This is in respons to a post in Muslim's Korean congratulations thread.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58557
I decided to start a new thread for the response.

Shouldn't you re-think your naive fantasies.
Being realistic is not being naïve.
What is naïve is claiming an objective view of the status of earth is naïve.

Nobody said it was good or bad. This is simply the status of the world. Wake up, and smell the garbage. It’s everywhere.


WITNESS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE:
America is the Ameriterrorist of the planet earth. Earth is dominated by Ameriterrorism with an iron fist. America, Great Britain, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, and large corporations.

Terrorism as in forceful acts against human rights. We use our terrorism to take away their freedom of speech, freedom of anything. Killing. Mass media manipulation. Genocide. Economic processing zones. Killing. More killing. War. More killing. Coersion. Installing dictators friendly to western business interests. Illegalizing trade with companies that compete against the corporate giants that rule the earth.

A western company can go to foreign soil to manufacture products for free trade. Companies within the country either may not trade products that compete with corporate giants or incur heavily taxed trade so the west can get their money either way. Will these terrorists leave these countries alone, and allow them use their own resources for their own profit? Would you give up billions and billions of yearly revenue for the sake of measly human rights? Not on your life. Might makes right. Golden rule: He who owns the gold makes the rules. Screw human rights. I want my money.

The rich often say that poor people hate the rich because they are jealous, and deep inside, want what the rich have. This is false. Nobody with more than half a brain want any hand in such corrupt lifestyle, and total incompetence. What the rich have is total ignorance and evil. The rich are the biggest morons in the world. The rich claim that poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. This is also false.
All poverty on the planet as we know it points directly at its source. The rich parasites with their invisible hand of capitalism in everybody’s pockets. Human rights violators. Exploitation.

The root of all corruption is nothing more than a paradigm. As soon as you take on the paradigm, you have accepted the dark side. The paradigm of the dark side: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.


This is not to say that in order to amass wealth you have to exploit people, and commit underhanded atrocities. It is completely possible to build wealth without doing so. Exploiters just happen to be the typical rich. It’s way easier, and more fun if you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on others. What these exploiters do not know can and will hurt the earth. I know. Let’s give a baby a live hand grenade, and see what happens to the block.

Amassing money is a skill. So is dancing and playing foosball. Moreover, it is in many ways a precise science. One can be great at this science, and amass oodles and boodles of wealth. All great skills improve with the use of tools. One of the best tools is terrorism. A skilled scientist need not use any tools. But boy oh boy do better tools sure as hell make things much easier.

Many rich people turn the blind eye to their exploitation. Many of them honestly are completely unaware of it. Many are totally unaware of their own corruption.
Let’s take a look at the paradigm again: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.

We know this paradigm is untrue, so what is it?
It is a rationalized justification for exploitative actions.
Huh?
This simply means that corruption is not about outright evil. It is many times not intentional. The brain has a great filtering mechanism. It tends to want thing or do things, and creates justifications for doing them meanwhile blocking anything out that could interfere with such processing.
Huh?
We do not really see ourselves as corrupt. We take on false belief to justify our actions. The thought never occurs to us that our actions are harmful. We are the good guys, we are doing nothing wrong, and we do not even think to question whether or not what we are doing is wrong.

You do not have to believe this paradigm in order to become rich.
This one: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.
^
[]
Yes that one right there. That --[]
The false source of corruption that we previously discussed.
The one that allows us to grab somebody’s head, stuff their face into the mud, and say things like:
“Nobody is oppressing anybody. There is no oppression going on. What oppression? Nobody is inflicting pain and suffering on others. He put his own face in the mud. He is too lazy and apathetic to take is face out of the mud. Nope. No oppression here.”


PROPOSITION: Just because one is adept at the skill and science of amassing money, it does not mean they are adept at the science of human rights and the way the world really works. It does not mean they are aware of what exploitation really is, and how they are exploiting people. It doesn’t make them aware the fact that all the poverty in the world points directly at those scientists of amassing money that are utterly clueless of the implications of their wealth.

CAPITALISM IS GREAT
Most people religiously stand by capitalism. He who makes the rules of the game caters the game to his advantage. Those that created and implemented capitalism used the following justification:
Capitalism: Means of production in private hands. WRONG.
Capitalism: Means of production in our greedy hands. RIGHT.

There are a lot of people who disagree with the terrorism of Ameriterrorica. But they still stand by capitalism like it is a great economic system that = freedom for all. It is not. That is not to say that one cannot use capitalism to become one of them. As difficult as it sounds, there have been many under capitalism that have amassed great wealth. However, this is no different from amassing great wealth in a political/economic system of anarchism. It is not capitalism that allowed them to amass great wealth. It is their use of their skill at amassing wealth that allowed them to do so. Why is doing so easier in capitalist economies? This is true. It is easier. The fact that it is easier is what makes capitalism so bloody flawed. Capitalism simply makes things easier for few people to control more wealth than all the masses put together. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a capitalist system that does not end in a plutocracy. Prevent corruption or don’t prevent corruption. This is still the end result.

Therefore, people come up with other ideas such as communism. Not the greatest economic system out there, but a clear and present threat to the plutocracy. Solution? COMMUNISM = EVIL. Mass media manipulation.
The slaves: “Hmm. Yes indeed. I HATE communists. Where are those bastards so I can kill them.”
The capitalist plutocracy: “I love mass media manipulation that shape the brains of the public for our benefit.”

Sure enough, capitalism is the means of production in private hands. This creates a dependence on the private hands. The result is supposedly competition leading to lower prices. This is a farce. It leads to higher prices, and lower standard of living. This is what academics teaches.
Rich Dad (A totally corrupt mofo, but a financial genius with lots of wisdom to his credit) himself stated it clearly (paraphrase): ‘Academic institutions are training grounds for workers. They do not train people how to be rich. They train people how to work for the rich.”
His poor dad a PHD was broke and in debt. His rich dad, an 8th grade dropout grew wealthier and wealthier.

This simply means that the academic understanding of economics and capitalism are good, but not an understanding of wealth. The global economy is all the countries of the earth put together under one economy. The global economy is a capitalist economy. It is also an economy in which the plutocracy rules the earth with an iron fist inflicting destruction, terrorism, poverty, and the annihilation of human rights everywhere they tread. All for the sake of the endless growth of their affluent lifestyle which grows more and more affluent as the rest of the world grow more and more impoverished.

