CDZ Is the US a terrorist nation?

[warf]

I suppose those who vote have some responsibility, though as most of us don't bother we can't be said to bear any responsibility whatsoever, but we can still point to the actual culprits of these actions. An Obama or Bush voter is certainly not as responsible as Obama or Bush themselves.

You are right that the voter is not as responsible as the elected executive.

But morally the voters bear that responsibility. They may not be actors. But they are enablers.

I suppose the German citizens in the 1930's also felt they had no responsibility for the actions of those in the government that they supported.

If I vote for a charismatic butcher who plunders small nations I bear responsibility for my support of malgovernment.

 

[FA_Q2]

terrorism - definition of terrorism in English from the Oxford dictionary

Oxford English dictionary, from the oldest and best university in the world, defines terrorism thus...

noun
[MASS NOUN]
unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:

Assuming the scholars at this great institution are correct, does that mean America is a terrorist nation?

No, we're not a terrorist nation because the killing and destruction we engage in is "official." But, God only knows how many innocents we have beheaded at the end of a bomb.

Mostly this. The term really does not apply even if you are against the actions that America has taken. Terrorists operate under cover and hide. America, no matter what you think of its actions, is open about its aggressions.

 

[Indofred]

Mostly this. The term really does not apply even if you are against the actions that America has taken. Terrorists operate under cover and hide. America, no matter what you think of its actions, is open about its aggressions.

WRONG

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf

America tries to hide its terrorist attacks.

 

[oldernwiser]

The use of double-tap drone strikes makes that question pretty academic in and of itself, and that's just one example.

Though, I would stress that it's the government, not the nation itself. Most of us have nothing to do with this nonsense.

We don't get a free pass.

We, the voters, created this government. Therefore it is us. We the voters are responsible for every death and all the misery caused by our government.

While I'd agree with this statement to some degree, most of the electorate (and even some of the government itself) has no idea what individuals are doing to "protect" the interests of this country. In fact most of us don't know what was done in this country's name for many years after the fact. It's really hard to assign responsibility to voters in that case.

 

[ScienceRocks]

NO,

We're a nation that stands of civilization...I find this thread insulting.

 

[ScienceRocks]

terrorism - definition of terrorism in English from the Oxford dictionary

Oxford English dictionary, from the oldest and best university in the world, defines terrorism thus...

noun
[MASS NOUN]
unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:

Assuming the scholars at this great institution are correct, does that mean America is a terrorist nation?

No, we're not a terrorist nation because the killing and destruction we engage in is "official." But, God only knows how many innocents we have beheaded at the end of a bomb.

Mostly this. The term really does not apply even if you are against the actions that America has taken. Terrorists operate under cover and hide. America, no matter what you think of its actions, is open about its aggressions.

And most of these aggressions are against groups like Al quada, Taliban and isis that wants to send the world to the 4th century. The question you have to ask, is it really wrong to fight for civilization? Why do people think we shouldn't.

 

[charwin95]

US is not a terrorist country.
US is a country that stands against invaders.
US is the 911 of this planet.
US is the only reason China, Russia and terrorists has not occupied half of this planet.
US defined what freedom means.
US you are the BEST.

 

[Indofred]

And most of these aggressions are against groups like Al quada, Taliban and isis

All groups you armed and trained.
Don't forget the minor details.

However, I still haven't heard a single reasonable excuse for the massive US terrorist attacks on so many countries that you weren't at war with.
Just excuses about getting rid of communism, a silly idea when you consider the US defeat in Vietnam and the total lack of all the effects that were used as a justification for going to war there.

 

[FA_Q2]

And most of these aggressions are against groups like Al quada, Taliban and isis

All groups you armed and trained.
Don't forget the minor details.

However, I still haven't heard a single reasonable excuse for the massive US terrorist attacks on so many countries that you weren't at war with.
Just excuses about getting rid of communism, a silly idea when you consider the US defeat in Vietnam and the total lack of all the effects that were used as a justification for going to war there.

There is no 'excuse' that you would buy so what is the point? You hate America - we understand that. The very fact that you see the US as similar to ISIL and other terrorist groups bleats that out quite clearly.

The comparison is not only idiotic - it is monumentally so.

