What does rogue state mean?

User45701

i started reading the paper today (your 1 hilery in the states was ****eing on and i do mean ****eing on, it was making no sence) then i got slightly, no very annoyed the way people are in political positions of power are very vague. The team "rogue state" was used and i just want to understand what both words mean because i think i might have the wrong meaning or else hilery does not understand or else the paper mis-quoted her

Anyway im still annoyed at this, it was in reference to N.Koerea and how kim turned it into a rogue state.

What is a rogue state? Accoridng to the new york times(and the UK guardian) it means

"A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism"

To me thats very vague...

What does terrorisim mean?

i always assumed it was violent acts for the purpse of advancing ones goals but a dictionry check says
terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

I dont think that sounds right - is that what it means? would that not make most nations terorist nations

Anyway im getting off topic but my point is when a someone with political infulence like hilery or bush or anyone mentions "rogue state" what the hell does it mean? i mean can Terhan, what his name from Hamas or Kim if they where to say in a press interview that the US or isreal is a rogue state in my mind it would be 100% factual based on the criteria used by verious political bodys in the western world.

Am i making sense or is this just angry rambleings? and if it does not make sense then why not?

Daroxtar

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Back in the 80s the buzzwords of the day were "Guerilla" and "Freedom Fighter" with the difference being that the US did not support the Guerillas. IMO its down to your perspective as to which one was which.

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2000
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-present
Iraq 2003-present

The above is the list of countries bombed by the US since the end of WWII.
Are they all rogue states or the victims of one? Whats your perspective?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

User45701

i would not have detailed enough knowledge on each of them to comment on them all but i will give you a propper answer on some of them later.

I mean im sure that during the american war of independence a few civillians where harmed/threatened but im not to sure on if that was ok because it was in the past - how long ago does something have to be before its forgotten ?
The english did some ****ed up stuff to us but many irish have english mates. Still by any modern defination england is/was a terrorist state.

I just dont like how the media labels. The media should take a non objective view but it does not, that is what pisses me off. Also freedom of the press should not include rights to slander, lie, mislead or label. It should just be cold hard facts and less manipulation and suggestion

dceire

Daroxtar wrote: »

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Back in the 80s the buzzwords of the day were "Guerilla" and "Freedom Fighter" with the difference being that the US did not support the Guerillas. IMO its down to your perspective as to which one was which.

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2000
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-present
Iraq 2003-present

The above is the list of countries bombed by the US since the end of WWII.
Are they all rogue states or the victims of one? Whats your perspective?

[/SIZE][/FONT]

All hail the US, the biggest imperial state since the crusades and possibly ever!

Daroxtar

User45701 wrote: »

i would not have detailed enough knowledge on each of them to comment on them all but i will give you a propper answer on some of them later.

I mean im sure that during the american war of independence a few civillians where harmed/threatened but im not to sure on if that was ok because it was in the past - how long ago does something have to be before its forgotten ?
The english did some ****ed up stuff to us but many irish have english mates. Still by any modern defination england is/was a terrorist state.

I just dont like how the media labels. The media should take a non objective view but it does not, that is what pisses me off. Also freedom of the press should not include rights to slander, lie, mislead or label. It should just be cold hard facts and less manipulation and suggestion

The media labels because they have to give the bad guys a name. If you look at the media then the news and stories they carry are essentially its product which has to marketed and its hard to sell a product with no name.
It ties in with the Neo con idea that there has to be a percieved bad guy for america to portray itself as the good guy. Most of the media has its own agenda for different reasons, some good some bad

peasant

A "rogue state" is whichever state George W. deemed/decreed to be thus.

Simple as that.

It is a new propaganda term, as "enemy" just sounds too outdated and war-mongery. "Rogue state" also implies that their opponents are not "rogue" ...i.e clean, orderly, etc. Sounds much better than just being the enemy of one's enemies.

Linguistics, that's all it is at the end of the day.

Sand

Its like any attempt to objectively describe a group or action in negative terms. After it hits pop culture, the hysterical-left likes to take any term thats being used to describe oppressive, totalarian states and then call the US or the UK that term.

Apparently its hard hitting and contributes to a lively political debate. For example, the Daily Show did a nice piece on the frantic use of "Nazi" as a term to describe Bush, Republicans, and indeed anyone else really by reminding people of how hard Hitler and Co worked to establish the Nazi brand and how rude it was to throw it around casually, undermining all Mr Hitlers hard work and effort.