As the gap widens, standard of living grows worse and worse as more and more are taken away from the public. All public services being slowly taken away one after the other. Education is already being taken away in many countries.

-cs
(Please somebody rewrite this article for me in perfect grammar. Thanks.)

Idle ignorant opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but just remember, opinions are like assholes ...everyone has one! But that doesn't make them right.

Baron Max

Sounds like the thoughts of an ignorant, angry teen that thinks he understand the world.

Let's see.
How the world works?
Everything is nice and roses. The rich do not conduct terrorism. They are our friends that are not oppressing us, but helping us by giving us jobs to work for them. Opportunity. Thank you rich people.

Is that more accurate?

Let's see.
How the world works?
Everything is nice and roses. The rich do not conduct terrorism. They are our friends that are not oppressing us, but helping us by giving us jobs to work for them. Opportunity. Thank you rich people.

Is that more accurate?

No, but it does validate my suspiscion, thank you.

I would volunteer to line-edit the article if the only errors were stylebook-related. But they go much deeper than that.

Most strikingly, you have a dismal understanding of the meaning of the word "terrorism," and your grasp of the essence of "capitalism" is nearly as bad.

I try to avoid being pedantic and assume that our bright readers can find the ideas buried under bad prose. But considering that fears of terrorism and doubts about capitalism are rampant throughout the world as well as right here on SciForums, in this case I feel that getting the words right is key to understanding and debating the issues.

A consensus of scholarly (i.e. not government) definitions of "terrorism" is:Deliberate or negligent targeting of civilian populations and infrastructure With violence of military or paramilitary scope By a force unbeholden to the authority of a state and usually not even hierarchically organized for the purpose of negotiating surrenders or other treaties In order to extort or intimidate the target population and/or its leaders Into supporting goals that are so unpopular among the target population and/or the combatants' mainstream civilian population, and/or so poorly presented as to not even be well understood So that support is believed to be impossible to gain by any other means.Most of your examples of "terrorism" are simply not. Violence by soldiers and other government agents may be war, conquest, occupation, colonialism, etc., but they are not terrorism. Violence against soldiers, other government employees and government infrastructure rather than true civilians may be guerilla war, insurgency, civil war, etc., but they are not terrorism. Non-violent encroachment on other cultures by economics, religion, entertainment, immigration, etc., are not terrorism.

It is important to adhere to these distinctions. So many people want to convince us to engage our resources in a fight against terrorism that we must agree on what we are fighting. Many American extremist leaders have already begun indoctrinating their flocks into thinking that peaceful--albeit unlawful--immigration and the use of drugs their grandparents could buy in pharmacies are part of the "terrorism" problem, and are insidiously diverting resources that might be used in the defense against true terrorism into quixotic social engineering schemes.

As for "capitalism"... all right, distributing the control and resources of production out among the populace instead of concentrating it into a slow-responding, bureacracy-hampered central authority is one of the elements of a capitalist economy. But the central thesis of capitalism is that "capital"--the surplus produced by the economies of scale and division of labor that distinguish the industry of a civilization from that of a village--must be owned, controlled, spent, invested, etc., by the individuals who effect its production rather than removed and delivered to the collective care of an administrative class.

It can thus be seen that the "evils" of capitalism do not accrue to the economic model of capitalism itself, but rather to a perturbation of it called the "corporation." The corporation is a type of centralization of control of capital that evolved after the Industrial Revolution, which leaves some of the rewards of production in the hands of the producers of the surplus--material wealth, ability to vote the stock in our pension funds, etc.--but concentrates the true control of that surplus in the hands of the wealthiest investors who, using the "Multiplier Effect" explained in Econ 101A, inexorably make themselves wealthier and more powerful.

This in effect destroys the capitalist model by creating a new social class with centralized power, filling the same role as the aristocracy in pre-industrial economies. And it must be pointed out that the corporation--and the multiplier effect--is not a natural byproduct of capitalism, it had to be created in intricate detail as a fiction brought to life by... governments. The same central authority that created the power of the earlier generation of aristocrats.

If you want to identify and then decide how to mitigate the ill effects of capitalism, don't muddle the discussion by setting up corporate despots as straw men symbolizing the entire theory of capitalism. And if you want to identify and then decide how to rid the world of terrorism, don't muddle the discussion by including neocolonialism, MTV, subversion of foreign elections, McDonalds, guerrilla attacks against warships, and the military attacks by the government of Israel and the more-or-less democratically elected Hezbollah wing of the Lebanese government on each other's civilians.

What are you talking about?
Either stop goading and crying that this is merely an opinion or get lost.

What exactly is wrong with the article?
What is the truth that the article is missing?
Perhaps it can be adjusted.

Fraggle put it more clearly than I could.

And I'll goad as I please, thank you.

Fraggle is more apparently more patient than myself. I get frustrated that I can't explain things clearly as I tend to tangetialize. Further, in the case of speaking to a young one, and perhaps to my own shame, I tend to model them after myself as a youngster and realize there's simply no pounding sense into their heads as they simply lack the life-experience/data to relate to what is being said.

Fraggle's comments were IMO, and excellent courtique of your article. I personally do not operate as efficiently in that regard, and would break it down into line by line commentary, explaining my objections only halfway, each leading to a whole tangent of having to explain more... blah blah.

Crap I don't have time for this shit anymore. Damnit. I want to do it, but I have to go.

assume that our bright readers can find the ideas buried under bad prose.
You are a TOTAL fucking asshole. How's that for bad prose? Moron.


A consensus of scholarly (i.e. not government) definitions of "terrorism" is:Deliberate or negligent targeting of civilian populations and infrastructure With violence of military or paramilitary scope By a force unbeholden to the authority of a state and usually not even hierarchically organized for the purpose of negotiating surrenders or other treaties In order to extort or intimidate the target population and/or its leaders Into supporting goals that are so unpopular among the target population and/or the combatants' mainstream civilian population, and/or so poorly presented as to not even be well understood So that support is believed to be impossible to gain by any other means.Most of your examples of "terrorism" are simply not. Violence by soldiers and other government agents may be war, conquest, occupation, colonialism, etc., but they are not terrorism. Violence against soldiers, other government employees and government infrastructure rather than true civilians may be guerilla war, insurgency, civil war, etc., but they are not terrorism. Non-violent encroachment on other cultures by economics, religion, entertainment, immigration, etc., are not terrorism.
Basically, you are saying that capitalism as an economic system itself is not a problem. The problem lies in the government sanction of the corporate entity.

