CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[Olde Europe]

- 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 "

If I may be so bold, may I suggest you re-read my posting with your irony and sarcasm detectors on?

 

[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 "

If I may be so bold, may I suggest you re-read my posting with your irony and sarcasm detectors on?

Must have missed it, so apologies for the error

 

[Olde Europe]

Must have missed it, so apologies for the error

No problem. Irony is said not to print that well.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Must have missed it, so apologies for the error

No problem. Irony is said not to print that well.

I find sometimes the use of emojies can help but they're not everyone's cup of tea so...........no problem.

 

[cnm]

You [Olde Europe] 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 "

Olde Europe's irony is sometimes a bit too heavy to be easily recognised as such.

edit....Hoho, done I see.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm always amused as to the malleability of the word "terrorist" in the hands of today's authoritarian leftists.

Evidently, it means whatever they want it to mean as long as they can use it to draw intentionally false equivalences in pursuit of their anti-western agenda.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The US is a terrorist state.

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


View attachment 302007
TERRORIST. What every little guy calls the bigger guy.

Those who support the intentional murder of innocent people at the hands of Islamists like to play this game where they defend it through tu quoque fallacies that involve the intentional misrepresentation of what terrorism actually entails. They just slap the word "terrorism" on all manner of actions which clearly aren't and then stand back while saying "you see!!"

It is all very banal and sophomoric, and one can only hope they grow out of this acting out phase some day.

 

[cnm]

I'm always amused as to the malleability of the word "terrorist" in the hands of today's authoritarian leftists.

Evidently, it means whatever they want it to mean as long as they can use it to draw intentionally false equivalences in pursuit of their anti-western agenda.

You have a fear of dictionaries?

 

[cnm]

They just slap the word "terrorism" on all manner of actions which clearly aren't and then stand back while saying "you see!!"

I have given two definitions in this thread. I have shown how US actions fit those definitions.

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.​

What have you done? You have defaulted.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You have a fear of dictionaries?

Not at all.

I am simply far more educated and mature than you. Terrorism involves the selection of innocent civilians as targets. The targeted killing of terrorists is obviously not terrorist since they are not innocent. Targeting a site from which terrorists attack is not terrorist, even if other people die. Again, the idea is not to kill innocent people, but terrorists. Acts of war between two groups are not terrorist because the attacks are tactical in nature.

You need to grow up, son, and stop acting out by trying to make the word mean whatever you want it to mean simply because you are profoundly ignorant and have a dishonest agenda.

 

[bluzman61]

You have a fear of dictionaries?

Not at all.

I am simply far more educated and mature than you. Terrorism involves the selection of innocent civilians as targets. The targeted killing of terrorists is obviously not terrorist since they are not innocent. Targeting a site from which terrorists attack is not terrorist, even if other people die. Again, the idea is not to kill innocent people, but terrorists. Acts of war between two groups are not terrorist because the attacks are tactical in nature.

You need to grow up, son, and stop acting out by trying to make the word mean whatever you want it to mean simply because you are profoundly ignorant and have a dishonest agenda.

Well, cnm has proven time and time again that they ARE a bit dim............

 

[cnm]

I am simply far more educated and mature than you. Terrorism involves the selection of innocent civilians as targets.

Yet you offer no independent definition. I have supplied two which make no mention of 'innocent civilians'; which innocent civilians, by the way, were the major victims of the Tokyo fire bombing and the two nuclear blasts carried out by the US.

 

[cnm]

You need to grow up, son, and stop acting out by trying to make the word mean whatever you want it to mean simply because you are profoundly ignorant and have a dishonest agenda.

You do have a fear both of dictionaries and arguments, which means you avoid both like the plague. A dishonest agenda in this case means America has the same standards applied to it as it applies to others. Unconscionable!

 

[bluzman61]

You need to grow up, son, and stop acting out by trying to make the word mean whatever you want it to mean simply because you are profoundly ignorant and have a dishonest agenda.

You do have a fear both of dictionaries and arguments, which means you avoid both like the plague. A dishonest agenda in this case means America has the same standards applied to it as it applies to others. Unconscionable!

Please refer to post #391 in this thread. Thank you.

 

[cnm]

I see your arguments are as well constructed and referenced as dogmaphiles's. Dog loves the 'America as a force for good' dogma, especially as he can't argue for it, but then that's what dogma's for.

 

[Mindful]

You have a fear of dictionaries?

Not at all.

I am simply far more educated and mature than you. Terrorism involves the selection of innocent civilians as targets. The targeted killing of terrorists is obviously not terrorist since they are not innocent. Targeting a site from which terrorists attack is not terrorist, even if other people die. Again, the idea is not to kill innocent people, but terrorists. Acts of war between two groups are not terrorist because the attacks are tactical in nature.

You need to grow up, son, and stop acting out by trying to make the word mean whatever you want it to mean simply because you are profoundly ignorant and have a dishonest agenda.

Take no notice of him. He's from the Antipodes.

Isolated and cut off.

 

[Mindful]

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am simply far more educated and mature than you. Terrorism involves the selection of innocent civilians as targets.

Yet you offer no independent definition. I have supplied two which make no mention of 'innocent civilians'; which innocent civilians, by the way, were the major victims of the Tokyo fire bombing and the two nuclear blasts carried out by the US.

Like I said -- you are profoundly ignorant. You simply chose the most simplistic definitions because you are very simplistic, and you hand chose them in such a way as to limit the full extent of the implications because you are dishonest.

 

[Mindful]

I am simply far more educated and mature than you. Terrorism involves the selection of innocent civilians as targets.

Yet you offer no independent definition. I have supplied two which make no mention of 'innocent civilians'; which innocent civilians, by the way, were the major victims of the Tokyo fire bombing and the two nuclear blasts carried out by the US.

Like I said -- you are profoundly ignorant. You simply chose the most simplistic definitions because you are very simplistic, and you hand chose them in such a way as to limit the full extent of the implications because
you are dishonest.

With him, it's not just that. He just can't help himself.

Trust me.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am simply far more educated and mature than you. Terrorism involves the selection of innocent civilians as targets.

Yet you offer no independent definition. I have supplied two which make no mention of 'innocent civilians'; which innocent civilians, by the way, were the major victims of the Tokyo fire bombing and the two nuclear blasts carried out by the US.

Like I said -- you are profoundly ignorant. You simply chose the most simplistic definitions because you are very simplistic, and you hand chose them in such a way as to limit the full extent of the implications because
you are dishonest.

With him, it's not just that. He just can't help himself.

Trust me.

Extremists are very unhappy people. That is why they are extreme. When a people hate themselves, they too often blame the entirety of their own general culture, and so find common cause with those, like Islamists, who are out to destroy it. It's just nihilistic rage born of lack of self worth.