Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

It is a simple mind that thinks it can answer all that with some reference to something else.

That is called deflection.

The US launched a massive terrorist war in Vietnam that spilled into Laos and Cambodia in the early 1960's.

It launched a terrorist attack on Iraq in 2003.

A terrorist attack that directly led to the empowerment of ISIS.

The US supports the Saudi dictatorship that spreads fundamentalism.

The US overturned Iran's democratically elected government which gave us the current fundamentalist government. Another nation involved in the dissemination of fundamentalism.

What does it take for a person to condemn the US and understand it is the root of the problem?

I see a pattern here. When you make an argument you just pick the strongest word de jour and characterise your opponents as such.

So any military action you disapprove of is a terrorist attack..

Anybody powerful is a dictator.

I'm eagerly awaiting this list to expand? Now when I'm disagreeing with you, am I a dictator or terrorist? Perhaps a devil? Or am I a mass murderer?

I think terrorism on a massive scale is pretty bad. The US premeditated and unprovoked attack of Iraq was terrorism on a massive scale. It is not ALL MILITARY ACTIVITY. It is one act of massive terrorism.

I think rounding people up at random and torturing them in the hopes that some know something is bad.

A dictator is one who yields dictatorial power.

They give orders and people either comply or are pushed out and somebody else complies.

Take off your distorted glasses and see the world as it is.

How the fuck can you characterize any US invasion as terrorism? I'm seriously wondering. It's nuts.

In what way has the US military actions main goal to create terror? If that was the goal why bother putting boots on the ground? Why not stick to drones? Also... they've gone out of their way to avoid civilian targets. Terrorism is always indiscriminate. USA also stops an attack when the mission is complete. Terrorists don't.

You keep labelling non-dictators as dictators. So I have no idea what you think that word means

 

[untermensche]

How the fuck can you characterize any US invasion as terrorism? I'm seriously wondering. It's nuts.

How can you not?

How the FUCK can you possibly not?

A deliberate unprovoked uninvited violent attack to change a government.

Terrorism.

Calling it less is to excuse it.

I don't excuse one bit of it.

It was terrorism to Iraqi's and utter contempt to the US military for giving it a mission of terrorism, which it will do when ordered.

I suppose when the terrorism is so large some can't even see it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My approach is to not commit massive acts of terrorism.

You realize most of the terrorism has been committed by Muslims, not by the US? Calling our actions terrorism doesn't make it so. Most of the deaths during the occupation have been Sunni/Shia fighting, not our actions. Likewise, most of the deaths during the time after Desert Storm was Saddam selling needed food to buy weapons and even deliberately letting his people suffer so those who didn't look carefully at the situation would blame the US.

Simple test: He never spent all the money he had available, thus shortages are his fault.

My approach is to not round people up randomly and start torturing them.

We don't.

My approach is to not force governments onto people with a gun at their head.

No, that's the Muslim route.

And no fucking majority in Iraq ever got to choose their government.

Try again.

All they had was the same shit Americans get.

A choice between two people they do not know.

The US pumped massive amounts of money INTO ADVERTISING not food and water to get US selected candidates elected.

In a fractured country under brutal military occupation the people had no say at all.

Who is saying the election was rigged?

Or are you saying it's rigged because people didn't vote the way you wanted them to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This insane crime against humanity allowed ISIS to gain power since after the US invasion and decision to disband the Iraqi military many Iraqi military leaders in need of a job joined ISIS. The US also left huge amounts of weapons that ISIS took. What we still see today in Syria is a direct result of the US terrorist attack. It has continued so long because the US allowed ISIS to get so powerful. It gave ISIS well trained military leadership and plenty of cash and weapons.

Almost as if the US wanted this.

And you say Muslims are the violent and dangerous people?

In other words, we were supposed to leave Iraq under the thumb of the oppressors?

Since you apparently don't realize what the situation was like over there: The majority of the population was being oppressed by a small minority. They had all the positions of power--including in the military. To not remove them would leave them in position to keep oppressing.