Unfortunately, everything you consider not to be terrorism is terrorism. As in terrorizing. War and conquest. Invasion through violence. Nonviolent manipulation and deciet using mass media and propoganda. It is possible to go by your definition of terrorism. It is not impossible to go by this definition of terrorism.

Further, in the case of speaking to a young one, and perhaps to my own shame, I tend to model them after myself as a youngster and realize there's simply no pounding sense into their heads
Total subjective stupidity. You really are a moron.
Stating a case has nothing to do with pounding anything into anybody's heads or catering your delivery to anybody. This is not objective.

1. Expressing opinions in objective logic.
2. Objective interpretaion of the intentions of others without presumptions, and misunderstanding/misinterpreting/misrepresenting what others are saying.

As exemplified in the Official Rules of Debate (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58531).

Except that we don't deliberately or negligently target civilian populations or infrastructure. The civilian deaths and damage, however reprehensible, are, for the most part (as can be expected in any war) accidental. I'm no fan of Bush, Inc., but even I don't consider them terrorists.

Also, our actions ARE beholden to the authority of the state.

oh I see, didn't realize the particular moran I was dealing with or I wouldn't have bothered.

stfu, you fucktard.

if you value the rules of debate, then follow them brightboy.

on, and stfu.

lol.

what a waste of time.

oh I see, didn't realize the particular moran I was dealing with or I wouldn't have bothered.

stfu, you fucktard.

if you value the rules of debate, then follow them brightboy.

on, and stfu.

lol.

what a waste of time.
You're a waste of time get lost.
All you do is use adhom to spport your claims.
You are young therefore, I am right.
Too young, too old, too poor, too rich.

Either stating your case without bias, and present it properly, or get lost.

Except that we don't deliberately or negligently target civilian populations or infrastructure. The civilian deaths and damage, however reprehensible, are, for the most part (as can be expected in any war) accidental. I'm no fan of Bush,

Yes. You do. A powerplant is a civilian target. A hospital is a civilian target.

If you have ever been in the army you will notice that the army is structured to be independent of civilian infrastructure. That's because it is so easy to hit. Big fast juicy targets.

Ever since WW2 total war has become the norm. That is a war that does not differentiate between civilian and military anymore. US Strategy is not different. It was the germans after all who first labeled the allied bombing campaigns with terror attacks.

Except that we don't deliberately or negligently target civilian populations or infrastructure.
WTF are you talking about? Civilian targets are our first targets.
Do you know nothing about war?
Not just war, but American war tactics?
Americans are known for taking out food supply. Milk trucks going to schools for children. Kaboom. Any means necessary. Mass murder of civilians, and other tactics are typical American strategists. Ususally, they do not do it themselves, but fund dictators to do it.

All the bad things that happen in communist countries supposedly because of communism are the result of American sabotoge missions. I'm not saying that communism is good. China is oppressive in its use of communism. The reason America does not like communism is because it screws up their profiteering. Therefore, they use terrorism starting with civilian mass murder.


Henry Ford stated two classes of financiers:
1) Those who profit from war and use their influence to bring about war for profit
2) “constructive” financiers.

Ford Motor, and many U.S. banks and corporations, belongs to the first group.
Ford himself was decorated by Nazis for his service to them.

You're a waste of time get lost.
All you do is use adhom to spport your claims.
You are young therefore, I am right.
Too young, too old, too poor, too rich.

Either stating your case without bias, and present it properly, or get lost.

Lol. Uhm. Interacting with you is purely for amusement's sake, and honestly I couldn't care less where you'd like me to post or not.

So when I feel like stating a case or bothering to be proper, I'll do so. Show you're worthy and I'll be impressed. I'm quite confident though, that you entirely ill-equipped to do so.

Lol. Uhm. Interacting with you is purely for amusement's sak
This idiot clearly admits to trolling.
Interacting purely for amusement sake.
Not partially. PURELY.
That means zero for discussion sake.

Like I said, you have no say. Get lost.

Bad strategy, young fool.

And if you weren't so fucking worthless I'd be happy to converse with you, but alas, you are worthless and sad. You offer nothing of substance to discuss. Paranoid, mislead rantings of a megalomaniac without the goods to back it up.

You're a study of futility, and a leech to boot - at least as far as I can tell from what you post.

So again I'll say, just because I know you love to hear it: I'll post where I like, with no thanks to you whatsoever, you disgusting, fucktard of a wannabe human.

So again I'll say, just because I know you love to.
Changes nothing.
I guess you didn't read what you said: Interacting with you is purely for amusement's sak

This has nothing to do with my lack of substance. Otherwise, we would have seen proof of this.

Therefore, you have 2 choices:
Get lost or get loster.

It appears that the problem in this thread is that people want to live in a world of daisies and roses. Therefore, they do their best to defend it religiously.
It is not a world of daisies and roses. It is a world of might makes right. A world of global terror. More specifically, Ameriterrorismica.

It appears that the problem in this thread is that people want to live in a world of daisies and roses.

No, not true... but your limited perspective cannot process thought beyond this utterly simplistic notion.

Therefore, they do their best to defend it religiously.

Pot I'd like you to meet the kettle, you freakin MORAN. Goddamn you're blind.

It is not a world of daisies and roses.

No you see, but there are daisies and roses along with horror and badness in general. All your short, sorry sight can see however, is the narrow little tip of your nose.

It is a world of might makes right. A world of global terror. More specifically, Ameriterrorismica.

How prolific. Of course you won't defend this stupid idea religiously or anything, you blind cretin. I really wish I could pull your head out of your ass for you, but I'm busy puking on the smell of it.

lixluke- "WTF are you talking about? Civilian targets are our first targets.
Do you know nothing about war?
Not just war, but American war tactics?
Americans are known for taking out food supply. Milk trucks going to schools for children. Kaboom. Any means necessary. Mass murder of civilians, and other tactics are typical American strategists. Ususally, they do not do it themselves, but fund dictators to do it."

