CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[Mindful]

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

The Green line is not a recognised border.

 

[irosie91]

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

The Green line is not a recognised border.

for clarification-----"the green line" is an armistice line ----something like the
armistice agreements created by the rapist dog of arabia

 

[Spartacactcus]

What point?

The point that many states use proxies. You cited Iran using them and I cited the US using them to make the point that many states use proxies

 

[Spartacactcus]

The Green line is not a recognised border.

Many countries ,groups and organisations disagree with the above including the ICJ. This thread is about state terrorismhowever and shouldn't be used as a piggy back for a conversation the annexation wall. I played a part in the slight derailment because I bit on the comment of another poster concerning the wall but have no intention of carrying it on seeing as there will be plenty of debate about it in the relevant forum

 

[Spartacactcus]

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

The Green line is not a recognised border.

for clarification-----"the green line" is an armistice line ----something like the
armistice agreements created by the rapist dog of arabia

We can agree to disagree and pick this up in the right forum in a suitable thread

 

[Mindful]

What point?

The point that many states use proxies. You cited Iran using them and I cited the US using them to make the point that many states use proxies

You said my state.

Which is not the US.

 

[Spartacactcus]

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.

It's a " mistake " because civilians died but we don't know whether or not it actually was a mistake or the cold calculation of a military person. Was the bombing of the hospital in Kunduz a " mistake "

You see they can say it's a mistake and people will believe it in most cases because , we , being the good of the world don't commit crimes we make mistakes. The illegal 2003 invasion/ Iraq war is portrayed as a blunder , a well intentioned use of violence that turned out to be a bit of a fiasco due to lack of planning etc etc , you know this because this is how it is presented and many other events like it are the same .

The sanctions that were placed on Iraq from the end of the 1991 conflict to the illegal 2003 invasion , the product of that violence subsequently killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Both heads resigned from the Oil for Food programme citing the sanctions as being " genocidal ". People might see it as a justifiable act or a blunder but not many will see it as US state terrorism even though the sanctions were known to be killing innocent civilians by the thousands and the US violence was aimed at regime change in Iraq.............the use of violence to further a political/ideological goal..........terrorism, or more accurately state terrorism imo

 

[Spartacactcus]

What point?

The point that many states use proxies. You cited Iran using them and I cited the US using them to make the point that many states use proxies

You said my state.

Which is not the US.

okay apologies for getting your state wrong.

What state are you from and we can see what proxies , if any , it has used ?

 

[Mindful]

What point?

The point that many states use proxies. You cited Iran using them and I cited the US using them to make the point that many states use proxies

You said my state.

Which is not the US.

okay apologies for getting your state wrong.

What state are you from and we can see what proxies , if any , it has used ?

I'm not going down this road.

 

[Spartacactcus]

What point?

The point that many states use proxies. You cited Iran using them and I cited the US using them to make the point that many states use proxies

You said my state.

Which is not the US.

okay apologies for getting your state wrong.

What state are you from and we can see what proxies , if any , it has used ?

I'm not going down this road.

Why ever not?

You were quick enough to comment that Iran uses proxies ( and they do ) but then when I ask you where you are from to see if your state has used proxies you suddenly want to drop the subject.

The road you appear not to want to go down is the road that leads us into using the same standards for all parties, if you are fair and reasonable why would you not want to do that ?

 

[Mindful]

What point?

The point that many states use proxies. You cited Iran using them and I cited the US using them to make the point that many states use proxies

You said my state.

Which is not the US.

okay apologies for getting your state wrong.

What state are you from and we can see what proxies , if any , it has used ?

I'm not going down this road.

Why ever not?

You were quick enough to comment that Iran uses proxies ( and they do ) but then when I ask you where you are from to see if your state has used proxies you suddenly want to drop the subject.

The road you appear not to want to go down is the road that leads us into using the same standards for all parties, if you are fair and reasonable why would you not want to do that ?

I don't know.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Dear cnm
1. your definition doesn't distinguish between
A. using bullying tactics strategically to compel a person or group that uses the same bullying tactics
B. abusing such tactics to "collectively punish" a broader group including innocent civilians

Can you distinguish the difference between A and B so we pinpoint what we are comparing here?

2. again this is why I would more specifically address
COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT

since this streamlines the issue to address causing collateral damage
and threats of harm to CIVILIANS who are not the intended target.

Normally DUE PROCESS is used to isolate the targeted people responsible.

If you define terrorism so broadly where you don't make this distinction,
this isn't going to be as effective. It will just distort arguments where it's difficult to make the same points.

Collective punishment is a crime and it's use can and does come within the parameters of the of definition of terrorism the OP chose to use.

The drone strikes and other targeted assassinations are the opposite of due process. The person/persons are killed and then we are told they were terrorists or people planning to carry out terrorist acts, due process involves the presentation of ACTUAL evidence. The very fact that this is sidestepped further makes it fit the bill for state terrorism

 

[Spartacactcus]

The point that many states use proxies. You cited Iran using them and I cited the US using them to make the point that many states use proxies

You said my state.