When we kicked them out they joined an organization that sought to oppress the people. And, as usual, you favor oppressors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How the fuck can you characterize any US invasion as terrorism? I'm seriously wondering. It's nuts.

How can you not?

How the FUCK can you possibly not?

Because we speak English.

A deliberate unprovoked uninvited violent attack to change a government.

Terrorism.

Deliberate? yes.

Unprovoked? It's called history. Pay attention to it rather than your faith. You'll find there was plenty of provocation.

Uninvited? Criminals never invite the cops to deal with them.

Violent? Yes. Taking down large criminal enterprises usually is violent.

Terrorism? You obviously do not understand the word. The fundamental characteristic of terrorism is attacks on non-combatant targets in order to cause fear to make people behave in the fashion you want.

The closest our actions came to terrorism was the use of overwhelming force to get Iraqi soldiers to give up without a fight. Soldiers are not non-combatants, this isn't terrorism.

I suppose when the terrorism is so large some can't even see it.

Get a dictionary.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How the fuck can you characterize any US invasion as terrorism? I'm seriously wondering. It's nuts.

How can you not?

How the FUCK can you possibly not?

A deliberate unprovoked uninvited violent attack to change a government.

Terrorism.

No, it's not. Its a conventional war. The aims are different. Terrorism is when one side knows they can't win in a fair fight so they resort to harassing the enemy until they stop. USA has the most powerful army in the world with a democratically elected leader. Nothing they do will ever be terrorism.

Terrorism is a method by which to put political pressure on a group without war. As soon as the conventional war has started we use other words.

Just look the word up.

Calling it less is to excuse it.

No, it's not.

I don't excuse one bit of it.

It was terrorism to Iraqi's and utter contempt to the US military for giving it a mission of terrorism, which it will do when ordered.

I suppose when the terrorism is so large some can't even see it.

Here's the problem. You're using it as a value judgement. Rather than a type of activity. Terrorism isn't a value judgement. It's a description of an activity.

By calling what USA is doing terrorism, you're also implying, somehow, that they're the scrappy underdog, desperately fighting for it's existence. They're not. They're the most powerful country on Earth.

Terrorism is a type of political pressure you resort to when you're NOT powerful and NOT at war.

 

[repoman]

Nazis were not terrorists.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nazis were not terrorists.

They certainly used terror tactics to stay in power. It's become standard operating procedure for weak dictators nowadays. They're using the method because they are so politically weak, and do NOT have the support of the people. USSR used the same strategy to keep their people under control.

 

[untermensche]

Nazis were not terrorists.

They hung because they were.

If there were some greater power than the US then GW Bush and the others who planned and ordered MASSIVE US terrorism would have hung too.

Some think it isn't terrorism if it is MASSIVE.

Some think it isn't terrorism if you use tanks and planes.

Some have NO HUMAN MORALITY. The starting point for morality is that all lives have equal value but actions do not.

 

[untermensche]

No, it's not. Its a conventional war.

Whether such a thing exists is debatable. There are aggressive wars and defensive wars. Sometimes you can have a war between two aggressors. This was PURE AGGRESSION against a helpless population. The US was not being attacked in any way or in any known danger of being attacked.

This was using a huge military to commit terrorism. It is sending your military half way around the globe to commit terrorism.

You have a blind spot in your morality when it comes to US crimes.

YOU HAVE A BLIND SPOT IN YOUR MORALITY WHEN IT COMES TO US CRIMES!

YOU HAVE A BLIND SPOT IN YOUR MORALITY WHEN IT COMES TO US CRIMES!!!

The aims are different.

The aims of the US terrorists were to get the entire nation to submit, come in and change the government to the US's liking. It bombed and killed (killed many children and civilians) and kidnapped and tortured. It destroyed an entire modern nation.

It is terrorism.

It is terrorism even if you use jets and drones.

Terrorism is when one side knows they can't win in a fair fight so they resort to harassing the enemy until they stop.