How old are you? 12, 13? I'm venturing to guess that you've never met anyone in the military. Because if you had, and they had read what you just claimed, they may not ever speak to you again.

The United States military, as does any state-acting military, operates on the basis of attacking targets based on signifigance, with the signifigance being how much that target enables an enemy nation to harm this country or our allies. We target factories, power plants, military bases, meeting places of military officials, etc. We attack these targets because more disability is inflicted on the threatening nation while civilian casualties are kept at a minimum.

We do NOT make a priority of attacking the civilians themselves, unless the civilians are of a threat that is not associated with a state-acting military. In this case, if the nation that this threat resides in does nothing about the problem after we've requested them to take care of it, we will do the job ourselves. If a terrorist group resides in, let's say, mexico, and the mexican government doesn't do anything about it (either they won't or they can't without our help), we as a nation reserve the right to go into Mexico either solo or with Mexico's cooperation to deal with the threat. This is part of international law. In that case, the civilians we attack (if we must) are not innocent, they have intent to harm.

You know what, I'll give you the chance to vindicate yourself. Cite some hard material to support this claim that we are intentionally targetting innocent civilians, or aiding other nations in doing so.

It's not just about military. Civilians protest. They uprise. Our strategy is either shut them up or take their life. Anything to keep them from going against our iron fist of domination.
It's that simple. Take their land, and set up economic processing zones. Throw the people into the EPZs, and use them for tax free/duty free slave labor. Simple as that.

So that's what you call "backing up your claim"? And you have nerve to call other people "moron, idiot, fucking asshole"? Ah, projection. The sweet irony.

Please, give everyone a break and take your meds.

So that's what you call "backing up your claim"? And you have nerve to call other people "moron, idiot, fucking asshole"? Ah, projection. The sweet irony.
Get lost troll. You don't even know what you are babbling about.

Get lost troll. You don't even know what you are babbling about.

If that were true, it'd make at least two of us, idnit?

lol.

take your meds.

Hey you guys, this is just Cool Skill again, back from under his rock with a new handle. Just ignore him. Sorry I didn't find that out before I posted.

stay off the hard stuff, lixluke!

If that were true, it'd make at least two of us
Speak for yourself. It's not my fault you have no life or education. You didn't even graduate kindergarten.

It appears that the problem in this thread is that people want to live in a world of daisies and roses. Therefore, they do their best to defend it religiously.
It is not a world of daisies and roses. It is a world of might makes right. A world of global terror. More specifically, Ameriterrorismica.
Truth be told, rhetoric only works on polite company.

Most of the course of human history has been decided by the judicious application of a really big rock.

One of the failings of the Internet.

Truth be told, rhetoric only works on polite company.

Most of the course of human history has been decided by the judicious application of a really big rock.

One of the failings of the Internet.

Hahaha!

Most of the course of human history has been decided by the judicious application of a really big rock.
Right. Might makes right. Ameriterrorismica. It is supposedly survival of the fittest. But it is more than just survival. It is total domination by terror.

So ameriterrorismica is just another way to say that nations stand up for themselves. Big f**king deal. ANY SUPERPOWER DOES THIS, the romans, the spanish, the british, just to name a few. There is no such thing as a philanthropic nation, everyone IS out for themselves, it's how competition amongst the human race largely manifests itself. You think this can be changed? You think we can alter the very fabric of human nature that causes this? You can't. We can't. We just let time take it's course. No sense complaining about it, just enjoy life as the individual you are.

lixluke, The 9th, natural wonder of the Universe, a natural vacuum in atmosphere, and it's all between your ears.

Sorry guys i am new hear and i was wondering what this is all about.

whats wrong with america i been to america once and they seemed very nice people

What's going on I guess is that a retarded paranoid schizophrenic is ranting about how the world sucks, and he's getting boo-ed by the audience and heckling them for booing him.

It doesn't really mean much if it is all a similar kind of people who boo someone.

It doesn't really mean much if it is all a similar kind of people who boo someone.

To what "kind of people" are you referring, and why doesn't it matter? Should your comment be taken as an endorsement of the babbling, retarded OP?

No, I am merely saying that you shouldn't take comfort from the fact that a specific group of people agree with each other that share a similar background.

The correlation has a causation. And that could be that you are right, or that you merely share the same cultural background and political ideas.

It would be better to concentrate on the argument. It shouldn't be too difficult with cool_skill. He often leaves huge holes.

So ameriterrorismica is just another way to say that nations stand up for themselves. Big f**king deal. ANY SUPERPOWER DOES THIS, the romans, the spanish, the british, just to name a few. There is no such thing as a philanthropic nation, everyone IS out for themselves, it's how competition amongst the human race largely manifests itself. You think this can be changed? You think we can alter the very fabric of human nature that causes this? You can't. We can't. We just let time take it's course. No sense complaining about it, just enjoy life as the individual you are.
Well right or wrong, at least we understand how things are.
Unlike weedeater, I do not make excuses for it or justifications. What is wrong is wrong. The Romans did it, so it must be ok. It's inevitbale. It's human nature. Blah blah blah. Excuse excuse after excuse.

Stop making excuses for terrorism, and see it for what it is. Pure terror on the people of earth. Live with it, leave the planet, or whatever. But certainly do not run around making rabid excuses for it. How really pathetic indeed.

Furthermore, there is a huge difference between a nation standing up for themselves against an oppressive terror like the United States and actually being the oppressive terror.

A true First World provides individuals with the proper tools and education for personal development and independence. The USA provides the individual with total desperation and suffering for TOTAL subjugation and dependence. Bow down to your rich white masters. You are no doubt dependent on them.

Especially job lovers running around crying about how they want more jobs. We want jobs. We want jobs. How truly pathetic indeed.

Sorry guys i am new hear and i was wondering what this is all about.

whats wrong with america i been to america once and they seemed very nice people
There are alot of nice people everywhere. America itself as a nation controlled by the plutocracy dominates the globe with pure terror. As weedeater pointed out, countries have been doing this for centuries.
It's life on earth under tyranny. Terror all around you. Rich parasites have their invisible hands of crappytalism in your pockets at this very moment.

It all starts with outright denial.
Oh they are not doing anything?
Where is the evidenc?
That is not evidence. It clearly is fake.
America would not do something like that.