 

[georgephillip]

terrorism - definition of terrorism in English from the Oxford dictionary

Oxford English dictionary, from the oldest and best university in the world, defines terrorism thus...

noun
[MASS NOUN]
unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:

Assuming the scholars at this great institution are correct, does that mean America is a terrorist nation?

Millions of dead civilians from Korea to Baghdad would probably agree...if they could.
List of US War Crimes

 

[Indofred]

You hate America

No, just American foreign policy.
I'm sorry you're unable to see the difference, but I understand they're trying to raise standards in American schools.

 

[Agit8r]

Well, shiiit. We'll only accept a definition from an American dictionary.

 

[usfan]

Any world hegemony uses power to enforce its will. If you define any use of power as 'terror' then yes, America is a terrorist nation, by that definition. But so is every nation on earth. All use force to keep order & deter outliers, so to them they are terrorists, as they use terror to keep them from expressing themselves as they would like.

To the anarchists in ferguson & baltimore, the police are terrorists. To the citizens being 'terrorized' by the anarchists, with the burning & looting, the anarchists are the terrorists. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[georgephillip]

The US DoD has its definition of
"terrorism — The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence, often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs, to instill fear and coerce governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are usually political..." which seems to support an affirmative response the OP's question of whether or not the US is a terrorist nation.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf

 

[katsung47]

It is a terrorist country.

The ruling class deal with ordinary people by cops violence. You saw the death of Gray of Baltimore and Michael Brown of Ferguson.

To high ranking people, they had assassinating teams. You saw President Kennedy, Martin L. King....

RETIRED CIA AGENT CONFESSES ON DEATHBED: “I KILLED MARILYN MONROE”
March 25th, 2015 | by Barbara Johnson

Norfolk, Virginia| A 78-year old retired officer of the CIA, Normand Hodges, has made a series of astonishing confessions since he was admitted at the Sentara General Hospital on Monday. He claims he committed 37 assassinations for the American government between 1959 and 1972, including the actress and model, Marilyn Monroe.


Retired CIA Agent Confesses on Deathbed I Killed Marilyn Monroe World News Daily Report donotlink.com

 

[Josf]

http://www.geocities.ws/cphspolisci/foreign.policy.chomsky.pdf

No Treason The Constitution of No Authority LewRockwell.com

For those stuck in the box known as left and right the above includes information from (so called) both sides.

Example from the later (so called right side):

"To take a man’s property without his consent, and then to infer
his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property
from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his
consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at
all."

Example from the former (so called left side):

"There is a straightforward single standard: their terror against us and our
clients is the ultimate evil, while our terror against them does not exist—or, if it does, is entirely

appropriate. One clear illustration is Washington's terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 1980s, an
uncontroversial case, at least for those who believe that the International Court of Justice and the
UN Security Council—both of which condemned the United States—have some standing on such
matters. The State Department confirmed that the US-run forces attacking Nicaragua from US
bases in Honduras had been authorized to attack "soft targets," that is, undefended civilian targets.
A protest by Americas Watch elicited a sharp response by a respected spokesman of "the left,"
New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, who patiently explained that terrorist attacks on civilian

targets should be evaluated on pragmatic grounds: a "sensible policy [should] meet the test of
cost-benefit analysis" of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood
that democracy will emerge at the other end"—"democracy" as defined by US elites, of course."

Criminals have taken over an otherwise peaceful collection of people, and criminals use terror along with deception as their means of maintaining their power over their targets. Is that news to anyone?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

http://www.geocities.ws/cphspolisci/foreign.policy.chomsky.pdf

No Treason The Constitution of No Authority LewRockwell.com

For those stuck in the box known as left and right the above includes information from (so called) both sides.

Example from the later (so called right side):

"To take a man’s property without his consent, and then to infer
his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property
from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his
consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at
all."