Oh and the whole freedom fighter/terrorist thing is so ridiculous and cliche and yet people still throw it out like its something profound. It seems that many people confuse perspective with reality. The joke about the blind men and the elephant disagreeing on what theyre holding [ a tree trunk, a snake, etc etc...] does not change the fact that the elephant is still an elephant, regardless of what people think it is.

Daroxtar

Sand wrote: »

Oh and the whole freedom fighter/terrorist thing is so ridiculous and cliche and yet people still throw it out like its something profound. It seems that many people confuse perspective with reality. The joke about the blind men and the elephant disagreeing on what theyre holding [ a tree trunk, a snake, etc etc...] does not change the fact that the elephant is still an elephant, regardless of what people think it is.

If you are one of the countries on the list then its possible that from your perspective you would view the actions of the US in boming you as that of a rogue state. If you are the US then its possible that from your perspective you may consider the actions of countries on the list as that of rogue states and bomb them.

I completely agree with you about the elephant. Killing is what it is, same for any form of "terrorism" or whatever we call it.

User45701

Daroxtar wrote: »

The media labels because they have to give the bad guys a name. If you look at the media then the news and stories they carry are essentially its product which has to marketed and its hard to sell a product with no name.
It ties in with the Neo con idea that there has to be a percieved bad guy for america to portray itself as the good guy. Most of the media has its own agenda for different reasons, some good some bad

Put the point i am trying to get accross is that good and bad is just a point of view, for example to the western world torture by the chinese administration is considered to be bad, but to them its good (or at the very least necessary) because they gain information on the dissidents,

Also as i said during the american war for independence they where considered bad the the brittish but good by others.

The Isreali armed forces are good from some peoples point of view and bad by others.

Same goes for someone giving up there lives in a suicide bombing, sick and evil to some, heroes to others.

Actually to go off topic for a min - i honestly dont get suicide bombings, well i do get them and i do understand why but a hunger strike says more and does not involve the loss of innocent lives (who is innocent?) btw? i mean i perfectly understand the point of view against isreal - If Ireland where as aggressive a nation as Israel i would emigrate or do my very best to overthrow the current administration, anyone who does not even attempt to stop events like that are as guilty as those who order them and carry out the actions

Sand wrote: »

Oh and the whole freedom fighter/terrorist thing is so ridiculous and cliche and yet people still throw it out like its something profound

Its not supposed to be profound i would call it fact, and if someone disagrees i would like to debate/argue with them.

I do not understand how there can be a rogue state and how there can be a terrorist and that is what this topic is about. I simply do not understand the terminology beyond the EXACT meaning in the dictionary and what the media has labeled both.

Sand

Its not supposed to be profound i would call it fact, and if someone disagrees i would like to debate/argue with them.

I do not understand how there can be a rogue state and how there can be a terrorist and that is what this topic is about. I simply do not understand the terminology beyond the EXACT meaning in the dictionary and what the media has labeled both.

No one would disagree that people can have different views on a particular group. Certainly, from the perspective of German racists, the SS were proud patriots defending their country. From the perspective of Israeli government the SS were inhuman monsters who carried out crimes against humanity.

Do the perspectives somehow equate? Does your perspective on the actions of the SS change what those actions were?

I am going to assume youre clever enough to realise, no, if youre shoving jews into a gas chamber its pretty ****ing evil no matter how it is justified, and no matte what your perspective is on that evil. Reality> perspective.

The reason you dont understand how there can be a rogue state and how there can be a terrorist is probably down to the attack on absolutes in thought and discourse. Terrorists are equated with guerillas, simply for the purposes of using language to obfuscate reality, not for any attempt to actually communicate a groups methodology and aims.

Orwell predicted as much. Nothing is wrong anymore, just misunderstood. People accept grey exists, hence there is no black or white. Paedophiles for example - theyre not doing something wrong and evil, theyre simply victims of some mental imbalance or compulsion. Morally, their actions are neutral because their cant be morality if there is no absolute wrong or right. Do you agree, or is there some things youre not prepared to be non-judgemental about?