After the denial comes the excuses.
So America would do something like that.
You cannot blame them.
Everybody does it after all.
Excuse after excuse after excuse.
(Note weedeater's entire post is one huge long ranting excuse)
Let's all excuse America while they terrorize the earth.


Then there is Fraggle's amazing definition of terrorism.
If America does it, it is not really terrorism. (Links to dictionary for proof).
If other countries do it to America, only then can it be considered terrorism.

No, I am merely saying that you shouldn't take comfort from the fact that a specific group of people agree with each other that share a similar background.

The correlation has a causation. And that could be that you are right, or that you merely share the same cultural background and political ideas.


I was more saddened yet mildly amused than "comforted", thanks though.

Then there is Fraggle's amazing definition of terrorism. If America does it, it is not really terrorism. (Links to dictionary for proof). If other countries do it to America, only then can it be considered terrorism.I see you're up to your old tricks.

1. Recognizing another person's citation of acknowledged authorities and then using this as a reason to state that he is wrong, as if that is an obvious logical conclusion that your readers will understand.

2. Taking the other person's statements out of context. My point is not that what America does is okay because it's not terrorism but what Al Qaeda does is wrong because it is terrorism. My point is that to combat a stateless terrorist organization whose leaders hide in caves and whose soldiers wear civilian clothing requires a totally different strategy than to combat a nation with a capital city, a presidential mansion and a permanent military headquarters.

I am not excusing America's actions. I am just saying that to lump them in the same category with Al Qaeda's actions simply because we are outraged by both is a fundamental error in analysis that will impede the search for a solution to either.

My point is that to combat a stateless terrorist organization whose leaders hide in caves and whose soldiers wear civilian clothing requires a totally different strategy than to combat a nation with a capital city, a presidential mansion and a permanent military headquarters.

I am not excusing America's actions. I am just saying that to lump them in the same category with Al Qaeda's actions simply because we are outraged by both is a fundamental error in analysis that will impede the search for a solution to either.
I did not in any way put America's actions in the same category with Al Qaeda. I merely put America's actions far beyong the relatively benign actions of Al Qaeda that we deem "terrorism". wooo scary.

I have stated acts in my OP that portrayed the magnitude of terrorism America has and is carrying out throughout earth throught history.
Your misinterpretation is in depicting my description as combating people hiding in caves. I did not even once reference anybody hiding in caves. All the terrorism I referenced in the OP of this thread goes far beyond the scope of minimeanderings about terrorists hiding in caves.
This is not the definition of Ameriterrorismica "I" intended. The use of the word "terrorism" in this thread is as I described in response to your first post here.

America is the Ameriterrorist of the planet earth. Earth is dominated by Ameriterrorism with an iron fist. America, Great Britain, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, and large corporations.

Terrorism as in forceful acts against human rights. We use our terrorism to take away their freedom of speech, freedom of anything. Killing. Mass media manipulation. Genocide. Economic processing zones. Killing. More killing. War. More killing. Coersion. Installing dictators friendly to western business interests. Illegalizing trade with companies that compete against the corporate giants that rule the earth.

A western company can go to foreign soil to manufacture products for free trade. Companies within the country either may not trade products that compete with corporate giants or incur heavily taxed trade so the west can get their money either way. Will these terrorists leave these countries alone, and allow them use their own resources for their own profit? Would you give up billions and billions of yearly revenue for the sake of measly human rights? Not on your life. Might makes right. Golden rule: He who owns the gold makes the rules. Screw human rights. I want my money.

The rich often say that poor people hate the rich because they are jealous, and deep inside, want what the rich have. This is false. Nobody with more than half a brain want any hand in such corrupt lifestyle, and total incompetence. What the rich have is total ignorance and evil. The rich are the biggest morons in the world. The rich claim that poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. This is also false.
All poverty on the planet as we know it points directly at its source. The rich parasites with their invisible hand of capitalism in everybody’s pockets. Human rights violators. Exploitation.

The root of all corruption is nothing more than a paradigm. As soon as you take on the paradigm, you have accepted the dark side. The paradigm of the dark side: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.


This is not to say that in order to amass wealth you have to exploit people, and commit underhanded atrocities. It is completely possible to build wealth without doing so. Exploiters just happen to be the typical rich. It’s way easier, and more fun if you enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on others. What these exploiters do not know can and will hurt the earth. I know. Let’s give a baby a live hand grenade, and see what happens to the block.

Amassing money is a skill. So is dancing and playing foosball. Moreover, it is in many ways a precise science. One can be great at this science, and amass oodles and boodles of wealth. All great skills improve with the use of tools. One of the best tools is terrorism. A skilled scientist need not use any tools. But boy oh boy do better tools sure as hell make things much easier.

Many rich people turn the blind eye to their exploitation. Many of them honestly are completely unaware of it. Many are totally unaware of their own corruption.
Let’s take a look at the paradigm again: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.

We know this paradigm is untrue, so what is it?
It is a rationalized justification for exploitative actions.
Huh?
This simply means that corruption is not about outright evil. It is many times not intentional. The brain has a great filtering mechanism. It tends to want thing or do things, and creates justifications for doing them meanwhile blocking anything out that could interfere with such processing.
Huh?
We do not really see ourselves as corrupt. We take on false belief to justify our actions. The thought never occurs to us that our actions are harmful. We are the good guys, we are doing nothing wrong, and we do not even think to question whether or not what we are doing is wrong.

You do not have to believe this paradigm in order to become rich.
This one: Poverty is the result of fear, ignorance, laziness, apathy, etc. Blame the poor for being poor.
^
llll
llll
llll <---- Yes that one right there. That.

The false source of corruption that we previously discussed.
The one that allows us to grab somebody’s head, stuff their face into the mud, and say things like:
“Nobody is oppressing anybody. There is no oppression going on. What oppression? Nobody is inflicting pain and suffering on others. He put his own face in the mud. He is too lazy and apathetic to take is face out of the mud. Nope. No oppression here.”


PROPOSITION: Just because one is adept at the skill and science of amassing money, it does not mean they are adept at the science of human rights and the way the world really works. It does not mean they are aware of what exploitation really is, and how they are exploiting people. It doesn’t make them aware the fact that all the poverty in the world points directly at those scientists of amassing money that are utterly clueless of the implications of their wealth.

