CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[cnm]

You’d rather ass **** logic and reason instead.

I take it by that you mean defining terms with references and showing how the US fits those terms. Guilty.

After all, nothing's stopped you showing a dictionary definition that says 'except for the military'. Except, perhaps, the lack of such a definition of terrorism.

 

[cnm]

Secession of States was not prohibited by the Constitution. Lincoln's waging war upon civilans and non combatants is, by the literal definition, Terrorism. But sorry for getting side tracked from your OP.

A discussion of terrorism is not a sidetrack, imo. Dictionary definitions of terrorism have been given in this thread, one in the OP. Please show how Lincoln's actions fit that definition, or link the 'literal' dictionary definition you're using. If you'd care to show how Davis' actions don't, which I assume is your position since you don't mention him, I would be pleased.

 

[cnm]

In todays world I am OK with the US policy. You must fight terror with terror.

Ah, you agree with the proposition. Fair enough.

 

[cnm]

Almost all the posts on this thread have been civil. Just because he's making you uncomfortable and squirm, doesn't give you the right to decide what a clean debate is and isn't.

I believe flaming in the CDZ is a tactic used to get the debate removed from the CDZ by those without an argument. C'est la vie.

 

[Scamp]

Secession of States was not prohibited by the Constitution. Lincoln's waging war upon civilans and non combatants is, by the literal definition, Terrorism. But sorry for getting side tracked from your OP.

A discussion of terrorism is not a sidetrack, imo. Dictionary definitions of terrorism have been given in this thread, one in the OP. Please show how Lincoln's actions fit that definition, or link the 'literal' dictionary definition you're using. If you'd care to show how Davis' actions don't, which I assume is your position since you don't mention him, I would be pleased.

Your definition of terrorism in the OP left out "especially against civilians". Look up Gen Sherman. His army waging war upon civilians won the war for the Union. Davis did no such thing.

 

[S.J.]

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.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The wars of ideology have been going on since the Dawn of Man, plain and simple.

Do you consider the U.S. a terrorist country? How about Iran?

I do not consider either a terrorist country, but then again, it's not about me personally. Did you even understand my comment?

Yeah, I understood your comment. I also understand that you don't consider Iran a terrorist country. That pretty much tells us where you stand.

 

[Olde Europe]

In todays world I am OK with the US policy. You must fight terror with terror.

Ah, you agree with the proposition. Fair enough.

You will also note the slight change in stances, as the fight against the Southern States' unspeakable terror wasn't supposed to be conducted with (alleged) "terror" by the Union. Rather, the War of Northern Aggression itself appears to be a form of terror. Most strikingly, given that the Civil War was overwhelmingly waged on the territory of the treasonous States, the assertion that the oh-so-gentle and honorable Southern insurrectionists would never ransack or terrorize civilian areas, rings a little hollow. They didn't have much of a chance actually to demonstrate their outstanding virtue.

 

[cnm]

Your definition of terrorism in the OP left out "especially against civilians". Look up Gen Sherman. His army waging war upon civilians won the war for the Union. Davis did no such thing.

No, you make your arguments and provide your evidence. Show where Sherman waged war on civilians. I'm not here to do your research and make your arguments for you. Link to a dictionary definition of terrorism including 'especially against civilians'.

 

[Mindful]

Are dictionaries reliable?
alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhowrel.html
For more on the frightening extent to which dictionaries copy from one another, see "The Genealogy of Dictionaries", in Robert Burchfield's Unlocking the English Language (Hill and Wang, 1992, ISBN -374-52339-8), pp. 147-165. Thus we see that a consensus of dictionaries does not necessarily indicate a consensus of actual research.

 

[cnm]

Most strikingly, given that the Civil War was overwhelmingly waged on the territory of the treasonous States, the assertion that the oh-so-gentle and honorable Southern insurrectionists would never ransack or terrorize civilian areas, rings a little hollow.

Especially when one considers Quantrill's raid and subsequent massacre of civilians in Lawrence, Kansas.

 

[ding]

You’d rather ass **** logic and reason instead.

I take it by that you mean defining terms with references and showing how the US fits those terms. Guilty.

After all, nothing's stopped you showing a dictionary definition that says 'except for the military'. Except, perhaps, the lack of such a definition of terrorism.

No. I mean making an argument to fit your desires instead of reality.

