CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[cnm]

You have made no argument against the proposition,

Nope, none, [...]

Agreed. Very open minded. Kudos.

 

[Mindful]

You made a very weak argument and I explained why it's flawed. You don't have any support for it but you keep doubling down on it anyway. You don't know when to quit.

The last time the US was truly a 'good guy' on the world stage was WWII. Even then it entered two years too late.
Now? It's seen (rightly) by a lot of people as the bully boy of the world. Nowhere near as bad as the likes of Russia and China. Still, if the righties on this board want to have the moral high ground, they have a long way to go.

Is the US a terrorist state? IMO, the people in the country aren't. Are some of its govt officials and agencies? Absolutely. Bit like Iran. The average Persian is nowhere near being a terrorist. .They work, go to school, survive day to day. But all the right-wing yahoo losers on this board cheer every time an arab or Persian is killed.

You know the term collateral damage was invented by US politicos/military wonks. It's never sat well with me. It allows them to sleep at night. I would love the generals and politicos to have to see every man, woman and child they have killed (collateral or not). I think they might change their mind. Let us not forget why 9-11 happened in the first place.

What kind of Arab or Persian? Like any kind will do?

Is that what you mean?

 

[Dr Grump]

What kind of Arab or Persian? Like any kind will do?

Is that what you mean?

not that long ago (three years maybe) on this very board neocon whackadoodles were cheering the death of an arabic cameraman who was killed by a machine gunner on a US gun ship (in Afghanistan or Iraq). The shooter mistook the camera for a weapon. I get mistakes happen. However, I expect a normal, moral, humane person with an ounce of humanity about them to be at least sorry about it. Talking about how it was terrible etc. The chickenhawk righties and neocons on this board? "Too bad".."tough luck"..."his fault for walking around like he had a gun in his hand'. That sort of rhetoric were some of the more paraphrased milder comments going around at the time.

 

[Mindful]

What kind of Arab or Persian? Like any kind will do?

Is that what you mean?

not that long ago (three years maybe) on this very board neocon whackadoodles were cheering the death of an arabic cameraman who was killed by a machine gunner on a US gun ship (in Afghanistan or Iraq). The shooter mistook the camera for a weapon. I get mistakes happen. However, I expect a normal, moral, humane person with an ounce of humanity about them to be at least sorry about it. Talking about how it was terrible etc. The chickenhawk righties and neocons on this board? "Too bad".."tough luck"..."his fault for walking around like he had a gun in his hand'. That sort of rhetoric were some of the more paraphrased milder comments going around at the time.

What have personal sentiments got to do with the OP?

Has the US been designated as a terrorist state?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Agreed. Very open minded. Kudos.

I win all my arguments that way

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Has the US been designated as a terrorist state?

Yes, by terrorists and terrorist sympathizers

 

[cnm]

I win all my arguments that way

You've certainly convinced me the US is a terrorist state.

 

[Mindful]

I win all my arguments that way

You've certainly convinced me the US is a terrorist state.

Which doesn't confirm that it is.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You've certainly convinced me the US is a terrorist state.

blaming me for your mistake now?

 

[IM2]

Defending our citizens and our interests around the world doesn't make us terrorists.

Oh. In that case state terrorism doesn't exist.

Iran uses proxies.

We used Iraq as a proxy to try taking out Ayatollah Khomeni.

 

[gipper]

Defending our citizens and our interests around the world doesn't make us terrorists.

Oh. In that case state terrorism doesn't exist.

Iran uses proxies.

We used Iraq as a proxy to try taking out Ayatollah Khomeni.

Yep and it backfired. Like most things this warmongering imperialistic criminal government does.

 

[cnm]

Self defence?

WASHINGTON — In the 10 days since it carried out the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Trump administration has been struggling to draft an after-the-fact narrative to justify it. On Monday, President Trump put an end to that hash of explanations. “It doesn’t really matter,” he tweeted, “because of his horrible past.”
A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’​

Looks like terror to me.

 

[cnm]

blaming me for your mistake now?

I believe no mistake was made in the OP. Unless it was of your understanding.

 

[Olde Europe]

Self defence?

WASHINGTON — In the 10 days since it carried out the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Trump administration has been struggling to draft an after-the-fact narrative to justify it. On Monday, President Trump put an end to that hash of explanations. “It doesn’t really matter,” he tweeted, “because of his horrible past.”
A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’​

Looks like terror to me.

It was probably a war crime, a not-properly predicated military attack on a country. If retribution was the objective, it wasn't terrorism. If changing Iraqi / Iranian politics was part of the objective, it was a war crime comprising an act of terrorism.

 

[Mindful]

Self defence?

WASHINGTON — In the 10 days since it carried out the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Trump administration has been struggling to draft an after-the-fact narrative to justify it. On Monday, President Trump put an end to that hash of explanations. “It doesn’t really matter,” he tweeted, “because of his horrible past.”
A Narrative Collapses as Trump Tweets: ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’​

Looks like terror to me.

It was probably a war crime, a not-properly predicated military attack on a country. If retribution was the objective, it wasn't terrorism. If changing Iraqi / Iranian politics was part of the objective, it was a war crime comprising an act of terrorism.

By your logic, was the Jordanian attack on Isis, retribution for shooting down a Jordanian airforce pilot, and burning him alive ; in a cage?

 

[IM2]

Your logic doesn't cover the complete story of our "relationship" with Iran. We are not the good guys here.

 

[ding]

Was Truman a terrorist for dropping two nukes on Japan?

As were the Brits for Dresden and the Yanks for Tokyo.

The Meaning of Shock and Awe
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.

You really really want to make a moral argument, don’t you.

 

[ding]

I haven’t dodged anything.

I am saying that the key attribute is that the state doesn’t own the act. That’s what makes them terrorists. Otherwise it’s just the military.

You are dodging the definitions of terrorism, as though the military can't carry out terror.

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.​

I’m not dodging definitions. I am making a key distinction that you are dodging.

 

[Mindful]

Your logic doesn't cover the complete story of our "relationship" with Iran. We are not the good guys here.

I don't see it in terms of good or bad.

I don't hate Trump, or America.

And I wouldn't need a morally equivalent argument to justify it either.

 

[IM2]

Your logic doesn't cover the complete story of our "relationship" with Iran. We are not the good guys here.

I don't see it in terms of good or bad.

I don't hate Trump, or America.

And I wouldn't need a morally equivalent argument to justify it either.

This is not about hating trump or America. It is about recognizing OUR wrongdoings. You only see the attempts to bomb our embassy. Let me make it clear so you can understand because apparently you don't.

America had a democratically elected prime minister removed.

America helped put a dictator in place that robbed his people.

The people of Iran overthrew the dictator in 1979.

Our government did not like the new Iranian government so they armed a regional rival to remove that government resulting in over 1 million deaths.

We have continued messing with those people and now our government kills another Iranian leader.

So ask yourself this question and do so honestly:

What would you do if another country had done these things to America?

I bet you'd be supporting all out war.

Just like Suleimani.