CAPITALISM IS GREAT
Most people religiously stand by capitalism. He who makes the rules of the game caters the game to his advantage. Those that created and implemented capitalism used the following justification:
Capitalism: Means of production in private hands. WRONG.
Capitalism: Means of production in our greedy hands. RIGHT.

There are a lot of people who disagree with the terrorism of Ameriterrorica. But they still stand by capitalism like it is a great economic system that = freedom for all. It is not. That is not to say that one cannot use capitalism to become one of them. As difficult as it sounds, there have been many under capitalism that have amassed great wealth. However, this is no different from amassing great wealth in a political/economic system of anarchism. It is not capitalism that allowed them to amass great wealth. It is their use of their skill at amassing wealth that allowed them to do so. Why is doing so easier in capitalist economies? This is true. It is easier. The fact that it is easier is what makes capitalism so bloody flawed. Capitalism simply makes things easier for few people to control more wealth than all the masses put together. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a capitalist system that does not end in a plutocracy. Prevent corruption or don’t prevent corruption. This is still the end result.

Therefore, people come up with other ideas such as communism. Not the greatest economic system out there, but a clear and present threat to the plutocracy. Solution? COMMUNISM = EVIL. Mass media manipulation.
The slaves: “Hmm. Yes indeed. I HATE communists. Where are those bastards so I can kill them.”
The capitalist plutocracy: “I love mass media manipulation that shape the brains of the public for our benefit.”

Sure enough, capitalism is the means of production in private hands. This creates a dependence on the private hands. The result is supposedly competition leading to lower prices. This is a farce. It leads to higher prices, and lower standard of living. This is what academics teaches.
Rich Dad (A totally corrupt mofo, but a financial genius with lots of wisdom to his credit) himself stated it clearly (paraphrase): ‘Academic institutions are training grounds for workers. They do not train people how to be rich. They train people how to work for the rich.”
His poor dad a PHD was broke and in debt. His rich dad, an 8th grade dropout grew wealthier and wealthier.

This simply means that the academic understanding of economics and capitalism are good, but not an understanding of wealth. The global economy is all the countries of the earth put together under one economy. The global economy is a capitalist economy. It is also an economy in which the plutocracy rules the earth with an iron fist inflicting destruction, terrorism, poverty, and the annihilation of human rights everywhere they tread. All for the sake of the endless growth of their affluent lifestyle which grows more and more affluent as the rest of the world grow more and more impoverished.

As the gap widens, standard of living grows worse and worse as more and more are taken away from the public. All public services being slowly taken away one after the other. Education is already being taken away in many countries.

Except that America is you (and me). If you don't participate in political life, you are as much to blame for the situation as anyone.

Except that America is you (and me). If you don't participate in political life, you are as much to blame for the situation as anyone.

No. Taking part in political life can only be done if you join the corrupt system. You can work in the margins to stay away from the corruption, but that basically means you are powerless to make any change.

Whether I do something about the situation or not, there has to be a situation for me to do something about.
It is of course my decision.

1. America is a terrorist.
2. Their terrorism is not ethical or practical use of earth's resources or treatment of earth's inhabitants.

I can choose to participate or oppose. Either choice I make, I do not deny what they(we) are doing. And I furthermore, do not deny what they(we) are doing is wrong.

Ergo, I created a hypothetical thread about it: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58657

Excellent post FR!

~Raithere

No. Taking part in political life can only be done if you join the corrupt system. You can work in the margins to stay away from the corruption, but that basically means you are powerless to make any change. Define corruption.

~Raithere

"Terrorism as in forceful acts against human rights."

No, you dolt. It isn't.

It's a tactic used to apply political pressure via inspiring terror (frenzied fear) in the population and thusly applying pressure to the pertinent leaders to capitulate to the demands of the asshats creating the terror. At least that's the idea.

But of course, you'll just change the definition to suit your stupidity.

Yes. You do. A powerplant is a civilian target. A hospital is a civilian target.

If you have ever been in the army you will notice that the army is structured to be independent of civilian infrastructure. That's because it is so easy to hit. Big fast juicy targets.

Ever since WW2 total war has become the norm. That is a war that does not differentiate between civilian and military anymore. US Strategy is not different. It was the germans after all who first labeled the allied bombing campaigns with terror attacks.
Completely ignoring lixluke's posts, I'll address yours, which are obviously more coherent.

Powerplants are clearly legitimate targets, not that "legitimacy" really matters to me. Electricity generation is vital to the war effort. Taking it out is perfectly reasonable on the part of the enemy. The attack is not designed to kill civilians, it's designed to shut down electrcity generation. Honestly, I bet the warplanners don't really concern themselves too much with collateral civilian deaths, except when they have to deal with an angry public.

Hospitals are slightly less easy to defend as a target, but if you believe that enemy troops are being housed and treated there, it automatically makes it a military target, even if it is a civilian hospital. Not all armies separate military medical care from civilian medical care, especially when their city is being bombed.

I'll just leave it there.

I did not in any way put America's actions in the same category with Al Qaeda. I merely put America's actions far beyong the relatively benign actions of Al Qaeda that we deem "terrorism". wooo scary. I have stated acts in my OP that portrayed the magnitude of terrorism America has and is carrying out throughout earth throught history. Your misinterpretation is in depicting my description as combating people hiding in caves. I did not even once reference anybody hiding in caves. All the terrorism I referenced in the OP of this thread goes far beyond the scope of minimeanderings about terrorists hiding in caves. This is not the definition of Ameriterrorismica "I" intended. The use of the word "terrorism" in this thread is as I described in response to your first post here.My misinterpretation is due to the fact that you're misusing a word. You have redefined it.

Okay, I retract my accusations of reasoning illogically and my insinuation that you don't follow the rules of discourse. And I am humbled by your ability to withstand my goadings without starting a flame war. You are a decent person and I have maligned you and I apologize.

But as a linguist and an elder it's my duty to be the caretaker of the tools of the species and one of the oldest and most powerful of our technologies is language. We need to maintain it in good order so it continues to serve us or we'll end up like rappers who have to use twelve words to say clumsily what we can say in five and who will never be able to write a history book.