User45701

Wow!
you hit on something myself and someone where talking about earlier.

i heard something which digusted and sicked me and i got into a arguement about it, later i read the paper and posted this so lets go back to my orginal arguement...

i was talking to a customer of my company, this other company sells computer parts, which i sell onto them.
They asked for a quote on a small but also very obsecure and odly cheap computer part. So i go off and track down a manufacturer, part code and price (add a small 2% margin) so i was making **** all on this. (which i dont mind btw its my job)

Then my customer comes back with "**** it id only make X amount on it and its not worth my time getting it in"

to me this is worse than pedo's rapists murders ect. What they do as you pointed out can be EXPLAINED by a hormore inballance or a mental issue/condition or something to explain.

my customer was just a k**t and simply out of sheer lazyness and because they woudnt benifit enough from it, they saw no reason to take 1 min ****ing 60 seconds out of there friday to help another person out?

bollox i say - those ****ers are whats wrong with the world

i know thats off topic but that really ****ing rubbed me the wrong way i mean i was seing red for about 2 hours. Why not help someone else out if its no effort to you?

Capt'n Midnight

Daroxtar wrote: »

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Back in the 80s the buzzwords of the day were "Guerilla" and "Freedom Fighter" with the difference being that the US did not support the Guerillas. IMO its down to your perspective as to which one

Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister explained “I am a freedom fighter, you are a guerilla, he is a terrorist”.

Can't find the full quote but it went something like
"We call them freedom fighters when they are on our side, terrorists on theirs and guerillas when when we aren't sure."

User45701

exectly so why is it ok for the media to do that, i can understand people in positions of politcal power labeing people to advance there agenda's but why is any media (beyond state controlled ones) allowed to lable people so blatently? They are supposed to provide an objective view and allow the reader to make up there own mind?

Daroxtar

User45701 wrote: »

exectly so why is it ok for the media to do that, i can understand people in positions of politcal power labeing people to advance there agenda's but why is any media (beyond state controlled ones) allowed to lable people so blatently? They are supposed to provide an objective view and allow the reader to make up there own mind?

Virtually all media is controlled by people with political connections and agendas. Therefore what they report is always going to be biased and they will always use the same jingoism as the political mouthpieces.

Being a rogue state now means you've stopped trading oil in dollars and the americans want to bomb you..

diverdriver

Sand, sums it up pretty well. My spin on it is that people used terminology to advance whatever point of view they espouse. So terrorist and Nazi is flung around with abandon. Many people using the terms know quite well that the target is not as described. Calling George W Bush a Nazi is utterly absurd. He clearly isn't but what always astonishes me is how the more sheeplike amongst actually believe he is a Nazi or Nazi like in his attitudes and policies. The irony of course is that people like that are most likely to become Nazis or Communists or terrorists or suicide bombers because someone more charismatic and intelligent tells them so. The sheeple of this world have a lot to answer for.

Daroxtar's list of US wars and interventions shows a classic example of how people are manipulated. Sheeple look at it and gasp at the awfulness of the Americans. But the list is flawed. There are two missing conflicts:

Japan 1941-45
Germany 1941-45

Both are conveniently left out by using the term 'since the end of WW2' because it skews the propaganda attempt badly. Then when you research all these scandalous examples of US aggression you find actually that most were precipitated by the country concerned:

Examples include Korea, that's North Korea who invaded the South, China, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam. All of whom engaged in one form of aggression or another.

On the other hand we have the absurd entries, Croatia and Bosnia and even Kuwait 1991. So the USA cruelly bombed Kuwait did they? It's not so long ago and people have already forgotten that Kuwait was actually liberated from the Iraqis, not invaded.

Yes some are good examples of US perfidity, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Grenada. The usual American adventurism and paranoia about it's near neighbours.

So what we have is a combination of lies and truth designed to create a false impression of the United States. He got one bite from a sheeperson, dceire who declared:

All hail the US, the biggest imperial state since the crusades and possibly ever!

How profound and perceptive of you:rolleyes:

The list is just the usual combination of a bit of truth and some big whoppers of lies designed for a purpose. Classic propaganda.

As for rogue states, the term is just pejorative. But it's quite clear why Iran and North Korea are included on the list and why Libya and Iraq used to be on it. I'm not going to attemp to define because it's so bloody obvious that only a dimwit doesn't understand.

Most terms like that have obvious and simple explanations. It's always surprises me how sheeple get taken in by the misuse of these words. It shouldn't though. :rolleyes: