CDZ The US is a terrorist state. Discuss

[emilynghiem]

Why not address the specific issues in why these cause harm when abused?

Because your arguments are too obtuse and do not address the given definition of terrorism, nor have you supplied a definition in lieu.

Thank you for the invitation cnm

Can we start with this rough proposal:

How about the abuse of armed force to attack and terrorize civilian populations outside publicly established rules of
law enforcement and engagement between military forces, in order to seize political control over those populations
by deliberately violating due process, separation of powers by checks and balances, and laws against collective punishment.

Can you edit that to something that reflects what you need it to include, and I'll do the same, until we arrive at a comprehensive definition we can both work with. Thanks!

 

[cnm]

How about the abuse of armed force to attack and terrorize civilian populations outside publicly established rules of
law enforcement and engagement between military forces, in order to seize political control over those populations
by deliberately violating due process, separation of powers by checks and balances, and laws against collective punishment.

I'm happy with the definition I gave in the OP. If you want to invent another definition of terrorism, well, fill your boots. But how will it help constructive discussion of the US' delivery of state terrorism?

 

[cnm]

Can you edit that to something that reflects what you need it to include, and I'll do the same, until we arrive at a comprehensive definition we can both work with. Thanks!

I meant an independent definition; that is, one in a dictionary. After all, that is where agreement on the meaning of words is found, no?

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.

 

[sparky]

How about the abuse of armed force to attack and terrorize civilian populations outside publicly established rules of
law enforcement and engagement between military forces, in order to seize political control over those populations
by deliberately violating due process, separation of powers by checks and balances, and laws against collective punishment.

In that objective, America would be seen as the world mafia, vs the world's police

One could well consider terrorism the backlash to global class warfare in said context

In fact, our current quid pro quo impeachment pony show could well be seen repeated world wide for our last centuries political manipulations

I take it you've read Gen Butlers take on all this?

~S~

 

[cnm]

In that objective, America would be seen as the world mafia, vs the world's police

Always. Police answer to a court.

 

[sparky]

In that objective, America would be seen as the world mafia, vs the world's police

Always. Police answer to a court.

Which could be seen as the UN cnm.....who's resolutions ,sanctions, or whatever other collective stances are rather biased...

~S~

 

[emilynghiem]

Can you edit that to something that reflects what you need it to include, and I'll do the same, until we arrive at a comprehensive definition we can both work with. Thanks!

I meant an independent definition; that is, one in a dictionary. After all, that is where agreement on the meaning of words is found, no?

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.

Dear cnm
It depends on what people agree to.
For example, if people AGREE to dictionary definitions of Christianity or Buddhism as religions, that's fine to use that.
But I know people personally who DO NOT AGREE such systems are "religions."
I know Christians and Buddhists who believe these are universal laws that are true for everyone, and don't see them as "religions of choice."

Now for you and me, if you are happy going with textbook/dictionary definitions that's fine for you.

I believe the REAL issues are due process, separation of powers (ie not mixing religious with military authority),
and collective punishment.

If we address those problem areas, then we will naturally resolve issues involving abuse of government including "terrorism" no matter WHAT definition you use.

The abuse of govt IN GENERAL would violate principles in either
the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment (which include due process, right of defense and security, equal protections of the laws from discrimination)
and/or the Code of Ethics for Government Service (which covers conflicts of interest and economic waste)

There are more SPECIFIC ways to ask:
Is the US Government guilty of violating its own laws, principles and process
by committing the same violations that others are accused of?

If we pinpoint acts that have violated the principles of
due process and equal protections vs. collective punishment,
we can discuss and answer this question WITHOUT quibbling over what acts are covered under or counted as terrorism?

 

[sparky]

There are more SPECIFIC ways to ask:
Is the US Government guilty of violating its own laws, principles and process
by committing the same violations that others are accused of?

In the sense that bigger government equates to less freedoms, yes...

If we pinpoint acts that have violated the principles of
due process and equal protections vs. collective punishment,
we can discuss and answer this question WITHOUT quibbling over what acts are covered under or counted as terrorism?

perhaps the PA?

~S~

 

[toobfreak]

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'.

Stir the sand box and all the America hating turds rise to the surface.

 

[sparky]

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'.

Stir the sand box and all the America hating turds rise to the surface.

