --- I guess that war was unlawful?

But you didn't. You were two years too late. You only joined WWII because of Pearl Harbor.

o--so WW2 was lawful
hahahahhahahaha

 

[cnm]

are you trolling, again?? '''SUPREME law of the land'''

It's only in the Constitution. You mean you didn't know?

 

[joaquinmiller]

are you trolling, again?? '''SUPREME law of the land'''

It's only in the Constitution. You mean you didn't know?

I enjoyed that. Have missed it, in fact.

 

[sparky]

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 .......

Perhaps some FOIA CIA doc's would be of interest>>>
Historical Collections | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
~S~

 

[revealer2k]

How do you define terrorist ？it is believed that terrorist targets innocent citizens instead of military forces.

 

[cnm]

How do you define terrorist ？it is believed that terrorist targets innocent citizens instead of military forces.

I have given two definitions in this thread.

terrorism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

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.​

 

[cnm]

.it is not US policy to directly target innocent civilians.......it IS terrorists policy to target civilians...
etc etc ...I go on and on if you want

Repeating it won't make it true.

 

[cnm]

.it is not US policy to directly target innocent civilians.

If one deliberately targets infrastructure where civilians are one deliberately targets civilians. As an aside, the firebombing of Tokyo was an historical policy of deliberately targeting civilians, as were the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

bullshit--stop the stupid shit....no--
--it's not directly targeting civilians--no where close to what terrorists do--you're being very ridiculous and everyone can see it

If you think the firebombing of Tokyo was not directly targeting civilians perhaps you can explain what burning down residential housing in firestorms was all about. I won't hold my breath.


Anyway, from the OP, referencing Shock and Awe.

“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.”

 

[CWayne]

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.

Inflicting shock and awe on Iraqis and droning wedding parties does. The entire US military is officially designated 'REAL terrorists'.

Every one of them a legitimate target as detailed by International law.

There is no moral equivalence between Iran and the USA.

They kill innocents to further a ruthless version of a religion. We are simply protecting the legitimate interests of ours and our allies.

 

[cnm]

Every one of them a legitimate target as detailed by International law.

No state of war has been declared, it's mere terrorism.