DoomYoshi makes a good point in his recent HK thread.
America (along with other Western powers) has directly funded and supplied terrorists working in Libya, Palestine and Syria, as well as directly waging terror campaigns in nations such as Yemen and Pakistan, conducting cyber warfare against nations such as Iran and China, and fomenting unrest in nations such as Ukraine, the former USSR and Cuba. In which year will America become the world's largest state backer of terrorism, if it hasn't already? Is its state terrorism likely to increase or decrease as Chinese and (maybe) Russian world influence grows?
Not to mention America's military alliance with and direct engagement alongside the East China Sea pirate nation formerly known as the Japanese Empire.
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.
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.
CALICO CAT
IN THE HANDS OF JAPAN
CLAIMS SHE'S A PAWN
BUT I AIN'T A BLIND MAN
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
France has it's hands covered in blood also, Not just in Syria..... they started State Sponsored Terrorism close to 30 years ago
July 10th 1985: French government blows up Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior
Wednesday, , 2013 By Joseph Iddison
Twenty-eight years ago today, French secret service agents blew up the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior, killing one man. The tragedy took place in Auckland harbour.
The boat – named after a North American Indian prophecy – was built in 1955, initially serving as a fishing trawler in the North Sea. It was later launched as the Rainbow Warrior in 1978 and was due to lead a flotilla of boats to Mururoa Atoll in the Pacific to protest against French nuclear tests before the assault occurred.
According to Greenpeace, “It was an instance when a government chose to respond to peaceful protest with deadly force.”
The incident saw the death of Fernando Pereira, a Portugal-born Greenpeace photographer. He had joined the Rainbow Warrior crew in order to document the French nuclear testing and bring his camera skills to a mass audience. The French government has never officially apologised to his family.
Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, two French agents who had posed as Swiss tourists in order to carry out the attack, were caught and detained by New Zealand authorities. Charged with manslaughter, they were sentenced to 10 years in jail.
They only served two years of the sentence after the French government intervened, threatening to impose trade embargoes with New Zealand. Prieur and Mafart spent the majority of their sentences in France, as part of an agreement between the French and New Zealand governments and Greenpeace. One commentator described the act and subsequent political events as “state sponsored terrorism”.
On the 25-year anniversary of the attack in 2010, Nine News reported that French agents might have been spying on the ship’s layout, with the two bombs seemingly causing devastating damage in unusually quick time. Indeed, the Rainbow Warrior sank just four minutes after the second bomb was detonated.
Some even accused the Australian government and forces of contributing to the impact of the attack, with the authorities detaining other French agents for only 24 hours before being released.
Reaction and perspective
Greenpeace replaced its lost vessel with a new ship, and for 22 years, the second Rainbow Warrior assisted in the institution’s campaign against nuclear testing. The campaign group said, “In 2011, the new Rainbow Warrior – the world’s first purpose-built environmental campaigning ship – readied herself to carry on the original Rainbow Warrior’s spirit.”
The man in charge of the French intelligence service at the time of the Rainbow Warrior sinking 28 years ago said the late François Mitterrand, the French president at the time, had personally given the operation the go-ahead. In extracts from the 23-page document published by Le Monde, Admiral Pierre Lacoste, who headed France’s Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE) describes a meeting with Mitterrand on May 15, 1985, two months before the attack.
“I asked the president if he gave me permission to put the neutralisation plan into action”, he wrote.
“He gave me his agreement while stressing the importance he placed on the nuclear tests. I did not go into greater detail on the plan, as the authorisation was explicit enough.”
Lacoste remained adamant he would not have launched such an operation without the personal authorisation of the president.
Greenpeace has long been an opponent of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. In 2002, Greenpeace activists sought revenge for the Rainbow Warrior event by attacking a French challenger. The 25-metre yacht, owned by the Defi Areva team, was scheduled to compete in the Louis Vuitton Cup, the challengers’ series for the America’s Cup, before a motor-powered dinghy crashed into it.
Defi Areva’s sports director Pierre Mas described the event as “an act of terrorism”.
Ironically, were Defi Areva to have won the competition, they would have taken on Team New Zealand for the America’s Cup in February 2003.