Example from the former (so called left side):

"There is a straightforward single standard: their terror against us and our
clients is the ultimate evil, while our terror against them does not exist—or, if it does, is entirely

appropriate. One clear illustration is Washington's terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 1980s, an
uncontroversial case, at least for those who believe that the International Court of Justice and the
UN Security Council—both of which condemned the United States—have some standing on such
matters. The State Department confirmed that the US-run forces attacking Nicaragua from US
bases in Honduras had been authorized to attack "soft targets," that is, undefended civilian targets.
A protest by Americas Watch elicited a sharp response by a respected spokesman of "the left,"
New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, who patiently explained that terrorist attacks on civilian

targets should be evaluated on pragmatic grounds: a "sensible policy [should] meet the test of
cost-benefit analysis" of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood
that democracy will emerge at the other end"—"democracy" as defined by US elites, of course."

Criminals have taken over an otherwise peaceful collection of people, and criminals use terror along with deception as their means of maintaining their power over their targets. Is that news to anyone?

Hard to consider Lysander Spooner, an individualist anarchist, as being from the right.

 

[Josf]

"Hard to consider Lysander Spooner, an individualist anarchist, as being from the right."

The modern right versus left meaning can be defined by someone modern, such as Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul. Before the modern right versus left there were other words and other meanings where one individual might claim to be on one side and another individual might claim to be on another side.

If you can find where Lysander Spooner claimed to be an individualist anarchist, then we both can know this voluntary membership into that club; and perhaps the reasons why he joined.

"To take a man’s property without his consent, and then to infer
his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property
from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his
consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at
all."

When did criminal behavior begin to be the definition for belonging on the right side as opposed to the criminal behavior required to be on the left side?

Most people having an affinity for the so called right, past, present, and presumably the future, are those who have a shared idea known as individual ownership of property. Am I mistaken?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Hard to consider Lysander Spooner, an individualist anarchist, as being from the right."

The modern right versus left meaning can be defined by someone modern, such as Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul. Before the modern right versus left there were other words and other meanings where one individual might claim to be on one side and another individual might claim to be on another side.

If you can find where Lysander Spooner claimed to be an individualist anarchist, then we both can know this voluntary membership into that club; and perhaps the reasons why he joined.

"To take a man’s property without his consent, and then to infer
his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property
from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his
consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at
all."

When did criminal behavior begin to be the definition for belonging on the right side as opposed to the criminal behavior required to be on the left side?

Most people having an affinity for the so called right, past, present, and presumably the future, are those who have a shared idea known as individual ownership of property. Am I mistaken?

"Lysander Spooner besides his individualist anarchist activism was also an important anti-slavery activist and became a member of the First International.[122]"
Individualist anarchism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I would argue that the modern right and modern left cannot in any sense be defined by Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky. While both are respected by certain segments of left or right, with even some overlap on certain issues, they certainly do not represent the majority of either. The fact that both are completely antiwar, while the political representatives of both modern left and right are willing to go to war at the drop of a hat prove this. Spooner didn't believe the state had any right to exist at all and Ron Paul believes it should be severely limited. To say that either one represents the modern right, who more accurately want the state to be able to do whatever they think it needs to to achieve the ends they desire, is going way too far.

 

[Josf]

I have much less trouble when someone, anyone, redefines the meanings of words once: twice, or three, four, and more times is troublesome.

So long as your working definitions for words works for you, and then I somehow find what those definitions are, then that works for me too. Why argue?

To me Noam Chomsky is a modern volunteer ready to define the meaning of the modern left, as proven by his actions; and Ron Paul offers the same power to define the meaning of the modern right side of a competition in viewpoints.

If your working definition of modern right and modern left is "political representatives...willing to go to war at the drop of a hat," then that sounds like a terrorist/criminal/sociopath/psychopath parading as a political representative, not one, and my guess is that said criminal is unwilling to actually work in any way as a warrior, rather the criminal is merely employing deception, threat of violence, and aggressive violence as a means of keeping the victims fighting each other instead of defending each other thereby affording the criminal the power required to stay in power over the criminal's targeted victims. In other words your words appear to make a reference to modern criminals operating organized crime under the color of law, which is a counterfeit version of the true color of law, which is voluntary, defensive, just, and based upon fact finding for those on that side of things.

Since I was on the ballot in 1996 for a congressional seat in the (false) Federal congress, having offered the competitive work of political representation, I can offer the same to you. I am both left and right in the modern, the not too distant past, and the ancient meanings of the same defining meanings of both left and right competitively, if not precisely accurately done my individual way in your estimate.