The Potiential of Canada being Invaded by the US:

[Kamehameha34]

I said nothing about 1949 (Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959).

Typo.

We weren't in the war with Germany, no. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a de facto declaration of war by Japan. So, even if we had never chosen to participate in the war in Europe (and we shouldn't have participated), the attack on Pearl Harbor constitutes the start of our war with Japan.

We have different views of acts of terrorism and their role in a war.

[spudnicks]

As far as I know there is no Canadian extremists so there is no reason to go to war with Canada. No one there threatens our freedom. Plus why would we want a big pile of snow and shit anyways?

[Nono]

The pile of shit is on your side of the border, little buddy.

And is that what US foreign policy all about: Goin' after "extremists"? OhhhKay.

As for threats to your "freedom", I'd be mighty careful with them zamboni-drivers if I were you. They're devious buggers. Give 'em an inch and they'll be a-smugglin' thousands of subversives across the border, yep.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Typo.

Excuses, excuses.

We have different views of acts of terrorism and their role in a war.

It wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an act of war. It was a direct attack on America's military.

[Kamehameha34]

Excuses, excuses.

Whatever.

It wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an act of war. It was a direct attack on America's military.

Do you know what terrorism is?

It's use of violence for political purposes, or to intimidate. Japan wanted to come out strong because the U.S. had embargoed its oil, and Japan was projected to run out of it's oil reserve within two years. Japan had two choices - eventually bleeding itself dry of that crucial oil or attempting to win a war against the US within two years.

The difference we have is that you seem to think that it can only be called terrorism when there are principally civilian casualties, and that only one side need be clued in on the apparent war.

I see it a bit differently. Given the definition I gave, any act of war can be seen as an act of terrorism, but terrorism usually applies to any time one side commits an act of war that the other doesn't.

That's why the term "War on Terrorism" is a misnomer.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Whatever. Do you know what terrorism is? It's use of violence for political purposes, or to intimidate. Japan wanted to come out strong because the U.S. had embargoed its oil, and Japan was projected to run out of it's oil reserve within two years. Japan had two choices - eventually bleeding itself dry of that crucial oil or attempting to win a war against the US within two years. The difference we have is that you seem to think that it can only be called terrorism when there are principally civilian casualties, and that only one side need be clued in on the apparent war. I see it a bit differently. Given the definition I gave, any act of war can be seen as an act of terrorism, but terrorism usually applies to any time one side commits an act of war that the other doesn't. That's why the term "War on Terrorism" is a misnomer.

No, it's only terrorism when the sole objective is to cause terror in order to manipulate a political entity into doing or not doing something. In this case, Japan determined that the American embargo was an aggressive act against Japan (and, arguably, an act of war). The response to America's act of aggression: war.

[Kamehameha34]

No, it's only terrorism when the sole objective is to cause terror in order to manipulate a political entity into doing or not doing something.

False.. Read the cited definition I gave..

In this case, Japan determined that the American embargo was an aggressive act against Japan (and, arguably, an act of war). The response to America's act of aggression: war.

The Jihadists saw the American lifestyle as an act of war against Islam.

What about one side thinking their in a war that the other side knows nothing about did you miss?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 False.. Read the cited definition I gave..

Where did you cite anything?

The Jihadists saw the American lifestyle as an act of war against Islam.

This is not true. The Jihadists didn't attack the United States on 9/11 because of our lifestyle but because of more than 50 years of America interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations - what the CIA referred to as "blow back."

What about one side thinking their in a war that the other side knows nothing about did you miss?

What makes you think one side didn't know anything about it? What makes you think the United States did not think that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war? What makes you think Japan didn't think its attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war?

[Kamehameha34]

Where did you cite anything?

Silly me. I go through the trouble of finding a reference and forget to cite it.

terrorism - Definitions from Dictionary.com

This is not true. The Jihadists didn't attack the United States on 9/11 because of our lifestyle but because of more than 50 years of America interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations - what the CIA referred to as "blow back."

Which could also be seen as an act of war, by your standards.

There's always a cause for terrorism. If we accept your definition for terrorism, which seems to include all terrorist acts with a cause as acts of war, then nothing could ever be terrorism.

What makes you think one side didn't know anything about it?

Umm.. you know why Pearl Harbor will live on in infamy, right?

Because we were successfully ambushed. This ambush was successful in large part because we were unprepared to reciprocate.

I'm not going to answer your other two questions - not when I could simply quote myself without any added commentary and leave them sufficiently answered, again.

[Chaossaber314]

The use of "terrorism" is typically applied to non-governmental entities.

[Kamehameha34]

Today, maybe. It's also typically applied to Jihadists more than anyone else, in this day and age. That doesn't mean that all terrorists are Jihadists.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Silly me. I go through the trouble of finding a reference and forget to cite it. terrorism - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Thank you - especially for not citing Wikipedia.

Which could also be seen as an act of war, by your standards.

No, I see it as justified.

There's always a cause for terrorism. If we accept your definition for terrorism, which seems to include all terrorist acts with a cause as acts of war, then nothing could ever be terrorism.

A perceived cause anyway.

Umm.. you know why Pearl Harbor will live on in infamy, right? Because we were successfully ambushed. This ambush was successful in large part because we were unprepared to reciprocate.

But the United States did know about it once it happened. So, this really doesn't support what you're trying to say.

I'm not going to answer your other two questions - not when I could simply quote myself without any added commentary and leave them sufficiently answered, again.[/quote]The questions, again, were: What makes you think the United States did not think that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war? What makes you think Japan didn't think its attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war? Quoting what you said previously would not answer either of these questions.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Today, maybe. It's also typically applied to Jihadists more than anyone else, in this day and age. That doesn't mean that all terrorists are Jihadists.

Not necessarily. I've heard it applied to Timothy McVeigh as well who clearly wasn't a Jihadist.

[Kamehameha34]

But the United States did know about it once it happened.

Same as with the alleged 9/11 attacks..

You know perfectly well what I'm saying, misrepresenting me just gets me to repeat myself.

If one side commits an act of war while the other side has not declared war, then I see it as terrorism.

No, I see it as justified.

Are you implying that all acts of wars aren't justified?

A perceived cause anyway.

No, there is always actual cause. I didn't say it was justified.

The context of the word "cause", in this case, is removed from all legal pretexts.

[Kamehameha34]

Not necessarily. I've heard it applied to Timothy McVeigh as well who clearly wasn't a Jihadist.

Clearly the exception.

Like I said, not all terrorists are Jihadists, nor are they all non-government entities.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Clearly the exception. Like I said, not all terrorists are Jihadists, nor are they all non-government entities.

I disagree. The common thread behind actual acts of terrorism is non-governmental affiliation. An attack by a governmental entity such as a black ops mission or the like is simply an attack or more aptly put an act of war.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I disagree. The common thread behind actual acts of terrorism is non-governmental affiliation. An attack by a governmental entity such as a black ops mission or the like is simply an attack or more aptly put an act of war.

A necessity, common trends do not make.

[Praxius]

Yeah, so anyways, I've left this thread for the last few days because things kinda went off topic.

Could you guys probably take your explinations on terrorism elsewhere, or at least relate it to the US invading Canada?

[Kamehameha34]

I can explain the relevance:

We're discussing terrorism to determine just when the last war with American civilian casualties was.

This relates directly to the US's willingness to invade Canada, as it may just be the first war in 150 years that would yield American casualties.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A necessity, common trends do not make.

When they're defining simularities they do.