CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[007]

Poor sniveling jackass. A Kitty Cat is a terrorist to the lone grub worm or caterpillar!

A citizen of a terrorist state would know all about that.

I think you're a terrorist for posting such an anti American piece of shit article.

 

[cnm]

Except I don't fit either of the definitions I've given, neither Chamber's nor Merriam-Webster's, nor has a legitimate nation state labelled me as such.

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.​

 

[yidnar]

who designated them as terrorist ??

The nation state of Iran officially did so. I imagine quite a few other unofficial entities have also done so.

sooooo you are trying to say that Iran is a more credible country than the US .

 

[yidnar]

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'.

who designated them as terrorist ??

The America hating troll who started this flame baiting thread, that's who.

and he also sides with the left on US policy .go figure .

 

[cnm]

sooooo you are trying to say that Iran is a more credible country than the US .

Just as credible. Actually, maybe more. After all, it's waged much less war on others than the US, especially in other people's countries. It seems your trouble is you've believed without qualification the propaganda you've been fed since birth.

 

[cnm]

I find it interesting that making objective arguments is categorised as 'hate'. I suppose one must be a fantasist to 'love'.

 

[Kilroy2]

When a state uses the same tactics as the terrorist then it really becomes a thin line between what is right and what is wrong

Easy to step over that line then claim to be righteous but it even harder to stay on the side of righteousness and never cross that line

 

[yidnar]

sooooo you are trying to say that Iran is a more credible country than the US .

Just as credible. Actually, maybe more. After all, it's waged much less war on others than the US, especially in other people's countries. It seems your trouble is you've believed without qualification the propaganda you've been fed since birth.

in the the it is illegal to push democrats [gays] off of buildings like they do in Iran !

 

[007]

Except I don't fit either of the definitions I've given, neither Chamber's nor Merriam-Webster's, nor has a legitimate nation state labelled me as such.

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.​

Simple question then... do you hate America?

 

[cnm]

in the the it is illegal to push democrats [gays] off of buildings like they do in Iran !

That's easy for you to say.

 

[cnm]

Except I don't fit either of the definitions I've given, neither Chamber's nor Merriam-Webster's, nor has a legitimate nation state labelled me as such.

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.​

Simple question then... do you hate America?

That's not really a simple question. I like and admire many Americans. I despise aspects of US foreign policy. I shake my head at some domestic policies, but it's their country, they can do what they like in it. Much like Iran.

'Simple' question for you. Do you hate Iran?

 

[yidnar]

in the the it is illegal to push democrats [gays] off of buildings like they do in Iran !

That's easy for you to say.

wow ! my apologies ...... were you pushed off of a building because you are a homo ?

 

[Spartacactcus]

Iran uses proxies.

So do many other states including your own

 

[Mindful]

Iran uses proxies.

So do many other states including your own

Which is?

 

[Spartacactcus]

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.”

​

State terrorism is not widely accepted/supported and reviled if applied to the actions of our own states. I don't have to read back to know that there will have been many people spitting feathers at the very idea that someone has had the temerity to even ask the question

The violence and violent acts of states are generally termed as acts of war and/or acts of self defence.

Additionally there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism and it generally plays out that that is due to the problems of trying to hash out of events how our violence differs from theirs , them being the default terrorists because they are are the enemy

We have had a lifetime of indoctrination about how our governments are the good guys trying to do good in a bad world full of bad people and there is a whole load of self serving comfort from believing it to be true. Their crimes can be easily be classed as crimes and readily accepted as being so simply because they are the bad guys, right ?

Here in the West , because we are predominantly the most powerful miltary nations in the world and have been active in conflicts around the globe since forever , it is probably even more important to condition people to outright reject any notions that the militaries of our countries are state terrorists or capable of state terrorism at the behest of our governments.

My own view is that all nations that have been guilty of employing acts of violence so as to further a political or ideological goal can be considered as engaging in state terrorism. That would include the nations of virtually every member of this forum imho

The mantra is , it's only terrorism when they do it and everyone is subjected to that line.

I understand that there are acts that everyone will agree are obvious terrorist actions , those that target civilians for example , but remember that the targeting of civilians is not an absolute determiner in and of itself with many definitions of terrorism using phrases like " especially targeting civilians " or " specifically targeting civilians .

Additionally acts change in definition due to the context in which the take place. Rocket attacks from Gaza are , imo , indiscriminate attacks in the context of a ongoing military conflict , thus war crimes not terrorism , as most of the human rights groups tend to characterize as.

