[mpoloton]

Definition of terrorism according to Wikipedia:

"Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim."

How economic sanctions and maximum pressure different from terrorism? Putting a lot of pressure and pain on ordinary people to achieve political goal, which in this case is surrender of Iran. This is economic terrorism, plain and simple.

[keiferski]

The answer to your question is in the text you quoted: intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror. Economic sanctions may be justified or unjustified, moral or immoral, but they are distinctly different from indiscriminate violence.

Muddying the definitions of words really doesn't help anyone and indeed makes the discussion harder to have, as communication is only possible if both/all participants can agree on their communicative medium - i.e., that they are both using words to mean the same things.

[mpoloton]

I didn't say it is "Terrorism" I said "Economic Terrorism". Economic sanctions by definition are indiscriminate. Now there is a shortage of some cancer and MS medication in Iran and people are dying because of it. Even though the medications are not sanctioned, the financial transactions are sanctioned and these medications cannot be purchased easily. How isn't this violence? According to the UN, sanctions on food and medication is a crime against humanity. We have seen this period of sever sanctions on Iraq in the disguise of oil for food program. We know how it ended.

I don't want to justify the actions of Iranian government, in my opinion most governments are evil and power hungry. I am just pointing out that the goal of sanctions, even according to the US officials is to cause suffering for people ultimately in the goal of regime change.

Sever economic sanctions are just another tool in the empire toolbox. Be it against Iran or Cuba for example.

[SaltPork]

Some would say Taxation or Sanctions are a form of violence. If I do not adhere to your sanctions, what happens? If I do not pay your taxes, what happens?

Violence, condoned by a state or a group of states.

[yyyk]

Asking Iran to stop foreign adventures including support for terrorism == "capitulation"

Not trading with countries stating 'Death to [your country]' == "economic terrorism"

[ggggtez]

Pure nonsense. Terror is not the same thing as economic sanctions. To suggest it's the same is to make language meaningless.

[simonh]

It depends what you mean by surrender of Iran. Iran is the one with an explicitly stated foreign policy goal of annihilating another state. They are also persistently taking active steps intended to achieve it. That inevitably creates conflict, and in armed conflicts nobody ends up looking good.

[mpoloton]

What they mean by negotiation is sever limit on Iran missile program. They ask Iran to limit its missile range very considerably. At first you may say missile is not defensive but offensive.

But the fact is that Iran has no air force or any other serious military hardware to defend itself. Because simply they wouldn't sell them to Iran. Most Persian gulf countries have military budget per capita orders of magnitude larger than Iran. In addition they have the might of US military behind them. Missiles are the only reason that Iran is not like Iraq or Libya right now. Iran has been on the hit list of Neocons since long time (you can refer to General Wesley Clark)

Iran experienced a very bloody war with Iraq during 80s where everybody was supporting Saddam Hussein from Soviets to the US and persian gulf monarchies. I know personally people that where harmed by Saddam chemical weapons but international community remained silent for too long. I remember seeing Saddam's missile on the Tehran skies but we had no means of stopping them or retaliating because again nobody cared.

About annihilating another state: How can Iran annihilate a state which has 200 nuclear warheads? It might be other way around.