It depends on the goals.

In some cases it is called noble resistance. Fighting for freedom. Like the Palestinians.

USA has the most powerful army in the world with a democratically elected leader. Nothing they do will ever be terrorism.

There is the TOTAL FUCKING IGNORANCE in a nutshell.

It is pure stupidity but at least you were honest.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Whether such a thing exists is debatable. There are aggressive wars and defensive wars. Sometimes you can have a war between two aggressors. This was PURE AGGRESSION against a helpless population. The US was not being attacked in any way or in any known danger of being attacked.

This was using a huge military to commit terrorism. It is sending your military half way around the globe to commit terrorism.

You have a blind spot in your morality when it comes to US crimes.

YOU HAVE A BLIND SPOT IN YOUR MORALITY WHEN IT COMES TO US CRIMES!

YOU HAVE A BLIND SPOT IN YOUR MORALITY WHEN IT COMES TO US CRIMES!!!

You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to dictionaries.

An aggressive war is still a conventional war. Also, Vietnam clearly wasn't helpless, since they kicked USA's ass. Worth noting is that in the Iraq war Saddam was employing terror tactics in order to control the Iraqui population. When USA was in control they did not.

Can you give me one example of a war between two aggressors? I think you're talking shit. A war always has one side who is the aggressor and the defending one. By definition.

Deciding whether USA's actions are acts of terror, isn't a moral question. Morality doesn't enter into it.

You remind me of this.

"War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength"

The aims of the US terrorists were to get the entire nation to submit, come in and change the government to the US's liking. It bombed and killed (killed many children and civilians) and kidnapped and tortured. It destroyed an entire modern nation.

It is terrorism.

It is terrorism even if you use jets and drones.

The goal of terrorism isn't to get the entire nation to submit. Only the civil government. As soon as the targets are military targets, then it's not terrorism. It doesn't matter if civilians are killed indirectly. If they aren't the primary target, it's not terrorism.

It depends on the goals.

In some cases it is called noble resistance. Fighting for freedom. Like the Palestinians.

Oh, for fucks sake. You're so swept up in propaganda that you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction. Of course the Palestine attacks in Israel are terrorism:

1) They don't have a nation, so anything they do is by definition not conventional war.
2) Their main targets is civilians. It doesn't matter how much of dicks the settlers are are. They'res till civilians.

All you are saying is that the Palestinian terrorist attacks are justified. That's something different entirely.

USA has the most powerful army in the world with a democratically elected leader. Nothing they do will ever be terrorism.

There is the TOTAL FUCKING IGNORANCE in a nutshell.

It is pure stupidity but at least you were honest.

No, I just looked the words up. In a dictionary. Maybe you should give it a try?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

 

[untermensche]

U.S. Army Manual definition terrorism is the "calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies ... [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals." U.S. Army Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Chapter 9, 37 (14 June 2001).

I am arguing using morality and you are arguing with definition.

That is the US Army definition.

The US attack was definitely calculated.

It was unlawful. It was not sanctioned by the UN, in which the US is a willing member and founder.

It was definitely the use of force to inculcate fear and coerce people to surrender so a political change of the US's choosing could take place.

Even if we act like morons and limit our discussion to definitions it was still terrorism.

It was only not terrorism to the people doing it.

Not to the rest of the world and the innocent people getting killed and tortured.

 

[DrZoidberg]

U.S. Army Manual definition terrorism is the "calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies ... [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals." U.S. Army Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Chapter 9, 37 (14 June 2001).

I am arguing using morality and you are arguing with definition.

That is the US Army definition.

The US attack was definitely calculated.

It was unlawful. It was not sanctioned by the UN, in which the US is a willing member and founder.

It was definitely the use of force to inculcate fear and coerce people to surrender so a political change of the US's choosing could take place.

Even if we act like morons and limit our discussion to definitions it was still terrorism.

It was only not terrorism to the people doing it.

Not to the rest of the world and the innocent people getting killed and tortured.