Military personnel aren’t terrorists. They are soldiers who follow orders. It seems that you would like to label some soldiers as terrorists. That is ass ******* logic and reason.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The wars of ideology have been going on since the Dawn of Man, plain and simple.

Do you consider the U.S. a terrorist country? How about Iran?

I do not consider either a terrorist country, but then again, it's not about me personally. Did you even understand my comment?

Yeah, I understood your comment. I also understand that you don't consider Iran a terrorist country. That pretty much tells us where you stand.

You continue make the argument about me, so your sentiments are empty. I assume you will try and pretend that religious ideology doesn't directly inform binary responses such as yours. Muslims: Bad guys. Christians: Good guys. Am I right?

 

[Scamp]

Your definition of terrorism in the OP left out "especially against civilians". Look up Gen Sherman. His army waging war upon civilians won the war for the Union. Davis did no such thing.

No, you make your arguments and provide your evidence. Show where Sherman waged war on civilians. I'm not here to do your research and make your arguments for you. Link to a dictionary definition of terrorism including 'especially against civilians'.

Terrorism | Definition of Terrorism by Lexico
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march
From November 15 until December 21, 1864, Union General William T. Sherman led some 60,000 soldiers on a 285-mile march from Atlanta to Savannah, Georgia. The purpose of Sherman’s March to the Sea was to frighten Georgia’s civilian population into abandoning the Confederate cause.
That is the literal definition of Terrorism.

 

[S.J.]

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.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The wars of ideology have been going on since the Dawn of Man, plain and simple.

Do you consider the U.S. a terrorist country? How about Iran?

I do not consider either a terrorist country, but then again, it's not about me personally. Did you even understand my comment?

Yeah, I understood your comment. I also understand that you don't consider Iran a terrorist country. That pretty much tells us where you stand.

You continue make the argument about me, so your sentiments are empty. I assume you will try and pretend that religious ideology doesn't directly inform binary responses such as yours. Muslims: Bad guys. Christians: Good guys. Am I right?

No, you're way off.

 

[Scamp]

Cnm, how would you propose we fight todays Terrorism? I say surgically killing their known leaders with drones is a good method. These people have to know that if any American is killed we will kill your leaders.

 

[Olde Europe]

Most strikingly, given that the Civil War was overwhelmingly waged on the territory of the treasonous States, the assertion that the oh-so-gentle and honorable Southern insurrectionists would never ransack or terrorize civilian areas, rings a little hollow.

Especially when one considers Quantrill's raid and subsequent massacre of civilians in Lawrence, Kansas.

Yep, but that was just a militia (akin to the Lebanese Hezbollah acting in concert with Iran's Quds force), not the treasonous army of the Confederacy.

 

[Scamp]

Most strikingly, given that the Civil War was overwhelmingly waged on the territory of the treasonous States, the assertion that the oh-so-gentle and honorable Southern insurrectionists would never ransack or terrorize civilian areas, rings a little hollow.

Especially when one considers Quantrill's raid and subsequent massacre of civilians in Lawrence, Kansas.

Yep, but that was just a militia (akin to the Lebanese Hezbollah acting in concert with Iran's Quds force), not the treasonous army of the Confederacy.

How was the Confederacy treasonous if the Constitution did not prohibit the secession of States?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The wars of ideology have been going on since the Dawn of Man, plain and simple.

Do you consider the U.S. a terrorist country? How about Iran?

I do not consider either a terrorist country, but then again, it's not about me personally. Did you even understand my comment?

Yeah, I understood your comment. I also understand that you don't consider Iran a terrorist country. That pretty much tells us where you stand.

You continue make the argument about me, so your sentiments are empty. I assume you will try and pretend that religious ideology doesn't directly inform binary responses such as yours. Muslims: Bad guys. Christians: Good guys. Am I right?

No, you're way off.

Then enlighten me.

 

[Olde Europe]

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.”

​

this is the EASILY the best thread that has EVER been created here at USMB bar none,the only way it could have been better is if it had said- THE US IS A TERRORIST STATE.

there are many sheep here that are so dense and brainwashed by our corrupt school system,they dont get it that WE are the most corrupt government on the planet and the CIA is a monster,an evil organization that starts wars with other countrys AND murders its own citizens.

they need to be ******* abolished. Harry Truman even said later in life that creating the CIA was the worst mistake he ever made in his lifetime,that he helped create a monster.