CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

cnm

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2013
45,859
33,449
3,605
Aotearoa
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.”


 
Last edited:
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'.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
The US is not a terrorist state.

Just because you want it to be, doesn't mean it is.

Shouldn't you have opened this thread in somewhere like The Badlands or the FZ?

As it is obviously a flame, designed to provoke angry reaction, and not intended for critical appraisal
 
But on the other hand, the US supports Kurdish organisations which Turkey, a NATO ally, labels terrorist.
 
But on the other hand, the US supports Kurdish organisations which Turkey, a NATO ally, labels terrorist.

So? What if it does?

Turkey is unpredictable. And NATO is a Mickey Mouse gravy train.
So the US is working through terror proxies, the Kurds, according to an ally, Turkey. When this is taken into account; along with the designation by Iran of the entire US military as a terrorist organisation; plus the US' history of state delivered terrorism with 'Shock and Awe', by the standards the US applies to other countries the US is a terrorist state.
 
Last edited:
But on the other hand, the US supports Kurdish organisations which Turkey, a NATO ally, labels terrorist.

So? What if it does?

Turkey is unpredictable. And NATO is a Mickey Mouse gravy train.
So the US is working through terror proxies, the Kurds, according to an ally, Turkey. When this is taken into account; along with the designation by Iran of the entire US military as a terrorist organisation; plus the US' history of state delivered terrorism with 'Shock and Awe' by the standards the US applies to other countries the US is a terrorist state.

No it isn't.
 
But on the other hand, the US supports Kurdish organisations which Turkey, a NATO ally, labels terrorist.

So? What if it does?

Turkey is unpredictable. And NATO is a Mickey Mouse gravy train.
So the US is working through terror proxies, the Kurds, according to an ally, Turkey. When this is taken into account; along with the designation by Iran of the entire US military as a terrorist organisation; plus the US' history of state delivered terrorism with 'Shock and Awe', by the standards the US applies to other countries the US is a terrorist state.
How long have you considered the U.S. a "terrorist state"
 
But on the other hand, the US supports Kurdish organisations which Turkey, a NATO ally, labels terrorist.

So? What if it does?

Turkey is unpredictable. And NATO is a Mickey Mouse gravy train.
So the US is working through terror proxies, the Kurds, according to an ally, Turkey. When this is taken into account; along with the designation by Iran of the entire US military as a terrorist organisation; plus the US' history of state delivered terrorism with 'Shock and Awe', by the standards the US applies to other countries the US is a terrorist state.
How long have you considered the U.S. a "terrorist state"

From time immemorial.

Come over to The Badlands, and you can witness his technique.
 
But on the other hand, the US supports Kurdish organisations which Turkey, a NATO ally, labels terrorist.

So? What if it does?

Turkey is unpredictable. And NATO is a Mickey Mouse gravy train.
So the US is working through terror proxies, the Kurds, according to an ally, Turkey. When this is taken into account; along with the designation by Iran of the entire US military as a terrorist organisation; plus the US' history of state delivered terrorism with 'Shock and Awe', by the standards the US applies to other countries the US is a terrorist state.
How long have you considered the U.S. a "terrorist state"
I'm not sure. When I considered your question I immediately went to the delivery of Shock and Awe to innocent Iraqis, but then I thought of the bombings of Cambodia and Hanoi by the Sky Pirates. Then I thought of the waterboardings of the Moros in the Philippines.

So if the question is how long I consider the US to have been a terrorist state then since around the end of the 19th century is the answer. In typing that I've just considered the terrorism inflicted on native Americans in the cause of Manifest Destiny, so since the mid 19th century, perhaps.

If the question is how long I myself have considered the US to be a terrorist state then the answer is since the mid 70's, give or take.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.”



Dear cnm
the key difference is mutual agreement to follow "due process" and set "rules of engagement."

I think you are confusing the issues of "terrorism" vs. the issues with "collective punishment"

If you were to address the issues of "collective punishment" that might provide a better
focus and framework for criticizing US policy in comparison with other nations' policies.

Many people have argued that sanctions cruelly and unjustly punish the victims of the targeted regimes
by collectively punishing the entire nation, when the innocent civilians have no ability to separate themselves from the
oppressive govt abusers guilty of war crimes, terrorism, or other violations of international laws.

If you want to raise that argument, that might prove more effective in making valid points and addressing common faults.
 
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.

Unexpected is the key element.

One never knows when the strike will happen.
 
Terrorism, a term with which I frankly disavow, is asymmetric warfare that deliberately targets civilians.
Then, really, you shouldn't use it.
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.
Shock and Awe.
The Meaning of Shock and Awe
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.
 
Last edited:
the key difference is mutual agreement to follow "due process" and set "rules of engagement."

I think you are confusing the issues of "terrorism" vs. the issues with "collective punishment"
No. See the definition I provided in the OP.
 

Forum List

Back
Top