Rest of the World Deserves Terrorism?

[Red Harvest]

You know, as a US citizen I'm a bit tired of the rest of the world blaming us for everything. In case you hadn't noticed, we get a call asking for help or telling us what we should be doing every time someone else has a problem. I don't see all that many others stepping in to do the heavy lifting. But it makes us a big target for all the critics. The really odd thing is how much the world community loves their terrorists and authoritarian regimes. It is certainly tempting to pull out of the mid East and elsewhere and let the rest of you handle it. The last time we tried isolationism the world had WWII and we got pulled in anyway.

But it says a lot about those of you on these boards so ready to condemn the U.S. and praise terrorists and authoritarian regimes. Like it or not, our actions have kept the rest of you from ending up under authoritarian rule. I like to think it is mutually beneficial...but after reading some of the anti-US invective from others in the free world, I have to wonder.

So BP and The_Emperor, enjoy your freedom...and don't forget why you have it. And if you actually believe the terrorist line that the US pulling out of the mid East would stop terrorism or make the world safer, then I question your ability to even lace your own shoes. You make great allies for terrorists.

You know, I've come to expect a great deal of anti-semitism from Europeans. (No, I'm not Jewish.) Afterall, they've done their best to kill off or drive the Jews out of Europe for centuries.

[Rosacrux redux]

As a non-American, I quite frankly am being offended by that post of yours. I would expect better than you RH, because this if frankly out of proportion.

I didn't have a chance to reply to that other thread - as it was closed - but if I would, I'd say one thing:

Nobody, and I mean NO-BO-DY, "deserves" terrorism.

That doesn't mean USA has done no wrong. On the contrary, USA due to her standard as (the sole) superpower is systematically pursuing dubious tasks, with controversial means, plays power games with people's lives and is involved as much as it gets in economical imperialism.

But the victims of terrorism are not the people responsible for the vile actions the US administrations or secret services are commiting. The people getting their arse whoped by terrorists are simple, everyday people like you and me. GIs who do nothing but follow orders. Poor bastards who are trying to make a living here or there. Those poor sods who just went to work in the twin towers. Simple people. They don't deserved what they got, no frigging way.

IF a terrorist organization managed to shoot Bush jr. or Dick Cheney or Condie Rice, or the head of one of the seven oil sisters, I honestly wouldn't shed a tear... except maybe some tears of joy. But targeting innocent civilians, is not acceptable. It's a vile act, completely out of order and the foul beings commiting such atrocities have to be held in front of the court of law to pay for their misdeeds.

Would that be fair enough?

[Ar7]

Now I hope this won't end as the other one did....

After reading through your message I noted a lot of confidence in it. This is mostly what the rest of the world doesn't like. In the last years it has become clearer that the US goverment, and the Americans themselves to a certain degree, believe that they are the supreme nation and they are allowed to decide what is good for others from their point of view.

Nobody is allowed to meddle with other states and tell them what is the right way to live. A perfect example of this is China, is it a bad place to live currently? It is not, the country itself made it's development over the years and has become a stable place and a really booming economic power, despite of communism and a authoritarian rule, it was the people's choice.

Did anybody ask the Iraq people if they wanted the US to invade? Do you think that hundrets of thousands of people who have suffered during the war or lost their relatives really care that Bush had a noble idea to liberate them? It is their country and the US should not act as liberator of the world. Especially when the world in the form of the United Nations is against it.

People should finally get the idea, that a war does not lead to a democratic society, reforms do. So numerous are examples where people have a goal that they try to reach through revolution, be that goal as good as it may, revolution almost always ends with a chaos. During it the old rule is destroyed, but a new one is not that easy to establish and the country turns into chaos with all the following result such as terrorism and a really rapid rise in crime and violence.

So in spite of the fact that the US is saying that they are helping the world they really are not. Billions wasted on the war could be put to a better use to ensure that a certain country develops economically step by step to a better democratic society instead of demolishing a country totally and saying that we freed them.

The US speak of liberation and human rights, but what do we see in Iraq? The situation with prisoners, the terrorist attacks and a totally ruined and unstable country, where people lack many basic things. When Hussein was in charge the people did not have the ability to vote, but they had a safe life without a war. What would you think if some theoretical super power said that they didn't like Bush and would invade the US to eliminate him?

[Templar Knight]

oh not again :sad:

[Red Harvest]

You won't find me defending the current administration, I never voted for them.

I stated my post as a question, because it fit. It wasn't a statement. Offended? Look at yourselves first. Complain about policies, fine. I do to. I don't go around condoning terrorism. Pi$$e$ you off when you are on the other side of that doesn't it?

[Gregoshi]

The Monastery does not deserve terrorism either. Not even the Backroom deserves terrorism. Topic closed.