CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[emilynghiem]

Why the world needs an agreed definition of terrorism (part 2)

The US will be too embarrassed for that to ever happen.

No, cnm I agree it would help to have agreed definitions.
The US would not be embarrassed if all parties have representation in the process.
We might actually correct the problems by having to define what is and what isn't acceptable use of force by standards on law enforcement and rules of engagement we'd have to agree on as well. So it's all good.

Similarly, it would help address and correct the root problems if we agreed on what is RACISM,
what level of bias is people's private choice of beliefs, which govt cannot punish, dictate or regulate,
and what level breaks public laws by violating equal rights of others.

 

[cnm]

I'm saying you are posing your question in a way that is going to get entangled in definitions.

That's why I have provided dictionary definitions. Most people accept those as the actual meaning of words. I've noticed conservatives insist on their own meanings. I can't help that.

 

[Olde Europe]

Terrorism is the extra-legal use of physical violence, often in a very spectacular fashion, to change the politics of the wider target group.

Since the above definition is a bit haphazard, and rather simplistic, let's add some clarifications:

- Nothing coming from the heavens (hellfire), and controlled from far-away places, though spectacular, killing scores of innocents and terrorizing them, can ever be "terrorism". It's also not "extra-legal" in case the non-terrorist entity writes the laws allowing for non-terrorist terrorizing of innocents.

- Whatever comes from the dirt (IEDs) is by definition both "devilish" and "evil", and thus "terrorism", even if the targets are criminal invaders and occupiers. No, the common rules, allowing for extended self-defense by those helping the criminally invaded, won't help you there.

Adjust, and act accordingly.

 

[Mindful]

Terrorism is the extra-legal use of physical violence, often in a very spectacular fashion, to change the politics of the wider target group.

Since the above definition is a bit haphazard, and rather simplistic, let's add some clarifications:

- Nothing coming from the heavens (hellfire), and controlled from far-away places, though spectacular, killing scores of innocents and terrorizing them, can ever be "terrorism". It's also not "extra-legal" in case the non-terrorist entity writes the laws allowing for non-terrorist terrorizing of innocents.

- Whatever comes from the dirt (IEDs) is by definition both "devilish" and "evil", and thus "terrorism", even if the targets are criminal invaders and occupiers. No, the common rules, allowing for extended self-defense by those helping the criminally invaded, won't help you there.

Adjust, and act accordingly.

I don't understand what you are saying.

It all sounds a bit vague to me.

 

[cnm]

Oh. Now I see what Emily was trying to say...

 

[Gdjjr]

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretense terrorizing citizens of said nation is pretty much terrorism.
An excuse given is just that. Wearing a uniform only makes it "official". It doesn't change the facts.

 

[Mindful]

Oh. Now I see what Emily was trying to say...

What do you mean, 'trying'?

 

[SAYIT]

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'.

Officially??? By whom … Iran's parliament?

 

[SAYIT]

Terrorism, a term with which I frankly disavow, is asymmetric warfare that deliberately targets civilians.

Terrorism isn't essentially a deterrent to being attacked. It's what you do when you have no deterrent capability.The concept is that if people feel unsafe in their safe space, they will pressure their government to capitulate.

In order for terrorism to be effective, it has to be so shocking and so unexpected that people are afraid to go about their daily business.

If you live in the middle of a war zone, terrorism loses its impact. If you know there is a good chance you're going to get bombed going to the 7-11 or sitting home watching Netflix, you become immured to it. There is no point in being a terrorist when people already have a legitimate chance of being attacked.

When a country like the US mistakenly bombs a civilian gathering, it's tragic, and fuel for some really devastating politically-based outrage, but it's not terrorism.

As much as I want our people out of the Mideast, I am convinced that if we don't confront the bad guys there they will again confront us here.

 

[S.J.]

If you're being slapped around by a bully, and you become fed up and beat the hell out of him, are you the aggressor or is the bully the aggressor? I'm sure the bully would consider his intended victim the aggressor, sort of like Iran considers the Untied States the terrorist. They're not convincing anyone, nor is cnm convincing anyone here.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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'.

Feel free to move. We are in a war on terror.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That was a flame, and you know it.

Tread carefully.

It's actually a rather fair question for debate. I see you got your way and the thread got moved.

We've got almost a thousand bases worldwide. No declarations of war that I can recall. Weapons manufactures are making out great so long as blowback is constantly generated. These endeavors are almost always used to attack civil liberties here at home.

Of course, the neocon model seems to be ''how dare them put their countries next to our bases.'' And people eat it up like candy.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretense terrorizing citizens of said nation is pretty much terrorism.
An excuse given is just that. Wearing a uniform only makes it "official". It doesn't change the facts.

Yep.

 

[Mindful]

That was a flame, and you know it.

Tread carefully.

It's actually a rather fair question for debate. I see you got your way and the thread got moved.

Excuse me? How did I do that?

There's no question. Merely a statement. If it had been presented as a question, such as -> IS the US a Terrorist State< , then it could have been up for debate.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.”

​

Thanks for reminding millions of Voters again that the Democrats are anti-American bigots.
NEVER elect people who hate your country.

 

[ding]

Seems to me that a key distinction of terrorism is that it is done without state endorsement.

They do so explicitly to dodge the repercussions of their actions.

 

[cnm]

If you're being slapped around by a bully, and you become fed up and beat the hell out of him, are you the aggressor or is the bully the aggressor? I'm sure the bully would consider his intended victim the aggressor, sort of like Iran considers the Untied States the terrorist. They're not convincing anyone, nor is cnm convincing anyone here.

What has that to do with the US being a terrorist state? How come you don't address the arguments made in the OP?

 

[cnm]

Seems to me that a key distinction of terrorism is that it is done without state endorsement.

They do so explicitly to dodge the repercussions of their actions.

State endorsement is mentioned nowhere in either of the dictionary definitions of terrorism I've provided. Besides, Shock and Awe had full state endorsement yet the state dodged the repercussions of its actions.

 

[ding]

Seems to me that a key distinction of terrorism is that it is done without state endorsement.

They do so explicitly to dodge the repercussions of their actions.

State endorsement is mentioned nowhere in either of the dictionary definitions of terrorism I've provided. Besides, Shock and Awe had full state endorsement yet the state dodged the repercussions of its actions.

We didn’t dodge anything. It was right out in the open.

Despite your dictionary, terrorists hide. Nations which make targeted strikes, don’t.

 

[cnm]

We didn’t dodge anything. It was right out in the open.

You dodge your terrorism and refuse to accept dictionary definitions in the effort to do so.