It's never usually an easily defined black and white world imo and the question of terrorism , what it is and who engages in it are likewise often various shades of grey.

 

[Spartacactcus]

If you're in a house in Iran or Iraq (or Syria or Lebanon, or any one of dozens of raging conflicts around the world) where war has been raging for more than a decade, it personally might be totally unexpected for a bomb to fall into your living room, but your neighbors will say, 'Bombs are dropping everywhere, thank Allah it wasn't our house'. The population at large won't be terrorized because bombs falling is a common occurrence where they live.

Oh. Thank you. It's good to know Palestinians can't commit terrorism in Israel. So the blockades can end, right?

I wouldn't call what Arab Palestinians are doing to Israel 'terrorism'. Primarily, because the Israeli populace isn't terrorized by it. When there was a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem in the 1990s and early 2000s the day after a suicide bomber blew up on a bus or a market place, the buses and market places were full of Israelis. Israelis became pragmatic about it.

Which is one of the reasons Palestinians have altered their asymmetrical warfare strategy to missile attacks. The suicide bombers did not make the world sympathetic to their cause.

But they also can't get into Israel properly so easily as before.

Thanks to the border wall.

If it were a border wall it would be built on a border. Seeing as it snakes into the territory of another people so as to emcompass the illegal settlements it should be seen as what it really is imo. An annexation wall

 

[Mindful]

If you're in a house in Iran or Iraq (or Syria or Lebanon, or any one of dozens of raging conflicts around the world) where war has been raging for more than a decade, it personally might be totally unexpected for a bomb to fall into your living room, but your neighbors will say, 'Bombs are dropping everywhere, thank Allah it wasn't our house'. The population at large won't be terrorized because bombs falling is a common occurrence where they live.

Oh. Thank you. It's good to know Palestinians can't commit terrorism in Israel. So the blockades can end, right?

I wouldn't call what Arab Palestinians are doing to Israel 'terrorism'. Primarily, because the Israeli populace isn't terrorized by it. When there was a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem in the 1990s and early 2000s the day after a suicide bomber blew up on a bus or a market place, the buses and market places were full of Israelis. Israelis became pragmatic about it.

Which is one of the reasons Palestinians have altered their asymmetrical warfare strategy to missile attacks. The suicide bombers did not make the world sympathetic to their cause.

But they also can't get into Israel properly so easily as before.

Thanks to the border wall.

If it were a border wall it would be built on a border. Seeing as it snakes into the territory of another people so as to emcompass the illegal settlements it should be seen as what it really is imo. An annexation wall

Which border did you have in mind? Given the armistice lines.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Iran uses proxies.

So do many other states including your own

Which is?

Just to pick the ME and in no particular order and enough to make the point

For the US in recent years we could say ....................The Free Syrian army and/or some of the jihadist groups that splintered off of it. The Kurds in the same conflict. The Saudis in Yemen. The Mujehedeen in Afghanistan and then the Northern Alliance in the same place years later. Iraqs attack on Iran in the 1980s

 

[Spartacactcus]

Oh. Thank you. It's good to know Palestinians can't commit terrorism in Israel. So the blockades can end, right?

I wouldn't call what Arab Palestinians are doing to Israel 'terrorism'. Primarily, because the Israeli populace isn't terrorized by it. When there was a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem in the 1990s and early 2000s the day after a suicide bomber blew up on a bus or a market place, the buses and market places were full of Israelis. Israelis became pragmatic about it.

Which is one of the reasons Palestinians have altered their asymmetrical warfare strategy to missile attacks. The suicide bombers did not make the world sympathetic to their cause.

But they also can't get into Israel properly so easily as before.

Thanks to the border wall.

If it were a border wall it would be built on a border. Seeing as it snakes into the territory of another people so as to emcompass the illegal settlements it should be seen as what it really is imo. An annexation wall

Which border did you have in mind? Given the armistice lines.

The Green line between the WB and Israel. The ICJ agree

 

[Mindful]

Iran uses proxies.

So do many other states including your own

Which is?

Just to pick the ME and in no particular order and enough to make the point

For the US in recent years we could say ....................The Free Syrian army and/or some of the jihadist groups that splintered off of it. The Kurds in the same conflict. The Saudis in Yemen. The Mujehedeen in Afghanistan and then the Northern Alliance in the same place years later. Iraqs attack on Iran in the 1980s

What point?