Jump to content

Economic sanctions are terrorism


Winchester

Recommended Posts

Economic sanctions are directed at non-combatants. They are designed to harm people. For instance, the sanctions against Iraq were designed to (among other things) erode water treatment capabilities, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. As with every other state edict, these sanctions are enforced with violence. If you violate them and the government can, it will punish you. If you resist punishment, it will escalate force until you are subdued or dead. Though the violence against the victims is disguised, it is obvious. The intent is to create unrest that topples whatever dictator the US doesn't like (although, as in the case of Saddam, the dictator may once have been put into power through US aid). So this is violence employed against non-combatants to achieve political ends. That's terrorism.

This of course isn't the only terrorism the grotesquely violent and criminal US government engages in, but it is often overlooked, leading us to not sufficiently despise the criminal scum that occupy federal offices.

Edited by Winchester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

La guerre sans fusils.

That is the old french Canadien saying.  Translates to "The war without guns"...

However, war remains war.  You don't aim to win a war by throwing tickles at your ennemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Didacus said:

La guerre sans fusils.

That is the old french Canadien saying.  Translates to "The war without guns"...

However, war remains war.  You don't aim to win a war by throwing tickles at your ennemy.

War is between combatants. The combatants who start the war (the politicians, and their cronies) are usually too cowardly to fight wars, so they send proxy combatants, but the political class intentionally employ methods that target non-combatants. That is terrorism. At the end of every war, all the politicians on all sides involved should be executed, regardless of outcome. This should be the tradition, and it should be optional that non-combatants carry out the executions. This should be the price of war for the political class. If war really is what politicians say, they should gladly pay this price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

War is between combatants. The combatants who start the war (the politicians, and their cronies) are usually too cowardly to fight wars, so they send proxy combatants, but the political class intentionally employ methods that target non-combatants. That is terrorism. At the end of every war, all the politicians on all sides involved should be executed, regardless of outcome. This should be the tradition, and it should be optional that non-combatants carry out the executions. This should be the price of war for the political class. If war really is what politicians say, they should gladly pay this price.

Your thoughts echo one of my own.

End of WWII, the USA should not have dropped bombs on civil targets.  They should have dropped them on military targets...

BUT!  They wanted to show those evil Russians that the USA was willing to hit civilian targets to have an edge on the cold war.  They essentially killed thousands just to show a point...

Two wholes generations had their lives strapped in fear thereafter throughout the entire world.

Talk about terrorism!!

Edited by Didacus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...