Is "terrorism" just another word for "political violence we happen not to condone"?
The U.S. and its allies are ostensibly engaged in a "War on Terror," primarily against "Islamist extremists" who supposedly "hate our freedoms." But don't the Western powers (especially the U.S.) condone violence where it serves their interests?
Posted By cantseetheforest on August 16, 2008
The U.S. broadly supports international terrorism
Posted By cantseetheforest on August 16, 2008
No terrorism in Iraq
Posted By Tylerskye83 on October 1, 2008
Yes; while terrorist attacks are real, the U.S. and other countries often support violence abroad.
The United States, perhaps more than any other nation on the planet, has a documented history of the virulent support of terrorism where it has served the "national interest." In Central America, the Middle East, and elsewhere, the U.S. has either covertly or openly supported terrorist operations in the past.
When U.S. government and economic officials speak of "terrorism," they simply mean "violence we do not condone, but which is otherwise similar to what we ourselves have perpetrated before." Nevertheless, for some reason, U.S. politicians believe themselves to be in a position to accuse other countries of supporting terrorism.
There are experts of the conflict in Iraq that say before the US invaded Iraq; there were no members of Al Qaeda present there because of Saddam Hussein. Our occupation of Iraq has created more "terrorists" worldwide then there ever have been in history. Wouldn't you be upset if the opposite was true? If Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied the US? I think we'd have retaliation just as they're doing now in Iraq.

Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Yahoo
Google
Stumbleupon
RSS
About cantseetheforest