Legacy
Although the incident remains a tragic memory, there were several positive outcomes for green activism and idealism. The ship’s sinking was a huge propaganda victory for green institutions and followers everywhere. This, along with the panic unleashed by the catastrophe at Chernobyl in 1986, saw Greenpeace’s membership triple, whilst environmental concerns saw broader and prioritised recognition from many governments across the world.
After the bombing in Auckland harbor, the ship was given a resting place at Matauri Bay in New Zealand’s Cavalli Islands, where it has become a living reef, attracting marine life and recreational divers.
The scandal led to the resignation of Charles Hernu, the French defence minister, and Lacoste’s departure from the DGSE. To this day, it tarnishes France’s image in the South Pacific and is considered the DGSE’s worst post-war failure.
Along with the resignations and embarrassment to the French government and military, reputations have long since struggled to be resurrected.
The man who coordinated the operation, Louis Pierre Dillais- a former lieutenant-colonel in the French Secret Service, is now living in Washington D.C and working for the giant Belgian Arms Maker FH Herstal. The company sells weapons to the United States Special Forces and i bet are/were shipping them to ISIL in Syria
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.
Phatscotty wrote:could not all state-led force be identified as terrorism?
For a tactic to be labeled terrorist, the act of violence has to intentionally target mostly civilians.
E.g. when the US imposes economic sanctions on Iraq, which during the post-Gulf War years causes many innocent people to die, this is not considered terrorism. The US didn't intend for such results (but yeah, they kinda did; they want Iraqis annoyed at Hussein from US sanctions).
Taxation entails terrorism: striking fear through coercion into civilians' minds if they do not obey.
At this point, 'terrorism' becomes arbitrarily defined. So, you'll see Americans, especially in political science and international relations, define terrorism as "not state-sponsored," "targets innocent civilians--regardless of their degree of support of political parties which victimize other people, targets off-duty soldiers are nonetheless occupying a country (Iraq, AFG), targets police officers who are imposing the diktats of the occupying force, etc."
It gets pretty silly. "Terrorism" for many means "acts of violence against innocent people for a political goal which I do not like."
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.
ISIS is quite orderly. They wear nice uniforms, always leave someone alive to tell their misdeeds, make sure that they have a foreigner in the video to bring their acts closer to home, inform the media of their chemical weapons.
It's almost as if...no...America wouldn't do that.
mrswdk wrote:
lol, so the police are terrorists for punishing law-breakers?
The police do not exist to punish law breakers. That task is up to juries, courts and prisons.
The purpose of the police is to maintain the status quo and to secure and protect the power of the State. In other words, the police don't serve the public, they serve the State. It's right there on the side of the police cars- "To Protect and serve" except they omit the caveat "The State", which is who they are really around to protect and serve.
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.
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
But what if im CHAOTIC GOOD........
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.
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.
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?
I agree with you patches, but theoretically the people and the state are synonymous. Well, they used to be. That is the problem, the state no longer represents the people. Democracy is dead.
“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.”
I just love the fear-mongering. Show me the risk analysis, Rogers. Make me believe. Oh wait, I'm not the majority, so let me flip hats. I can't believe these god damn foreigners and interweb hacksters are damaging our economy and wreaking havoc on the nation! There needs to be a law against this! Whatever it is, just pass it! And somebody bomb something! This is ridiculous! The US must act preemptively.
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.
When it comes to taxation, you voluntarily participate in your society and do so well aware that participation comes with a membership fee (taxes). If you have a problem with being a part of American society and paying the accompanying taxes then you could always move to another country, or find somewhere where you can live outside of societal institutions (disappear into a nature reserve and live a life of subsistence, go live on the streets etc.). If you decide that you'd rather be a part of American society than do this then you have made your choice.
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?
Those Chinese guys are wearing military uniforms.
The police here certainly play a role in guarding state power (e.g. if you post too many dissident things online you will eventually receive a stern talking to from the police), but the examples you (and others) have shown me from America look more like a government obsessed with interfering in the lives of its citizens, and a police force that is not properly kept in check, than one trying to squash opposition to state power.
That said, I did hear something about American 'free speech zones' that sounded pretty 1984.