Yer poster girly would agree....

~S~

 

[cnm]

Which could be seen as the UN cnm.....who's resolutions ,sanctions, or whatever other collective stances are rather biased...

And to which the US refuses to answer.

 

[cnm]

If we pinpoint acts that have violated the principles of
due process and equal protections vs. collective punishment,
we can discuss and answer this question WITHOUT quibbling over what acts are covered under or counted as terrorism?

But a discussion on whether the US is a terrorist state must require a definition of terrorism. Why are you objecting to a very straightforward process like that?

 

[sparky]

But a discussion on whether the US is a terrorist state must require a definition of terrorism

from the bowels of the 'net>>>


What is the original definition of terrorism?

In the American definition, terrorism can never be inflicted by a state. ... Interestingly, the American definition of terrorism is a reversal of the word's original meaning, given in the Oxford English Dictionary as "government by intimidation". Today it usually refers to intimidation of governments.May 7, 2001

&&&&>>>
Types of Terrorism

Dissent terrorism, which are terrorist groups which have rebelled against their government. Terrorists and the Left and Right, which are groups rooted in political ideology. Criminal Terrorism, which are terrorists acts used to aid in crime and criminal profit.

&&&>>
What is the concept of terrorism?

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols).

&&>>>
What are the three key elements in the definition of terrorism?

The definition contains three key elements: 1. the essence of the action (deliberate use of violence); 2. the underlying goal (achieving political ends); and 3. the object of the attack (civilian targets). The first two elements are largely (though not entirely) accepted elements of most definitions of terrorism.Oct 31, 2013


and finally, the definitions consideration by others is debated>>>>
Why the world needs an agreed definition of terrorism (part 2)

~S~

 

[cnm]

Why the world needs an agreed definition of terrorism (part 2)

The US will be too embarrassed for that to ever happen.

 

[gtopa1]

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.”

​

It is only terrorism if a Maori eats you, Pakeha.

 

[cnm]

I gave Chambers' definition in the OP.

Here's Merriam-Webster's -

terrorism

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
​

Quite unacceptable to US interests of labelling others as terrorists while avoiding the label itself.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear fncceo
I would understand this if you were saying suicide attempts that fail aren't technically suicides if the person didn't die.

But these terrorist attacks DO kill, maim and harm people and DO terrorize populations affected by them.

Just because the group doesn't get the DEMANDS they want from terrifying others,
doesn't mean their acts don't constitute terrorism.

That's like me telling you even if kidnappers don't get the ransom they demand,
their acts of kidnapping still count as kidnapping. Sorry!

However, if you don't agree to use the term "terrorism" the same as other people mean by it,
are you okay with calling this political violence or militant protests?

What do you call the acts of using armed or military force by "unregulated" groups
to take control politically.

Is there a different term you would use instead of "terrorism"?

 

[emilynghiem]

If we pinpoint acts that have violated the principles of
due process and equal protections vs. collective punishment,
we can discuss and answer this question WITHOUT quibbling over what acts are covered under or counted as terrorism?

But a discussion on whether the US is a terrorist state must require a definition of terrorism. Why are you objecting to a very straightforward process like that?

I'm saying you are posing your question in a way that is going to get entangled in definitions.

I would first recommend pinpointing which acts do or do not respect which standards on due process, collective punishment, etc.

Once you get the basic principles defined and ironed out,
then you can use those points to address what is or what isn't the problem with "terrorism"
and which actions by the US did or did not violate the same laws that terrorism is rejected for violating.

I would add one more step in the process.

cnm if you don't understand why this would help,
if you compare this approach in religion, it's the equivalent of
* people arguing whether GOD exists or not when they don't agree on what GOD means first
* vs. distinguishing different aspects of God (as wisdom or universal truth, as divine love,
as perfect good will, as laws of nature or the universe/creation, or source of life)
FIRST, so people can AGREE which terms to address in WHICH CONTEXT
* BEFORE applying each context and meaning back to the term "God" so that term
covers ALL the other aspects and applications but without confusing one with another

 

[mudwhistle]

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.”

​

I can't speak for the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration......both are enemies of Trump.....but the only people that have anything to worry about now are people that are doing things they shouldn't be doing.

 

[sparky]

both are enemies of Trump.

man, that list just grows like weeds in the garden....~S~