Moderator: Community Team
mrswdk wrote:Not to mention America's military alliance with and direct engagement alongside the East China Sea pirate nation formerly known as the Japanese Empire.
AndyDufresne wrote:mrswdk wrote:Not to mention America's military alliance with and direct engagement alongside the East China Sea pirate nation formerly known as the Japanese Empire.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
Phatscotty wrote:could not all state-led force be identified as terrorism?
Phatscotty wrote:could not all state-led force be identified as terrorism?
DoomYoshi wrote:Phatscotty wrote:could not all state-led force be identified as terrorism?
It could be misinterpreted as such. Some force provides order, some provides chaos. I choose to identify terrorism as that use of force which adds chaos.
BigBootyStalin wrote:Taxation entails terrorism: striking fear through coercion into civilians' minds if they do not obey.
mrswdk wrote:lol, so the police are terrorists for punishing law-breakers?
mrswdk wrote:Fine, then 'the police exist to catch law-breakers'.
notyou2 wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Phatscotty wrote:could not all state-led force be identified as terrorism?
It could be misinterpreted as such. Some force provides order, some provides chaos. I choose to identify terrorism as that use of force which adds chaos.
Chaos is evil
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.
mrswdk wrote:BigBootyStalin wrote:Taxation entails terrorism: striking fear through coercion into civilians' minds if they do not obey.
lol, so the police are terrorists for punishing law-breakers?
That's like saying your boss is a terrorist because he fired you for violating company disciplinary policy.
patches70 wrote:mrswdk wrote:Fine, then 'the police exist to catch law-breakers'.
Sure, like in the US where police arrest people for feeding the homeless-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5997,d.cGU
or where the top "law enforcement" enforcement official in the United States declares that it is theoretically legal to drone strike American citizens on US soil-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... 13857.html
There is not a chance in hell that's legal, BTW, but if it ever comes to that you can bet the police won't be arresting the people who push that button or who order that button to be pushed. Because the police only exist to serve, protect and enforce the power of the State, even if that State is engaged in terrorist activities.
And those aren't even the most egregious of the abusive power of the police.
It's the same in every country that has police without exception. The US police, the Chinese police, virtually any country you could name
the police all have the same job, to crush anyone or anything that could or would challenge the supremacy and authority of the State.
Not much difference, is there?
thegreekdog wrote:To be fair, the U.S. directly engages in plenty of activities that could be defined as terrorism.
DoomYoshi wrote:Although according to NSA only China, Russia and Iran are terrorist governments:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-20/foreign-governments-have-hacked-u-s-power-system-nsa-head-says.html
Why are you trying to shut off my water mrswdk?
“This is not theoretical,” Rogers said. Hacking attacks on U.S. networks are “literally costing us hundreds of billions of dollars” and will have “truly significant, almost catastrophic, failures if we don’t take action.”
BigBallinStalin wrote:mrswdk wrote:BigBootyStalin wrote:Taxation entails terrorism: striking fear through coercion into civilians' minds if they do not obey.
lol, so the police are terrorists for punishing law-breakers?
That's like saying your boss is a terrorist because he fired you for violating company disciplinary policy.
The boss-employee analogy is crappy because the employee signs a contract. Relations between civilians and state do not involve such a contract.
Anyway, I'm just sayin' that it's arbitrary. E.g. law-breakers = people who protest. Country A uses its police--and perhaps its military--to forcibly stop the protestors, who are 'innocent' civilians (e.g. those who protested against Qaddafi's regime). Yes, in this context, police can be defined as terrorists because they are punishing law-breakers.
Another example, Iraq can use its police to forcibly discourage news agencies from being too critical about the government. They could even pass a law saying, "don't be so critical," thus the police are punishing law-breakers, when in fact they're using violence against innocent civilians in order to attain some political goal (again, that's called "terrorism").
Note how "law," "innocent," and "civilian" can change under different circumstances (and how observers will flip these definitions around to label a disliked group as "terrorists"). This is way most ignore state-sponsored terrorism and instead (arbitrarily) limit terrorist to substate/nonstate organizations. This makes them feel better about government's using violence against their own citizens.
patches70 wrote:mrswdk wrote:Fine, then 'the police exist to catch law-breakers'.
Sure, like in the US where police arrest people for feeding the homeless-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5997,d.cGU
or where the top "law enforcement" enforcement official in the United States declares that it is theoretically legal to drone strike American citizens on US soil-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... 13857.html
There is not a chance in hell that's legal, BTW, but if it ever comes to that you can bet the police won't be arresting the people who push that button or who order that button to be pushed. Because the police only exist to serve, protect and enforce the power of the State, even if that State is engaged in terrorist activities.
And those aren't even the most egregious of the abusive power of the police.
It's the same in every country that has police without exception. The US police, the Chinese police, virtually any country you could name
the police all have the same job, to crush anyone or anything that could or would challenge the supremacy and authority of the State.
Not much difference, is there?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users