"Terrorism" is already a word. It has a meaning. It's a very useful word with a very useful meaning. It's obviously derived from the word "terror" and loosely it means "to manipulate people by causing them to feel terror." Whether it's one man in Oklahoma City trying to extort the IRS to stop collecting what many of us consider to be illegal taxes, or the self-appointed representatives of the Catholic population of Belfast trying to intimidate the Queen into giving Ulster back to Ireland, or a huge network of Muslims trying to scare Americans into shutting down MTV, terrorism is universally understood to be a tactic used as a last resort by people who consider themselves oppressed against the people they name as their oppressors.

If you want to talk about something else, that's fine. But if you co-opt an important word that's in wide use to mean something different, and then when people struggle to find the commonalities between what they call terrorism and what you call terrorism--to use the power of rhetoric to identify relationships--and then you finally admit that your definition of terrorism doesn't even cover the people who are called terrorists in every newspaper headline in the Western world, you are not using language as a tool of understanding.

The acts by the American government and corporations that you describe are not based in terror. Many of them, while they may cause people suffering of various kinds, don't even inflict terror. To call them terrorism is a misuse of the language.

You can argue against me all you want as the cranky old guy who busts your chops for being a creative young dude. But your misappropriation of the language has caused considerable confusion and as a result your thread has generated as many arguments over misunderstanding as discussions of your ideas. Here's a typical example:"Terrorism as in forceful acts against human rights." No, you dolt. It isn't. It's a tactic used to apply political pressure via inspiring terror (frenzied fear) in the population and thusly applying pressure to the pertinent leaders to capitulate to the demands of the asshats creating the terror. At least that's the idea. But of course, you'll just change the definition to suit your stupidity.I'm not the only person here who respects our language and doesn't want to see it turned into chaos.

If you want to be creative then be creative, but don't just be chaotic. That's what you're doing when you frustrate us by making it nearly impossible for us to comprehend your ideas clearly.

Respectfully,
F.R.

What a load of crap.
Furthermore everyone of your examples is total bias.

Check the dictionary, and do whatever you want.
All of what you and your supposed dictionary describes as terrorism is exactly what America does. Yet in your efforts to explain terrorism you use all examples but America's terrorist actions.

Moreover, all the things that go far beyond the scope of what you consider to be terrorism is still part of America's forceful dominance with an iron fist. You claim such slaighter and massacer, mass media manipulation, sabotoge of civilian facilities does not cause terror. This is a total load of bull. All of it is terror. All of it is terrorism. Ameriterrorismica.

Respectfully,
CS

Your "article" relies on a definition of terrorism that is just one of many that are equally broad and useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

In the legal world where definitions must be concrete they are strongly leaning towards violence for the purpose of instilling terror.

Lightly reading a few of your passages shows quite clearly that you have a value system that is misaligned to human behavior and reality. You're taking a theist tactic of trying to use a powerfully negative concept (terrorism in this case) and creating an emotional adapter to various dissimilar concepts.

All the reviews so far shown this "work" to be a failure, but I am sure there is some bias as well because the opinions of "cool skill" have a very negative reputation that is not hidden or fixed by merely name changing to "lixluke".

Refined reinvention my ass... more like lipstick on a pig.

Are iraqi 'insurgents' terrorists, freedom fighters or partisans?

Your "article" relies on a definition of terrorism that is just one of many that are equally broad and useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

In the legal world where definitions must be concrete they are strongly leaning towards violence for the purpose of instilling terror.

Lightly reading a few of your passages shows quite clearly that you have a value system that is misaligned to human behavior and reality. You're taking a theist tactic of trying to use a powerfully negative concept (terrorism in this case) and creating an emotional adapter to various dissimilar concepts.

All the reviews so far shown this "work" to be a failure, but I am sure there is some bias as well because the opinions of "cool skill" have a very negative reputation that is not hidden or fixed by merely name changing to "lixluke".

Refined reinvention my ass... more like lipstick on a pig.
Irrelevant. You're an idiot.
Terrorism: Any act that is a violation of human rights causing any sort if terror and suffering regardless of any purpose or motive. There could be thousands of reasons for commiting terrorism. The act of terrorism itself is independent of any purpose.

I can pimpslap somebody. That doesn't mean pimpslapping is always an act of slapping for the purpose of X. Pimpslapping is an act of slapping period that could be attributed to any purposes depending on the particular pimpslap incident.

Are iraqi 'insurgents' terrorists, freedom fighters or partisans?

I just talked to a guy who just got back from a year over there. His impression is that it's pretty much sunni's hating on shia, and vice-versa. He seemed to indicate that the Americans are generally secondary targets, and it's the other Iraqis that whoever is trying to kill. I think however, that the common targetting of Iraqi police is terrorism, as its design would seem pretty obvious. Attempt to keep people from becoming police, or kill them if they do such that there's no chance for a government of which they do not approve can become fully operational. Anything is debatable though I suppose.

Irrelevant. You're an idiot.

What a revelation.

My, your ego really has a lot of work to do to compensate for your utter failure in life.

So much so that it redefines any who challenge your retardation as lesser. You're on top of the world, yet still a sorry little loser (which you spend all your waking hours denying to yourself).

And yet the possiblity that YOU are the fucktarded one never seems to come to your pathetic, narrow little mind.

It takes a lot of "idiot" and "moron" assertions to keep that illusion going. It sure would suck for you to have to face the reality in which you live, and actually force yourself to deal with it. Holy shit you might have to deal with the fact that you must change in order to cope with other than the fantasy world you've created for yourself in which YOU are the intellectual dictator.

Of couse the intellectual dictator knows what is relevant and stupid. If his subjects disagree, it matters not - he is the authority.

Have you realized though, you are only the authority of your own mind?

(fucktard)

What a revelation.

My, your ego really has a lot of work to do to compensate for your utter failure in life.

So much so that it redefines any who challenge your retardation as lesser. You're on top of the world, yet still a sorry little loser (which you spend all your waking hours denying to yourself).

And yet the possiblity that YOU are the fucktarded one never seems to come to your pathetic, narrow little mind.

It takes a lot of "idiot" and "moron" assertions to keep that illusion going. It sure would suck for you to have to face the reality in which you live, and actually force yourself to deal with it. Holy shit you might have to deal with the fact that you must change in order to cope with other than the fantasy world you've created for yourself in which YOU are the intellectual dictator.

Of couse the intellectual dictator knows what is relevant and stupid. If his subjects disagree, it matters not - he is the authority.