That's not the standard definition used by everybody (except you). What a surprise that the US government have their own special definition. Unless you haven't noticed, USA has the bad habit of calling anybody they don't like terrorists. Because they seem to think they can decide, on their own, what should be lawful in other countries. That's not how law, international law, or it works. This is war on terror/drugs bullshit, and an abuse of the term started by Reagan.

How about not being such a fucking tool for USA? Yes, that's what you are.

 

[untermensche]

It's the US Army definition. You started with definitions. By a US definition, a very widely known definition, it was terrorism.

We are done with definitions.

How is deliberately attacking people and forcing them to change their government not terrorism?

Do you think it was unlawful?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's the US Army definition. You started with definitions.

Who gives a shit what the US army defines it as? Seriously. They don't have that kind of authority. The usage of words is defined by common usage. It can't be dictated from above.

By a US definition, a very widely known definition, it was terrorism.

The US definition of terrorism is complete bullshit. In the "war on terror", US newspeak redifined the word terrorism just so they can do what they want with anybody. It never changed what the word actually means. USA just uses the word wrongly. And so do you.

We are done with definitions.

You can do what you want. But I'm telling you, unless you look up the words you use, nobody is going to understand wtf you are talking about. I certainly don't.

How is deliberately attacking people and forcing them to change their government not terrorism?

It depends what kind of people they are attacking. If the primary target is soldiers it's not terrorism. It might be an immoral or unjustified war. But say that instead of using words that confuse what you mean.

Do you think it was unlawful?

I have no idea how to answer that. Because I don't understand what argument you are trying to make. All I know is that you think the words you are using means something different than what they actually do. Which just leaves me guessing as to what your opinions are. I don't know what they are. So I can't really argue for or against them.

 

[untermensche]

When you are actually able to answer questions about the deliberate and unprovoked attack of the Iraqi people to change their government come back.

Killing people with a bad government is adding misery to misery.

It is not a moral action.

Attacks of nations not attacking you is a violation of the UN Charter.

They are illegal unless the UN Security Council approves.

Those are the rules the US set up.

They cannot claim ignorance.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When you are actually able to answer questions about the deliberate and unprovoked attack of the Iraqi people to change their government come back.

Killing people with a bad government is adding misery to misery.

It is not a moral action.

I never said it was. Wars can be immoral. Germany's invasion of Poland wasn't terrorism... but it sure was pure evil.

I haven't defended or rejected anything on moral grounds. The fact that I'm helping you correctly define USA's various military invasions doesn't mean I'm defending them.

The Haganah were terrorists. But they mostly attacked civilian political targets in the British Palestine Protectorate. So can be argued mostly moral. Terrorism is just a type of method with which to put pressure on a civilian government. It can be moral or immoral, depending on how it's used.

 

[repoman]

So if terrorism is not the right word for violence and invasion by either
A.) large states that are democratic and whipped up mobs of fury or
B.) large states run by a central dictator or
C.) a hybrid of both

What is the right word that captures the essence and nastiness of what they do?

Large violent states have the ability to unfairly single out stateless "terrorist" actors for a greater stigma.

 

[untermensche]

You not correctly defining anything.

You're excusing terrorism.

Some have to be on the receiving end to understand when it is terrorism.

There is no clearer example of state terrorism than the US run attack of Iraq to change it's government by force.

Millions were terrorized for years.

People blown up. Innocent people, totally innocent people, without any due process, dragged from their homes and tortured.

To not call it terrorism is to be incredibly blind.

It shows a real hole where a sense of morality and justice should be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nazis were not terrorists.

They hung because they were.

If there were some greater power than the US then GW Bush and the others who planned and ordered MASSIVE US terrorism would have hung too.

Some think it isn't terrorism if it is MASSIVE.

Some think it isn't terrorism if you use tanks and planes.

Some have NO HUMAN MORALITY. The starting point for morality is that all lives have equal value but actions do not.

They hung for things like Auschwitz, not for being terrorists.