All I can say there Souljah is WOW!
That last post was realy good!
You destroyed my argument.
Wait a second.... you are basing your off of postings and statements of Noam Chomsky. Let me see here.... Noam Chomsky is a celebrated
Linguist
not a miliatry or political expert. Noam Chomsky is a self proclaimed libertarian socialist as well as a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism
anarcho-syndicalism
hmmmm he is calling the US a terristic state..... an anarchist..... hmmmm
Your last post you try to provide
evidence showing that the US supports terrorism, yet you use the musings of a Linguistic anarchist to prove
your point? Now if Mr. Chomsky had somekind of a political or military or a strategist background his words may then actually hold water.
Unfortunately, he is not an expert, he is an anarchist. In a court of law he could not could not be called an expert witness in anything other than in
the field of liguistics,
Now lets examine your supposition that the “Low–intensity Warfare.” that the US uses is a form of terrorism.
Here is the definition that you have asked me to examine
US Army Field Manual
Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (as promulgated in the US Army Field Manual 100-20) as:
... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among
states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use
of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity
conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.
Now here is the definition of terrorism from the same wiki site that you have offered up.
Terrorism is not defined. According to one of the many working definitions, it is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a
strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also
unconventional warfare).
"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life. The
term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to definition of
terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't
belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".
You state that the definitions above are almost the same.... well I guess. They are both in the English language. Other than that there is no
similiarities. So what is your point.
Now you state categorically that the US has performed terroristic acts in the following countries
* Nicaragua
* Chile
* Costa Rica
* Honduras
* Argentina
* Columbia
* Vietnam
* Laos
* Cambodia
Yet of course, you provide no proof or evidence. Are you trying to refer to the Vietnam War? The same war that you have accused others of always
falling back on? Hmmm. I would have expected better of you. Please provide evidence to support your contention that the US has supported terrorism or
have performed terroristic acts in these countries. Show me where the UN, or the World Court have accused and convicted the US of this. I would be
very interested in the read. Thanks ahead of time
