quote:
Originally posted by Madman
quote:
Originally posted by steVenB
t is obvious too see that the actions of the American Government on the invasion of Iraq can be seen as an act of terrorism.
No. Because terrorism is like in the definition you quoted, "employing terror as a political wepon". And the invaision of iraqi did not use terror tactics to remove sadam hussain, they attacked key military targets (although the did mess up sometimes) to overthrow his regieme, which as it happened involved many of his people living in terror of him, hence him having political power.
quote:
Originally posted by steVenB
The only difference being that the American Governement has million dollar weapons to play with.
No. If terrorists used a million dollar weapon to blow up civilian targets and to incite terror it would still be terrorism wouldnt it?
Okay so lets review. What evidence did they have on Saddam again? Nothing. Lets be honest here. The war in Iraq is about the oil. The US claimed they targeted military targets BUT how many civilians died because of those actions??? Did that not incite terror within the population??? Who has the political power now in Iraq? It certainly isnt the Iraqi people.
I think you missed the last point. Regardless of what weapon they use (suicide bomb or missles) the end result is the same....terror.
And use you are right, im a little anti US foreign policy. And yes there was terrorism before the Iraq war. I just choose it as a recent example. So why was the Austrialian embassy chooson as a target? Is it because they supported American Foreign policy???
No disrepect to anyone
I suggest some of you read some of Noam Chomsky's work. I think he has a website which has all these audio clips to download and listen to. He will illustrate the point im trying to make more clearly.
/ –
