(12-23-2017, 11:29 AM)JackCity Wrote:

(12-22-2017, 02:10 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: OK, so it isn't that a military influences other governments, it's that the US does it more often? What is your argument? Is it only terrorism based on the amount that it's done or not? What about when the UN, which your country is a member, uses their military force to interfere with issues in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, etc.? Your argument is flawed. It's based on the idea that America's actions are inherently bad and therefore so are whatever actions by her military. Your argument is only reliable if you ignore that this literally happens every day by almost all other countries in some form or another. Also, the definition of terrorism doesn't require a military. You're using military to exclusively apply that label to America.

No it's done by big powers with the US being the most insidious offender. Anything in retlatiation is labeled terrorism which of course creates a vicious circle where the US is only there to kill terrorists. 

And again I don't agree with the UN or with the Army they are building. I'm not a blind nationalist. Being Irish doesn't mean I agree with Ireland and how they operate.  

My argument is against the US as a hegemonic power that does as it pleases. By its own definition it is a terrorist. Except we only call certain people terrorists. Theres no "freedom fighters" unless they're on the US side.

You went from defining terrorism as a country that uses its military for political reasons / gains (every country in the world) to being specific to the "big powers", which the US stands atop. Do I understand correctly? You're changing your argument to fit your narrative. You want to look at the US as terrorists, so you're changing your own argument to do it. 

I don't think you're a nationalist. I just think you want to look at this a certain way and you build your argument around it. As for the UN, to which Ireland is a member, uses their military force for political reasons. That would make Ireland no less than an accomplice to terrorism. I was just bring them into it because they fit your initial argument.

I think this last sentence openly shows your bias. You just don't like that the US has the power. Without the US, China or Russia would fill the vacuum. Are those more preferable options? There will always be a dominant society, and the US is the best option available. I'd much rather them not be engaged in war with anyone; I just don't see what they're doing as terrorism.

Also, your definition is not the definition of terrorism.

---