What other countries were we going to invade?

[Universe Prince]

And what i am saying is that wars between nations and the fear and trepidation that ensues are not on the same plain as acts of terrorism such as OKC and WTC. The actors are different. Sanctioning is different. Authorization is different.

Okay, let's try a lesser question. Do you believe the U.S. uses terror, not terrorism, terror as a tactic?

Your analogy seems to place a SWAT team on the same footing as home invaders. And they aren't.

Indeed. One can shoot back at home invaders without fear of being charged with murder. But what does the SWAT team do? They bust in loudly, point large firearms at people, seeking to disorient and intimidate. If criminals did this, they'd be charged with all sorts of crimes, possibly even murder if they killed someone trying to defend himself. SWAT teams, on the other hand, have authorization because they're police, and if they kill someone trying to defend himself, they are just doing their jobs. Indeed, not the same at all.

[Amianthus]

SWAT teams, on the other hand, have authorization because they're police, and if they kill someone trying to defend himself, they are just doing their jobs. Indeed, not the same at all.

SWAT teams have authorization based on a court order.

[Universe Prince]

SWAT teams have authorization based on a court order.

That they can get because they're law enforcement. And if the aftermath of the Kathryn Johnston case is any indication, those warrants are not always justified.

[BT]

I guess when terrorists have to get court orders before they can strike, then the situations might be the same.

[Universe Prince]

That's cute, BT, but you didn't answer my question.

[Amianthus]

That they can get because they're law enforcement.

Are court orders for searches granted to any entities other than law enforcement?

[Amianthus]

But since you want to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'll ask again, if the point of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to frighten and intimidate the Japanese into surrender, then what was it?

"If you can create sufficient fear in your enemies, you may not have to fight them. Always remember that terror is a form of communication." -- Dukhat, as quoted by Delenn

[Xavier_Onassis]

Every country that has nuclear weapons since 1946 has used them as nothing other than terror to scare any other countries from attacking them.

[_JS]

That they can get because they're law enforcement.

Are court orders for searches granted to any entities other than law enforcement?

The U.S. Government has conducted programs that have included illegally opening mail, placing wiretaps, and conducting surveillance on thousands of Americans for many decades of the Cold War.

I always chuckle a little when the information gathered by the Stasi is looked upon in horror when the Church Committee and many other investigations have shown that the United States ("freedom loving" as we are) has been just as intrusive and fanatical when it comes to watching her own citizens.

[Universe Prince]

Are court orders for searches granted to any entities other than law enforcement?

Not that I'm aware of. And I'm not saying there should be.

[BT]

That's cute, BT, but you didn't answer my question.

Whether the US uses terror as a tactic?

Are sentencing guidelines terror?

Are smoking warnings on cigarette packs terror?

Are weather reports terror?

I think you are bastardizing the term.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I always chuckle a little when the information gathered by the Stasi is looked upon in horror when the Church Committee and many other investigations have shown that the United States ("freedom loving" as we are) has been just as intrusive and fanatical when it comes to watching her own citizens.

====================================================
The Stasi was far more numerous than anythng the US has ever had. It was something like one of every five East Germans spying on the other four. They may have done the same things in the US, but they did it much less often.

I agree that it is a bad thing to spy on fellow citizens.

[Universe Prince]

Whether the US uses terror as a tactic?

Are sentencing guidelines terror?

Are smoking warnings on cigarette packs terror?

Are weather reports terror?

I think you are bastardizing the term.

Because smoking warnings on cigarette packs are not terror, I'm bastardizing the term even though I never applied it to something so mundane? That's weak BT. And it still doesn't answer the question. You're evading. Asking if weather reports are terror is not in the same ballpark, or even the same city as my question unless you're trying to equate keeping the "nuclear option" on the negotiating table with a weather forecast. In which case the redefining, gelatin-like shifting and bastardizations would be occurring on your end, not mine. Don't blame me for your apparent unwillingness to answer the question.

[BT]

Am I wrong in understanding your concerns for keeping the nuclear option on the table and labeling that action as a terror tactic is not equivalent to a worrisome label, weather report or sentencing guideline. All instill fear in some people, and that modifies their behavior. And isn't that the essence of terror and terrorism?

Using that definition, the global warming campaign is an act of terror.

[Universe Prince]

Am I wrong in understanding your concerns for keeping the nuclear option on the table and labeling that action as a terror tactic is not equivalent to a worrisome label, weather report or sentencing guideline.

I'm not sure if you are wrong in understanding or not because I'm not sure I understand that sentence. Foolhardy fellow that I am, I will attempt to respond anyway.

I'm not sure what concerns you're talking about, as I do not recall mentioning in this discussion being concerned about keeping the "nuclear option" on the table. I believe I merely mentioned that we keep it on the negotiating table as a terror tactic. And by terror tactic I mean intimidation through fear of use of violent force, not as a gentle warning.

I'm not sure why you seem to keep trying to make this about me. Either the U.S. uses terror as a tactic in war, foreign policy and the like or it does not. Seems to me that the U.S. does in fact do this. You seem squeamish about this question. Apparently you are reluctant to deny that the U.S. uses terror, and at the same time, apparently you are uncomfortable with acknowledging that it does. Either way, the only thing you seem certain about is that there is something wrong with me. You keep accusing me of shifting and changing things while you're the one squirming around, avoiding answering a yes or no question. In any case, I see no reason for this to be a personal matter. Again, either the U.S. uses terror as a tactic in war, foreign policy and the like or it does not. Whether I have any concerns about the matter is entirely irrelevant to the question.

All instill fear in some people, and that modifies their behavior. And isn't that the essence of terror and terrorism?

Using that definition, the global warming campaign is an act of terror.

No, that is not the essence of terror or terrorism. A threat of force and/or violent action is not the same as a weather report or a health warning on a pack of cigarettes. It's not even close. Making sure enemies and/or people with whom we negotiate know that we are willing to use nuclear weapons if we have to or want to is not at all similar to trying drum up concern about global warming. You're just taking nonsense. And still evading the question.