Have you realized though, you are only the authority of your own mind?

(fucktard)
Get real. You are the idiot that claims the world is daisies and roses while pure ameriterrorism at play. Total brainwashing. You probably watch lots of news that forcefeed opinions to breaindead wackos such as yourself. Ultimately, your ad hom has yet not affected the facts that still remain intact. So sad for you.

Here is a great example of how the world works:

There is no terrorist threat. America creates these threats to invade and enslave.

Look at the nice beautiful land full of resources. Look at those "colored" people living in peace and prosperity. Let's kill them and take their resources. Then use them as vacuum cleaners to suck up all of their resources while they work in slave factories to produce beatiful goods for our use.

What if Americans get mad at America's terror? Let's blow up the twin towers, and blame it on those foreigners. Then we have and excuse to slaughter them all into submission and slavery.

Dumb Americans: Let's get those terrorist bastards! They are a serious threat to freedom.


-CS

[SIZE="2"]
Here is a great example of how the world works:

You mean a stupid rant from a clueless moron.

There is no terrorist threat. America creates these threats to invade and enslave.

Which of course, you can't support in the least without pointing to conspiracy web sites. You have only retardation, conjecture and paranoia to support your claim. Please cite one example of "invade and enslave" so we can all have a good laugh at your stupidity.

Look at the nice beautiful land full of resources. Look at those "colored" people living in peace and prosperity.

Right, it's a racist thing and any land invaded is genuinely properous and peaceful, like Iraq. The mass graves must have been planted there by US forces eh?

For an idiot, W must be pretty smart to have pulled the wool over most people's eyes. Thank goodness there are people like you who can see through the propaganda and shed light on the one true evil. Thank goodness things are so cut and dry as to be able to point to one "ameriterrorism" and one "crappitalism" so we don't have to think about what the real problems are. You've defined them perfectly for us, so all we have to do is wallow in your swill of enlightened rhetoric to find the path to nirvana.

It's amazing that any country the US might invade has managed to realize the theorically maximal utopian dream. Of course the US could not allow that, and must invade and smear them in order that their secret societal recipe not be exposed to the rest of the world, jeapardizing US power.

Let's kill them and take their resources.

Exactly what resources have been taken? Which conspiracy web site has the list for us?

Then use them as vacuum cleaners to suck up all of their resources while they work in slave factories to produce beatiful goods for our use.

I'd like my share of these resources. Where do I put in a request form?

What if Americans get mad at America's terror?

Since you don't really understand the definition of the word, it's hard to believe you understand what you just asked... but anyway. What if, indeed? Or what if you're just retarded? No of course that's impossible.

Let's blow up the twin towers, and blame it on those foreigners.

Riiiiiiiiiight. It's an inside job for sure. W is brilliant like that. You're saying so yourself. How ecstatically nefarious! How justifying! Why not blow up more shit! Yeah! Of course, there's no evidence to support your claim - but that's never stopped you before! "Let's roll!" Really you should take your meds, creep.

Then we have and excuse to slaughter them all into submission and slavery.

Right. It's lovely. Every week a new Iraqi slave is delivered to my house. They're wonderfully submissive because they fear the ameriterrorism juggernaught. If one seems to want to step out of line, I just look at him or her and say "my name starts with w" and they cringe in fear, resuming their commanded task with renewed vigor. Goddamn it's great to reap the rewards of conquest. I sure hope we start invading some more countries asap. I've killed three slaves in the last month and I only have terrorism credit enough for one or two more this year. I sure do love hurting those dirty brown folks, and they deserve every lashing I whimsically apply! If they just hadn't discovered the secret of utopia, they'd have been fine. But no, they had to go making US look bad, so now they have to pay with blood and cleaning my floors and such.

Come on y'all, let's kill and enslave us some "brownies"! Yeah!

It's sure easy enough for you to villify everyone who doesn't share your rather narrow, insipid vision.

Fucktard.

Dumb Americans: Let's get those terrorist bastards! They are a serious threat to freedom.

Lol. This from one of the dumbest americans of all. So dumb in fact, that the we don't even benefit from the potential irony.

Eat shit, worm licker. Please, take your meds or grow a brain or something.

Do you know why you're such an offense to all that is decent and true?

Do you?

Here's a clue:

You don't allow for the possiblity that it might be you that's mis-informed or spoon-fed.

Which makes you a really bad fucking person, you piece of shit. I hope you can use some of your welfare check to purchase a clue.

Which makes you a really bad fucking person, you piece of shit. I hope you can use some of your welfare check to purchase a clue.
Clearly, the misinformed is you. You are a brainwashed zombie from the planet dumb.

Nothing in your rants changes the cold hard facts presented.

Irrelevant. You're an idiot.

Better a subjective one to "cool skill" than an objective one.


Terrorism: Any act that is a violation of human rights causing any sort if terror and suffering regardless of any purpose or motive. There could be thousands of reasons for commiting terrorism. The act of terrorism itself is independent of any purpose.

Way too broad... it would cover spanking a child could be an act of terrorism for example.


I can pimpslap somebody. That doesn't mean pimpslapping is always an act of slapping for the purpose of X. Pimpslapping is an act of slapping period that could be attributed to any purposes depending on the particular pimpslap incident.

I think in a court of law it could matter. It could mean the difference between assult and something else.

Nothing in your rants changes the cold hard facts presented.

I saw warm squish opinions but no cold hard facts.

Clearly, the misinformed is you. You are a brainwashed zombie from the planet dumb.

Nothing in your rants changes the cold hard facts presented.

Cold, hard facts would have to be presented in order for them to change, imbecile.

They have been presented. The imbecile is you.


Way too broad... it would cover spanking a child could be an act of terrorism for example.
Wrong.

Wrong.

Meaningless

Way too broad... it would cover spanking a child could be an act of terrorism for example.


what would you call it if i walked up to your child and started spanking it ?

Seriouse question! not trying to be silly or anything, i am curious how you would catagorise it in a termanology sense.

and further more what would be your reaction to such an event ?

It's just caviling the terminology.
These morons know Ameriterrorists are not going to other countries to spank the kids. We go their to blow their brains out.

what would you call it if i walked up to your child and started spanking it ?

If there's no context to this scenario then probably assault.


and further more what would be your reaction to such an event ?

Stop the action and start asking questions.