Which is not the US.

okay apologies for getting your state wrong.

What state are you from and we can see what proxies , if any , it has used ?

I'm not going down this road.

Why ever not?

You were quick enough to comment that Iran uses proxies ( and they do ) but then when I ask you where you are from to see if your state has used proxies you suddenly want to drop the subject.

The road you appear not to want to go down is the road that leads us into using the same standards for all parties, if you are fair and reasonable why would you not want to do that ?

I don't know.

Is it that it might take you out a comfort zone ?

 

[Mindful]

You said my state.

Which is not the US.

okay apologies for getting your state wrong.

What state are you from and we can see what proxies , if any , it has used ?

I'm not going down this road.

Why ever not?

You were quick enough to comment that Iran uses proxies ( and they do ) but then when I ask you where you are from to see if your state has used proxies you suddenly want to drop the subject.

The road you appear not to want to go down is the road that leads us into using the same standards for all parties, if you are fair and reasonable why would you not want to do that ?

I don't know.

Is it that it might take you out a comfort zone ?

 

[Spartacactcus]

Collective punishment is seen nowhere in the definition provided. Feel free to provide an independent definition of terrorism that includes 'collective punishment'.

The fact that there are issues for state leaders when it comes to definitions of crimes/terrorism only confirms what the real issue is.

The bombings of cities in WW2 is a classic example. People wanted to add it to the list of crimes committed by the Germans but obviously knew that their own were guilty of it themselves.

BTW Thanks for putting this thread up for discussion. It is part of a very uncomfortable part of a counter conditioning that will leave you ( me, and any others mad/brave enough to do it ) ) as popular as a fart in a space suit. Imo the truth is ugly and people either can't accept it or refuse to accept it but are sure to absolutely hate the messengers that challenged their preferred view.

The whole Cold War era was replete with acts of state terrorism which were in most part the suppression of third world independent nationalistic/post colonalist struggles under the guise, as understood in the West , of a global war against communism .

Mass terror tactics have been part of conflicts/statecraft since forever and those that fail to see that their own are as guilty of it as the official enemies can thank their own propaganda systems for a job well done with those who slip through the net despised and derided as "enemies of the state " etc etc

 

[sparky]

The fact that there are issues for state leaders when it comes to definitions of crimes/terrorism only confirms what the real issue is.

Which is where objective / subjective views abound

for ex., we've killed more civilians that ISIS in Afghan

so how would one think we're viewed by the Afghani people?

~S~

 

[Spartacactcus]

- Nothing coming from the heavens (hellfire), and controlled from far-away places, though spectacular, killing scores of innocents and terrorizing them, can ever be "terrorism". It's also not "extra-legal" in case the non-terrorist entity writes the laws allowing for non-terrorist terrorizing of innocents.

It depends on the context and yes those things can be considered as state terrorism imo.

In an ongoing conflict the attacks you describe can be deemed as crimes, war crimes. The mass bombing can be classed as indiiscriminate attack and thus a war crime. States shouldn't get away with the charge of terrorism just because they are states

- Whatever comes from the dirt (IEDs) is by definition both "devilish" and "evil", and thus "terrorism", even if the targets are criminal invaders and occupiers. No, the common rules, allowing for extended self-defense by those helping the criminally invaded, won't help you there.
.

Nope, the acts you describe in the context you describe them are definitely NOT terrorism and are in fact legitimate acts of resistance against occupying forces.

You have fallen into the trap, or are happy to occupy the space voluntarily , of what I said earlier............ it's only terrorism when they do it. That is clear in how you have it the wrong way around in the above " clarification "

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Spartacactcus]

The fact that there are issues for state leaders when it comes to definitions of crimes/terrorism only confirms what the real issue is.

Which is where objective / subjective views abound

for ex., we've killed more civilians that ISIS in Afghan

so how would one think we're viewed by the Afghani people?

~S~

I agree and that's why I comment that our ability to be objective has been compromised by a good state indoctrination about how we are always the good guys and the official enemies are the ones thast commit crimes.

The msm media serves the establishment well in manufacturing consent for our own aggression and crimes that accompany it. You are preaching to the already converted here.

In the lead up to the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq there was plenty of coverage of the antiwar protests here in the UK but hardly a mention that there was a huge antiwar demonstration in Baghdad.

In the build up to the 2001 US led invasion od Afghanistan I recall a news report featuring interviews with members of an underground womens rights group that told how bad life was for women under the Taliban. What went more or less unreported was their opposition to a US invasion. This is standard procedure in my experience.

So to your question I am pretty sure a great many Afghans see those who took part in the invasion of their country as foreign state terrorists. It will be the same elsewhere too

In my view your opinion will be more objective if you can resist the indoctrination/propaganda systems of your own and see that all sides are involved in it. Statecraft is and ever was such. Try to apply the same standards acroos the board and the world looks very different imo

 

[Spartacactcus]

~S~

Much comment about the Assad regimes use of torture when he was in the cross hairs but not much about how the US sent people there to be tortured by the same regime during those renditions that preceded it . This is how that indoctrination plays out